House of Commons Hansard #401 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was north.
The House resumed from November 26, 2018, consideration of the motion that Bill S-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for violent offences against Aboriginal women), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by recognizing that we meet today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. I hope that one day we will begin all of our daily proceedings in this place with this acknowledgement.
I also wish to acknowledge that my riding is situated in Treaty 6 territory and the ancestral homeland of the Métis.
It is an honour and a privilege to rise to speak on such an important topic as the mistreatment by our justice system of indigenous women and girls and to speak of a way that our justice system could make that change. I say that because we have a justice system that must do better for indigenous women and girls. We have a justice system that is just for some, but not for all Canadians.
Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that everyone has the right to be treated equally before and under the law and that all Canadians have the equal benefit and protection of the law. However, that is not the case for indigenous women and girls in our country. Indigenous women and girls cannot count on a justice system that is fair and just, that provides them the full protection of the law and that is blind to race and gender.
That is why I am speaking in support of Bill S-215 and to support the leadership of Senator Dyck, whose work and advocacy on the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls is to be commended and respected.
Bill S-215 is about bringing equality into our justice system for indigenous women and girls. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to make indigenous female identity an aggravating factor during sentencing. We need such a bill because we need to reform our justice system now. For too long we have tolerated the discrimination against indigenous women and girls. We need such a bill because the treatment of indigenous women and girls in the justice system reflects “societal indifference to the welfare and safety of Indigenous women [that allows] the perpetrators [of violence against them] to escape justice.”
We know the names of two indigenous women, Cindy Gladue and Betty Osborne, not because justice was served, but for the exact opposite reason. We know these women's names because of the unspeakable violence perpetrated against them in life and in death; a justice system that continued to degrade them as human beings, treated them as less than. We know their names because of the efforts of indigenous women and human rights advocates who demanded justice for Cindy and Betty.
The bill before us today is one measure to combat societal indifference to the lives of indigenous women who are more likely to be victims of violent crimes and their circumstances more likely to be taken less seriously by our justice system. We have systems of protection and justice in the country that effectively demonstrate that indigenous women's lives and their safety are less important and less worthy than non-indigenous women.
The family of Nadine Machiskinic know this fact all too well. In 2015, Nadine, a 29-year-old indigenous woman, was found in medical distress in the laundry room of the Regina Delta Hotel. She had fallen 10 floors down a laundry chute. Because of a justice system that did not value Nadine's life, her death was never properly investigated. It is because of her family's tireless efforts for more than three years that in 2018 the Regina police service's actions in this case were formally reviewed by the RCMP.
We know now all that was not done for Nadine by the hotel, EMS, police and investigators to help her, to determine the circumstances of her death and to find the perpetrators. We learned that her death was not reported to police for some 60 hours, that police took four months to send toxicology reports and that it was over a year before the police made a public plea for information about the two men on surveillance cameras and video who appeared with Nadine.
In her own words, Senator Dyck acknowledges that her bill is not the magic solution that will end the violent victimization of indigenous women and girls and it will not change how Nadine was treated by the system. The bill is intended to cause a ripple effect in the justice system by ensuring judges consider the unique circumstances of indigenous women and girls in Canada today.
Bill S-215 is needed because despite all our justice system is meant to be, it is failing to provide equal benefit and protection through the law.
Like many systems that are being challenged today by indigenous peoples and human rights advocates, our justice system has not escaped the historical influences of colonialism and racism; influences that continue to this day. These influences have led to what is the reality for indigenous women in Canada, a climate in which indigenous women are particularly vulnerable to sexism by the police and the court system. Indigenous women who are victims of violence are mistreated by the systems that are intended to protect them.
Senator Dyck's bill is a response to extremely high rates of murder and disappearances of indigenous women and girls. This legislation will help to ensure a justice system that provides equal protection under the law for indigenous women and girls as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This legislation also responds to our legal obligations in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to protect indigenous women and girls from violence, victimization and the indifference by the state and society to their experiences of violence.
