House of Commons Hansard #61 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was application.

Topics

Rural CommunitiesOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Battlefords—Lloydminster Saskatchewan

Conservative

Gerry Ritz ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud rural Canadian and I am happy to stand here, on behalf of rural Canadians, and bring in new legislation that would do away with the long gun registry, which of course the NDP members support. I am here to support aboriginal women's rights on reserve, something they do not support. I am here to support infrastructure agreements with rural Canada, something they voted against. I am here to support rural water agreements, which they voted against.

I am proud to stand here and represent rural Canada. I wish they would help us.

Citizenship and ImmigrationOral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, Dmitri Lennikov graduates from high school this Friday. His gift from the Minister of Immigration could be the deportation of his father and the forced separation of his family.

Dmitri has spent all of his school life in Canada. The Lennikov family has been contributing to my community for 11 years. They have never been accused of any crime. Today the Lennikov family has come to Ottawa from B.C. They are no longer just a memo or a briefing note, but a real family.

Will the minister meet with the Lennikovs? Will he keep this family together?

Citizenship and ImmigrationOral Questions

3 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Citizenship

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate that a member would try to politicize a case that has been before the Immigration and Refugee Board, before our courts, and before our public servants with both an application for humanitarian compassion and a pre-removal risk assessment.

We do not politicize cases of inadmissibility that come before the Immigration and Refugee Board, an independent, quasi-judicial body. There is a legal system in place for these matters to be considered. This particular case has been considered by our courts and by the IRB.

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

May 26th, 2009 / 3 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Robert Shankland Victoria Cross and Distinguished Conduct Medal was sold last night.

Would the Minister of Canadian Heritage kindly provide the details of this sale to the House?

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

3 p.m.

Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam B.C.

Conservative

James Moore ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages

Mr. Speaker, Robert Shankland's medals, which include both the Victoria Cross and the Distinguished Conduct Medal, were sold by auction last night, and I am pleased to report to the House that the new owner of the medals is the Canadian War Museum.

Mr. Shankland is one of Canada's heroes who showed tremendous bravery--

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, he is one of Canada's heroes who showed incredible gallantry and bravery at Passchendaele. His Victoria Cross and the heroism that earned it are part of our proud history of courage and sacrifice.

We were not willing to let his proud heritage be lost. His medals and memories now belong to Canada for all of us to remember well into the future.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Order. It is my honour and privilege to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Robert Fowler, one of Canada's most distinguished diplomats and most recently the United Nations Secretary General's Special Envoy to Niger.

Over the course of the past 40 years, not satisfied with having represented his country as a career diplomat, Mr. Fowler put his talents as advisor and negotiator at the disposal of Canada and the international community, despite the real dangers inherent in this most vital work.

I know that all members join me in thanking Robert Fowler for his service to Canada, both in our country and abroad, and in expressing our pleasure and our gratitude that he is back home with us.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Oral QuestionsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

During oral question period, the Minister of State for Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, in response to a question from the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, used words that, in my opinion, were unparliamentary. As I indicated this morning in my ruling on a similar matter, members must be careful in the choice of the words they use. I therefore invite the minister, in the same spirit of cooperation shown this morning by other hon. members, to withdraw his remarks.

Oral QuestionsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean Québec

Conservative

Denis Lebel ConservativeMinister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)

Mr. Speaker, I used the words I heard in the question. Since my words are considered unparliamentary, I will say that I probably should have said that the elements of the question were erroneous. I therefore withdraw the word I used. I should have said "erroneous".

Oral QuestionsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, during question period, something very unfortunate happened during the remarks from the hon. member for Wascana.

He stood up in the House of Commons and, in order to protect his leader from explicit promises to raise taxes earlier on, he tried to apply that to the Prime Minister. The quote he should have used in completion was the following: “What we are not going to do is, every two or three months, come up with another economic policy, another budget, until we need to raise taxes”.

He cut the word “not” out of the quotation in order to give exactly the false impression to Canadians about what the Prime Minister said, and we know why he did it. His motives were purely an attempt to fudge what his leader said about his plan to raise taxes. He should stand and apologize now.

Oral QuestionsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Oral QuestionsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Order, order. I have a feeling we are continuing the debate, but the hon. member for Wascana has been asked to say something, so I will hear him.

Oral QuestionsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks by the hon. parliamentary secretary because in fact the sentence says, “What we are not going to do--

Oral QuestionsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Oral QuestionsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK

Wait for it, wait for it.

--is, every two or three months, come up with another economic policy, another budget, until we need to raise taxes”.

The words very clearly speak for themselves. The Conservatives will not produce another budget until they need to raise taxes. The rules of this Parliament require another budget by next spring. In other words, they will be raising taxes next spring or before.

