Debates of Dec. 4th, 2017

Chicoutimi—Le Fjord

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It is my duty to inform the House that I have received notice that the following vacancy has occurred in the representation. The vacancy is the seat of the hon. Denis Lemieux, member for the electoral district of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, by resignation, effective Friday, December 1, 2017. Pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy.

It being 11:03 a.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is rising on a point of order.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I made an inappropriate and insensitive comment in the presence of the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne. I have nothing but the greatest respect for this member, for this institution, and I sincerely apologize.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for his gracious apology.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-236, An Act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Recognition of Charlottetown as the Birthplace of Confederation Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise again to speak to Bill S-236, an act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation.

It has been a privilege to be a part of and to witness the debate and discussions surrounding the bill in both the other place and within the House.

At the legal and constitutional affairs committee in the other place, four amendments were made to the bill. One was a correction in translation and the other three improved the context and clarified the content of the bill. That debate brought renewed interest in the story of our great nation's founding and improved the bill.

Let me once again reiterate the bill's fundamental objectives: to affirm Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation; to complement provincial efforts; and, to build on the designation of Charlottetown as the birthplace of our country in order to honour, celebrate, share, and educate.

In the spirit of building on this designation, it is important to acknowledge once again a point that was raised throughout the examination of the bill, that being the lack of inclusive discussions at the Charlottetown Conference in 1864. Those were indeed different times. No indigenous people were involved and no women participated.

Dr. Ed MacDonald of the University of Prince Edward Island made an important point before the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs, “Confederation is not Canada, and it is not the story of Canada. It is one of the stories of Canada.”

I would like to fully read into the record, as was done in the other place, the statement issued by the Mi'kmaq Confederacy when consulted by my hon. colleague Senator Diane Griffin:

While the chiefs are generally supportive of the concept of Charlottetown being recognized as the birthplace of Confederation, they note that Prince Edward Island has been the home of the Mi'kmaq people for over 12,000 years, yet they were not invited to the Charlottetown Conference. In creating this legislative recognition, the chiefs believe that moving forward, the Government of Canada must include the indigenous peoples of this land on a nation-to-nation basis in all matters. This would also involve honouring the historic peace and friendship treaties with the Mi'kmaq.

Though we cannot rewrite history we can move forward with the lessons that we have learned over time and recognize and value the importance of an inclusive society, one that respects diversity in all of its forms and the value that it brings. In my view, the Charlottetown Conference was a beginning and in each of the 153 years since that time, we have built on that vision and we will build further on that vision going forward.

The Charlottetown Conference may be viewed as the watershed moment in the story of Confederation, the point at which Confederation turned from idea into prospect. However, the importance of the Quebec Conference in 1864 and the London Conference two years later cannot be understated.

During consideration in the other place, the preamble of Bill S-236 was amended in order to acknowledge those important conferences and to recognize Confederation as a process, a result achieved through the participation of many.

Before I became an MP I served for quite a number of years as president of the National Farmers Union. In that capacity I had the opportunity to travel in many of the farming areas of this country and spend the night in people's homes, to live in the communities, and to see the differences in the regions within Canada from coast to coast to coast. That experience showed me the great potential of this country. Canada may be diverse in terms of our regions and our sectors but in that diversity we find strength. I really do believe the founding fathers built better than they knew and we have tremendous potential for progress in the future.

Let me come back to the theme of inclusiveness and relationship building. It is my hope that Bill S-236 will inspire reflection on how we can build on the story of Confederation, and how together we can develop a narrative moving forward. One possibility is to develop the narrative through tourism. As the member for Malpeque, it is my privilege to represent an area that is so rich in culture, history, and beauty. Each year, my province welcomes many Canadians and international visitors from around the world, as do many other areas of Canada. We have some of Canada's most incredible treasures in Prince Edward Island, and we do not take that responsibility for their stewardship lightly. Islanders recognize as well the value of Province House, the last remaining building of the Confederation conferences and the story of Confederation, to boost tourism and serve as an important economic generator for us.

We also recognize the importance of a common vision to promote growth. In the spirit of Sir John A. Macdonald and the Fathers of Confederation, who travelled to New Brunswick and throughout the Maritimes after the conference in Charlottetown, I am confident that together we will find new and innovative ways to attract and educate Canadian and international visitors alike and build on both the rich history of Canada's Atlantic region and the story of Confederation.

It is important to reflect on that foundational time in our history as we near the end of the year-long celebration of our nation's 150th birthday. We look forward to the next 150 years as a progressive, inclusive, and growing country.

I want to thank those who have contributed in important ways to where we find ourselves today with the bill: Senator Diane Griffin, the sponsor in the other place; the member for Charlottetown; former MP George Proud; many other islanders who worked hard toward gaining the bill; Dr. Ed MacDonald; and all my colleagues in this place and the other place whose invaluable contributions to the bill made it better. The debate itself has allowed us to reflect, to honour, and to educate during this important year for Canada.

It is my hope that the next time I walk over the time-worn steps of Province House and stand in the chamber where the Fathers stood that this moment, which is enshrined in history, will also be enshrined in law.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague across the way. I had the opportunity to go to Prince Edward Island with our caucus. Islanders have such a huge sense of pride in the island and the fact of Confederation. I only need to look at my colleague, the member who just spoke on the bill, and colleagues from the island to see this has great meaning to the community.

