SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/2/23 1:26:28 p.m.
Watch

It is not yet time for questions and comments. I would ask hon. members to wait until the appropriate time. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles.

31 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Feb/2/23 1:26:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, things always get emotional when we talk about crime, but facts are facts. The streets of Montreal would be safer had Bill C-5 not been passed, for example. Last week, we saw one of the harmful effects of Bill C‑5, which was passed before Christmas. An individual who committed aggravated sexual assault eight years ago was sentenced last week. There were many delays related to the court process, and Bill C‑5 was passed in the midst of all that. The sentence that the judge handed down was 20 months to be served in the community, whereas, in the past, that individual would have been jailed. Seeing what the judge had done, the Crown prosecutor said that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice had a lot to answer for to the victims. Ever since this government took office eight years ago, I have been astounded by its total lack of sympathy for victims. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights was enacted during the Conservative era. My colleague, Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, then prime minister Stephen Harper, then minister of justice Peter MacKay, and Steven Blaney, who was also a minister, created the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights as a way to give victims of crime the right to be protected and informed. We know victims have been totally overlooked in recent years. Criminals are laughing at the justice system because they know that justice is much weaker now and they can commit crimes over and over without fear of prison time. It is victims who are living in fear, too scared to even file a complaint anymore because they know that nothing will come of it. The Liberals can say what they want, but facts are facts. On this day of debate on our motion, we are not addressing the problem in a partisan way at all. When the premiers of all 13 provinces and territories ask for exactly the same thing and the police associations in Canada all ask for exactly the same thing, I would say it is because there is a problem. I hope my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois will understand the approach we are taking today. As I said earlier, if anyone reads our motion carefully, they will clearly see that we are specifically targeting firearms offences, among others. Say a criminal who commits an offence and is charged with a firearms offence is able to get parole easily and goes on to commit another firearms offence. If we asked Canadians if they thought that was okay, they would all say no. One of the problems with Bill C-75 is that it allows criminals to be released too easily. That is what we want to be fixed. We are asking that the situation that was created by passing Bill C‑75 be resolved to prevent recurring crimes. As I said earlier, in British Columbia, 40 individuals were arrested 6,000 times in one year. That is unbelievable. In Canada, the group we are targeting amounts to a few hundred individuals. We are talking about 1,000 criminals at most. We are not talking about applying a law to every person in Canada who is facing any kind of charges. Rather, we are focusing specifically on the problem of criminals who commit firearms offences and dangerous repeat offenders. That is all we want, and we would like the Liberal government to show some understanding. After eight years, this Liberal government needs to understand that we need more rules and that what we are talking about right now is a very valid issue. As I said, it is not a partisan issue when 13 provincial and territorial premiers from all parties are saying the same thing. These premiers are Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats. I think it is perfectly reasonable.

651 words

All Topics

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

Feb/2/23 1:31:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I made reference to a specific quote I put to the member before. It was coming from Statistics Canada, which says, “Following a large decrease in 2020, the property crime rate was the lowest it has been dating back to 1965.” In fact, if we take a look at the murder rates, the most serious of crimes out there, we can talk about the first three years of Harper. There were 597, 614 and 611 homicides, compared to the first three years of this administration, when there were 611, 616 and 667. If we listen to the Conservatives, one would think that everything is broken, that everything is falling apart, that people should be aware that crime is on the streets and that it is rampant, yet the facts, the reality, do not reflect what it is that the Conservatives are preaching. Why is the Conservative Party using such an important issue, when one talks about victims and so forth, in order to raise money?

169 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Feb/2/23 1:32:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is doing his job of trying to defend the indefensible. Thirteen premiers are calling for the same thing we are, as are all the associations representing the police officers who are out on the street, working to protect citizens across Canada. These people are not asking for legislative reform for nothing. They see that the status quo is not working. Our motion targets the most dangerous criminals and violent repeat offenders. Why do the Liberals insist on allowing these people to go free so easily? I cannot understand it.

93 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Feb/2/23 1:32:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I admire him greatly, but I do not agree with what he is saying. Bill C‑75 was not perfect. We all agree on that, on both sides of the House. There are some improvements to be made. I would like my colleague's opinion on the remarks made by Carolyn Yule, a sociology and anthropology professor who studies bail. She says that there is no evidence to suggest that a tough-on-crime approach to bail would improve public safety. Can we please trust these academics?

