National Framework for Diabetes Act   invested approximately $50 million per year since 1989, mainly through the aboriginal diabetes initiative. Organizations are tasked with working with indigenous peoples to reduce health inequalities. At this time, much more still has to be done, and the federal government will have

Books of Remembrance   away on May 10. They are Private Francis George William Floyd, Flying Officer Reginald James Dew, Private Joseph Clough, Corporal Patrick Duffy, Private Clayton Morningstar, Lieutenant Charles Casimir Von Straubenzee, Private Duncan McKinnon, Private Arthur Murphy, Private Stephen

Procedure and House Affairs committee   in to this and listening with bated breath to every word that Wayne Long is going to say, or MP Duncan, MP Turnbull, MP Normandin, MP Kent, MP Calkins and MP Amos, what have you? Do you think they're all tuned in with their little notepads, taking notes and saying, “Look at these guys go. Look at them

Procedure and House Affairs committee  That's about the 16th time Ms. Duncan has said the exact same thing. She's on the verge of relevancy on a lot of these points. Let's get back to the motion at hand, the amendment.

Procedure and House Affairs committee   don't know. MP Blaikie knows. It was the Saint John Sea Dogs, which is certainly one of the most successful major junior organizations in the country. Yes, MP Lauzon, they're more successful than the Gatineau Olympiques. I take that back. Maybe they're not quite as successful

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Madam Chair, there are rules against both relevance and repetition. I would note that Ms. Duncan is repeating word for word what she said in previous meetings.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I'm again reading word for word what Ms. Duncan is saying from a previous meeting. The last two paragraphs have been word for word what she said in a previous meeting. The rule of repetition states that can't happen. If she has new information to bring forward, she should

Fisheries and Oceans   provide this justification under the Badger test. The burden of proof to deny a treaty right or aboriginal right falls on the Crown, and the government cannot just say it is for conservation; it actually has to prove it. Not only does this decision go against the Constitution

Fisheries committee  Thank you. Last week, the B.C. Court of Appeal once again affirmed that the five Nuu-chah-nulth nations' aboriginal right is a high priority in their court case. This is for Ms. Reid. Will the department recognize the priority of the nations' right and its importance

Fisheries committee  So recognizing the importance of last week's B.C. Court of Appeal decision, what actions will the department be taking for the 2021 fishing season to increase the allocations of chinook, coho, and other species in keeping with the priority of the five nations' aboriginal right

Fisheries committee  So even in times of lower returns, do you agree that if any fishing takes place, the first nations' aboriginal rights fisheries have priority after conservation, and also, do you agree that this priority includes the rights-based economic fisheries of the five Nuu-chah-nulth

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Perhaps on the Simms protocol to Ms. Duncan, if I may, having—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  That's exactly what my Simms question was going to be focused on. If I could just ask you a quick question, Dr. Duncan, and if you could respond, if you're willing.... Again, this predicates working together. If that's not an option, that's fine.

Citizenship Act  . These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought, as it was infamously said, “to kill the Indian in the child”. The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian Residential Schools policy

Fisheries committee   Simon, David Denny, John Paul and Tom Sylliboy, as well as Donald Marshall, Jr. and many others. In order to create a law as aboriginal people, we have to break a law that is unjust in the first instance. Litigation often places the obligation of aboriginal and treaty law against