We should all take a sense of pride. I like to think of P.E.I. as being a part of my island too, even though I do not get to go that often, once so far. However, I know my colleagues have a passion for the island, and this is a very important issue. Perhaps my colleague could just expand on how the people on the island see this as an important thing that goes beyond tourism, that it is a part of Canada's heritage.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's comments and thank him for his compliments for Prince Edward Island. He, of course, can catch a plane out of Winnipeg, maybe stop in Toronto, and get to Prince Edward Island. We would welcome him a couple of times a year if he would like to come.

That said, islanders do see the senate chamber in Province House as an important place of history in Canada's development. It certainly was a spark or moment in time when a maritime conference was planned and Sir John A. Macdonald and others sailed down there in boats. I understand they had champagne in the hull of their ship as they arrived in Charlottetown. They turned what was to be a maritime conference into what would become the birthplace and vision for Confederation.

To Parks Canada' credit, Province House is being renovated now, and when one walks up the worn steps of Province House one sees the decor. It is not a huge place. However, there is a sense of history when one walks through what was then the senate chamber and see the table where our founding fathers came together and decided on their vision for this great country. Their vision was built on in the Quebec Conference and the London Conference that came afterwards. To a great extent this is why we have the country we have today.

When I was the president of the NFU, I often mentioned that Canadians need to see more of Canada and the tremendous potential we have as a country, which, in many respects, is second to none compared to others around the world. That vision happened in Charlottetown and we are proud of it as islanders.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, could the member comment about the people, either the leadership or the common people at the time and where they were, and take us back to those years?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as often happened in the early years, whether in the United States or here, there were the leaders who came together. They were certainly there. There were no big crowds in the streets, as we would find today at many such gatherings, but it was mainly the representatives of the people who came together, debated, and discussed. They made the decisions that encapsulated the vision that became Canada.

As I mentioned in my speech, those were different times. Indigenous people were not invited to the conference and neither were women. We do live in different times 153 years later, and that reflects the errors of the ways in those times. However, it is part of our history, and because of that we are now able to build on it as we move forward to be a much more inclusive, all encompassing, and open society.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-236, , an act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation.

This bill gives us the wonderful opportunity to remember and honour our national history, to recall the humble beginnings and soaring dreams of the first of our leaders, who dreamed of a united Canada.

History is not, as it is sometimes described, a dustbin of forgotten lore. Rather, it is the memory of how we came to be who we were and, perhaps more importantly, a view to the future, to who we are and what we will become. As the Right Hon. Winston Churchill said:

The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see.

As a young country, it is vital to reflect on and honour our history as we look to determine the path Canada will take in the future. Our founding fathers met 150 years ago in what is now called the Confederation Chamber of Prince Edward Island's legislative building, Province House. Out of that tumultuous meeting came the seed of Confederation.

Were it not for the tireless work and dedication of George Cartier and our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, it is very likely that Canada would never have come to be in any form. In 1864, the idea of a united British North America was a far-off dream, albeit one that had its supporters, including and especially the Cartier-Macdonald administration of the Province of Canada.

For year, prior to the Charlottetown Conference, there was talk of the need for unity of the British North American colonies in the face of the American “manifest destiny” expansion. The British desire to reduce their military presence in the colonies made unity a more pressing issue. Still, many thought this a pleasant dream, but ultimately impractical and bound to fail. Yet, it was with this goal in mind that a delegation from the Province of Canada, now Ontario and Quebec, made the trip to Charlottetown to attend a conference.

The original purpose of the conference was to debate the possibility of a maritime union rather than a union of the remainder of British North America. Despite the high expectations, the conference got off to a rather rocky beginning. When the delegation from Nova Scotia arrived, there was no one waiting to greet them. W.H. Pope, the provincial secretary who had been tasked with arranging the reception, had stepped away from his post for only a moment, and in doing so he missed their arrival. They were forced to fend for themselves and find their way to the legislature in a strange city. Meanwhile, a visiting circus, the first in 20 years, had taken over the city of Charlottetown and the islanders initially ignored the gathering of political figures, unaware of the future impact of the historic meeting that was about to take place.

By the time the last delegation, the representatives from the Province of Canada, arrived in their ship the Queen Victoria, W.H. Pope had smoothed over things with the Nova Scotia delegation. However, to his chagrin, a miscommunication lead to his rowing out to meet the Canadians in an old fishing row boat rather than waiting for them to arrive in their own proper boats.

Despite these initial setbacks, the delegates were quickly enthralled by the proposal for a unified British North America. The proposal that shortly before was only a dream became more and more of a reality. Macdonald, Cartier, Alexander Galt, and George Brown laid out their practical vision for a Canada that was far more possible than perhaps initially thought. Even more than possible, the Canadian delegation expressed that a unified Canada was an imperative.

The debates took place with the American Civil War as a backdrop. The Civil War was, to that point in time, the bloodiest conflict in history. In the view of the delegates in Charlottetown, the war was a result of the disparate goals of the various states conflicting with the goals of the country as a whole. Our founding fathers did not want the British North American colonies to eventually face the same end. In their view, a strong federal government was needed to unite the colonies toward a single goal.

