Bill C-5 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)

This enactment amends certain Acts to add a new holiday, namely, National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which is observed on September 30.

Bills of Exchange Act

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my view, and I think in the view of most member, reconciliation is a path and journey that we are taking with first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

There are a number of things that we as government, as the Crown, need to do on that path to reconciliation. This includes things like the adoption of the bill on UNDRIP and the implementation of the Indigenous Languages Act, for which I have the honour and privilege of being responsible.

Speaking of indigenous languages in our country, I would like to remind the House that when our government came into power in 2015, the federal government invested $5 million for indigenous languages across the country. This year, it will be more than $100 million, and I do not think that is enough. We need to do more. We are working with our indigenous partners to see what the adequate and long-term level of funding would be for indigenous languages.

There are many things we must do on this path to reconciliation, but moving forward with Bill C-5—

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said the first time that Bill C-5 was introduced to the House, I recognize all of the work done by Madame Jolibois on all of this. In fact, the bill does reflect what had been tabled during the last Parliament.

As the member well knows, the Senate is an independent body of Parliament. That being said, the government has been hard at work for many months, talking to a number of senators to try to ensure that the bill makes it through the Senate in the fastest possible way.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that the NDP absolutely supports fast-tracking Bill C-5. This should have actually become law in the last Parliament, as it mimics the bill that former MP Georgina Jolibois brought forward. With that being said, I hope that this will in fact pass through the Senate this time.

What assurances can the member provide the House that this will become law this time around?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation), be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are all, whether physically or virtually, present today on the ancestral lands of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

This is not just something we say. The land acknowledgement speaks to the context we are living today, and to the new relationship that we are trying to build through our everyday actions. Like many, I am still in shock about the horrors that have been uncovered at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in B.C. Having the remains of 215 children be at the residential school is horrifying.

The residential school system caused harm to generations of indigenous children and communities. For that, the government has apologized, first in 2008 to former students of residential schools, and in 2017 to former students of Newfoundland and Labrador residential schools, for example. As we are all acutely aware, Canadians continue to witness tragedies perpetuated against indigenous peoples. Racism in Canada is an undeniable reality and reconciliation must be more than apologies.

Reconciliation must be about big legislative actions and smaller gestures. It must be about both everyday actions and bold moves. Reconciliation is a long-term commitment that requires the engagement of all. It is made up of many actions, apologies, commissions, family conversations, school assemblies, community collaborations, conversations with colleagues, friendships, distinction-based policy changes, infrastructure support and commemorations.

There are many opportunities that could be seized for real change. We must act now.

In budget 2019, our government invested $7 million over two years to help non-governmental and community organizations recognize and commemorate the history and legacy of residential schools.

Thanks to this investment, over 200 communities and organizations across the country are receiving funds this year for projects to raise awareness and educate Canadians about this dark chapter of Canada's history.

Budget 2021 also proposes to provide $13.4 million over five years, with $2.4 million ongoing, to Canadian Heritage for events to commemorate the history and legacy of residential schools and to honour survivors, their families and communities, as well as to support celebrations and commemoration events during the proposed national day for truth and reconciliation.

These numbers show that despite the pandemic, the need and interest of communities to be able to honour and commemorate as they see fit are high. People want to tell their stories and they want to stand witness so new stories can be told. They want to honour the survivors. They need to heal and they want to learn so they can act for change.

This kind of groundswell of interest shows that indigenous and non-indigenous people alike recognize the importance of commemorating this history.

This commemoration funding and the creation of a national day for truth and reconciliation reflect the recognition that all histories and cultures are important. These actions speak to our capacity to expose the wrongs of the past so we can face this history and commit to do better.

I think we can all agree that it is important to recognize the profound impact residential schools had on first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

In fact, the Indian Act legislated government control over almost every aspect of indigenous peoples' lives, including mandatory attendance at residential schools. Governments throughout Canada's history continued to uphold legislation and follow policies that perpetuated systemic racism in our society.

With the social upheaval occurring globally, we must harness the generational potential to reduce racism in our world. Residential schools targeted the children. We can turn that on its head and aim to educate the next generation to uphold inclusive values and to prioritize respect above all in communities, in schools, in families and in digital spaces.

The words from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report bear repeating:

All Canadian children and youth deserve to know Canada's honest history, including what happened in the residential schools, and to appreciate the rich history and knowledge of Indigenous nations who continue to make such a strong contribution to Canada, including our very name and collective identity as a country. For Canadians from all walks of life, reconciliation offers a new way of living together.

This statutory holiday helps to build that new way of living together, particularly in the global context of calls for social justice. This day is part of how we build back stronger together. People might ask how one day will make a difference. How will one day that establishes a statutory holiday for a limited number of people make a difference? It is telling that people do not ask these questions about Remembrance Day. Recognizing the selfless sacrifices that veterans made to a global effort against oppression is appropriate and right. Shining a light on a dark history of oppression of our own making is also right. It is uncomfortable, but perhaps it is because it is uncomfortable that we should commit to it.

