OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 294 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Friday, March 22, 2024 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 22, 2024 DEBATES No. 294 No. 294 N o 294 Volume 151 294 22 03 2024 2024/03/22 10:05:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

Government Orders Government Orders

(1005) [ English ] Indian Act

The House resumed from October 20, 2023, consideration of the motion that Bill C-38,

An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-38. Second reading

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I was two minutes into speaking to Bill C-38 when my time ended on October 20, 2023. I am delighted to carry on today and will begin by reflecting first on what I said five months ago as I preface my further comments. I really did appreciate hearing the debate in the House that day. Once again it was apparent that we gain far more from listening to those impacted and finding common ground to bring about positive change where needed.

There was true concern about the circumstances that indigenous peoples find themselves in as a result of hardships they have faced through abuse and the intergenerational impact of those abuses from the past. Part of the challenge, I believe, is that while indigenous communities are many and have much in common, they also come from different life experiences themselves, and the same realization exists within all people groups throughout the world and those that call Canada home.

Although the long-awaited piece of legislation before us would provide strides toward reconciliation and the reversal of discrimination and inequalities within the Indian Act, it is only a milestone in a long journey of self-determination for first nations across Canada. First of all I will deal with a reprimand I received in this place from other members who chided me for saying “our” first nations and “our” indigenous peoples, implying that I was suggesting ownership as a statement of colonialism.

It might be some people’s choice to define the use of the word “our” as a weapon used by some in an effort to further hurt and create division, but in my case, nothing could be farther from the truth. Divisive rhetoric causes wounds. In my conversation, the word “our” is recognition of the desire of our indigenous people to be shareholders, not stakeholders. In the riding of Yorkton—Melville, diversity is not our strength; unity in the midst of our diversity is our strength.

In just the past few weeks, I have participated in and enjoyed two Unity in the Community events hosted by the Métis Nation Saskatchewan and the local communities of Porcupine Plain and Hudson Bay, where Métis, first nation, Filipino, Ukrainian, Norwegian, Portuguese, African, and some I think I am forgetting, many different cultures, came together from those communities and packed the building for an entire day of great food, displays, history, clothing, dancing and singing that intentionally celebrated everyone who calls those communities and the surrounding area home.

The relationship-building and reconciliation are intentional there. Another example is the efforts of the Yorkton Tribal Council as an association of six first nations and the City of Yorkton, which are working together to invest in common goals. Then there is the coming together of the Cote First Nation with the Good Spirit School Division, Kamsack School and Isabella and her family, to model grace in reconciliation through the creation of Ribbon Skirt Day. These are fruitful changes that we create.

As we keep these moments in mind, here is a truncated history lesson about the timeline of 45 years of incremental changes that have gone by since the Indian Act was created and implemented in 1876. In 1982, the Canadian Constitution was patriated, and

section 35 of the Constitution recognized and affirmed the aboriginal title and treaty rights.

Section 37 of the Constitution was amended, obligating the federal and provincial governments to consult with indigenous peoples on outstanding issues, creating the duty to consult. In 1985, Bill C-31's amendment to the Indian Act passed, and it addressed gender-based discrimination pertaining to status women who married a non-status man and involuntarily enfranchised and created categories of status Indian registration under subsections 6(1) and 6(2). Then in 2010, Bill C-3 's amendments to the Indian Act addressed gender discrimination in

section 6 of the act in response to McIvor v. Canada. Subsection 6(2) was amended, allowing women who regained status to pass down status to their grandchildren. In 2017, Bill S-3 , an amendment to the Indian Act, addressed further gender-based discrimination in the act. The lineage eligible for registration from a status woman who was enfranchised by marrying a non-Indian man was reinstated in 1985, but it is still shorter than the lineage of a status male who married a non-Indian woman.

In 2019, continuation of the coming-into-force of Bill S-3 addressed the removal of the 1951 cut-off, where in order for an individual to pass down status, they must have had a child or adopted a child on or after September 4, 1951, and have a mother who lost entitlement due to a marriage to a non-Indian man. I hope I am not losing my colleagues. In 2020, the final report to Parliament on the review of Bill S-3 acknowledged residual inequities, including the impacts of a family history of enfranchisement or entitlement registration.

Enter 2023 and the introduction of Bill C-38 , which responds to a 2021 case where 16 individual plaintiffs launched a constitutional challenge seeking to end inequities and exclusion faced by families that were enfranchised under earlier versions of the Indian Act. An agreement was reached to put the litigation on hold while working to pursue the legislative solution. Bill C-38 would amend four key issues in the Act.

First, individuals with a family history of enfranchisement would be entitled to registration under the Indian Act and could pass on entitlement to descendants with the same degree as those without family history of enfranchisement. Second, individuals would be allowed to deregister from the Indian register if they chose to do so, via an application for removal, without the repercussions of enfranchisement. Third, an addition would be made to

Section 11 of the Indian Act that would allow married women to return to their natal band if they obtained status and were registered to their spouse’s band before April 17, 1985, addressing natal band reaffiliation. Finally, outdated and offensive language when referring to “dependent persons” would be addressed and changed. The amendment, with four parts, is estimated to provide eligibility for registration for approximately 3,500 individuals. The individuals who are eligible and choose to apply for registration would have access to the rights and benefits of registrants under the Indian Act.

Unlike with enfranchisement, first nations individuals would have more control over their own identity and ultimately determine themselves which services and benefits they would like to access based on the group they wish to identify with. Once an individual has chosen to deregister, they would no longer have access to any programs, services, settlements and/or benefits associated with the Indian Act. That would be their choice.

While this amendment would be a positive stride towards reconciliation and the reversal of discrimination and inequalities within the Indian Act, it would be, as I said, but a milestone in a journey of self-determination for first nations across Canada. On October 20, 2023, I said that indigenous individuals who want to see a good future for themselves and their families do not want to be stakeholders in Canada; they want to be shareholders. I ended on that day, October 20, 2023, by saying that I look forward to that day with them. I had a lot of good response to that comment.

At that time, I had no idea that three and a half months later, an announcement would be made that provides a clear map to a better future laid out by first nations for first nations, for reconciliation, forgiveness and healing, and for our shared nation of Canada. On February 8, the hon. leader of Canada’s common-sense Conservatives committed to enabling first nations to take back control of their resource revenues from big-government gatekeepers in Ottawa. For hundreds of years, first nations have suffered under a broken system that takes power away from their communities and gives it to Ottawa.

The Indian Act hands over all reserve land and money to the federal government. This means that first nations have to go through Ottawa to ask for their tax revenues collected from resource projects on their land.

(1010) This outdated system puts power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists, not first nations. The direct result of this “Ottawa knows best” approach has been poverty, substandard infrastructure and housing, unsafe drinking water, and despair. Conservatives have listened to first nations, and we have announced support for an optional first nations resource charge that enables first nations to take back control of their resources and money. This is a first nations-led solution to a made-in-Ottawa problem. First nations and the First Nations Tax Commission developed the plan.

They brought it to Conservatives, and we accepted. This new optional model will simplify negotiations between resource companies and first nations. The FNRC will not preclude any community from continuing to use other existing arrangements, such as impact benefit agreements. The Conservative leader , in his conversation with them, said, “The First Nations Resource Charge cedes federal tax room so communities will no longer need to send all their revenues to Ottawa and then ask for it back. It will also make resource projects more attractive to First Nations so they are more likely to go ahead.” Then he said—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The Sergeant-at-Arms just went out to take care of the noise. We are on top of it. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

(1015) Mrs. Cathay Wagantall :

Madam Speaker, in light of what has been going on, I would like to go back to where I indicated that first nations do not want to be stakeholders; they want to be shareholders. I ended my speech back in October 2023 by saying, “I look forward to that day with them.” I received an awful lot of very positive responses to that comment. At that time, I had no idea that, three and a half months later, an announcement would be made that provides a clear map to a better future, laid out by first nations, for first nations for reconciliation, forgiveness, healing and for our shared nation of Canada.

On February 8, the hon. leader of Canada's common-sense Conservatives committed to “enabl[ing] First Nations to take back control of their resource revenues from big government gatekeepers in Ottawa.” The news release reads:

For hundreds of years, First Nations have suffered under a broken colonial system that takes power away from their communities and places it in the hands of politicians in Ottawa.

The Indian Act hands over all reserve land and money to the federal government. This means that First Nations have to go to Ottawa to ask for their tax revenues collected from resource projects on their land.

This outdated system puts power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists – not First Nations. The direct result of this “Ottawa-knows-best” approach has been poverty, substandard infrastructure and housing, unsafe drinking water and despair.

It goes on to say:

Conservatives have listened to First Nations, and...we are announcing support for an optional First Nations Resource Charge (FNRC) that enables First Nations to take back control of their resources and money.

This is a First Nation-led solution to a made-in-Ottawa problem. First Nations and the First Nations Tax Commission developed the plan, brought it to Conservatives, and we accepted.

This new optional model will simplify negotiations between resource companies and First Nations.

The FNRC will not preclude any community from continuing to use other existing arrangements, such as Impact Benefit Agreements. First Nations can choose the FNRC to replace the financial component in Impact Benefit Agreements or supplement IBAs, as they wish. The FNRC will respect all treaty rights and all constitutional rights—including the duty to consult.

Putting First Nations back in control of their money, and letting them bring home the benefits of their resources, will help get local buy-in for good projects to go ahead.

In other words, more earnings for grassroots first nations communities, not Ottawa gatekeepers. Those earnings will mean paycheques, schools and clean water for people.