Over the course of a week, the Fathers of Confederation set into place the framework for the future. Three years later, in 1867, our nation was born. One hundred and fifty years ago, our Fathers of Confederation were optimistic about Canada's future and firmly believed they had just formed what would become the greatest nation on earth.

As we reflect on our past and where our country is today, we can see that they were right. Canada is a nation deeply rooted in time-honoured traditions, such as human rights, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for individual freedom. We have one of the highest quality of living standards in the world, with one of the most prosperous, peaceful, and secure populations. These blessings come with a responsibility and a duty on our part to honour that proud heritage of courage, hard work, and quiet resilience handed down to us by past generations.

The debate on this bill also provides us with an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the outstanding people, places, and events that are part of our history and culture. I cannot think of a better way or better time for us to celebrate our accomplishments, both at home and around the world, than by passing a bill like this in our sesquicentennial year. In celebrating the culture, history, and values that unite us, we can look forward to the future, just as the Fathers of Confederation did, and to the endless potential that Canada still holds.

As we look forward, we must, in equal measure, look back. For this reason, I will be supporting Bill S-236 at third reading.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to reiterate the New Democratic Party's support for Bill S-236.

I would like to begin with a short preamble. As my colleagues know, this year we mark Canada's 150th anniversary of Confederation. Being proud of a country's heritage and commemorating important historical events is worthwhile for most countries, but I think it is especially so for Canada. We should feel proud of our accomplishments. We are a country comprising remarkably diverse regions and remarkably diverse people.

When we are celebrating or commemorating events that have transpired, it is important that we are mindful of the myriad cultural perspectives and experiences that make this a great country. From coast to coast to coast, there are many different voices that contribute to the Canadian experience. We must remember that historical events have different connotations for different groups in different parts of this country. As Canada moves forward to the next 150 years of nationhood, I hope we can strive to be more inclusive of other voices and cultural narratives so that they might also be celebrated and acknowledged.

With that said, the bill has given us an opportunity to evaluate Charlottetown's role in the Confederation narrative. From what we have heard, there is consensus now among our colleagues that Charlottetown is the birthplace of Confederation, if we agree to think of Confederation as a lengthy process with many important stages and not as a finite singular event. That process indeed began in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, but there were, as others have acknowledged, other vital steps that occurred along the way. Therefore, the credit for Confederation cannot be attributed solely to Charlottetown. As some of my colleagues have mentioned in previous debate, Quebec and New Brunswick both played very important roles in that process of Confederation.

Although the bill is about recognizing Charlottetown, we must remember that Confederation was conceptualized there but not executed solely there. The point I alluded to in my short preamble was one I spoke about during second reading as well. I think it noteworthy that we remind ourselves, as the hon. member for Malpeque has done, that indigenous people and women were excluded from this beginning, this watershed moment the member referred to. I implored the government during second reading to ensure that recognition of Charlottetown would not therefore lead to a celebration of colonialism. As I understand it, there was little opposition to this particular point.

We have all acknowledged that the Mi’kmaq people who lived in that territory were shamefully ignored during the conversations that precipitated the union. These people had been living in that territory for thousands of years. The notoriously shameful conduct toward first nations people is not something that can be easily remedied or forgotten. However, I agree with the hon. member for Malpeque that Canada is in fact constantly evolving and that we are living in a very different time 150 years later.

I understand that at committee, efforts were made to amend the bill to mention the Mi’kmaq people, but these were not successful. I would like to take this opportunity to remind my hon. colleagues that we must consider this perspective when drafting all legislation of this kind if we are going to do justice to the so-called call for action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We have to become more inclusive as a country, and as we look back to our historical celebrations with a more critical lens than perhaps in the past, we must, as we move forward, not omit indigenous participation in this country.

I also want to suggest that the heritage and tourism materials on Charlottetown's role in Confederation become inclusive and address that part of our history and the contribution of the Mi’kmaq people at the time and since then. As I mentioned in my previous speech, the materials developed must acknowledge their presence in the territory prior to the particular agreement and that they were not included in the negotiations about the very lands they had occupied for centuries.

It is also important to support indigenous people as they represent their own historical narratives. Confederation, as my colleague pointed out, and citing Professor Ed MacDonald to this effect, is not the Canadian story; it is one Canadian story, one of many that represent our collective history. Let us not make the same mistake that those who came before us made by ignoring other cultural narratives.

With this in mind, let me return to the matter of Confederation and defining its role in this process I referred to. Recognizing Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation is for many Canadians a foregone conclusion. I believe that one of my colleagues referred to it at committee as self-evident, and I am inclined to agree. The province is already promoting itself as the cradle of Confederation, and one arrives on the island using the so-called Confederation Bridge. I do, however, admire the tenacity of my colleagues in getting Charlottetown formally recognized as the birthplace as Confederation, what my colleague referred to as the “spark”. This has been many years in the making, so let me congratulate the hon. member for Malpeque and all those others who brought us to this point.