Dr. Marie Wilson, one of the three commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, spoke to the importance of a national statutory holiday. She said that reconciliation is “very tied to issues of law and public policy”. That signals the importance of reconciliation to those who work on these issues, and that it is valuable.

As we have said before, a national day reveals our priorities. It says that this issue is important and we should be paying attention to it not just on this day, but throughout the year. Just as Remembrance Day is not only for veterans, a national day for truth and reconciliation is not only for first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Just as we honour veterans and highlight our values as a nation on Remembrance Day, we would honour survivors and those lost on the national day for truth and reconciliation, but also reflect on our path as a nation, on our values, on how our values have shifted and on how we can chart a new path for Canada: one that includes everyone who calls these lands home.

In so many ways, our lives and our world have witnessed loss and our realities have been forever changed. There is no doubt that these are complex, difficult times right now, but Canadians do not shy away from the tough issues. Reconciliation is tough, but we can make progress on a just journey together with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The establishment of a national day for truth and reconciliation fulfills call to action 80 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report. It is an important action to take, and we must act immediately so that this day becomes part of our reality this year.

Employment Insurance Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is quite a pleasure to speak to Bill C-24 at third reading.

Earlier in the week, I spoke on Bill C-24 at second reading. Back then, I emphasized how important the legislation was to the Government of Canada. Since the very beginning of the pandemic, the Prime Minister has made a commitment to have the backs of Canadians. Once again, we have legislation before the House that is absolutely critical with respect to supporting Canadians today and continuing to do so going forward.

When I spoke on the bill earlier in the week, I was somewhat upset and I expressed my feelings about the Conservative Party and how it was filibustering important legislation on the floor of the House of Commons. In fact, I recall citing a tweet by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul about importance of the legislation for workers. However, the the Conservatives were filibustering important legislation during the pandemic, and we witnessed that during the debate on Bill C-14. At the time, I indicated that the only way the House could see legislation passed was if the Conservatives were made to feel ashamed of their behaviour. I am pleased that it would appear as if the Conservatives saw the merit, through a bit of shaming, in allowing the bill to pass. It is important to recognize that.

If we review what has taken place during the week, there are some encouraging signs, at least from some of the opposition parties. However, that is not universally held. I am afraid that the Conservatives still feel obligated to play that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, and I will expand on that.

Bill C-24 would provide badly needed funds, essential funds, to thousands of Canadians in all regions of our country. To see how we should proceed, all we need to do is look at the desire and what we have seen this week. I will cite a few examples of that. The reason I am doing this is because I want to encourage members of the Conservative Party particularly to recognize the true value of legislation like Bill C-24, and it appears the member for Kildonan—St. Paul has recognized it, and to see the value in passing it.

The best example I can think of is something that took place yesterday. We had very important legislation, Bill C-7, which is literally on life and death, before us. Because we are in a minority situation, it does not take very much to prevent the government from passing legislation. However, in this situation, the Bloc, indicated that it supported the legislation and would assist the government to bring forward closure. Had we not received that support, we never would have been able to advance it through the House of Commons and people would have been denied the opportunity to have access to this through this legislation.

Earlier in the week, we also had some indication from my New Democratic friends about Bill C-5, important legislation that is not necessarily as direct as Bill C-24 is with respect to the pandemic. Quite possibly it could be somewhat of assistance indirectly during the pandemic.

In this situation, the New Democrats said that they would like to have unanimous consent to allow that additional debate and ultimately see Bill C-5 passed in the House. Of course, much like with the Bloc's suggestion, the Conservatives outright said that they did not want anything to do with it. Again, it is not to come across as not being grateful for the Conservatives recognizing the importance of Bill C-24, but it is more so to encourage the Conservative Party to look at what other opposition parties are doing to facilitate the passing of important legislation.

Bill C-24 was recognized the other day by the Conservatives when they stopped debate, allowing it to get out of second reading so it could go to committee. As a result, we are now at third reading stage today. We know that if the Conservative Party wanted to do more, it could.

For example, look at what the Conservatives did with the Canada-United Kingdom agreement, which is critically important legislation. It would have a direct impact, even during the coronavirus pandemic. The Conservatives requested unanimous consent for a motion with respect to the trade agreement, and we supported it.

It is important to recognize that my New Democratic friends, who have traditionally voted against anything related to expanding trade relations, also supported the motion to see the bill on the United Kingdom trade agreement pass through the House of Commons even though they opposed it. It is important to recognize that. The NDP and the Bloc have, on occasion, have recognized what I have been saying to the House for quite a while, which is that the behaviour of the Conservatives has not been favourable to the House of Commons in passing the legislation that is so badly needed to support Canadians during this difficult time. They have gone out of their way to frustrate the House of Commons and our desire to see important legislation like Bill C-24 passed.

