Debates of Oct. 30th, 2014

CSEC Accountability and Transparency Act

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-622. I have to say I am not surprised by the remarks I just heard from the government, but let me first talk about the bill itself.

I want to thank, once again, the member for Vancouver Quadra for bringing forth Bill C-622. It seeks to do two things, as has been pointed out by her. It seeks to change the nature of the intelligence agency CSEC and Parliament's ability to oversee its activities, which are two separate things, divided in two parts.

The Minister of National Defence has a lot of control over the activities of CSEC, and in fact can make things legal that would otherwise be illegal in such a way that we actually do not know what the rules are. That also deals with the issue of metadata. However, part two seeks to establish an intelligence security committee of Parliament, not of any particular House of Parliament but of Parliament itself and not a parliamentary committee, with members of Parliament and senators together to provide oversight. Those are the two separate parts.

We know that there have been plenty of warnings that CSEC needs greater oversight and that as we move forward with changes to greater security measures and powers, we also need greater oversight. It is pretty clear that the Conservatives have been refusing to act, and we heard the same thing today.

Under the Conservative government, the spying activities of CSEC and its budget have ballooned to four times what it was in 1998, yet Canada remains the only member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance that does not have parliamentary oversight of its intelligence activities. By “parliamentary oversight”, clearly we are talking about members of Parliament to whom the government is accountable, having oversight over the intelligence activities of the executive.

New Democrats support the spirit of Bill C-622 to establish this parliamentary oversight, but we do not think the bill is robust enough. We also think that it should not include senators because that destroys the democratic legitimacy of the kind of oversight that we are talking about. Our proposal, which I mentioned in my question to my colleague from Vancouver Quadra, was a plan to have comprehensive parliamentary oversight by a committee of Parliament of all intelligence activities, not just of CSEC, crafted to take into account the modern realities.

We know something was done 10 years ago and things have changed since then, but we want the whole thing evaluated and looked at afresh to craft the best possible committee, taking into account the changes and modern technology and hearing from experts about what is the best way to deal with the technology that we have.

Given the indication from the other side that the government will not be supporting the bill, it is not likely to even get to committee, so we will not have the opportunity, unfortunately, to deal with the questions of the bill itself. However, I want to indicate that New Democrats support the measures included in it that would make a change, particularly in the role that the minister has in terms of authorities under the existing National Defence Act to allow the collection of metadata and other kinds of information without the oversight or even the knowledge of the Canadian public of what the authorities are.

It is easy enough for the commissioner for CSEC to say that in all of the matters that he reviewed the law was complied with. We do not even know what the rules were, but we do know that he did not review all of the things that CSEC did.

Although I know the member for Vancouver Quadra did not have time to deal with all the questions that I had, one area of significant concern is the relationship between CSEC and other agencies of government, whether they be law enforcement agencies such as the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency or provincial and municipal police forces.

Part of the role of Communications Security Establishment Canada, CSEC, is to provide technical and operational assistance to federal law enforcement and security agencies in the performance of their lawful duties. Although we constantly hear that CSEC is not allowed to spy on Canadians or look at the activity of Canadians, clearly under that provision, that is almost all it does, look at the activity of Canadians. Unfortunately, the bill does not go far enough to deal with that relationship.

We had an earlier report this year that the government agencies requested the involvement of CSEC on many occasions. This is something we need to have proper oversight of as well.

We do not get the right answers for this either, but we also found out that CSEC had a relationship with telecommunication companies, which is problematic. In fact, it was also reported that government agencies in general, including CSEC, requested user data from telecommunication companies 1.2 million times in 2011 alone.

When CSEC officials who came before the parliamentary committee, because this is one of the alternatives that was suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, were asked questions about the relationship with telecommunication companies and if they got information from telecommunication agencies, we were not given an answer. They refused to answer those questions. Therefore, we do not have oversight from parliamentary committees. There is not oversight by Parliament as a whole.