94 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Feb/2/23 1:33:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleague started by clearly stating that Bill C‑75 was not perfect. That is precisely what we are talking about today. We want to improve Bill C‑75 as passed, by making changes to it. My colleague talked about an academic, but we are not questioning all grounds for bail. We want to make it clear today that we are targeting violent criminals, criminals who use firearms. We are not asking to overhaul the entirety of Bill C‑75 as passed, although we should. We are being specific. We are targeting one particular aspect. We do not want to completely revamp what was passed, and they need to stop thinking that way. We want to take focused action in the name of the overall safety of all Canadians.

143 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Feb/2/23 1:34:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague why the Conservatives left out illegal firearms and the border in this motion. It is quite shocking, frankly, given the fact we have such a dominance of this type of activity creating victims and problems in our country. I believe there is consensus in trying to work on this problem, maybe not how to get to it, but it is rather shocking the Conservatives did not do that, especially given that Stephen Harper, as the member referenced earlier, his former leader, actually cut the integrated system teams we had. These were men and women who did some of the proactive work to keep guns out and who worked with U.S. law enforcement to keep our streets safe. Why do the Conservatives not at least address what their failings were in the past by including it here and in the future?

150 words

All Topics

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Feb/2/23 1:35:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, the issue at the border is a major one. We have raised it many times. The government needs to put far more effort into controlling illegal weapons trafficking at the borders. These weapons are being used by criminals on the streets of Montreal, Toronto and all over Canada. We did not include it in the motion today because we are specifically targeting Bill C-75 and the fact that Bill C-5 is harmful. However, the problem of weapons trafficking at the borders is indeed a priority issue. I hope the government will speed things up.

102 words

All Topics

Mr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Feb/2/23 1:36:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at the outset, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Sudbury. I am thankful for the opportunity to join today's debate relating to the criminal justice system, focusing on bail and repeat violent offenders. I would like to thank the hon. member for Fundy Royal for his motion and his long-standing commitment to public safety. His motion provides me with an opportunity to discuss recent reforms to the Criminal Code, specifically former Bill C-75, and reflect on what is happening in my community and what we are doing in Richmond Hill. Bill C-75 was introduced on March 29, 2018, in the House of Commons and subsequently received royal assent on June 21, 2019. The changes enacted by the bill came fully into force in December 2019. While the reforms were enacted principally to address delays and criminal justice system efficiencies related to the concerns raised by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2016 Jordan decision and 2017 Cody decision, they also modernized and streamlined Canada's bail regime. These reforms represented the most significant changes to Canada's bail regime since the Bail Reform Act of 1972. Bill C-75 also reflected the reasoning of Canada's top court in the 2017 Antic decision. It was a product of significant consultations with the provinces and territories. It was a thoughtful and broad-ranging reform. With respect to the bail amendments in Bill C-75, they were designed to specifically streamline the bail process by increasing the types of conditions police can impose on accused in order to avoid sending unnecessary cases to court and to reduce the need for unnecessary bail hearings, and by no means were they designed to reduce the conditions assigned during bail; codify a principle of restraint to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention when appropriate, and I will go into detail on that later; provide guidance so the bail conditions imposed are reasonable, relevant to the offence and necessary to ensure public safety; and finally, require that the circumstances of indigenous accused and of accused from vulnerable populations be considered at bail to better address the disproportionate impact that the bail system has on these populations. My colleagues suggest that Bill C-75 has broken Canada's bail system, that its reform forces judges to release violent repeat offenders back onto the street, and that receiving bail is easier now than ever for violent repeat offenders. By no means does the data support this. These claims are, at best, ill-informed and, at worst, very misleading. We have the data to prove that. In the past 15 years, more than half of the admissions to adult provincial and territorial facilities were for remands to await trial instead of admissions to sentenced custody. A lot of people were waiting to be sentenced or were waiting to be heard. According to Statistics Canada, the proportion of admissions to remand has increased from 54% in 2006-07 to 67% in 2020-21, despite a constant decrease in the number of adult admissions during the same period. This increase in the remand population has disproportionately affected indigenous people and persons from vulnerable populations. As a result, Bill C-75 enacted in the Criminal Code a requirement that the circumstances of indigenous accused and of accused from vulnerable populations be considered at bail in order to address the disproportionate impact that the bail system has on these populations. The amendments in the bill sought to reduce the imposition of bail conditions that are unreasonable, irrelevant and unnecessary, which was also a codification of the rules developed by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the criteria for when accused persons can be released by police or justices were not changed. The law remains clear that detention of an accused person is justified if it is necessary to protect the safety of the public. We hear so often about the repeat offenders. It is in the hands of the justice system to ensure that it has the tools to be able to detain them. We have not changed that. Moreover, police are required to detain an accused person if there is a risk of reoffending. The Bill C-75 amendments significantly expand protection for victims of intimate partner violence, particularly within the bail regime. The bill created a definition of “intimate partner” that applies throughout the Criminal Code to clarify that it includes a current or former spouse, common-law partner and dating partner. It also created a reverse onus provision in the Criminal Code for an accused person charged with an intimate violence offence if the accused has an prior conviction for an offence involving violence against an intimate partner. This reverse onus applies regardless of whether it is the same partner, a former partner or a dating partner. What this means is that the presumption that the accused should be released pending trial no longer applies. The accused, not the prosecutor, would have to justify their release to the court. All the tools needed to prevent recidivism are there. The change to impose a reverse onus reflects what we know about the heightened risk to safety that victims of intimate partner violence face. It also signals to bail court the seriousness of the alleged offences, as well as the increased risk of reoffending in this context. Bill C-75 also added two new factors a judge must consider before making an order to release or detain an accused person. First, in an important change, bail courts now have to consider an accused's criminal record, something that may have occurred but was not mandated by the legislation. Second, the court needs to consider whether an accused has ever been charged with an offence that involved violence against an intimate partner. These two factors help ensure that courts are better informed and have a more a complete picture of prior history of violence that could threaten the safety of a victim or the public at large. As a result of these changes, bail courts are now required to take these factors into account when making a number of different possible bail-related determinations, including the decision to impose an order not to communicate with a particular victim, witness or other person, a detention order or an order to release the accused on bail. If the accused is to be released on bail, the court would have to consider whether the alleged offence was against an intimate partner in determining whether bail conditions are necessary and, if so, what type of conditions are appropriate, such as a condition prohibiting contact with the victim. Requiring bail courts to consider the safety of intimate partners before releasing an accused on bail affords increased protection to victims of intimate partner violence. Bill C-75 made changes to the bail system that respond to guidance on bail-related charter rights of the accused as found in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. These changes aimed to help address the overrepresentation of indigenous people and vulnerable populations in the criminal justice system, while also increasing the efficiency of the bail system. I emphasize that Bill C-75 did not change how the bail system should respond to violent or repeat offending, and it made some admirable changes to bail for those charged with offences relating to intimate partner violence. In closing, contrary to the hon. member's suggestion, Bill C-75 has strengthened our bail system and helped protect victims of intimate partner violence.