I will continue to remind my Conservative friends that they have an important obligation to Canadians, as the government has since day one, to focus their attention not on an election, but rather supporting Canadians. One of the ways they can do that is by providing support on legislation such as this.

When I spoke on Bill C-24 earlier in the week, members of the Conservative Party were somewhat critical of me, saying that the government had just introduced the legislation so how could I expect them to pass it, implying that I was maybe not being as principled on enabling members to speak to important legislation. I want to assure members of the House that I have always been an advocate for members of Parliament to express themselves on legislation.

Many would say that I have no problem expressing myself on a wide variety of issues on the floor of the House. I am very grateful for the position that I have been put in by the Prime Minister and the support I get from my caucus colleagues. I often speak on behalf of many of my caucus colleagues in expressing frustration and in expressing support for initiatives that are being taken on the floor of the House of Commons.

The bill was introduced for the first time in February, and nothing would have prevented further discussion and additional debate if in fact—

National Day for Truth and Reconciliation

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, our government proudly supported a motion to continue the debate on Bill C-5, a national day for truth and reconciliation. It is disappointing that unanimous consent was not reached to continue to advance this important piece of legislation, because the Conservative Party of Canada refused to agree, obstructing the passage of the motion and ultimately the bill.

This new national day of commemoration would honour first nations, Inuit and Métis survivors, their families and communities while raising more awareness among Canadians about the atrocities committed against indigenous people. September 30 builds on the grassroots momentum of Orange Shirt Day, which is already recognized as a day to remember the painful history and legacy of residential schools and move forward on a path toward reconciliation.

Reconciliation should not be partisan. The obstruction and political games must stop so that the House can advance important elements of reconciliation and the TRC's calls to action.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to everyone for being here to discuss the motion.

I would like to talk about the idea that we not waste any more time in this committee. Obviously, making sure there is time for debate is very important. It is a very big part of our parliamentary process. But I also think there comes a time when Canadians expect their parliamentarians to take action and to actually move forward with things. The worst-case stereotype of a politician is one who can talk about absolutely nothing for hours, wasting the time of the committee, the analysts and the other members of Parliament. I think it would be useful if we could just make a decision on this motion. Of course, I would very much like to see it pass. It is the motion that I brought forward.

One thing I'd like to highlight is that I don't think there can be anything more important to Canadians right now than the government's response to COVID-19 and the government's ability to procure vaccines. I don't think there is a single thing, probably, that will interest Canadians more than that. As much as the NDP have been pushing very hard to have bills like Bill C-5, bills like the net-zero legislation, bills like Bill C-15 and all sorts of them come forward to the House, and the government has chosen not to bring those forward, I think it is still very important that in the House of Commons, all members of Parliament, whether they're part of this committee or not, have an opportunity to look at the issue of Canadian procurement of vaccines and how vaccines are being shared among other countries. I think it's very, very important. I think it's disingenuous to suggest that this wouldn't be something that Canadians and all members of Parliament would be very interested in learning more about.

I'm not interested in filibustering or talking for a full hour. My expectation is that Canadians expect their members of Parliament to move legislation and to move studies forward. I was very, very open to some of the amendments Ms. Sahota brought forward. I had actually verbally agreed during committee meetings that I would be willing to change some of the language within the motion.

That said, I think it's vital that this be something that's reported back to the House. I am not willing to change my mind on that particular portion of the motion. I would like to see all members of Parliament be able to represent their constituents in Canada on something that is so vital, so important, at this moment in time.

I would like to ask that we put the question and that members from all four parties be able to vote on whether or not they would like this amendment to go forward.

I will cede the floor at this point. Of course, the Liberals have every opportunity to continue to filibuster, if that's what they see fit to do. They have every opportunity to say that the reason they're doing this is for clarity, but I think Canadians know better.

That would be my comment. I'm certainly happy to talk about amending the language and happy to work with my colleagues in whatever way I can to move this forward. I'm not terribly interested in sitting for another full hour of one person talking.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Employment Insurance Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-24, yet another important piece of legislation designed as a direct result of the coronavirus. I would like to approach this debate in terms of what I have been listening to throughout the afternoon.

My colleague from Kildonan-St. Paul made reference to the idea of hope, while other Conservative members were quite harsh in their criticism, saying, “Where is the plan?” I want to address both of those issues and how this legislation fits in so well.

Virtually from day one, the Prime Minister, cabinet and government as a whole indicated that we were going to be there for Canadians and we would have their backs. We wanted to support Canadians throughout our great nation in making sure that we could minimize the negative impact of the coronavirus. We have been working on that seven days a week, 24 hours a day, in one way or another. I am sure I am not alone: Members of Parliament from all sides of the House are deeply engaged within our constituencies and caucuses with regard to the coronavirus, what is taking place in our communities and what we need to do as a government to minimize the damage.