I had the opportunity to sit in on presentations by Senator Dyck on her bill and to also hear of her research initiatives in partnership with the University of Saskatchewan. Prior to being appointed to the Canadian Senate, Dr. Dyck was a professor in the neuropsychiatry research unit in the Department of Psychiatry and an associate dean of the College of Graduate Studies and Research at the University of Saskatchewan.
It is through her leadership and her support of current research that we are learning definitively of the detrimental impacts of the racism perpetrated on aboriginal girls.
Finally, Senator Dyck's bill would afford indigenous women and girls protection similar to that given to others in the Criminal Code, such as taxi drivers and transit workers.
In debate so far on this bill, we have heard technical legal arguments from hon. colleagues in the official opposition about how this bill is not an appropriate avenue for addressing the failings of the justice system to protect indigenous women and girls. To that I say that technically, the law is not to discriminate; technically, the law is not to be sexist or racist in its application; and technically, the law is to enforce the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I rest my case.
We have heard from some on the government side, such as the special adviser to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ2 issues, the MP for Edmonton Centre, who in his speech during debate called for a broad-based, holistic approach as the best way to ensure better protection for indigenous women and girls.
First, I must object to the member's paternalistic tone and the choice of language in his comments. He stated that his way or the government's way is the best way—not a better way, but the best way. It is presumptuous of any member to state that his or her way is the best way. Further, terminology like “broad-based” and “holistic” are words that say to me that the government wants indigenous women and girls to continue to wait for justice and equal protection under the law.
Iskwewuk E-wichiwitochik, Women Walking Together, is a local women-led volunteer group in Saskatoon that has been supporting families and relatives of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls since 2005. Most recently, in 2018, the founders of the group, Darlene Okemaysim-Sicotte and Myrna LaPlante, received the YWCA Women of Distinction Award for their work.
Darlene and Myrna, along with the volunteer members of Women Walking Together, fully support Bill S-215. This endorsement must be respected and hold much weight in our deliberations on the bill, as it comes from women who know first-hand the impact of the epidemic of violence against indigenous women and girls and who combat every day the indifference of the institutions meant to protect women and girls.
Long before this chamber was talking about murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, these women were speaking out, helping families and getting results. This House can do something now to change the lives of indigenous women and girls. We can pass Bill S-215 and begin to see justice served to all Canadians; not just some Canadians.
Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill S-215, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which was introduced in the Senate on December 11, 2015, by the Hon. Senator Lillian Dyck. The bill's objective is to provide greater protection to indigenous women from certain violent offences.
I wish to note at the outset that this critical issue is currently being studied in the context of the National Inquiry into missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which is examining institutional policies and practices that have been put in place as a response to violence, including those that have been effective in reducing violence and increasing the safety of women and girls.
As many of the constituents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park have indicated to me, indigenous women are disproportionately impacted by violent crime. Therefore, I know that we all support the pressing objective that Bill S-215 identifies.
Bill S-215 seeks to achieve its objective through new provisions that would require a sentencing judge to treat the fact that a victim is an aboriginal woman as an aggravating factor when sentencing an offender for certain specific offences, including murder, assault, unlawfully causing bodily harm and sexual assault. If a judge determines that an aggravating factor is present in a given case, a higher sentence is expected to be imposed.
Denouncing and deterring violent offences against indigenous women is critical. However, after significant reflection, it is incumbent upon us to express the government's concerns about the potential effectiveness of the bill's reforms in achieving the important objective which it targets.
Specifically, Bill S-215's proposed reforms may duplicate or conflict with existing sentencing provisions and may be under-inclusive in terms of protecting indigenous women, as well as similarly vulnerable victims, from all violent crimes.
Notably, the Criminal Code already requires sentencing judges to treat as aggravating factors the fact that an offence was motivated by hate based on gender or race or the fact that the offender abused a spouse, common-law partner or child. That is covered in section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.
Furthermore, the Gladue principle, which is entrenched in the Criminal Code as a sentencing principle at paragraph 718.2(e), requires sentencing judges to consider the unique systemic and background factors that contributed to the commission of the offence, as well as all reasonable alternatives to imprisonment, when sentencing indigenous offenders.