1274 words

All Topics

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Feb/2/23 1:45:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Richmond Hill gave us a very long overview of what the bill is intended to do and what Bill C-75 is supposed to do. However, I want to share some facts. In my riding alone, in December of this past year, in a drive-by shooting, one of the charges was possession of a firearm contrary to a probation order. In December as well, a man was attacked with a hammer and, again, there were several charges, including several counts of breach of probation. In November, a man and a woman were arrested on numerous drug charges, but again the man was charged with additional two counts of a breach of a weapons prohibition. There was another one in my riding, with multiple agencies in a drug bust, where again charges were tied to a prohibition order. If this bill is so good and we do not need bail reform, why do the stats show that it is not working and we desperately need changes to our bail system?

175 words

Mr. Majid Jowhari

Feb/2/23 1:46:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are facing a similar situation in Richmond Hill. However, I want to draw a distinction between what the bill would enable, what it would prohibit and what it would enact versus its execution, which is in the hands of the provinces and police forces. Therefore, it is in the hands of the judge to make that determination. The laws are there to support the judge, the justice system and the police to have the proper tools to be able to prevent that. I definitely agree that we should look into restricting firearms coming into Canada. That is an area I think we need to make more investment in. We also need to work with the police force much more closely to ensure that police have the resources to deal with it on the ground.

137 words

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

Feb/2/23 1:48:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the issue of dealing with crime is that we actually need to take the evidence, we need to have the witnesses and we need to put them together in a way that makes sure we actually get the results the public trusts us to get. This is our job as legislators, so I am very pleased that the justice committee agreed to look at bail reform and the serious issues that have arisen from the examples of violence. The horrific killing of that young police officer in Ontario shocked us all; it should never have been allowed to happen. However, this issue is very different from what the Conservatives are doing, which is having a motion, throwing everything but the kitchen sink into it and demanding that we stand up in the House today and rewrite the whole law without the evidence and without doing the work. I have been here long enough to remember the Harper government days when every one of the Conservatives' crime bills got tossed, with more recalls than the Ford Pinto, because they were not doing the job right. I would like to ask my hon. colleague about doing this right on bail reform.

