SoVote

Decentralized Democracy
  • Jun/10/24 5:18:36 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-51 
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my good friend, the member for Surrey—Newton, who is in fact one of the members who really tackle the issue head on. Members will recall that Motion No. 112 received unanimous support from those who were inside the chamber voting. It also dealt with the issue of foreign interference. I want to put things into perspective so those who are following the debate get an appreciation of what we are actually talking about and what led us to where we are today. It is important that we as parliamentarians recognize, and it does not matter what side of the House we are on, that an assault of any nature, anything direct or indirect, through international or foreign interference is an assault on all of us. We should all do what we can to dispose of international foreign interference. As a government, we have taken a number of actions. Let me first put it in the context of the degree to which the current Prime Minister and, in good part, the government have been acting, even in 2015. Going back to when the Liberals had third party status in the chamber, there was Bill C-51. We argued that Canada needed to be able to establish a security clearance standing committee of the House that would be able to take a look at all forms of information. It was nothing new. Canada is one of the Five Eyes countries, and we were the only one that did not have such a committee in existence. At the time, the Conservative Party, which was in government under Stephen Harper, said no to us. It did not recognize, nor was it interested at all in proceeding with what we call NSICOP today. In fact, if we look at the history of the issue itself, we see that the it was actually brought to the government's attention in 2013, knowing full well that there was foreign interference taking place in Canada. Today's leader of the Conservative Party was in cabinet. Not only Stephen Harper completely ignored the issue, but so too did today's leader of the Conservative Party. When we brought forward the suggestion of changing the law to incorporate NSICOP, the Conservative Party opposed it. The federal election took place, and one of the first initiatives Liberals took was to establish NSICOP. We did a great deal of consultation on it, believing that it was in Canada's best interest. When we put NSICOP in place after passing the legislation, the Conservatives boycotted it and withdrew some members. NSICOP as a standing committee has representatives from all recognized political entities in the chamber. It even has participation from the Senate. However, the Conservative Party did not support it. Fast-forward to today and listen to some of the quotes that can be provided, in terms of the degree to which the Conservative Party has actually politicized the issue. How many times have we heard the Conservatives stand up and demand that we release the names? Constantly it is “Release the names of the members of Parliament.” Then, through social media, the Conservatives created the idea that the Government of Canada was trying to hide something. There are Conservative members who sit on NSICOP. They would have just as much right to see the names as the government does. If the Conservative Party wants the names released, why do the Conservative members who sit on NSICOP not release them? I suspect it might have something to do with the fact that they are a bit concerned about potential charges or investigations, because it would not be appropriate for them to release the names. Earlier today, the minister responsible indicated that he had a discussion with Deputy Commissioner Flynn about releasing the names, asking whether he could do that as a minister. He was told by the deputy commissioner, who is the second in charge, that if he were to do that he would be opening himself up to criminal prosecution. The Conservatives, on the one hand, are asking us to release the names, knowing full well that we cannot release them, but that does not prevent them from going around spreading misinformation on the issue. It does not end there. The Conservatives are saying that they do not want their leader to be informed. The government has said that a leader of a political party can get the security clearance that would allow them to request the information. The leader of the NDP has done just that, but not the leader of the Conservative Party. It is interesting that just this past weekend, on the issue, the host of CTV's Question Period was conducting an interview. She quoted the national security adviser and the head of CSIS. Then she said, “Just because your leader is briefed on this intelligence does not mean that he can't act.” In essence, she was saying that the leader can in fact be briefed and can act on the issue. Let us follow what happens afterward. The host then asked the Conservative panellist, “Why not get briefed? Why could [the leader of the Conservative party] now not just get that information and then act on it?” The member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who spoke earlier today, responded with, “What the Prime Minister is asking [the Leader of the Opposition] to do is essentially tie his hands behind his back”, even though the New Democratic leader had the same briefing. He goes on further to say, “That process would require [the Leader of the Opposition] to sign an undertaking and to swear an oath of secrecy not to divulge this information to anyone else, and, therefore, not be able to tell anybody else to act on this information to hold individuals accountable.” The host then poses this question: “Respectfully though, am I supposed to believe you over the director of CSIS?” Get this; this is what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills said: “Yes. Yes, you are.” He said to believe him over CSIS. That is incredible. He said, “because I think the director of CSIS and the RCMP may not be as knowledgeable about the processes under the Reform Act that govern [our ] party caucuses”. Really? It highlights how the members of the Conservative Party of Canada, the Conservative-Reform party, choose to be dumb on the issue intentionally, come up with lame excuses and then spread misinformation all over social media. Where is the sense of responsibility? The Conservatives are definitely found lacking when it comes to common sense and responsibility in dealing with an issue that Canadians are concerned about. Why will the leader of the Conservative-Reform party today not take the government up on getting the security clearance so he would understand in more depth what is taking place?