Complicated unions and political manoeuvring often have many moving parts. The union of the British North America would surely not have come together if it had not been for hard work and perseverance. As we mentioned during second reading, the initial conference was held September 1, 1864, in Charlottetown. Then New Brunswick governor Arthur Hamilton Gordon was instrumental in its organization. Without his insistence on the initial conference, perhaps things would not have come together as they did. Of course, it was Sir John A. Macdonald and George-Étienne Cartier who persuaded the Atlantic delegates to accept a greater British North America colonies union, with the so-called Canadians included, the people from the current provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

While many items were agreed to in spirit in Charlottetown, such as having a federal government and local governments, the details were confirmed during the October 1864 conference in Quebec City. Therefore, Quebec plays no less an important part in this process of Confederation. It just does not warrant the title of birthplace, in my opinion.

The British North America Act received royal assent on July 1, 1867. One can see how one needs to refer to Confederation as a process instead of as a singular event.

In some ways, this is a very Canadian story. It is filled with compromises and key players from various backgrounds. It is very interesting that, as my hon. colleague pointed out during a speech at second reading, our nation was not born out of revolution or war. It was born out of a series of conferences and negotiations that led to our Constitution, our country's founding principles, and indeed, the brilliance of Canadians since then has been just that, the brilliance of honourable compromise so that we can work together bringing various diverse regions and diverse communities together in what is modern Canada. It is imperative that we carry that diplomacy forward. It is vital that we forge relationships with care and mutual respect.

As has been pointed out, we cannot go back and undo the past. We have the option, however, of moving forward with a commitment to be more inclusive and to build stronger nation-to-nation relationships with indigenous peoples. Let us ensure that true reconciliation is a mutual undertaking for the future of all Canadians.

In conclusion, we support Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation. We acknowledge that the long process of Confederation did begin there. When composing heritage and tourism material, let us get it right this time by welcoming other cultural voices and perspectives. In doing so, we enrich our collective Canadian stories.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honoured to stand in this place to offer my contributions to the debate on Bill S-236. I would like to acknowledge some of the people who have brought it to this stage: the former member of Parliament for Hillsborough, George Proud; Philip Brown, from Charlottetown, and Sharon Larter, both of whom have been tenacious in advancing this private member's legislation through various Parliaments since the early 1990s; Senator Griffin, who introduced it and saw it through the other place; my colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque; and Dr. Ed MacDonald. They all have played key roles in getting us to where we are today. I would also like to thank the members for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek and Victoria for their very thoughtful and insightful remarks here today.

Finally, the proceedings before the heritage committee were particularly instructive and collaborative. In particular, I want to recognize the work and leadership of the member for York—Simcoe and the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, who also carried forward a similar theme as the member for Victoria with respect to the importance of indigenous voices.

I was extremely proud on November 23 of this year when the 23rd Prime Minister of Canada stood at the Confederation Centre of the Arts, just steps away from Province House, and accepted the Symons Medal and delivered the Symons Medal lecture on the state of Canadian Confederation. It was a particularly poignant moment when in the lead-up to his presentation, there was a Canada 150 signature performance by the Dream Catchers.

The Confederation Centre of the Arts is a permanent memorial to the Fathers of Confederation, and it was no more fitting on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of Confederation than to have the Prime Minister deliver remarks on the state of Canadian Confederation and to then accept a wide array of questions from the packed house. It was truly moving.

I am equally moved and honoured to stand in this House at this time on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of Confederation to speak to Bill S-236. As I indicated, it was put forward by the hon. Senator Griffin. It is quite straightforward and has a simple purpose: to recognize the role of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, along with Quebec and London, in laying the foundation for Confederation, a pivotal moment in Canada's evolution as a country.

History can be a dry topic, but today I would like to paint a picture for members of that meeting in Charlottetown that may perhaps shed some light on how it came about and why it was successful in terms of laying the groundwork for a new nation to emerge in the world. Historian P.B. Waite noted:

Confederation was, in many ways, a startling development. One can add up the causes of Confederation and still not get the sum of it. Like all political achievements, it was a matter of timing, luck and the combination of a certain set of men and events.

What was that certain set of men and events? Our neighbour to the south was in turmoil, tearing itself apart in a dreadful civil war. Citizens living in the British colonies viewed the upheaval with great unease, wondering if it would spill over the border.

At that time, British officials were trying to figure out whether the colonies were more of a liability than an asset. In a day and age when the empire was more interested in trade than in military might, perhaps it was time for British North America to take its destiny into its own hands.

Meanwhile, the Province of Canada, created by the 1840 Act of Union that united what are now known as Quebec and Ontario under one government, had reached a political impasse and was looking for a way out.

The problem was that Canada West, now Ontario, and Canada East, now Quebec, each had 50 seats in Parliament.

This was creating some tension. Canada West's population was much higher than that of Canada East, so more and more voices began clamouring for representation by population.

At the same time, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, also uncomfortable with the American conflict, had begun to talk about creating a maritime union among themselves. The instinct for unity was clearly an early Canadian trait.

Who were the men who made Confederation possible? In the early 1850s, a young lawyer from Kingston by the name of John A. Macdonald and a Montreal-based lawyer, George-Étienne Cartier, were both elected to opposite sides of the House in Parliament. A certain mutual respect developed between the two men, but it was when George Brown of the English-Canadian Reformers crossed the floor and formed an alliance with his archrival, Sir John A. Macdonald, that the logjam was broken.

The Great Coalition of 1864 wanted to build a larger united federation for British North America. Such a confederation would allow Canada West and Canada East to function as separate provinces, able to govern their own affairs within the new dominion. This is likely why Brown was able to align himself with MacDonald.

