Debates of April 15th, 2021

Bill C-15—Time Allocation Motion

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who may wish to ask questions to rise in their places or to activate the “raised hand” function so the Chair has some idea of how many wish to participate in the question period.

The hon. member for La Prairie.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is imposing time allocation, better known as a gag order.

This is an exceptional measure that should only be proposed on rare occasions and agreed to even more rarely. It is an exceptional measure that applies to exceptional circumstances.

However, the current government has made a habit of using this measure. It almost always imposes gag orders and time allocation motions. That has become the government's modus operandi.

Why is that the case? I think that the answer lies with the current government's management of its legislative calendar, which has lacked rigour and effectiveness. Even though the opposition parties often co-operate, the government is still not managing its calendar properly and always ends up imposing time allocation motions.

Bill C-15 is an extremely important bill. Today is the second day of debate. The first day, we debated this bill for only an hour and now the government is already moving a time allocation motion.

Of course, Bill C-15 is very important for first nations, but it is important to understand that the debates in the House are also very important, and the government needs to respect that.

My question is simple. Why does the government want to stop debate at this particular point in time?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Obviously, I agree with him about the importance of Bill C-15.

First, there are no surprises in the bill. It is based on a previous bill introduced by our former colleague Roméo Saganash, so members are familiar with it and it has already been debated in the House of Commons and studied in committee. We therefore need to move forward.

With regard to the work of the House, the Conservative Party's strategy is to filibuster all of our legislation. That is what it did to the bill on medical assistance in dying, the 2020 fall economic statement and the net-zero legislation. The Conservative Party always tries to stop bills from being examined and passed by filibustering.

That is why I want to thank the NDP and the Bloc Québécois for their co-operation on the bill on medical assistance in dying. As a result of that co-operation, we are able to move forward and pass very important bills that represent progressive measures in the history of our Parliament and our country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we move on to questions, I would ask members to keep their interventions to no more than one minute.

The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it kind of ironic that the government continues to use time allocation on a bill that purports to provide indigenous Canadians with free, prior and informed consent and that the Prime Minister has chosen to ignore the multitude of indigenous leaders who have yet to have their voices heard.

We support the aspirations of UNDRIP, we have been perfectly clear about this, but there are significant issues that need to be addressed with this legislation. We need to get this right, we need to define “free, prior and informed consent” before it moves through the legislative process. For example, it has taken over 10 years to gain clarity from Canadian courts on section 35 rights enshrined in Canada's Constitution.

The lack of clarity, that lack of understanding of key concepts of Bill C-15, threatens to turn the clock back on economic reconciliation and dismantle the hard work of indigenous leaders. How does the government actually justify ignoring the legitimate concerns indigenous leaders and communities have on Bill C-15?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not challenge the hon. member on his sense of irony, given his party's dilatory tactics every step of the way with every piece of government legislation.

What I can say is that this bill is built on a previous bill, Bill C-262, brought forward Romeo Saganash. There are no surprises. These discussions have been had in the House of Commons and are continuing to be had with indigenous leadership in all its forms across Canada, in all its diversity across Canada.

With respect to FPIC in particular, it is a contextual process that will often have a study at committee stage, and that will happen. I know INAN has already done a prestudy largely focusing on that point. There is more than adequate discussion thus far, and that discussion will continue through the rest of the parliamentary process.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it concerns me because we had the first half of debate for second reading a couple of months ago yet the government continues to stall debate, and now once again we are forced into time allocation.

I am wondering why the government has put off this bill knowing that in the last session of Parliament this bill ended up not being passed through the Senate because it did not have enough time. Why are we now at the 11th hour again, forcing the government to put in place time allocation?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for her work on this issue and her leadership on this issue, as well as the leadership of her party in hopefully supporting this time allocation motion.

We are here because of the dilatory tactics of the Conservative Party on other measures, such as the fall economic statement which was debated. Those debates were repeated ad nauseam even though the content of that bill was meant to help Canadians in facing the worst pandemic we have faced in 100 years.

We are here because this bill is known to the House of Commons. As the hon. member points out, it went through the previous Parliament in its previous form when it was brought forward as a private member's bill by Romeo Saganash. It only died in the Senate because of, again, the blocking and dilatory tactics of Conservative senators to let it die on the Order Paper.

We are moving because this is a bill that needs to be passed. We need to get to the next stage, which is the action plan co-developed with indigenous peoples across Canada, in order to get us all to a better place. It is a bill about indigenous human rights. We are very much supportive of that and we very much wish to move this forward.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard an earful from the Minister of Justice about why we have to do this here today. I do not know how much of that is actually verifiable, because I have been in this House many times. Today is the first day that I will get to speak on this bill. I have spoken to many indigenous organizations in my riding and in my province in developing resources across Canada. They all want a say in this matter. They all want to make sure that what we are doing here is the right way to move forward.

I know there are many voices across this House, in all parties, that want to make sure that we do this correctly as we move forward here and this requires actual reading. I hear the Minister of Justice say that Conservatives have been dilatory in this, but this has just arrived here. If we need to choose this to move forward here, let Parliament sit, let us get these things heard and let us move good legislation forward in this House.

