Agreed.
No.
House of Commons Hansard #342 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was community.
House of Commons Hansard #342 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was community.
Filipino Heritage MonthPrivate Members' Business
Filipino Heritage MonthPrivate Members' Business
Filipino Heritage MonthPrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 31, 2018, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Madam Speaker, in June, when I asked the government why there is still no indigenous housing strategy, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services replied that budget 2018 had put aside some monies for indigenous housing and that the housing gap they experience is unacceptable. It is almost six months later, a year since the national housing strategy was tabled and three years since the government was elected, and we still have no indigenous housing strategy. How unacceptable is that?
I am sure that the parliamentary secretary will agree with me that the monies announced so far in budget 2018 are really just a drop in the bucket and that the need for culturally appropriate housing for indigenous people is a huge ocean. However, the government has seen fit to delay an indigenous housing strategy. Yes, the Liberals say it is coming, but we must see something concrete, otherwise their commitments are just words. I know they did not forget about it, but I wonder if it is important enough.
The appalling conditions on reserves are unacceptable. There is mould, overcrowding, and no safe drinking water, and I could go on. Some 87% of indigenous people in Canada live off reserve and they also face 10 times the risk of housing insecurity and homelessness as non-indigenous Canadians do. This is unacceptable.
In my community of Saskatoon West, I met someone who lives in an unheated garage because there is nothing else he can afford. How is this acceptable in a country as rich as ours? It is unacceptable that a full year after announcing a national housing strategy, the government has yet to announce an indigenous housing strategy. It is unacceptable and offensive that the government would overlook the pressing and dire housing conditions that indigenous people face.
It is beyond insulting that the best the Liberals can do is to create a housing design competition. It is no wonder that it has been called the “Hunger Games of on-reserve housing” by advocate Arnell Tailfeathers. The issue of housing and poverty is not to be relegated to something as demeaning as a contest in order to win prizes. However well intentioned it may be, it absolutely misses the mark of dealing with the housing issues within first nations that are at a crisis point.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has said: “This is a publicity stunt by a government that promised better. They have chronically underfunded housing needs on reserve. So many innovative projects have died on the desks of an indifferent ministry. They are shifting blame.”
Year after year, government after government have pledged to do more, but still the conditions on reserve persist. The knowledge is there, the money is there, yet no government has had the political will to act and make a difference. So much for real change. It is more of the same from the current government. Other than pretty words, the government has all but ignored indigenous housing. That is so much more disappointing than the previous government's blatant disregard.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary if he could explain why buying a pipeline is more important than fixing the housing crisis in Canada, particularly for indigenous peoples.
Dan Vandal LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, and I want to acknowledge that we are on traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples.
Our government is committed to closing the unacceptable housing gap for indigenous peoples. We made a significant investment of $554.3 million early on in budget 2016 to address urgent housing needs on reserve. As a result of these investments, 14,107 total housing units have been or are being built, renovated, retrofitted or lots serviced as of June 30, 2018.
Indigenous Services Canada, in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, will continue to work with first nations to reform on-reserve housing and ensure reliable, sustainable infrastructure for indigenous peoples.
Indigenous leaders have been clear. They do not want a one-size-fits-all approach for improving indigenous housing. The government agrees. This is why, in addition to the national housing strategy funds through investments made in budgets 2017 and 2018, the government has dedicated funding to support the successful implementation of each of the distinctions-based housing strategies, including $600 million over three years to support first nation housing on reserve as part of a 10-year housing strategy that is being developed with first nations; $400 million over 10 years to support an Inuit-led housing plan in Nunavik, Nunatsiavut and Inuvialuit Settlement Region. This is in addition to the $240 million over 10 years announced in budget 2017 to support housing in Nunavut.
A draft Inuit Nunangat housing strategy has been co-developed by Inuit partners, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Employment and Social Development Canada. It is expected that the strategy will be finalized over the coming months. In addition, there are $500 million over 10 years for the delivery and control of affordable and social housing by the Métis Nation, the first of its kind in Canada.
On July 19, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the president of the Métis National Council, Clément Chartier, and the presidents of the MNC governing members signed the Métis Nation housing sub-accord. The Métis Nation housing sub-accord reflects a shared commitment to narrow the core housing gap and further indigenous self-determination in this important area of social policy.
