Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2021

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, I congratulate her for her election victory, and I was very pleased to see her this morning with the other members of the all-party caucus on the environment. I invite other members to join in.

Her government is ambitious about fighting climate change, but in reality, Canada has the worst track record in the G7. We believe we need to drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and to do that, we need to cap oil and gas production.

However, her government talks about capping greenhouse gas emissions. I am not sure how we can do that without capping production. I would like to know what she thinks about that.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that warm welcome. I do agree we need to reduce emissions. That is clear and I think we all understand there is a climate crisis.

I think we can cap emissions on the oil and gas industry without capping production because we are moving toward means of production that are cleaner. However, I believe that the market is going to bring about the eventual transition as well. I do not believe that the oil and gas industry in Canada is going to continue the way it is right now and we are seeing market pressures that are going to bring that about as well.

I look forward to working with the member on the environment caucus.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the member. I was listening very intently to the member's speech. I really appreciated the emphasis on lifting up women and much of what she said resonated with me. However, as I was listening, I was really asking myself when many of these words that are being spoken today were going to be shifted into solutions.

I think about affordable housing that is needed for so many women, not just home ownership, but rent. I think about pharmacare and having access to the medications that we need. I spoke to a single mother who could not afford her daughter's diabetes medication, just as one example.

When will we start lifting women up with real solutions and stop the talk with empty promises?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am completely committed to lifting women up and I believe our government has been working very hard on that. I believe the very ambitious child care program will help address overall affordability. When we free up $1,500 to $2,000 for a household, it provides more money for other things.

The Canada child benefit that this government has put in place and increased has lifted 900,000 children out of poverty, many of those living in single-parent families and with women who are struggling. We will continue to work on these issues and continue to address the demands and needs that women are facing.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I will be delivering my speech in Inuktitut, so I encourage members to put their earpieces on.

[Member spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following text:]

ᐅᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨ,

ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒃᐳᖓ ᐃᓅᓪᓗᖓ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑕᐅᓪᓗᖓ ᐅᕙᓃᒃᑲᒪ. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᖅᔪᐊᖑᖃᑎᒐ Edmonton Griesbach ᒥ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔪᖅ ᐅᖃᖅᑕᖓᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖃᑕᐅᕗᖓᕙ. ᐊᒃᓱᕈᓇᖅᓯᒪᓂᑰᒧᑦᑕᐅᖅ. ᓯᕗᓪᓕᕐᒥ ᖁᕙᓕᕗᖓ ᐃᓚᓐᓂ, ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᓇᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᓂᒃ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ NDP ᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᔨᒪᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᕗᖓ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᑭᐅᓯᑦᑎᐊᒪᕆᑲᐅᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖏᒪᑕ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑯᐃᓐ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑎᖓᑦᑕ ᐅᓂᒃᑲᐅᑎᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ.

ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑲᔾᔮᕐᓇᖅᑐᐊᓗᒃ ᐊᖏᔪᐊᓘᓪᓗᓂᓗ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖓ ᑐᓴᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᖕᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᕕᑭᑦᑑᓂᖓᓐᓂ. ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᖃᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᐳᖓ ᐅᕙᓂ ᐃᒃᓴᕚᖅᐸᖕᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ 44ᖑᔪᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᔪᐊᖑᔪᓂᒃ, ᑐᓴᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᓪᓚᖁᓪᓗᒋ ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᓯᒪᔪᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᐱᓐᓇᖅᑐᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᐃᓐᓇᐅᔭᕐᓂᐊᖅᖢᖓ ᓄᓇᒋᔭᑦᑎᓐᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᓴᖏᓂᓕᐊᓘᓂᖏᓐᓂ.

ᐃᓄᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᓯᒪᔫᖃᑎᕗᓪᓗ ᐊᑯᓂᐊᓗᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᓯᒪᕗᒍᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔪᑐᖃᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒥᓐᓄᒃ. ᐃᖃᐃᕗᖓ ᔮᓐ ᐊᒪᕈᐊᓕᒃ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᖓᓐᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᕐᒥᐅᑕᐅᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ, 1986ᒥᒃ. ᐅᖃᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ “ 1947ᒥᒃ ᐃᓅᓚᐅᖅᐳᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᐳᖓ 1000ᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓂᒃ”. ᐅᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᐱᕕᔾᔪᐊᖑᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᕐᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᖑᕚᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᓱᒪᓃᓐᓇᖅ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕆᑦᑎᐊᒻᒪᕿᒃᖢᓂ ᐊᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᑭᓇᒃᑯ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᑭᐱᓯᓚᐅᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ. ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᑖᑕᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᕋ.

ᐃᓅᓯᕋ, ᐊᐃᑦᑖᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅ, ᐊᔾᔨᐅᖏᒻᒪ. ᐊᒥᓲᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᖄᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑲᐅᑎᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ. ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᓯᐅᑎᑕᐅᒐᓱᐃᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅᓱᓕ. ᐅᓂᒃᑲᐅᑎᕗᑦ, ᐊᒃᓱᕈᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᔪᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖅ, ᑕᐃᓱᒪᓂᑐᖃᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᒫᓐᓇᒧᓱᓕ ᐱᓂᖅᓗᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᒻᒪᕆᒃᐳᒍᓱᓕ.

