OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 236 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Friday, October 20, 2023 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 20, 2023 DEBATES No. 236 No. 236 N o 236 Volume 151 236 20 10 2023 2023/10/20 10:00:00 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

(1000) [ Translation ] Indian Act

Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (for the Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario)

moved 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

[ English ]

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, kwe kwe . Ullukkut . Tansi . I am honoured to be speaking today in Canada's Parliament, situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinabe Algonquin people, on an incredibly important bill on behalf of the hon. Minister of Indigenous Services Canada, as her parliamentary secretary. I represent the people of Fredericton, an unceded Wolastoqiyik territory, the people of the beautiful and bountiful river, as well as my family, my husband and my two children, who are also Wolastoqiyik and status Indians under the Indian Act.

For over a century, Canada passed laws and introduced policy with the express goal of expropriating land using tools that ripped apart families and attempted to destroy culture, language, tradition and identity. The Indian Act essentially reduced first nations identity to status and then used this status to strip away access to what most would consider the bare necessities. Sex-based and other forms of discrimination were used to segregate and assimilate, with the ultimate goal of removing indigenous identity or ending the “Indian problem”.

Today, I am speaking directly to the descendants and elders of those wronged. Despite these repeated and oppressive measures, they persisted. They were resilient. They retained their culture and language. Identity is not a status the government gives, but a way of life and a feeling of love and belonging. It is a way of seeing the world. It is thus fitting that we rise today to discuss an incredibly important bill that would advance reconciliation and do what is necessary to fix some of what was broken right here in this place through previous pieces of legislation.

I am incredibly honoured to have the opportunity to be a part of this process. To peel back the layers of our colonial history to right the wrongs is exactly why I ran for federal politics. I ran for my kids and their home community of Welamukotuk, a good place to fish. I ran for my students: for Justice, whom I wish Justice a happy birthday, and for Desiree, Brianna, Kitarra, Chrystal, Amber, Bailey and so many more. I ran for my former boss, Bob Atwin, at First Nation Education Initiative. I ran for Billy at Sitansisk and for all Wabanaki nations.

Sometimes this place feels very far away from home, but I feel them with me today in this chamber. We have heard from our partners and we have heard from Canadians. Identity is something that one cannot give or take, but something inherently ours. We are putting the power to determine this identity back in the hands of those who should have always had the power over it.

The bill before us today would make important progress by addressing several major inequities in the Indian Act and by responding to long-standing concerns raised directly by first nations about the registration and band membership provisions of the act. More specifically, this bill proposes to address four key issues. First, it would address the legacy impacts of enfranchisement and help more first nations regain their status. Second, it would return autonomy to registered first nations by allowing them to take their names off the Indian register.

Third, it would recognize the rights of all first nations individuals to their natal band membership, ensuring women can maintain critical connections to their home communities. Finally, it would eliminate stigmatizing language about first nations persons with disabilities that is currently part of the Indian Act. If passed, this bill would help return agency to the first nations families that lost their status in this colonial process called enfranchisement. The minister promised to address these long-standing issues and in December 2022, she introduced this bill and followed through on that promise.

The legislators of the past put these harmful policies in place, setting in motion the pain that so many families still feel today, but we are the legislators of a new time, one that reflects an honesty of history and a true commitment to a Canada that lives up to the promises and commitments our predecessors made in treaties and other agreements. Reconciliation is a process. It requires a deep collective commitment to the truth and to action.

Although the Indian Act itself is an inherent problem and partners across this land agree it is a tool of colonialism, many indigenous peoples, leaders and nations see that those approaches to ending this tool of oppression requires steady, honest transfer of control over the delivery of programs and services back to first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. This proposed legislation is a step in the right direction. It addresses the most foundational element of reconciliation, and that is self-determination.

The people at home might be asking why we are proposing these changes at all, why we cannot just get rid of the Indian Act with its discriminatory title altogether. The Indian Act is archaic, it is paternalistic, it is rooted in racism and Canada must continue to work toward its end. This work is, in fact, a major part of the mandate for the Minister of Indigenous Services .

(1005) The last number of years, we have engaged extensively with first nations on the best ways to move away from the Indian Act and protect the rights of people at the same time. We have made significant progress in developing successful alternatives to the Indian Act for first nations in relation to land management. We will continue to work with partners to transfer control and stand up self-determined policies and programs. In the meantime, thousands of first nations people continue to face discrimination under the Indian Act.

The amendments we are proposing in this bill reflect policy first nations have been calling for the federal government to adopt for many years. Past amendments have not addressed these wrongs. In 2012, through a formal exploratory process, options for reform were studied with first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations. The study concluded Canada should work with first nations to proactively address the issues with registration and membership under the Indian Act.

In 2018 and 2019, the same themes arose during discussions with more representatives from 200 first nations, who told us that Canada must address these issues and fix inequities in registration and citizenship. What is more, first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations have told us that addressing the existing issues with the Indian Act must happen before communities can regain full control and jurisdiction over membership, registration and citizenship.

In other words, partners told us that passing this bill is a necessary step on our path toward restoring full control of membership and community function to indigenous peoples. This legislation is not proposed unilaterally by the federal government. The solutions proposed in this legislation represent amendments to the act that indigenous peoples have told us are necessary to move past the act and reclaim their sovereignty from colonial systems. The first, and most significant, amendment we are proposing to this bill addresses the discrimination caused by a family history of enfranchisement.

Members will recall enfranchisement was a policy used with the expressed purpose to eradicate indigenous culture and assimilate first nations people. Just a few examples will give all Canadians a better idea of how enfranchisement was used to segregate and tear first nations families apart. 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 keep their children out of residential schools.

This last mention should highlight for all just how painful this legacy has been for some. For some, enfranchisement was involuntary and happened when first nations achieved professional status like becoming a doctor or a lawyer. For others, it was voluntary, by application, severing talented professionals from their heritage. I use the word “voluntary” reluctantly as this was not a real choice. Imagine having to choose between keeping one's connection to one's community and protecting one's children from residential institutions.

It is an impossible decision, but it is one the Government of Canada forced many first nations parents to make. With these false choices, it is no wonder so many people forfeited their status. I have heard many stories from parents who gave up their status without a second thought to spare their children from the same unthinkable traumas and abuse they faced at residential institutions. With her permission, I can share the story of Kathryn Fournier, who is here with us today, the stories of her grandfather, Maurice Sanderson, a residential school survivor from Pinaymootang First Nation in Manitoba.

Because of provisions in the Indian Act, he was not able to vote or own property unless he enfranchised, meaning he had to give up his right to Indian Act status. In 1922, Maurice made what Kathryn describes as a “strange and difficult choice”. He applied to enfranchise in order to have the same basic rights as other Canadian citizens. As a result, his wife and children were automatically enfranchised as well.

Kathryn put it this way, “He made a very difficult choice that shouldn't have been imposed on him in the first place.” Kathryn's grandfather's and grandmother's assimilation under the policy of enfranchisement may have provided them with some of the rights of Canadian citizenship, but today, generations later, the ripple effects of that policy continue to have negative impacts. The way historic policy erased connection to ancestry and culture continues to be felt.

The process of enfranchisement was a deliberate effort by the federal government to colonize and to decrease the numbers of indigenous people who had rights. Following a pattern of coercion and deception, this proposed legislation continues on Canada's journey to address and amend those decisions of the past that have hurt so many families. Over the last few decades, the government has been trying to reverse these policies by restoring status to first nations who lost it.

In 1985, the government acknowledged enfranchisement was a discriminatory policy, and it was removed from the Indian Act with the introduction of Bill C-31,

an act to amend the Indian Act. At this point, people who had been enfranchised could reclaim their status.

(1010) The inequity we seek to remedy today is the inability for those with a family history of enfranchisement to transmit status to descendants in the same way that those without an history of enfranchisement are able to. I ask the hon. members here today: should the family members and descendants of these people continue to be penalized? It is clear that enfranchisement is discriminatory and we need to eliminate all of its residual impacts. To do so, it is proposed that

section 6(1)(

d) and 6(1)(

e) of the Indian Act be repealed. Individuals currently registered under these categories will have their registration category amended to a 6(1)(a.1) if they were the individual who was enfranchised and (a.3) if they were the child or descendant of the individual who was enfranchised. The amendment on enfranchisement addresses the concerns brought forward by the Nicholas civil action lawsuit and it will fulfill the recommendations on this issue heard during previous broad engagements. I am proud to acknowledge that Ms. Mary Sandra Lovelace Nicholas is Wolastoqiyik from Tobique (Neqotkuk) First Nation.

We are grateful for her courage and trail-blazing as a fellow New Brunswicker. The second inequity addressed by Bill C-38 concerns the ability for individuals to remove their names from the Indian register. The Indian register is the official record of people registered under the Indian Act in Canada. It is maintained and managed by the Indian registrar, part of Indigenous Services Canada, and exists to determine who is registered under the act and entitled to programs and funding across federal and provincial governments, for example, on-reserve housing, non-insured health benefits, education or tax exemptions.

However, there is a major gap in the authorities of the registrar. While they can add names to the Indian register, they have no formal legal authority to remove the names of registered individuals even when the individuals request deregistration. This is an issue that first nations have called on Canada to address and today, with this, we are doing just that. For some, deregistration is a matter of having control over their own identity. For others, it is a barrier to gaining membership to other indigenous groups.

This has prevented a number of people from accessing important services and benefits through a group they wish to identify with that they should be entitled to. To fix this issue, this legislation will provide individuals with the right and ability to have their names removed from the Indian register. That said, individuals who deregister will still be eligible to re-register and their decision to deregister will have no impact on their or their descendants' entitlement under the Indian Act. This means that the children of deregistered individuals would still be entitled to status.