1167 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/30/24 6:00:07 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-51 
Madam Speaker, I will pick up on one point the member referred to, because it is a really important aspect. When we think of all the information out there, it is incredible just how massive it is. Information nowadays, through technology and archives, is truly amazing. What we need to recognize right at the beginning is the need-to-know principle: “The need-to-know principle restricts access to sensitive information and assets to those whose duties require such access; that is, to those who need to know the information.” I think “whose duties require such access” is probably the most important thing for us to recognize. How wonderful it would be to sit in any sort of meeting and get the sense that we have an entitlement to know everything that might pique our curiosity. However, I do not think that this is in the best interest of national security, in terms of things such as foreign affairs, public safety and national security. It is interesting to listen to the debate, and particularly what is coming from the Conservatives. I say that because when I was a member of the Liberal Party when it was the third party, Bill C-51 was brought forward. At the time, Liberals were arguing that we needed to establish a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. That was something that was justified, because there was a sense that parliamentarians on the committee would be able to look at anything and everything and they would have the security clearance to do so. We argued that. I argued that, 10 years ago, when I was sitting in opposition, recognizing that there is sensitive information, even back then, that not all members of Parliament should be receiving because it should be based on the need to know. Back then, I articulated why it was so important that we establish this national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. Hansard will clearly show that, back then, I said the committee should be apolitical, non-partisan, and should have representatives from all political parties. We took a lot of heat back then from the government of the day and lost. We could not convince the government to establish such a committee, in the form of an amendment to Bill C-51. We should keep in mind the relationship that Canada has with its allied countries. When we think of security, we have to think of the Five Eyes countries, of which we are one. At the time, we were the only country in the Five Eyes that did not have a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. That was one of the primary arguments I used back then. I believed that, whether there was the RCMP, CSIS or any other public agency, this committee of parliamentarians needed to be established to ensure that there is a higher sense of accountability. We made the commitment back in 2015 to establish that committee, and we did just that. We established the committee and joined the Five Eyes countries, our allies, in having this parliamentary committee, but members will recall it was with a great deal of protest from the Conservatives, because they did not want this committee to be established. Why is that? A lot of politics is played when it comes to issues, whether it be foreign interference or any sort of foreign affairs. We were talking about hostages yesterday. There are a great deal of professional, civil servant-type individuals who are out there protecting us and making sure that Canadians are safe and secure. There is some information that we individually do not necessarily need to know, if that is in the best interest of public safety. As parliamentarians, we get involved in all sorts of meetings. One could argue we could be more effective if there were no redactions done to documents brought forward to the standing committees. Even within in camera meetings, whether it is intentional or unintentional, we are going to have information being leaked. I have listened to members opposite speak to this bill, and there was nothing said that addresses that specific concern. What I hear them say is that they are members of Parliament, so they should be able to have unlimited access if they can get a particular security clearance. If someone wants to be able to get information, they just go and ask for the security clearance. I will go back to the need-to-know principle: “The need-to-know principle restricts access to sensitive information and assets to those whose duties require such access; that is, to those who need to know the information.” For the people who are concerned that something is awry or something is happening that they should know about, there are other mechanisms currently in place. We have the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. We have representatives from all political parties who sit there, and there are no restrictions there. We also have mechanisms that have been agreed upon for when certain issues come to the attention of the House of Commons. We can talk about the Afghan detainees issue and the great uproar that took place there. People