201 words

Mr. Majid Jowhari

Feb/2/23 1:49:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for actually highlighting that the justice committee is looking at this, because this is a real issue. This is what our communities are dealing with, and it is at the forefront for many parents and many community members. There is a right way of doing things, and there is a shortcut. I do not believe we need the shortcut. That is why it is great that it is going to the justice committee. It is being looked at. Witnesses are going to be called. Data is going to be presented, and the amendments that are going to be proposed, if any, will be amendments that are going to be well represented, well researched, scientific and based on data.

128 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/2/23 1:49:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will repeat the question I asked earlier. I think everyone agrees on the fact that the provisions of Bill C-75 need to be looked at and improved. That being said, no one is born violent. That tendency develops over time. Without support from our social services, which have been undermined as a result of 30 years of health transfer deficits, violence may increase. I would like to know whether the government will increase health transfers to 35%.

83 words

Mr. Majid Jowhari

Feb/2/23 1:50:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not think unconditional transfers to the provinces are necessarily the solution to this. However, what I would like to highlight from what I took from the hon. member's point is that there are other factors, specifically social and economic determinants of health, that play a huge role in this. I am sure other committees will definitely look into this.

64 words

Ms. Viviane Lapointe (Sudbury, Lib.)

Feb/2/23 1:51:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to enter this very important discussion. I appreciate the concerns raised by the member for Fundy Royal about Canada's bail system, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss how bail law operates in Canada, and in particular, how it deals with violent offences and addresses some of the concerns we are hearing from across the aisle. The bail system in Canada contributes to public safety and confidence in the criminal justice system. It allows accused persons to be remanded in cases where there is just cause to do so, such as when there is a need to protect public safety. I am encouraged to hear that our government is working to strengthen the regime while respecting the rights of Canadians. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all accused are entitled to liberty and presumed innocent until proven guilty. Paragraph 11(e) of the charter provides that any person charged with an offence has the right not to be deprived of release or reasonable bail without just cause. The Supreme Court of Canada has provided us with important guidance on interim release and relevant charter considerations. For example, the court noted in the St-Cloud decision in 2015 that “in Canadian law, the release of accused persons is the cardinal rule and detention, the exception”. However, such exceptions are important. For example, some offences have what is called the reverse onus for bail, which means the burden is on the offender to make the case for bail. These include firearm offences and some intimate partner violence offences, which were added by our government. Subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code sets out the three grounds on which an accused person may be refused interim release. First, they may be detained when this is necessary to ensure their presence in court. That is known as the main ground. Second, they may be detained to protect the public, victims and witnesses, particularly when it is likely that the accused will commit another offence or harm the administration of justice if released. This is known as the secondary ground. The protection of the public is certainly central to this ground. Several factors may be taken into account when the court considers this ground, including the defendant's criminal record, whether the defendant was on bail or probation at the time of the charge, the defendant's personal circumstances and any interference with witnesses or evidence. The court may also consider the seriousness of the offence and the strength of the Crown's case, based on the principle that the more serious the offence and the greater the likelihood of conviction, the greater the need for public protection. Third, the accused may be detained where necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, taking into account particular circumstances, such as the strength of the prosecution's case, the seriousness of the offence, the sentencing range for the offence and whether a firearm was used. This is known as the tertiary ground. In the St-Cloud decision, the Supreme Court noted that the scope of the tertiary ground has been unduly narrowed by the courts in certain cases. The court affirmed that the tertiary ground is a ground for detention in its own right, independent of the other grounds, and that it should not be interpreted narrowly, applied narrowly or limited to exceptional circumstances. We agree with the court. The general rule is that, when a Crown prosecutor seeks to detain an accused in custody, they must persuade the court that there are grounds to do so. However, the Criminal Code includes several provisions where the burden of proof shifts to the accused. When these provisions apply, the accused must demonstrate why their detention in custody is not justified based on the primary, secondary or tertiary ground. This is referred to as the reverse onus. Reverse onus provisions play an important role in the criminal justice system. They balance the right of an accused person to a fair opportunity for bail with the need to protect the safety of all Canadians. To ensure the protection of the public and reduce the rate of recidivism in the criminal justice system, the reverse onus provisions target certain types of reoffending and specific serious offences. For example, where the accused is charged with failing to attend court or failing to comply with a previous bail order, the reverse onus will apply. It also applies when the accused is charged with certain serious offences. One of the best-known reverse onus situations is when someone is charged with murder or attempted murder. However, other serious offences, such as weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking, robbery, and drug trafficking, importing or exporting all engage the reverse onus provisions. To protect Canadians from gun violence, the reverse onus provisions are applied to offences involving firearms where the accused is subject to a weapons prohibition order, as is called for by the motion today. I am happy to say that this is already the law, and I again express concern that the opposition is trying to create fear by implying the law is different than it is. That said, I am aware of the call to expand this to more firearms provisions from provincial and territorial premiers, and I am encouraged to hear that this idea is under serious consideration by our government. The bail provisions also recognize the need to protect victims of intimate partner violence. For an accused charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence who has previously been convicted of such an offence, the reverse onus will apply. This provision directly targets repeat offenders and strives to ensure the safety of victims of intimate partner violence. I am proud to be part of the government that made this change. A court must cancel an accused person's previous form of release where it finds that the accused has contravened or is about to contravene their bail conditions or where the accused has committed an indictable offence while being bound by a form of release. When cancelling the previous release, the court must order the detention of the accused unless the accused establishes that their detention is not justified. The reverse onus provisions give the courts the tools necessary to protect the public from accused persons who fail to attend court or follow bail conditions. They also give the courts the ability to protect victims of intimate partner violence by compelling the accused to demonstrate why they should be released from custody. These provisions reinforce public confidence in the administration of justice with the knowledge that persons accused of serious crimes must convince a judge that their release is justified before they can be released on bail. The bail system is integral to the proper functioning of our criminal justice system and contributes to a fair and safe society. As the minister said earlier in the House, we are quickly and carefully reviewing concerns and solutions that have been raised recently by provinces, territories and others. I was also encouraged to hear of the ongoing work and the upcoming federal, provincial and territorial meeting to further explore how we can strengthen our bail system at all levels of government. In exploring solutions to the concerns raised, I know our government will take the safety of Canadians into account. I look forward to hearing more from both the Minister of Justice and his provincial and territorial counterparts.