Bill S-215's proposed aggravating factor may complicate the application of the Gladue principle. For example, in cases involving a female indigenous victim and an indigenous offender, a sentencing judge would be required both to lengthen the sentence for an indigenous offender's criminal conduct against an indigenous woman and, at the same time, to consider alternatives to incarceration, particularly in cases involving less serious types of offences, such as simple assault.
Assault is one of the most common offences charged in the context of intimate partner violence, and we know that this type of violence occurs in all cultures.
Although interpersonal violence is always a serious matter, we must keep in mind that Canada's definition of assault is broad and applies to any intentional and non-consensual application of force. ln some cases, especially those involving less serious forms of offending, incarceration may not always be the most appropriate response. Nor may it be the response supported by the victim, for example, in the context of intimate partner violence where the offender provides financial support to his family or takes care of the children while the spouse does so.
I am also concerned that the proposed aggravating factor may be too narrowly construed. Allow me to explain. For example, it would apply only to offenders sentenced for specific violent offences, such as uttering threats, assault, sexual assault and murder, but not to other types of offenders, such as those sentenced for human trafficking or other serious offences for which indigenous women and girls are overrepresented as victims.
These types of offenders are generally not indigenous themselves; rather, they may specifically target indigenous women because of their gender and ethnicity. For example, we know that indigenous women and girls are disproportionately represented among the vulnerable people who are sexually exploited in Canada. For that we can refer to the Department of Justice's 2014 technical paper on what was then Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act.
We also know that indigenous women and girls are targeted for this type of exploitation precisely because of their vulnerability such that applying the proposed aggravating factor to simple assault, but not to human trafficking, seems incongruous in this context.
Bill S-215's aggravating factors would also not apply to offenders sentenced for violent crimes committed against non-indigenous female victims, some of whom may be similarly marginalized and vulnerable to predation. My specific concern here is that this type of approach could create an unintended “hierarchy” of victimization. It is important to point that out.
Also, in certain types of cases, aggravating factors may be inapplicable or apply only in the determination of the period of parole ineligibility. For example, first degree murder, as well as second degree murder where the offender was previously convicted of murder, is punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole until 25 years has been served. Otherwise, second degree murder is punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole until at least 10 years and up to 25 years has been served.
Therefore, in murder cases, aggravating factors can only be taken into account in determining the period of parole ineligibility, i.e., 10 to 25 years, for an offender sentenced for second degree murder, as long as the offender was not previously convicted of murder.
For all these reasons, there are concerns about the potential effectiveness of Bill S-215's proposed reforms in achieving the bill's objectives. ln certain situations, the proposed reforms may even create results that are inconsistent with their objectives. Therefore, I suggest that the bill's objectives and proposed reforms be further studied with a view to determining whether there are other ways to achieve its objectives, while avoiding the potential unintended consequences that I have just described.
Examining the impact of criminal legislation on indigenous persons is a critical part of ensuring that legislation responds appropriately to the unique lived realities, which are the result of a long history involving many different forms of abuse stemming from colonization.
ln particular, indigenous persons are overrepresented as both victims and offenders. A piecemeal approach to law reform, given this complex social context, could have unforeseen and undesirable consequences.
The complexity of these issues is reflected in the January 2016 FPT framework to address violence against indigenous women and girls, which identifies principles and priorities to assist in improving how the justice system prevents and responds to this type of violence. The framework concludes with a poignant statement on the multi-sectoral response that is required:
Violence against Indigenous women and girls is a serious concern in this country. The causes of the violence are complex, but closely linked to historical government policies, which led to current conditions of low socio-economic status and vulnerability to violence. There is no simple or singular solution to this issue. Stopping the violence will require the combined efforts of multiple sectors and stakeholders.
I therefore stress the importance of taking into consideration all of the complexities of this issue when analyzing what can be done to improve the protection of indigenous women from violent victimization. Significantly, the missing and murdered indigenous women inquiry's report, which is expected to be released this spring, will provide important recommendations for concrete and effective action that can be taken to remove systemic causes of violence and increase the safety of indigenous women and girls.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Accordingly, I invite the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre to give his right of reply. The hon. member has up to five minutes.