ᑕᐅᑐᖑᐊᖁᕙᓯ. ᐅᕙᓂ ᖃᐅᑕᒫᖅ ᐃᒃᓯᕚᖃᑦᑕᖅᑎᓪᓗᓯ, ᓈᓚᒃᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᐅᔭᖅᓗᓯ ᐅᕙᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᐅᔭᖅᓗᓯ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅ. ᑐᓵᔨᖃᕐᓇᓯ, ᑐᓵᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᓇᓯ, ᕿᔪᐊᕐᔪᕋᓛᑐᐊᖅ. ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃ ᐅᖃᕐᓂᕈᕕᑦ ᓱᑰᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔫᔪᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒍᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᑯᑦ. ᑭᖑᓪᓂᖅᐹᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᕕᒃ ᒪᑐᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ 1996ᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᓱᒪᓂᑐᖃᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᐊᒥᓲᓗᐊᖅᑐᓱᓕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓱᓕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓂᑯᓂᒃ ᑭᖑᕚᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᖅᑐᓱᓕ. ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᐊᓯᐅᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᑦ. ᐱᕕᖃᖅᐳᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᕐᔪᐊᖑᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᑎᓕᐅᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖁᔨᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐋᕿᒃᓯᒋᐊᖁᔨᓪᓗᑕ. ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔫᔪᑎᒍᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᓴᐳᓐᓂᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ.

ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᔨᖅᓯᓯᒪᒐᓱᖕᓂᖅ ᑎᑭᐅᑎᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐊᒥᓲᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓵᓚᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᐃᕆᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒥᓲᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᑭᐱᓯᔪᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᒥᓲᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᕙᒃᑲ ᑭᐅᔭᕿᐊᖃᕐᓂᒃᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑯᐃᓐ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑎᖓᑦᑕ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ.

ᑕᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᑲᓇᑕ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᖏᓚᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ. ᐃᓅᓯᖃᖅᐳᒍ ᓄᖑᑎᕆᔭᐅᒐᓱᓚᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᓯᒪᔫᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᒐᓱᐊᕈᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᕋᓛᕐᓅᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ ᐱᔪᒪᓵᕈᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑦᑎᐊᕙᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᓂᒥᒃ, ᐅᕙᓘᓐᓃ ᐱᓂᕐᓗᒃᑕᐅᓛᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᐊᓚᒌᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ, ᕿᒻᒥᖏᑦ ᑐᖁᕋᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒻᒪᕆᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ.

ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑲᐅᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᓚᐅᖅᑕᕐᒥᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᐃᑦᑕᓪᓛᓗᖔ, ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᒪᓂᖃᕐᒪᑕ, ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ.

ᑐᓴᐅᒪᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᐅᔭᖅᐳᖓ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑭᓯᐊᓐᓂᑕᐅᖅ ᓂᕆᐅᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᑦᑎᐊᕙᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᐃᑦᑖᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᐊᔪᖅᓴᖅᑐᒦᑦᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋ ᓴᐱᕐᓇᑲᓴᒃᑐᖅ ᓇᓕᒧᔪᒥᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᒃᓴᓂᐊᓂᒥᒃ. ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᐅᕋᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᐱᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᑎᐊᕙᒥ ᑭᖑᕚᒋᔭᒃᓴᓐᓄᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᓂᒥᒃ.

ᐃᒡᓗᑭᒃᓴᓗᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖁᖅᑐᒦᑦᑐ ᑐᖓᕕᐊᓪᓚᕆᒪᑕ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᕈᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᐃᓚᒌᒃ ᐃᒡᓗᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᓈᒪᖏᒻᒪᕆᒃᑐᓂ, ᖃᓂᒻᒪᑖᕈᑎᓕᒻᒦᑐᓂᒃ, ᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᑲᙳᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖅᖢᑎᒃ.

ᑲᓇᑕ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐊᓘᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐃᒡᓗᓕᕆᓂᒨᖅᑎᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᖏᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕐᓇᕈᑕᐅᕗᖅ ᐃᒃᐱᓐᓂᐊᕆᑦᑎᐊᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑳᓇᑕ, ᖃᓄᐃᓯᒪᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᐅᖃᕈᒪᒋᓪᓗᖓ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓴᖏᓂᓕᐊᓘᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᑎᐊᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᓚᐅᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᖏᑎᒋᔪᓂᒃ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᒡᓗᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᖁᑎᕐᔪᐊᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᙳᒻᒪᑎᑦᑎᓪᓚᑦᑖᕐᓂᐊᕈᑎ ᐃᓄᖕᓂ ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᖁᑎᕐᔪᐊᕐᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᐳᖅ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓯᒪᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐃᒡᓗᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᓇᓕᒧᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᔪᕐᔪᐊᓂᒃ ᑲᓇᑖᕋᓱᐊᓂᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᖓᓂ. ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔫᔪᒍᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐅᖃᑎᒌᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᐳᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᕿᒃᓱᐃᑦᑎᐊᓪᓚᑖᖅᓗᑕ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᔪᒃᓴᕐᒥᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᕐᔪᐊᓂᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ 2022 ᐊᑐᕐᑕᐅᔪᒃᓴᐅᓛᖅᑐᓂᒃ.

ᓄᓇᕗᑦ, ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᑐᐊᕕᕐᓇᖅᑐᒦᖏᓐᓇᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᒥᑦᑎᐊᕙᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᒥᑦᑎᐊᕙᖃᕈᓐᓃᓚᐅᕐᓂᖓ ᖁᒃᓴᓪᓚᕈᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᕐᒥᒃ. ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᓚᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᓕᐸᐅᔭᕐᒥᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄ ᐃᓂᒋᓪᓗᐊᑕᖅᑕᖓᓐᓂ.

ᖁᔭᓕᒍᒪᕙᒃᑲ ᐃᖃᓗᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᖓᓐ ᐊᒃᑑᐸᒥᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᓕᓚᐅᒪᑕ. ᐊᒥᓲᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᒥᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᓪᓗᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᑐᐊᕕᓇᑐᒃᑰᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒃ, ᓴᓂᑭᓗᐊᖅ, ᑲᖏᖅᑐᒑᐱᒃ, ᐃᒡᓗᓕᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑎᑭᕐᕋᔪᐊᖅ, ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒋᔭᑦᑎᓂ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᕗᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᑦ. ᐊᒥᓱᒪᕆᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᑎᐊᕙᖃᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᒦᑦᑐᑦ, ᑕᐃᒫᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᑐᐊᕕᕐᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ.

ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᐃᓐᓇᓂᐊᒥᔪᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᒪᑕᒎᖅ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪ. Liberalᑯ ᓱᕋᐃᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᓂᐊᓂᕋᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᓕᓕᒫᑦ ᐱᖃᓂᐊᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋ ᐃᒥᑦᑎᐊᕙᓂ. ᓱᕋᐃᖏᓐᓇᓗᐊᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᑦᑎᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᐸᑕ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᐅᓂᖓᓐᓂ, ᐃᑲᔪᐊᓂᒃᓯᒪᔾᔭᖏᓚᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ.

ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᖏᓚᖅ. ᐊᒥᓲᓗᐊᕐᖢᑎᒃ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑕᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ. ᐃᒃᐱᖕᓂᐊᕆᓪᓚᑖᖅᐳᖓ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᑦᑕ ᓈᒪᒃᓴᖃᑎᒌᓕᕐᒧᑦ. ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ, ᐱᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᐳᒍ ᐃᓕᑕᖅᓯᓂᖅᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔫᔪᒍᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖁᑎᖃᕐᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᓐᓇᓂᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᖅᔪᐊᖑᑎᓪᓗᑕ.

ᐅᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨ, ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᕐᒪ ᐅᖓᑖᒍ ᐱᑕᖃᐅᒥᔪᖅ. ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᓛᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᓲᕐᓗ, ᓂᕿᖃᑦᑎᐊᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕆᐊᖃᓂᖓ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑕᐅᓲᑦ ᓂᐅᕕᕐᕕᖕᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᑭᓪᓕᒋᐊᖅᑎᑎᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᓂᕿᓂᒃ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᑦ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᑦᑎᓂᒃ, ᒥᖅᓱᖅᑎᓂᒃ, ᓴᓇᖑᐊᖅᑎᓂᑦ, ᑎᑎᕋᐅᔭᖅᑎᓂᒃ, ᐃᖕᖏᖅᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᓇᑕᐅᑎᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓂᒪᓐᓇᕈᑏ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐳᕙᓪᓗᓂᖅ.

ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᐃᔨᒻᒪᕆᒋᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑯᐃᓐ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑎᖏᑦᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᖄᓯᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᓗᒋᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᓪᓗᒋ ᐱᖁᔨᕗᖔᕈᑎᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐃᑦ ᑐᖁᑕᐅᔪᕕᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᕕᓃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᓪᓕᓯᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᖃᒃᓯᖃᑎᒌᖁᓕᕐᓂᒧᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᔪᕕᓃᑦ. ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑦᑎᖁᔨᓂᖅ ᐸᓯᔭᒃᓴᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒃᑯᑎᒍ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᓕᒧᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᖏᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, Wet’suwet’en ᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᖏᑦ, ᐃᓐᓇᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᒥᓐᓂ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓇᓱᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᒥᓴᕆᐊᖃᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᖃᓂᐊᐳᖓ 1960ᖏᓐᓂ ᑎᒍᐊᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐳᕙᓗᓂᒧᑦ ᐊᐅᓪᓚᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓂᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓗᐊᕐᖢᒋᑦ ᐃᓗᕖᑦ ᓇᓂᔭᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᖏᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕕᕕᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖏᓐᓇᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋ 44ᖑᔪᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕕᔪᐊᒥᒃ.

ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᕐᓗᓂᕆᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᖃᐃᓐᓇᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᒪᒥᐊᑦᑐᒦᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᓐᓃᖅᑕ ᑐᕌᖓᓚᐅᖅᒥᑕ ᓄᑖᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᓂᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖄᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃᓗ. ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑦᑎᓚᐅᕆᓯᑐᖅ ᓈᒪᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᓕᕐᓂᒧᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᒪᕆᓗᓯ ᓲᕐᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥᒃ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᓄᑦ.

ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐅᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨ

[Inuktitut text interpreted as follows:]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today, an Inuk from Nunavut. Like my colleague, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, said, I am here following extraordinary circumstances. I first thank my family, volunteers, Nunavummiut and the NDP for supporting me to be here. It is a privilege to have the opportunity to respond to the throne speech.

Nunavut is a beautiful territory that spans millions of kilometres. I know the challenge of being here and of being heard. I am committed to ensuring that, with my seat in this 44th Parliament, Nunavummiut, first nations, Métis and Inuit are heard and are touted for the strength that exists in our communities.

All indigenous people, Inuit, first nations and Métis have been here on these lands since time immemorial. The knowledge passed from generation to generation still exists in the first peoples. I remember and am reminded of John Amagoalik when he spoke to the Inuit Circumpolar Council in 1986. He said, “I was born in 1947, but I have lived a thousand years.” At that time, he was only 39 years old. In that statement, he showed the burden of holding knowledge and the need to pass it on for the future generations.

Within that same speech, John Amagoalik named a few people who were known to have died by suicide, including my father. My life, unfortunately, is not a unique story. There are too many Inuit, first nations and Métis who share my story. Our stories of tragedy, of injustice, are not just history; we are still facing colonial acts of violence to this day.

Imagine, sitting here every day, being forced to listen to me speak and me teaching those people here only in Inuktitut with no interpreter services, no devices, only a yardstick. Imagine me hitting members' hands with that yardstick each time I heard them speak English or French. This was the reality of first nations, Métis and Inuit in residential schools. It hurts us. We suffered a lot, going through the residential school system. The last residential school closed in 1996. That history is not long gone. It is still present today. Many first nations, Métis and Inuit still suffer from the intergenerational trauma imposed upon us by governments.

Those governments are not long gone either, but now we have an opportunity as parliamentarians to instruct the federal government to do better, to ensure justice, to uphold indigenous rights.

The attempt to hide this colonial history has driven far too many first nations, Métis and Inuit to addictions and too many, ultimately, to suicide. It is all of those too frequent stories of colonial violence that drive me to respond to the Speech from the Throne very critically. I wish to address it that way as an indigenous person.

Canada's relationship with Inuit and indigenous peoples has been very fractured right from the beginning. We are still living through the realities of systematic government action that sought to destroy Inuit identity and our way of life and those of other indigenous peoples in Canada. The Inuit were forced into permanent settlements with the promise of jobs, housing, safety and education for children. Some were threatened with violence to move. Families were separated, sled dogs were killed and a way of life was irreversibly altered.

Many elders are still alive today to recount those horrific events and, shamefully, many of those decisions that led to the violence and colonization of Inuit during that time are still being perpetuated to this very day.

I often hear countless stories of heartbreak and hope. All too often, being in poverty prevents many from hopes of achieving a socio-economic status equal to that of Canadians across this country. Nunavummiut understand that there are incredible opportunities to make our communities stronger and a better place for the next generation.

Overcrowded and mouldy homes are at the heart of too many of the challenges we face. Families are forced to live in unsuitable conditions, communicable diseases spread, elders are put into humiliating positions and gender-diverse individuals are forced to stay in dangerous positions.

In a country as rich as Canada, we have traditional knowledge and custom knowledge.

I would like to take the opportunity to work with members to look at our traditional, legal knowledge and philosophy of life, so that we can work together to solve our problems. If we are going to work together, then we need to approve the declaration of the indigenous people.

I will shorten my speech as per your request.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I want to thank the speaker for letting her voice resonate in her language in this House. It is a very valuable addition to what we need to be hearing more often.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I want to acknowledge the words that the member has stated. I think her words speak for herself. I have no question to pose to her.

I also want to take this opportunity on behalf of the House to thank the translators for the immense work that they do and their continued work in letting indigenous languages resonate throughout this House.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member who just spoke. He and I met and he understands the situation. I know I can work very well with him. As I represent the NDP, I plan to work with all parties to better our lives and our people's lives. I plan to work with ministers as well.

I also met with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami today. They met with the member also. I understand that he is working with the Inuit national organization, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, of Canada, as they stated to me today. I encourage the member to keep that up.

Members should listen to the indigenous organizations and work with them, changing policies if that can better their lives. We talked a lot about funding; we never have enough to meet all our needs to solve problems, but we understand that we also have to work together very hard to improve things.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know what it is like standing up as new members in this House. I know that the hon. member has spoken her people's history into this place in a way that will be recorded in Hansard forever.

I would like to provide the hon. member the opportunity to finish her thoughts, or add more if there was anything missing from her reflections, to the House in this moment.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to repeat that clean water is a problem in aboriginal communities. It has been very problematic all these years. We indigenous people can no longer be discounted or written off in hopes that we disappear. We are here now, in the House of Commons. We are now persons and no longer wards of the government. We are human beings like everyone else. We are no longer referred to as wards of the state. We are human beings.

Indigenous peoples have their own governing system, which helped them survive all these years. Listen to the knowledge they have about governance and customary law. It needs to be incorporated into solving today's issues as they affect indigenous communities. I know I have to keep repeating “clean water for all indigenous communities”. I have to repeat it. This is not the first time, and I will repeat it again. I will have another chance to speak again.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak Inuktitut. Romeo Saganash helped pave the way for me and gave me the confidence. I want to follow in his footsteps. He was my role model. I will work as hard as him too.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nunavut for that beautiful speech and her powerful words.

As this is my first speech of this Parliament, I would like to begin, as is our tradition, by thanking the people who have invested their trust in me, the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. To the folks back home, my ongoing commitment to them, no matter how they voted, is to listen carefully, to represent honestly and to work hard each and every day.

My biggest gratitude, of course, goes to my family, to my two daughters Ella and Maddie, and to my wife, Michelle, who is an amazing leader in her own right and, of course, my most trusted and close adviser. I begin my speech by sending them my love from 4,500 kilometres away.

Every riding in Canada has something unique about it, and among the many unique features of Skeena—Bulkley Valley that stand out, one of them that is remarked on the most, especially by folks from more urban parts of Canada, is its sheer size. Visiting the many communities across such a vast rural region is both the most rewarding and important part of this role, and often the most challenging.

The last community I had a chance to visit before I headed east to Ottawa for the start of this sitting was the very special community of Takla Landing on the territory of the Takla Nation. To get to Takla from my home in Smithers, we drove three hours eastward on Highway 16, turned left on Highway 27, drove on to Fort St. James then drove and stopped in the communities of Binche and Tachie on the shore of Stuart Lake, and then continued on another three hours on a radio-controlled, forest service road to a part of remote northwest B.C. where few people live and very few people visit.

The community of Takla is a special one. It is hard to convey the setting in words in this place, but the village is perched on the shore Takla Lake. When I got there, the first snow of late fall was sitting on the mountains. When the clouds lifted and the sun was shining for a brief moment, it was such a spectacular setting.

The territory of the Takla Nation includes three great watersheds, three great river systems. The water from its lands flow into the Skeena and into the Fraser system, both of which flow into the Pacific, and also into the Finlay, which flows to the Arctic Ocean.

We were welcomed in this community by a number of local leaders, including Elder Janet West and Councillor Wilma Abraham. The staff toured us around the community and showed us, with pride, their school, water plant, potlatch building and their new transfer station. They showed me the land that they had cleared adjacent to the community to protect it from wildfire, like the big wildfires that we saw in my region back in 2018. They plan to build housing on that land now and have a vision to build 100 houses in 10 years.

It was a memorable visit, and one of the things that I will remember most about that visit is something that Dave Thompson told me. Just as we were leaving, we were gathered in their boardroom at their band office and he said, “Takla is a proud community. We are proud of what we showed you today, and we wanted to focus on the community's strengths, but I hope that does not give you the impression that this is a community that does not need help.”

His words made me think about northwest B.C., this place I am so humbled and honoured to represent here in the House of Commons and the people who call it home. The people of the northwest are resilient, resourceful, proud of where they live and proud of how they live. If I were to simply rattle through the list of the myriad challenges that people in northwest B.C. face, I would be worried that this fact would not come through first. So, instead I thought it was right to start by honouring the innate strength of my neighbours, their resilience and their love for the place that we call home.

As we face the most serious public health crisis in a century, a growing climate crisis that has been felt so acutely in British Columbia right now and a housing crisis that is denying such a basic human right to so many families, it is all too clear that the need for federal leadership has never been greater. Yet, reading through the Speech from the Throne, I think that many Canadians would be struck by its lack of depth and its lack of addressing the many issues that we face. At a time of so many pressing challenges, this speech failed to reflect the kind of bold vision and leadership I think Canadians and certainly the people in northwest B.C. feel that we need.

Across the northwest, the collapse of wild salmon stocks is causing real alarm. It is hard to describe how integral these fish are to people's way of life in Skeena for food, culture and livelihood, yet in a single generation this resource that people have depended on for generations, over thousands of years, is disappearing right before their eyes. The salmon that arrive at Takla Lake are not Skeena River salmon: they are Stuart River sockeye. They are from the Fraser River system. They swim over 1,000 kilometres from the ocean to spawn there. It is truly a miracle of nature. Sadly, the Stuart River sockeye have been decimated by the Big Bar landslide, mismanagement of fisheries, industrialization, habitat impacts and all of the other things that are impacting wild salmon.

When I was in Takla, Keith West gave us a tour of the new salmon hatchery. Earlier in the year, the residents travelled down to Lillooet on the lower Fraser and intercepted the early Stuart River run of those few fish that make it back up the river. They took the eggs from those fish and are now incubating them in a tiny shipping container hatchery in the community of Takla. They hope that the few that survive will make it back down the river, out to the ocean and then all the way back home to replenish the stock that community has existed on for millennia. In communities up and down the B.C. north coast, people are looking to the current government to finally come to the aid of wild salmon. There is hope in recent funding announcements, but people are waiting to see results on the ground and in the water. There was nothing in the Speech from the Throne about wild salmon.

Similarly, forestry has long been at the centre of many communities in the region, such as Burns Lake, Houston, Fraser Lake, Fort St. James and my home community of Smithers. Getting a softwood lumber agreement would make a real difference for the viability and long-term success of the processing facilities in those communities. However, after years of uncertainty, instead of an agreement what we see is the Americans doubling softwood lumber duties. There was nothing in the throne speech on softwood lumber and a softwood lumber agreement.

In a huge rural riding, transportation is a constant feature of the daily lives of people and often a challenging one. A few weeks back, as part of my commute east, I had a chance to ride on BC Bus North. This is the new regional bus system the B.C. government put in place in the wake of Greyhound pulling out of our region. In a region that includes the Highway of Tears, which tragically so many people have heard about, the trip on the bus was convenient and it was safe. At $25 for a two-hour trip, it was also affordable.

A lot of regions across Canada are not as fortunate as northern B.C. I do not think any member in this place who is from a rural riding would disagree that having safe, affordable, consistent passenger transport is vital for their constituents. Today rural, low-income Canadians who do not drive have fewer transportation options than they have had in 100 years, yet there was nothing in the throne speech on connecting rural Canada. Sadly, the current government gave up long ago on passenger rail as a way to connect rural residents across our country. We cannot let it give up on bus transportation in the same way.

Housing affordability is a challenge in every single community across Canada, but in addition to affordability, there is another aspect that is being neglected, which is housing in indigenous communities. In the riding that I represent of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the community of Klemtu is struggling with housing issues. It has a vision for building new houses and repairing the ones that are in the community. I heard recently from Chief Councillor Doug Neasloss about a storm that damaged 16 houses. These are now leaking and have mould issues. These homes house elders and children. That has to be improved upon, yet there was nothing in the throne speech on indigenous housing.

To finish, I will end where I began: with the strength and resilience of the people of the northwest. It has been a hard year and a half with this health crisis. People have lost loved ones. People have lost livelihoods. We have been called upon to look out for our neighbours and each other in ways that we have not for a long time. I know we are going to make it. In the meantime, there are many other pressing issues that deserve our attention, and I am thankful to the Speaker for giving me the time this evening to highlight a few of them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

When we return to the address in reply, the member will have five minutes for questions and comments.

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

Health

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 17 years ago, I went to the Joel Steele arena in my hometown of Winchester, excited to donate blood for the first time. Little did I know, until I got to the questionnaire and it asked if I was a man who had sex with a man, that I would be disqualified from doing so.

I told Canadians, through a video earlier this year in some advocacy I have been trying to do to end the discriminatory blood ban, that this was one of the very few times in my life that I felt there was something wrong by being gay.

Here we are at the end of 2021, 17 years later, and that discrimination still exists in our country today. There is an experience and that experience is replicated by thousands of MSM men across the country.

The frustrating part is that there is a clear, scientific solution to end this discrimination and end this stigma that has lasted for far too long. The Canadian Medical Association, the All Blood is Equal campaign and numerous countries around the world have changed their questionnaire to be based on sexual behaviour as opposed to sexual orientation.

Six years ago, three elections ago now, the government promised to end it. It did not promise to study it or say it was pending review. It did not claim it was independent and could not do anything about it or that it could only study it and see what was recommended. It promised to end it.

Nevertheless, here we are the end of 2021 and Canadian Blood Services finally, back in June during pride month, said that it was going to recommend an end to the ban on donations for men who have sex with men. It is good news and a step in the right direction; I acknowledge that.

The government has now known for six months that this recommendation would be coming from Canadian Blood Services. It had the option, through the Food and Drug Acts, to act earlier to eliminate a provision no longer deemed necessary.

Blood Regulations, section (5) reads:

The Minister may, by notice in writing, remove a term or condition...no longer necessary to prevent a compromise to human safety or the safety of blood.

Last Friday, in the House of Commons, I asked what the government's plan was, knowing for six months that this application would be coming at the end of the year. At the end of the day, the minister's response to me was very inadequate. This issue deserves urgency and it deserves dignity.

I appreciate the minister being at the late show. I acknowledge the rarity of having a minister here and appreciate it.

My challenge in this brief time is to challenge the minister not to talk about the last six years, the studies and the research that had to go into this. It has now been done and we know an application is coming.

Gay and bisexual men in our country want to know what date they can safely donate blood. The minister and the government have known this was coming for six months. What is the process now, knowing that application is coming? What is the review and timeline process to finally end the discrimination and give the dignity back to the LGBT community?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for giving me my first opportunity in this Parliament to address the House and thank all those who put their faith in me for the third time just a few short weeks ago in the great riding of Québec.

Of course I want to thank my family, my partner Marie-Chantal, our children, Étienne, Clémence and Antoine, my parents, who guided me toward everything I have ever done, as well as my volunteers and my amazing constituency team members, who work for the people of Quebec City every day.

I am also grateful to my colleague for the opportunity to talk about diversity and inclusion in the context of blood donation in Canada.

Protecting the safety and security of the blood supply across the country is a top priority for Health Canada. Canada has one of the safest blood supply systems in the world thanks to complete regulatory oversight of blood collection.

Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec supervise and administer Canada's and Quebec's blood supply systems. These organizations operate independently of governments and politicians and cannot be forced to change their blood donor exclusion policy unless safety issues arise.

The Government of Canada is committed to protecting the safety and security of the country's blood supply, and we are also committed to supporting blood donation policies in Canada that are not discriminatory and that are based on science.

In 2016, Health Canada approved a change in the waiting period for men who have sex with men and reduced it from five years to 12 months. In 2019, this waiting period was reduced again, this time to three months.

These changes were made following the detailed review of scientific data provided in the regulatory submissions of the Canadian Blood Services and Héma‑Québec, and are gradual steps. In the meantime, the research is tending toward the ultimate objective of the pre-selection of donors based on behavioural criteria rather than gender.

To date, Health Canada has not yet received a request from the Canadian Blood Services or Héma‑Québec to totally eliminate the waiting period in question.

Canada is a leader in this area. The United States, Australia and New Zealand all established a three-month waiting period after Canada made this change. Furthermore, in September 2021, Health Canada authorized a submission from the Canadian Blood Services seeking to implement other pre-selection and collection processes that would let men who have sex with other men donate plasma for fractionation.

The Government of Canada has also given $3 million to the Canadian Blood Services to work with Héma‑Québec on creating research projects that would help inform changes in this area.

Finally, as time always passes too quickly, I will add that the 2019 budget contained an additional $2.4 million over three years for plasma donation research.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, everybody in the House wants a safe blood supply in this country, and everybody wants to end the discriminatory blood ban. These two issues are not incompatible. Yes, I know the minister has not received the package yet. However, he knows it is coming.

There needs to be an urgency. There needs to be something of dignity to show that men who have sex with men can walk and chew gum, as an analogy, for lack of a better one. The minister could say he knows it is coming. He could outline the process and the time frame, give a date and give hope to make it happen.

I will say to the minister that I am not going away on this issue. Tonight's late show is one thing. It will continue. More detail, more urgency and more dignity need to be given to this issue. We are getting close, but the bureaucratic answers have to stop.

We can and we must end the blood ban now. Please.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will digress briefly from my notes to speak in English given that I am fortunate that the member is here before me.

I want to let the member know what I think he already knows, that his advocacy and length of experience with the matter is very credible, very touching, and everyone listening to him knows that we owe him a debt of gratitude. I would like to indicate that in the process.

I would also remind the member that the Government of Canada can only amend the Canadian Blood Services' or Héma-Québec's exclusion policies for safety reasons and that it must follow procedure.

Seniors

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is really happening in Canada. The poorest seniors in our entire country are losing their ability to support themselves. Just to be clear, and so that all Canadians understand, single seniors who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement make an income of just over $19,000 a year. Couples make just over $25,000. Regardless of what part of Canada they live in, they are below the poverty line.

My office is hearing from seniors across Canada. They are scared, desperate and afraid. A few have come forward to share very personal stories and to express their concern about the realities they are facing. I want to point out their tremendous bravery. They are terrified that by speaking out, their voices will mean that they are punished further. I certainly hope that the minister is listening.

I received an email yesterday from a 71-year-old senior who had been working. He applied for pandemic relief because he was no longer working due to the pandemic. Now his GIS has been cut off, and recently he was diagnosed with cancer. The reality is he cannot afford the medication he needs for his treatment. He is also facing eviction on December 23. I hope the minister puts that in her calendar. A 71-year-old senior in this country, sick with cancer, will be homeless on December 23, this month. This is what is happening to an estimated 88,000 seniors across the country, according to the PBO's report. It is one story of far too many.

I have heard the Prime Minister and minister say in the House that they are working on it, but I am here to say that is not good enough. This is a crisis. The most vulnerable are seeing their lives go up in smoke. When they do not know where they are going to live, and they do not know what is going to happen to their health and well-being, how can we ask them to wait? For me, this is about a bar of dignity. All of us as Canadians should collectively decide the bar, and if we see anyone fall below it, we are going to stand up and say that is too far and we must do better.

Imagine my shock when I heard the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, in response to a media question on this issue, say, “It's a more complicated issue than one would think because there's serious kind of fairness and equity issue for people who may have earned similar amounts in employment income. If a senior worked last year and made an equivalent amount, they too would have lost their GIS or had their GIS potentially reduced, and so we're working on a path forward that recognizes this.” It appears that for the government, the bar of dignity needs to be lowered more.

May I remind the House again that single seniors receive just over $19,000 a year and couples just over $25,000. May I also remind the House that these seniors were working, and when the pandemic happened, this was the only source of help they could receive. Is it the plan of the government to punish the poorest? It certainly appears to be a plan to punish the poorest and protect the rich, such as the big corporations that received tremendous amounts of taxpayer dollars and wage subsidies and then gave their shareholders significant payouts.

Here is a quote from The Globe and Mail. Perhaps it will help the minister understand. The article states, “Beyond a handful of hedge funds, some of the largest wealth managers in the country - household names such as Franklin Templeton, CI Financial, Gluskin Sheff & Associates - collected CEWS. Collectively, these three companies manage close to $110 billion of assets in Canada.”

The Scotiabank Canadian Hedge Fund Index, which measures the monthly performance of Canadian-domiciled hedge funds with assets under management of at least $15 million, shows an average return of 11% in 2020, the best year for the industry in the decade. The government owes seniors some respect.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member on her re-election and on her role as shadow minister for seniors.

Before I respond to my hon. colleague's question, allow me to briefly take a moment to thank the constituents of Brampton West, who have elected me to the House for the third time as their voice. I will continue to fight for the priorities that matter to them. Allow me to also briefly thank my volunteers and supporters, who made this possible, and of course my family and friends, who have always had my back.

Being my community's voice in Parliament is truly the greatest privilege of my life, and as the new Minister of Seniors, I look forward to working with the hon. member and indeed all members of the House to find the best ways to serve Canada's seniors and ensure that the most vulnerable get the support they need.

My connection to seniors is a very personal one. During the pandemic, I volunteered to go back to my roots as a registered nurse. I spent my time on the front lines vaccinating health care workers and members of my community, and standing alongside the Canadian Armed Forces, who came to a long-term care home in my city of Brampton. It was one of the hardest hit long-terms care homes in my province. The experiences I had remind me every day to continue to fight for the most vulnerable.

The health and social well-being of seniors across Canada has been top of mind for many, and the financial situation for seniors has been a challenge. However, when it comes to supporting seniors, I am proud of our record to date.

One of the first things we did as a government when we were elected in 2015 was to reduce the eligibility of OAS to age 65 from 67. The Conservatives had attempted to raise the age of retirement and take money out of the pockets of Canadians who need retirement benefits to make ends meet. We enhanced the CPP in a historic way that was mirrored by QPP. We also strengthened the OAS and raised the GIS for single seniors, which made a real difference in the lives of many seniors.

For immediate support during the pandemic, we provided a one-time $500 payment for older seniors this year and will be increasing OAS by 10% for those age 75 and older next year. This historic increase will be their first real increase in decades, beyond inflation increases. This will make a difference for older seniors as they live longer and as their needs increase.

Canadians re-elected a government on a bold, ambitious plan that will help seniors who need it the most. I look forward to working with all members of the House on delivering this ambitious agenda.

We can all agree that the pandemic has been challenging for many seniors, but every step of the way, our government has been there to support seniors, especially the most vulnerable. We moved very quickly to provide immediate and direct financial support to seniors. Every year seniors across Canada benefit from programs and funding that our government provides through the New Horizons for Seniors program. I am extremely excited to announce that this year's call for proposals for NHSP is now open, and I encourage all members to apply.

When it comes to the CERB and GIS issue, to remind the hon. member once again, we are aware of it, as I mentioned earlier. We know it has been hard on some seniors this year, and I can assure the hon. member that we are working on this issue to find the right solution to support those who are affected.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I definitely respect the member's role as a health care provider and the work she may have done, but I do not understand in any way how the member is proud of her government right now.

I know that less than 8% of those living in the member's riding are seniors, but there are many seniors across the country who are at a point of total crisis. They are going to lose their homes. They are being evicted right now. They cannot afford their medications, which means they are in and out of the hospital because they are getting sicker.

Seniors used their pandemic funds to fix their cars, fix their teeth and pay off a bit of debt. It is so wrong that we are punishing the poorest while rewarding the wealthiest. This should not be a debate in the House and I am totally embarrassed that it is. The government needs to do better by the seniors who built this country.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I think we can all agree with how challenging the pandemic has been on seniors, especially the most vulnerable seniors, but every step of the way, our government has been there to support seniors by strengthening their GIS and ensuring they have the supports and services they need.

When it comes to the CERB and GIS issue, as I reminded the hon. colleague earlier, I understand it has been hard on some seniors this year. I can assure the hon. member that it is a priority for me. We are working actively on this file right now, and we are going to be there to support the most vulnerable, as we always have been.

Housing

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk in the House about housing supply.

Across the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, up to 25% of newly built luxury condos are sitting vacant and homes, including older housing co-ops and purpose-built rental apartments that have served our communities for decades are being bought up by developers at a rapid speed. Developers are buying them up, because government policies have turned the housing market into a stock market.

Governments at every level have overseen the financialization of housing. Instead of protecting our social housing stock they encouraged upzoning and gentrification in the name of density. Density dreams belong to developers. The financialization of housing is only working for the wealthy and leaving people behind. Truly affordable social housing has been sacrificed to create an asset class for pension funds and the wealthiest people and companies across the globe.

Right now in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, hundreds of older townhomes and apartments are sitting empty. There are entire blocks of single-family homes boarded up ready for redevelopment, and these homes have been empty for years. Developers choose not to fill them, so they do not have spend one cent on maintenance or pay tenants out when the time comes to begin redevelopment. This is wrong.

During this housing crisis, governments have allowed wealthy developers to hoard housing, allowing perfectly good homes to sit empty to protect the profits of corporations over the well-being of my residents.

There is also a problem with the marketing of housing. High-end sales centres for luxury condos exist overseas. Actually, when a traveller arrives through the international terminal at YVR, there are enticing posters of luxury housing to attract international investment. Even on the local front, developers begin marketing projects even before the municipalities rezone the land. It is disrespectful and it disregards communities.

The current housing crisis appears to be a crisis of negligence in protecting precious housing supply that people call home. I hear the calls for “supply, supply, supply”, and I need to clarify that call. What is needed is affordable supply. The federal government must put a laser focus on maintaining what is left of housing co-ops, purpose-built rentals, not-for-profit-run housing, in the country before it is all gone, and the federal government needs to immediately reinvest in social housing, not in capital loans, but ongoing, stable operating funds to get people housed now.

I want to share just a few of the things I have heard from social housing partners on the ground that are competing with corporate interests to keep the most vulnerable housed. For every one new purpose-built rental unit that is being built, we are losing three. The federal government needs a moratorium on REITs. The rate they are buying up co-ops and purpose-built rental housing is alarming and is contributing to disappearing rental stock. We need a social development acquisition fund in addition to the urban housing accelerator fund, so not-for-profits can buy housing.

What I hear from the not-for-profits is that right now they need to put up their own capital to secure funding for the rental housing incentives, and that does not work for them. CMHC is not nimble enough. The limitations at CMHC need to be fixed. It has not been able to deliver housing at the pace of the need.

I ask the minister again to get much-needed affordable homes to people now.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam for her question and for her advocacy, and I want to congratulate her on her recent election.

I welcome the member's focus on affordable housing, and our government agrees with that side of the House that every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. This is an issue that should unite all of us. The need for more affordable housing is one of the biggest challenges our country is facing. It is not just a question of housing; it is also a question of making sure our economic recovery after COVID is an inclusive economic recovery. Housing will be key to making sure no one is left behind. This is not a new problem. It requires a long-term plan and consistent action.

Housing, therefore, is a key priority for our government. That is why we developed Canada's first-ever national housing strategy, followed closely by the National Housing Act and a commitment to take a human rights approach to housing.

In 2017, the national housing strategy was projected to spend $40 billion over the next 10 years, and that program has now grown to $72.5 billion. In the past year alone, we have made hundreds of announcements and held countless opening celebrations to welcome people into their new homes, in British Columbia, for example. All of them were possible through the national housing strategy. It required, and was the result of, strong partnerships from coast to coast to coast.

Take, for example, the bilateral housing agreements that we negotiated with every province and territory. Through those agreements, we are able to not only build new housing but also maintain the federal community housing stock that is there.

As my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam may recall, just last March we announced significant support for individuals and families in British Columbia. Our 10-year, $517-million Canada-British Columbia benefit will go directly into the pockets of British Columbians, helping 25,000 households across the province of British Columbia to pay their rent. That is the national housing strategy in action.

As we continue to make progress on that strong foundation, we recognize that more work needs to be done, so that is why we introduced the rapid housing initiative in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, as a response to the housing challenges made worse by the pandemic. Through the first round, we were targeting building 3,000 new permanent affordable housing units, and we blew past that target to build 4,700 housing units: 100% federally funded, permanent, affordable housing units. In the second round, collectively with the first round, we seek to build 9,200 permanent affordable housing units for Canadians experiencing homelessness or those who are at risk of experiencing homelessness.

As I said, there is more work to be done, and I agree with my hon. colleague. That is why, in the throne speech, members heard that we are planning to launch a housing accelerator fund that will help cities expedite housing. It will bring on more planners. It will offset the cost of land purchases. It will help build the infrastructure needed for housing.

Home ownership is also important. We need to make sure more and more Canadians can access the dream of home ownership, so I look forward to the hon. member's supporting these initiatives. We are making deep, sustained and long-term investments in housing, but we share the member's commitment to making sure all Canadians have a safe and affordable place to call home.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember the minister coming to my community for an opening, for a photo opportunity, and the government came in at the very last minute, at the 11th hour of that project, with a loan. After almost five years of negotiation with local partners, with non-profits, with our city and with the taxpayers of the city of Coquitlam, who came forward with their own money, the government showed up at the 11th hour with a small loan.

This is not working for housing providers. The housing is just not getting on the ground at the speed that it needs to come. In relation to the rapid housing initiatives, that information did not come down to municipalities fast enough. There were so many problems and gaps with it. There were many, many projects denied, which did not get built.

We need solutions now. I understand there are plans. What can we be doing now?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for every challenge the hon. member mentioned, we actually have a different program in the national housing strategy to address it.

On the issue of loans, that is for rental construction. We have another program called the co-investment fund that builds deeply affordable housing. On the rapid housing initiative, I am surprised the hon. member is saying the money did not get there quickly enough. We had a separate stream for cities, and we gave the money directly to them. The only condition we put on them was that the housing had to be built in 12 months or less and had to target vulnerable populations. Whether they built new housing or acquired existing properties was totally up to them; we trusted them to make the right decisions because they know best what they need to do.

In terms of the project stream, those projects are landing in British Columbia and they are creating deeply affordable housing. Does that mean that the job is done? Absolutely not. We need to do more. In terms of the solutions that are necessary, we are always open to partnering with municipalities, provinces and territories, and indigenous governments to make sure that more and more affordable housing is being built for Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

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

(The House adjourned at 7:20 p.m.)