The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada said:

The First Nations Resource Charge cedes federal tax room so communities will no longer need to send all their revenues to Ottawa and then ask for it back. It will also make resource projects more attractive to First Nations so they are more likely to go ahead.

I am committed to repealing [the Liberal] radical anti-resource laws to quickly green-light good projects so First Nations and all Canadians bring home more powerful paycheques.

When we talk about axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime, that is a promise to every Canadian who lives in this country and every person who is calling it home. What we are hearing about today is just the tip of the iceberg. We are excited about the opportunity we have here with first nations, and we are especially thrilled they have come up with this situation to solve some of the frustrations they experience. We know they have so much more opportunity now to succeed, just as every other Canadian and every other Canadian organization, group or people has that opportunity.

I am so pleased that we, as common-sense Conservatives, are fighting for real economic reconciliation by supporting first nations to take back control of their money and their lives. It is my home, members' home and our home. Let us bring it home together.

(1020) Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I was born in a country that was a colony of foreign rulers for centuries, and I appreciate that people had to face multi-generational trauma. I am happy to note that she mentioned the word “unity”, which we should use when we talk about diversity. Her comment about using the word “shareholders” instead of “stakeholders” was interesting. Could she explain whether her reason for using the word “shareholder” is because the resources, and the returns they have generated, can be equitably distributed among indigenous people?

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall :

Madam Speaker, the difference between stakeholders and shareholders was expressed to me by indigenous people. Often, they feel that they are on the outside looking in with the government, where they are somewhat being “consulted”. However, it is not about consultation. It is about being part of the process and being included, because they are shareholders in what is happening in Canada as much as anyone else. They have the added pressure, because of past circumstances that they have experienced, in feeling that they are not being given that due attention.

That is why, as a Conservative, it was very exciting for me to hear about the opportunity that our leader had. He was asked to come and meet with them, to hear their plan and their excitement about the potential for their futures and taking responsibility for what is truly theirs. I am also so thrilled to know that in Canada, we all have the opportunity to succeed. That is our goal, on this side of the floor, for when we become government.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, given what we know about it, I would like my colleague to explain why the government is disregarding Amnesty International's final report entitled “No More Stolen Sisters”, which was tabled five years after its initial report. We finally managed to make a bit of progress when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission came out in favour of a national inquiry into the disproportionate violence experienced by indigenous women and girls. Can my colleague explain that to me?

[ English ]

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall :

Madam Speaker, I am being general at this point in answering the member's question, but women do face disproportional violence in every segment of our society. This needs to change. I think what frustrates me the most is that the government is picking and choosing where and how that might take place. In other situations, as an example, when a woman who is pregnant faces an attack by a third party and she is injured or the life inside her is injured or killed, the government chose to ignore doing something that we could do.

That was to bring in a requirement of recognition of that by the judge who is in the process of sentencing. Therefore, we are not even talking about determining whether there was a crime committed. That has already been determined, yet the government chose not to respond to that opportunity. There are a number of them that I would like to speak to, but I believe we agree that women in this country and around the world should be protected from violence far more than they are.

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, part of this legislation is a clause that justifies past discrimination and violation of human rights. It allows the government to have discriminated with impunity and underscores the sense of colonial entitlement. Does the member agree with the provision of the legislation that prohibits first nations women from seeking compensation for historic harms? Is it justified that the government denied first nations women access to health care, education or safe housing? I think I know the answer, but I would like to hear it from her.

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall :

Madam Speaker, obviously, I disagree with that. Part of the reason I went through a little bit of a historical comment from one year to the other was, for me, just to indicate how incremental government can be in dealing with issues and problems when, really, the whole thing could have been dealt with substantially. That is why I am excited about what first nations have brought to the Conservative Party and that they have asked us to partner with them, to make sure that a lot of those circumstances from the past are nullified, going forward, for their women and girls and for their nations.

That is why, as I mentioned, I spoke to the history and I am also speaking to the wonderful future that I believe our first nations have here in Canada, with the decisions that they are making and that we are encouraging.

(1025) Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's intervention on this important debate on Bill C-38 . Obviously, a number of inequities existed after various governments brought forward legislation. That has, unfortunately, hit upon many of the individuals that this legislation tries to target. I know this particular member has worked very hard with indigenous leaders, community members and individuals in her riding, and probably throughout her region. Could she comment on some of the positive things she has seen and also remark on some of the other inequities she believes need to be addressed by a future government?

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall :

Madam Speaker, with my role as the member of Parliament for Yorkton—Melville , this is one of the highlights of my personal experience. It has opened me up to a lot more relationships with the indigenous communities in my riding and within the province. I can say that, even for myself, it has taken hard work on both sides to build that relationship up. We cannot really succeed at anything if we do not have that relationship. I had the opportunity when we did our Saskatchewan caucus retreat, which we do every winter and summer, to get together with various groups and individuals who want to meet with us.

I had reached out to Chief O'Soup, who is the chief of the Yorkton Tribal Council, to see if we could come and visit. She said yes, and it did happen. However, she came to me and said, “We have never done this before. We are not sure what we are getting into here.” We showed up a little late, because we had another meeting. We sat down, and the first thing we did was have soup and bannock, and we started talking. We found out that our senator had gone to school with one of these individuals.

Over that time together, we built a realization that we could then talk about some pretty serious circumstances in our community. I am thankful for the time to say there are a lot of good things going on, and it is at the initiative of our first nations wanting to work with their communities in reconciliation.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and I appreciate that she is, especially in her riding, building those relationships. She said early in her speech, and she has repeated it again, “our first nations”, and she said something to justify why she uses that term. I find it a bit disconcerting, because it is certainly not the way I would refer to Kahnawake, the neighbouring reserve to my riding. Could the member say more on that and why she said that diversity is not a strength?

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall :

Madam Speaker, thanks for the question, because I know it is out there. I refuse to succumb to wokeness and for people to tell me what I am defining with the words I use. I used to coach teams. I would say “our team”. These are “our children”, these are “our friends”. I refuse to respond to anything that indicates that I do not have anything but the deepest respect and passion for—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Order. There are discussions being had on both sides, and I would tend to think that the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton would want to make sure that his colleague can answer the question without further interruption. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

(1030) Mrs. Cathay Wagantall :

Madam Speaker, I would hope the individuals on the other side of the floor would also show that respect to me. I am not for more division in this country, and every time we come up with these ways to say someone is saying this or that, which divides people, it is shameful and it needs to stop. This country is one country full of amazing people who want to be united. That is what I focus on and that is what the people in my riding are focusing on.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, good morning to you and to everyone. I wish all hon. colleagues who are gathered here this morning a happy Friday. Welcome to the folks in the gallery as well. First, I will be splitting my time with my friend, the hon. member for Sudbury , who I get to sit and work with on two committees in this wonderful House. With that, I would like to begin speaking to Bill C-38 ,

an act to amend the Indian Act—

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

There seem to be some conversations going on across the floor again. I would ask members if they want to have conversations to please take them outside while someone else has the floor.

Points of Order Unparliamentary Language Points of Order

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I tried to turn the other cheek, but the member for St. Albert—Edmonton has now repeatedly said things that the Speaker has already said are not allowed in this place. I do not know if he needs to be told again. I would like him to apologize. He said things that are, frankly, very untrue and that the Speaker has already ruled are out of order in this place. He needs to apologize for those statements.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I did not hear what was being said there. I certainly will listen to the recordings to see if we can hear what was being said, but I would just remind members that if they do not have the floor, they should not be trying to participate in the debate until the appropriate time, which is during questions and comments or until it is their turn to speak on the debate itself. If they want to have conversations with other members, they should not be trying to have those conversation across the way while the proceedings are taking place in the House, but they should take them out to the lobby. I will get back to the House if need be. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Madam Speaker, before I begin, it is important to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. It is a pleasure to speak today on this topic, and to join my hon. colleagues in providing important information—

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

There are still some conversations being had. I would again ask members to please step outside. It is very problematic for individuals who are trying to make speeches. The House has a bit of an echo in here, so when members are speaking to individuals, they do not particularly recognize that the sound does carry.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I believe the conversation is about the duty of the Chair to ensure that people are not slandered or maligned. The member was standing right beside my colleague and accused her of being a terrorist because she stands up for human rights. If someone is being accused of being a terrorist in the House, you have an obligation to make sure that the rights and the dignity of the member for Edmonton Strathcona are not deprived by someone as low as that member over there.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Order. I want to remind members that I just provided an opportunity for someone to raise a point of order, and other members were interjecting when they had not been recognized. Again, this is about respect in the House. I want to clarify something for the hon. member who just raised the point of order. Unfortunately, I did not hear what was going on. All I could hear was that there were some conversations, but I did not hear the actual conversation itself. I do not know what words were used.

I indicated that I would listen to the tapes to see if we could pick something up, and if need be, I would come back to the House. I would ask all members to be respectful of each other. I know that sometimes words are being said, and I think members recognize full well what is acceptable and what is not. However, when the House is in progress and someone has the floor, that is not the time for other people to interject, to try to have conversations or to be yelling anything out.

(1035) Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. First of all, I agree that nobody should have been speaking during the member's intervention. I am happy to say I was not one of those people. With regard to the point of order raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay , he ended it by making a personal aspersion against the member. He said that the previous member, and I am not even sure which member it was, had been speaking in an unparliamentary way. That may or may not be true; I was not here to hear it. However, I do know that one cannot then add “by someone as low as that member”.