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I remember back in 1995 or 1996, as a young child, watching some of the news surrounding indigenous status and the status of indigenous women in this country. I remember listening to an indigenous woman who said, “I am not just simply a second-class citizen in Canada. I am a third-class citizen, because I am a woman.”
I have heard about equality in this debate. What does equality mean in this country, when the outcomes are so different? What does equality mean when we see the Gladue case in Alberta, where a woman in the justice system was treated very unequally? She was essentially cut up inside, with a six-inch gash in her vagina, and the judge let the perpetrator off. Only after an outcry did the prosecutor in Alberta actually take it back to court. That is a difference in outcomes.
I have heard lots of interesting comments in the House. One of the comments I heard was that because this bill does not deal with all of the justice issues related to the Criminal Code, then it should not apply, that it has no importance, that we need to deal with all of it at the same time. Well, let us take that first step.
I do not mean to get emotional about this, but I think this impacts a lot of people I know.
Bill S-221 was an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to assaults against public transit operators. Now, from 1997 to 2011, there were 23 taxi driver homicides. Parliament modified the law.
In 2013 alone, just in RCMP jurisdictions in Canada, there were 42 recorded female homicide victims, and 17 of those were indigenous. That is 40%. That is a fact. Is that equality? We talk about equality, but the outcomes seem to be so different.
What are we actually doing? It is great to have some programs and spend some money. I wear the moosehide patch all the time, but what does that really change? I have people asking me all the time what it means. No one seems to know. It is about indigenous men and boys taking a stand against violence against indigenous women and girls, and children, How many people keep asking every day what I am wearing that for and what it means? Yet we have handed out a million of them across the country.
Do members know we also had a bill called Bill C-35, the Justice for Animals in Service Act? It was known as Quanto's Law. Quanto was a police dog. He was killed while on duty. This bill created a specific new offence prohibiting the killing or injuring of a law enforcement animal, and it created a minimum sentence. Who is worth more: Quanto, Tina Fontaine, Gladue, Helen Betty Osborne?
There are lots of organizations that support this bill. I could list them all. The First Nations of Saskatchewan and the Assembly of First Nations have passed resolutions in support of this, and there are women's groups across the Prairies that have asked for legislation on this issue. It deserves a full and wholesome debate in this House.
I hope the government takes this bill and moves forward, because I am sure the missing and murdered indigenous women's inquiry will have something about the justice system. I hope we actually go ahead and change some of these laws so that equality means the equality of outcomes, so that people walking around the streets of downtown Winnipeg will know that they are just as valued as anyone else, no matter what their birth in this country.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
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, April 10, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, we knew the halls of power were rigged for wealthy and corporate insiders. What the scandal over SNC-Lavalin has revealed in detail is just how far the Liberal government has gone to put the interests of the corporate elite over Canadians.
The Liberal government keeps telling us how important an independent justice system is, but it all goes out of the window when it is their corporate friends in trouble.
We now know that over the course of four months, the former attorney general faced sustained ongoing organized pressure from the Prime Minister and his office, the Privy Council Office and the office of the Minister of Finance to politically interfere by granting a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin. This was so SNC would not have to go to court and face bribery and fraud charges.
As we all know, the Attorney General cannot be pressured by the Prime Minister to intervene in decisions of the Public Prosecution Service. lt is entirely inappropriate. How many times did the former attorney general have to say no before the Prime Minister and his team listened? She repeatedly said no, yet they repeatedly ignored her and were consistent in their attempts to improperly pressure her to change her mind for their well-connected friends of the Liberals.
The Prime Minister first outright denied this even occurred. Then smear campaigns began to undermine the credibility of the former attorney general. They tried to label her as “difficult to work with”. One Liberal MP said it was “sour grapes”. Then it was simply that she interpreted the matter differently. As well, every effort was made to shut down the justice committee and the ethics committee.
When the former president of the Treasury Board resigned because she had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister over this matter, the finance minister suggested that she resigned because of her friendship with the former attorney general.
