44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 30, 2022 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, I think the answer and that point of order demonstrate the fact that the member does not believe that those in this chamber are capable of doing a basic Google search, and I think that is absolutely shameful. People in my riding do not trust the current government when it comes to a lot of what it has done. The Auditor General's report was pretty scathing on its actions when it comes to disaster recovery, and that is something that is near and dear to my heart coming from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. I am sorry, but I am not going to take any advice from that member.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I really am enjoying my colleague's speech today. One thing I want to raise is with respect to the national council on reconciliation. It is so important to have measurements, timelines and commitments from the government, but they need to be followed up with action. My hon. colleague and I have been working together and calling on the government to deliver on its promise of a $4.5-billion mental health transfer of new money, which it has not delivered.
Call to action 19 cites:
We call upon the...government, in consultation with Aboriginal peoples, to establish measurable goals to identify and close the gaps in health outcomes between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities....
It includes mental health.
Through you to my colleague, does she feel that the government is living up to its responsibility when it comes to the calls to action, and even today with respect to the spirit of delivering to indigenous peoples to close those gaps and deliver on those outcomes?
168 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, of course I think it is absolutely unfortunate the government made a promise during its election campaign and has woefully failed to deliver on it, which was to provide the Canada mental health transfer that would do so much to help all Canadians. It would do a lot to help indigenous people on and off reserves in Métis settlements and communities all across this country, and would make a meaningful difference.
Yesterday in committee I pressed the government on this issue over the fact that people are going to the emergency rooms because they have no other option for many mental health crises. I think that is absolutely shameful and would love to see that fixed.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to speak today in support of Bill C-29, which would establish a national council for reconciliation.
It was, of course, the previous Conservative government that first launched the TRC, along with other measures that sought to better the outcomes and the lives of indigenous Canadians, especially indigenous youth, the fastest-growing group of young people in Canada.
Unfortunately, it must be said that the Liberals took far too long to bring in this bill, given they have been in power for seven years and that the Prime Minister claims the relationship with indigenous people is the most important to him.
That is why Conservatives pushed an amendment to ensure that it is the Prime Minister who will respond to the national council’s annual report, as the TRC’s call to action says, unlike the Liberals’ original draft, which delegated this responsibility to a minister.
That was just one improvement of the 19 substantial amendments from Conservatives to uphold the principles of transparency and independence, to increase accountability and accelerate the timelines for government responses, and, most importantly, to implement concrete, measurable targets and outcomes.
What is crucial is ensuring that good intentions and well-meaning words deliver actions and better outcomes. It is a testament to the good will, spirit of collaboration and shared aspirations that all parties supported 16 of the 19 Conservative amendments.
I am proud to represent nine indigenous communities in Lakeland, just as I am proud to represent every Canadian in the 52 communities across the region. As always, those people and those communities are foremost on my mind, so, like my neighbour from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I will address an extremely consequential Conservative amendment that was inexplicably rejected by the MPs of all the other parties. Conservatives wanted to ensure that one seat on the board of directors of the national council would be filled by an indigenous economic national organization.
It makes little sense to talk about mutual commitments between governments and citizens to tell the truth about historical, systemic and paternalistic injustices for societal reconciliation but to also simultaneously reject entrenching economic reconciliation as a priority so communities can move from managing poverty to generating prosperity. There are so many ways that can help resolve the disproportionate socio-economic challenges that indigenous people and communities face as a consequence of generations of oppressive and discriminatory government policies and programs.
This especially matters when it comes to ongoing challenges for indigenous leaders and entrepreneurs who want to secure jobs and create jobs, equity ownership, mutual benefit agreements and other economic opportunities in natural resources development. These are a main source of employment, and often the only source, for communities in rural and remote regions. It also matters in the public policy debates and duties around definitions of decision-makers, roles in consultation, consent and consensus, identity and local impacts.
In Lakeland, four of the nine indigenous communities are Métis settlements, half of all the settlements in Canada. They are unique to Alberta, with legislated Métis land bases, local governments and infrastructure costs, like water treatment facilities, roads and schools. They pay taxes, including carbon taxes.
