Debates of Dec. 7th, 2017

Canada Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an interesting bill, I will say that much.

Electoral reform, finances, and the election finances act always make for an interesting discussion. My colleague and friend has had a number of discussions on this particular issue. There are individuals in this chamber who I know like to have that debate on the direction we should be moving and how political entities are in fact financed. It will be one of those never-ending debates. There are always ways that we might want to look at making some changes.

The direction we have been moving in the last 20 or so years is somewhat encouraging. I have an immense amount of respect for Elections Canada. Many established democracies around the world and countries who want to establish democracies look at Canada as a case in point. Even though we might be a relatively young nation at 150 years old, there is a sense that we have it right, and that we do not want to be stagnant, but want to continue to look at ways we can improve the situation and do not take things for granted.

The government does not take the issue of finances for granted. We have a fantastic Minister of Democratic Institutions who has brought forward legislation that will see substantial changes. At the end of the day, this government and, maybe not quite as much, the Harper government, but governments in general have attempted to modify our Elections Act and elections finances act to strengthen our democracy. Sometimes there is a little step back, but all in all, we have been moving forward. That really applies to the area of finances.

We have seen a significant shift. When I was first elected at the provincial level, and it would apply in the same manner at the federal level, politicians would go to some fairly well-financed individuals or corporations to pony up hundreds of thousands of dollars to a political entity. We look at it from that perspective. I can remember my 1988 election campaign, when lot of money financing that election, at least for some, came from outside the province of Manitoba. That same thing could be seen in Canada as well. There was a point in time when people could actually raise money that would come indirectly from outside Canada.

All in all, when we look at it, we have moved significantly forward. We have a healthier democracy today than we had in previous years. I choose to believe, through discussions such as the one we are having this evening, such as the fine work that the procedure and House affairs committee does, and the work of other individuals who have a keen interest in this subject matter, that we will continue to evolve and look at ways to improve the system.

I want to reflect on the legislation that the Minister of Democratic Institutions has brought to this House. With respect to leaders, leadership candidates, the Prime Minister, and all ministers, when they have fundraising events, we have committed as a government that when a ticket costs in excess of $200, the names of the attendees have to be publicized. We have talked about having a publicly accessible facility. There are things that the government has recognized it would be nice to move forward on. We have taken action on those.

We are asking our friends in the Conservatives and New Democrats and in particular their respective leaders, to look at that and maybe not wait until the legislation is actually proclaimed but indicate and send a strong message to Canadians that they too believe in the type of transparency and accountability that we are talking about on the government side.

It needs to be emphasized for my friends in the Bloc and the New Democrats that to try to give the impression that the elections are not publicly financed is not entirely true. There is substantial support for our federal elections and candidates. I as a candidate, for example, can attempt to raise money and those fine people who decide to donate to me, or to the Liberal Party through me, will get a tax credit. If people give a $100 donation, they will get $75 back. Those across the way talked about $1,500 donations and so forth. In my case and I know in my colleagues' case it is very rare that I would get a $1,500 donation. I have no objection to taking a $1,500 donation but to make it very clear, whether someone gives me a $1,500 donation, which is the limit according to the law, or a $100 donation, I appreciate both donors, or if it is a $10 donation. My vote is not for sale. I am not going to be bought by $1,500 so it is wrong for others across the way to try to give an impression that a member of this House could be bought by a $1,500 donation.

In fact, I tell individuals that my campaign is not just about money. They can volunteer in the campaign. I value my volunteers, the ones who come and knock on doors with me, the ones who put up signs, the ones who circulate brochures and do all those wonderful tasks that are so important in having a campaign where we are trying to communicate with the residents whose support we want. I value their efforts just as much as I value the individuals who say they cannot go out and do door knocking with me but will give me a $100 donation. Both are of great value to me. For people to think that they can give me a substantial donation or put in a phenomenal number of hours or put up 500 signs and they are going to be getting a favour or something in return from me, that is just not true. That is not the way it works. Democracy is a wonderful thing, and I honestly believe that I am not alone, that all members of the chamber are honourable members and they cannot be bought for $1,500.

We have taken away big companies, corporations, and unions and the manner in which they used to finance political parties. We have put it back to individuals. The greatest growth in donations to the Liberal Party of Canada, I understand, is through those small donations that are coming from tens of thousands of Canadians every year. It has been growing as Canadians recognize good sound policy that is coming from the government, how this government is supporting our middle class and those wanting to be a part of it and those who do not have the financial means. They see the positive things that are being done by this government and a number of them want to participate in the democratic process by ensuring they continue to support us.