If it is unparliamentary, it is unparliamentary. We do not have the sort of category where certain members are beneath contempt and can say so freely, as the member has just done, and others are not okay. That is just ridiculous. I would encourage him to reconsider that kind of language.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I want to indicate again that I just spoke to that. I indicated that I would listen to the tape. I do want to ask members again to respect each other. We are here as parliamentarians. It is no different from when we are out in the community. We want to make sure that people are respectful toward us and that we are respectful toward them. I just want to ask members to please be very judicious in the words they use and to be respectful with each other. As I indicated, I will make sure we listen to the tapes and look at Hansard to see if we can discover what was said. If need be, I will come back to the House and ask the member to apologize, if need be.

Mr. Scott Reid :

Madam Speaker, my point is that at the end of his intervention, complaining about the unparliamentary behaviour of a previous member, the member for Timmins—James Bay added, gratuitous to the comment, that those are unfit comments from “a member as low as that member”. That, I think, is unparliamentary. I might be wrong, but I think that was an unparliamentary addition to the debate by the member for Timmins—James Bay.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I want to remind everybody to be judicious in their comments. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising. I do not know if he wants to withdraw his comment.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, I was not clear because I did not identify the member who accused my colleague of being “a terrorist”, and I think that is a very low comment. He is the member for St. Albert—Edmonton . I just want to make sure that—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that part about “as low as that”. I think we can move forward.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): These types of conversations or words being used against each other are not acceptable. It is not acceptable in the House. It is not acceptable outside of the House. We need to be respectful to everyone. Again, I want to ask the hon. member to withdraw that part, and then we can move forward. As I indicated, I will listen to the tape. If we can pinpoint what was said, then I will be asking the other hon. member to withdraw his comments as well and to apologize.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, absolutely. I respect this chamber, and that is why I am asking you to make sure that members like him do not come in and harass, insult and threaten someone with the language of calling someone “a terrorist” for doing human rights work. It is absolutely abominable. I expect a standard. I withdraw saying that he is “low” for doing that, but I am appalled by his behaviour.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

As I indicated, I will look at Hansard and will come back to the House, if need be.

Indian Act Government Orders

Bill C-38. Second reading The House resumed consideration of the motion that C-38,

An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements) , be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on this topic and to join my colleagues, the topic being Bill C-38 . Again, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sudbury , as I indicated earlier, and I will be providing important information about the Indian Act and about the amendments being proposed in Bill C-38. My colleagues have described how these amendments were developed through engagement with first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations, which was central to the process. We could not do this without their collaboration and guidance.

Now, I would like to share the potential impact of the amendments and some next steps in addressing the historical inequities of the registration and membership provisions of the Indian Act, and ultimately, a full transition away from the act to true self-determination and governance by first nations. The amendments being proposed today are situated within a broader whole-of-government effort to advance indigenous rights to self-determination and to self-government. Our government acknowledges that the Indian Act is an extension of our colonial history.

These amendments would be an incremental step toward the development of an approach to first nations' citizenship that would be an alternative to the Indian Act. We have heard from many first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations that we need to address a range of issues before a full transition of jurisdiction over citizenship to first nations can occur. That is what we are working toward today by introducing amendments to address inequities in registration and membership under the Indian Act. What would the impact of these amendments be?

Let me begin with the proposal to address the discrimination caused by a family history of enfranchisement. This bill would eliminate the differential treatment of those whose family histories include involuntary or voluntary enfranchisement, resulting in approximately 2,400 newly entitled individuals. It would also reinstate individuals who collectively were enfranchised as a band prior to 1985, resulting in approximately an additional 1,100 newly entitled individuals.

Descendants of enfranchised individuals would be entitled to registration and would be able to exercise their rights and access the associated benefits and services, which include education and non-insured health benefits. These amendments would also recognize the acquired rights of all individuals to membership in their natal communities. The amendments would provide a legal mechanism enabling women to re-affiliate with their natal bands, if they wish. This would directly benefit those first nations women and their descendants whose membership in their natal bands was changed without their consent or their say.

The result would be that first nations women who married first nations men from a different community, between 1876 and 1985, would have the choice to reconnect to their natal community. The bill would also return autonomy to first nations by allowing them to deregister or to remove their name from the Indian register if they wish. Individuals would have the legal capacity to exercise agency over their status.

Finally, by eliminating outdated and offensive language about first nations persons with a disability, the amendments strive to align the language of the Indian Act with the last 50 years of development in capacity and guardianship law. The outdated and offensive language in the Indian Act is a lingering affront. Addressing culturally insensitive and offensive language would positively benefit first nations persons with disabilities, and their caregivers, by acknowledging their fundamental humanity and personhood, instead of relegating them as defective in some manner.

These amendments in Bill C-38 are considered necessary incremental changes with an aim to align the Indian Act with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; although, clearly, much work remains. By amending the Indian Act to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the amendments support the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 43, which calls upon federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments to fully adopt and to implement the UN declaration as their framework for reconciliation.

The amendments also support the national action plan to address missing and murdered women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people by acknowledging and recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples. Of course, we know that the work is not complete. Reconciling the colonial legacy of Canada's relationship with first nations while constrained to the framework of the Indian Act is fundamentally challenging.

(1040) During this round of engagement, we have heard loud and clear that the second-generation cut-off issue continues to impact many individuals, and our next focus must be on this issue. An equal application of the second-generation cut-off has resulted in many grandchildren and great-grandchildren being denied status and membership to a first nations community. There are also remaining issues, such as the scrip taking and cross-border concerns. Further conversations are needed with first nations partners to listen and learn about what future changes may encompass.

To this end, starting in early 2024, we will begin engagement on these initial inequities, with a plan to introduce additional amendments once we have engaged broadly. Changing the Indian Act is a continuous iterative process. We unequivocally respect the need for engagement and input from first nations voices. Any future legislative changes will be the result of ongoing engagement and the co-development of solutions with first nations partners and other rights holders. Under

section 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the Government of Canada must, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration. The amendments being introduced today are considered requisite incremental changes that both increase the Indian Act's alignment with the declaration while also laying the groundwork for the Indian Act to be repealed in due course.

The changes under discussion today are a necessary step to transition Canada out of the business of Indian registration and toward a future beyond the Indian Act. By addressing historic wrongs in co-operation with first nations, we will continue to advance reconciliation and support a renewed relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. We strive toward a relationship based on rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. I encourage members in this most honourable House to join me in supporting Bill C-38 and the steps it proposes to begin to move away from the Indian Act.

(1045) Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, we are having some excellent discourse in the House today regarding this very important issue. I was certainly very impressed with my colleague from Yorkton—Melville on this side of the House, who spoke of some of her interactions and relationships. I am hoping that perhaps the hon. member can share some of his interactions and relationship building with first nations groups, which, of course, are so important at this time.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Madam Speaker, Bill C-38 , from my understanding, is going to receive support from all sides of the House. If I am incorrect, then I am sure it will be pointed out afterward. What is important is that we continue to consult and collaborate with first nations people, make sure that we understand their concerns and the areas where we can move forward judiciously and with diligence to continue the process of reconciliation because we know it is imperative for our government, any government and all peoples in this beautiful country, which we are blessed to call home.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, it is always nice to see the government finally implementing some of the recommendations for reconciliation, which is a major undertaking. Still, I think that it is rather shameful that we are not further along in this process, which I think is necessary. The government keeps saying how first nations have been wanting this and waiting for it. There are some things that are easy to implement. During its study, the committee recommended that an official apology be made to those who fought to put an end to discrimination in the registration provisions.

There are some easy things we could do to show that we have a real desire to do more than simply recognize that we are on unceded territory, which means very little or is purely symbolic in the eyes of most of the first nations people we talk to. It does not do much to improve their lot. I would like to know whether the government is at least willing to act on the suggestions that are easy to implement, such as issuing an apology, for example. We know that this Prime Minister is very quick to apologize if it means he gets to shed a few tears. Is this something that the government might consider?

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑38 is very important for us. [ English ] I want to say that I am very happy to hear that the pertinent committee for this bill did the requisite work and put forward a number of recommendations. It is obviously fitting that we continue to do the work in line with the recommendations in UNDRIP. Obviously, how quickly we proceed in this process will determine the timeline. On the recommendations that the committee has brought forward, I am sure, in the spirit of collaboration, that all of those recommendations were looked at by the pertinent individuals and parties who put forward this legislation.

(1050) Ms. Viviane Lapointe (Sudbury, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, kwe kwe , ullukkut , tansi , hello and bonjour . Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I am thankful for the opportunity to say a few words today as we debate important amendments to the Indian Act, a relic of our colonial history that needs change.

I would like to begin by providing a historical overview to show why these amendments are so important and why we could not be proposing them today without first taking time to listen to and learn from first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations. Before European contact, first nations had their own, long-established methods for determining citizenship. While methods varied between nations, the issues of kinship and community ties were at the heart of these processes.

Colonial administrations, and then successive Canadian governments, introduced a progression of statutes that drastically changed the meaning and the nature of citizenship within first nations. The goal of these statutes was assimilation, and through the Indian Act, the process of enfranchisement was introduced.

Through enfranchisement, first nations members lost entitlement to registration and membership in their home communities if they wanted to vote in Canadian elections, own land, serve in the Canadian military, marry a non-first nations person or deny compulsory residential school attendance for their children. This legal process not only extinguished individual rights to registration under the Indian Act but also eliminated the right to access a range of rights and benefits, including the ability to vote in their nations' elections.

