Debates of Dec. 9th, 2019

Supplementary Estimates (A), 2019-20

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that from the minister, but the legal brief of the federal government says the opposite. It says in paragraph 31 in the latest filing that “There was insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to demonstrate that any particular children were improperly removed from their home”.

Does the minister agree with her government's lawyers?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, we know from the apprehension of children, whether it is through all of the class actions that we have settled on the sixties scoop and on all of these things, that children are safest when they are with their family or extended family or in their communities. I do believe that we need to find alternate ways to keep these children safe.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, the minister's government has gone to Federal Court to quash a ruling that has found the government guilty of discrimination, and the government said that no evidence was produced that there was harm to children. Is that the government's position, yes or no?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think we all know that children apprehended from their families do not do well. Children aging out of care do not do well. We need to keep these families together, which has been the focus as opposed to the money going to lawyers to apprehend children, agencies and non-indigenous foster families. We need these children supported at home in their communities.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, how much money has the government spent on its lawyers to fight the Human Rights Tribunal?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think the most important number would be that from $600 million that used to go to children and families, it is now $1.6 billion going to children. We have no intention of fighting children in court. We want to get to the table and get them what they deserve.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I believe the minister in the House has to tell the truth. Therefore, either she is not telling the truth or her lawyers in Federal Court are not, because the lawyers in Federal Court have taken the position that the Liberal government is going to quash a finding of systemic discrimination, because they said that there is no evidence with regard to adverse outcomes that flowed from being denied services.

The minister has told us again and again that she knows that services denied to children have hurt them, but her lawyers are saying the opposite. Who is not telling the truth here?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, the approach of our government is to make sure that all children who were harmed by these terrible colonial policies will be compensated.

However, we have also learned from the Indian residential schools and the sixties scoop that the children who had greater harm or who were in care longer want to be able to tell their stories, and like the class action on 1991 forward, we want to get to the table and get them what they deserve.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to let the people know that what the minister's lawyers are saying is completely opposite to what she is telling the House. She is obliged to tell the truth in the House. The lawyers are saying that these children, who are represented by the AFN, Nishnawbe Aski Nation and First Nations Child & Family Caring Society, do not warrant compensation because they have not been tested by the government to the “precise nature and extent of harm suffered by each individual”.

What is the minister going to do, put four-year-old children before her lawyers like the government did to the St. Anne's Residential School survivors? How is the government going to test these children for the precise harms so its does not have to pay?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think the member opposite understands that the class action now being certified on the 1991 post-sixties scoop up to the present day tends to be the way we sort these things out with respect to what the appropriate care is for the amount of time people were harmed and the degree of the harm. It is very important that families have a voice, that children have a voice and that there is some assessment of fair and equitable treatment and compensation.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am quite shocked because her lawyers are in court saying that there is no evidence any children were improperly taken. How can she stand and misrepresent her lawyers? Then the lawyers said that there was no reason for compensation. They have said that in the hearings.

Now the government wants to quash a legal finding that the tribunal spent 12 years adjudicating, and the minister's lawyers say there was no evidence to prove what was found, which they said was reckless and willful discrimination. How can minister tell us that it is better to have that ruling thrown out so the government can fight children in court and make each of them testify? That is what the government wants to do. How can she justify that?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, with respect to the CHRT and the good work of Dr. Blackstock, I believe many good things have come out of this. With Jordan's Principle, thousands of cases are settled all the time, when zero cases had been settled in the past. This is very important.

However, in the case of appropriate compensation, the appropriate place for that is with the class action, where there are representatives of the victims and the survivors who can determine what is fair. I do not think there is a way for fair and equitable compensation to be done without the voices of the people who were harmed.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am really glad she raised Jordan's Principle, which brings us back maybe four non-compliance orders ago. For the minister's lawyers to say that there is no proof that any child was harmed is a falsehood, because the ruling on Jordan's Principle was about the deaths of Jolynn Winter and Chantel Fox. Her government decided that it was not going to bother to fund those children and at the Human Rights Tribunal was forced to implement Jordan's Principle. Every single time the minister's government said that it was in compliance and children died because of that.

The government says good things have been done, but let us now throw out the Human Rights Tribunal ruling. How can the minister claim that the government went along with Jordan's Principle when the filings show that it fought it every step of the way and children died?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member opposite knows that we worked very hard to put in place Jordan's Principle. At the beginning, the motion that we passed in the House was only for children on reserve with multiple disabilities and where there was a squabble between the federal and the provincial government. We are now getting the kind of care that the kids need on and off reserve, particularly when there is only one disability such as a mental health or addiction problem, but also there does not have to be a squabble. We have moved way beyond what was passed in the House and children are better for it and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I agree with the minister that children are certainly better for it. However, children are better for it because Cindy Blackstock, the AFN and Nishnawbe Aski Nation fought the government at the Human Rights Tribunal, while it was refusing and children died. It has met Jordan's Principle because it has been forced to meet it.