The Conservatives, who despite their claims of accountability and transparency, and in fact bringing in legislation when they became government, have refused to co-operate with parliamentary committees and the requests such as we are bringing forth now to have a more robust system of parliamentary oversight.

I do not think I will go into too many of the details, but I know that the model of the bill is based on former Senator Segal's work, who did a good job slightly adapting the U.K. legislation model, which has members of the House of Lords and members of the U.K. parliament not sitting as members of that parliament, but sitting as so-called parliamentarians outside of that parliament, and incorporating the terms “House of Commons” and the “Senate”.

However, that is not the model we like. It would not report to Parliament, but to the Prime Minister who would have the right to veto anything in the report before it would be tabled in the House of Commons or in the Senate on the grounds of his opinion.

In the opinion of the Prime Minister, it would be injurious to what? It is the three things that this activity is all about: injurious to defence, international affairs and security. If the Prime Minister had the ability to prevent a report from getting to Parliament on that basis, members can be sure that the report would be significantly truncated and not contain the kind of information that we would want. There needs to be some discussion about that.

The parliamentary committee that we are talking about would need to have significant security clearances, and perhaps members of the Privy Council. All this is a matter of discussion that would take place in the kind of robust all-party committee that would have the authority to compare and get advice from all parts, particularly our five eyes, the countries that we deal with on these matters.

However, we need more robust oversight of activity, because the job of our security agencies is to keep Canada safe and also protect our rights in the process. That requires good laws for the authorities and powers of the intelligence agencies. It also requires robust and comprehensive parliamentary oversight.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-622, proposed by my honourable colleague from Vancouver-Quadra. The bill, on a technical level, seeks to amend the National Defence Act to improve the transparency and accountability and provide for an independent review in respect of the operations of the Communications Security Establishment, and to enact an act to establish the intelligence and security committee of Parliament. It seeks to strike an important balance between national security, the privacy of Canadians, and parliamentary scrutiny.

There was justifiable concern earlier this year when Canadians learned that CSEC was monitoring Wi-Fi services at Canadian airports. In fact, there seems to be a bit of a preoccupation with privacy rights under this government.

If we go back to the Vic Toews bill, we all remember the e-snooping legislation, which fortunately did not see the light of day, but many of the provisions were then imported into a new piece of legislation and bundled with the rights of victims of cyberbullying in Bill C-13. The most recent example is the digital privacy bill, Bill S-4, which seeks to open the door a little wider, allowing the entities that can receive private information to walk through the door that had been opened by Bill C-13. The compromising of privacy rights in Canada has been a recurring theme under this government.

Mr. Speaker, before I get too far ahead of myself, please allow me to outline the role of CSEC for those following the debate and also for members of this place who may not be as familiar as necessary to adequately engage in the debate this evening.

CSEC, or Communications Security Establishment Canada, has a three-part mandate. First, it is responsible for the collection of foreign intelligence from the global information web. Second, it is the lead agency for cybersecurity for the federal government. Third, it can use its technological capacities and expertise to assist domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

There is no argument that CSEC is a vital piece of Canada's national security puzzle. Additionally, CSEC functions within a global alliance known as the Five Eyes, an alliance of partner signals intelligence agencies within the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.

Following the 9/11 attacks in the United States, the mandate of CSEC was expanded. That was 13 years ago, and we are in a rapidly evolving world in terms of national security. It seems more than reasonable to assess the mandate, effectiveness, and accountability of CSEC and its activities.

My colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, has been quite vocal about the need for parliamentary oversight. In his capacity as public safety critic, he has repeatedly pointed out the important fact that, although Canada functions within the Five Eyes alliance I just spoke about, it is the only country that does not have proactive parliamentary oversight.