wanted classified information. They wanted to see the words and the information. That was actually done through negotiations with the then prime minister and opposition parties. There was a consensus as to how that information could be revealed to all political parties. We have seen other issues come up in the interim. It is interesting that when the opposition talks about, for example, the Winnipeg labs issue, this government offered the very same formula that Stephen Harper offered when he was prime minister. We offered the very same formula in trying to deal with the issue, and the opposition said no to that initially. Why did the opposition say no to that? Why did they say no to joining what the Five Eyes and other countries around the world were doing? I suspect that it has more to do with politics than good practice. That is why, when we take a look at the legislation that is before us today, I have not heard an argument as to why we should be looking over and above the need-to-know principle. However, we are not done. There is still going to be some more debate. I will continue to have a bit of an open mind on it. I will say, to this point, I have not heard anything.
1094 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-368. I would like to thank the member for Red Deer—Lacombe for bringing it forward for the House's consideration. The reason I am very pleased is that the issue of natural health products has garnered a lot of attention in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I have had a lot of constituents and local businesses approach me concerning this issue in particular. I am pleased to be able to stand here, as their elected representative, and let my constituents know that I will be supporting the bill at second reading. I was also very pleased to be able to add my name as a joint seconder to the bill. To fulfill the wishes of my constituents, I will be voting to send it to committee for further study. What are we talking about when we say “natural health products”? I have always thought it a weird thing that they are regulated under a statute such as the Food and Drugs Act. They are not really a food, nor are they a drug. They occupy a special place for many people. We must face that humans have had relationships with natural health products dating back thousands of years. Many of these products have a very special place in human history, and a lot of cultures have very long relationships with them. Today, in the modern world, natural health products often come in a variety of forms, such as tablets, capsules, tinctures, solutions, creams, ointments and drops. There is quite a large variety for people to pick and choose from. They are often made from plants, but they can also come from animals, from micro-organisms and from marine sources. They include vitamins and minerals, herbal remedies, homeopathic medicines, traditional medicines, probiotics and other products, such as amino acids and essential fatty acids. They are found in many everyday consumer products. Let us come to the bill in question, Bill C-368. As shown in the summary, it would amend the Food and Drugs Act to provide that natural health products are not therapeutic products within the meaning of that act and, therefore, are not subject to the same monitoring regime as other drugs. Before we get into the substance, we need to take a little history lesson on how we arrived here. I want to say that both Conservatives and Liberals have run into trouble when trying to regulate natural health products. In fact, the previous government, under Harper, learned this lesson very quickly back in 2008 when it introduced Bill C-51. That was also an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. Under Bill C-51, the term “therapeutic products” encompassed a range of products sold for therapeutic purposes, including drugs, medical devices, biologics and natural health products. In the end, because of an election, that bill was never adopted. However, I believe the Harper government at that time learned its lesson because of the uproar that came in response to Bill C-51, and it did not attempt to change Canada's regulations for natural health products again while in government. What the Harper government did do, in 2014, was introduce Bill C-17 to amend the Food and Drugs Act. It was also known as Vanessa's Law. This introduced a definition for the term “therapeutic product”, but what was different this time was that the definition was worded in such a way that it did not include natural health products, within the meaning of the natural health products regulations. We then fast-forward to the present Liberal government and Bill C-47. That bill, in a clause buried deep within a budget implementation act, again amended the term “therapeutic product” to make sure that the exemption from the natural health products regulations was actually removed. This has caused much of the uproar we see today. I want to point out, as I said in my intro, that natural health products have a long history of use in Canada as low-risk, affordable methods of promoting well-being. It is very important that I stand here today and say unequivocally that they must remain accessible to all Canadians. I am proud to be a member of a caucus, the NDP caucus, that has long supported an appropriate regulatory category for natural health products to certify their safety and efficacy based on sound evidence, as well as to ensure that they are widely available for those who use and value them. It is unacceptable that the changes to the regulatory regime under the Food and Drugs Act was snuck into a budget omnibus bill, because it did not allow for proper study. I am glad to see that, because Bill C-368 is a stand-alone, quite simple and easy-to-read piece of legislation, from reading the room, it should have enough votes to send it to committee. We can then have the proper study; hear from