44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 21, 2023 10:00AM
- Mar/21/23 10:13:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I see the Conservatives are up to their mischievous ways in moving concurrence of a report. I am not surprised, I must say. I understand the New Democrats were also proposing to bring forward a concurrence motion. I think that was fairly widely known. The members across the way know how to use the rules of the chamber to trump what the NDP was hoping to to do today.
My question to the member is not to marginalize the importance of the issue of labour and the exploitation of labour, which has been an issue not only the last few years but also for many years, even under Stephen Harper. We will recall Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, and the scary days of the Harper regime. It has gotten even scarier within the Conservative Party, as it has turned an even harder right.
Can the member indicate to us what it is that Stephen Harper did to address the concerns he has raised?
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 11:27:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, clearly, if there is no result, the means were insufficient. This goes without saying. The intention and the results must often be judged separately. People had been calling for the creation of an ombudsperson for a very long time but, in the end, it amounted to very little. It is disappointing, but it is what it is. I would like to thank the Conservatives for putting this question on the Order Paper, because it was very educational and allowed us to attach a number to this reality, or rather a lack of a number.
I would not say that nothing is being taken seriously, especially since the sponsor of Bill C-243 is someone who is working hard on this file. I will not question his honesty on this issue and on the file. He has been moving motions on this issue for a long time. He proposed something similar during the Harper government, and it was his own party that did not support it in large enough numbers. However, it obviously does not go far enough. The fact is that no goods are being sent back, and that number speaks for itself.
197 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 12:20:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member belittles the efforts that have been put into place. The Canada Border Services Agency has done fine work over the years in protecting the interests of Canadians.
We have actually invested more in the CBSA than the former government. I can assure members that we have done more in taking products off the market than Stephen Harper ever did during his 10-year period.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 2:34:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I hope all members will appreciate that this government takes allegations of foreign interference very seriously, which is why we appointed independent panels, made up of non-partisan professional public servants, that certified that the elections in 2019 and 2021 were free and fair. We have received recommendations from those panels, which we are now implementing.
Last week, we took the additional step of appointing David Johnston, a former governor general appointed by Stephen Harper, and a man with impeccable qualifications, to do the job. He will now provide recommendations, up to and including a public inquiry, to ensure that we protect all of our democratic institutions.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 2:46:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague and all members in this chamber that we take foreign interference very seriously, which is why we have put in the people, the authorities, the resources and the technology to protect all of our institutions, including most especially our elections. It is why last week we appointed Mr. Johnston, a former governor general appointed by Stephen Harper no less. He is unimpeachable and has the ability to put forward concrete recommendations, including and up to a public inquiry, which, if he does, this government will respect, because we take the work of protecting our democratic institutions very seriously, and we are committed to continuing to do that.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to repeat what I said earlier at the beginning of my speech. We do agree with the principle of the bill because it would open the door to the first nations, which is recommendation number 79 of the Crown commission that we had to address the issues of reconciliation with the first nations. Everything started when the Right Hon. Stephen Harper tabled official apologies to first nations here in the House of Commons on June 11, 2008, which was among the most important statements made by any prime minister in history to please and to reconcile with first nations, with the authority of the government.
Yes, we do agree with the principle. We have concerns with too much power being put in the hands of cabinet ministers.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak in the House. Today, we are talking about Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage. Fortunately, it also has a short title: the historic places of Canada act.
This bill is an attempt to follow up on one of the recommendations from the truth and reconciliation report. Members will recall that the Right Hon. Stephen Harper made an official apology to first nations people for the residential school situations. He then commissioned this truth and reconciliation report, which came with over 90 recommendations. Recommendation number 79 is the one that this act is trying to address. Conservatives absolutely support this. Stephen Harper started it, and so we definitely want to see this come to pass and to send it to committee.
In my talk today, I am going to reflect on some of the concerns that I have with the bill, and as usual, some recommendations on how to fix them.
I will start with subclause 43(3). What happens in the parks part of this bill is that the park rangers would be given new authorities. They would be given similar authorities to what peace officers have. They would then carry out their work. Basically, I want to read subclause 43(3) because it is very concerning. It states:
A park warden or enforcement officer may exercise any powers under [search and seizure] without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist, but by reason of exigent circumstances it would not be practical to obtain one.
It would obviously be a violation of section 8 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to search and seize without a warrant, so the important part of that phrasing is “exigent circumstances”. However, I do not know that a park ranger would necessarily understand that they would normally get a warrant, but if someone were going to be injured or some building were going to be destroyed or something, there may be some urgent circumstance. Moreover, there is no indication of a requirement for training on that. Therefore, there needs to be some training.
The second concern I have with this bill is that it would give additional powers to the minister and to the Governor in Council, which is essentially cabinet, to designate places or to prevent a place from being designated. That is way too much power to give to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. I say that because he has a history of doing things to influence the outcomes that he likes or does not like.
For example, in 2022, he decided to put in regulations about migratory birds, which caused a delay in the Trans Mountain pipeline project. He has already said he never wants to see that project built. I would not want a situation where there is some kind of project or natural resources thing that is in the national public interest and the minister has the sole power to decide to designate a heritage place that would become a barrier to that project. We do not need to put that kind of power in his hands. We have to keep in mind that this is the minister who, in his former life, was arrested for his environmental activism. For example, in my riding, I have a heritage site that is where oil was first discovered in North America. I do not ever want to see the minister have the power to decide that is not going to be a designated site anymore. That sole-power thing is a problem, and there need to be checks in place.