A Liberal MP called her “pathetic” and a “traitor”. Then leaks from the Liberal machine suggested that the Prime Minister came into conflict with the former attorney general because of a judicial appointment. The individual in question responded “I fear that someone is using my previous candidacy to the Supreme Court of Canada to further an agenda unrelated to the appointment process.”
The Liberal government had also tried to claim that 9,000 jobs would be lost if SNC did not receive a deferred prosecution agreement. Then SNC-Lavalin actually came out in a public statement to contradict that claim. Not only did the government fail to do an assessment of any potential job loss, according to the Criminal Code, the Public Prosecution Service is prevented from considering the “national economic interest” as a reason for issuing a deferred prosecution agreement. This specific text was introduced to Canadian law under the current Prime Minister's watch in accordance with an OECD anti-bribery convention.
lt seems pretty clear that the only job the Prime Minister is worried about is his own. What is clear is that the Prime Minister has continued to blame others and refuses to take responsibility for his actions. Both senior cabinet ministers now have been kicked out of the Liberal caucus and even after that, attempts continue to undermine the former attorney general.
Without a shred of evidence, the Liberal machine is suggesting that the former attorney general is trying to interfere with the new Attorney General's position on this matter. It is simply not credible. What we know from the Clerk of the Privy Council is that the Prime Minister was in a “mood” and that he was going “to get it done one way or another”.
It is time for a public inquiry. Canadians deserve to know the whole truth.
Terry Duguid LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's intervention. However, I am going to focus on the question the hon. member put to this House, according to the rules of the adjournment debate, and speak about gender equality and the place of women in this House.
I am very pleased to highlight the many ways our government is putting gender equality at the heart of its decision-making, because our government knows that when we invest in women, we grow the middle class and strengthen the economy for everyone.
Since the first days of this government, our Prime Minister has showed incredible leadership and put equal representation at the forefront by appointing the first gender-balanced cabinet in Canada's history. Our Prime Minister knows that women must have more than just a seat at the table.
Since then, we have achieved a number of firsts: the first woman government House leader, who is sitting right in front of me; the first woman Minister of Agriculture in this country; the first ever federal strategy to prevent and address gender-based violence; gender budgeting, because we know that the decisions the government makes impact different people differently; and creating the Department for Women and Gender Equality, making Status of Women Canada a full department and ensuring its full and equal place within the government.
Our commitment continues through budget 2019, which delivered new measures to provide housing security for women, parental leave to address gender disparity in skills development, a strategy to combat human trafficking and a historic increase to support women's organizations and to help them through the social finance fund. With a framework to measure results, we are ensuring that we are accountable to Canadians.
For 10 years, the Conservatives undermined, underestimated and underfunded women's organizations and muzzled them so they would not be able to advocate for women's rights. Our government restored advocacy as an activity eligible for funding. While they closed regional offices at Status of Women Canada, leaving only four offices, we are restoring our presence across the country with 16 points of service. Our government has made the single-largest investment in the sustainability of women's organizations so that over 250 of them could keep their doors open and continue to save and transform lives.
Last week, these seats were filled by 338 young women from across the country, a clear example of what is possible when the federal government steps in and invests in creating spaces and opportunities for young women to take their rightful seats in places of power and influence.
Advancing gender equality is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. We have come a long way in four years, but we know that there is more work to do to achieve gender equality. Our government is committed to doing that work. I hope the hon. member will join us in continuing that work. I want to thank her for her advocacy for women, not only on the east side of Vancouver but all across Canada.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, last week in this House, I asked the Prime Minister this question and raised the fact that the Daughters of the Vote turned their backs to the Prime Minister, making it clear that they stood with the former attorney general and the former president of the Treasury Board. This was right on the heels of the Liberal government and the Liberal Prime Minister kicking out these two former senior cabinet ministers. Why? It was because they dared to tell the truth. They dared to stand on their integrity and would not be bent by the government's pressure to change their position. That is what we are talking about.
The truth is that a real feminist would not try to do what the Prime Minister has done. A real feminist would not kick strong, independent women out because they stood on their integrity and wanted to ensure that the truth was understood. A real feminist would not kick someone out because she wanted to uphold the law and would not allow the government to continue to act and behave in the way it has.