It can only be done at the request of the individuals and protections will be made to ensure that it is not used with mal-intent. In the spirit of reconciliation, the implementation of this amendment will be co-developed with indigenous partners, to ensure that the needs of all impacted groups are well served. Bill C-38 also addresses a sex-based inequity related to band membership provisions. Bill S-3 received royal assent in 2017 and eliminated known sex-based inequities in the registration provisions of the Indian Act.

Because of the limited scope of that mandate, however, we were not able to address these sex-based inequities in band membership. This inequity arises from the fact that, until 1985, first nations women who married first nations men from a different nation were automatically transferred to their husband's band list. While these women did not lose their entitlement to registration, they did lose connection to and membership in their natal band, along with any associated treaty rights, benefits, settlements and services.

These women were automatically disconnected from their home communities even if they may have wanted to restore their social and cultural connection to their natal band. The bill we are proposing today will amend the Indian Act to allow first nations women to seek re-affiliation and membership with their natal bands. This is significant. Supporting and empowering indigenous women is key to supporting indigenous communities, tradition, language and culture as a whole. The final amendment in Bill C-38 addresses some outdated and offensive language that still remains in the Indian Act today.

The act refers to “mentally incompetent Indian”. It is obvious that this term is outdated, offensive and stigmatizing. Bill C-38 would replace this term with the updated term “dependent person”. This amendment is a logical step forward and would align the Indian Act with developments in capacity and guardianship law over the last 50 years. In

summary, amendments proposed in this legislation would fix four long-standing issues in registration and membership under the Indian Act relating to enfranchisement, individual deregistration, natal band membership and some outdated and offensive language in the Indian Act. If all enfranchisement issues are addressed, approximately 3,500 people could be newly eligible for registration with these amendments. These proposed changes represent significant and meaningful action to the affected people and their families.

They also demonstrate to indigenous peoples a steady and forward movement by Canada to make amends to the many ways colonial laws and actions intentionally harmed them and their communities.

(1015) Even with these proposed changes, there is still much more work to do. Ahead of us, we have the work of undoing the racist policies reflected in the Indian Act, including those related to the second-generation cut-off. We are engaging with partners so we can continue to explore how to move forward on this deeply personal issue. Indigenous identity must be determined by indigenous individuals, full stop. It is our responsibility to proactively right historic wrongs and make the changes asked of us by first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations.

This bill would right some of those wrongs. It is in this way, working together in good faith, that we would advance reconciliation and support a renewed relationship between Canada and first nations, one not marred by the paternalism and control of the Indian Act, but one based on rights, respect, co-operation and true partnership. Woliwon .

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest. The term “enfranchisement” meant the destruction of indigenous identity. To be enfranchised meant someone's inability to leave the reserve, the inability to vote, the inability to marry whom one loved, and even the inability to fight to defend Canada, because the Canadian government, in the First World War, did not want to allow indigenous soldiers because it did not want to recognize them as citizens with rights. We have a long way to go in dealing with the destruction that was done.

I appreciate my hon. colleague for bringing this bill forward, although this bill has been sitting on the back burner for some time now. The issue goes back to the fact that, at the end of the day, those who are trying to re-establish their rights are still going through the department of Indian affairs. That is what it was before and that is what I still call it. It is a department that is underfunded and that does not take this issue seriously. It is bureaucratic red tape. My hon. colleague says that indigenous identity must be dealt with by indigenous people.

When are we actually going to see a bill that is about nation to nation, that is about empowering the nation to make decisions about environmental protection and growth, and that is about who their band members are? We are still going through the department of Indian affairs. It is still a colonial system and a broken system.

(1020) Mrs. Jenica Atwin :

Mr. Speaker, I struggle a lot being in this place and talking about these things because, inevitably, we are in a colonial structure. The Department of Indigenous Services remains a part of that colonial structure. Being the parliamentary secretary, I have made a commitment to do all I can to improve service delivery, to improve the nation-to-nation relationship, and to ensure that indigenous voices are the ones guiding all that we do. There is extensive consultation happening. There is commitment from all parties, which is really momentous here in Canada.

We see that we have consensus about moving forward and what it is going to take to truly achieve that reconciliation. This is a piece in a series of legislation that we are working on to address these wrongs. It is incumbent upon all of us to recognize some of the history that led us here and to peel back those layers. That is really what this process is all about. I am really proud to be part of Bill C-38 . I highlighted some of the specific individuals who would be impacted by this in a positive way. However, once again, I highlight that there is so much more work to do.

I am absolutely committed to doing that, and I know that the member is as well.

Mr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an important piece of legislation. I would like to identify some of the time frames we see around indigenous legislation. Let us go back a couple of years to when Bill C-29 was introduced on June 22, the second-last day of the parliamentary session in 2022. Bill C-38 , which we are talking about today, was introduced on December 14. We are now 11 months down the road and are finally starting to debate this very important piece of legislation. Bill C-53 was introduced on June 21, 2023, the very last day of the parliamentary session.

In our office, we have a running comment about how we address indigenous legislation from the government: It is the “last-minute Liberals”. They are doing it at the last minute all the time. The parliamentary secretary identified that there are some issues that still need to be dealt with. She identified the second-generation cut. There are several others that are identified in the engagement kit presented by this bill.

If it was going to take 11 months to actually get this bill to the floor to debate, can she identify why we did not solve some of the other issues at the same time so we could speed up this process and solve some of the challenges she identified?

Mrs. Jenica Atwin :

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with him on the indigenous and northern affairs committee. I know he is deeply committed to seeing this work progress. I do not disagree. I would love to see legislation around indigenous rights recognition and frameworks for nation-to-nation building move a lot quicker in this place. I have asked some of those same questions of my colleagues on this side of the House, and really it is about doing it right. Reconciliation is a process. There are deep commitments to consultation that have to happen.

It is not just presenting completed bills or completed plans of process; it is also about really working together and co-developing. I get a lot of reassurance from that, that we are doing this the right way. We cannot rush pieces of legislation that deal with such foundational issues, with respect to identity, for example. The second generation cut-off is brought up a lot. It actually impacts my family in particular, so I am deeply committed to seeing that legislation come forward as well.

Again, it has to be done with the right intentions, with the right work and process in place, and consultation is absolutely key, because it has to be an indigenous-led process. However, I am absolutely committed to the urgency and moving it forward as quickly as possible.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Fredericton for her speech and her position on Bill C‑38 . Obviously we are in favour of the principle of the bill, but I am still uncomfortable when bills on indigenous issues are introduced because I find it will only result in some sort of band-aid solution. The government is trying to fix something that was done on a fundamentally bad foundation. The title itself, “Indian Act”, is repulsive. I find that the federal government tends to take a paternalistic approach to the first nations and that always makes me uncomfortable.

Should we not, for once and for all, rip up the old Indian Act and truly redo the agreements with the first nations, agreements that are created and developed nation to nation and not with someone who has a colonizer attitude draped in virtue?

Mrs. Jenica Atwin :

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. [ English ] I have written so many papers in university about the need to dismantle the Indian Act. We need to throw it in the trash. We need to just completely move forward from it. When we have conversations with the 634 indigenous communities across the country, there really is no consensus. I think that is the piece right now. We are trying to do it the right way. There would be a risk of losing services if we were to just scrap it altogether. We want to make sure that no services are lost and that rights are enhanced, so it is, unfortunately, a patchwork process.

I would like to address paternalism, because we are in a highly colonial space right now. However, I also feel that there are so many women's voices leading this discussion. With the co-development, the nation-to-nation relationship and the consultations, we are doing this in a good-faith way and with a better approach than I have seen from the federal government in a long time. I am proud to be a part of that process, because I feel we are changing things. I think we are really making a meaningful difference. I am committed to seeing that process through to the end, but done the right way.

(1025) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to put this question to the parliamentary secretary . We speak of reconciliation, and today we are debating a baby step in Bill C-38 and, to add to the adjectives used by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay , the racist law. However, the actual day of statutory recognition of the day for reconciliation, October 2, was the day the Liberal-owned, and now publicly owned, TMX pipeline began constructing open-trench construction through the most sacred area of the Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc nation in the area called Pipsell, which TMX had pledged it would not disturb.

That was on the day that we observed reconciliation. It made a mockery of reconciliation as it made a mockery of the Liberals' commitment to climate. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary discusses that with her caucus.

Mrs. Jenica Atwin :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very well how I feel about the TMX pipeline. I have been very vocal about that with my colleagues and my caucus with respect to exactly how it relates to reconciliation and our commitments on behalf of the environment and the original stewards of this land. I continue to have those difficult conversations and try to move forward with a path that I find would bring in those voices. It is quite shocking to think that it was on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, so I thank the member for bringing that to the attention of the House.

I look forward to having further conversations with her on how I can best continue these difficult conversations within my own caucus. Again, I am deeply committed to the environment and to reconciliation. They absolutely go hand in hand.

Mr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to build on some of the questions asked earlier. I wonder whether the hon. parliamentary secretary could give us more information on how this would facilitate the phase-out of the Indian Act.

Mrs. Jenica Atwin :

Mr. Speaker, it is a piece of legislation that would come in a series of other approaches in addressing the inequities in the Indian Act. The enfranchisement piece is really key. Other items include getting rid of some of the inflammatory language and restoring some of the rights that should be there. Again, it is a process, and we are committed to doing the work that needs to be done to undo the wrongs. This is an important step forward.

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, is an honour to rise in my place today to speak to this very important piece of legislation. Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River .

The Speaker :

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Eric Melillo :

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for that support. I think they will find that my friend from northern Saskatchewan has some very insightful and important remarks to share. Despite his allegiance to the Roughriders football team, he is quite a stand-up individual, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say. Of course, this is a very important piece of legislation, as I mentioned.