I want to refer to the latest human rights ruling, which says that there is sufficient evidence that Canada was aware of the discriminatory practices of its child welfare program and that it did this devoid of caution and without regard for the consequences on children and their families. That is the finding after 12 years, and the government spent $3 million trying to block them every step of the way.

How can we say to crush that ruling, throw that finding out, fight it out in court and trust that the government actually cares about children? The minister's lawyers say that children have not been harmed and to prove that they have, those individual children of four and five years old should be brought in and tested. The tribunal found that the government acted with devoid of caution over the lives of children. That is the finding of the Human Rights Tribunal. Is the Human Rights Tribunal lying or is it the government, which has misled the people of Canada on this?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think the hon. member knows that our government has a very good track record on settling the childhood litigation, such as Anderson, the sixties scoop, day schools. We are doing what is right.

With the compliance orders, as I explained to the member, from what was Jordan's Principle and on multiple disabilities, only on-reserve where there is a squabble, we have gone away beyond what that original vote in the House of Commons was, for which I voted.

Therefore, it is hugely important that we go forward, understanding we have to do the best possible thing for these children. The lawyers have agreed that we want to compensate and the Prime Minister wants to compensate, but we have to do it in a fair and equitable way that also covers the children from 1991 to this day.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

The Liberals want to quash the ruling, Mr. Chair. That is what the government is in Federal Court to say. If we look at the Human Rights Tribunal ruling, there is point after point about how to make compensation work, and the government says that it will not compensate; it will litigate. That is the government's position.

I am astounded that the minister is in here telling us that the government cares about the children when the finding says there is willful and reckless discrimination against children who died. The children who died had to be named. When it said there was no evidence unless we brought individual children's names forward, individual children's names were brought forward. That was the policy. Those children died, and children are continuing to die. They will continue to die as long as the government refuses to do the basic funding.

The minister tells us the discrimination has ended. That is not what the Human Rights Tribunal found and that is not what any first nation family in the country will believe.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, the first nations, Inuit and Métis across the country are very grateful for Bill C-92. With respect to asserting jurisdiction, we have to allow that the people can assert the jurisdiction to look after its own families with the adequate funding to do that. We know that in terms of how we determine fair and equitable funding, our government did not think we would be able to get that done throughout an election and by this week. Therefore, it is really important. The January 29 date is coming up, but I am hearing from families. They want this to be fair and they feel there has to be a negotiation at a table to actually determine what is fair.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to rise in committee of the whole to discuss the supplementary estimates (A). I will speak to the spending connected to my files.

Canadians need a transportation system that allows them to safely and efficiently reach their destinations and receive goods for their daily lives. Businesses and customers expect a transportation system they can trust to deliver resources and products to market and for the jobs on which they depend.

The transport file includes other significant challenges, such as air and ocean pollution, public safety and security, and economic opportunities for all Canadians. In all, transport activities account for around 10% of Canada's GDP. The federal transport file includes Transport Canada and various Crown corporations, agencies and administrative tribunals, all of which do important work to serve Canadians. These important federal organizations strive to keep making Canada's transportation network safer, greener, more secure and more efficient.

Transport Canada, which includes the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA, and Marine Atlantic, both of which are crown corporations, is seeking additional financing resources through the 2019-20 supplementary estimates (A). Transport Canada is seeking an increase of $227.1 million in the supplementary estimates. This includes $223.9 million in voted appropriations for 12 different items.

At this time, I will focus my remarks on the department's three largest items. These are $165.5 million for the incentives for zero-emission vehicles program; $31.5 million to address indigenous people's marine and environmental priorities regarding the Trans Mountain expansion project; and, finally, $10.5 million for the rail safety improvement program.

The Government of Canada's incentives for zero-emission vehicles program helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contributes to an environmentally responsible transportation network by promoting the adoption of this type of vehicle. Between May 1, when the program was launched, and November 24, 30,000 Canadian individuals and businesses received the point-of-sale incentive. Canada made a commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The incentives for zero-emission vehicles program will help us meet that target.

To meet the demand for incentives, Transport Canada has had to advance funding from future years. Canadians understand that protecting the environment and growing the economy go hand in hand. The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project has the potential to create thousands of good middle-class jobs and generate billions of dollars to help fund clean energy solutions.

To address marine safety and environmental concerns raised about the Trans Mountain expansion project by indigenous groups, Transport Canada is leading on three measures: providing indigenous coastal communities with access to web-based maritime information; funding for marine safety equipment and training; and, finally, supporting a demonstration to advance low-noise and low-emission crude oil tankers servicing the Trans Mountain expansion. This includes up to $30 million to support the crude oil tanker technology demonstration program, which will support the construction of next-generation quiet vessel tankers powered by liquefied natural gas.