We will continue working with partners to advance indigenous-led approaches to close the housing gap for indigenous peoples. I look forward to working with the member opposite on this critical issue and thank her for her strong advocacy.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Madam Speaker, I am hopeful, which perhaps it is not a good thing to be sometimes. I am disappointed, but I am hopeful.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned that the indigenous housing strategy would be brought forward. However, what we often hear from the government is a list of actions and funding in the hopes that somehow people will be dazzled by that and think it is enough. It is not enough.
It is not enough to build better housing needed on reserves and it is not enough to bring clean drinking water to the schools and families forced to live in third-world conditions. It is a big problem that needs big, bold action. I want the government to step up sooner rather than later; stop talking about the issue and actually stepping up and acting.
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
Madam Speaker, we are deeply committed to renewing the nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationship with indigenous peoples. We believe all Canadians should have access to safe, adequate and affordable housing. I know my hon. colleague is a strong advocate on this as well.
Indigenous leaders have told us that when it comes to housing in first nations, Inuit and Métis Nation communities, the best approach is one that respects the distinct needs of each group. We will continue to work with our first nation, Métis and Inuit partners to develop and implement distinctions-based housing strategies that are tailored to their needs.
It is never wrong to have hope and I offer that advice for the hon. member.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, what is the price of a political vendetta? If one is the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and is trying to shut down the survivors of St. Anne's residential school, the cost is $2.3 million and counting. That is what the current government has been willing to spend to fight survivors of some of the most horrific child sexual abuse, torture and child rape ever perpetrated in Canada.
What issue is the government trying to suppress? It was the decision by the Justice Department of Canada to take 10,000 pages of evidence, the names of 180 perpetrators, that it was legally obligated to turn over to the hearings of the St. Anne survivors, and instead of presenting that evidence, present what is a lie, in a legal term, a false evidence narrative. It was the department's obligation to present what documents there were to say that there was no history of sexual and physical crimes at St. Anne's. However, there were so many. Bishop Jules Leguerriere is named in the list. There is also Bishop Henri Belleau and Father Langlois. Father Arthur Lavoie has a persons of interest report of over 2,000 pages. That was suppressed.
What was the effect of that? The cases were thrown out. I would never have stood in the House and spoken on a case before hearings, except this was brought to me in 2013, almost 10 years into the process. Edmund Metatawabin came to me and said his people, who have suffered so much, were having their cases thrown out. They were being told they were not believable. He said that justice department lawyers were lying in the hearings, because the department has these documents. I thought at the time, as a member of Parliament, that if I wrote to ask how it were possible in a legal process for them to suppress evidence, this would be handled.
They were forced to turn over documents, but then the question is, what about justice in the cases? Therefore, I wrote to the oversight committee of the independent assessment process asking what happens when the government fails in its duty. No one dealt with it. I wrote to the adjudicators to ask what happens when people are denied their most basic legal rights. No one dealt with that.
What happened was that two cases came forward. This is where the $2.3 million has been spent. One case, H-15019, was by a victim of horrific child rape. Government lawyers said he was not believable, that they could not even prove that the perpetrator had been in the institution at the time, despite the fact they had a massive file on that person. That predator had been at that school for 40 years. The justice department knew it, and it got the case thrown out. When this person used his basic legal rights to go back to reopen that case, the government said it could not be done.
I want to read something. Phil Fontaine rose on this issue at the AFN. He said Canada had a legal obligation, because procedural fairness is a fundamental principle implied in the Indian residential school settlement agreement and the IAP. These were designed to be fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the claimant. In his affidavit he said that he “always expected that the IAP would respect First Nation and Inuit individuals' rights...with a process at least as fair as any other hearing before a court or similar tribunal.”
He said in his affidavit that he would not have signed the agreement if he had known the basic principle of procedural fairness would not be respected. The government lawyers ridiculed Fontaine's position, saying that the court should not give any evidentiary weight to his affidavit—the affidavit of the person who had signed the Indian residential school settlement agreement—and said that his paragraphs were largely speculative and done in hindsight and that it was of no assistance to receive theoretical views of subjective intent. They were not of subjective intent—
Indigenous AffairsAdjournment Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
Unfortunately, the time is up. The hon. member will have another minute.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown and Indigenous Relations.