In February of 2014, my hon. colleague from Malpeque asked a question that I think deserves an answer. I am not sure he has ever received a genuine or relevant answer, so I'll pose the question here again today. I am quoting from the member for Malpeque:

The key point here is that I really cannot understand the government's unwillingness to look at proper parliamentary oversight when two of its key cabinet ministers were in fact part of a report at one point in favour of such oversight.

We know that with this particular government, if an organization that depends on government funding comes out against the government, its funding will probably be cut.

The member went to great lengths explaining the Five Eyes and the other countries that are our allies in these issues. Where does the government get the idea that Canadians are less at risk of invasion of privacy and do not need proper parliamentary oversight, when all our allies do?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

We're different.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, from across the aisle, I am being told we are different. However, we can learn a lot from best practices.

As I understand it, the original Five Eyes alliance was formed in 1946. It is the result of strategic bilateral agreements that allow each country to conduct independent intelligence gathering within its own jurisdiction and ensure that it is shared with the other four members of the alliance by default.

This alliance between the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand is long-standing. I am curious as to why the Conservative government is reluctant to join the other four members of the Five Eyes alliance in their efforts to maintain sufficient oversight. I think the explanation that we just heard, that we are different, does not quite cut it. At this time, under the current government, Canadians would be well served by additional parliamentary oversight.

Yesterday in the House, the leader of the Liberal Party, the hon. member for Papineau, urged the Prime Minister to strike a proper balance between security and civil liberties. The member for Papineau also correctly indicated that Canada is not facing this issue alone. We are certainly not the only western democracy that struggles to simultaneously protect the security and the rights of its citizens.

There is no doubt in my mind that this debate will reference the tragic events that took place here last week, in fact it already has, and also in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. Those awful events should remain with us as legislators and we should seek to prevent more tragedies.

With that being said, the atrocities committed last week should not be the only guiding thought when we deal with issues of terrorism and national security. We need to remain committed to striking the balance I keep referring to and to be careful not to rush into knee-jerk reactions, to borrow a phrase from Justice John Major, when it comes to something so important.

I was impressed by the measured, respectful joint statement by the Privacy and Information Commissioners of Canada. I would like to read it into the record before continuing with my own thoughts on this matter. I quote:

The following days, weeks and months will be critical in determining the future course of action to ensure not only that Canada remains a safe country, but also that our fundamental rights and freedoms are upheld. Legislative changes being contemplated may alter the powers of intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

We acknowledge that security is essential to maintaining our democratic rights. At the same time, the response to such events must be measured and proportionate, and crafted so as to preserve our democratic values.

To that end, the Privacy and Information Commissioners of Canada call on the federal Government:

To adopt an evidence-based approach as to the need for any new legislative proposal granting additional powers for intelligence and law enforcement agencies;

To engage Canadians in an open and transparent dialogue on whether new measures are required, and if so, on their nature, scope, and impact on rights and freedoms;

To ensure that effective oversight be included in any legislation establishing additional powers for intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Canadians both expect and are entitled to equal protection for their privacy and access rights and for their security. We must uphold these fundamental rights that lie at the heart of Canada’s democracy.

I am sure members can understand why I felt it was so important to read that statement into the record. The third recommendation from the Privacy and Information Commissioners of Canada is most important to the subject of the bill. The commissioners are requesting effective oversight. Effective oversight consists of a parliamentary committee. We are all here in the House to, I hope, uphold the fundamental rights that lie at the heart of Canada's democracy. We do that on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of our country.

Let me say in closing, we cannot simply accept short-term political considerations based on a reaction to fear to be our guiding principle in matters of national security and intelligence gathering. Likewise, fear should not and cannot trump our fundamental rights as Canadians. Our rights do not flow from security laws; they flow from our fundamental values and freedoms and our ability to exercise those rights even when our sense of security is under attack.

We should not, we must not, subjugate our rights to the ebb and flow of circumstances or tragedy. I hope that some of my colleagues on the other side of the House will take note of the support from the National Firearms Association and break away from their traditional “just vote no” mentality to this opposition private members' bill and that they demonstrate that they understand the true merit of a bill of this nature.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate.