The Canadians became aware of the maritime union and asked if they might be invited to discuss a union among all the British colonies. The architects of the maritime union were Charles Tupper from Nova Scotia, Leonard Tilley from New Brunswick, and John Hamilton Gray from Prince Edward Island. They agreed.

A conference was arranged for Charlottetown, to run from September 1 to 7, 1864. The Canadian delegates included several senior ministers: Sir John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier, George Brown, Alexander Galt, the minister of finance, and Thomas D'Arcy McGee, the poet politician.

Through the daily letters of George Brown to his wife Anne, we have the flavour of what happened at Charlottetown. The Canadians travelled in their ship, the Queen Victoria, and stocked it with provisions and gifts, all with an eye to demonstrating their goodwill to their maritime hosts.

I had said that history can sometimes be dry. Well, in addition to the serious discussions, the Charlottetown conference was a social affair with dances, dinners, and by many accounts, lots of champagne.

Interestingly, the Canadians had to sleep on the ship the first day they arrived. The circus was in town and there was not a single hotel available.

On the first day, the maritime delegates told the Canadians they would put Confederation first on the agenda and move the debate on maritime union to later. After this first important decision was made, a state dinner with dancing was held by the governor.

So it went: serious discussions, interspersed by social engagements where the delegates could all get to know and understand each other better. The discussion on Confederation was thoughtfully laid out by Cartier and Macdonald who talked about the benefits and outlined different models of federalism. Alexander Galt presented the financial aspects, including the benefits for the Maritimes. Thomas D'Arcy McGee painted a picture of a bright future together with his words.

During a tour of our beautiful legislature building, Province House, Sir John noticed a visitor's guest book. He signed it and under occupation wrote “cabinet maker”; indeed.

In less than a week, the Maritimers agreed in principle to Confederation and assented to participate in the Quebec conference a month later. The future beckoned.

This certain set of men and events needs to be remembered, shared, and taught to our children, which is why we are seeking to pass Bill S-236. Commemoration is about examining the past so we can move forward into our future with knowledge and understanding of how we got here.

As we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation, we can see the evolution of our country, our democracy, and our values. Our very roots, as evidenced by what took place in Charlottetown, were not about conflict or war: They were about finding mutual ground and working out our differences.

Let us now work hard to ensure that the spirit of working out our differences and the lessons learned in Charlottetown can be applied to our search for reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Let us make sure that the spirit of reconciliation is not just for Canada 150, but will become part of our nation-building and national values. This is the lesson of Charlottetown. Let us keep moving it forward.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to join the debate on this particular bill from the other place. One of my staff asked me why a B.C.-based MP would want to speak to this particular bill, and that is a fair question. In short, Confederation is an incredibly important part of our past and, of course, let us not forget that it took an amazing vision for the elected officials of the time to proudly jump off of a cliff, so to speak, and support a vision when, at the time, they could not have possibly known what the outcome would be today. However, they did know one thing: that working together united is how a stronger and more prosperous Canada would be built. They were right.

There, in Charlottetown, they came up with a consensus that would lay a foundation for what would become, I believe, the greatest country in the world, and now more than ever, that is a principle we must not forget. The version of Confederation we are increasingly seeing today is one that could almost be summarized as Nimbyism, but on a provincial scale.

Quebec is happy to get oil from countries that have next to no environmental regulations, and certainly no carbon tax at all, while many opposed the energy east project instead of supporting the good province of Alberta. My home province certainly has its own conditions. Many oppose the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is also against the good province of Alberta. Here is the funny thing about that. Tankers constantly ply the waters off the west coast of Vancouver Island and head to Cherry Point station in Washington. However, the same tanker heading to English Bay would be something to be opposed by the B.C. government.

Ontario continues to oppose wine shipped directly from B.C. wineries. It is the same story in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It remains easier for a B.C. winery to ship directly to Asia than to many parts of Canada, and that, I submit, is wrong. That is not what Confederation was about. Over my time spent working on the interprovincial trade barrier file, I could easily fill this entire speech with numerous examples of provincial protectionism or outright political obstruction that, once again, overlook Confederation. That concerns me.

Therefore, when an opportunity arose to recognize Confederation and the location where it occurred, absolutely I wanted to join the debate and speak in support of that. In my view, anything we can do to educate about our past can help with our future, and we should also never take what happened in Confederation for granted. In this place, in particular, we should work together on this one principle. There is a long answer as to why I wanted to participate in this debate, but before I close, I would like to talk about something.

Last week, the finance committee travelled to both Washington and New York and heard a talk at the Canadian embassy by a William A. Galston of the Brookings Institution, a speech called “The Populist Challenge to Liberal Democracy”. In his answers, he referred to a recent poll of American millennials that showed shifting support for western liberal democracies. Some looked more favourably at other forms of government than what we have today, like the so-called Beijing consensus. He said that people would often support other various approaches to governance in western liberal democracies, specifically due to one of two reasons: either they morally did not support it or the particular form of governance they now had did not work for them.

If we look back at what made Confederation great, it was an equal principle that everyone who came to the table brought something unique, and regardless of the size of the provinces, they all brought something incredible to bear to this common thing called Canada. I would say that in this place we have lots of debate, but we also have a rich history and know that, while we may disagree on some of those national debates, we are ultimately part and partner to something greater. That is the key principle here.