For years I have pushed for their recognition, and I was finally able to get an indigenous and northern affairs committee report to cite them as “distinct entities with unique needs”.
In September I urged the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to include the settlements in Bill C-29, because it is an obvious hindrance to reconciliation if they are excluded from meaningful participation in the council, but I am still waiting for a response.
Representatives of the settlements in Lakeland often tell me they feel abandoned and forgotten by the government. Lee Thom, a Kikino Métis Settlement councillor, says that the Métis settlements must have a seat at that table to advocate for their indigenous communities, which are stand-alone and not a part of existing Métis nations in Alberta and nationally.
Still, the settlements have never been mentioned in a federal budget and are often excluded from federal initiatives. To me, this remains a glaring omission.
It is particularly relevant to the pursuit of economic reconciliation because the Métis settlements in Lakeland, along with most of the first nations, are currently, and have been, heavily involved in energy and natural resources development for decades. Many have previously met all their community needs with their own source revenue from their businesses and contracts.
The NDP's and Liberals' anti-energy agenda and aim to phase out oil and gas, which have already driven away investment, cost over $150 billion in lost projects and hundreds of thousands of jobs, have hit indigenous communities as hard as everyone else.
Last year, the indigenous and northern affairs committee tackled barriers to indigenous economic development. We heard from dozens of witnesses and one thing was clear: Empowering indigenous communities to set up businesses, develop their natural resources and create wealth for their communities and surrounding areas is crucial.
In later work, witnesses said that housing, health care, governance, infrastructure and emergency preparedness challenges all come back to the core concept of economic reconciliation. Several elected leaders from Lakeland participated.
Chief Gregory Desjarlais, of Frog Lake first nation, talked about the importance of access to capital to get projects built, like the carbon capture proposal led by Frog Lake and Kehewin, both in Lakeland. Frog Lake is heavily involved and invested in energy operations, whether through jobs or their community-owned Frog Lake Energy Resources Corp.
The benefits of indigenous-owned businesses are many. As Chief Desjarlais put it:
Look at these projects.... Look at indigenous ownership. If you involve the first nations, you allow them to build homes. You allow them to send kids to school. You allow them to send people to treatment. You allow them to deliver water to these homes. You allow them to remove mould. That's problem-solving. That's a takeaway, instead of all the money leaving Canada and still having poorer first nations living on CFAs and begging for handouts.
These benefits were echoed by Stan Delorme, chair of the Buffalo Lake Métis Settlement, as they would help to meet their major infrastructure needs for the disproportionate number of unemployed youth and to lift Buffalo Lake’s average annual income of $27,000 a year.
The ever-increasing carbon tax hurts them even more, as the cost of lumber, fuel, and home heating skyrockets, and the accessible oil and gas jobs that used to exist for them have disappeared because of the Liberals’ anti-energy agenda. Lee Thom says, “Our settlements are communities—living, breathing—with roads, schools and water, with everything that comes with a small municipality and are in dire need of funding.”
Those are three of the nine indigenous communities in Lakeland who are now part of the 23 communities that are now all proud owners of over a billion dollars' worth of pipelines in the Athabasca region.
Many other indigenous-led and indigenous-owned projects and partnership projects have been outright killed by this anti-energy government, like the Prime Minister’s unilateral veto of the northern gateway pipeline, which destroyed the aspirations of and all the work of 31 communities, which had mutual benefit agreements, and he did that without consultation, or all of the projects that are at risk by anti-energy policies and activists who threaten projects and are often not even from the locally impacted area.
The outright cancellation or the deliberate policy-driven delays to force private sector proponents to abandon major natural resources development and infrastructure projects have all been major concerns, and often totally devastating to numerous indigenous communities, leaders and business groups.
Those projects are opportunities for economic reconciliation. They are tools for indigenous communities to meet their core social and economic needs, invest in their cultures, and preserve and nurture their heritage and their languages for future generations.
For example, Chief Councillor Crystal Smith from Haisla Nation opposes Bill C-48, the shipping and export ban, and supports Coastal GasLink as a way to bring her community out of poverty.