Reducing underwater noise and air emissions from those tankers will help mitigate the impacts of marine shipping on the environment, including vulnerable marine mammals such as the southern resident killer whale. Another $1.5 million will support the enhanced maritime situational awareness initiative, allowing three more indigenous communities to become pilot host communities. These funds will allow the department to continue to develop meaningful relationships with indigenous communities through the project.

I am proud to point out that Canada has one of the safest rail networks in the world, due in part to initiatives like the rail safety improvement program, which provides funding to improve rail safety security and reduce injuries and fatalities related to rail transportation. The program funds various activities, including roadway and intersection improvements, such as adding sidewalks, diversion roads, flashing lights, bells, gates and even full pedestrian overpasses, the adoption of innovative safety technologies for detection, data recording and communication, and research or studies related to enhancing the safety of rail lines. In the supplementary estimates, Transport Canada is seeking to defer nearly $10.5 million to reimburse funding recipients for eligible expenses that they incurred but have not yet submitted for reimbursement.

Other important measures include $1.5 million to help Transport Canada continue its work to protect and recover southern resident killer whales. This funding for the whales initiative would reduce the economic impacts on the shipping industry of an expanded voluntary vessel slowdown off the coast of British Columbia. Through a contribution agreement, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority would administer funds to eligible vessel operators to offset the additional pilotage costs from participating in the slowdown.

The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority is also seeking approval to defer $26.1 million. The deferred funds would be used for a bomb detection system and other projects to streamline and increase screening activities. In budget 2019 and Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, the Government of Canada committed to ensure the transition of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority from an agent Crown corporation to an independent, not-for-profit screening authority that would be responsible for providing air safety screening services.

Marine Atlantic provides a constitutionally mandated ferry service to and from Newfoundland. This is a vital service for travellers as well as for the companies that do business in that region. It brings more than one-quarter of all visitors to Newfoundland as well as two-thirds of all freight, including 90% of perishables and time-sensitive goods.

Through these supplementary estimates, Marine Atlantic is seeking $3 million in 2019-20 for fleet renewal to procure a new ferry. I am proud to be resuming my role as Minister of Transport in no small part because I am proud of the ongoing achievements of Transport Canada and other federal organizations in this important portfolio.

Our roads, our railways, our ports, our ferry services and our airports must be integrated and sustainable. They must enable Canadians and businesses to access world markets.

Our transportation system is vital for our economy and for our quality of life. I am looking forward to continuing the work we did during my first four years in this role.

There is no doubt that the financial resources requested under these supplementary estimates will enable us to continue this work.

I am ready to take questions.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is certainly a pleasure to stand in this House for the first time.

Millions of Canadians use Canada's roads every day, and safety on those roads is of prime importance to everyone. Could the government update the House on how it contributes to improving the safety of roadways, road users and motor vehicles in Canada to create a consistent national safety code framework across all jurisdictions?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to congratulate the member on being elected in the election.

Road safety is a very complex matter with federal, provincial and other levels of responsibility that are assigned to different groups. From a federal point of view, we are responsible for the safety of vehicles, of course, but provinces and territories have responsibilities with respect to the road safety code. However, we all work together and we all work with the CCMTA as well to ensure that overall we have a strong national safety code with respect to the use of our roads for transportation.

That is why we have a transfer program in place. It allots funding to provinces and territories because of the work that we all do in an integrated fashion to ensure a strong regulatory framework for road transportation in this country. In this particular case in the supplementary estimates, we are asking for funding because we had not been able to complete an agreement on funding for two provinces, Quebec and Alberta, which are now complete and we would like to provide that funding to them.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Chair, under vote 35 in the supplementary estimates, the Department of Transport is asking for $1,035,350 to deliver better service for air travellers. Could the minister please expand on what these services are going to be?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Chair, yes, there is no question that the enhanced passenger protection program is there in this particular case to ensure that when passengers go through an airport and get on an airplane they are, from a security point of view, going to be well protected. That is something that Canadians expect and it is something that we need to provide.

The program currently works with air carriers, of course, to screen passengers to and from and within Canada. This is in respect to the Secure Air Travel Act list and it is also managed by Public Safety Canada. The two of us work together. The member has heard of the no-fly list. These are measures we are improving at the moment with funding to ensure there will be fewer cases of rejected passengers in the future. All of this is aimed at ensuring that when people go to the airport, go through security and get on board an airplane, it is a secure airplane with no threats to that airplane and to that flight.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, the minister has heard from one of my constituents, former Côte Saint-Luc councillor Glenn Nashen, and many others who have advocated for the idea of seat belts on school buses. I was wondering if the minister could update this House on his progress on that file.