The Conservative Party talks a lot about the plan, asking where the plan is, and the issue of hope. I have had the opportunity over the past 12 months to comment on the plan that we talk about consistently. There is no list of one to 1,050 thoughts, ideas, dates and so forth. That type of document does not exist, except in the minds of many of my Conservative friends. We have worked very closely with many different stakeholders, provinces, indigenous leaders, territories, different levels of government, school divisions, municipalities, unions and so many others, including small, medium and large businesses, to understand the impact that the coronavirus is having on our society and economy.

The programs that we have developed have done an excellent job of making sure that we minimize the negative impacts of the coronavirus, and have put Canada in a great position not only to build back, but build back better, as many of my colleagues will talk about.

Look at the legislation that we have today. Members will say that I am a government member and I am just saying good stuff because I am obligated to say good stuff. I would like to provide a couple of quotes specifically on this bill.

The Canadian Labour Congress released a statement that said:

Canada’s unions welcome the extension to income supports announced by the federal government today as a necessary step towards providing further financial security to those who need it.

The release also stated:

“It’s good to see the federal government fulfill its promise to take care of workers with these measures, including extending the duration of the federal sickness benefit for those who aren’t covered through their workplace...”

The provinces must step up and offer workers universal paid sick leave.

That is what the CLC has pointed out. I put it to my friend from Elmwood—Transcona that we can talk all we want, but there is nothing that Ottawa could do that would meet the full standards of the NDP. If we extended something to 30 weeks, NDP members would say that we should do 35 weeks. If we did 35 weeks, they would say to do 40 weeks. It is endless in terms of what they would want to see.

If my colleague from Spadina—Fort York who talks about housing could do a comparison between NDP policies and what we have done as a government, we will find that in the last five years, the Government of Canada has far exceeded anything that the NDP could have ever created, even in their minds, yet they still say that there is not enough, even though it is tenfold in terms of the numbers they were talking about.

That is why I put to my friend the question. He himself recognized that when we talk about some of these permanent changes, and hopefully someday we will get to that point, the fact is that governments of different levels all have an important place in this debate. When we see what has taken place during the pandemic and we see the Minister of Labour sitting down with her provincial counterparts, I believe that there is merit in having that debate continue, and hopefully we will see the provinces there. Often it is a province that will take an action that will ultimately see other provinces and even the national government move forward.

On the issue of sick leave, we are, although somewhat temporarily, taking action. It is being recognized, but it is a relatively small percentage of the workforce. I am hopeful that provinces will see what we are doing, and maybe this will assist us going forward when we talk about building back better. I would like to see our workers treated far better than they were in the last 20 or 30 years, and we need to see more co-operation among provinces.

It was interesting that the National Council for the Unemployed also provided comment in regard to this bill, and they are calling on Parliament to swiftly pass the legislation. The council stated, “This extension is important for the thousands of families struggling to get through this crisis. Their fate is now in the hands of parliamentarians. Our message to them is simple: Every citizen has the right to emerge from this crisis with dignity. All of us will be stronger and more united. We must therefore adopt this bill.”

I asked a very simple question of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul: Will she support this legislation? What is the Conservative Party's position on this legislation? Members can read for themselves. There was an absolute non-answer coming from the member, yet the appeal to pass this bill goes beyond Liberal members of Parliament. That is because, as I am sure the House knows, Liberal members of Parliament are constantly working with stakeholders, in particular their constituents, in taking ideas and bringing them back to Ottawa to help us deal with the policies that are necessary in order to implement what is going to help Canadians. We recognize that, and I believe other political entities inside the House also recognize the importance of passing this bill, as does the National Council for the Unemployed.

We are all familiar with Unifor. I would like to share the message that came from Dave Cassidy, the Unifor national skilled trades chairperson for local 444. He wrote, “The expansion of EI coverage is critical to the workers and families of Windsor and Essex, and I urge all parties to come together to ensure swift passage of this important legislation.” He called for all parties to work together and move quickly to support and pass Bill C-24.

Part of the problem is that the legislative agenda is fairly substantial. There has been a great need, because of the pandemic, to bring forward legislation that is necessary for us to support Canadian individuals and businesses. When we brought in legislation, at times, especially earlier on during the pandemic, there was a high sense of co-operation coming from opposition parties. However, when it comes to my Conservative friends today, nothing could be further from co-operation. I would argue that they are being a very destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. They are going out of their way to prevent legislation from passing. The only time we can get something through the Conservatives is if they are shamed into doing it.

I was disappointed earlier, as it was difficult for us to get the Conservatives to agree to vote on Bill C-14. It was all about the pandemic and supporting small businesses. It was hours and days before we could get it to a vote.

What about the games that are being played in the House, again mostly by the Conservative Party? There are concurrence reports and points of order. These are measures being taken to minimize the amount of time for debate so the Conservatives can say a bill cannot be that important if the government has not actually called it up. On the one hand they are going out of their way to prevent legislation from passing, and on the other they are criticizing us for not getting legislation passed. How long will they hang on to Bill C-24 before they will ultimately agree to pass it? It is for the workers. For businesses we saw what they did. Ironically, they even voted against the legislation for them, which surprised me somewhat, I must say. However, we still do not have Bill C-24 through the House.