1262 words

All Topics

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.)

Feb/2/23 1:59:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, I was honoured to join the Prime Minister, along with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development and the Minister of Public Safety, at the North American Leaders' Summit in my role as chair of the Canada-Mexico Parliamentary Friendship Group. During the summit, the leaders signed the declaration of North America, a joint leader statement focused on building our economy to benefit people and to expand trilateral co-operation. With over 500 million people and $24 trillion in combined GDP, representing one of the world's largest trading blocs, the trilateral partnership is an opportunity to show the world that our democracies can successfully work together to address the most pressing challenges of our time. Canada's partnership with the United States and Mexico advances Canadian priorities of building a clean economy, bolstering resilient supply chains and building our economies to work for everyone. Our Prime Minister emphasized the importance of trade agreements being inclusive and benefiting all Canadians. It is only through inclusive and sustainable growth that we will continue to have the support of Canadians and be an inspiration to the world.

201 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC)

Feb/2/23 2:00:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, during January, I met with many folks from the west side of Saskatoon. One message became abundantly clear to me. After eight years, they are sick and tired of the NDP-Liberal coalition government breaking our community. Whether it is at the gas pumps, the grocery store or walking down our main streets, people see every day how everything is broken. The NDP has been pushing for higher gasoline prices by raising the carbon tax on ordinary folks. It has been colluding with the Liberals to raise food prices. After eight years, crime is on the rise, as the NDP and Liberals work together to set criminals free. People in Saskatoon continue to deal with persistent repeat criminals because revolving-door sentencing policies allow thugs to commit a crime, get released on bail and victimize yet another person as they please. After eight years, Canadians are ready for a change from the failing, broken NDP-Liberal coalition. Thankfully, the Conservatives, under our new leader, will meet the challenge. What they have broken, we will fix.

177 words

Mr. Heath MacDonald (Malpeque, Lib.)

Feb/2/23 2:01:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honour a long-term staff person of the Malpeque team, Kim MacDonald, who recently passed away on January 15 at the young age of 52, following a courageous battle with cancer. Kim first started with the Malpeque constituency office in 2011 with then-member of Parliament Wayne Easter. I have had the pleasure of having her on my team since joining federal politics in 2021. Throughout her time in the office, Kim was a caring and professional employee who helped many constituents over the years, whether that was looking into their case or simply being someone to listen to their concerns and hearing them out. Kim also was a very lively spirit in the office, with her quick wit and great sense of humour, keeping all of us on our toes and laughing even during challenging times. I know I speak for all my staff when I say that we will miss Kim. We appreciate everything she did for myself, Wayne Easter and the constituents of Malpeque. To her husband Paul and children Austin, Malcolm, Liam and Bella, we send our heartfelt condolences and thank them for sharing their wife and mom with us. They are all in our thoughts and prayers.

208 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Feb/2/23 2:02:44 p.m.
Watch

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.

183 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 152