Canadians and businesses that sell natural health products, the practitioners involved in this every day; and, finally, get the proper scrutiny that this issue so richly deserves. I do not want to spend too much longer speaking to the bill, but I want to talk a bit about the people in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who took the time to write to my office, phone me personally and come into my office. In particular, I want to recognize a few of the local businesses. Essential Remedies, Benoit and Associates Health Education, some holistic health practitioners, the Community Farm Store, Botanical Bliss, a certified homeopathic practitioner, a naturopathic physician and Lynn's Vitamin Gallery all took the time in the summer of 2023 to come into my office. We had a great round table discussion. It lasted well over an hour. It was really enlightening for me, as their member of Parliament, to hear their views on this subject and learn a little more about why it is so important. Yes, my immediate family definitely uses natural health products, and I know that many friends and relatives in my immediate vicinity also use them. However, to hear from professionals who work with clients every day about why this issue is so important was particularly enlightening for me. It is also important to note that 71% of Canadians, which is a very big number, have used natural health products, such as vitamins and minerals, herbal products and homeopathic medicines. Therefore, it is important that, when the NHP community speaks to their elected representatives, it represents a very clear majority of Canadians. Based on a proper cross-sampling of the correspondence that I, like many other members, have received, I know that they want their elected representatives to treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves and give the bill full scrutiny. Finally, I want to congratulate the NHP community and industry, which have been very actively engaged on this issue through their work. I really want to single out the local businesses in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and the constituents who live on Vancouver Island. I congratulate them for their advocacy, for stepping up to the plate and for engaging me as their elected representative, because it has worked. I am proud to say that, in this place, as their elected representative, I will be pleased to vote to send Bill C-368 to committee.
1258 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, I said earlier, in thanking the member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe, that we support this legislation. We support Bill C-368 for a number of reasons. I want to start by saying that, as are over 70% of Canadians, I am a consumer of natural health products. I use those products, as 70% of the population does. This includes vitamins and minerals, herbal remedies, homeopathic medicines and probiotics. Many Canadians use traditional medicines, such as traditional Chinese medicines or indigenous medicines, as well. There are a wide variety of products on the market. As has already been stated, the reality is that we have a very robust natural health product sector that is carefully regulated in a way that ensures that the products are of good quality. That is why, when we look at the natural health product sector, we see so many Canadians consuming them and, at the same time, we see no side effects or downsides to the consumption of those products. It is because the products are effective. If they are not, we stop using them. I have tried a number of products over the years. Some work really well; others, not so much. As consumers, we have that ability to distinguish and make sure we are choosing products that are appropriate for us. This is not the pharmaceutical sector. These are not prescriptions that are given out. I have a family doctor who is very good at sometimes suggesting products that are not part of a prescription, but simply a suggestion. He has turned out to be right every single time about the kind of products we can take. As an example, there is magnesium, which is a vitamin product. My friend from Red Deer—Lacombe mentioned it earlier as well. Some of us are on flights back and forth across the country, travelling 5,000 kilometres twice a week, every month. My colleague from North Island—Powell River is in the same situation. We are going around this planet every month in terms of the amount of time we spend on airplanes, getting back to our constituency to ensure that we are serving our constituents and then coming to Ottawa to do the important work we do here. The reality is that, when we are doing this, we are in a cramped space. We need to ensure we take magnesium if we want to avoid leg cramps. My doctor was the one who suggested it, and ever since then, I have made sure that I take the appropriate product. It makes sense. I know you agree, Madam Speaker, even though you do not have as far to go when you go back to your constituents. There is a wide range of products that are available and that make a difference. For consumers who find that their products just are not up to speed, they can change, try another product or simply decide they are not going to use something anymore. What is already a flourishing and effective sector was diminished by the government incorporating into Bill C-47, an omnibus legislation, these clauses that simply put natural health products in a completely different situation. They are heavily regulated with costs, which a number of speakers have already indicated were absolutely inappropriate. Ever since I have been here, and certainly for years before that, the NDP caucus has decried omnibus legislation. We saw this under the former Harper Conservative government. We see this under the current Liberal government. There are massive budget implementation acts that are 700 or 800 pages. Incorporated within them are really