We have limited time on the House agenda and have tried to extend the time for debate. Even earlier today, a member from the New Democratic caucus asked for additional time to address Bill C-5. However, time and time again, the Conservatives are playing partisan politics in the chamber over and above what is a responsible approach to dealing with legislation that is for supporting Canadians during the pandemic.

Bill C-24 is yet another good piece of legislation, but I do not know when it is going to pass because I do not believe the Conservatives, unless something has happened very recently, have given any indication as to whether they want three hours of debate or 20 hours of debate. I know they will say that we all have the right to debate, and they will want to debate everything extensively. However, they know full well that it does not take much to stop legislation. I could get 12 students from Sisler High School in my area to easily prevent the government from passing legislation. It does not take much to do it. The only way we can get legislation through is if we are prepared to provide some form of time allocation. However, in a minority situation, that could very much be a challenge, even though at times I have seen my New Democratic friends support time allocation when they recognize important pieces of legislation.

I am suggesting that the legislation we have today is both widely supported and progressive. The Conservatives have nothing to fear from allowing it to go through because many of the measures are temporary. At the end of the day, if they want to support workers, I strongly encourage them to get behind the legislation and allow it to go to committee. After all, there are other things the government wants to see additional debate on, and I am sure that many of the issues Conservatives might have with it could be addressed at committee.

We could talk about the Canada emergency response benefit. It is an incredible program that appeared virtually out of thin air last year because of the incredible work of some of the finest civil servants in the world. We, from nothing, created a program that close to nine million Canadians ultimately accessed in some form or another. As it started to wind its way through, we developed three programs via the Canada Recovery Benefits Act: the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit and the Canada recovery sickness benefit, all of which are referred to within this legislation.

In this legislation, we are seeking an extension of employment insurance. In essence, it would amend the Employment Insurance Act to temporarily increase the maximum number of weeks regular benefits may be paid to 50 weeks.

My New Democrat friend talked about everyone in the House unanimously supporting it. In fact, he implied that there would be unanimous support for it to be a permanent change. Let us see if we can get this to committee.

One of the things I have noted about the minister responsible for the legislation is her openness to hearing what opposition members have to say about legislation she has introduced in the House. There have been some incredible pieces of legislation by this minister, particularly in the area of disabilities, historic legislation recognizing for the first time the significant issue of disabilities and the need to address it in a much more formal fashion, which would ultimately lead to benefits.

This legislation would help workers, and I ask that my Conservative friends to take that into consideration as they caucus and determine whether they are going to filibuster or attempt to prevent this bill from passing to committee.

The government has been very much focused on Canadians since the beginning of the pandemic. We see that with the development of the programs I just referenced. I could talk about those programs for small businesses, whether it was was the emergency wage subsidy, the emergency rent subsidy, the emergency business account and more. These programs support small businesses, which indirectly support workers. Again, millions of jobs have been saved.

Canada is in an excellent position to be able to build back better because we have a government that recognizes the need to be there for Canadians in a very real and tangible way.

Official Languages

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish you a happy International Women's Day.

There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code concerning a National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, be deemed concurred in at the report stage; that the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-5 at third reading; that, when no further member rises to speak or at 12 a.m., whichever is earlier, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith and successively every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill; that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions tomorrow, March 9; and that the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you very much. My apologies for the lateness of my arrival. It seems that events are conspiring against my participation in this committee meeting. We had a fire alarm where I am right now, so we had to exit the building.

That being said, we actually explored the possibility of my joining by phone outside. That was technologically complicated, it seems.

I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and Haudenosaunee peoples.

I want to start by acknowledging that, four years ago today, a gunman took the lives of six people at the Quebec City mosque and seriously injured 19 others. They were Muslim fathers, husbands, loved ones and friends. Their sudden and tragic deaths were heartbreaking not just for their families, but also for Muslim communities around the world and all Canadians.

Mr. Chair, I am very happy to be appearing before you again today.

With me is the deputy minister of Canadian Heritage, Hélène Laurendeau; as well as Jean-Stéphen Piché, senior assistant deputy minister.

The pandemic continues to weigh heavily on Canada's heritage, arts, culture and sport communities. We are all committed to helping them get through the crisis and supporting them in their recovery.

I want to thank the committee for pursuing it's important work despite the difficult circumstances. Your study on the challenges faced by the arts, culture, heritage and sport sectors caused by COVID-19 will be a valuable asset in these efforts. Canadian Heritage was pleased to participate.

I would also like to acknowledge the excellent work you have done on Bill C-5, which seeks to establish the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation as a statutory holiday.

When we met for the main and supplementary budget estimates review, I had just tabled Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. It will be referred to your committee shortly, and we will welcome your input on this legislation as well.

As I indicated before the holidays, I look forward to better understanding your perspectives and how the bill could be improved.