It is an honour for me to rise today to speak to it, representing the riding of Kenora in northwestern Ontario, which covers three treaty territories, treaties 3, 5 and 9, as well as the Métis homeland, and it includes 42 first nations. As has been mentioned in the previous remarks and in questions and comments, this legislation would truly help set out a series of fixes. However, it is much more than a simple patchwork and just those fixes. To me, it is about self-determination, and that is obviously a very important aspect of what we are talking about when it comes to reconciliation.

It is giving more control and autonomy to first nations and first nations individuals themselves. Before I get back to the substance of this bill, I want to highlight a key proposal that our Conservative leader has been championing when it comes to self-determination: a first nations resource charge that would, in essence, allow first nations to directly collect revenues from projects on their lands rather than seeing those revenues go to Ottawa and filter back down through a bloated bureaucracy.

It is a simple, common-sense approach to ensure that first nations have greater control over projects on their land and a greater portion of the direct revenues. This is one way we will support self-determination. Our consultations on this are ongoing, and I look forward to being able to say more about it in the near future. I share that because, of course, it is one aspect of self-determination in this bill also, as the bill highlights and addresses four key issues in the Indian Act.

This bill would ensure that individuals with a family history of enfranchisement, which is having to give up Indian status, would be entitled to registration under the act. They could then pass on that entitlement in the same way as others. 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. As well, an addition would be made to

section 11 of the 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 1985. The last of the four key points that the bill addresses is to change a lot of outdated and discriminatory language. We have heard some of that language here today. I do not wish to repeat it, but it is something that we are all happy to see being addressed and being removed from the legislation. This is, of course, part of a series of changes in recent history. We can go back to 1985, which is relatively recent.

That was when the process started to remove some of the gender-based discrimination, particularly pertaining to status women who married a non-status men and were involuntarily enfranchised. That is what got the ball rolling in this process. We have heard comments in the chamber about the patchwork and the fact that we have not been able to move forward on addressing all these issues as quickly as we would like to, and I share those concerns. Although this bill is certainly a great help, and we are happy to see it move forward, as the member for Fredericton mentioned, it was tabled in December 2022.

On this side of the House, we certainly would have liked to see this move forward much more quickly. It has been almost a year. The bill also has many gaps in it, with more things that will have to be addressed at future dates.

(1030) Considering that the government sat on the bill for close to a year, I think that would have been a great time to work on some of those other aspects concurrently. We could be much further along at this point. It is a concerning trend. We have heard from the governing Liberal Party itself that its members are also concerned about this trend of the government not prioritizing indigenous-led pieces of legislation pertaining to indigenous peoples, and I just want to urge the government to make it a priority instead of table-dropping at the last moment.

The Prime Minister has said that there is no relationship more important to his government than that with indigenous peoples, but I think the actions speak louder than words. The fact that it has taken so long to make such relatively simple and straightforward changes is definitely a cause for concern, so I would like to urge my colleagues on the other side to move these pieces of legislation forward much more quickly.

Further to the fact that it has been so long, we have seen the need for unanimous consent motions in order to get things through at the last second, and we have been trying to work in good faith to get as many of these things through as quickly as possible. However, we recognize a need for debate and a need for proper scrutiny and consultation on a number of these pieces of legislation. With the rushed process we have from the government, I do not feel we have that time for the proper consultation. That is not the only concern.

It is not just from the legislative point of view that the government seems to be too slow to react. We see issues on things such as status card processing times. It is taking far too long for many people to be able to actually receive their card and have access to the rights they are entitled to, so again I am happy to see this moving forward. The bill would impact 3,500 individuals, and I hope that all those individuals are able to access their status cards and their rights as quickly as possible.

Again, I would like to urge the government to put the resources that are necessary toward that, cut through the bureaucracy and ensure there are ways we can get that done more quickly. I was thankful my colleagues chose for me to split my time, but now with great respect to my colleague, I wish I had a bit more, because there is so much to get into when it comes to the piece of legislation before us. However, I think it is important to remember the discriminatory and racist history behind this and the reasons it is so important we move forward on this quickly. Enfranchisement was truly not voluntary.

Even in the cases where it was “voluntary”, it was done so that people could avoid having to send their kids to residential schools, so they were able to participate more fully in Canadian society, obtain the right to vote and obtain land and financial compensation. It was a number of things. This is a process that has been forced on indigenous peoples throughout our history, and I am pleased to see the bill moving forward. We need to move it forward much more quickly on the government's side. Our party here in the official opposition stands ready to work and ready to get the bill to committee.

If there are any changes that need to be made, we will ensure we have those fixes. We will hear from grassroots, first nations and indigenous peoples across the country and get it to the finish line. I want to urge my colleagues on the other side to work with us, so we can get it done.

(1035) Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his commitment. I had the pleasure of working with him on the indigenous and northern affairs committee, I know his heart is in the right place and he wants to see these issues dedicated the urgency that they deserve. I would also like to see his commitment to passing the bill quickly, and I hope he can have that conversation with his colleagues. Would he agree that, despite some of the lengthy timelines or challenges we faced, this government has done more for indigenous reconciliation than any other in our history? I would like to hear him comment on that.

Mr. Eric Melillo :

Mr. Speaker, I truly would not agree with that member's framing of this. As I mentioned, if we are talking specifically about these issues, it was in 1985 that the fixing of this patchwork started, and we started to see a series of that. That was certainly not under the current Liberal government. I think with the current government, we have definitely seen a lot of spending and announcements. Unfortunately, we have seen numbers that show that, despite the increase in spending, the department results have achieved only 26% of their goals.

That is just one example of how I think the rhetoric has been very strong and positive from the government, but it has not filtered down to actually delivering the real results that are needed for indigenous peoples across the country.

(1040) [ Translation ]

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see you sitting in the House on a Friday. I thank my hon. colleague for his very interesting speech. One thing about this bill that really stood out for me is the part that replaces the term “mentally incompetent Indian” with the term “dependent person”. Does the member agree with me that, in this example, the language used by the government is demeaning? Does he agree that it is time to stop discriminating against people with disabilities and be much more inclusive?

[ English ]

Mr. Eric Melillo :

Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree. It is very discriminatory.

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, part of the legislation is a clause that justifies past discrimination and violations of human rights. It would allow for the government to have discriminated without impunity and underscores the sense of colonial entitlement. Does the member agree that the provisions of this legislation would prohibit first nations women from seeking compensation for historical harms? Is it justified that the government denied first nations women access to health care, education and safe housing?

Mr. Eric Melillo :

Mr. Speaker, off the top of my head, I am not sure of the specific clause that the member is referring to. However, to answer her question, I certainly agree with her that it is discriminatory for the government to deny first nations women rights to health care and the rights that they need. I certainly share her concern, and I would be happy to speak with her when we have more time to get into detail about it.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, given that my hon. friend's speech this morning is the first time a Conservative Party member of Parliament has spoken to the issue, it seems that there is an intention to vote for the bill at second reading and fix flaws later at committee. Is that something we can count on? It is a shame to see debate so often where it looks as though we might all be voting for something to get it to committee and only later discover that there is going to be a longer debate; I do not want to use the word “obstruction”. Does the hon. member know if his caucus is prepared to vote yes for the bill?

Mr. Eric Melillo :

Mr. Speaker, yes, we are looking forward to moving forward on the bill. As I mentioned, we want to get the bill to committee, but we also want to ensure that we are able to have the voices of members raising thoughts on it. We hope that we can move forward on it as quickly as possible. I encourage the government to continue to progress this legislation through the House.

Mr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, as has been part of the interaction of the members so far today, people tried to take credit for whatever and said that things were accomplished under certain governments. However, with the indigenous stakeholders that I talked to, they very clearly indicated to me that there has been more achieved for indigenous people in our country under Conservative governments than any other government in history. Does the member think it is time for a Conservative government to step up and effect the change that we need to improve the lives of indigenous people across the country?

Mr. Eric Melillo :

Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree. It is time for a Conservative government that will bring it home for all Canadians, including indigenous peoples across this country.

Mr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand up to speak on behalf of the people who I serve, but one of the things that we do not do in this place is recognize the people who serve us behind the scenes. I want to take a minute today to acknowledge my team, who work tirelessly, without recognition often, to serve not only the people in the House, members of Parliament like myself, but also the people who we represent, in my case specifically those from northern Saskatchewan.

I want to take a minute to recognize Linnae and Emalie, who work with me here in Ottawa, and Dion, Hunter and Cindy, who are back in the riding. I want to make sure they know that they are appreciated for the work they do in serving the people that we get to serve. With those comments out of the way, let us talk about Bill C-38 for a few minutes. I appreciate the opportunity that my colleague has presented to me to speak on this very important bill. Bill C-38 is

an act that amends the Indian Act to address four separate matters, which we have already heard about from the members who spoke already, but I am going to hit on these just for a few minutes. First, it addresses the gendered inequity issues that were a result of enfranchisement. I am going to speak a little bit more about that in a few minutes. We have already heard as well that it addresses the issue of natal band reaffiliation.

If passed, this legislation would allow women to affiliate with their natal band, or the band they came from before having been forced to change to their husband's band if they were married before 1985. We have heard about the opportunity through application to deregister from the Indian registry. There is a number of reasons why people might want to do that. I am not going to get into the details of that. Finally, we have heard the conversation already today around replacing offensive and outdated language so that no individual under the act is referred to using any kind of discriminatory or offensive language.

That, I think we would say, is a very good thing. As has been mentioned as well, Bill C-38 is the continuation of a series of fixes, fixes that began in 1985 under then prime minister Brian Mulroney, some fixes that carried on in 2011 under then Prime Minister Harper, and finally, Bill S-3 , which took from 2017 to 2019 through the Senate bill to make some progress on this. Each of these pieces of legislation addressed various matters of gender-based discrimination in the act.