Individuals, including men, their wives and minor children, could be enfranchised involuntarily or by application. As I alluded to earlier, many parents sought enfranchisement simply as a means to protect their children from forced attendance at residential schools. Some were involuntarily enfranchised when they earned a degree; became a doctor, lawyer or professional; or resided outside of Canada for more than five years without permission.

The implication of enfranchisement in these circumstances was that first nations heritage and culture was somehow incompatible with notions of modernity and professional achievement. The evolution of the Indian Act had particular consequences for first nations women. By 1869, the definition of “Indian” was no longer based on first nations' kinship and community but instead on the predominance of male lineage and their community connection. Under the Indian Act, a woman who married an Indian man was automatically transferred from her father's nation to her husband's community.

Women who married non-lndian men lost their status and any associated benefits completely. The result of these policies has been devastating. The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls explains how the policy played a role in limiting women's social and economic independence. We know from the national inquiry that social and economic marginalization was among the root causes of the unspeakable violence that indigenous women and girls endure in this country. There have been attempts over the years to do better, but these have fallen short.

Amendments to the Indian Act in 1951 attempted to remove some of the offensive political, cultural and religious restrictions, but they also gave the provinces jurisdiction over indigenous child welfare. This paved the way for the sixties scoop, a painful process where first nations children were removed from their families and communities instead of being provided with resources and supports. In 1985, the process of enfranchisement was eliminated from the Indian Act.

Individuals who had been enfranchised by application had their entitlement restored, but they still could not pass on entitlement to their grandchildren. This is why it is so crucial for any amendments to be made in coordination with those who are most affected by them. Today we are on a path toward reconciliation. We are trying to listen, learn and do better. Policy development must reflect the recommendations and perspectives of first nations peoples and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations.

(1055) For example, through the collaborative process on Indian registration, band membership and first nation citizenship, first nations partners guided the development of Bill S-3 , which received royal assent in 2017, came into force in 2019 and eliminated known sex-based inequities in the registration provisions of the Indian Act. Today, because of these changes, matrilineal and patrilineal lines of ancestry are treated equally in entitlement to registration, all the way back to 1867.

Despite the successful removal of sex-based inequities in registration, the Government of Canada and first nations agree that there are still legacy issues that impact women and issues in registration and membership which remain, and these need to be addressed. In March, the Minister of Indigenous Services reaffirmed the federal government's commitment to addressing enfranchisement-related inequities in the Indian Act as soon as possible. We have been working with first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations to craft these amendments.

We are grateful for their advice and guidance, and we recognize how difficult it can be to share their stories over and over again in a struggle for change that spans decades. The amendments in the bill before us today are the result of discussions with impacted first nations individuals, first nations representatives, Indian registration administrators and national indigenous organizations, including the Assembly of First Nations, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Native Women's Association of Canada, Métis Nation of Canada and the Manitoba Métis Federation.

Some provided formal written feedback on the draft of the legislation, while others participated in conversations about the need for and direction of the amendments. I will now provide a brief overview of what the amendments include. The amendments being proposed will address discrimination caused by a family history of enfranchisement. They will also address individual deregistration, natal band membership and some of the outdated and offensive language in the Indian Act. They will ensure that first nation individuals with a family history of enfranchisement will be treated equally to those without.

The amendments will also allow those individuals who want to remove their names from the Indian register the opportunity to do so. We know this is important for members of Métis groups or American tribes who wish to pursue this option based on the membership requirements of their respective groups. We note that those who are deregistered will still legally retain their entitlement to be registered under the Indian Act in the future and subsequently transmit entitlement to their descendants.

The proposed amendments would also create a legal mechanism that would ensure that women who lost the right to membership in their natal first nations, prior to changes made in 1985, have the right to apply to have that membership restored. Last, we know the Indian Act includes all manner of outdated and offensive language. Today's amendments will focus on the term “mentally incompetent Indians”, which would be replaced with the more respectful “dependent person.” We recognize that there is much more work to be done to address the colonial legacies in legislation.

Starting early in 2023, we will begin engagement on the additional inequities that still remain in registration, including the second generation cut-off. We will plan to introduce additional amendments once we have engaged broadly. We are committed to working hand in hand with first nations to accomplish this. We are striving to make changes based on recognition and respect for the right to self-determination. It is a learning process. We are learning how to listen and also how to act with humility.

I reiterate my thanks to the first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations who have devoted their time and energy to this process of change, and to the many individuals that work hard every day to make things better in this country. Their resilience and patience pave the way for a brighter future, and I offer my deepest gratitude to them. It is my hope that this historical context and overview provides members of Parliament with a sense of why these amendments are needed.

I hope all members will join me in supporting this important bill and in continuing to work towards true reconciliation.

Statements by Members Statements by Members

(1100) [ English ] Chambers of Commerce

Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy, and our chambers of commerce do incredible work serving and representing member businesses. This winter, I had the opportunity to participate in two panels hosted by the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce and the Cloverdale District Chamber of Commerce. These local leadership panels are wonderful initiatives that connect businesses with representatives from all three levels of government and provide them with the chance to ask questions about government policies and other areas of concern.

I am continually grateful for the hard work of our chambers of commerce in representing the businesses operating in Cloverdale—Langley City. However, these events would not be possible without the dedication and leadership of Cory and Scott in improving our community. I want to thank my co-panellists for joining me in participating in the local leadership panels. I also want to thank the business leaders who attended these panels as well as the organizations and institutions that support our chambers of commerce and make these events possible.

Leslie Dubé

Mr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, we honour the life of Saskatoon philanthropist, Les Dubé. Les and his wife Irene have donated millions of dollars in our community for health care, scholarships, education, research, poverty, homelessness and, most importantly, mental health. Les built his success from humble beginnings. He was the founding member of the Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Authority and served on multiple boards and committees. He holds the Saskatchewan Order of Merit and the Order of Canada. In 2013, Les was awarded as the outstanding philanthropist of the year for North America.

The Dubés were generous supporters of all four hospital foundations in Saskatoon and established a number of charitable foundations bearing their name. Les is survived by his wife Irene and three children. We thank him.

Housing in St. John's

Ms. Joanne Thompson (St. John's East, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, more houses are going to get built in St. John's, thanks to the housing accelerator fund. St. John's is getting over $10 million, which will add over 4,000 homes in the next 10 years, incentivize rentals, allow for fourplexes, more secondary units and the use of city lands for affordable housing, and more. This is part of the $4 billion we are investing in housing across this country, and it is getting a large number of homes built. It's a lot more than the six, not the 6,000, not the 600, but the six affordable units that the opposition leader built when he was housing minister.

We are working with municipalities. We are changing how we build homes, and we are getting more units built.

Junior All Native Basketball Tournament

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, this week saw 85 young basketball teams gather in Terrace, B.C., for the Junior All Native Basketball Tournament, one of the largest youth sporting events in British Columbia. I had an opportunity on Sunday evening to take in the opening ceremony, and watching hundreds of young athletes enter the gym to the sound of the host Nisga'a Nation's drums was a powerful sight indeed. It takes a huge amount of energy and work to pull off a tournament this big.

I want to recognize the organizing committee, the host nation, the City of Terrace, the sponsors and, of course, the players, coaches, family and friends who made this event so special. Young people are the future, and the co-operation and unity that I saw at this tournament shows that the future is in very good hands. I wish the very best of luck to all the players heading to the finals this afternoon.

Housing Accelerator Fund

Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I am excited to rise here today and talk about the building of more and more affordable housing in my community of Ottawa Centre. Thanks to our government's housing accelerator fund, we are building thousands of new, affordable homes across my riding today. This historic investment of $176 million will translate into 4,400 new homes across the city of Ottawa within the next three years. By the end of the decade, it will mean almost 33,000 homes in the area for our neighbours to call home.

This comes on top of the $565 million that the government has already spent in my community of Ottawa Centre since 2015 to build another 2,100 new homes. We can do more. Provincial governments, such as Ontario's Doug Ford government, can change the planning laws to allow for four units as of right. I encourage all members, especially the Conservatives—

(1105) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester .

Charles Russell Clarke

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, last week, Russell Clarke, one of our last surviving veterans of the Second World War, died just a few days before his 100th birthday. In 1942, when he was 18 years old, Russell answered the call and joined the Royal Canadian Artillery. He saw the first casualties come back to England on D-Day and later served in the Netherlands until the end of the war. For the rest of his life, Russell would be an upstanding citizen, a pillar of his community, respected and appreciated by all who knew him. He was a loving husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather.

Everyone who met Russell was struck by his decency, humility and kindness. What was once a living memory for most of us is now rapidly passing into history. There are not many men like Russell left anymore. Those Canadians who did their

part in the fight against Nazi tyranny are one by one leaving us to take their rightful place in eternity, men who spent the prime years of their lives far from home. I offer my best to Russell's family and to the members of Royal Canadian Legion Branch 10. Lest we forget.

Tragedy in Barrhaven

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, on March 7, the community of Barrhaven woke up to the horrific and gut-wrenching news of six people killed, which included four young children, their mother and a family friend. The entire community of the city of Ottawa and beyond shared the grief and rallied to support the injured surviving father of these kids, Dhanushka Wickramasinghe, and the family of Gamini Amarakoon. I would like to acknowledge the work and support of the first responders in Ottawa.

I would also like to recognize the Sinhalese Canadian community, the Sri Lanka High Commission in Canada, the Hilda Jayewardenaramaya Buddhist Monastery and the Buddhist Congress of Canada for their hard work in supporting the families of those killed. May the souls of the deceased rest in peace.