Whether they support us as a party or they support the Conservatives or even the New Democrats or the Greens, democracy is very important to us as a nation. It takes money in order to finance it. There is nothing wrong with individuals giving donations to political parties. We have fantastic independent institutions like our ethics commissioners and our lobbyists. We have good Elections Canada rules in place to protect our democracy and the integrity of this House and I have full confidence in our current system. No doubt over the coming years, we will see some positive changes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member has three to four minutes left for his speech. He will then have the remainder of his 10 minutes when the House next resumes debate on the question.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. I had the opportunity to work with him on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. I would not want to hurt his feelings today, but I have rarely heard him give such an unfocused speech.

I think that we should pay serious attention to one particular witness I heard at the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. He is considered a leading expert on electoral laws. His name is Jean-Pierre Kingsley. I asked him a very simple question about the link between political party financing and a more equitable electoral system. He said that the per-vote public subsidies to political parties should be restored as soon as possible. Liberals and Conservatives should put that in their pipe and smoke it. That is what Jean-Pierre Kingsley says. He is not some kind of dinosaur, he is someone who deeply cares about the vitality of democracy.

That is what we are talking about, the vitality of democracy. We are not trying to determine if the Bloc Québécois is in financial trouble, if the Green Party and the NDP are in financial trouble or if the Conservative Party has more or less money now than when it was in government.

The Liberal Party was once in favour of electoral reform and a return to a per-vote subsidy for political parties, but now that its coffers are full and it is in power, it no longer sees the need for reform. Why is that?

Certain ideas kept coming up during meetings of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. We did not end up reforming anything, but things were said, and some of those things had to do with the ruling in Figueroa. A true democracy enables true democratic debate. True democratic debate is predicated on a plurality of positions. That is the purpose the per-vote subsidy serves.

The question that came up was why citizens would bother going to the polls. We have heard statements such as, “Fewer and fewer people vote” and “People are cynical about democratic institutions”. The truth is that people will go to the polls out of a sense of conviction.

A modicum of electoral fairness can only be achieved through a per-vote subsidy. Of course, a proportional ballot would have been even fairer, and would have brought electoral pluralism to the House of Commons.

Canadians will go to the polls to vote out of conviction and they might vote for the Green Party, for example. They know that by voting for the Green Party, $1.75 will be given to that party so that it can continue advancing its cause between elections, as part of the democratic debate in a democratic society, so that when elections are called, all parties can participate form the outset in a fair and democratic electoral debate. That is how a real democrat sees it, unlike a Sunday democrat such as the Liberal Party deputy leader. On this side, we are no Sunday democrats. It has nothing to do with our coffers being full or not. It has to do solely with our sense of democracy. I appeal to the sense of democracy of all members so they stop letting the executive control them for a moment.

We know that, when you are in government, it is easy to raise cash with cocktail parties attended by a cash-for-access minister. That issue was raised in the House. The Prime Minister had to answer for that. When this kind of thing happens, it reflects badly on all parliamentarians. Those people are saying they want to continue doing things the same way.

I will have the opportunity to speak to it again, but I want to say for now that my colleague has just introduced a balanced bill that provides for public financing of political parties. That is how we can engage citizens in the democratic process and get them to vote. That is what is at stake in this bill.

I would be very disappointed if parliamentarians moved to kill this bill before it can be considered clause-by-clause, amended and improved.

Why would this bill not pass first reading and then be improved by all the real democrats in the House?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Montcalm will have five minutes to finish his speech when the House resumes debate on this motion.

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.

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

Indigenous Affairs

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for thousands of years, salmon has been the foundation and main food source of the Nuu-chah-nulth first nations. Over the last eight years, their basic right to catch and sell fish on their traditional territory has been upheld by the B.C. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada. After promising not to fight first nations in court, the Liberal government is still refusing to honour this right.

I just want to run down the timelines so that it is on the record here in the House.

On November 3, 2009, Justice Garson, of the B.C. Supreme Court, ruled that the Nuu-chah-nulth first nations have an aboriginal right to harvest and sell all species of fish found within their territories. Justice Garson ordered Canada to negotiate with the nations on how to accommodate their right within its management of the fisheries.

In July 2010, the nations developed community-based fishing plants for a rights-based fishery.

In August 2010, DFO rejected the nations' proposals.

On May 18, 2011, the B.C. Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the right of the five Nuu-chah-nulth nations to harvest and sell any species of fish on their territories, with the exception of geoduck clams.