Order. Does the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra wish to take her five-minute right of reply?

The hon. member for Malpeque is rising on a point of order.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are other speakers allowed from the third party?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair has called resuming debate, and no one has stood. If a member who has not yet spoken to the motion wishes to stand, he or she may do so.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will let the member close the debate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, with her five-minute right of reply.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this additional opportunity to speak to this very important matter, which is how we can embed civil liberties and rights and freedoms within the framework of our security and intelligence agencies and thus make them stronger and more effective.

I would like to respond to a few of the comments that the parliamentary secretary for the government made in her remarks. I acknowledge and appreciate the respectful tone of her remarks. It would be great if this debate were to continue.

I would again invite the members of the Conservative Party to take a look at the bill for themselves and consider voting to support it and bring it to committee.

The parliamentary secretary talked about the various oversight capacities of organizations and agencies such as CSIS, CSEC, and the RCMP. Each of them is very different, and the overall set of security and intelligence activities of the Canadian government also includes the Canada Border Services Agency, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and the RCMP.

The parliamentary secretary proved my point that there is a grab bag of different oversight, none of it having parliamentarians, who are responsible to the public, playing a primary role. Given that grab bag of varying oversight, it is clearly a challenge to have an integrated look at the security and privacy of Canadians.

A citizen is one citizen, and whether it is one agency or another out of the six or seven agencies, it is that citizen's right to privacy and security that we are talking about. Without any integration of the oversight, there can only be gaps and duplications. That is one of the very strong arguments is for a committee of parliamentarians.

Our Five Eyes partners have adopted that model because a committee of parliamentarians can look at that entire landscape of security and intelligence activities. That is not happening now. Each of those organizations has some oversight by commissioners or committees, but to look at it in its entirety and identify where there are gaps and duplications is exactly how this parliamentary committee can add value to the ministers responsible.

This morning we heard from a former minister of national defence who had been a member of the SIRC committee for seven years. He said that the key value of a parliamentary committee looking at all of these agencies is that it can identify pitfalls and barriers and can alert the ministers to them so that the ministers can be stronger and more effective in doing their job of ensuring the security and privacy of Canadians. That is a very strong argument.

In addition, the fact that the committee members would be parliamentarians who have a responsibility to the public is a far more powerful approach than we currently have with SIRC or with CSE, in which a commissioner has little requirement to bring any detail forward to the public. I believe the current commissioner is doing a good job, but much of what he is doing is voluntary. That is why the strengthening of the CSEC commissioner is an important element.

One last point I want to make is that the prior commissioners of CSEC and prior chiefs of CSEC or CSE have called for this very committee themselves. Therefore, I am wondering why the Conservatives disagree with those who should know best what the most effective oversight model would be for our security and intelligence agencies in Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 5, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I raised a question on September 26 about the Canadian Wheat Board because of the growing concern in the farm community that not only did the Conservative government destroy one of the best marketing institutions in terms of enhancing farmers' marketing opportunities and maximizing the returns for primary producers but because it virtually stole farmers' assets, as well.

Even though the new board is a government creation, its annual report tells us virtually nothing.

At the time I asked my question, I said:

the Canadian Wheat Board has never been as closed, secretive, and non-transparent as it is today.

The Canadian Wheat Board now is the Canadian Wheat Board in name only. It used to be a board where the farmers elected a board of directors that represented their industry, with an annual report full of information. I will speak about that in a moment.

With today's so-called Canadian Wheat Board, as I said:

There is no data in the annual report, no financial statements, and no examination by the Auditor General. This agency, concocted and directed by the government, is playing with hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money and, worse still, hundreds of millions of dollars in assets originally taken from western Canadian farmers.