United Nations

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Milton, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the essential work of the United Nations protects human rights, delivers humanitarian aid, maintains international peace and security, promotes sustainable development, fights climate change and upholds international law. Canada is a founding member of the United Nations and our work with the UN has saved lives through peacekeeping, nuclear non-proliferation and refugee programs. In a display of sheer ignorance, the Conservative MP for Haldimand—Norfolk not only sponsored but apparently wrote a petition to withdraw Canada from the United Nations.

This is not just reckless but a testament to the utter disregard that the Conservatives have for global co-operation and sustainable development goals. The Conservatives have literally mainstreamed the promotion of harmful extremism and far-right conspiracy theories, and this needs to be called out. It is disinformation and it is dangerous. The Conservatives want to isolate Canada, abandon our commitments to the rest of the world and sever our ties with the international community.

They peddle a toxic narrative of nationalism and blind self-interest, oblivious to the importance of working together for a better planet. The Conservative petition has been shared and amplified by extremists, anti-LGBTQ groups and the Proud Boys, a listed terrorist group. The Conservatives are the company they keep—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Order. I want to remind members, when others have the floor, to please not disturb them. The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry .

Cornwall Citizen of the Year

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I want to add my congratulations to a good friend, Wes Libbey, who was recently named Cornwall's 2023 Citizen of the Year. There is a saying around home that we chuckle about. It's that everybody loves a good crier, and there is no one better at that than Wes Libbey. By “crier”, I mean town crier, which is one of the many roles Wes has held in our community over the years. The list of his community service is extensive and spans over 50 years: Kiwanis, Kinsmen, centennial choir, historical society, the community hospital board and its foundation, a master mason and Shriner, just to name a few.

I have had the privilege of knowing Wes and his wife Carole for over 20 years. They are simply wonderful Canadians. Wes said of his award, “Cornwall was good to us, and we like to give back.” Wes has certainly given a lot back to Cornwall and SDG over the years, through his leadership and volunteering. I could not be more proud to share his service, his story and his award here with the House. Congratulations and “hear ye, hear ye” to a good friend.

(1110) Peter Rodrigues

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Pickering—Uxbridge, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I am sad to rise today to reflect on the recent passing of former Pickering regional councillor Peter Rodrigues. Peter was a colleague but, more than that, he was a true friend. I am devastated thinking about the fact that our last time together was, in fact, the final time I would see my friend. We had some memorable council meetings together, and we knew we were in for an interesting debate when Peter started his intervention with “to make a short story long”. Peter was never at a loss for words and he may have been the catalyst for the implementation of speaking time limits for councillors.

I was lucky to know Peter outside of politics and what I always remember most about him is his unmatched kindness and generosity. He was always helping someone out or volunteering in his beloved Whitevale community. Peter lived every moment with such joy. I know he would not want anyone to be sad about his passing, but we have lost a fearless advocate for our community and a dear friend to so many.

Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, waste, fraud and corruption: That is arrive scam and that is what we get after eight years under the Prime Minister . There was 60 million taxpayer dollars wasted and stolen, and for what? It was for an app that was not needed, that did not work and that caused chaos at our borders. A scandalous 76% of arrive scam contractors did no work, including a two-person basement company that ran away with 20 million taxpayer dollars for nothing. Now the RCMP has launched multiple criminal investigations.

After overseeing all the waste and all the corruption, the Prime Minister has done nothing whatsoever to get taxpayers their money back. After eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost or the corruption. Taxpayers deserve a refund and they deserve it now.

Carbon Tax

Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years of NDP-Liberal inflationary spending and taxes, Canadians are struggling. The NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc had a chance to listen to their constituents, the 70% of Canadians who oppose the April 1 tax hike and 70% of provincial premiers who have asked the Prime Minister to stop this painful tax increase before it is too late. However, they failed to hear from the food banks that are expecting to see a million more people use their facilities on top of last year's record highs and the third of food banks that will have to turn hungry Canadians away.

They failed to hear from the families who have to make gut-wrenching decisions about buying food, heating their homes and buying other life necessities. Thanks to the NDP and Bloc, the Liberals are still set to hike the carbon tax by 23% on April 1, driving up the cost of everything. Canadians have lost faith in the government. Only common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax and bring home lower prices for everyone.

Labour

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Windsor—Tecumseh, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, last Thursday, I joined local Unifor presidents Dave Cassidy and John D'Agnolo to welcome the Prime Minister of Canada to Windsor and to our local union hall. Well over 100 workers and retirees welcomed the Prime Minister and heard him talk about the new partnership with labour; about delivering on our battery plant and 2,500 well-paying jobs; and about delivering policies unions have long sought, such as dental care, child care, pharmacare, 10 days' paid sick leave and a ban on replacement workers. Unions built the middle class and the fight continues.

The Prime Minister said thanks to the salt workers who were out on strike for 192 days; the auto workers who bargained the largest contract in history; the transit workers who defended their right to 10 days' paid sick leave; and the workers at Jamieson and GreenShield fighting for better. It was a historic day at the union hall and a new partnership with labour. The best is yet to come.

(1115) Aviation Industry

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, Canadians want greedy CEOs and mega corporations to stop profiteering off the backs of unpaid work, yet the federal government continues to ignore this issue. Over 17,000 Canadians called on the federal government to close loopholes that allow airlines to force flight attendants to work up to 35 hours per month unpaid. Six million people watched as the CEO of Canada’s largest airline refused to comment. Workers are being exploited by billion-dollar companies, and the government is letting it happen.

At Air Canada, the CEO earned over $12 million last year, while flight attendants struggled to pay rent and buy groceries. Thanks to CUPE components across this country, workers are fighting back with a campaign called “Unpaid Work Won't Fly”. The NDP stands with these flight attendants and is calling on the government to protect all workers and stop the exploitation by greedy CEOs.

[ Translation ]

Véronique et les Fantastiques

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, we often talk about the importance of saving, protecting and promoting Quebec songs, but it takes more than words. It takes music and, more importantly, it takes people who put words into action. It takes people like Véronique Cloutier and the team at Rouge FM, who decided this week that their flagship show, Véronique et les Fantastiques , is going 100% francophone. Only French-language music will play on the airwaves during what Numeris says is the country's number one drive-time radio show.

The Rouge FM team is sending a strong signal to their entire audience, their competition, and the entire Quebec population. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I say thank you to Véro and Rouge FM for standing up for francophone singers. I thank them for concretely supporting our creators, but also for sending them the message that Quebec is behind them during these difficult times for the music industry. I thank them for proving that we can create extremely popular and highly diversified radio programming thanks to all the talent we have at home. I want to thank Véronique et les Fantastiques .

They truly are fantastic.

[ English ] Carbon Tax

Mr. Branden Leslie (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, do you know the most common question I get in any community I represent? It is not, “What are we going to do about this policy or that policy?” It is, “When can we have an election?” This is because, after eight years, Canadians know that the Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost. However, last night, the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition abandoned their constituents and decided to prop up the historically unpopular Liberal Prime Minister in the twilight of his disastrous career. From groceries and gas to home heating and everything in between, it has all become unaffordable.

What is the solution in the minds of the costly coalition members? It is to ram through a 23% carbon tax hike on April 1. How out of touch can they be? Nobody I have talked to has said that maybe the solution is sending more money to Ottawa. It is time for a carbon tax election, so we can let Canadians decide if they can afford another carbon tax hike. Common-sense Conservatives would axe the tax for everyone, on everything, for good.

Canada Summer Jobs Program

Ms. Iqra Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, Canada summer jobs is back, and we are ready to help young people gain the skills and work experience they need to succeed. Last year, through the Canada summer jobs program, our Liberal government invested over $285 million in organizations across the country, which created over 74,000 youth jobs. I can tell members first-hand the impact that this program is having in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills; last year, we invested in 57 local organizations and small businesses to create nearly 400 jobs for youth.

I want to recognize a few of these awesome organizations that received funding last year in my riding, including the Boys and Girls Club of Peel, Ivan Franko Homes, the Mississauga Dolphins Cricket Association and Music for Every Child, which do so much great work in the community. I thank all the recipient organizations and all of those who continue to invest in our youth for our future.

Oral Questions Oral Questions

(1120) [ English ] Carbon Pricing

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, in

an act of political cowardice, the NDP and Liberals ignored 70% of Canadians and seven out of 10 premiers last night, showing Canadians they do not care. They have abandoned the people whom they were elected to serve by voting to increase the carbon tax by 23% on April 1. They are forcing families to pay higher prices for gas, groceries and home heating at a time when food banks are shattering records. After eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. If the carbon tax is so popular, why will he not call a carbon tax election so that Canadians can decide for themselves?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the Canada carbon rebate is possible because we put a price on pollution; that is what is driving down the emissions in Canada. Carbon pricing is working in Canada. It is driving down our emissions, and we are doing that while sending more money back to eight out of 10 Canadian families, with the Canada carbon rebate. However, the Conservatives want to ruin the rebate. They do not want any money to go back to Canadian families. It is very clear what they work for. It is not Canadians; it is big oil and gas. This is Conservative hypocrisy at its finest.