While it is important to note that we support amendments to ensure that no federal legislation, including the Indian Act, has any discriminatory components to it, we must recognize that these amendments are just that, changes to existing legislation that supports the maintenance of the status quo, a status quo that perpetuates control over first nations people across our country. We cannot simply reverse the damage that these outdated laws have had, but what we can do is to move forward in support of first nations people on their journey to self-determination.

Conservatives seek to ensure that we are making positive strides towards truth and reconciliation, and we know how important it is to hold open and honest discussions in doing so. Since I only have 10 minutes here, I want to spend some time talking about enfranchisement. We have done a bit of that already, but I want to flesh it out a little bit as well. For those who may not be familiar with the term, enfranchisement was a policy prior to 1985 that terminated an individual's right to be considered as a first nations person or have status under the Indian Act.

As the parliamentary secretary, my colleague from Kenora, already identified, this could be done voluntarily or it could be done involuntarily. When we think of involuntary registration, as mentioned, it could be because they received a university degree, joined the medical or legal professions, married a non-Indian man or became a priest or a minister. We have heard as well that there were a number of reasons for voluntary enfranchisement, although we use the term “voluntary” in this case when it does not seem like it was really of their own free will. Rather, other factors forced it upon them.

Some, as already identified, gave up their status for the sole purpose of preventing their children from having to attend residential schools. World War II veterans voluntarily enfranchised to obtain the same essential benefits that other non-status veterans were provided. Some did so just to have the right to vote. If we look at those examples of voluntary enfranchisement, it does not really seem like it was a matter of personal choice but maybe more a sacrifice of rights, or something that they were forced into, to protect members of their family or others.

(1045) Bill C-38 seeks to address some remaining gender-based inequities that were a result of this unequal reinstatement of status in 1985. In short, women who were enfranchised and later reinstated were placed in a different category than men in the same circumstances. Because of this, first nations women could not pass down status or rights to the same number of generations as first nations men could. This is something that this bill addresses. It has a ripple effect because it affects the descendants of these people as well.

I would like to encourage members of the House to talk to people and hear their stories. We have heard a couple already today, but they should talk to the people who have been affected by enfranchisement. I have heard many of these, and I am going to quickly share one story. My team and I met with a Professor Karl Hele, a member of Garden River First Nation and a professor in Canadian indigenous studies. His personal experience with enfranchisement is not unfamiliar to many others. His mother and many other women in their community were targeted and coerced by an Indian agent to voluntarily enfranchise.

This resulted in an unfair exclusion of their rights and those of her descendants. To access his child's rights, Professor Hele had no other choice but to pursue legal action, which came at a hefty cost, both in time and resources, which is an option that many people do not have. This case highlights how the Indian Act gatekeepers have historically been, and continue to be, much of the problem. It is little wonder that first nations people in Canada feel there is an Ottawa-led system, which feels broken. We need to fix it.

I believe we need to acknowledge, despite amending the act, there still needs to be a change in how first nations issues are approached. This means acknowledging the failure in the cumbersome bureaucracy that is meant to support first nations, but instead often creates significant barriers. The population of my riding is over 70% indigenous, and my team deals with the endless frustrations of individuals trying to either access their right to status, respond to other requests of maybe a financial nature or even access appropriate health services.

Our office has been dealing with one individual who has been denied status time and time again. However, the bigger issue is not the denial of status, but that this individual has been given a variety of excuses for the denial, which contrast with their family story, and where other members of the family have been granted status under the same circumstances. It seems as though this case has been passed around the department without a care or concern for the provision of an honest answer. That is unacceptable.

In one of the calls with my office, this gentleman finally expressed his frustration and disappointment, and that he is going to give up because he believes he is going to die before this ever gets resolved. That is a very sad story. What this story tells us is that we cannot accept simple amendments to the Indian Act as a means to an end. We can reshape the tool as many times as we like, but if we do not fix the mechanism, there will never be a fix for the problem. Our Conservative team is determined to address this problem. In fact, we are proposing steps to do that.

My friend from Kenora has already addressed one of those, in relation to our leader proposing the first nations resource charge and our plan for that. The goal of the federal government should be to work with indigenous leadership to put the control of their communities back into their hands. While the hope for Bill C-38 is to address this to some degree and to respond to a constitutional challenge on enfranchisement, it is merely a small step in the long journey to self-determination.

We have a lot of work to do, and as Canada moves forward on eliminating the Indian Act, the “Ottawa knows best” mentality has got to go. It is imperative that we recognize the rights and freedoms of first nations people across our country. They know what is good for them. They know what needs to be done. They have already taken many of the steps necessary by investing in projects and businesses, and creating prosperity and employment. They are focused on increasing capacity, and they are generating opportunities that will pay dividends for generations to come.

It is important that the government no longer stands in their way, and that we ensure that first nations are the decision-makers controlling their own destiny. We recognize that this is the only way forward, and although it will have its challenges, Conservatives are not afraid of a challenge. In closing, let me simply say, under the leadership of a Conservative government, I would be very hopeful for the future of our first nations people across this country. I am personally very eager to see meaningful change.

(1050) Mr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the House might not be aware, but in my riding we had an Iroquois first nation, and the entire nation enfranchised in 1958. I am talking, of course, about the Michel band. Under Bill C-31, back in the 1980s, 700 members of the Michel band, as individuals, were allowed to gain back their Indian status. However, as of today, this band is still not fully recognized and are not able to make any claims. I do not see anything in this legislation that addresses that injustice, as they were enfranchised under very suspicious circumstances.

Could my hon. colleague tell me what this legislation could do to help a band such as the Michel band, which, as far as I am aware, is the only entire first nation band that was ever enfranchised in Canada, to get their recognition back?

(1055) Mr. Gary Vidal :

Mr. Speaker, I understand he is saying that this is the only example of this happening to an entire band, but there are many, many examples of communities or very large groups of people being enfranchised involuntarily or “voluntarily”, or being coerced into it by very suspicious circumstances.

This legislation should address some of those situations by creating an equal opportunity for people to be re-registered to gain their status back and create an equalization between the descendants of what might be male lineage compared to female lineage to ensure the descendants of those two lines of descendants is brought to a place where they are treated equally. We will look at this closer in committee to ensure those kinds of questions are answered and solutions are proposed.

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, and he spoke about this, first nations, Métis and Inuit continually have to go through the court system to have their rights recognized, including with this bill. It is tragic that people would need to go through the court system to have their basic rights met. It sounds like the member agrees it is unfair for indigenous people to need to go through this court system to have their rights recognized. I am wondering what the member would suggest we change about Canada's political and legal system so indigenous people no longer need to do this.

Mr. Gary Vidal :

Mr. Speaker, from a personal perspective, and on behalf of Conservatives, one of the things we would say in response is that we need to eliminate the “Ottawa knows best” approach and the control imposed over people across the country by this outdated and archaic Indian Act, but we need to do this much quicker. We need to get to a place where first nation, Inuit and Métis people across the country all have the ability and the right to determine their own future, to true self-determination.

That is the only path where we are going to get past all of the litigation, all of the lawsuits and all of the court cases and where we actually empower indigenous people across the country to control and dictate their own futures and their own destinies.

[ Translation ]

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

Mr. Speaker, the foundation of a solid house cannot be built on sand. Unfortunately, this bill is yet another pillar or beam in a house that the government is trying to build on a very shaky foundation, namely the Indian Act. After hearing my colleague's speech, I would like to ask him a question that reflects the Bloc Québécois's position. Why not simply abolish the Indian Act itself, which is so problematic?

[ English ]

Mr. Gary Vidal :

Mr. Speaker, very simply, I agree.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. Saying that the Conservatives are going to support indigenous self-determination is something I like, but I will give an example. Timiskaming First Nation is set-up as 110,000 acres between the Blanche River in Ontario and the Des Quinze river in Quebec. It was then arbitrarily cut apart with illegal land surrender after illegal land surrender until it was down to about 4,500 acres in between the municipalities.

The traditional land rights in Ontario continue to be ignored, so how would the Conservatives say to the people of Timiskaming First Nation that they would make sure their land rights, amidst an endless sea of stolen land, would be respected for the community's development?

(1100) Mr. Gary Vidal :

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say we need to get to a place where it is not taking 25, 30 or 40 years to solve some of the claims issues in our country. We need to speed up the process so we can settle these things and get out of the endless litigation.

Statements by Members Statements by Members

[ English ] Small Business Week

Mr. Vance Badawey (Niagara Centre, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to rise in the House and recognize small businesses across Canada during Small Business Week. Small businesses continue to be the backbone of our economy and, in turn, the backbone of our communities. From coast to coast to coast, hard-working entrepreneurs provide jobs to our communities and innovation to our economy, incubating the next generation of inspiration. Back in 1922, my great-grandparents started a mom-and-pop grocery store in my home riding of Niagara Centre.

Four generations later, I had the pleasure of operating that same business, which has since evolved into a ship chandler wholesaler. I know first-hand the daily struggles and complexities that our small business owners face, and our government is focused on enabling them to thrive, because when our small businesses thrive, our communities thrive. It is all about building communities. This week, let us celebrate small businesses across this country and the communities they continue to strengthen. Happy Small Business Week.

Blood Donation Record Holder

Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the gift of life is so precious. The Canadian Blood Services motto is “it's in you to give”, and there is no one who has lived that mantra more than Penhold's Josephine Michaluk, who was just recognized by Guinness World Records as the female with the most whole blood donated. Josephine earned the record after donating her 203rd unit of blood in December of last year. Josephine's epic journey started back in 1965 while accompanying her sister, who was on her way to donate.