That is what I asked. I did not ask the parliamentary secretary to brag about the government. I asked him to get at the heart of the issue at hand. The only way to do that is to have a public inquiry.
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the hon. member that under this Prime Minister's leadership, we have made historic investments in women's organizations, bringing their funding to unprecedented levels. We are ensuring that women can fully participate in the workforce, with parental leave options and investments in the creation of 40,000 good, affordable child care spaces.
Under this Prime Minister, we are ensuring that women receive equal pay for work of equal value. We are ensuring that women fleeing a violent situation have a safe place to turn. We have invested over $200 million to end gender-based violence, including through the gender-based violence strategy, the first of its kind.
Our record is clear. It speaks for itself. This government and this Prime Minister are ensuring that all Canadians, regardless of gender, have an equal and fair chance to succeed.
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House once again to talk about official languages and Franco-Ontarians.
Just this morning, we had a breakfast eat-and-greet here on the Hill, attended by many members of Parliament, in celebration of the Franco-Ontarian community.
On November 26, 2018, I asked the Liberal government a question about the importance of protecting official languages and the French language at every level of government. The provincial and federal governments have a collective duty to support our two official languages and, naturally, our minority communities. Unfortunately, the Franco-Ontarian community has been facing an injustice for some time now that is setting back their language rights. The cancellation of the French-language university project in Ontario was a serious blow to the vitality and development of Franco-Ontarian communities.
My question for the Prime Minister was:
Will the Prime Minister request an urgent meeting with the Premier of Ontario and commit to contributing his fair share to a French-language university in Ontario?
Unfortunately, that did not happen. The federal government and the Ontario provincial government have some major differences of opinion, and the two sides were not able to come together and reach an agreement with respect to Ontario's French-language university. It is unfortunate, because the Ontario government is about to present its budget, probably tomorrow, if I am not mistaken. Stakeholders in the Franco-Ontarian community have high expectations for Ontario's French-language university, but unfortunately, they will likely be disappointed.
Beyond any partisan considerations, the federal government has a very important role to play in convincing its counterparts to comply with official languages legislation. The provinces also have a role to play in protecting and promoting the vitality of official language minority communities.
Today, ONFR and Benjamin Vachet reported that, on top of abolishing several positions at the Ontario ombudsman's office, the government has decided to dismantle the former team at the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner by eliminating two key positions. There will no longer be a legal counsel or a communications specialist, two positions that existed within the previous structure.
Let me quote what Linda Cardinal, a political scientist at the University of Ottawa who specializes in language policies, had to say about it: “The francophone community believes that the office's integrity should not have been attacked. Every person represented a link in the chain. There was a unique dynamic that helped everyone work together.” She went on to say that moving the legal counsel to the ombudsman legal team takes him out of his natural environment, adding, “From an administrative point of view, it may be more functional to have all the lawyers working together, but it is going to change the dynamic of the commissioner's office. It will impact the work that is done.”
We expected better leadership from the Liberal government. In order to demonstrate such leadership, the Liberals should have called a federal-provincial-territorial forum on official languages and invited all the ministers and premiers. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not do that.
What is the government waiting for? When will it organize a federal-provincial-territorial forum on official languages?
Alaina Lockhart LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism
Mr. Speaker, the member's question allows our government to bring to this House an update on the issue. Post-secondary institutions play a crucial role in the vitality and enhancement of our official-language minority communities.
Last November, Doug Ford's Conservatives launched a direct attack on the Canadian francophonie. We, on this side of the House, will always be willing to defend and promote the French fact across the country.
Our government is fully prepared to support the province in this project. We have said it many times. We will contribute up to 50%. The money is on the table, but the provincial government is leaving it on the table. Since the Government of Ontario publicly announced its decision to suspend the funding for l'Université de l'Ontario Français in November 2018, our government has taken every possible step to move this agenda.
In addition to the many communications between our two levels of government to advance this file, the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie has twice written to Ontario government ministers to offer federal support and indicated many times that our government was open to working with the Ontario government to support this major project.
On January 13, 2019, she also publicly announced $1.9 million in funding directly from the budget of the action plan for official languages 2018-2023 to ensure the business continuity of the start-up activities of the l'Université de l'Ontario Français until January 2020.