what I call poison pills. Certain clauses are put in there that ultimately serve as changes in legislation. However, then we can see they have regulations that are not part of Parliament's purview or the government's purview, and they can actually have detrimental impacts. This was the case with Bill C-47. This was tried before with Bill C-51 under the Harper Conservative government. The government tried to, very heavily and inappropriately, apply additional regulations to natural health products. That was pushed back on, but with Bill C-47, as omnibus legislation that led to the regulatory changes, we are in the situation that we find ourselves in now, and that has to change. That is why we are supportive of Bill C-368. What it would do is provide for the kinds of hearings at the committee stage that would allow us to really determine the full extent of how the existing sector is regulated effectively and how detrimental these changes are, both those suggested in Bill C-51 a few years ago and those currently in Bill C-47, to the industry itself, which is a Canadian success story, as well as the impact on consumers who are using these vitamins, probiotics and homeopathic medicines effectively and potentially finding it more difficult to access these natural health products because of the actions of Health Canada and the actions of the government. As such, it makes good sense to take Bill C-368, to put it in place, to have those hearings, and then to determine what is appropriate. It is very clear that those regulatory changes were absolutely excessive and have had a profound negative impact. What we are saying is that the government, through Bill C‑47, is taking action with Health Canada without holding consultations and without conducting an impact study or a management fee study. As my colleague mentioned, this means that small businesses that market natural health products are now subject to a regulatory framework that is far better suited to the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in North America. It makes huge profits, which is why the NDP is pushing for pharmacare. In countries with pharmacare, pharmaceutical companies have been forced to lower their prices. The case of New Zealand, where the price of some pharmaceuticals has dropped by 90%, is often cited. These pharmaceutical companies are extremely powerful. It makes no sense to establish a regulatory framework that puts small businesses, which are safely selling a whole line of products to smaller markets, on the same footing as big transnational pharmaceutical companies that are raking in huge profits. That is why the government's approach was inappropriate. It was inappropriate to include this small provision in omnibus legislation that is several hundred pages long. The consequences of this regulatory change are unclear, which has led to the outcome before us today. It is clear to the NDP that this bill is important, because it was unacceptable for that provision to be included in an omnibus bill. It was unacceptable for the former Harper government to do that, and it is unacceptable for today's Liberal government to do the same. Thanks to the bill introduced by my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe, we have the opportunity to correct the mistake that was made and to really look at this provision's impact on the natural health product industry. We have the opportunity to determine the financial impact and the impact on consumers. We have the opportunity to see the full impact of the decision that was made last year to include this provision in an omnibus bill. The NDP has been very clear in this regard: We support the bill and we look forward to the important discussions that will take place in committee.
1248 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/29/24 7:36:12 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-51 
Madam Speaker, I would say the member is exactly right. If there are any problems, and I actually do not think there are any, the negotiations that came out of Bill C-51, the consultation with the industry back at that time in 2014, left our industry in a very good sweet spot, where we have just the right amount of regulation and enough freedom and opportunity so that our industry is actually growing. I simply cannot understand why the current Liberal government wants to kill another industry in this country.
91 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, I appreciate both the member who is presenting this legislation and also his speech, which was well-informed and provided good information for Canadians. The member is right to point out that this provision was included in Bill C-47, omnibus legislation, which is something that the NDP has always opposed, both under the former Harper Conservative government and under the current government. The idea that the government would put, in the budget implementation bill, a whole range of other measures simply does not allow for the legislative scrutiny that is so important. The member is right to point out that Bill C-47 did that. It made those changes, just as Bill C-51, under the former Harper Conservative government, purported to do the same thing. I thought he was very eloquent about the fact that we need to move forward with this legislation. The NDP will be supporting this legislation at second reading. We want to send this to committee. We want to have the committee do the fulsome work of finally consulting the industry and natural health practitioners, so that we finally get something that has not happened under either Bill C-51 or Bill C-47, which is the scrutiny that is so important. I consume a lot of natural health products—
219 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the self-government treaty recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation / Wapaha Ska Dakota Oyate and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