Under clause 34, another thing the Governor in Council, which is really cabinet, could do is to make regulations on about 18 different circumstances. This is becoming a chronic problem with bills that the Liberal government brings forward. The Liberals have no detail in the bill and leave it to the regulations later. Sometimes, thinking about Bill C-11, the government knows what the criteria are that it is going to bring forward to the CRTC on what content should be promoted or buried. Even though the opposition has been asking the government to share that for more than a year, it will not do so.
If we look at Bill C-22, the bill about disabilities, it does not say who is eligible, how much they get and when they are going to get it. Those are details that are actually very important in order to approve bills in more than just principle.
We are at the stage where we are approving this one in principle, but the ability for cabinet to make regulations after the fact needs to be much more limited than it is. There needs to be some driver of why it could not be foreseen.
There is also a part of this bill that would increase indigenous representation on the board from first nations, Inuit and Métis, and that is a great addition. There are some occasions when they do not all agree on something. We have seen instances before, like with the Coastal gas project, for example, with the Wet'suwet'en, where 85% thought one thing and 15% thought another. Again, there does not seem to be a mechanism to resolve when the board cannot agree about something, so that would be very important.
Another protection I would like to see in this bill has to do with the issue of cancel culture. We have seen in our country, over the last few years, quite a number of historic monuments that were vandalized, destroyed or forced to be taken down. I think about the Queen Victoria statue. I would not want to get into a situation where somebody is not a monarchist and they become the minister and have the sole power to designate something as “not a site”, for example.
I remember when I was at university in Kingston, there used to be a pub there called Sir John A. Macdonald, and they made them take that away. I do not know if it was officially a historic site, but it was certainly historic in my life. I definitely do not want to see that.
Another thing is that 15 Christian churches have been burned, some of which were historical sites, and the government has not taken any action. How we are going to address the protection of things that are already heritage sites and not try to rewrite history, as it were? That will be an important question.
I also want to make sure the board members who are chosen have the best interests of the country and the people they are representing at heart. In my riding, there are people who are paid environmental activists who chain themselves to the employees' pipelines, etc. It could cause a lot of trouble if those people were on the board of this particular committee. Who is vetting the board members? It says the government is going to choose. If “government” means the Minister of the Environment, who was previously an environmental activist, then I do have a concern there as well.
Let us talk about navigable waters. There is a lot of red tape already in the area of navigable waters. There are federal regulations, there are provincial regulations and there is always a long delay in getting any resolution. Now we would have the Minister of Environment and Climate Change having powers, but what if the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Tourism do not agree? I have raised this point in the questions a few times, but there has not really been a good answer. There needs to be some mechanism to sort out who is on first and who has the prime responsibility. I personally do not think it should be the Minister of the Environment, when it comes to navigable waters. That is clearly something that is a concern of Fisheries and Oceans, unless it is for tourism.
If we think about some of the balancing of priorities, we know that when it comes to designating heritage sites, they are expensive to maintain. In my previous questions, I talked about, in my riding, Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie's grave, which was falling into disrepair and it took a really long time to get fixed. We need to make sure there is a plan in place to afford the things we are designating.
I do like the idea of a registry for those locations that are heritage locations. That will be helpful. I think it will also help prevent people from removing things that were at heritage sites, because the reasoning for them being chosen in the first place will be a part of that.
The final concern I have about this is that the government has brought this bill and again is giving more power to the government. Its track record is not great on this. We have seen numerous times that the government has used its powers and it was not in the interest of the people. I think that is why people are losing trust in the democracy and in the current government.
There need to be some protections put into this bill that would allow us to expand and recognize heritage sites, to afford to fix them, to make sure that we are not going to cancel them later and to make sure that it is clear how we sort out conflict.
Those are the main concerns that I have with the bill. I would be happy to answer any questions people have.
1630 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 7:03:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to my friend across the way, speaking notes are not required here. I can assure the member that what I am sharing with her now is strictly what I personally believe. At the end of the day, we need to put things into the proper perspective.
Foreign interference in elections is not new. It has been happening for many years. In fact, it was first really brought to the attention of the government when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada and when the current leader of the Conservative Party of Canada was the minister responsible for democratic reform. Imagine the current leader and this information being brought to his attention. What did he actually do? The simple and factual answer is he did nothing. Stephen Harper and the government just ignored the issue completely.
Contrast this lack of action with what we have done. Virtually from day one, we have made changes. We can talk about the establishment of the parliamentary committee that joined the other four eyes of the Five Eyes countries to ensure members of Parliament on all sides of the House could hear the most secretive information our security agencies have. That was something we put in place months after taking the reins of power in Canada.
We have heard from numerous security agencies and civil servants about the issue of foreign election interference. Yesterday, I made reference to the ambassador of the United States to Canada. All of them have said that the allegations of foreign interference we hear about did not, and I underline the word “not”, impact the outcome of the last federal election.
This is an issue where partisan politics should be taken to the side, as election interference affects the fundamental principles of our democracy. I do not think any member in the chamber should be accused of not protecting Canada's interests on that file.
Not only have significant actions been taken by this government, many of which were initiated by this government, but we have had overtures of ensuring we will continue. The biggest one that comes to my mind is the special rapporteur. A Conservative Party-appointed Governor General, Mr. Johnston, is now charged with the responsibility of looking into the matter and reporting back on his recommendations, which could include a public inquiry in the future. Why do the Conservatives not have confidence in our civil service and in a former appointment made by Stephen Harper?
414 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