This funding will support their preliminary work to establish the Francophone knowledge and innovation hub in Toronto and develop close ties between the agencies and organizations that support the francophone community.
This hub could host l'Université de l'Ontario Français once it is established, as well as over a dozen partners. This funding will be part of the total federal contribution to the project.
It is now up to the Government of Ontario to make an official request and to take this project seriously. Any contribution by our government to the establishment of the l'Université de l'Ontario Français is conditional on the provincial government submitting a funding application for our federal support programs and committing to at least 50% of costs.
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, we had an eat-and-greet this morning with the Assemblée francophone de l'Ontario to celebrate Ontario's francophonie. One of the guests was Lydia Philippe, the new president of the FESFO, the Fédération de la jeunesse franco-ontarienne. She shares our young people's desire to have a future and continue studying in French. That is why we need the French-language university in Ontario.
Lydia Philippe is just 17 years old, but she is already very involved and has a vision and ambitions for Canada. She wants to protect Ontario's francophonie and promote diversity in Canada. We must stand up and show leadership for young people like Lydia. Young people in Ontario and across Canada want our government to take concrete action to give them hope that they will be able to study in French at this French-language university. There are approximately 800,000 francophones in Ontario, but we do not even have one French-language university. That is not right.
Alaina Lockhart Liberal Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, our government's support for minority language communities, and Franco-Ontarian communities in this case, extends well beyond respecting our obligations under the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is about values.
The Franco-Ontarian community and other minority communities in Canada will always be able to count on the unwavering support of our government as a partner and as an advocate for their language rights.
Promoting the Canadian francophonie is key to everything our government does to foster the vitality of the French language across Canada.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to talk about a question that I brought to the floor of the House of Commons back in December. It was on the eve, sadly, of a cycling death that happened here in Ottawa. We know we have lost people in all of our communities across this great country to cycling deaths because we do not have enough safe cycling infrastructure in our country. We know that the government has promised to deal with that.
In the Liberals' government term, three and a half years, they have produced only one report. That report is titled “Active Transportation: A Survey of Policies, Programs and Experience”. That report was done in October 2018 and still there is no action. I am hoping today that we will get an update for that report.
I would also like to pass on my condolences to the family and the loved ones who lost their family member in this tragic accident, but also to those across our country, including in my community of Port Alberni where we lost two children just last year in 2018 to cycling accidents.
We know that if we have a national strategy, a clear plan to grow cycling in our country, that creates safer ways and pathways where people can use active transportation, including cycling, we will improve the health of Canadians, we will lower greenhouse gas emissions, we will lower infrastructure costs and it is good for the economy.
I will go to children because they are a great measurement. In the Netherlands, 50% of children ride their bikes to school. In Sweden, that is at 20%. In Germany, it is 15%. Denmark is 40%. Here in Canada, it is 2%. We have to ask why. It is not because of the size of our country, because 35% of Canadians live in three cities and in fact 83% of Canadians live in urban centres. It is not because of the climate either because we know that between Copenhagen and Toronto there is a difference of about one degree and we are far off the mark of what people are doing in Sweden. It is because they have a plan. They have clear targets and dedicated funding purely for safe cycling. They invest in marketing and education, and they are committed to growing cycling.
I tabled Bill C-312 to develop a national cycling strategy. There was a motion that went through FCM that was very similar to my bill and was passed with 95% support.
Canada Bikes endorsed my bill, wanting a national cycling strategy. The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment has been calling for a national cycling strategy. The cities of Victoria, Toronto, Ottawa, Cumberland, and Port Alberni and Tofino in my riding, have all supported my call for a national cycling strategy. We have had support from the Comox Valley Cycling Coalition, and I want to thank Margaret Harris for her work with the coalition. She just stepped down as the president. With the Alberni Valley cycling association, John Mayba and Sarah Thomas helped pull that together. Lazarus Difiore from Arrowsmith Bikes has been really hard on me, pressing me to bring the message to Ottawa that we need a national cycling strategy.