The experience left a great impression on Josephine, and with her O+ blood type, she realized just how important her highly compatible blood type was to the people in her community. Penhold's town council acknowledged her at its October 11 meeting “for reaching this milestone and for her...selfless act to help others.” Her 208th donation will be on November 24. I congratulate Josephine.

Message of Peace

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to stand in this House and to use my voice to shine a light or reflect on a moment in time on behalf of my constituents. I know that over the last weeks, our hearts and souls have been mourning as we are witnessing violence and endless suffering generated by war. I send my love and support to the Muslim and Jewish communities here and abroad that are directly impacted by the events that are unfolding. Words might appear insignificant at a time when we are collectively facing horror. Words can hurt, but they can also heal. They can change how we perceive the words.

We need to see the humanity in one another and not lose sight of everything we have in common. We need to reflect on how we can work with and listen to each other. Our own country is on a path of reconciliation. Getting there was not easy and is still a constant reaffirmation of our commitment to a better future for all. That is the message I humbly share today. Peace cannot be achieved through violence; it can only be obtained through understanding. I pray for the world. I pray for peace.

Celebration of Indigenous Artwork

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation this year, I was honoured to join a celebration in Nuu-Chah-Nulth territory of the art created by attendees of the former Alberni Indian Residential School in the late 1950s and 1960s. This artwork was inspired by volunteer artist Robert Aller, who encouraged young artists to paint their ideas, their knowledge and their truths.

After Robert passed away in 2008, 36 paintings were donated to the University of Victoria and then repatriated to the survivors who created them or to their families in 2013, with the assistance of Professor Andrea Walsh in partnership with one of the artists, Wally Samuel from Ahousaht. Since then, they have been widely exhibited to educate Canadians and the world about the legacy of residential schools. They have reached thousands of learners through gallery exhibitions, digital platforms and public presentations.

Canadians owe these artists and their families an enormous debt of gratitude for their generosity of spirit in sharing these wonderful paintings as we seek to reconcile historical wrongs with indigenous people.

Klecko, klecko to all.

(1105) [ Translation ] Club Quad Petite-Nation

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and celebrate Sylvie Pharand‑Gosselin, the first woman president of the Club Quad Petite‑Nation and an Outaouais area trailblazer. Her years as a volunteer, a trail patroller and keeper of a portion of the Duhamel area are indisputable proof of her dedication. I would also like to acknowledge former club president Alain Lamarche for encouraging women to take on senior management positions within the club. Gender diversity in sports clubs enriches our communities with a broad range of experience and ideas.

Despite some progress, however, the road to gender equality remains long. That is why I am asking all parliamentarians to continue supporting our government's efforts to improve equal opportunity in Canada. We have to keep taking concrete action that paves the way for women like Sylvie Pharand‑Gosselin to enter leadership positions at all levels. In closing, I congratulate Club Quad Petite‑Nation.

100th Anniversary of Business in Rivière-du-Loup

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with immense pride that I rise to mark an exceptional occasion: the 100th anniversary of Premier Tech, based in Rivière-du-Loup. Premier Tech has forged a reputation for excellence with 100 years of history, determination and daring. The story began when the Bélanger family purchased a small business. It moved into horticulture with sphagnum peat moss and is now known for automation and waste water treatment. Premier Tech employs 5,200 people in 28 countries, has 48 plants and generates sales of over $1 billion.

The company is deeply committed to its home community, but it is also involved internationally in the world of cycling. The Israel-Premier Tech team has achieved major successes, including at the Tour de France with Canadian cyclists. I would like to commend my friends Bernard Bélanger and his son Jean, who, through their hard work and vision, have shaped our community and made a positive impact on a global scale. I wish Premier Tech a bright and prosperous future, and happy hundredth anniversary to the company and its teams.

[ English ] Community Imam Award Recipient

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Canadian Council of Imams hosted its annual gala dinner. Founded in 1990, the council has been a unifying forum for Canadian imams and chaplains. At this fifth annual gala dinner, a member of my constituency, Chaplain Imam Imran Ally, received the well-deserved Community Imam Award in recognition of his continuing service to society. Imran's dedication is truly inspiring, and the recognition by his peers speaks volumes to the impact he has had on our community. Through his tireless efforts, he has not only served the Muslim community, but also made significant contributions to society.

We are fortunate to have individuals like Imran among us, individuals who work tirelessly to bridge divides, to bring communities together and to spread the message of love, compassion and unity. My sincere congratulations to Imran. May peace and unity continue to guide our path forward.

Wind Energy

Mr. Darrell Samson (Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, a new report from the Public Policy Forum concludes that Atlantic Canada's offshore wind potential will make the region an energy powerhouse going forward. Installing turbines around the Sable Island Bank could produce enough energy supply for 6.5 million average Canadian homes, which is almost twice as much as what is being used by Atlantic Canada today. This boom would mean thousands of jobs and billions of dollars for Atlantic Canada.

However, on Tuesday, the Conservatives, including several MPs from Atlantic Canada, voted against Bill C-49 , a bill that would allow for the development of the offshore wind industry in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. On this side of the House, people can count on our government to help Atlantic Canadians today and every day.

Carbon Tax

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberal government knew carbon tax 2 would increase the cost of energy and disproportionately impact low- and middle-income Canadians, yet it is imposing the tax anyway. Carbon taxes 1 and 2 will add 61¢ per litre to the price of fuel, and because of the government's punishing fuel taxes, we are already seeing fuel prices in B.C. at over two dollars per litre. After eight long years of inflationary spending and failing policies, even Liberal MPs are speaking out against the carbon tax.

Those Liberal MPs are realizing that when we tax Brad, the farmer who grows the food, tax Rob, who transports the food, and tax Joanne, who has to drive to buy the food, the food becomes too expensive. It is no wonder 60% more Canadians per month are expected to use food banks in 2023. After eight years, it is even more clear that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

(1110) Public Transit

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a special acknowledgement and shout-out to Winnipeg transit drivers for both educating me and being there in a very real and tangible way to ensure there are all forms of diversity in transportation. Over the summer, the Government of Canada tabled a report about public transit in general in Canada. No government in the history of Canada has committed more public dollars to ensure that we have a solid public transit system from coast to coast to coast. It is a commitment that is genuine. It is there to help build communities and connect people in every way.

The Economy

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the current NDP-Liberal government, where are we at? Well, more Canadians are frozen out of the housing market, rents are doubling, inflationary deficits are driving up mortgage payments and our federal government is saying, “Our inflation is not all that bad; look at other countries.” That is exactly what an enterprising Ontario couple did. They sold their modest 2,400-square-foot suburban home in Fergus and bought a 6,300-square-foot château in the South of France on 37 acres. It was an even trade.

However, with the NDP-Liberal made-in-Canada inflation, the couple said that if they sold the chateau now, they probably could not move back to Fergus. More and more Canadians are realizing that this tax-and-spend Liberal Prime Minister is just not worth the cost, at least for those ordinary Canadians who were hoping one day to have their own modest home right here at home in Canada.

The Economy

Mr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the current Liberal-NDP government, life is unaffordable. Families in northern Saskatchewan and across Canada are faced every day with austerity measures. There is less food, fewer activities for their kids, fewer trips to see grandma and grandpa and less money for rent or a mortgage at the end of every month. However, as families are forced to make cuts, the Liberal-NDP government spends. There is something morally wrong when a government grows bigger and continuously throws money around while taxpayers themselves are forced into cutting for their own families.

This is backwards. The solution is to have less for the government and more in the pockets of families: more healthy food, more activities for their kids and more trips and time to spend with family. The Liberal-NDP government's inflationary deficits are driving up the cost of everything. Canadians are tired of it, and they want hope. After eight long years, the Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost.

[ Translation ] Homelessness Awareness Night

Mrs. Sherry Romanado (Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, this evening, thousands of people in more than 40 cities across Quebec will mark Homelessness Awareness Night, an event whose mission is to raise awareness of poverty and homelessness in Quebec. This year marks the 25th edition of Homelessness Awareness Night in Longueuil. Many activities have been planned to help people gain a better understanding of the difficult conditions that homeless people experience and to learn more about homelessness organizations. The public is therefore invited to go to St.

Mark Park this evening to visit the community village, listen to the stories of people who have experienced homelessness and participate in the solidarity walk. I commend Table Itinérance Rive‑Sud and all members of the organizing committee for their commitment to giving a voice to the homeless and shining a light on the realities of homelessness.

(1115) [ English ] Violence Around the World

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I normally rise in this chamber with gratitude and vigour. However, today, the events of the last two weeks, with the attacks by Hamas and response by Israel, have me at a loss. I represent a riding with a Jewish population that has contributed so much, including fighting in both world wars. From my work, I know the constant battle against anti-Semitism that we face and the symbols of hate that have been painted on the sidewalks, streets and even my own lawn signs. I am blessed in the Windsor-Detroit area with having a Middle Eastern population.

I have stood in solidarity with them from the original blame for the Oklahoma City bombing to 9/11 blame and the Islamophobia that still persists. I am proud to be part of a movement to always push back and speak the truth against that type of rhetoric. My statement today to try to help end the violence in Gaza, Israel and Lebanon was crafted many times. However, despite trying, it never left me feeling anything but ill. Therefore, here I am; my only message is to find enough forgiveness and respect in humanity to end all violence.

I appreciate that it is a naive message, but after 21-plus years in Parliament, I need to speak the truth: I do not have the answers, but I love my constituents of all races, ethnicities and religions. I am sorry that I do not have the solutions. I know that it is never too late to save someone who is alive. Everyone can join me, or let me join them, in solidarity for forgiveness of our failures to all the victims.