When we support reducing interprovincial trade barriers and the rule of law with regard to pipeline projects, which are approved by our Parliament of Canada through a very judicious process, but we allow those things that I talked about to happen, that demonstrates the performance of our system of governance to the average person. There are people in Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec who are resentful—I remember, as a child of the 1970s, there being debate after debate and one national sovereignty referendum after another. However, if we act as partners in this great thing called Canada and we show that we believe morally that Canada is good and that we all bring something unique to the table, I would contend that goes a long way to addressing the performance issues that some may have with our system of governance in this great country.

I would argue that if we can allay those concerns, if we can see pipelines built properly, if we can see national issues addressed in this place, if we can see interprovincial trade barriers come down, then from that moral principle that we are better together, I believe we will see Canada continue to be the greatest country in the world.

I thank this place for allowing me to speak to this important bill. I am grateful to be part of this great country. Hopefully, we will see the bill passed as quickly as possible.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to Bill S-236, an act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation. I applaud the member for Malpeque, whom I have known for a number of years, for making sure the bill could come to this House.

Earlier this morning as the parade came in, I had a chance, as I always do, to look at this beautiful place and to think of all the history that is part of this building. Then I think back to Charlottetown. My wife's family came from Charlottetown, as a matter of fact, just on Grafton Street, and when the Fathers of Confederation were there, getting together and speaking, her family was there. They lived in the community. I had a great opportunity, therefore, to have that reflection. Of course, going to Charlottetown, as we do on occasion, we walk the stairs and have a chance to see just where Canada really took root. For us to be able to speak about this, in this place, and at third reading, it makes me feel very good about the history.

As the member for Malpeque mentioned, it is really a story of Canadian families. My wife's family, the Moore family, could have stayed in Charlottetown in 1892. They lived in a very nice place, but instead decided to come west as surveyors, to look at our vast country and see the kinds of things that were there. Then another 10 years later, when they had an opportunity to come to Alberta, they brought the whole family. My wife's father was one year old when they came in 1903. They became Albertans. Our family was there before Alberta was part of this great Confederation. Therefore, we have this bond between Charlottetown and Alberta. When we think about the importance of our entire country, it is so important that we are able to look at the families and relationships that exist there.

We had a chance to take my wife's father back to Charlottetown. This was probably in the mid-80s. He had not been there, but we did have a chance to look at the house. In the picture we had on the wall, a particular tree was about a two-inch diameter. When we were there, it took four of us to girth the thing. We can see a lot of things have happened there, but a lot of things have happened in the country as well. They are things we should be proud of, and we should recognize the strength there was in the people who decided this was something important to them.

My own family had gone to the U.S. They had come from Germany and gone to the U.S. in 1870. That was right after the American Civil War. The stress and situations that occurred there had them come to Alberta, as well, in 1903. There has been this great bond and this mixing we have in society, and it is because of families. When they came to Alberta, they started off first selling draught horses, because that was the power of the day. They then went into saddle horses, because that became the next commerce associated with it. Then they went into cattle, and finally into grain. The member for Malpeque and I have had many discussions on the grain side of things. I know our discussions on the Canadian Wheat Board go back a way, and we engaged in a lot of discussion there.

However, it is about people trying to do the best for their community and making sure they prosper, and it all happened because of people getting together and recognizing the concerns we had as a country back in those days. I am proud of that aspect of it.

Do we have things that we need to look at for the future? Yes. Should we spend all our time worrying about where we were 150 years ago? Let us think about it and let us recognize the significance. However, let us also think of the fact that Canada is the best country in the world and that is because of the people who brought us all together, and we continue to work so well together.

It is important for us to realize that the mistakes and issues that happened have built our character as a nation. We should all be proud of that. Unfortunately, we spend too much time going back, saying we could have been so much better if we had just done this or that. Where else would we rather be than here? We should all be proud of that.

I understand that these are the stories of Canadians, the stories of the distress. Look at what happened during the American Civil War. We were able to move from there. Look at the concerns and the reasons why our nation came about and why the discussions took place. That also is critical. It is extremely important we look at those aspects of it.

It has been a melting pot for nations around the world, as we come here, work together and look at our strengths. We want to ensure we maintain that. There is a Canadian identity and it is a result of the people who have been in this place over the last 150 years. This is a House of Commons and, as I have always told people, we are the common people. The moment we think we are above that is the time we should not be here. We reflect everybody in the country. I am so proud we can continuously say that Canada is the best place in the world.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Malpeque for introducing the bill to the House of Commons. As my colleague, the prior speaker has said, the importance of the individuals who sat at that table in Charlottetown and discussed how their visions for what Canada could be, are people who reached out far beyond that, especially after we became a country. That is why I want to relay a story that happened recently in my constituency office.

A local farmer, Willy Hilgendag, is the owner of Bow Park Farm. Bow Park Farm may mean nothing to most of those listening, but it is one of the most significant, historic farms in the country. It is part of an adjacent land, a flood plain to the Grand River that flows through my community of Brantford—Brant.

The significance of Bow Park goes back to pre-Confederation. As Willy entered my office that day, he had a life-sized cutout cardboard of George Brown. As we know, George Brown was one of the key players in Charlottetown, where he discussed his vision for the country. George became, and was, as the owner of Bow Park Farm, a huge historic figure in shaping that part of the world in which live.