Indigenous AffairsAdjournment Proceedings
Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs Québec
Liberal
Marc Miller LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations
Madam Speaker, we are committed to justice for all Indian residential school survivors. As the member well knows, our government has provided all the documents to the courts, those that have been asked for, when it comes to St. Anne's residential school. We are also working with those claims that were affected by the previous government's actions, to settle those in a fair and equitable way.
It is important to note that more than 95% of all claimants from St. Anne's have received compensation much higher than the national average for residential school claims. As the supervising court has made clear, “the evidence shows that Canada has kept its promise and continues to keep its promise.”
While most claims have been resolved, those few remaining do include the most difficult and challenging. Unfortunately, that has led to far too many court challenges.
As the administrator of the IRSSA, Canada has a duty to defend the integrity of the process and to ensure fairness for all participants. These cases have brought further clarity to the process, ensuring that all survivors are treated equitably and in the spirit of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement that was approved more than 12 years ago.
The legal fees referenced by the hon. member are an accounting of existing internal legal resources, which were dedicated to ensuring that claimants received the compensation they deserved and the integrity of the independent process. No outside fees have been incurred in any of the cases brought against Canada.
It is also important to note that Canada has never, and our government will never, seek legal costs against any individual claimant.
In exceptional circumstances, costs can be sought against lawyers who do not appear to be acting responsibly. Sadly, in one of the cases the member refers to, the court has stated that counsel's “repeated and deliberate attack on the integrity of this Court threatens to interfere with the administration of justice”. Baselessly attacking the credibility of the courts and of the independent assessment process that has handled more than 38,000 cases does a great disservice to survivors.
Counsel is responsible for the symbolic costs that have been awarded, and they will be donated to a fund that supports former students.
Our government has reached negotiated settlements to undo the harm caused by the previous government's unethical legal arguments, such as the so-called administrative split.
Our government has reached negotiated settlements to address claims of student-on-student abuse, which faced too high a legal bar to be fairly compensated.
We have repeatedly shown the willingness and desire to work closely with survivors to help them on their healing journey and to undo the terrible legacy Indian residential schools have left in Canada.
As the courts have said, the evidence is clear that our government has kept and is keeping its promise to residential school survivors.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, that is ridiculous. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations spent $2.3 million fighting survivors of child rape. Why? It was because her officials went in, suppressed evidence and lied in those hearings.
When Phil Fontaine brought forward his affidavit on the fundamental legal principle of procedural fairness, he said that they never would have signed this Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement if the rights to procedural fairness that were given to survivors who fought in court were also given under the IAP. We have the minister's officials going all the way to the superior court to shut down two key cases. They are not difficult cases. They are the cases that will show how far the current government has gone to suppress evidence. Yes, some St. Anne survivors have received compensation, but we have no accurate idea of how much compensation has been denied because of the refusal of the government to turn over evidence.
Therefore, I ask my colleague this. What kind of government allows a kangaroo court where people are denied procedural fairness? This is the question. Carolyn Bennett has a vendetta against the—
Indigenous AffairsAdjournment Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I am sorry, the hon. member is out of time. The hon. member does know that he is not to mention an MP or minister by name in the House of Commons.
Marc Miller Liberal Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC
Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the passion with which the member opposite conveys his point. However, I disagree strongly with some of the conclusions he is drawing.
Marc Miller Liberal Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC
Madam Speaker, I gave the member the opportunity, quite quietly, to advance his point, however passionately, without criticizing. I would ask that he accord the same respect to me, as he is leaving the House.
As we have said, with respect to Indian residential school court cases, Canada has not, and will not, seek costs against survivors. In exceptional circumstances, costs can be awarded by the courts against counsel whose conduct they find questionable and that undermines the integrity of the court system.
We have repeatedly shown the willingness and desire to work closely with survivors to help them on their healing journey and undo the terrible legacy Indian residential schools have left in Canada.
As the member opposite well knows, 95% of the claims in respect of St. Anne's residential school have now been resolved.
Indigenous AffairsAdjournment Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
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 6:04 p.m.)
ADDRESS
of
His Excellency Mark Rutte
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
To
Both Houses of Parliament
in the
House of Commons Chamber, Ottawa
On
Thursday, October 25, 2018
His Excellency Mark Rutte was welcome by the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, by the Honourable George Furey, Speaker of the Senate, and by the Honourable Geoff Regan, Speaker of the House of Commons.