Last week, Calvin Helin, an indigenous author and entrepreneur, said that what really irks indigenous Canadians involved in responsible resource development is the meddling and interference from “eco-colonialists”, these groups whose only interest is in stopping projects, and government interference where the government is only listening to the side of the project that supports their politics.
There are countless examples of the Liberal government trampling on indigenous Canadians’ work and hope, roadblocking their pursuit of self-determination, including Eva Clayton of the Nisga’a, whose LNG export facility is on hold because of Liberal red tape; Natural Law Energy, 20 prairie first nations who lost a billion-dollar investment opportunity when Keystone XL was cancelled due to Liberal inaction; the Lax Kw’alaams, who are litigating against the Liberals’ Bill C-48 export ban, which violated their rights and title and ruined their plans for a deep-water port and oil export facility without consulting them; and the 35 indigenous communities with the Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor proposal, whose work and hopes for economic benefits were quashed by Bill C-69, the no more pipelines act.
The Liberals and the anti-energy activists’ anti-resource, anti-business and anti-energy agenda, usually outside and far away from the local indigenous communities, sabotages all their efforts to benefit from natural resources development and to participate in their local economies.
These actions look a lot like those of a centralist, colonialist government imposing its views against the goals and priorities of the majority of directly impacted indigenous people and leaders, like those in Lakeland.
While Conservatives will support this bill, the Liberals still need to fix their own paternalism that prevents economic reconciliation to ensure that indigenous voices, not just those that align with Liberal political priorities, are all represented in reconciliation efforts.
1692 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when I think about the importance of this bill and how incredible the opportunity is for indigenous people to finally see a national council for reconciliation, it is unfortunate that we have to debate this because that means we actually need accountability. This body is tasked with that because the government is unable to monitor and track which calls to action are truly there.
I want to turn directly to the challenges that reconciliation faces. We see a challenge in my home province of Alberta right now. There is a premier there, Premier Danielle Smith, who, with her tabling of the sovereignty act, is harming and putting at risk indigenous treaty rights. The treaty chiefs and their members in Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 along with many Métis communities have stated openly their opposition to the sovereignty act.
It is important that across the country we stand united with indigenous people and we stand united with the chiefs. What would the member say to the chiefs?
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent my colleague's many friends and relatives in a Métis settlement in Lakeland.
I agree with the member about the importance of establishing this national council for reconciliation. I wonder what he has to say, though, about the Liberals' creating this federal bill for this national council for reconciliation in federal jurisdiction, which is our responsibility as elected members of Parliament in the federal Parliament of Canada. I wonder also what he has to say to the Liberals, whom he is propping up in a coalition, about their exclusion of the Métis settlements from this bill as well as the rejection of the Conservatives' amendment to include the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, representing off-reserve and urban indigenous Canadians right across the country.
I think he should push his partners in the Liberal Party a little harder to get them all involved in actual reconciliation efforts.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. colleague for mentioning the importance of holding the government accountable. That is exactly what New Democrats do every single day in this House. We are here and were elected on a promise to make sure that we actually make things better for our province back home.
I will ask my question very directly. What does the member say to the united chiefs of Alberta in Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 who oppose the terrible bill of the sovereignty act tabled by the United Conservative Party? What does she say to those chiefs? She is a federal member of Parliament. She has an obligation to stand up to ensure that indigenous rights are upheld in our province. Every treaty chief in the entire province that we represent has opposed it.
Will the member stand up for treaty rights and will she stand with the chiefs?
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a fundamental core principle that I believe in is respecting provincial jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of provincial governments. Therefore, I will leave that conversation to Albertans and to the Government of Alberta.
I suggest that what the member should do is focus on our work here in the House of Commons and the changes that he can directly impact as a federal member of Parliament. I would hope to see his focus on improving this bill, Bill C-29, establishing this national council for reconciliation, which is an aspiration that I know the member and I both share. I look forward to seeing the member bring the exact same passion and dedication and steadfast advocacy here to the House of Commons on federal legislation and federal issues in his federal role as a member of Parliament, and maybe actually hold the Liberals to account instead of being in partnership with them and propping them up.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I am very pleased to see that there is a consensus in the House, that everyone pretty much supports this bill.