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the government is flailing, and its climate record is failing. In B.C., the federally mandated carbon tax will raise $9 billion over three years and credit back only $3.5 billion. I know that NDP-Liberal math is hard to understand, but that is a $5.5-billion net cost to British Columbians. Seventy per cent of Canadians and seven out of 10 premiers agree. When will the Prime Minister finally admit that his carbon tax is just like him, not worth the cost, and let Canadians vote to axe the tax?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I find it shameful that the Conservatives continue to use the affordability crisis and Canadians who are experiencing difficulty financially at home as a wedge against climate policy. There is simply not one economist in Canada who has claimed or suggested that pricing carbon is what is driving inflation. In fact, over the last couple of years, as the price of pollution has gone up, so have the rebates, and inflation has come down. That is a negative relationship. The Canada carbon rebate is sending more money back to eight out of 10 Canadian families. We are addressing climate change and the affordability crisis.

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, what is shameful is that, last year alone, the government paid consultants $21 billion, and now the RCMP is investigating them all again. Conservatives voted non-confidence and called for a carbon tax election so British Columbians could axe the tax. The NDP leader and his member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay voted to hike the carbon tax and keep the Prime Minister . Over 200,000 people in B.C. are using the food bank every month. Families are struggling, and the NDP leader and his 12 B.C. members are all hell-bent on hiking the tax. If he is so confident—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I find it incredibly interesting that, while Conservatives pretend to care about Canadians, we are actually working to implement legislation and procedures to bring down prices, such as grocery prices and Internet fees. While we are working hard for Canadians, do people know what Conservative lobbyists are doing? They are creating fake, secret lobbying companies to lobby the government while hiding from Canadians that they are the same chief advisers. They are lobbying for higher Internet costs. The Conservatives should come clean about whom they are standing up to.

[ Translation ] Government Priorities

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, Quebeckers are disappointed today. They are disappointed that an election was not called to change the government. Why? Because the Bloc Québécois voted to save this Prime Minister 's career. The Bloc Québécois is kowtowing to a Prime Minister who has encroached on every aspect of Quebec's jurisdiction, who has doubled the national debt, and who is sending 800,000 Quebeckers to food banks every month. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is certainly costly. What did the Prime Minister promise the leader of the Bloc Québécois to save the Liberal government?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Yes, Madam Speaker, Canadians and Quebeckers are having a hard time paying the bills. That is why it is so surprising that the Conservative Party is against the Canada child benefit, which has reduced child poverty in my colleague's riding by 40%. It is against the dental care program, which is helping about 7,000 seniors in my colleague's riding. It is surprising that the Conservatives are being so hypocritical and saying things that do not make sense. They are against the Canada child benefit and dental care for seniors.

(1125) Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the Liberals' hypocrisy is that they talk about their big agenda while ignoring what is really going on at food banks, or in the homes of Quebec families who are unable to buy groceries every week because they cannot afford them now that the government's inflationary spending has hiked up the price of everything. That is the Liberals' hypocrisy. We are wondering why the Bloc Québécois chose to save this Liberal government yesterday instead of voting in favour of our motion to call an election. What kind of deal did the Prime Minister make with the Bloc Québécois?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, March 20, 7,850 families in my colleague's riding received a Canada child benefit payment. On average, families in his riding receive about $500 a month. That benefit has reduced poverty for families and parents in his riding by 40%. In 2024, however, the Conservative leader continues to oppose the Canada child benefit.

Intergovernmental Affairs

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, the federal government continues to say no to Quebec. While there were glimmers of hope for collaboration on the immigration file this week, it only lasted four days. The minister snuffed out that hope in an interview with Le Devoir. He is saying no to requiring French for temporary workers. He is saying no to letting Quebec choose which workers are admitted with the international mobility program and no to fast-tracking asylum seekers. Why is this minister unable to put aside his disdain for more than four days?

[ English ]

Mr. Paul Chiang (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, post pandemic, we had to increase our immigration levels so businesses would have the workers they needed. Our economy is doing well. We recognize the need to balance immigration levels with pressure from housing and infrastructure, which has led to stabilizing our immigration levels for 2026. We will continue to work with provinces and territories to plan for sustainable and strategic immigration while building the homes we need.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable. It has become an obsession at this point. Ottawa says no to responsible immigration management, no to the right to opt out of new intrusions in health, no to advance requests for medical assistance in dying, and no to the right to protect state secularism. All of those noes came in the span of just five short weeks in Parliament. With the support of the NDP, the Liberals are attacking Quebec's ability to make its own choices, while the Conservatives sit back and say nothing. Do the Liberals realize how wrong they are if they think Quebeckers will accept this?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting. I have a great deal of respect for my Bloc Québécois colleague, but what the Bloc really wants is to pick a fight. Canada, our government, is working closely with Quebec on everything from health care to immigration. We have even engaged with Quebec on child care to look at what they are doing, so we can implement it nationally. We know that Quebec is there in terms of its commitment. We will always work with Quebec.

[ English ] News Media Industry

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, corporate greed is rampant at Bell Canada. The Liberals are pouring money into Bell, with no strings attached. Despite massive profits of over $2 billion, Bell keeps slashing jobs in journalism, hurting democracy and abandoning workers. Bell's CEO slashed 6,000 jobs in the last eight months and will not even show up to committee to be held accountable to Canadians, who subsidize his profits. When will the Liberals finally stand up for Canadians, rein in corporate greed and protect journalism jobs in Canada?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I first want to say our thoughts are with all the employees and their families who are affected by this difficult news. It is a competitive industry landscape, and companies must continually invest and adapt. That being said, let us not forget this company has made over $2 billion in profits and is now cutting thousands of jobs. Clearly some choices have been made. Our government will stand up to protect workers' rights. We have shown that through various pieces of legislation in this House. We will always do that.

(1130) Families, Children and Social Development

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, as Canadians observe Ramadan and Easter this month, many are scrambling to put food on the table. Organizations such as Feed Ottawa are working hard to make sure no one is left behind, but it should not be up to them alone. The Conservatives refused to help, voting against a school food program to feed kids, and the Liberals are way too busy protecting the profits of grocery CEOs. The NDP has been pushing for a national school food program to ensure no child goes hungry. Will the Liberals include it in the upcoming budget?

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the idea is not without merit, and I thank the hon. colleague for raising it here today. I am not going to talk about what may or may not be in the budget, but what we do focus on is the well-being of Canadian families. In recent years, we have seen a massive decline in poverty throughout the country and, in particular, child poverty. When Canadians needed their government there during the pandemic, we were there for them, providing all sorts of relief through emergency programs. The Conservatives were on the side of austerity. That party was not there for Canadians. It continues to be against Canadians in that vein. We will continue to be there for the country.

Carbon Pricing

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years under the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister and his carbon tax scam, Calgary food bank usage has skyrocketed 50%. Albertans pay $2,900 into this scam and only get $2,000 back. There is a really bad Liberal math joke in there that just does not add up. Yesterday this costly coalition voted to hike the carbon tax by 23% on April 1. Why is their obsession with the carbon tax more important than the 70% of Canadians who are telling them to spike the hike so they can feed their families?

Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that Albertans have $700 more in their pockets every year because of the Canada carbon rebate, and what is important to note is that forest fires, floods, smoke—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I want to remind members to please hold off on anything they have to say unless they are being recognized. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Randy Boissonnault :

Madam Speaker, the truth is that Albertans get $700 a year more through the Canada carbon rebate. That is one of the highest amounts that anybody in the country gets back. Albertans want us to fight climate change. That is exactly what we are doing. We have had forest fires. We have had floods, and we have had wildfires. Our residents of Alberta want us to fight climate change. What they do not want is the Conservatives to ruin the rebate.

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the minister from Alberta should be ashamed of himself. He is constantly ramming the Prime Minister 's woke ideology down the throats of Albertans, when he should be the voice of Alberta at the cabinet table. Why does he not stand with the majority of Albertans, who say to axe the tax and scrap this scam, instead of standing with the corrupt Prime Minister ? I have a simple question for him: Does he have his job references lined up? I ask because, after the next election, he and this carbon tax scam will be gone.

Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I am glad to see we have reached such a level of collegiality in the House that somehow the Conservatives think they can threaten my job with what residents of Alberta want, which is for us to fight climate change. Where was that person when there were floods in Calgary and when there were forest fires burning Fort McMurray? Those people think it is a joke. It is not woke. They need to wake up. Climate change is real. Real change is $700 more in the pockets of Albertans. That is the Canada carbon rebate.

Mr. Doug Shipley (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, yesterday the NDP-Liberal government voted to increase the carbon tax by 23%, making the cost of gas, groceries and home heating more expensive. In my community, in January alone, the Barrie Food Bank saw over 7,000 individuals in need of food assistance and provided 540 emergency food hampers for individuals experiencing homelessness. This year, a million more Canadians than last year will be forced to go to food banks, but the Prime Minister plans to quadruple this costly carbon tax anyway. Why is he ignoring 70% of Canadians and the seven premiers who want to axe the tax?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the affordability crisis Canadians are feeling is real, and we need to have real solutions for it, such as the Canada carbon rebate. It sends more money back to eight out of 10 Canadian families. Conservatives use the words of food banks, food rescue organizations, food security organizations and poverty experts continually in this House, but none of those experts, economists or charities suggest that ditching our environmental plan and axing the tax would help Canadians. Absolutely none of those organizations say that, so if the Conservatives want to continue to use the words of the food banks, they ought to read their reports.

(1135) Mr. Doug Shipley (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I have the numbers right here from the province of Ontario, where the member opposite and I both live. In the province of Ontario, the average family pays $1,674 and receives a rebate of $1,047. That leaves them paying $627 extra. Those facts just are not accurate. After eight years, farmers in my community are struggling, and they know that the Prime Minister 's carbon tax coalition is not worth the cost. The gas bill of a poultry farmer in my riding is almost $10,000 a month, with a third of that being the carbon tax.