In August 2011, Canada applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for permission to appeal the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal.

In March 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada did not grant Canada's application for leave to appeal but sent the case back to the B.C. Court of Appeal for re-examination, in light of the recent court ruling of the Lax Kw'alaams Indian Band v. Canada.

Later, in July 2013, the B.C. Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed that the nations have aboriginal rights to harvest and sell all species of fish, except geoduck clams.

In September 2013, Canada asked for leave to appeal the 2009 decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In January 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the application, meaning that the declaration of aboriginal rights is final and the nations' rights are protected under section 35 of Canada's Constitution.

On March 9, 2015, the Nuu-chah-nulth first nations returned to court for a justification trial, at which time Canada attempted to justify why the Nuu-chah-nulth nations were not previously or historically given the right to harvest and sell all species of fish in their territories. Canada provided evidence first, and Nuu-chah-nulth witnesses gave their evidence after.

On October 28, 2016, the justification trial ended after 144 days. Here we are in December 2017, and the nations are awaiting the trial decision.

Throughout this whole period, the Nuu-chah-nulth first nations have demonstrated patience. They want to be fishing. They do not want to be in court.

I am going to quote from a media release from today, and it is from the T'aaq-wiihak fisheries. It refers to fishing with the permission of the Ha’wiih, the hereditary chiefs. The news release is about their frustration with inaction by the government. It is from the lead negotiator for the Ahousaht nation Cliff Atleo. He said:

Our fishers have been waiting since 2009 to fish and sell all species in our territories, which the courts, all the way to the Supreme Court, confirmed is our right. This government has been in power for two years now, and we have yet to see any real evidence of the “new relationship” promised by [the Prime Minister].

The Liberals talk a lot about reconciliation with first nations. Well, it is time to prove it. The government says its most important relationship is with Canada's indigenous peoples. Why is it fighting them in court?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I was born in Comox and it was my pleasure at the invitation of the member opposite to visit Courtenay—Alberni, go back to Vancouver Island, and meet with local, municipal, community, and indigenous leaders.

Indeed a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership is a top priority for our government.

The federal government is supportive of the rights of the five Nuu-Chah-Nulth first nations and remains committed to the consultation and negotiation process and accommodating and implementing the rights of first nations.

In its decision dated November 3, 2009, as the member opposite referred to, the Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the five Nuu-Chah-Nulth bands on the west coast of Vancouver Island have an aboriginal right to fish for any species of fish within their fishing territory, which extends offshore nine miles, and to sell that fish.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia excluded geoduck from the scope of this aboriginal right. The decision also found that the first nations have a right to fish using their preferred means, which the courts characterized as community-based, localized fisheries involving wide community participation and using small low-cost boats.

Consultations and negotiations with the five first nations have been ongoing since 2010. Following the establishment of the right, the parties set up a substantive consultation and negotiation process that was modelled on treaty negotiations with a main table for negotiations and a joint working group for technical discussions to work with the first nations to address outstanding fisheries issues.

The matters that are the subject of negotiations are inherently complex. One of the significant challenges of these ongoing negotiations is that there is a different view on the scope of the right, which was described by the court as a right to sell fish into the commercial marketplace but not on an industrial scale.

Since 2010, significant fishing access has been provided to the first nations. For example, in 2007, first nations had 23 commercial licences and they now have access to over 126 licences and additional quota.

In 2015, to help guide the discussions, an evaluation framework was developed to continue implementation of the court's decision and enable DFO and the first nations to further test and evaluate the accommodation of preferred-means fishing through local small-boat fishery approaches for chinook salmon and other species of interest to the first nations.

At the request of the five Nuu-Chah-Nulth first nations, a new negotiating process was launched in March 2017. The five first nations and federal officials have completed a framework agreement in order to initiate and guide the negotiation of a reconciliation agreement. These reconciliation negotiations are without prejudice and are intended to assist the parties in more freely presenting their interests and exploring potential solutions.

The recently established process will help develop a common understanding of our respective views and is assisting us in finding mutually agreeable resolutions to outstanding issues.

This government is committed to working with the first nations through the current consultation and negotiation processes to accommodate and implement the rights of the five Nuu-Chah-Nulth first nations.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the member for coming to my riding. He did come and it was great. He heard from people and from the nations how important these rights and this settlement are to the Nuu-Chah-Nulth people. He heard how much we need coastal restoration funds in the Somass. What we received was nothing for coastal restoration funds for the Somass. What the Nuu-Chah-Nulth people received was nothing in terms of something concrete at the negotiating table and they are still waiting for that.