Like many Canadians, our government is concerned about the current imbalance that favours the web giants at the expense of Canadian businesses. The economic and social stakes resulting from this situation are too important for us to stand idly by.

That is why the Speech from the Throne mentioned that things must change to ensure more equitable sharing of revenues with our Canadian creators and media.

Mr. Chair, our government is committed to regulating digital platforms and putting them to work for Canadians. One of the objectives of Bill C-10 is to require those platforms to invest in our creators, our music and our stories, which could lead to more than $800 million of additional money being invested here in Canada every year.

This bill has been positively received by the community and stakeholders. I must share the credit for this success with the employees of Canadian Heritage, as it would not have been possible without their supporting work. I would like to salute their expertise and professionalism. As you know, it is up to elected officials to lead the development of public policy, and our government has been very clear on how we want to tackle social media platforms and web giants. The Canadian Heritage team is providing excellent evidence-based support in this regard.

Our government will also complement these efforts by levelling the playing field on the tax front, as we proposed in the 2020 fall economic statement. Digital businesses will now be required to collect and remit the GST. We will also ensure that digital corporations pay their fair share of taxes in respect of their activities in Canada.

I must also note that we are currently studying a made-in-Canada formula to ensure fair remuneration of news publishers by online platforms, similar to what you might have seen move ahead in certain other countries.

We have seen during the pandemic that digital platforms are more than ever at the heart of communications between Canadians, and are keeping us connected. Unfortunately, some Internet users are also exploiting these platforms maliciously to spread hate, racism and child pornography. There is currently illegal content being uploaded and shared online, to the detriment of Canadians and our society. This is simply unacceptable.

My apologies, Mr. Chair, but I'm having some technical problems.

Canadian Heritage

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage concerning the main estimates, 2020-21, as well as its second report concerning the supplementary estimates (B), 2020-21. The committee has considered the estimates referred by the House and reports the same.

In addition, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Citizenship Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here in the House with so many friends to address this important debate, and to follow my friend, the member for Markham—Unionville, who gave an excellent speech. He said he came to Canada in 1974. I came to Canada in 1987, actually, so he has been here longer than I have.

I want to first set off my debate by talking a bit about the content of the bill. I also want to talk a bit about some of the context around the government's agenda and proposals with respect to indigenous issues.

The bill would amend the citizenship oath to read as follows:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

The reference to first nations, Inuit and Métis people, and the references to aboriginal and treat rights, would be new references the bill proposes to add to the legislation.

The genesis for this discussion of amending the citizenship oath is a recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, specifically call to action number 94. As members have observed, the bill seems to have support from all parties and will pass second reading and go to committee. However, there is an issue we will need to hear about more at committee, which is important to note. We will need to hear from witnesses about the difference between the formulation of the oath in the legislation and the proposal that was in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation 94.

The proposed oath, which I looked up before speaking, from the commission report was as follows:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada including Treaties with Indigenous Peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

The formula is slightly different between the proposal in recommendation number 94 and the proposal in the bill. The bill references first nations, Inuit and Métis, and is a bit longer. Regardless, it is important to ensure that as we proceed down this road in the spirit of reconciliation, we hear from indigenous leaders along the way. Again, it will be important to elucidate at committee whether the relevant stakeholders and communities that are particularly invested in this have been consulted with respect to the difference in wording between the TRC recommendation and the bill. That will be an important point for us to follow up on.

Before I reflect on some of the specifics regarding changing the oath, I want to say that the Conservatives support the bill moving forward. We think the aspirations behind it and the substance of it are reasonable and valuable, and we look forward to further discussion and debate.

Right now we have before Parliament, at various stages, three pieces of legislation that in some sense deal with or touch directly on the relationship between the government and indigenous peoples in Canada. We have Bill C-5, Bill C-8 and Bill C-10. We are discussing Bill C-8, which amends the citizenship oath. We have Bill C-10, which is a larger, broader bill with many issues in it that would make changes to the Broadcasting Act, some of which put into the Broadcasting Act the expectation that broadcasters have diverse content reflecting different communities, including indigenous communities. Then we have Bill C-5, which deals with a statutory holiday for recognizing and remembering what happened in the context of indigenous residential schools.

All three of these bills contain important elements. The Conservatives have supported Bill C-5 and Bill C-8. We have some concerns about Bill C-10, although they are not related to the objectives, but are related to other aspects of the bill, as it is a broader bill. Regardless, in the context of the legislative agenda of the government right now, we have these three different bills.

If the Liberals are deciding what kinds of bills they are going to put forward with respect to indigenous issues, members might say they have a few different options in front of them. In considering those options, we can divide the bills they are putting forward into two broad categories. There would be bills that represent acts of recognition and then there would be bills that represent actions that target quality of life improvements.

This is an important distinction to make. Acts of recognition are things like putting in place a statutory holiday, changing wording, changing language, the legislature making statements, expressing its acknowledgement of certain facts and its will for reconciliation. These kinds of acts of recognition are things we do often as a legislature. They are important and have a place, which is why we are supporting this bill.