This will only get worse when the Prime Minister increases his carbon tax by 23% on April 1. If the Prime Minister refuses to axe the tax, why will he not let Canadians decide and call a carbon tax election?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said is that he is distressed with the selective use of facts from these reports. What he said very clearly yesterday was that the consensus of economists is that carbon taxes are the least interruptive way to reduce emissions. He added, “It is true that the carbon tax is often seen by many economists as the least disruptive and probably the most cost-effective way of reaching certain levels of carbon emissions.” The PBO report deserves better than having the Conservatives use selective numbers to try to peddle their climate change denial narrative.

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the NDP-Liberal government voted to increase the carbon tax by 23%, making the cost of groceries, gas and home heating even more expensive. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost, as he will raise the carbon tax to $2,618 in Saskatchewan. Why are the Liberals ignoring 70% of Canadians and seven of our best premiers, who want to axe the tax?

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, once again Conservatives stand in this place and talk about affordability measures. Meanwhile, their own chief lobbyist for the leader of the official opposition is also lobbying on behalf of big grocers to not sign our code of conduct. We are working every day to bring in affordability measures for Canadians. While Conservatives talk a good talk, behind the scenes they are there to help their wealthy, connected insider friends.

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, last year alone the Prime Minister paid consultants $21 billion, and now the RCMP has multiple investigations into these Liberal contracts. On the carbon tax, I would love nothing more than to watch the member, face to face with the good people of Yorkton—Melville, try to explain to them why they are paying $525 more in the carbon tax after the rebate this year. Why do the Liberals continue to ignore 70% of Canadians?

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member opposite brought up the use of consultants. What happened the day after the eighth leader of the Conservative Party, the current leader of the official opposition , came into power? The very next day, the Conservatives' chief strategist created a secret lobbying company. That lobbying company then produced—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell: Madam Speaker, they are yelling, “It's so secret, you found out about it.” It is not part of their plan, certainly—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I would ask members to please hold off on any comments or questions they have until they are recognized. I will ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to start again.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives heckled, “It's so secret, you found about it.” That is right: To their surprise, Canadians now know exactly what they are doing behind the scenes. They say one thing to Canadians, which is that they are going to stand up for them, but what they actually do is set up secret companies to lobby for higher prices against Canadians' interests. We cannot trust Conservatives, because they are not in it for Canadians.

[ Translation ] Infrastructure

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, they cannot help themselves. The federal government is interfering not only in Quebec's affairs, but now it wants to interfere in municipal affairs. Our cities are afraid that Ottawa is getting ready to interfere in the Canada community-building fund, which is actually the gas tax fund, and that the government is taking advantage of the fact that the fund expired in December to add new conditions. What the cities are calling for is for the fund be renewed without conditions The municipalities know how things work for them. They know what they need. Will the government listen to our municipalities and not add new conditions to the gas tax fund?

(1140) Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, our government has been very clear on this issue. Our record is also very clear. Relations between the Government of Canada and the municipal governments are very strong. [ English ] We see that. We see that in different ways throughout the country. We will continue to engage with municipalities on infrastructure matters and related matters. I am happy to discuss further with the member the specifics of his concern, but we see throughout the country that infrastructure support on a range of matters has been supported in record ways by the government, and that will continue.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, if the feds want to invest money in housing, that is fine. That is not a problem. The government can put money into housing, but it cannot take money from the gas tax fund and use it for anything other than upgrading our sewers, our water treatment plants and our streets, so that it can force cities to build housing. The government would basically be robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that is a problem. This is one of the few federal programs that is currently working. Now is not the time to mess with it. Will the federal government drop the terrible idea of imposing new conditions on the community-building fund?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the member talk about collaboration and housing. That is exactly what we have seen in recent weeks with the extraordinary $1.8‑billion agreement to support housing projects in Quebec. In fact, it is the biggest single investment ever made in housing in Quebec in the province's entire history. That is why we are so proud of the result, but we know there is even more work to be done and more success to be achieved over the coming months.

[ English ] Carbon Pricing

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the NDP-Liberal government is about to raise the carbon tax by 23% on gas, groceries and home heating, proving that after eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Per capita GDP is falling, and prices are rising. That means Canadians are getting poorer while life gets more expensive. Only Conservatives have the courage to face Canadians in a carbon tax election, but if they will not call an election, will they at least listen to seven premiers and 70% of Canadians and axe the tax?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is clear now why the Conservatives and Premier Danielle Smith are on this bumper sticker campaign. It is because Premier Danielle Smith is increasing the price of gas in Alberta by a full 13¢ on April 1 through its provincial tax. They just want to scapegoat the price on pollution for their own decisions. In this case, I actually agree with Kris Sims, the Alberta director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who said, “Easy to throw shoes at the [federal] government, but then cranking up your own fuel tax on the same day? Not good”. It is Conservative hypocrisy at its finest.

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, Liberals are engaging in an orchestrated disinformation campaign to defend their destructive carbon tax. The report of the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer says plainly, on page 4, “Taking into consideration both fiscal and economic impacts, we estimate that most households will see a net loss”. In response, Liberals have deliberately excluded the PBO's economic impacts to artificially inflate their numbers. When will the Prime Minister end this blatant deception and finally axe the tax?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is incredible. That member from Edmonton is just here to do Premier Danielle Smith's work so that she can cover up her 13¢-a-litre gas price hike on April 1. It is absolutely atrocious that these Conservatives will stand in the House and allow Premier Danielle Smith, under the guise of “axe the tax” bumper sticker campaigns, to peddle the narrative that gas is expensive because of a price on pollution. What that 13¢ price hike on April 1 does not include is a rebate, the Canada carbon rebate, which rebates every single dollar of the Canada price on pollution back to consumers. That 13¢ hike does not—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I want to remind members to please keep the tone down. The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has the floor.

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, you will notice that the member did not even try to answer my question. On page 3, the independent PBO states, “We incorporate estimates of the economic impact from the federal fuel charge into our calculation of net cost to provide a more complete picture of the overall impact on households”. Taking into account that economic impact, the carbon tax clearly makes families in every province worse off. The report says that, in Alberta next year, families will pay almost $1,000 more than they get back in rebates, at a time when it costs more than ever for even the basics of life. How can any Alberta Liberal or NDP MP support this 23% tax increase?

(1145) Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the PBO and the Auditor General have said very clearly that they are distressed with the selective use of facts from that report. They also said that the economic cost is important to look at because there is a price to climate change. Climate change cost the Canadian economy over $2 billion last year, and it is likely that it is going to cost more this year because of wildfires adjacent to the member's riding. It is atrocious that the Conservatives stand in the House and misuse the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report.

He said very clearly that the consensus of economists is that carbon taxes are the least interruptive way to reduce emissions and that rebate sends eight out of 10 families more—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member for Beauce.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, today is the Prime Minister's last opportunity to walk back his April Fool's joke, the carbon tax hike. Canadians are struggling, but the Bloc Québécois wants to drastically increase the carbon tax, which will drive up the cost of gas by 20¢ a litre and have a massive impact on food prices. The Bloc Québécois is keeping the Prime Minister in power even though he broke our immigration system, raised taxes and doubled the national debt. What promise did the Prime Minister make to the Bloc Québécois to keep his government in power?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the Canada carbon rebate is putting more money in the pockets of eight out of 10 families. That is because carbon tax revenue is given back to Canadians. Big polluters pay more. That is why middle-class and lower-income families get more money. Eight out of 10 families have more money in their pockets thanks to the carbon tax. What the Conservatives want to do is reward big polluters while taxing, penalizing and punishing families in the middle class and those working hard to join it.

[ English ] Climate Change

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, young people are worried. They will bear the brunt of the climate crisis. They want, or I should say they deserve, more of a say when it comes to tackling the climate emergency. A youth climate corps would do just that, all while creating good-paying jobs. The Conservatives have no climate plan, no plan to protect young people's future. The United States is already doing this, but because the Liberals are dragging their feet, Canada is being left behind. Will the Liberal government stop letting young people down and create a youth climate corps?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I was proud to join the call with my colleague from Victoria , as well as the leader of the Green Party, to meet with youth across the country who are interested in fighting climate change. Notably, no Conservative joined that call with the youth. However, it is important to recognize that kids across this country are concerned about the impact we are having on our natural environment.

We are employing more of them through the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association's green jobs program, through Canada summer jobs and through the Minister of Environment and Climate Change 's youth advisory committee. We have got to do more to listen to youth. We have two weeks back home, and I hope everybody will do a school visit.

Natural Resources

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

Madam Speaker, Joe Biden has created a clean energy economy with 100,000 new jobs, while the Liberal government continues to stumble. We are just days away from the shutdown of the mineral exploration tax credit program. We cannot build a 21st century economy without metals, and those metals have to be found. Is the government going to outsource metal production to China or Congo, with its horrific human rights abuses, or will it support exploration in Canada, where we have good wages, indigenous consent and strong environmental standards?

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, our government and the Canadian population have created 40,000 new jobs in February. As the member mentioned, the mineral exploration tax credit is important to support exploration companies and junior companies. We, as a government, for the first time in 2017, extended the mineral exploration tax credit for five years to provide certainty to the industry. We are working with the industry right now. We are looking at the budget, which is coming shortly, but we are going to make sure that we support our critical minerals and mining industries, and that we support mineral exploration in this country.