The speech that I just heard actually minimizes the rights and again diminishes the call to action from the Nuu-Chah-Nulth people. I really hope that the member is actually listening, that I am here on behalf of the Nuu-Chah-Nulth people who asked for their voice to be brought to the House of Commons.

I will read a quick statement from the chief of the Hesquiaht First Nation who said:

Well, two years in government is long enough to back up their words with real action that will make a difference to our communities. We have been patient and willing to work with government. Our fishers and communities are living in poverty with unacceptable levels of unemployment. Yet right out in front of our communities are fishing jobs waiting for our people, if this government will get on with it and do the right thing, like they keep saying they want to do.

It will make a difference. I hope the member is really listening today. The first nations are saying nothing concrete has been put on the table.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership is a top priority for our government. Our government remains committed to the consultation negotiation process and accommodating and implementing the rights of the five Nuu-chah-nulth first nations.

At the request of the five Nuu-chah-nulth first nations, a new negotiating process was launched in March 2017. Through this process, the five first nations and federal officials completed a framework agreement, which will guide the negotiations of a reconciliation agreement. These reconciliation negotiations are without prejudice, and are intended to assist the parties in more freely presenting their interests and exploring potential solutions. The matters that are the subject of the negotiations are inherently complex, but I can assure that this government is committed to working with the first nations through the current consultations and negotiations process to accommodate and implement their rights.

Poverty

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on November 22, I rose in the House to ask a question about the anti-poverty strategy. This government committed to meeting specific targets to help people living in precarious situations. However, the poverty reduction strategy seems very poorly targeted.

The situation is critical. The latest report from Citizens for Public Justice revealed that nearly five million Canadians are living on a low income, which amounts to one in seven people. Worse still, Campaign 2000 estimates that nearly one in five children lives in a family struggling with poverty and that one in three indigenous children living on reserve is poor. This is unacceptable.

The numbers I just gave are more than just statistics. These are human beings, children, families, real people who need our help. We simply cannot allow people to continue to suffer every day in a country as wealthy as ours, just because we have a government that refuses to take action on this file. The Liberals have been in power for over two years now, and still nothing concrete or effective has been done to help the poor.

A report from the parliamentary budget officer himself shows that this government's efforts to fight poverty are hitting a wall. The report shows that no performance analysis was done for the tax expenditures. It is impossible to know whether the money that this government chose to spend is really helping to reduce poverty. How can this government help the least fortunate if it is not taking the right approach? It is so wrong.

The recommendation from the parliamentary budget officer is clear: setting appropriate and consistent objectives is necessary, but more importantly, a much broader strategy is urgently needed. Proposing half measures instead of focusing on the real causes of poverty is not viable. It is also necessary to include support measures that are universal in nature. Some groups, such as people with disabilities, indigenous peoples, and newcomers, are extremely vulnerable to poverty. Newcomers in particular are more likely to have precarious jobs and consequently a lower income.

These are not just numbers, they are individuals. They have the right to live in dignity, without the tremendous daily stress of wondering how they are going to pay their bills. The government must act swiftly to help them, and that is currently not happening.

I spend my constituency days meeting with the people of Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale, be it the low-income earner, the single mother, the undereducated young man, the person with a physical or intellectual disability, the 50-year-old who has lost his or her job because of restructuring, or the senior coping with a loss of independence. This has really shown me that the fight against poverty must be a priority.

Fortunately, there are many organizations in my riding that do tremendous work for people in need every day, including La Chaudronnée in Acton Vale, Comptoir-Partage La Mie, the volunteer centre in Saint-Hyacinthe, and La Moisson Maskoutaine. I want to take the time to thank them in the House for their dedication and their efforts. No one is immune to poverty, and it is time for the government to take action without further delay.

My question is simple: when will the government implement a real and concerted anti-poverty strategy?

All Canadians, including workers, families, children, the unemployed, indigenous children, people with disabilities, and refugees, are waiting.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

This issue is a priority for our government, and it is very important for the country. The NDP's anti-poverty policies are very important. I thank the member for asking this question this evening.

More than three million Canadians live in poverty, and this is completely and totally unacceptable. That is why our government is focused on eliminating poverty in all its forms.

However, poverty is very complex. It impacts people differently depending on which region of the country they live in and based on their gender. Racialized people and, in particular, the racism faced by the black community is a fundamental problem and challenge the country has to face. The issues are not just economic; they are human rights issues that must be challenged. We have put programs in place to do just that.