I would like to know if she believes that the government has done enough since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada tabled its report. We know that a huge number of calls to action were published. This bill responds to a few of them, but there are many that have not yet been addressed.
Does my colleague believe that the government has done enough?
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I sure did enjoy working with the hon. member on the public safety committee. She is an extraordinarily talented member of Parliament.
This is the unfortunate thing about this conversation. We have a duty in this debate to ensure that actions follow all of the well-intentioned and good-spirited words that federal politicians and the government in particular share about our joint responsibilities in bettering the outcome and futures of indigenous people. Unfortunately, it is quite obvious that the Liberals have come nowhere near keeping the many promises they made to indigenous people and communities in this country. Therefore, it is our job to keep pushing—
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 5:47:45 p.m.
- Watch
I have to call for resuming debate.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 5:48:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded division.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the recorded division stands deferred until Thursday, December 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
28 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 5:48:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:55, so we can start Private Members' Business.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 5:48:55 p.m.
- Watch
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 5:49:24 p.m.
- Watch
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Some hon. members: On division.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Winnipeg South Centre. It is with particular passion and enthusiasm that I talk about this bill, which is so important to my region of the country and indeed the country as a whole.
I will begin with some words of praise about the committee process itself.
As my friend, the member for Winnipeg North, knows so well and as we experienced together in the Manitoba legislature, when we ask the public, when we ask witnesses to comment on a bill, every time they improve it. When we think that we have looked at every nook and cranny of a piece of legislation, all of a sudden, our oversights are picked up by others who may not be quite as immersed in the detail that we have been, in my case, for many months or, on another level, maybe many years. I do have to say that this bill was improved, and I want to thank the witnesses for making these improvements possible.
Also, I am thankful for the tone and tenor, which is sometimes partisan. It is sometimes difficult, particularly for those of us who have some pride of authorship, to know that perfection is elusive. There are oversights, and there are better ways of doing things. Indeed, the process of the committee itself indicated that in a way that I think was very important. There have been amendments that have been proposed and agreed to by members of the committee, in some cases on division and in some cases not, and they are common-sense amendments.
For example, the original bill talked about an 18-month timeline for the framework to be developed. However, things take too long around here. Sometimes the pace of change is more important than the change itself. To move the period from 18 months to 12 months made a lot of sense, and it was immediately accepted.
Also, there was not enough thought given to the role of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, which is an essential part of the prairie region with our capacity to grow and with the importance of taking what we grow and moving it internationally. For example, the province of Saskatchewan is the most trading province of all. More than 60% of what is produced in Saskatchewan is exported internationally. Increasingly, it is not just the natural resource or the product. It is the value-added production, which is creating jobs right across the region and making a difference for the producers who are actually the essential lifeline.
Speaking of lifelines, the work of committees is the lifeblood of Parliament. It is where some of the heavy lifting is done. It is where parliamentarians come together, seek common cause and seek to align aspirations in the national interest, which is precisely the essential element of this bill. There was not any reference to jurisdictional creep, because there is none. This is respectful of constitutional jurisdictional divisions in Canada, which are the essential note of Canadian federalism. It moves from time to time and is in constant flux as circumstances change.
However, I am very happy to report that, through witnesses and other ways in which we could discern public opinion, such as through letters, conversations and the associations that came forward to make their views known, this bill has been substantially improved. I am very grateful for that and for the capacity of the committee. Through representing all kinds of opinion across the country, we were able to align essentially in the same place, which I think is so important.
The framework adds leaves to the national table. It reaches out to people and says, “You should be here.” Who are the “you”? It is provincial governments, indigenous communities and leadership, NGOs, unions and municipalities. To invite people to tables where they have never been invited before, in itself, is major progress in the way in which our federalism grows. Sometimes it happens at a pace that makes some of us feel impatient, but if we are patient we will end up in a better place than where we began.
That is the story of how we were able to move this bill along incrementally, but in ways that are impactful and will be, it is my hope, not just for tomorrow and next month but for years to come. When I am asked by people what impact I think this bill, if passed into Canadian law, would have on the way in which we do business as a nation, my answer is, from zero to changing the way we do business as a nation.