Oral QuestionsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Oral QuestionsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Order, order. This is clearly a debate. This is not a point of order.

I suggest that hon. members calm down and tomorrow morning when they get their copy of Hansard, have a nice read. Perhaps the matter will resolve itself when the transcript is available.

Oral QuestionsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order concerning the withdrawal of unparliamentary language by the Minister of State for Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear to him, through you, that the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord did not use the word “falsehood”, as the minister did. I believe it is clear in our standing orders that, when a member is asked to withdraw his words, he does so without any commentary and without any attempt to minimize the gravity of what was said.

Oral QuestionsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

No doubt it is our hope at all times, when hon. members withdraw language used in the House, that they do so clearly and without any other suggestion. That may not have happened in this instance. I do not have the text of the question in front of me and I did not hear every word. Perhaps after looking at Hansard tomorrow we will have something more to say. At this time, however, I believe that the words are withdrawn and the matter, in my opinion, is closed. I will, however, examine what the hon. whip has said, as well as what the hon. members said during question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, be read the third time and passed.

Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Before question period, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue was speaking. I believe he has another eight minutes to make his remarks.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is a relief when calm returns to this place. It is too bad that people sometimes get carried away in question period.

Now, back to the work at hand, which I find much more interesting than question period. I refer to Bill C-28 concerning Cree and native communities in northern Quebec.

As I have eight minutes left, and now one less, I would like to point out that the bill is in negotiation. The agreement has been in negotiation since 1984. Following the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, it took nine years for discussions to begin to reach the agreement signed by representatives of the nine Cree communities and the Government of Canada.

The agreement will give greater autonomy to the Cree and the Naskapi, in fact, more to the Cree than to the Naskapi because there is still room for an agreement with the Naskapi. The lands of these two communities overlap and so an agreement with the Naskapi is required as well.

The land mentioned in the agreement overlaps part of the land of the Inuit in Quebec, but, overall, the James Bay Cree should end up with full autonomy with regard to the Canadian government through the agreement. Accordingly, the Cree Regional Authority will be able to take over the federal government's responsibilities under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

It was in fact essential for the Cree to come to an agreement with the federal government and with the Quebec government pursuant to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It appears that these agreements are now complete and finalized. We can very soon allow the Cree to move to full autonomy over their ancestral land. This is the intent of Bill C-28.

We will support this bill because we consider it important to support autonomy and the native peoples. The Bloc has always recognized that native peoples are distinct and have a right to their culture, language, customs and traditions and to choose the way their identity will be developed. That is what is happening with this bill.

I do not have a lot of time left, but I want to emphasize before the House that when the government can and wants to, it is possible to reach agreements with native peoples. I believe that this agreement with the Cree paves the way for further agreements. What we would most like to see are further agreements with the Innu, Algonquin, Attikamek and Naskapi so that aboriginal communities not only have rights and responsibilities but are also allowed to develop in accordance with their ancestral customs on their ancestral lands. That is what this bill will achieve.

We should remember that there was a Cree-Naskapi Commission, which made a number of recommendations.

There were 20 of them, and I would like to highlight a few: full and explicit recognition of the inherent right of Eeyou self-government—that is what this bill provides; recognition of the existence and application of Eeyou traditional law, customs and practices in the exercise and practice of Eeyou self-government; and elimination of provisions that conflict with Eeyou traditional law, customs and practices.

All that will be achieved, therefore, on their lands. I read only three of the 20 recommendations. The important thing is that henceforth they will be self-governing and will have jurisdiction over their ancestral lands, which will enable the Cree to develop. The Eeyou community will also be able to develop in accordance with its customs.

We think, therefore, that this is an excellent bill. When the government wants to, it can sit down at the table. It should do the same in regard to Bill C-8 on matrimonial rights in aboriginal communities. This bill has been severely criticized by all feminist organizations and aboriginal associations and communities. We think the government should go back to the drawing board and introduce a new Bill C-8.

We hope, in conclusion, that Bill C-28 passes quickly so that Cree community self-government can be established. We hope this government develops in accordance with the ancestral customs of the Cree. I can only hope one more thing: that this entente cordiale between the Cree and the federal government proves sustainable and leads to the development of these communities, which are located in a part of the country where life is not easy.

I wish them, therefore, the best of luck. I hope that the wishes and desires of the Cree communities which signed the agreement leading to Bill C-28 will all be realized. It is the Bloc’s greatest hope that the Cree communities joined together in the Grand Council of the Crees achieve their independence, live finally in accordance with their traditional customs on their own lands, develop themselves and administer what is lawfully theirs, that is to say, their ancestral territory.