[ Translation ] Homelessness Awareness Night

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, today was the 34th Nuit des sans-abri, a homelessness awareness event that seeks to raise awareness about homelessness, poverty and social alienation. This year's theme is “no roof, no choice”. More than 60 municipalities across Quebec will host this event.

Tent parks in the four corners of Quebec; single mothers who sleep in their car with their children; seniors who, after living in a home and working their entire lives, end up on the street; young, pregnant women with no roof over their heads, including one who will end up giving birth in the streets, in the middle of downtown Gatineau: This happens in our communities, and it is in our communities that organizations have to help battered women who stay in relationships that are toxic to themselves and their children because they cannot find a place to live.

It is in our communities that families have to cut back on how much food they buy and seniors have to limit their medication budget to keep a roof over their heads. Quebec is on the brink of a major humanitarian crisis. The government has already recognized housing as a right. Now it has to ensure that this right becomes a reality for everyone.

[ English ] Hate Crimes

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, the Toronto police chief has reported a 132% increase in hate crimes. We have seen horrific stories of a sign written in spray paint in Centennial Park that says “Attack the Jew” or a vandalized message in London that says “Kill all Muslims”. This is absolutely unacceptable. We can all be revolted by the horrors of Hamas, but we should never blame our fellow citizens in Canada who are Muslim. They did not commit those atrocities.

We can debate the decisions of the Israeli government, but we have no right to insult our Jewish neighbours or attack their local synagogue. This must be a country based on freedom, where it does not matter if one's name is Mohammed or Martin, Chang or Charles, Singh, Smith or Steinberg. We are all Canadians. We are all compatriots. Let us embrace each other with love.

Electric Vehicle Battery Plant

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today excited to congratulate Umicore Rechargeable Battery Materials Canada. This past Monday marked its official groundbreaking for the manufacturing plant it is building in Loyalist township, located just outside my riding. The plant will manufacture materials that are required for the production of electric vehicle batteries. In full swing, its operation has the capacity to produce enough battery materials to support the production of over 800,000 electric vehicles each year. What is more, it is designed to be nearly carbon-neutral from the start of production.

Of course, this is excellent news for our region in terms of economic development and job creation. It is also great news for Ontario and Canada, as it helps strengthen our position as a global leader in the electric vehicle and battery supply chain. I am proud that the federal government has committed up to $551 million, through the strategic investment fund, to support this project. I send congratulations and best wishes to Umicore, as well as thanks for choosing eastern Ontario.

Oral Questions Oral Questions

(1120) [ English ] Financial Institutions

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost or the lack of competition. Yesterday, the Competition Bureau reported that, now, the lack of competition is worse than it was at any time in 20 years, leading to higher prices for consumers and higher profits for corporate oligarchs. Now the Liberal government is considering allowing Canada's biggest bank to gobble up the seventh-biggest bank, to eliminate competition and force up mortgage rates on Canadians who already cannot afford to pay their bills. Will the government side with consumers and homebuyers, instead of corporate oligarchs and big banks, and block this merger?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Conservative leader recycles “common sense” cliches from decades ago as if he were an automaton from the Mike Harris era, our government has taken decisive action to help Canadians with the price of groceries by supporting more competition in the marketplace and by increasing housing supply, waiving GST on new rental construction. These are two significant measures the members opposite can support right now by supporting the government's bill on affordability, but they have stated that they will not do so. Can someone from the opposition benches please explain to us all how voting against measures that are going to substantially help middle-class families is common sense?

Finance

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I will tell us what is not common sense: spending $8 million on a barn. We just found out that the Prime Minister 's Capital Commission spent $8 million to replace a barn at Rideau Hall. We have long said that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost after eight long years. While Canadians cannot afford a home, how is it that the Prime Minister is spending $8 million on a barn? By the way, was it made of gold?

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

Mr. Speaker, those are quite the words from the Leader of the Opposition . I remind him that, when he was responsible for housing during the Harper years, there was $300 million spent for housing, with fewer than 100 homes built. We can do the math: That is $3 million a home. That is the record of so-called fiscal responsibility on the other side. On this side, we are getting homes built. Just this morning, the Prime Minister announced over $100 million for the City of Brampton, which is going to lead to 24,000 homes being built in the coming years. We are going to continue to work with municipalities through partnership.

[ Translation ]

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

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister , he is not worth the cost. The wasteful spending has spiralled out of control. Members will recall the $116 million spent on consultants at McKinsey, the $54 million on ArriveCAN and the $6,000 per night for a hotel room. Today we learned that the government wasted $8 million on a barn. How can the government spend $8 million on a barn on the Governor General's property when food banks are in such desperate need? Is spending $8 million on a barn on the grounds of the Governor General's residence really the Liberals' priority?

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we have been there for Canadians. We have invested money to support them. The Conservatives have voted against our measures several times. When the Conservatives were in power, seven consecutive budgets produced deficits. We have the lowest deficit in the G7 and we will continue to be fiscally responsible.

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that her government is fiscally responsible. After eight years of Liberal inflationary spending, Quebec's inflation is the worst in Canada. Young people are forced to live with their parents permanently because everything is too expensive. Interest rates are so high that the Liberals have robbed young people of their home ownership dreams. Over the past two years, mortgage interest has shot up by 41%. After eight years under the Liberals, rent costs have doubled. When will the Liberals stop mortgaging the future of young people and let them achieve their dreams of home ownership?

(1125) Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, we currently have a bill before the House that will speed up housing construction across Canada. In my Montreal riding, co-operatives are being built for families, seniors and young people. The Conservatives are unwilling to invest in building more housing to lower costs for Canadians. That makes no sense. If they really care about the interests of Canadians, why are they voting against the interests of Canadians?

Carbon Pricing

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

Mr. Speaker, if they really wanted to pass Bill C-56 , they would put it on the agenda. Since October 5, the Liberals have not called Bill C-56 for debate in the House. They should make a decision and stick with it. One would think they would have a better sense of what they want. Meanwhile, the middle class knows what is coming. They are lining up at food banks. This morning, the newspapers were saying that food banks are desperate. In the last three years, food prices have risen by 23%. Meanwhile, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois want to drastically increase carbon taxes.

Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly now, and it is going to get even more costly. Will the Liberals abandon their plan to raise carbon taxes?

[ English ]

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that rising costs hurt Canadians, and that is why we look across the way. We would like to see the Conservative Party stop playing games. This destructive force is constantly playing them inside the House, with the holding up of legislation. Whether it is by providing rebates of one form or another, building the Atlantic accord for Atlantic Canada or talking about green jobs for the future, we are trying to address the needs of Canadians, and the Conservative Party continues to play games inside the chamber. Shame on them.

[ Translation ] Foreign Affairs

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, there is every indication that humanitarian aid could finally reach Gaza today, but let us not kid ourselves. We already know that that aid will be insufficient. We already know that only 20 trucks will be allowed to pass when the UN is saying that a minimum of 100 trucks is required every day. As we speak, tons of humanitarian aid is sitting on the tarmac of an Egyptian airport because we are unable to send it where it needs to go. Without diplomatic pressure, that aid will still be sitting there tomorrow. Has the Prime Minister exerted any pressure in the past 24 hours to help get this aid where it needs to go?

Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, we commend the decision made by Israel and Egypt to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza through the Rafah crossing. This is an important step in making sure that Palestinian civilians in Gaza get humanitarian aid, but there is still a lot of work to be done. Rapid and unimpeded access to aid is essential to meet the urgent needs of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. International law must always be followed.

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, we all hope that there is a light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to this terrible war, but we can see that dark times lie ahead. Many countries, including Canada, are calling on their citizens to flee Lebanon, and that speaks volumes. Everyone expects the conflict in Gaza to grow. By all indications, the humanitarian crisis will get worse while the humanitarian aid is already insufficient. Canada cannot accept the status quo. It must use all of its political weight. What will the government do in the immediate term to ensure that the humanitarian aid is released?

Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, alleviating human suffering is our top priority. We were the first western country to provide $10 million in humanitarian aid. We are actively using every diplomatic avenue. There is now constant communication with partners and organizations in the region. Our immediate objective is to open humanitarian corridors to provide safety and refuge to those fleeing the war and to allow aid to enter.

[ English ] Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the auditor issued a damning report about processing delays in immigration. The most vulnerable are made to wait the longest due to Liberal mismanagement. Offices in sub-Saharan Africa are chronically underfunded, and they have the highest volume. Applications are untouched for up to 20 months. The average wait time for refugees is now three years. People who are being persecuted do not have three years to wait. Will the minister take immediate action to process the unacceptable backlogs for refugees?

(1130) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, this is of great concern. We all want to see immigration processes speed up. Over the last number of years, we have seen processing times improve in many different areas. Whether it is dealing with the sponsoring of parents, for example, or the sponsoring of spouses, we have seen dramatic increases. There are areas that we do need to improve upon, and I can assure the member that we are, in fact, making progress in all different areas as much as possible

Housing

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, one in four Nanaimo renters is in core housing need, meaning that where they live is unaffordable, unsuitable or inadequate, and these are people who have housing. Too many do not. Nanaimo has a housing problem larger than its size, and we are seeing the symptoms of this all around us. People deserve better than years of Liberal and Conservative half measures. People deserve a place to call home. Why is it that the government is doubling down on its failed housing plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member and the NDP caucus for supporting this government to double funding in response to homelessness. We continue to work with municipalities across the country. We continue to work with not-for-profit organizations. It was this government that recognized, of course, that there is a human right to housing. In that vein, we are seeing results. There is more to do, but 70,000 people who were on the street are no longer on the street, and 122,000 people who were close to homeless are not in that position anymore because of the national housing strategy.