Justin Trudeau LiberalPrime Minister
Honoured guests, parliamentarians, friends and colleagues, good morning and thank you for being here as we host in our House an exceptional leader and a most distinguished guest and friend, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte.
Welcome, Prime Minister.
My friends, today is a historic day. Today, Prime Minister Rutte becomes the first Dutch prime minister to address the Canadian Parliament. Before he speaks, I would like to say a few words about the incredible, long-standing friendship between Canada and the Netherlands.
Next year, we will mark 80 years of diplomatic ties between our two countries. Over the past two decades, our story has been tested and solidified on the battlefield. It has brought us together in defence of shared goals and ambitions, and it will propel us to a new prosperity in the decades ahead. I would like to think that at the heart of that bond lies a commitment to two essential common values: a strong sense of duty and a commitment to fairness.
During the Second World War, we felt a duty to our allies during the liberation, knowing that our Dutch friends were worth every effort. In the fight against fascism, we stood together as champions of freedom, human rights and democracy. That fight remains and is ongoing.
Today, time and time again, our countries have stood shoulder to shoulder in service of our fellow human beings. As active members within NATO and the United Nations, Canada and the Netherlands have been partners and allies in the ongoing push for global peace and security. We are currently working together in Mali, in Iraq and in the Baltics. We have chosen to lead in delivering a better future for women and girls, making major commitments to girls' education. Finally, at the WTO, together we advocate for our citizens, pursuing on their behalf a trading system that is rule-based and fair.
This brings me to our second shared value, fairness. It is no secret that globalization has produced winners and losers over the past few decades. People around the world are worried about getting left behind. They doubt that their nations and our institutions can help them, but we can.
Prime Minister Rutte understands that the growth of the future must be rooted in fairness. Here in Canada, we share that belief.
That is why we signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. CETA is a progressive, modern trade agreement well suited to 21st-century realities. It puts people first and creates opportunities for small businesses, entrepreneurs and the middle class in Canada and the European Union. Since CETA's entry into force, Canadian exports to the Netherlands have grown by 33%, while imports have grown by nearly 24%. That is what free, fair trade means: opening up new markets for our countries' people and producers.
The Netherlands is among Canada's closest friends and allies. We are aligned on the things that matter, and so long as we continue to share a strong sense of duty and a commitment to fairness, we will remain partners and friends for generations to come.
On that note, ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honour and privilege to introduce you to the 50th Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte.
His Excellency Mark Rutte Prime Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Mr. Speaker, thank you for inviting me here today, and thank you for the distinct privilege of sharing some thoughts on the special nature and the importance of the relationship between Canada and the Netherlands.
It is an honour to be here today in the heart of Canadian democracy.
To anyone without a sense of history, a quick glance at the road map may suggest that Canada and the Netherlands are far apart and profoundly different. From Ottawa to Amsterdam, it is 3,500 miles. Canada is 240 times larger than the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, with 400 people per square kilometre, there is not much space to go around. In Canada, you can drive for hours without seeing another soul.
Despite these obvious differences, the Dutch feel a deep connection with the people of Canada, and with good reason. That reason is embodied by one man who is with us here today, a veteran of the Royal Canadian Dragoons who helped liberate the Netherlands from Nazi occupation, Mr. Don White.
[Applause]
This year, on May 5, I met Don for the first time in the city of Leeuwarden, the capital of Friesland, a province in the north of the Netherlands. I was there for our national celebration of Liberation Day, when we commemorate the end of the Second World War and celebrate our freedom. Don was there because he was one of the heroes on the ground back in 1945, when he was barely 20 years old. Now he is in his mid-nineties and, as you can see, he is still going strong.
Don, it is a great pleasure to see you again today and in such good health.
This is what he wrote to his parents on April 17, 1945:
We have liberated a number of [Dutch] towns and you never saw anything like it in all your life. Once the Germans have been driven out and you enter the town, the people come out and put up their flags and royal colours. They crowd around the cars so badly you can hardly move. Your car is just one...bouquet of flowers that has been given you. The girls kiss you and the men shake your hand off. There is a lot so happy they cry.
Don and his comrades risked their lives so that we could be free. He survived, but more than 7,600 young Canadian servicemen did not. They made the ultimate sacrifice, and the Netherlands is their final resting place. So, yes, we feel deeply connected with Canada and we are forever grateful to those brave Canadian soldiers who carried the light of freedom to our country in its darkest hour.