The missing ingredient is political will. The political will would have to come from implicated ministers within the Government of Canada and within their own jurisdictions. However, to have the value-added from provinces, municipalities and indigenous communities is the missing ingredient. They would have to report back, and do it within 12 months.
We can debate what number is the best number, but what should not be debatable is that there must be accountability. If a group of people is given a job to do but no timeline and no way in which to be accountable for the work they do, it is pretty empty. This bill is not empty. It is full of promise.
Here is snapshot of some of the problems we face on the prairie. I had hoped to travel in traditional ways, by airplanes, railways and buses, to give speeches in Saskatoon and Edmonton, and points south and west. However, I am glad we changed our minds and made it a virtual tour. If I had relied on airplanes, I would have had to wait for the only plane from Saskatoon to Edmonton. I would have been on the ground and sitting on an uncomfortable chair for seven and a half hours.
It is outrageous, in a dynamic region of our country that produces so much wealth, that we cannot figure out a way to move people by any mode of transportation. That is an outrageous reality. It is a snapshot in time. It is one example of many, but it is a real one that affects people every day of their lives as they try to move around this dynamic region.
What about the prairie region itself? We have been creating wealth since we became a nation, and since the western provinces became part of Canadian Confederation. In a dynamic region where wealth is created, we love to have endless debates about how we are going to distribute the wealth in our country. My colleague thinks there should be more spent on health care. My other colleague thinks it should be spent on education. Frankly, I want a lot more money for symphony orchestras. We have to talk more about cement infrastructure. We have to talk about the poet, the artist and the musician. This is what is really distinctive about who we are.
Any discussion about the prairie region goes well beyond the traditions of infrastructure and bridges, or even support for producers and value-added production. It has to extend to wealth creation, which is the job of the private sector. Government is better at determining how we distribute the wealth, for which it should be accountable. As a Liberal who feels very comfortable with this balance between distribution and creation, I think it is an important distinction to make.
I want to thank the institutions of Parliament, which I think in this case have produced exactly what they ought to produce. Hopefully, it will be a result that will make people feel even more comfortable with the prairie region. The beauty of the bill and the template that is implicit in it is that it is equally applicable to other regions. Who is going to argue against this kind of inclusion of putting leaves in the table with the knowledge that people have been asked? If we do not ask, then we will not benefit from the wisdom that they no doubt will be able to share with the rest of us.
I rise here with a sense of gratitude to the committee, to colleagues, knowing that it is going to come back. There will be accountability and there will be measurement. I am so pleased to have had the opportunity to move along this notion of the next chapter of federalism and wealth creation. For that I am grateful.
1459 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know for myself, representing a northern part of Vancouver Island and a more northern part of the mainland in my riding of North Island—Powell River, that we have the best solutions for our area. One of the challenges is sometimes having those smaller communities be able to have a loud enough voice for different levels of government to hear them, understand them and to respond accordingly. I really appreciate the member talking about bringing everyone together and having that collective coordinated voice.
I am wondering if the member could talk a little bit about how important it is for the government to listen to smaller regions that may not have a big population but often are very much the creators of this country's wealth.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we will not progress in sustainable ways, and I use the word carefully, if we ignore those voices. I remember many, many years ago when I was on the board of directors at the CBC and I was interested in regional broadcasting and to understand how expensive it sometimes is in this far-flung nation to get to the last 5%. It is way more expensive.
Back in the 1960s and 1970s especially, when we would use microwave in order to hit remote northern communities, was it worth it? Of course it was worth it. How do we develop a public broadcaster if no single Canadian has the opportunity to witness what is on that radio dial or that television dial? It is the cost of the geography of being Canadian.
Is it worth it? Of course it is worth it. What would be the cost if we did not reach them, if we did not attempt that last mile? For smaller communities, absolutely. Then what do we do with what we hear? Listening and attempting to listen are really important, but if one does not take what one hears and rolls it into action that actually affects the lives of people, then it is pretty empty.
This bill recognizes that and I hope addresses it.
218 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