If we think back in time to the previous board, Conservative members were attacking the Wheat Board because they claimed that it did not provide information. Yes, it did. It listed in an annual report all the pools for every variety and grade of grain. It stated the export price farmers received. It showed where the deductions were in terms of elevation, transportation, and demurrage for boats waiting in the harbour. One could calculate from that the cost of marketing a bushel of grain. One could calculate from that how big a share of the export dollar farmers were getting. They were getting at that time about 87¢ of the export dollar. Today they are getting less than 50¢ of the export dollar. The government has virtually destroyed that marketing institution.

Farmers built these assets over decades of marketing grain through the Canadian Wheat Board. Why is the government not selling those assets, if that is what it intends to do, in an accountable and transparent process? Nobody, especially the farmers who put in the assets, has a clue what is happening with their assets that the Conservative government has taken away from them.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, the commercialization of the Canadian Wheat Board represents a new era of opportunity for western Canadian grain farmers. Our government has delivered on our commitment to give western Canadian grain farmers the marketing freedom they want and deserve. We promised marketing freedom to farmers, and we followed through on that commitment. As part of that commitment, our government continues the Canadian Wheat Board as a marketing choice for western Canadian farmers who choose to take advantage of the CWB's risk management pricing tools.

As the CWB now competes in the open market, it has a right to protect commercially sensitive information. As required by the Canadian Wheat Board (Interim Operations) Act, the CWB submitted its financial statement for the 2012-13 crop year to the minister. That crop year was significant, as it was the first year for the Canadian Wheat Board as a commercial entity in an open western Canadian grain market.

Before tabling these financial statements in Parliament, the minister carefully assessed the sensitivity of the commercial information in the report, because the Canadian Wheat Board's competitors do not have to publish this kind of information, and therefore they do not.

In accordance with the Canadian Wheat Board Interim Operations Act, the minister excluded from the report any information whose publication could be detrimental to the commercial interests of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Contrary to what the members opposite think, this is not a political process. The CWB will assess all serious bidders and then submit a plan for commercialization in accordance with the legislation passed in December 2011. As such, the CWB is increasing its capacity to remain a vibrant marketing option for farmers, and we are encouraged to see the CWB continue with this plan.

Unlike the Liberals and the New Democrats, our government has jobs and the economy as our top priority. Farmers want the numerous benefits that are available in fair, competitive, and open markets.

Our government promised to deliver on this. We have, and the Canadian Wheat Board can now be an effective competitor.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the government promised to deliver, but farmers actually believed they would have a vote. The government never gave them that opportunity. The Conservatives just destroyed the old Canadian Wheat Board with the stroke of a pen, by legislation.

The member talks about a marketing opportunity. It is only a selling opportunity, and the new system is allowing the grain companies to gouge farmers very considerably. As I said, it used to be that 87¢ of the export dollar was returned to farmers; today it is less than 50¢ of the dollar.

I conclude with this. Anders Bruun, a Winnipeg lawyer, when talking about the assets that farmers have, said, “These monies were withheld to cover severance pay, pension expenses and numerous other expenses. Those [monies] were not paid out to producers as they should have been.”

Why is the government keeping farmers' assets and their money?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member implies that the CWB is playing with government and farmers' money. This could not be further from the truth.

Let me read a quote from The Western Producer of September 23, 2009. It states, “So there is a deal, we would have to revisit if there is a role for government since there would no longer be that financial stake.”

Who said that? Why, it was the member for Malpeque. He was referring to the way the CWB would operate in an open market. He argued that government should maintain an arm's-length relationship with a privatized CWB, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are allowing the CWB to privatize and keeping an arm's-length relationship.

The courts have been clear. Farmers and the government do not own CWB assets. It is time for this member to take his own advice and let the CWB move forward and privatize in the manner it sees fit.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker it is difficult to accept that in the 10 years since Amnesty International Canada released a major report documenting the violence against this country's indigenous women there still has not been a strong federal response on the issue.

There has been ample opportunity for both Liberal and Conservative governments, but a full decade later we are so mired in the problem that the only reasonable response is a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women.