This we will never forget. Thank you, Canada.
As you know, during the Second World War, our royal family found refuge here in Ottawa. In fact, an aunt of our king, Princess Margriet, was born in Canada on January 19, 1943. It was the only time in history that a foreign flag was flown over the Peace Tower. At a time when the Dutch were denied the right to fly their own national flag at home, the Canadian people did us the honour of raising the red, white and blue over your Houses of Parliament in yet another strong symbol of the special bond between our countries.
This we will never forget. Thank you, Canada.
After the war, some 150,000 people from the Netherlands came to Canada to build a future for themselves and their children. In doing so, they made a lasting contribution to your country. Today, over a million Canadians have a connection with the Netherlands through the bonds of family, so whenever you come across a name like Eyking, Van Kesteren or Mathyssen, you can be sure there is this connection.
Ever since 1945, Canada and the Netherlands have stood shoulder to shoulder in so many ways. We both uphold the same values: democracy, freedom and equality. We both stand up for human rights and the international rule of law. We both believe in the principles of free and fair trade as a source of progress and prosperity for people all over the world.
I think it is fair to say that Canada and the Netherlands are sturdy pillars supporting the international order that arose from the ruins of the Second World War. Both of our countries have actively contributed to the multilateral rules-based system that has brought unprecedented freedom, prosperity and stability to our peoples. We have shaped the system individually, but more than anything, we have shaped it together. After all, we are founding members of, and partners in, all of the world's major international organizations, including the UN, NATO and the World Trade Organization. We have teamed up in important military missions in Afghanistan and Mali. We are working together to modernize UN peacekeeping. What is more, as NATO's leading country in Latvia, Canada remains actively committed to security and stability in Europe. This shows that the commitment and cohesion of our military alliance is as strong as ever.
Of course, there is CETA, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between the EU and Canada. CETA illustrates perfectly that free and fair international trade is not a zero-sum game, but benefits everyone. Back in the 18th century the philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke wrote that free trade is not based on utility but on justice. He was right, for it was on the principles of free trade that Europe built a prosperous and secure post-war future for many millions of people on a continent in ruins.
Today, it is the spirit of free international enterprise that makes our societies robust and our countries so attractive to live in. In this respect too, Canada and the Netherlands stand shoulder to shoulder. Our bilateral economic relations are already excellent. The Netherlands is the second largest investor in Canada. Conversely, there are more than 100 Canadian companies active in our country, providing thousands and thousands of jobs. In the last 10 years, total trade flows from the Netherlands to Canada have almost tripled. Since the provisional application of CETA, we have seen a remarkable upswing in the trade figures between Canada and the EU member states. I am happy to say that the rise in trade figures between Canada and the Netherlands is among the highest of all EU countries, and rightly so. We can only expect more positive effects of CETA in the years to come as ratification progresses and businesses become more familiar with its benefits.
Let me emphasize that CETA is not only about earning more euros and Canadian dollars. It is also about protecting consumer interests, advancing sustainable production, and promoting equitable labour relations and gender equality. You could say that CETA sets a positive and modern example of the way forward for free trade and constructive multilateralism, because when trade is free and fair, only then can we all be winners, or in the spirit of Edmund Burke, free trade and a just society relate to each other like cause and effect. It is important that we keep broadcasting this message, especially at a time like this.
For many years, the transatlantic voice rang out loud and clear because both sides of the Atlantic were singing from the same hymn sheet. Today, we are seeing debates on trade barriers and import tariffs that are putting trade relations under pressure. Having said that, I think it is a positive sign that Canada, the United States and Mexico have negotiated a revised trade agreement.
The European Union and the U.S. are also making progress on their bilateral trade agenda. This shows that we all realize how much we need each other and that transatlantic co-operation is as crucial for jobs and prosperity as it is for security in our countries. In all fairness, we cannot blame the U.S. for urging other NATO members to step up their efforts and pick up their share of the bill.
In Europe, we now face the great unknown of Brexit. Let me be totally honest. I still think it is a terrible idea and I can imagine that many of you feel the same, if only because 40% of Canada-EU trade passes through the United Kingdom. The negotiations are proving complex because, as it turns out, it is not so easy to unbreak the eggs that made the omelette. Nevertheless, the people of the United Kingdom have spoken. We have to respect that and deal with the consequences.