First, I want to send my best wishes and hopes for a speedy recovery to Chief Darcy Bear, who suffered a medical emergency at committee last night. I was encouraged to hear that Chief Bear, though hospitalized overnight, seems to be doing well.

It was a frightening moment for all concerned, I’m sure, and a reminder to all of us that life is delicate and time is precious. It also pleases me to know that the committee kept its wits last night and finished the necessary work on Bill C-51, a landmark piece of legislation that is long overdue and that Chief Bear has been so instrumental in bringing to fruition.

As he said in his opening remarks last night, “it has been a long journey,” and indeed it has, tracing in many ways all the way back to the War of 1812, more than two centuries ago.

As I mentioned the other night and as Minister Miller acknowledged in his remarks to the committee, the specific process leading to the treaty and this bill began in 2009 under the Harper government. Minister Miller, echoing the words of Chief Bear, said that too has been a long process, but to their credit the Whitecap Dakota First Nation used that time to work steadily and relentlessly toward this moment.

As Chief Bear said:

. . . as far as self-government goes, Whitecap First Nation has been, over time, had our own election code, our own First Nation land management code and our own membership code. We eliminated about 35% of the Indian Act already.

That was before the self-government treaty that this bill will bring into law, a law that will add a very important element that has long been missing and is long overdue.

Again, I can do no better than to quote Chief Bear:

. . . when we looked at changing it to a self-government treaty, that was when we talked about the acknowledgment of the Whitecap Dakota people as Aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Honourable senators, I am sure you have heard me and other senators complain in the past that this government too often expects us to rush bills through. Bill C-51 is a bill that we only got this week, but we cannot ignore that it has been two centuries in the making and we cannot ignore that with this bill we are righting an historic wrong, and in doing so we have the chance to make history. Thank you.

462 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the self-government treaty recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation/Wapaha Ska Dakota Oyate and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

First, I want to send my best wishes and hopes for a speedy recovery to Chief Darcy Bear, who suffered a medical emergency at committee last night. I was encouraged to hear that Chief Bear, though hospitalized overnight, seems to be doing well.

It was a frightening moment for all concerned, I’m sure, and a reminder to all of us that life is delicate and time is precious. It also pleases me to know that the committee kept its wits last night and finished the necessary work on Bill C-51, a landmark piece of legislation that is long overdue and that Chief Bear has been so instrumental in bringing to fruition.

As he said in his opening remarks last night, “it has been a long journey,” and indeed it has, tracing in many ways all the way back to the War of 1812, more than two centuries ago.

As I mentioned the other night and as Minister Miller acknowledged in his remarks to the committee, the specific process leading to the treaty and this bill began in 2009 under the Harper government. Minister Miller, echoing the words of Chief Bear, said that too has been a long process, but to their credit the Whitecap Dakota First Nation used that time to work steadily and relentlessly toward this moment.

As Chief Bear said:

. . . as far as self-government goes, Whitecap First Nation has been, over time, had our own election code, our own First Nation land management code and our own membership code. We eliminated about 35% of the Indian Act already.

That was before the self-government treaty that this bill will bring into law, a law that will add a very important element that has long been missing and is long overdue.

Again, I can do no better than to quote Chief Bear:

. . . when we looked at changing it to a self-government treaty, that was when we talked about the acknowledgment of the Whitecap Dakota people as Aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Honourable senators, I am sure you have heard me and other senators complain in the past that this government too often expects us to rush bills through. Bill C-51 is a bill that we only got this week, but we cannot ignore that it has been two centuries in the making and we cannot ignore that with this bill we are righting an historic wrong, and in doing so we have the chance to make history. Thank you.