On a personal note, I rode my bike every day that I sat in the House of Commons. Until just a month ago, I had ridden my bike to the Hill and I really believe it saved my life. There is a British study that says we reduce our risk of heart disease by 40% to 46% if we ride our bike to work. Heart disease costs $12 billion to the Canadian economy every year. Some people say that if we could get a magic pill to save $4 billion in health care costs, cycling would be it.
I would like to get an update from the government today about that report and how we are going to move forward. The National Bike Summit is just around the corner on May 13 and 14 here in Ottawa. Hopefully the parliamentary secretary could speak to that.
Terry Duguid LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality
Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, our hearts, on this side of the House, go out to the family that tragically lost a loved one.
I want to thank the hon. member for his leadership on this issue as well as for his incredible leadership on ocean plastics. I know we, on this side of the House, have appreciated his advocacy.
Just to let the hon. member know, this is a very important issue to me. I was a city councillor for two terms. I commissioned some of the first cycling studies and took action in the early 1990s in the area of active transportation, and today I am proud to say that Winnipeg has a very well-developed network and an active transportation system.
I welcome this opportunity to provide information on how the Government of Canada is supporting the safety of vulnerable road users, including cyclists. While cycling is primarily a local issue that is the responsibility of municipalities, provinces and territories, our government is showing leadership on numerous cycling-related task forces. Our government is committed to ensuring the safety of all road users and recognizes the importance of cycling as a mode of active transportation. To this end, Transport Canada is working with the provinces, territories and other federal departments on a number of cycling-related initiatives.
In September 2016, under the Minister of Transport' s leadership, the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety created a task force to examine safety measures to protect pedestrians and cyclists around heavy vehicles. Following extensive consultations and support from all jurisdictions, the task force published a report that includes 57 safety measures to better protect vulnerable road users, including segregated cycling tracks, speed and red light cameras and warning signals in heavy trucks to detect nearby pedestrians and cyclists.
We are taking action by developing safety measures that fall within federal jurisdiction, such as pilot projects on detection and visibility systems, and by exploring potential regulatory action concerning automatic emergency braking systems and advanced driver-assist systems. Currently, the federal government supports cyclist safety through infrastructure programs that provide flexibility to provinces, territories and municipalities to determine priority projects that will make a difference in their regions, such as funding for the construction of bicycle lanes and paths and the installation of bicycle racks on city buses.
Also of note, the Public Health Agency of Canada, along other government departments, is spearheading an effort to strengthen relationships between federal partners working on files related to designing sustainable communities for healthy living, including opportunities to encourage active transportation.
Finally, with a view to complementing this work, Transport Canada is conducting preliminary research on the feasibility of collecting cycling data and the development of metrics to assess the connectivity of cycling networks. We will continue to collaborate with partners on this very important issue the hon. member has raised today.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, we are hearing loud and clear from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that, as I said, 95% of those municipalities are looking for dedicated funding, clear targets for safe cycling and a national cycling strategy.
The report tabled in 2018, “Active Transportation: A Survey of Policies, Programs and Experience”, created by the council's transportation and environmental task force, was three years' work, with 37 conference call meetings and engagement with 44 key informants Canada-wide and listening to jurisdictions nationally and globally on best practices. It heard about the wide range of benefits of active transportation, but it also cited the need for infrastructure funding dedicated permanently, in the long term, for cycling.
I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary that he will commit to a national strategy for cycling so that we can get there. Canadians, especially our children, deserve safer cycling across this great country of ours.
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his advocacy.
While cycling is primarily a local issue that is the responsibility of municipalities, provinces and territories, our government is showing leadership on numerous cycling-related matters. We would agree with the hon. member that there is more to do.
Our government is involved in efforts to improve safety for cyclists through federal, provincial and territorial task forces. A report has been completed, and we are examining that report. This report is an important step in advancing awareness and addressing key safety concerns.
Infrastructure Canada also supports active transportation through infrastructure programming, and the Public Health Agency of Canada continues efforts to increase physical activity opportunities for Canadians.
We will continue to support active transportation through work on existing task forces and of course by listening to some excellent advice from the hon. member opposite.