Mr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, all Canadians now know that the Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost. In 2021, a couple from Fergus, Ontario, swapped their four-bedroom, 2,400-square-foot home on three-quarters of an acre for a 6,300-square-foot, 16th century French château on 37 acres near the Bordeaux wine region in the south of France. Today, they admit that if they were to sell that mansion in the south of France, they would not have enough money to buy their old home in Fergus. I am wondering why it is cheaper to buy a mansion in the south of France than a family home in rural Ontario.

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

Mr. Speaker, our colleague is a former mayor, and he knows, therefore, that the affordability challenge Canadians face, whether it with respect to rent or the challenge of buying a home, is due to a lack of supply. This government recognizes that. That is why we have moved ahead to put incentives on the table for the private sector, for example, for builders, like lifting the GST on the construction of purpose-built rentals, period. That side wants to maintain the tax for the purposes of building rental homes for the middle class. It is unacceptable. It is a reckless approach.

Mr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I think the government maybe misses the point. Canada has 20 times the land and half the people of France and it is still cheaper to buy a house in France. Of course, after eight years of the Prime Minister 's inflationary deficits, mortgage costs have doubled. In 2015, the average mortgage payment was $1,400. Today, it is over $3,500, and now half of Canada's housing markets are severely unaffordable. When will the NDP-Liberal coalition finally end its inflationary deficits so Canadians can afford to keep their homes?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have said and emphasized, the challenge of affordability with respect to housing writ large has to do with the lack of supply. When demand is high and supply is limited, we are always going to have an expensive situation. We see that with respect to housing. What this government is doing is working with municipalities to see more homes built. This morning, as I said, we saw the City of Brampton move ahead, working with this government. In exchange for a $114-million investment, it is going to get more homes built. It is dealing with missing middle housing and exclusionary zoning. I thank the City of Brampton.

(1135) Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, a recent survey has found that nearly 70% of millennials and those who are younger have put off the purchase of a home because of rising prices and rising interest rates. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, this is its legacy: inflationary deficits that are driving up the cost of living and making housing out of reach for many young people across the country. It is clear the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, so why does he not finally listen to our common-sense approach to stop his inflationary spending so that Canadians can afford a home again?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about young people. I will give him credit: During his time being a member of Parliament, he has put issues on the table with respect to youth. He can support the government, or at least he should have, with respect to the tax-free savings account the government put in place to help young people save for a down payment. Up to $40,000 can be put into that account, which is, again, tax-free. Add to that, of course, the fact that we continue to build more. We continue to put in place other policies that would see more homes built. We are doing that in partnership with municipalities.

The Conservatives are against all of that. They put half measures on the table and that is not good enough.

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not have the funds to put into a savings account because of the cost of living crisis the government has created. The member mentions building homes. We do not have enough home building in this country to keep up with demand. After eight years of the government, housing prices have skyrocketed. They have actually doubled. Mortgage rates are up, and young students and young professionals have given up completely on their dream of home ownership. I ask this again: When will the Liberals finally stop their inflationary spending so that young people can afford a home?

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were in power, they ran seven consecutive deficits. I find it interesting that they claim to be so concerned about the 0.7% deficit we have here in Canada, the lowest of all G7 countries. We have a serious plan in order to build more homes. We have a serious piece of legislation before this House that the Conservatives are delaying. It would solve the housing crisis, and the Conservatives are delaying that measure.

The Economy

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, Bloomberg just reported on a recent survey that shows how much Canadians are struggling after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government's inflationary spending. Sixty-five per cent of Canadians now say they are concerned about saving for retirement, and 63% are concerned about how to prepare for an unexpected financial event. It means less savings, more concern, more risk. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. When will the Prime Minister end his inflationary spending so Canadians can plan for their future again?

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that the member opposite even refers to pensions. Under what the Conservatives are proposing, they would gut the Canada pension plan. What the Conservatives are proposing would also result in Canadian families receiving less money from the federal government. We have the Canada child benefit. In fact, cheques are going out today to families right across the country. That is important support for families that are having a hard time making ends meet. The Conservatives would see that program completely cut.

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, speaking about misinformation, that response has nothing to do with what is actually happening in people's lives. The latest MNP consumer debt index shows that 51% of Canadians are $200 or less away from not being able to complete their financial obligations. “Facing a combination of rising debt carrying costs, living expenses and concern over the potential for continued interest rate and price hikes, many [Canadians] are stretched uncomfortably close to broke.” This is Canada after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government. When will the Prime Minister stop his inflationary spending so Canadians can afford to live again?

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite claims that there is misinformation. I would welcome her to clarify where exactly. The Conservatives have consistently said that they do not want to support Canadians with the programs we have in place. We have the Canada child benefit program, which is supporting families and helping them make ends meet. Perhaps she would like to clarify if that is where they are going to cut. Are they going to cut our programs for seniors? Seniors are relying on our government at this time. What the Conservatives are proposing is simply reckless. At a time like this, we need responsible government.

(1140) [ Translation ] Diversity and Inclusion

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about Amira Elghawaby, the Prime Minister's special representative on combatting Islamophobia. Many people noticed her long silence on the war between Israel and Hamas. Then, when she did finally break her silence after 10 days, everyone noticed that she did not say a word about the Hamas attacks, about the massacre of civilians, about the hundreds of kidnappings or the rapes. Many were hoping she would condemn those actions, but no, there was not even a mention. Ms. Elghawaby's role is to build bridges between communities. That is what is needed right now. Does the government think that she is building bridges this week?

Mr. Sameer Zuberi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, we have been clear. Our government has been clear. The Hamas attacks on Israel were terrorist attacks. However, Ms. Elghawaby's mandate to combat Islamophobia is 100% national. She is working with our newly appointed special envoy on combatting anti-Semitism to combat discrimination against Muslims here in Canada. At the same time, she is supporting other communities.

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Muslim and Jewish government MPs met despite their differences to jointly reiterate the importance of all citizens feeling safe in Canada, regardless of their religion. That makes a difference and it should be commended. Ms. Elghawaby, however, is incapable of recognizing that Hamas attacks are even happening, let alone the anger, fear and suffering they cause, including among her own fellow citizens. Does the government think that Ms. Elghawaby missed a good opportunity to also do something worthwhile?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his question, my hon. colleague pointed out the importance of protecting Canadians who are understandably worried about their safety and the safety of their community and meeting places. I agree with him on that. Last week, I had discussions with Minister Bonnardel from Quebec and with other provincial and territorial ministers. These discussions focused specifically on how we can reassure and protect Canadians. I often speak to representatives of the RCMP and intelligence services. We will do whatever it takes in that regard.

[ English ] Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians who grew up in the seventies and eighties remember a disastrous Trudeau economic legacy that most definitely was not worth the cost. Fourteen deficits in 15 years led to an inflation crisis, an energy crisis and a housing crisis. The long-term impact of interest payments on that Trudeau debt forced another Liberal government a decade later to cut a devastating 32% from transfers for health care, education and social services. The Liberal-NDP government is going down the exact same road. How much will they spend on interest on their record debt this year?

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

Mr. Speaker, they constantly talk about their record of fiscal responsibility. During the Stephen Harper years, they ran seven consecutive deficits. Under this government we have seen economic growth. We have seen this government go through an extremely challenging time in the pandemic. Guess what? Businesses are still there. They are finding ways to thrive as a result of the ways that we supported them and continue to find ways to support them. When Canadians need support for other key challenges now, like housing, we are there. They are putting half-measures on the table. They are not worth the risk.

(1145) Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of mind-blowing, unprecedented, previously unfathomable increases in spending, the government's response to every question is to ask why we will not help them spend even more. Again and again, we on this side will stand up against an incompetent Liberal government that is leading us down a path of economic devastation. Again, my question was reasonable and straightforward and I would appreciate an answer this time. What will the Liberal-NDP government spend on interest on its record debt this year?

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

Mr. Speaker, they inherited a surplus. They turned it into a deficit, another deficit and another deficit. On this side, we put constructive measures on the table like lifting GST on the building of rentals for Canadians. They talk about an attachment that they have to a vision for the country that puts the middle class front and centre. It is not true. Why are they proposing at this time, at a time when Canadians are facing a housing crisis, to tax the building of rentals for the middle class? It makes no sense. It is a reckless approach from start to finish.

National Defence

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, after eight miserable years, our military heroes can no longer afford the Prime Minister . The NDP-Liberal government keeps driving troop morale down and their costs up. A recently leaked report stated, “Increasingly, members will release (from the Canadian Forces) rather than relocate to an area they cannot afford or taking a loss on an existing home.” The Canadian Armed Forces are in a crisis and are short 16,000 people, but the Liberals are pushing people away and making things worse. Why is the Prime Minister destroying our military?

[ Translation ]

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

Mr. Speaker, before answering my colleague's question, I would like to underscore that today, we remember Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who lost his life in 2014. [ English ] Regarding the hon. member's question, I would like to say that when we think about the housing situation, just last year, in our fiscal update, we put $55 million of support toward residential housing for CAF members. I would also like to acknowledge the support we are giving to members when they relocate, like with the reimbursement of legal and real estate fees. We will always be there for our military.

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is actually repeating Liberal history, known as the decade of darkness. Soldiers and their families back then were forced to use food banks. There were slashes to training programs. They operated with old equipment and were sent to Afghanistan without proper boots or uniforms. Now, this month, the headlines read, “Soldiers asking for donations to help with housing, food costs”; “Canadian Forces personnel leaving the ranks over lack of affordable housing”; and, “Federal government looking to cut $1 billion from National Defence budget”. Our troops are out there fighting for our freedoms. Why is the Prime Minister attacking their economic freedom?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question because it allows me to validate some of the measures and supports that we have put in place for our military. As I mentioned earlier, we are reimbursing the legal and real estate fees. We are covering some expenses for dual residency for up to six months if a CAF member cannot sell their residence. We will continue to support our Canadian Armed Forces members posted across the country and their families. For example, the post living differential allowance is intended to help reduce financial burdens for CAF personnel and their families. We will not take any lessons from that side of the House.