We in the Netherlands are going to miss a key partner in the EU, a partner that thinks like we do on many issues. We also know that Brexit will cost us dearly. Of all the economies of mainland Europe, the Dutch is the most interwoven with the British. The U.K. is our third largest bilateral trade partner. So, yes, we will miss our British friends in Brussels.
At the same time, let us not overreact. I believe that after Brexit, two things will be essential. First, we need to keep working with the United Kingdom as friends and allies wherever we can, economically, politically, culturally and in matters of security and defence, both bilaterally and in the UN, NATO and all corners of the international arena, because the United Kingdom remains a key partner of the Netherlands, Europe and, of course, Canada.
Second, I believe that we must keep investing in a transatlantic relationship and that Canada and the Netherlands have a special role to play, especially after Brexit. After all, we both have a special relationship with the United Kingdom, and together with Canada, I am sure we will succeed in building new and even stronger bridges between both sides of the Atlantic. That is something that Prime Minister Trudeau and I discussed earlier today, because with all the geopolitical shifts and global challenges we face, working together is now as crucial to the future of our children as it was for our grandparents after the Second World War. It is up to us to make it happen.
Even back in 1945, Don White observed in a letter to his parents that it seemed as if everybody in the Netherlands spoke English and French. I suspect those words may have been a little bit too kind, but he was definitely right about one thing: Canada and the Netherlands do speak the same universal, multilateral transatlantic language. That is something we should cherish and build on.
In the past, we worked together to build a better world order, and it is true that after so many years, the system we built is now showing some cracks. It is true that globalization and the multilateral system do not benefit all countries and all people equally. So now we should work together to reform and improve the system and make it our purpose in the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, next year will mark the 75th anniversary of D-Day, the start of western Europe's liberation from Nazi tyranny. I promise you that it will not pass unnoticed. The anniversary celebrations will reflect everything that Canada and the Netherlands stand for: freedom, peace and equality.
Last year in Leeuwarden, Don White said on Dutch national television, “I did not come back, I came back home.” I think these few words sum up the firm bonds of history and the sense of kinship that unite us, a bond that holds both a promise and a responsibility for the future, a bond that was forged in the courage and commitment of veterans like Don and all of his comrades who paid the highest price for our freedom. This we will not forget.
Thank you, Canada.
[Applause]
George Furey Speaker of the Senate
Prime Minister Rutte, Prime Minister Trudeau, Speaker Regan, Your Excellency, honourable senators and members of Parliament, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, good morning.
Prime Minister, on behalf of Parliament and of all Canadians, I would like to start out by thanking you for your inspiring speech in this chamber this morning.
Your words resonate now, Prime Minister, more than ever, for these are terrible times in the world. The values and convictions that underpin our international community are being challenged. Intolerance and authoritarianism are on the rise. Within and between nations, division and polarization are threatening to take root, blocking the civic dialogue so critical to a democracy. Meanwhile, grave challenges like climate change become ever more urgent. In these times, we need voices like yours, Prime Minister, voices of reason, truth, and of clear vision.
When you spoke at the United Nations General Assembly last month you said, “I believe in the power of principles and not the principles of power, to guide us towards a better future for more people.”
As you can see, Mr. Prime Minister, we Canadians warmly endorse your position, for we see ourselves as a tolerant and inclusive people. As a people, we strive to better understand that we are not measured by rancorous, ad hominem debate, nor divisive politics, but rather by the foundational principle that we are stronger, more prosperous and more peaceful when we come together rather than when we stand divided.
Mr. Prime Minister, at the United Nations General Assembly you also said, “There is no conflict between multilateralism and the national interest.” You, sir, and indeed our own Prime Minister, have spoken out strongly for multilateralism, for building communities of nations governed by laws and rules, joined in a stable and secure international environment, an environment of free and fair world trade, of peace and prosperity and of equality and respect. That is our path forward, to join with others of shared principles and vision, to build a future illuminated by ideas and grounded in values. As we go forward together to build a better future, let us not forget the shared past of Canada and the Netherlands, and the special enduring bond between our two nations.
Thank you for the friendship your country shares with ours, and thank you for the strong message you delivered to the House this morning. Prime Minister, thank you very much.
[Applause]