Other examples of acts of recognition this legislature has taken include motions where we express our appreciation for a certain community or the work done. In the last Parliament, we passed many bills that create heritage months, for example. Heritage months are a way of collectively commemorating and recognizing the contribution of certain communities. These acts of recognition and pieces of legislation that call for wider community recognition are important.

Why are they important? They create opportunities for us to call to mind, recognize and appreciate the valuable contributions made by certain communities. We are shaped by our history. As a legislature, we have a role in encouraging a recognition and awareness of that history. That is important and valuable. We can do those things and there is a legitimate place for us to do those things.

Another category of legislation we have are actions that specifically target quality of life improvements, which seek to make changes to practical circumstances in order to make peoples' lives concretely better.

These actions of recognition, whether changing an oath, commemorative day, representation in broadcasting or heritage month, are important. However, legislation that touches peoples' direct quality of life and deals with their ability to access justice with the recognition of their rights, the delivery of concrete services, whether it is health care or other supports, that deals with economic development, I would think are on balance more important.

To me, it is striking when I look at all the recommendations that have been made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I look at all of the options in front of the government in terms of prioritizing its response. We see more or less exclusively acts of recognition, as opposed to actions that are aimed at concrete quality of life improvements.

If we saw a mix of both, that would be fine. However, we need to start to be critical and ask that question when we are seeing a focus exclusively on the acts of recognition, as opposed to on those kinds of quality of life improvements I talked about earlier.

What are the areas we are missing? Where has the government failed when it comes to making quality of life improvements? There are many areas we need to look at in terms of concrete quality of life improvements. We can talk about justice and health, and many other things.

I want to start by talking about economic development. Talking to indigenous Canadians in my area and across the country, I know there is a real desire for economic development and for people to have jobs and opportunities in their own communities.

There is also a recognition that when there is economic development in different communities, it gives those communities control and ability to invest in programs that reflect the priorities of those communities. We hear calls from communities for funding from the government for programs around health, around language, around infrastructure and these sorts of things, but to the extent that communities are able to have economic development themselves, they are also able to prioritize, and invest in those priority areas without needing to come and ask the government for funding in that specific area. It is not an either-or. It is not as if communities have to choose between accessing government funding and economic development, but when communities are developing economically it gives them a greater degree of autonomy and control and it gives them the opportunity to invest in those priorities right away.

Many indigenous communities have been benefiting from being part of the energy economy, developing natural resources and pursuing other opportunities. In the course of this debate, the parliamentary secretary responded to my question about concrete actions by talking about Bill C-262 from the last Parliament. It is important to address this directly. If we want to give indigenous communities the opportunity to develop economically, they have to be able to do so in a framework that involves reasonable consultation, but ultimately gives them the opportunity to move forward. If they have, for example, an energy development project where the indigenous communities in an area are actually the proponents of that project and there is a minority that is opposing those projects, in a case where there is overwhelming support within local indigenous communities, there has to be a consultation framework that allows that project to move forward.

This is where Conservatives have parted company with other parties, especially around issues like Bill C-262, because if they put in place a framework that effectively means that one community could have a veto over the desire for the economic development of all surrounding communities, that is a problem. There needs to be a meaningful consultation process in which communities are listened to, but there also has to be an opportunity for communities to develop their own resources and the standard for consultation has to stop somewhere short of unanimity. One cannot expect that every person has to agree before we see any kind of economic development.

It has been something that maybe we have discussed less since, because COVID-19 took up all the attention in terms of discussion, but early in the year we were dealing with a situation where all of the elected community leaders wanted a particular project, the Coastal GasLink project, and a minority of hereditary chiefs were against that project going forward. That was the context, and it was debated extensively. Some members of this House behaved as if a case in which a minority within a community objected, that, in and of itself, was sufficient basis for stopping economic development from going forward. We took the view that when there is strong support within indigenous communities for a project to go forward, then that project has to be able to go forward. The consultation has to happen and if people say yes, they have to be able to develop those resources and benefit from them.

We see cases across this country where indigenous people are seeking the opportunity to pursue economic development, to develop resources. There can be debate, there can be tensions, and those debates happen within communities as well as between different communities, but the opportunity for people to pursue economic development is important.

The government members talk about the discussion we are hearing today, separate from the debate on Bill C-8 but about Bill C-262 from the last Parliament. That is concerning for a lot of indigenous Canadians who want to have this opportunity to develop their own resources, to benefit from the opportunities that flow from them, and to use those resources to invest in things like language preservation, health improvement, infrastructure improvements and so forth. They want to be able to use the benefits that flow from economic development for those things.

I want to also just add, in terms of economic development, one of the exciting and interesting opportunities when it comes to the development of things like pipeline infrastructure is that the expansion of infrastructure could also bring in things like better Internet connectivity into some of these communities.