International Trade

Mr. Ben Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, Africa is home to five of the top 10 fastest-growing economies in the world. I am proud of our government's investments to help businesses in my riding and across Canada reach new markets, including Africa. Earlier this year, the Canada-Africa Chamber of Business hosted the second Canada-Africa Business Conference in Kenya. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade update the House on his recent attendance at the conference, the opportunities for Canadian and African businesses to grow, and what that means for businesses in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre?

(1150) Mr. Maninder Sidhu (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the Canada-Africa Business Conference reaffirmed the incredible value of export diversification and growing trade across Africa for Canadian businesses. It was a great success, which I know will help in collaboration and growing our industries. While in Nairobi, I got to see first-hand why Canada is recognized among the leading aerospace industries in the world. Let us continue to build on this momentum and enhance our trade ties with Africa, as we know this creates good-paying jobs right here and across Africa. I thank the member for Winnipeg South Centre for his leadership in helping to grow trade and our economy.

Carbon Pricing

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, yesterday the Bloc and NDP shamefully voted to save the Prime Minister from a carbon tax election. Instead, they voted in favour of a 23% tax hike on Canadians just 10 days from now. That is no April Fool's Day joke. Let us be clear. That vote was not about saving the environment. It was about saving their pensions. After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, Canadians are struggling more than ever. More Canadians are going to food banks. There are more mental health crises. Will the Prime Minister stop ignoring 70% of Canadians and seven out of 10 premiers, and axe his tax?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I wish we could put a price on the methane coming out of the Conservative Party these days. Let us talk about hypocrisy. While our government is working hard to implement real solutions on the affordability challenges, Conservatives oppose and obstruct every step of the way. The Leader of the Opposition , we have found out, is being advised by Jenni Byrne, who also lobbies for Loblaw. The day after he won his leadership campaign, with her help, she set up a shell company to start lobbying for him. What we have learned now is that Jenni Byrne's senior VP—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. for Edmonton Manning.

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, on the second anniversary of the NDP-Liberal love affair, this nonsense government chose to vote for a 23% hike on the carbon tax, making the cost of gas, groceries and home heating even more expensive. This will cost the average Albertan an extra $911 per year. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Why is he still ignoring the 70% of Canadians and the seven premiers who want to spike the hike and axe the tax?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, not only is Jenni Byrne lobbying for Loblaw and advising the Leader of the Opposition , but she is also attending Conservative Party caucus meetings every week. She set up a shell company, and her senior VP is lobbying the very office that she advises. If that is not double-dipping, I am not sure what is. I think all Canadians deserve some answers here. Let us stop the pretending. Whose corner are the Conservatives actually in?

Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, maybe someone will try to answer a question for a change. Seeding is fast approaching. Farmers are busy preparing equipment, seeders and trucks; purchasing fuel, fertilizer and seed; and arranging families, workers and their financing. Their situation has never been more desperate. The carbon tax has escalated their fears, and now with a 23% increase coming as of April 1, it has only made their stress greater. With his inflationary spending, the Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal government are not worth the cost. Will the government spike the hike and axe the tax?

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the only party stalling Bill C-234 is their party. They keep putting up speakers. Speaking of farmers, farmers need to rely on business risk management programs. We are the only party that has increased business risk management programs and their budgets by 25%, while the other side cut their budgets.

Carbon Pricing

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years, we know the Liberal-NDP government is just not worth the cost. Now, on April 1, the carbon tax is going up by 23%. We know that the Liberal-NDP carbon tax scam only makes Canadians poorer. We also know that, if they tax the farmer who grows the food, tax the trucker who brings the food to the store and tax the store that sells the food, Canadians cannot afford food. When will the Liberal government see the facts and axe the tax?

Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, when will the member of Parliament, and the climate dinosaurs on that side of the House, wake up to the fact that the planet is burning. He is from northern Alberta. He knows what impact the forest fires had in Fort McMurray. He knows the impact of floods in Calgary. The Canada carbon rebate is responsible for reducing our emissions by 25%. Albertans in his area get more money than other Albertans because of the rural top-up. What they are trying to peddle to Albertans is shameful. There is a 13¢ gas tax hike from the premier, and they are on us. What a shame.

(1155) [ Translation ] Small Business

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, we knew that the January deadline for paying back the Canada emergency business account without penalty was threatening the survival of our SMEs. We did everything we could to warn the government. Now it is reaping what it sowed. The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy reported that the number of insolvency cases climbed by 129% in January. January 2024 was the worst month on record since the office was established 40 years ago. We are seeing a wave of bankruptcies because of the intransigence of this visionless government. What is it going to do today to stop the bleeding?

[ English ]

Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business and to the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the CEBA program supported over 900,000 small businesses through the pandemic, and we estimate that 80% of them have repaid their loans so far. As we move away from the pandemic, we are taking serious, concrete action to support small businesses, both by providing funding and by cutting costs. We recently finalized an agreement to cut credit card fees by up to 27%, which will save small businesses across Canada $1 billion.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, let us talk numbers. In 2023, Equifax had already reported a 44% increase in business bankruptcies. Based on the January 2024 data, this year will be even worse. No one in the House should consider that acceptable. The government has to be flexible with businesses. It needs to talk to them directly and examine files on a case-by-case basis. It cannot continue to be there just for the sake of it and do nothing as companies go bankrupt. When will it finally open its eyes and take responsibility for preventing bankruptcies?

[ English ]

Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business and to the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, as we move forward from the pandemic, small businesses have nearly three years, until the end of 2026, to repay their CEBA loans, and they have access to interest rates as low as 5%. Meanwhile we are investing in communities in order to strengthen our economy. Earlier this month we announced $2.5 million in federal funding to enhance the indigenous women's entrepreneur program and create an indigenous youth entrepreneurship program.

[ Translation ] Government Priorities

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, in eight years, this Liberal government has managed to break our immigration system, destroy our economy and double our national debt. Taxes, fuel and food cost more, but what costs the most is voting for the Bloc Québécois. It is not too late to lower taxes. The Bloc Québécois can lower taxes, but it does not want to. Canadians have suffered enough. What did the Prime Minister promise the Bloc Québécois in exchange for its unconditional support?

Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, here we go again with the Conservative Party, the party of despair and inaction in the House of Commons. We are talking about working with Quebeckers and Canadians to make life more affordable, to create jobs, to be part of the 21st-century economy and to support the union system. We are here for action, for Quebeckers and for Canadians. The Conservatives just want to pick fights.

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the people who are in despair are Quebeckers. After eight years of this Liberal government, the Bloc Québécois is doing everything it can to keep the Prime Minister in power; the same Prime Minister who destroyed our economy so badly that people across Canada are unable to meet their basic needs. What is the point of the Bloc Québécois? It is there only to serve the Prime Minister. While Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, the Bloc Québécois insists on drastically increasing taxes. Can the Prime Minister disclose the terms of his contract with the Bloc Québécois to keep him in power?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the first thing we did when we came to power was lower taxes for the middle class. The first thing the Conservatives did was vote against that. The second thing we did was bring in the Canada child benefit. The second thing they did was vote against the Canada child benefit. Now, if my colleague wants to know more for his riding, I invite him to invite me, or to invite other people, to visit three recent housing projects: the Montmagny street project, Les Habitations au Fil du Fleuve and Villa Rose des vents.

These projects helped create, in his riding alone, several dozen affordable rental units, when in his entire career as Minister of Housing, the Conservative leader created six affordable housing units.

(1200) [ English ] Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was ordered by Parliament to turn over the arrive scam receipts and to come up with a plan to get taxpayers their money back. What the Prime Minister tabled this week is nothing more than a whitewash. We still do not have the receipts, and the Liberals do not have a plan to get taxpayers their money back. Therefore, I ask for just a number: How much money did the Liberals award fraudsters and scammers, and when will taxpayers get a refund?

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, as I have said before in this place, we take these allegations extremely seriously. We expect all contractors in the procurement process to follow all the rules. For anyone who does not follow those rules, there will be consequences. The CBSA has already put in place several new measures to improve the procurement process. There have been announcements made as well with the Minister of Procurement to ensure that the procurement process throughout government is transparent and accountable, and that questionable issues like this do not happen again.

International Development

Ms. Viviane Lapointe (Sudbury, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, in a world where global co-operation and support for the most vulnerable are more critical than ever, the Leader of the Opposition has proposed cuts to what he calls wasteful foreign aid. Can the minister clarify the impact of these cuts on Canada's security, as well as on our standing as a moral leader globally?

Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of International Development, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the leader of the official opposition 's proposed cuts threaten to undermine our global role in peace, security and stability, as well as undermine the peace, safety and security of Canadians. Cutting programs like demining and helping conflict-affected children risks our global reputation. The proposed cuts would signal a retreat from global leadership at a time when global challenges actually demand that we do more and that we collaborate with other nations. If he is willing to make these dangerous cuts that threaten the peace and security of Canadians, what else is he going to cut? He is simply not worth the risk.

Foreign Affairs

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it has been five years. When is the government going to list the IRGC as the terrorist organization that it is?

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we obviously recognize and condemn the Iranian government as a state sponsor of terrorism. We have implemented several measures to ban members of the IRGC from entering Canada. We have put in place sanctions. We will take the advice from our national security advisors and officials who make these recommendations. We will do everything to keep Canadians safe.

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the Liberals said last year that they were working on it. Yesterday the minister changed the story, citing that his agency did not even give him that advice. Today I do not understand that answer, neither will Canadians, so what answer is it, which story? There is a minister over there who will not condemn the most vile anti-Semitism, and another minister who held hands with a literal terrorist. Is there no courage at all? I am going to ask one more time: On what day will you list the IRGC as the terrorist organization it is in this country?

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :