Debates of Feb. 20th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink Project

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a number of times from my colleagues that the majority of the Wet'suwet'en support this project. This project is good for B.C., it is good for the Wet'suwet'en. It is good for the environment to get that gas from the back side of B.C. to tidewater. Why do we continue to sit in the House and oppose energy projects when we know we need to do these things?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I would first like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people. We face a crisis in our country. People are hurting. Indigenous peoples feel their voices have not been part of Canada. Canadians worry about layoffs and their livelihood and are forced to confront a history of our country that they were never taught.

We are becoming impatient and are looking for simple solutions, but this is a complex problem. Despite what the opposition says, there is not a simple solution. The rhetoric coming from the Conservatives is both troubling and dangerous. When a front-runner to lead their party supports vigilante action on social media, it troubles me deeply.

The opposition leader's speech on Tuesday was shameful and it left me speechless by how tone-deaf it was. The Conservatives' comments only inflame an already precarious situation.

When did we stop perceiving dialogue as action? When did we start to think that listening and understanding were beneath us?

This summer, all members who were elected to this place knocked on thousands of doors and spoke to thousands of their constituents. They listened, because they understood that in order to get someone's support, they had to ensure those people were heard. When did some of us forget that lesson?

I applaud the Minister of Indigenous Services for his genuine, heartfelt actions, and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations for using her experience to seek a way forward. I greatly appreciate the Prime Minister's work, leading a team to seek open and honest dialogue with all interested parties to seek solutions.

Last night I could not sleep. This crisis has divided Canadians and I fear that too many see it as black and white. It is not. For hundreds of years, indigenous peoples have been seeking mutual respect and open and honest dialogue that informs a meaningful relationship with non-indigenous peoples in Canada. For hundreds of years, indigenous peoples have been calling on the Canadian government to recognize and affirm their jurisdiction over their affairs and have control over their land, housing, education, governance systems and services.

I would like to use this opportunity to highlight some of the steps our government is taking to address these calls.

Our government continues to work on shifting its policies to recognize the inherent right of self-government and self-determination of first nations, Inuit, and Métis, and our commitment is dedicated to recognizing and implementing indigenous rights.

As an example, we are working to support first nations to opt-out of sections of the Indian Act in areas such as land, environment, resource management and elections. This means moving to models of indigenous governance and supporting indigenous communities to assert their rights.

To lead this work, in 2019, our government repealed the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act and adopted the Department of Indigenous Services Act. This new department, Indigenous Services Canada, is mandated to work toward the transfer of departmental responsibilities to indigenous communities and bodies.

Over time, one fundamental measure of success will be that programs and services will be increasingly controlled, designed and delivered by indigenous peoples for indigenous peoples. Ultimately, the end goal is for the department to disappear. I am pleased to say this work is well under way.

In 2019, the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families was passed. This act is an important step toward comprehensive reform in ensuring indigenous people hold control over their children and toward children being able to stay within their families and communities, We remain committed to pursuing nation to nation, government to government and Inuit to Crown relations based on the recognition of rights, co-operation and partnership with indigenous peoples in Canada.

To continue in the spirit of co-development, we have committed to continuing to co-develop transition and implementation of the act with partners in ways that reflect their needs and aspirations. We are also continuing to work on establishing a new fiscal relationship with first nations, one that moves toward sufficient, predictable and sustained funding for first nations communities.

This includes the use of long-term and more flexible funding mechanisms such as the 10-year grant, which provides increased flexibility to design and deliver services, reduces reporting for communities and enables strengthened accountability of first nations leadership to its members.

Eighty-five first nations communities entered into the 10-year grant in 2019-2020. In addition, 18 first nations have joined the 264 other nations asserting jurisdiction in the area of fiscal governance by opting into the First Nations Fiscal Management Act. This act provides first nations with a legislative and institutional framework to exercise jurisdiction over core fiscal and governance matters, including the financing of infrastructure and economic development projects through the issuance of bonds on capital markets.

Our government continues to work in partnership to build a new fiscal relationship with first nations, which will provide long-term, sustainable and predictable funding.

To support the new fiscal relationship, we are committed to continued co-development of fiscal relationship reforms with first nations. The Assembly of First Nations-Indigenous Services Canada Joint Advisory Committee on Fiscal Relations has provided interim recommendations, and it will engage with first nations on those recommendations in the coming months.

Together, these changes support self-determination for first nations communities and provide better access to lands and financial resources. They also support greater economic prosperity in first nations communities by improving processes, timelines and access to services, and also contribute to assisting first nations institutions in their direct work with communities.

With the support of indigenous institutional partners, we are removing barriers for first nations that decide to opt-out of parts of the Indian Act and participate in alternate legislative regimes to exercise their own jurisdiction and law-making authority. Our government and indigenous institutions are working together with first nations to develop the tools they need to drive local economic development and promote prosperity.

Last week, I met with Tabatha Bull, COO of the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business. We talked about the fact that indigenous business contributed $31 billion to the Canadian economy. We talked about the fact that indigenous peoples were the youngest and fastest-growing demographic in Canada. Indigenous peoples are creating businesses at nine times the rate of non-indigenous Canadians. We must support these businesses but work in partnership to ensure their success.

First Nation Land Management is a government-to-government relationship through which first nations opt-out of 44 sections of the Indian Act related to land, environment and resource development. Under this land management regime, first nations will have full jurisdiction, legal authority and law-making powers to operate as a government over their own lands.

Since 1996, 165 first nations have become signatories to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management. As of February 1, 90 first nations have full jurisdiction, legal authority and law-making powers over their lands.

The key to supporting first nations communities must also be based on closing socio-economic gaps. To that end, we are working with indigenous partners on including a national outcome-based framework to measure the closing of the socio-economic gaps that exist to this day.

We will continue to work in partnership with first nations to improve processes and supports that provide access to lands and economic development opportunities. We are taking concrete steps toward a comprehensive transformation, which includes new structures and processes, changes to legislation and, most important, new approaches to advancing self-determination and the inherent right to self-government with first nations, Inuit and the Métis Nation.

As members can see, our approach has changed from imposing to co-development, and this is what will bring success. We know there is much more to do, and we are committed to moving forward in full partnership in advancing self-determination for all indigenous nations.

The Minister of Indigenous Services has said “Too often in this country we have taken the approach that we would pick whatever indigenous view suits our thoughts and processes.” I fear that this motion before us today is doing just that. Therefore I will not be supporting it.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, those of us on this side of the House very much agree with the importance of dialogue. We believe there is a time and a place for dialogue. That dialogue should not take place on the train tracks, in dangerous spaces or in the midst of specific places in a context when enforcement is appropriate. However, dialogue and engagement is very much a part of the process of reconciliation.

I would ask the member if she would agree with the principle that when we are having dialogue about the future of a community, about the development happening in a community, that the dialogue has to be with the elected representatives of that community. If the member wants to find out what development should happen in Sherwood Park, she should not be engaging in dialogue with somebody on the other side of the country about the future of my community. The same principle applies to the Wet'suwet'en people.

The dialogue that needs to happen is between the elected leadership and other stakeholders, such as the company and the government, about what should happen with respect to development. The ultimate decisions about that should go through the elected Wet'suwet'en representatives. It muddies the waters to have dialogue with everyone without identifying who the people with the say are.

Does the member agree with the principle that the dialogue that needs to happen is with the elected leadership of the Wet'suwet'en, who speak on behalf of those who chose them to be their representatives?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments about recognizing the importance of dialogue, because that seems to have been missing from this debate.

The member's question completely misunderstands the structure of an elected band council and its imposition on indigenous peoples through the Indian Act. The hereditary chiefs are speaking out. No, they are not elected, but we cannot impose our structure, and comparing it to Sherwood Park or to Oakville and Burlington in my community fails to recognize that this structure is one that we, as white settlers, imposed on indigenous peoples in this country.

The dialogue part of the member's question I am happy with. The other part is just an inherent misunderstanding of the structure and of how it was imposed on indigenous people.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by calling on the members of the House to respect the autonomy of the nations. The Wet'suwet'en nation is a nation just like those of Quebeckers and Canadians. It is not up to us, the MPs, to say who is right in the various groups that may form in that nation. I very much appreciate my colleague's speech on openness and the long-term plan, but we will have to take action and stop the rhetoric at some point.

My question is this. We are currently experiencing a real crisis. How does my colleague explain that it took 10 days for the minister to meet with people? That is unbelievable. The Prime Minister should have met with them at the very start.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I truly appreciate the way the Bloc Québécois has approached this crisis and the very thoughtful words that have been spoken in this place by the leader of the party as well as by other members.

The government has been engaged in this. As I said in my speech, there is not a simple solution. We are not tone-deaf to the challenges that this situation is causing for workers and businesses. However, talking about removing one blockade is not seeking a lasting, peaceful solution, which is what we are working toward.

I do want to thank the hon. member for his question and his thoughtfulness in this debate.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks. We have essentially the same point of view.

The Conservatives are talking a lot about legality when we know that, historically, with colonialism, legislation has often been used to steal land and violate the rights of indigenous peoples.

I would like to know what she thinks of the 1997 Supreme Court ruling that makes hereditary chiefs stewards of the land.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer and I am not going to pretend to be an expert on decisions, but I do know that Supreme Court decisions are ones that must be respected and I do not think any of us in this place should be so presumptuous as to speak for the Wet’suwet’en people. It really does a disservice to walking on this path of reconciliation for anyone in this place to think that he or she can speak for the Wet’suwet’en people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, let me start by indicating that this is a very difficult situation. No matter where we are in Canada, we understand the principle at stake here, and trying to simplify it does it a disservice. At the end of the day, we recognize how difficult it is for both indigenous and non-indigenous people, whether it is a specific community or the broader community.

The other day, the Prime Minister asked Canadians to continue to be patient as we try to work through this very difficult situation. We need to appreciate that there is a lot at stake. If we were to follow the advice of the Conservatives, we would be rolling the dice. I can say the odds would not be in our favour if we were to take their approach. There is a consequence to an action, and the actions that the Conservative Party has been presenting for a while now are, I believe, irresponsible.

The Conservatives often reflect on what is taking place with the leadership on this side. I like to think that it is not just the leader of the Liberal Party, but that we are also hearing calls for de-escalation from all political parties except the Conservatives. We are hearing from the different stakeholders that we need to de-escalate the situation as much as possible. Are the Conservatives helping or are they becoming a hindrance?

The current leader has said we should send in the RCMP to get rid of the blockades. Peter MacKay, the wannabe leader of the Conservative Party, has tried to glorify individuals who were tearing apart a blockade as if being a vigilante is a good thing. Yes, he has retracted that particular tweet, but I would suggest that the words we are hearing from the current and potential future leadership of the Conservative Party are not helping the situation, nor does this motion, will.

If the Conservative Party wanted to contribute to the debate, we could have talked about the issue of reconciliation today. Different parties have different perspectives on it. I rather enjoyed the parliamentary secretary's most recent speech a few minutes ago when she talked about the types of things the government has done to advance us toward reconciliation. Over the last couple of days I listened to members from the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party talking as well about the ways in which we can not only de-escalate the situation but also broaden the debate to talk about the issue of reconciliation. I truly believe the Conservative Party would do more of a service for Canadians if its members adopted the same attitude.

We understand the impact that the situation is having on the Canadian economy. We have representations in all regions of this country, including western Canada, an area I represent personally. I understand the economics just as well as the Conservatives, who proclaim they are concerned about the economy. Need I remind the members opposite of the so-called LNG project? By working with the Wet'suwet'en, the NDP provincial government in British Columbia, the national government, business and the private sector, we were able to accomplish the greatest, most significant capital infrastructure commitment, which was billions of dollars to create the LNG project.

Today we heard often from the Conservatives that the majority of the members of the Wet'suwet'en community support this economic adventure. That took a great deal of effort, not only in the community itself but also in gaining support from the government in British Columbia, the national government, the private sector and more.

We even have the Bloc recognizing that the federal government has a role to play in issues of this nature. Whether it is economic development for the betterment of all Canadians, when we have issues of this nature from time to time, it is the way we deal with those issues.

To try to give the impression that nothing has been happening for the last couple of weeks is just false. Casting aspersions on a lot of fine work that has been done, whether by the government of B.C., the Wet'suwet'en community leaders or the national government and the role that we have played is wrong. To try to imply that nothing is happening is false.

We could all give some encouragement and a vote of confidence to our RCMP. We tend to differ from the Conservative opposition in that we believe and have full confidence in our RCMP, in our law enforcement agencies, and we believe that political parties do not have the right to direct them to arrest that person or that group of people. It is not our place to do that.

People should be concerned when the official opposition members who hope to be in government someday say that they would give specific direction to the RCMP. I refer to Peter MacKay's quote from his twitter account. We should be concerned about those types of knee-jerk reactions coming from Conservative leadership.

In the broader picture, I would have liked to have seen a discussion or debate on those types of issues. There is a great deal of interest in the issue of reconciliation. When I listen to the New Democrats and the Green Party, I often hear we are not doing enough. I would suggest that we have accomplished a great deal, and there is still more to do. I think of some of the actions that we have taken in a relatively short period of time, such as dealing with heritage language, dealing with the tens of thousands of children in foster care or in the welfare system with the shifting over and empowerment that is taking place in indigenous communities as a result, or statutory holidays, or the issue of citizenship, or the 94 calls for action, many of which required action by the federal government, and which we have responded to. There has been debate as well on the former private member's bill, Bill C-242, on the UN declaration, so we have seen many measures in the last number of years that reached out and took active steps toward positive reconciliation.

That was completely foreign to the previous government. When the Conservatives were in power, we did not see anything of that nature.

I believe if we want to continue to see the economy moving forward as it has, with over one million jobs over the last four years, we need to recognize that working with different stakeholders and working with indigenous communities in the economy and the environment is absolutely essential. It is not an option. As the Prime Minister has indicated, we need to have patience as we try to work through this very difficult situation, realizing that it does cause a lot of frustration for all of us here in Canada.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned perspective and his understanding of the issue. As we have heard on the floor of the House, there is a debate over numbers, the 80% and 85%, so I will mention the words of the Wet'suwet'en people themselves.

Chief Dan George of the Wet'suwet'en Burns Lake band said, “As an elected official my job is to represent the people and do what they want me to do, and so they wanted me to sign on...80% of our people voted for LNG.” Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chief Theresa Tait-Day said, “In the case of Coastal GasLink, 85% of our people said yes we want this project.” Those are the words from the mouths of the Wet'suwet'en themselves.

When will the government and the Prime Minister show leadership on this issue?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member and other Conservative members need to reflect on what they are saying. Do they believe that this issue will ultimately be resolved and go away?

At the end of the day, there is division being caused by the Conservative members. I trust and have faith in the Wet'suwet'en community's ability to overcome this issue into the future. I do not want to add additional issues going forward for that community.

We need to support the community in the best way we can. As of right now, we should still to try to be patient and understanding. If this can be resolved in a positive fashion, we should strive to do that and not give up hope, at least not yet.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question is for the Liberal member.

Since the work began, I have been hearing that we need to be patient. To that, I would say that I think that Canadians have been patient enough. It is two weeks today since this national crisis began. This is a major crisis. Still today, we are wondering what the government is going to do. We need an action plan.

I want to briefly share an experience. I know that I only have a minute. As a union leader, I represented 200,000 members across the province. When one of our unions was in crisis and it was causing problems for everyone, as a leader, I was on the front lines. If the mountain did not want to come to me, then I went to the mountain.

Yesterday, we were told that the chiefs did not want to meet with the government. I am sorry, but the Prime Minister had a job to do. He should have come back to Canada two weeks ago to deal with this crisis.

I will vote against the Conservative motion, which does not solve the problem because it asks us to condemn the radical activists. I am not even sure that we have the same definition of radical activists.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think Canadians have been exceptionally patient. As we try to move through this very difficult situation, there is a great deal of hardship. That hardship has been realized in many senses, whether with food, jobs or being able to commute. However, Canadians understand, in most part, why we are in this situation.

The Prime Minister, all premiers and, as I like to think, all leaders participating in this discussion understand how critically important it is that this matter be resolved quickly.

With regard to patience, we are trying our very best to make sure we do all we can. Part of that includes having individuals at the table or part of the dialogue, such as representatives of the Government of British Columbia and the leadership of the Wet'suwet'en community.

We have to go the extra mile and continue to be patient. When the time comes, the time comes, and hopefully this gets resolved in a positive fashion and everyone benefits.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to share my time today with my friend and colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.

Canadians do not ask for much. They really do not. We are honest, hard-working, polite people. At a minimum what Canadians expect is peace, order and good government.

Over the last 14 days, we have seen anything but that. We have seen a situation turn into a national crisis, with railway blockades right across the country affecting the movement of goods and people. VIA Rail, as we know, has cancelled its train service to the better part of eastern Canada for the last seven days. Since it made that announcement, there has been a significant impact on the movement of people.

As CN has cancelled its entire rail system and the movement of goods, it is having a devastating effect on our economy. We are hearing that millions and millions of dollars are being lost every day within the supply chain. The agriculture community has not been able to get its products to market. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the manufacturing association and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have all said that this situation needs to be resolved.

However, it is very difficult to resolve, when we look at the history of this situation. Over the last four and a half years, the government has become weak and the Prime Minister has become weak and complicit. We have an activist government that has fed into the very situation that is going on across this country today. It should come as no surprise that we are seeing activists act out because of the weakness and complicity of the Prime Minister over the last four and a half years. He is doublespeaking almost everywhere he goes, saying one thing to one group and another thing to another group, saying one thing in one part of the province and something else in a different part of this country.

We have heard a lot of discussion today, and we have been debating this for the better part of two and a half hours, so I want to remind the House what the motion is all about. It is not about a certain individual; it is about a group that is using this situation as a lightning rod, a template, for not just the insurrection that is going on today but the potential of future insurrection in this country. This group is using it as a template, and we are simply asking the House to denounce what is going on and stand up for the Wet'suwet'en people.

The motion says, “That the House stand in solidarity with every elected band council on the Coastal GasLink route—”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The language that was just used was unparliamentary and incendiary. I just double-checked the meaning of “insurrection”. It means “a violent uprising.” Everything taking place is non-violent. It may be illegal, depending on perspective, but I ask the hon. member to withdraw that word.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I remind all members to be judicious in their use of language. I cannot judge right now whether unparliamentary language was used, but members should try to be more judicious in the use of vocabulary.

The member for Barrie—Innisfil.

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

Madam Speaker, I will remind the House what the motion says:

That the House stand in solidarity with every elected band council on the Coastal GasLink route, the majority of hereditary chiefs, and the vast majority of the Wet'suwet'en people, who support the Coastal GasLink project, and condemn the radical activists who are exploiting divisions within the Wet'suwet'en community, holding the Canadian economy hostage, and threatening jobs and opportunities in Indigenous communities.

On the issue of jobs for the Wet'suwet'en community, there is a long history of negotiation, of talks among CGL, the Wet'suwet'en community, the 20 first nations communities of elected band leaders and the hereditary chiefs. They have gone on for a long time. Every single one of those 20 communities is in favour of the CGL gas line. They are in favour of it because of the opportunity and prosperity it is going to provide them now and into the future. Many of them will be receiving jobs, and many of them have received jobs, as a result of the CGL pipeline. Revenue will be coming into their communities.

If we talk to members of the House who are part of northern B.C. communities where opportunity is thin for many first nations communities, this is exactly the type of project they have been looking for. It is the type of project they have negotiated and agreed to, because they know it is going to provide opportunity, not just for them today but for young people for generations to come. We, as a Parliament, must be supportive of the independence and autonomy of these first nations to negotiate the type of arrangement they want with CGL.

The challenge exists because there is an anti-pipeline, anti-government movement going on in this country. These people are piggybacking off this issue to raise their issues and their anti-natural-resource agenda. They are doing it right across the country. They are using this situation, this lightning-rod issue, as a template to create illegal blockades. The motion is speaking to them: that the House condemn this anti-government, anti-reason, anti-resource movement that is using this as a lightning rod.

When we speak to members in the Wet'suwet'en community, they talk about their support of this pipeline and the reasons they support it. They have certainly publicly put this out there.

Chief Larry Nooski, of the Nadleh Whut'en First Nation, said:

Coastal GasLink represents a once in a generation economic development opportunity for Nadleh Whut'en First Nation. We negotiated hard...to guarantee that Nadleh people, including youth, have the opportunity to benefit directly and indirectly from the project, while at the same time, ensuring that the land and the water is protected.

Heredity Chief Helen Michelle, of the Skin Tyee First Nation of the Wet'suwet'en, said, “A lot of the protesters are not even Wet'suwet'en people.” That is the point. “Our own people said go ahead [to Coastal GasLink].” She also said, “We talked with the elders.... We talked and talked, and we kept bringing them back.... We walked the very territory where CGL is going.... We are going to give it the go-ahead.”

If a majority of the Wet'suwet'en people agree with this, why are we pandering to and accepting the type of protests and illegal blockades that are going on across this country? Many of the people doing this are not even affiliated with the Wet'suwet'en people. The activists see this as their template, their opportunity to speak out against the natural resource sector, to speak out against government, to speak out against peace, to speak out against order in this country. That is precisely what they are doing. For the House not to condemn that makes us complicit, as complicit and weak as the government has been throughout this crisis.

I want to talk about the police. There have been a lot of inflammatory comments with respect to the authority of the police. Governments legislate; we pass laws. The courts interpret those laws and it is up to the police to enforce those laws. None of us believes that we live in a police state where the government has the authority or the direction to direct the police on what to do, but when the police receive a court order or a court injunction, the expectation is that they are going to act. There is also an expectation on the part of government and those who are elected in this country at all levels of government that when the police act, we support their action because they are fulfilling their legal obligation to make sure that the rule of law is maintained in this country, as directed by the courts and legislated by Parliament across this country, as well as provincial and municipal bodies.

The police are in an extremely untenable position on this and they have shown extreme patience. However, the bottom line is that we need to maintain peace, order and good government in this country and the rule of law must always be followed.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I noted that the member, in his comments, said that a group was using this issue as a lightning rod. I would not disagree with that for a moment. I am afraid that group is one of the political parties in this chamber.

I am very concerned. I do not think there is much difference of opinion in terms of the concerns we have about what is going on in the country. It is a matter of suggesting what those solutions might be. My riding is just down the rail line from the main blockade and a business in my community is affected by this. I want this to be resolved as soon as possible, just as much as anybody else in the House. I am afraid that if the RCMP was to take the direction as suggested by the member and others in the Conservative Party today, we could quite possibly end up in a scenario where there are three or four blockades as a result of trying to eliminate one.

Does the member have some reassurance that something like that would not happen? Does he have some reassurance that his strategy is the best and only way forward?

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

Madam Speaker, the expectation of all parliamentarians and Canadians should be that the police enforce the rule of law. When the court imposes an injunction or a court order for these blockades to end, it should be the expectation of the member and every single person in this country that it will be enforced. It does not matter whether it happens in Kingston, Belleville, Quebec, as it is happening today, or in B.C.

Let us not conflate the issue like the other side is doing. The solution to this problem lies with the Wet'suwet'en people. They have done that. What we are talking about today are those activists who are anti-government, anti-natural resources, anti-everything. They are fuelling these blockades, and it needs to stop for the sake of our country and the economy.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague put a lot of emphasis on the rule of law. I agree with him.

However, we learned this morning that a leadership candidate for his party believes that people who are taking the law into their own hands may be in the right. I am therefore wondering whether the Conservative Party believes that the rule of law operates on a sliding scale.

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

Madam Speaker, nobody is being flexible on the rule of law. I go back to the point I made during my speech, which is critical to this whole debate. There is a weak, complicit and activist government that is emboldening these protesters. If the hon. member wants to, he can go to my Facebook page and see the interaction that went on in Edmonton yesterday since that is what he is speaking of. At one minute and three seconds into that video, one of the protesters said the reason they are doing this is because the Prime Minister is doing nothing and the RCMP is doing nothing. They are being emboldened—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

And you condone that.

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

No, I am talking about the protesters, Madam Speaker, who are saying this, not the people who were there to clear those tracks. The protesters were saying this. If that is not emboldening the activists in this country to continue doing what they are doing, I do not know what is. The Prime Minister is solely responsible for that. It lies directly at his feet and this activist government is complicit in all of these illegal blockades and actions in this country.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I look at the motion. I read it 50 times today and I have to say that I am very disappointed. I would like to say in a steelworker way what I think of it, but I cannot; I want to be respectful. I do not think it was very well written. We are opposed to it.

However, there are some good points that are being made. The government has made spaghetti out of this whole issue. It has done a terrible job on the file. The hereditary chiefs have requested that the Prime Minister be present, and he has refused.

Does my friend believe that the Prime Minister should be at the table? I do not care if the other ministers go, but he should be at the table and nip this in the bud as quickly as possible.