Willy is an immigrant to Canada from Holland, the Netherlands. He has maintained and grown Bow Park Farm. He has also written about it. If members ever want to see one of the most beautiful farming operations, Bow Park Farm reflects that today.

Through Willy's work, he has literally set up a portion of one of his farm buildings in recognition of George Brown. It is a wonderful mini museum that he invites the public, at various times of the year, to come out and learn more, not only about Bow Park Farm and not only what it does today, but the history of it. I have to admit that I was a little lacking in knowing what Mr. Brown had done and knowing he was connected to Confederation, the home of our country, where the seeds were born.

One of the things he did that was hugely significant to the country and to agriculture was he bred prize-winning cattle. He took them to Chicago. Imagine how they had to be shipped in those days.

I wanted to tell this story because it hits at the heart of who makes up our country and what they have done for it. He had these prize cattle shipped to Chicago, where they were world-renowned and purchased by buyers from across the world. He put Canada and Bow Park Farm on the map.

I can see by the smile on the face of the member for Malpeque that he may know about Bow Park Farm. He may know this story and what George Brown did to influence agriculture across the country, just as the member has done previously with his work in the agriculture community, representing farmers. I hope that story hits home with the member.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant will have five and a half minutes remaining in his time when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Opposition Motion—ISIS Fighters Returning to Canada

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Today being the last allotted day for the supply period ending December 10, 2017, the House will proceed as usual to the consideration and passage of the appropriation bill.

In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree to that the bill distributed now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

moved:

That the House:

(a) condemn the horrific acts committed by ISIS;

(b) acknowledge that individuals who joined ISIS fighters are complicit in these horrific acts and pose a danger to Canadians;

(c) call on the government to bring to justice and prosecute any ISIS fighter returning to Canada; and

(d) insist that the government make the security and protection of Canadians its priority, rather than the reintegration of ISIS fighters, or the unnecessary financial payout to a convicted terrorist, like Omar Khadr.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. Our motion, which has just been read and which we will be debating today, is a very important motion about the return of fighters who joined ISIS.

The ISIS traitors who have returned to Canada are part of a group that, need I remind the House, has burned allied soldiers alive, decapitated men, and raped women and children. They are complicit in acts of violence that defy all understanding or belief.

We know that some of these traitors have come back to Canada, that others are planning to return, and that some did not have permission to travel abroad to fight because they were already known to have hostile intentions.

The Prime Minister believes that these terrorists can be reintegrated. His own Minister of Public Safety tells us that they cannot be reintegrated.

Can these animals be reintegrated into Canada after being complicit in such crimes? Is it really acceptable for these murderers to be allowed to come back to Canada and live freely?

When we think about it, these are not just criminals, they are men who work day and night to destroy everyone who does not share their ideology. We do not know who they are, where they are, or what their plans are.

The Minister of Public Safety should have been proactive about informing Canadians about these criminals. Instead, he gives us vague responses and he assures us that everything is just fine. He assures us everything is fine even though the information coming out of his department is two years old, from 2015. Our minister is not really up to date.

Canadians remember all the terrorist acts committed here in Canada. They do not feel reassured by the Liberals, who are always trying to accommodate these dangerous sickos.

Canadians will remember that Ahmed Ressam, known as the “Millennium Bomber”, was arrested in December 1999 when he arrived in the United States on a ferry from Victoria, British Columbia. He was transporting explosives in his car, for use in a bomb plot against Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve 1999 during the 2000 millennium celebrations.

In April 2004, a radicalized Muslim convert of Lebanese origin firebombed the library of United Talmud Torah, a Jewish school in Montreal.

In 2006, Canadian anti-terrorist forces investigating an Ontario terrorism plot arrested 18 terrorists inspired by al Qaeda who came to be known as the “Toronto 18”.They were accused of planning to detonate truck bombs, open fire in a crowded area, storm the Canadian Broadcasting Centre, the Canadian Parliament buildings, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service headquarters, and the Peace Tower, as well as wanting to behead the Prime Minister and other senior leaders.

In August 2010, Misbahuddin Ahmed of Ottawa was arrested for facilitating a terrorist activity and participating in a terrorist group.

In 2013, Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser were accused of an alleged al Qaeda plot to derail a train between New York and Toronto on Canadian soil.

We often hear about Islamic terrorism, but I must point out that in this instance, Canadian Muslim groups helped to thwart the alleged plot.

On October 20, 2014, Martin Couture-Rouleau drove his car into two Canadian forces members in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec. Mr. Couture-Rouleau had also recently converted to radical Islam. Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent was killed.

Two days later, on October 22, 2014, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau killed Corporal Nathan Cirillo, a Canadian soldier, at the monument just down from Parliament, before coming into the parliamentary precinct, where he opened fire on security personnel.

On September 30, 2017, 30-year-old Abdulahi Sharif, ran down Mike Chernyk, an Edmonton police officer, and then stabbed him, near the Commonwealth Stadium. He then fled and hit four pedestrians during a police chase.