Let me talk about some of the ways we are working toward a national poverty reduction strategy.

One is by talking about the programs we have put in place now, not waiting for them to be introduced formally. First and foremost, I will talk about the issue closest to my heart.

That issue is the national housing strategy. It is important for ending poverty, particularly for the homeless people living on the streets of Canada.

The national housing strategy is perhaps one of the most important things we are doing. It is a new program. It is $40 billion over 10 years, the longest and largest investment in supportive housing, public housing, social housing, and affordable housing for those in the private market. This program alone will have a dramatic impact. Close to half a million Canadians will be lifted out of core housing needs and that will put them on a path to solving some of the challenges poverty brings to their lives. However, we have not stopped there.

We have consulted straight across the country.

We travelled all over Canada, talking to academics, researchers, stakeholders, service providers, indigenous partners, and people who have lived in poverty.

This government has been consulting, talking, listening, and supporting round tables across the country to get the best advice it can from people on the front lines, the researchers, the universities, and listening to indigenous peoples and organizations as we formulate a policy.

In the interim, it was not just the national housing strategy that saw us take action. We have also taken deliberate action around child poverty. I would argue, and I think the facts present themselves, that the Canada child benefit, which has lifted 300,000 children out of poverty in the first two years of this government and has recently been indexed by this government, is a commitment we have made to solve and resolve poverty as it impacts some of the most vulnerable people in our country, children.

We have also addressed the issue of seniors. There are 900,000 vulnerable seniors living this experience across the country and our improvements to GIS has lifted 13,000 seniors out of poverty, the bulk of them, 90%, women. This is part of our gender-based approach to modelling our programs so we do not just talk about poverty in general but target specific individuals, demographics, and sub-populations that require our help.

Additionally, we have invested $7.5 billion in day care and early learning child care. These, again, are investments, partnering with the provinces, that will deliver significant change to people's lives that are defined by poverty. Sometimes the lack of child care is equivalent to not getting a job. Again, building stronger capacity in people's lives is part of the way we do this.

When we add this all up, when we add the new housing with the new child care support, with the new child benefit, with the new guaranteed income supplement, the measures we have made to cut taxes, and the additional steps we will see in the budget in the year ahead, we do not see a government that is waiting for a national strategy to address poverty. We are seeing a government that is acting now to alleviate the pressure and dynamics in far too many people's lives.

This government is committed to eliminating poverty and coordinating it through a national poverty reduction strategy. This government is already taking action of which we are very proud. This has helped Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals have a strategy, why are they not giving it to us? They have yet to clearly present a real, concerted strategy for reducing poverty.

The member said himself that poverty is a crosscutting issue that requires broad-based action. That has been widely documented for the past 30 years. The first resolution to eliminate poverty dates back to 1989.

Last year, when the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities was conducting its study on poverty, researchers told us that this was widely documented. As the member himself said, the NDP has been proposing very clear solutions for fighting poverty for 60 years now. The time for talk is over. People are poor right now. We are lagging behind other OECD countries.

I was pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary mention human rights in relation to poverty. That was one of the aspects of my bill, to recognize social condition as part of our rights. They voted against the right to housing. Targeted strategies are not enough. We need to look at the big picture and develop a comprehensive and concerted strategy.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the strategy is emerging even before it has a formal title or has been introduced as a formal policy. That is because our commitment on housing, on seniors, on children, and on indigenous transformation of social circumstance is already invested. In fact, we doubled the housing budget in the very first year we were in office. Now we are adding $40 billion over the next 10 years.

We have rejected some of the simplistic slogans that have been presented by other parties. A right to housing means nothing without a housing system to access. Getting a house in Chicoutimi means nothing if someone is trying to work and live in Victoriaville. We have ensured we frame our policies with any human rights framework and we ensure we can deliver real housing to real people in real time. That is the goal of many of our programs.

As I said, we have been criss-crossing the country, sitting down with front-line workers, people with lived experiences, organizations, municipalities, and provincial services. We have been talking to those people who we need to talk to in order to deliver this policy.

One of the things we missed was because of the previous government's refusal to do an in-depth census. The real data we needed to transform the definition and action and motivate real accomplishment just has not been there. The previous government did not even care about the poor. It did not count them. We have had to go back and do that work. We are doing that work.

In the interim, billions of dollars have been invested in alleviating poverty. I am proud of this government's achievement on that. I am proud to say that the poverty strategy will be on its way shortly.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou not being present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.)