The current government refuses to budge despite overwhelming and ever-growing support for an inquiry. Instead of recognizing the benefit the process would have, it has managed to plug its ears and claim these are all just crimes that are being dealt with by the police. All the while, the stats keep mounting, and the direct line that runs from the brutal murder of Helen Betty Osborne to the discovery of Tina Fontaine's body in the Red River this past summer is being dismissed as nothing more than a number of unconnected crimes.

However, the real crime is inaction and indifference as well as viewing these women and girls in the worst light far too often. Disappearances are too quickly dismissed as runaways or substance abusers, which is supposed to excuse a lackluster effort to find these women. Also, when these instances are seen as nothing more than simple crimes to be dealt with by police, we forget that these women are almost seven times more likely to be the victims of violence than any other societal group in Canada.

Too often we have heard members of the government wonder what good an inquiry would do. My colleague from Timmins—James Bay did a great job of explaining that. He said that among many other things, an inquiry will allow us to see what makes these women so vulnerable, and how they can be taken without police investigations.

It will let us talk about how children and young women can be taken from their homes because the federal government will not allow therapy and in-house support for their families. We will hear how they get put into foster care, and so often end up on the street. Most importantly, an inquiry will send a message that these women were people who were loved and should be respected, and that our Canadian society is ashamed that so many people could be allowed to disappear or die.

An inquiry is about a commitment to make societal change, such as the change that came to the OPP because of the lpperwash Inquiry. That showed us an inquiry process can and does work. With all this in mind, will this government reconsider and call an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women?

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear that the Government of Canada has been very clear that these abhorrent acts of violence against aboriginal women and girls will not be tolerated in our society.

Canada is a country where those who break the law are punished, where penalties match the severity of crimes committed, and where the rights of victims are recognized. That is why we committed, in the economic action plan 2014, to invest an additional $25 million over five years to continue in our efforts to reduce violence against aboriginal women.

On September 15 of this year, the Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women launched the Government of Canada action plan to address family violence and violent crimes against aboriginal women and girls. The action plan is designed to set out concrete actions to prevent violence, support aboriginal victims, and protect aboriginal women and girls from violence.

It includes new funding of $25 million over five years beginning in 2015-16, as well as renewed and ongoing support for shelters on reserve and family violence prevention activities.

The action plan's new funding of $25 million over five years has been allocated as follows: $8.6 million over five years for the development of more community safety plans across Canada, including in vulnerable communities with a high incidence of violent crimes perpetrated against women as identified by the RCMP's national operational overview; $2.5 million over five years for projects to break intergenerational cycles of violence and abuse by raising awareness and building healthy relationships; $5 million over five years for projects to engage men and boys, and empower women and girls in efforts to denounce and prevent violence; $7.5 million over five years to support aboriginal victims and families; and $1.4 million over five years to share information and resources with communities and organizations, and to report regularly on progress made and results achieved under the action plan.

It also reflects the 2014 economic action plan's commitment of $8.1 million over five years, starting in 2016-17 with $1.3 million per year ongoing to create a DNA-based missing persons index.

I should add that the Government of Canada's efforts complement the important work done by the provinces and territories, police, the justice system, and aboriginal families, communities and organizations to address violence against aboriginal women and girls.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the same plan and no concrete results for prevention. Repeating announcements of old money is not getting the job done.

Year after year, it is indigenous women who face more violence than other groups in Canadian society. They actually make up 4.3% of the general population in Canada, but account for 11.3% of missing females and 16% of murders.

The debate here is not about solving crimes, it is about showing respect, changing a cultural view of what is acceptable and doing what is right. Part of the showing of respect is to allow the families of the victims to be heard, which is what an inquiry would do.

Again, if we look at what we learned from Ipperwash, it is that it is possible to make big changes when we have big societal conversations.

Will the government listen to the growing chorus of calls from groups like the Canadian Public Health Association for a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women?