We can all clearly see that the threat is not a thing of the past. This threat is here now, today. Our Prime Minister seems completely indifferent to the possibility of a major attack here in Canada. To illustrate, the Prime Minister's lack of judgment was evident when he responded to questions from our leader regarding the government's position on the reintegration of Islamic State members who have returned to Canada.

Last week, during question period, our leader asked the following:

Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister who is de-emphasizing Canadian security, and Canadians are tired of it. It was Conservatives who amended the Criminal Code to make it an offence to leave Canada to fight for ISIS. It was Conservatives who were focused on giving our law enforcement new tools to prosecute ISIS fighters. The Prime Minister is using a broad spectrum that includes poetry and podcasts, and all kinds of counselling and group hug sessions.

When will the Prime Minister take the security of Canadians seriously and look for ways to put these ISIS fighters in jail?

That was the question that the leader of the official opposition asked the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister responded as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party learned nothing from the last election and the lessons Canadians taught them. They ran an election on snitch lines against Muslims, they ran an election on Islamophobia and division, and still they play the same games, trying to scare Canadians. The fact is we always focus on the security of Canadians, and we always will. They play the politics of fear, and Canadians reject that.

The Prime Minister also said:

Mr. Speaker, we can see that Stephen Harper's Conservative Party is alive and well. They are doubling down on the same approaches they had in the last election, the same approaches that Canadians rejected. I wish them luck.

This was the answer the Prime Minister gave the leader of the official opposition, with his usual patronizing smile. I think Canadians are really tired of this.

Why is the Prime Minister trying to label the opposition's questions on the safety of Canadians as Islamophobic?

The Prime Minister has to understand that the Conservatives are not the only ones who are committed to the safety and security of Canadians. Past surveys show that Canadians of all political stripes want to live in safety. It is simply common sense. Are all Canadians Islamophobic? Are Canadian Muslims who are against jihadists Islamophobic too? No, they are not.

Why is it bad to ask how the government is handling the return of jihadists to the country? Why should we feel uncomfortable to ask a question as simple as that?

The Liberals are putting a lot of energy into making sure Islamic State fighters who come back to Canada are seen as poor little children who need our love and support. They are not children. They are violent men of deep conviction who are capable of pursuing their mission here in Canada against us, the infidels. In their eyes, we are all infidels. Whether we are Christian, Jewish, non-believers, men, women, or members of the LGBTQ2 community or other groups, we are targets to these sick people. For reasons that escape me, the Liberals believe that, from one day to the next, members of Islamic State will stop plotting to kill Canadians and force people to convert to their macabre ideology.

We have no right to scale back our efforts against this violent movement. We have no right to believe that the events of September 11, 2001, targeted only the United States, not Canada. Islamic State fighters have indeed been dispersed, but those who preach their lethal extremist ideology have not.

Once again, I will ask the questions I recently asked the Prime Minister in the House: Who are they? Where are they? What are their plans? Those are simple questions that call for simple answers, not evasive ones.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, for the people who have returned and there is not enough evidence to lay charges against them, what does the member suggest the government do? Does he agree with efforts to rehabilitate these people when there is not enough evidence to lay charges?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. That is exactly why we are in the House today. We want to debate this matter and ask the government to take action.

The government keeps replying that it does not know and that there is no evidence. At least 180 people left Canada and their identity is known. We know that they went to Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere to to join the jihad. What happens when they come back to Canada?

My Liberal colleagues should be asking their Prime Minister and their Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to take meaningful action. We, the Conservatives, determined that as soon as it was known that someone had decided to join the jihad, that individual was considered a criminal. That was clear.

Immediately upon taking office, the Liberal Party withdrew that provision from the legislation. As for the return of ISIS fighters, the Liberals have to account to Canadians for this, because we, the Conservatives, introduced the appropriate measures back in the day. The Liberals weakened the legislation and are giving these people another chance.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have a very hard time understanding why we cannot do both at the same time. If police forces and national security agencies are able to collect enough evidence to arrest someone, they certainly will. It is absolutely preposterous to claim otherwise.

Deradicalization is a matter of public safety. During the previous Parliament, the Conservatives just introduced draconian measures to strengthen laws, without looking at how to prevent individuals from becoming radicalized in the first place. To prevent this from happening, we need community initiatives, and these initiatives never had the support of the previous government.

I also want to point out that, despite what is being said, this is not a question of just one group or another. There are all kinds of examples right now. For example, hate crimes are on the rise, as is anti-Semitism. If we want to keep the public safe and address radicalization, we need to do it across the board and must not target one group in particular. Why are the Conservatives so bent on denigrating the deradicalization efforts that help keep Canadians safe?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for my colleague, but what he just said is completely wrong. I never said that we were against deradicalization or efforts to prevent radicalization. Today, we are calling the government to account with regard to people who are known to the government who returned to Canada after leaving the country to fight with ISIS or other terrorist groups.

Yes, we are taking a hard line on this, but that is because the safety of Canadians is our top priority. The time for telling these people not to do certain things is past, because they have already done those things. We want to know who they are, where they are, and what measures are being taken to keep Canadians safe.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right in not conflating this issue with a de-radicalization issue within Canada. We are talking about people who left this country, who fought against this country, and are now coming back into this country and are being reintegrated back into the country.

The issue of the passport is important because these people are dual citizens. Does the hon. member believe that their passports should be revoked and they should not be allowed back into this country after they have left to fight us?