Foreign Affairs

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, Canada has supported international justice efforts in response to the wars in Ukraine and Syria, but has refused to support international court investigations in Israel and Palestine. The parties in this conflict and the victims of this conflict need to know that violations of international law will be prosecuted. This includes terror attacks and collective punishment. International law applies to everyone. There are no exceptions. Why will Canada not support independent court investigations into violations of international law by all parties to the war in Israel and Palestine?

(1150) Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, right now, the alleviation of human suffering is our number one priority. We continue, and will continue, to push for all parties to respect humanitarian and international law. This means access for civilians. This means accountability for those who do not follow international law. This means that we are using every diplomatic channel that we have to alleviate the suffering, and ensure that aid gets to the Palestinian civilians and that international law is complied with.

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the war between Hamas and Israel keeps taking the lives of so many innocent Israelis and Palestinians. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is getting worse by the minute. People in Gaza have very little access to water, food or electricity. They are forced to flee their homes or be bombed, and half of them are children. Palestinians and Israelis deserve to live in peace, and that is why the NDP has been calling for an immediate ceasefire and for the release of the hostages. Why will the government not do everything in its power to save lives by calling for a ceasefire?

Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, Canada will continue to support Palestinian civilians in Gaza facing urgent humanitarian needs. Our initial commitment of $10 million in humanitarian assistance to trusted partners in Gaza will provide food, water, emergency medical assistance and protection services. We were the first western country to do so, and others have now started following suit. We will continue to be there.

Canadian Heritage

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

Mr. Speaker, national parks protect Canada's iconic terrestrial and aquatic environments, while provide opportunities for public understanding, education and enjoyment for these protected areas. Having worked for Parks Canada for more than 30 years prior to politics, I can appreciate the importance of protecting and preserving the beautiful landscapes that represent the very best of Canada. Can the parliamentary secretary share with this House the progress our government is making to protect and conserve these national wonders for future generations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his advocacy for Parks Canada all these years. Yesterday our government introduced Bill S-14 , the protecting Canada’s natural wonders act. This bill would ensure that, along with its partners, Parks Canada has the authorities and tools to protect these lands for current and future generations. This represents an increase of more than 12 million hectares protected under legislation, which is a land mass slightly smaller than the combined area of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I hope all parliamentarians can work together to ensure the passage of this important piece of legislation.

Housing

Mr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, after eight long years under the Prime Minister , Canadians expect more than just empty promises on housing. Construction is down and costs are climbing way up. The NDP-Liberal coalition's inflationary spending feels like a cruel joke to those trying to afford a home. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. Is it not time for some common-sense Conservative solutions to ensure every Canadian has a roof over their head?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a bill on this floor that the Conservatives can get behind. The result, if they decide to support it, would be a more affordable situation for builders, because it would lift GST off the construction of rental apartments. They are not in favour of that. They want to tax the construction of rental apartments for the middle class. On top of that, we are putting forward measures to help support builders by making sure there are training programs so labourers can be available. They have no support for that. It is an entirely reckless approach that they take.

Carbon Pricing

Mr. Arpan Khanna (Oxford, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, after eight long years of the Liberal-NDP government, seven million Canadians are now struggling to put food on their tables thanks to the carbon tax. When one taxes the farmer who grows the food and taxes the trucker who ships the food, one ultimately punishes the Canadian who buys the food. Now there are Canadians driving across the U.S. border to buy basic grocery essentials. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Will the Prime Minister do the honourable thing, axe the carbon tax and bring home affordable groceries for all Canadians?

(1155) Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives consistently use the carbon price as a scapegoat for global inflation in this House. I think they are having trouble grasping the concept of magnitude. The Bank of Canada governor recently said carbon pricing contributed 0.15% to inflation, which is equivalent to 15¢ on a $100 grocery bill. The European Central Bank said climate change contributes as much as 3% to the cost of food per year, which is three dollars on a $100 grocery bill. That means climate change has 20 times the influence on food prices than the carbon price. If Conservatives were serious about fighting global inflation, they would have a plan to fight climate change.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, of all the provinces, Quebec is the one most affected by inflation. Quebeckers are spending 23% more for their groceries. Food banks are swamped with people no longer able to afford supermarket prices, but this is a matter of utter indifference to this government and to the Bloc Québécois, which wants to drastically increase the tax. Voting Bloc is costly. Will the Prime Minister show some empathy, do the right and reasonable thing and cancel his costly carbon tax?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising the issue of affordability and the Quebec City region. She is a brand new MP, so she may not know that her Conservative Party colleagues voted against the Canada child benefit in 2016, before her time. Tens of thousands of children and families receive a tax-free cheque every month, lifting 40% of the people in her riding out of poverty. Would she choose to vote against the Canada child benefit too?

Mr. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Liberal government, Quebeckers are getting poorer. Those are the facts. According to Statistics Canada, inflation is rising faster than Quebec wages. What is more, the second carbon tax to be applied in Quebec will increase the price of gasoline by 17¢ per litre. Then there is the Bloc, which claims to defend Quebec, yet is further harming Quebeckers by demanding a drastic increase. Voting Bloc is costly. When will the government abolish its carbon tax and give Quebeckers a chance to get their heads above water?

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, when I talk to Quebeckers, they tell me that voting Conservative is far too costly. The Conservatives are proposing an austerity plan. They want to cut support for our seniors, support for families with children, the help Canadians need to make ends meet. We are here to support Canadians. The Conservatives are not worth the risk.

International Development

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International is calling on Export Development Canada, EDC, to stop funding Canadian mining companies in Colombia, where human rights violations are on the rise. Some 146 political dissidents were killed last year. That represents 46% of all political assassinations around the world. Environmental activists, farmers, indigenous people and anyone who has reservations about the mining companies' activities are at risk. Will Ottawa suspend the funding of mining companies in Colombia while there are serious concerns that they are contributing to a climate of violence there?

[ English ]

Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, the government will always stand up for human rights. This is why we created the CORE to maintain social responsibility of businesses around the world. This is why we will continue always to ensure that when Canadians and others are doing business around the world, particularly mining companies, we will always stand up for human rights everywhere, all the time.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, CORE, the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, does not even have the authority to call witnesses. I went to Colombia in 2021 as part of a human rights mission. I can confirm that there are some disturbing accounts there. Ottawa has no idea what is happening with the mining companies abroad. Export Development Canada has no checks and balances or credible monitoring. Ottawa needs to tighten the accountability and transparency requirements of the companies it funds in countries where human rights are being violated. In the immediate term, will it listen to Amnesty International and restrict EDC investments in Canadian mining companies in Colombia?

(1200) [ English ]

Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, we have very strong export control mechanisms. We always stand up for human rights. The Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise was created specifically so that we can work together with businesses. We know that there are ways in which that can be strengthened. This is exactly why we are listening. It is why, when the Subcommittee on International Human Rights did a study, the government accepted those recommendations regarding CORE. We will work together with every member of the House to ensure that Canada and Canadians, when we are abroad, stand for human rights.

Innovation, Science and Industry

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the current government and the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister , it is no surprise that the Liberals' billion-dollar green slush fund is lining the pockets of Liberal insiders and is now under investigation. Annette Verschuren is a good friend of the Prime Minister and chair of the board that is doling out taxpayer cash. However, it turns out that her own company received millions from that same fund. The Prime Minister simply is not worth the cost. How many other Liberal insiders got rich with this green slush fund?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that Canadians are wising up to the fact that the Conservatives are just not worth the risk, but let me answer the member's question by saying this: When the minister became aware of the allegations of mismanagement at SDTC, he immediately acted and commissioned a review. The review resulted in an action plan that the executive will now implement by December, and we expect the highest standards of excellence in governance from all of our federal agencies.

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, this is the same scandal that has whistle-blowers pleading for legal and career protection after exposing the latest scandal in this billion-dollar boondoggle. We know that everyone from the board chair to the CEO is in a conflict of interest. They all protect each other and they all make money, and it is all on the backs of Canadians. The Prime Minister simply is not worth the cost. Will the Prime Minister guarantee these whistle-blowers the same protection afforded to whistle-blowers in Canada's public service?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, when the minister became aware of the allegations of mismanagement in this particular case, he immediately acted to commission a third party independent review of SDTC. That review produced an action plan that, now, SDTC will implement by December. That will make a substantive difference to addressing the mismanagement. The highest standards of governance are the expectations that Canadians should have, and that is exactly what our government is doing.

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians expect is that whistle-blowers, when they bring to light corruption within the Liberal government, will be afforded protection, but we have seen before how the government treats the rule of law. The Prime Minister blocked the RCMP from pursuing a criminal investigation into Liberal corruption by hiding documents from them. If anyone else hid documents from the RCMP, they would end up in handcuffs, but with the Liberals, what we see is the continuation of that cover-up. After eight years, he is a Prime Minister who is not worth the cost to our democratic institutions.

What evidence is the Prime Minister so desperate to hide from the RCMP, and why does he think he is above the law?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that what the member falsely claims is something that we take issue with. Earlier this year when the minister became aware of the allegations of mismanagement, he acted immediately and decided to conduct a fact-finding exercise through an impartial third party review. That third party produced a report, and that report has now resulted in an action plan that is being implemented. That is going to make a substantial difference in addressing the issues that have been identified. Let us make one thing clear: We expect the highest standards of governance from all federal agencies, and that is exactly what we are standing up for.