462 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, it’s a pleasure to be here. I’ll be mercifully brief today.

With respect to Bill C-51, let me begin by thanking Chief Darcy Bear, Chief of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, and Councillors Dwayne Eagle and Frank Royal, who came to Ottawa to appear before our committee and meet with senators, enabling us to celebrate with them the achievements of this bill. Also a thank you to their policy adviser Murray Long, who joined them in that work and in their appearances both here and in the other place at committee. Also, congratulations and thanks to Minister Miller and his staff and to Federal Negotiations Manager Aayah Shadad and her team. Some of you were able to participate in briefings on this bill from Ms. Shadad. I was as well. They provided outstanding and insightful explanations of the bill to those of us who attended. I also want to extend thanks to each of you for agreeing to expedite consideration of this important bill. It means a lot to the people of Whitecap Dakota and it means a lot to Canadians, I think.

Briefly, to highlight the self-government treaty again, it does essentially three things. First, it brings Whitecap Dakota into the fold of Aboriginal peoples, pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution Act — a long-standing and unfair oversight to this First Nation and to a few others who are in the same category of essentially refugees from the United States, as you will recall, from a few hundred years ago. Second, it changes the official name of the First Nation to the Whitecap Dakota Nation; and, third, as a result of the name change, it enables them to transition out from under most aspects of the Indian Act.

This is a bilateral agreement between Canada and the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, but you should be aware that the Government of Saskatchewan — and the nation is located in Saskatchewan, just south of Saskatoon — does not oppose this agreement. In fact, there is a whole series of additional bilateral agreements between the First Nation and the Government of Saskatchewan that facilitate the effectiveness of the self‑government agreement.

Chief Bear described this at the hearings yesterday. This has always been a concern for many First Nations, namely, being able to enforce their own bylaws or band laws. The RCMP, for a variety of reasons, have been unwilling to do that in Saskatchewan in relation to Whitecap Dakota. However, there is an arrangement with the provincial government where they will make available community safety officers, who have law enforcement powers — not quite as enriched as policing powers but significant ones — and will provide that service. Those partnership agreements with the province are making possible this agreement not only to be lawful and meaningful but also to be highly effective, I think. That’s to the credit of Chief Bear and his team and also the Government of Saskatchewan.

Furthermore, this agreement helps to unlock what Senator Klyne was speaking about, namely, the power of this nation to be able to govern itself effectively. You heard the story about its successes over the last 30 years. This will continue the nation on that progress. Indeed, Chief Bear used the phrase, “This will make it possible for us to operate at the speed of business.” That’s a lovely phrase when you think about it. I think all of you have some, maybe deep, understanding of the way in which the Indian Act and various other colonial constraints have put handcuffs on First Nations who are keen to make both social and economic progress on behalf of their people.

My sense is that this orientation, a can-do attitude, an entrepreneurial spirit — all in the interests of the citizens of Whitecap Dakota — is exactly what can be achieved by acting on a commitment to reconciliation, to moving away from a century‑plus approach based on the imposition of colonial values and policies and a century-plus paternalistic attitude which the Indian Act tends to generate.

Adopting this bill will be a way of actualizing reconciliation for the Whitecap Dakota Nation and also a model of optimism for other First Nations and for Canada as a whole. I hope that you will support this bill and that we’ll be able to move it into actuality so that it can come into force in September, as planned.

Thank you very much.

746 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) moved third reading of Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the self‑government treaty recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation / Wapaha Ska Dakota Oyate and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

47 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg, and with tremendous pride, I rise to speak to Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the self-government treaty recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation / Wapaha Ska Dakota Oyate and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I rise not just to speak to a bill but to celebrate Whitecap Dakota reclaiming their legal rights to self-determination.

Chief Darcy Bear and I have talked about this moment for some time now, so it is with great pleasure I salute Whitecap Dakota Nation on this historic achievement, one which will serve as another step on the long road to reconciliation.

It comes on the heels of other achievements of reconciliation, including the recent passing of Bill C-45, an Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another act; not to mention this week’s Action Plan for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is another such milestone; as is the announcement of a site on Parliament Hill for a monument to residential school survivors and victims.

In the case of Whitecap Dakota, I make no mistake that before we can celebrate, we need to get this bill across the finish line, so I’ll keep my remarks short.

We should take a moment to reflect on the context of this legislation and discuss how we came to this point. Historically, Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples has been stained with injustice and discrimination. We still see the effects of the residential school system, the underfunding of community services, the outstanding specific claims to the fulfillment of historical treaties and other agreements and the misappropriation of lands. Yet today, I am filled with tremendous optimism and growing confidence that brighter days lay ahead.

The story of Whitecap Dakota Nation adds to my positive outlook. Senator Cotter gave a wonderful overview of their history in his speech yesterday, so I am satisfied that part of the story has been told. I expect that Senator Cotter will further complement his speech shortly.

Suffice it to say that, in facing the many challenges and betrayals over the last two centuries, Whitecap Dakota has endured with resilience and courage. They began to push back and take charge of their own social, political and economic affairs with great determination and the courage to make the right choices, with perseverance in goodness over time and with lasting effort and patience when things were tough. Today, Whitecap Dakota First Nation has attracted over $160 million in capital investment — and they are just getting started!

Colleagues, rather than provide an overview of the numerous economic achievements of Whitecap Dakota, I refer you to my inquiry speech of May 2 launching the inquiry celebrating Indigenous-led businesses and economic development organizations, a speech in which Whitecap Dakota Nation’s was the economic success profiled.

That said, I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the efforts of my friend Chief Darcy Bear and his council and elders, who, for the past three decades, have led the people of Whitecap Dakota with honour, humility and dedication. He has spoken about their success:

We can’t change the wrongs of the past . . . but certainly going forward we can all change the future by working together in partnership. We have that attitude that we don’t believe in the word “can’t.” There’s always a way to moving something forward.

Whitecap Chief and council should be recognized on our national stage for their many achievements to date and, soon, this significant achievement.

As I said, the self-government agreement between Whitecap Dakota and Canada represents another step on our federation’s path towards reconciliation. It’s a positive step forward, and I’m thrilled that we, as legislators, can play a part. This is the first self-government agreement signed in Saskatchewan, and I hope that more will follow.

Let’s take a moment to discuss what the impact of this legislation will be. Why should Canadians pay attention and support this agreement? It matters because self-government restores Dakota Whitecap’s legal right to self-determination, realizing their underlying inherent rights. It recognizes them as a First Nation under section 35 of Canada’s Constitution. It matters because this agreement means an opportunity for Whitecap Dakota to reclaim what was taken or withheld from them generations ago. Despite being some of Canada’s most committed allies, this is what they’ve been fighting for ever since, with truth and justice on their side. It matters because this is an opportunity to enhance prosperity and pride of place in Canada for this great people.

This agreement means Whitecap Dakota can continue to grow and that the hope that endured was hope well placed to bear fruit. It means positive change that will benefit everyone as they create wealth and contribute to the prosperity and the well-being of this country.

As honourable senators know, we will not achieve true reconciliation until Indigenous peoples are empowered to take advantage of their full economic, social and political potential. This agreement gets us one step closer. Let us speak with one voice in our vote for Bill C-51, and let’s get this done.

Thank you. Hiy kitatamîhin.

901 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) moved third reading of Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the self-government treaty recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation / Wapaha Ska Dakota Oyate and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

47 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson, member of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, presented the following report:

Thursday, June 22, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples has the honour to present its

THIRTEENTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the self-government treaty recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation / Wapaha Ska Dakota Oyate and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, has, in obedience to the order of reference of June 20, 2023, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

DENNIS GLEN PATTERSON

Member of the committee

(Pursuant to the order adopted on June 20, 2023, the bill was placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading later this day.)

[Translation]

130 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border