It is not just about opportunities directly in the natural resource sector, it is about the fact that, when we have benefit agreements, we have the building of infrastructure into and around different communities, which gives people the opportunity to have better connectivity, to access different resources and education, or to work in online businesses. There is so much more opportunity that flows from these kinds of developments, which we are just on the cusp of.

This country has so much potential, and a lot of that potential is around resource development. Those who are most likely to benefit to the greatest extent from that development are those who are more likely to be living proximate to those resources.

We could talk about some of the significant issues around justice, around working to ensure our justice system is fair to all people. We are identifying the reasons there may be disproportionate impacts on certain communities and working seriously to counter those impacts. That is the kind of thing that takes hard work.

The government has made statements to recognize the problems that have existed in the way indigenous people have been treated by our justice system. It is one thing to affirm there is an issue here, again, an act of recognition, and is another thing to say we are going to take concrete action and go from that active recognition and really target those quality of life improvements.

As I said earlier during questions and comments, so often when I hear from government members when we are having debates about indigenous issues, there is a tone in the their speeches as if they are still in opposition. They will say that there have been all these problems and that we need to do better and do more.

I look across the way and think that the government has been here for five years, and it is still constantly blaming Stephen Harper and constantly talking about the failures of history that have held it back. Do I think it is possible to change everything and make everything perfect within five years? No, I do not. Do I think it could be focusing on real concrete progress as part of its agenda? Yes, I do.

I hope we do not have the current government for another five years or another 10 years, but I suspect if we did, we would still hear the same speeches. We would still hear the same members saying that we have failed for too long and we need to do better. At what point does this recognition that we need to do better come back on them and lead them to say maybe not just “we” in the abstract, somebody else needs to do better sense, but “we” as in “we as a government” need to do better?

The government here does need to do much better. The Conservative caucus is supportive of Bill C-8. We are going to be supporting it through to committee. We look forward to the committee's study on it, especially delving into some of these questions I mentioned about the distinction between the version in the legislation and the TRC recommendation. However, we want to see the government take seriously the need to advance legislation and policy that concretely improves the quality of life for indigenous Canadians.

Yes, recognition is important, but if we see bill after bill on the issue of recognition but not targeting concrete quality of life improvements, it looks increasingly like the government is trying to avoid delving into these complex policy areas that would really make a difference. If it recognizes there is a need for more resources and need for economic development, when are we going to see the legislation that is going to really support economic development within indigenous communities and make it easier to grab those opportunities? When are we going to see the legislation that seeks to address those long-standing justice issues?

The government talks about doing better. It is time for it to do better so we can see some of these concrete improvements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Well, I'm going to give my ruling.

I want to start this ruling by quoting from House of Commons Procedure and Practice. This is from page 770. I'll try to do this slowly for the sake of our interpreters. It says:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

If you read the bill, you will see that Bill C-5 amends several acts for the sole purpose of creating a new legal holiday. That was prescribed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Specifically, call to action number 80 is what people refer to and what this bill refers to, as a legal concept.

This amendment proposes to remove the concept of a legal holiday and replace it with a symbolic holiday. As you know, after second reading, once we accept the bill in principle and scope, we cannot go back on that, as the House by a majority voted for it.

This amendment goes beyond the principle and scope of the bill. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible. In my opinion, the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill.

The ruling also applies to other amendments, by the same token. I'll use the numbers that are ascribed, in the top right-hand corner of the sheets that you have, folks. The ruling applies to amendments CPC-2, CPC-3 and CPC-7, since they are consequential in what they plan to do and are similar in purpose to CPC-1.

Monsieur Rayes.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment is:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 1, be amended

(a) by replacing line 4 on page 1 with the following:

“Short Title

1 This Act may be cited as the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation Act.

Purpose of this Act

2 The purpose of this Act is to respond to the Truth and”

(b) by replacing line 6 on page 1 with the following:

“number 80 by establishing the National Day”

That's it, Mr. Chair.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you to you both. Your testimonies are very heartbreaking. I'm even struggling to find my voice to ask you questions.

We don't have much time, but I'd also like to thank you for marking the passing of Grand Chief Max Gros-Louis, whom I was fortunate enough to know. I'm a writer-composer-performer, and we met each other together on international stages. He was an absolutely exceptional man who left his mark on my memory. I offer you my most sincere condolences, as well as to the entire nation and to all First Nations.

At home, in Charlevoix, we have beautiful stories with our First Nations brothers. There is a project in Pointe-aux-Alouettes, in the municipality of Baie-Sainte-Catherine, that I'm actively working on with a Charlevoix-Est RCM committee. We would like to set up a commemorative site.

As part of the study of Bill C-5, which would establish a statutory holiday, I was wondering: if there were more memorial sites where we could celebrate and learn, if there were interpretation centres where we could provide information to the public, and if more sites were established across the nation, would this give us a chance to learn more about your history?

My daughter, who is next to me, tells me that she has had only one hour in all her high school years to discuss your history. It's not enough.