There are so many issues presented in this legislation that need to be addressed by this House openly by all members of this House, discussed so we know exactly what is on the table here and what will change going forward. To rush this bill through, as opposed to anything else the Liberals have put on the table to use as delay tactics in this House, is insincere.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member is generally supportive of UNDRIP and that he is in dialogue with indigenous leadership in his province. It has been clear in this session of the House of Commons that the Conservatives will resort to dilatory tactics. We saw that with respect to MAID when they refused every single attempt to prolong debate, despite the fact that outside of the House of Commons the justice critic was saying precisely that he would debate it in extended hours. Every time we brought forward a motion for extended hours, they refused.

We are here today simply because the Conservative Party will use every dilatory tactic in its book in order to slow down the progress of progressive legislation, such as this piece of progressive legislation. We have debated a previous version of this bill in the House. A committee has studied it. The INAN committee has done a prestudy of this bill. We will continue to move forward in dialogue with indigenous leadership across Canada and in dialogue with members in this House who are sincere about the ideals in this bill and moving this bill forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to pick up on the idea of the importance of UNDRIP. This is an issue that has been before the House, in one form or another, for quite a while now. When we speak about reconciliation, we talk about issues, such as reforming justice legislation and doing what we can in dealing with systemic racism. UNDRIP also plays an important aspect in reconciliation.

Can he take a broader approach in terms of why it is so important that we pass Bill C-15?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, UNDRIP is 25 years old. It was developed at the United Nations with a great deal of indigenous leadership from indigenous peoples in Canada, such as former Conservative MP, Chief Wilton Littlechild and Sákéj Henderson, along with others.

The contents of UNDRIP are well known. Romeo Saganash then took up the torch in the last Parliament, brought in a private member's bill, which was studied and which went through all three debates in the House of Commons and through committee, but sadly died on the Order Paper because of dilatory tactics by Conservative senators. We also have the example in British Columbia, which has implemented UNDRIP legislation at the provincial level.

There is a great deal of knowledge about what the potential for UNDRIP would be. Fundamentally, this is a human rights document about the human rights of indigenous peoples and this is a good piece of progressive legislation that needs to move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the justice minister that getting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples passed is a fundamental human rights issue. I am concerned that we are once again at the 11th hour. We had so much opportunity to discuss these issues and now we are having to use time allocation. To me, this reflects a larger problem: The Liberals talk about working with indigenous people, but continue to ignore their legal obligations.

For example, I would like to ask the minister about the issue of St. Anne's Indian Residential School, where the justice department lawyers suppressed evidence, presented false narratives, lied at hearings and had cases thrown out. They are ignoring Justice Glustein, who has ordered them not to destroy the documents. They have set up this so-called process that is actually excluding over 160 survivors and will make no effort to even include them.

The minister has not even talked to the survivors, so how can he come to the House and talk about how the Liberals are going to work for reconciliation when they refuse to even speak with Edmund Metatawabin and the leaders of St. Anne's about the crimes that were committed in those hearings by justice department lawyers?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question allows me to correct some of the misconceptions in the public domain.

In 2016, Department of Justice lawyers went to the Supreme Court of Canada arguing precisely to maintain the records from St. Anne's and other residential schools because of their importance to Canadian polity and our sense of history, as well as to the justice that would be possible for survivors, and we lost. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that those documents had to be destroyed.

We are in a process of trying to work within the parameters of that decision to maintain documents for as long as possible, so that survivors will have access to them to the extent that it helps their claims. Our lawyers are working in good faith to try to preserve those documents for as long as possible, notwithstanding the order from the Supreme Court of Canada. I welcome the recent ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal that we are studying carefully, which hopefully will give us the continued wiggle room not to destroy any documents.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much to say here and so much to clarify. The arguments are extremely nuanced. The implications of this bill are profound. There are voices that must still be empowered through this process. This is for all of Canada. Canadians deserve a fulsome debate. MPs deserve the opportunity to contribute to that fulsome debate.

Would the minister agree that even good, progressive legislation has to go through the parliamentary process? We need to have these conversations out in the open. There are many voices, on either side of the bill, who should have their day in the House of Commons. Would the minister agree?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member in principle. We need to hear voices and we need to move legislation through, but I remind her that this is a process that began 25 years ago with the passage of UNDRIP at the United Nations. It is a process that was picked up in Canada by Romeo Saganash in the previous Parliament. It is a process in which we will continue to be in dialogue with other parliamentarians and continue to be in dialogue in a distinctions-based fashion with the myriad forms of indigenous leadership across Canada.

This is just a way station in the process. It will continue through the development of an action plan for the implementation of UNDRIP afterward. I would suggest to the hon. member that is really where the heavy lifting is going to be done with respect to our relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous people in Canada. I agree with her, but we have to be careful to not let perfection be the enemy of the good. We need to move this legislation forward in order to get to the next step and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to go to the next question.

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to the pre-study at INAN and all the work that has supposedly been done on this legislation already.

I do not want to let the facts get in the way of talking points, but at the pre-study at the INAN committee, we had numerous requests from individual leaders of first nations, groups of people representing first nations, and indigenous business groups that had not had the opportunity to have their say and give their input on this important piece of legislation, because the minister's party limited the amount of debate we could even have at the pre-study at INAN. I understand it has also been forced to have a pre-study in the Senate.

My Bloc colleague pointed out, very clearly, that at this point we have had one hour of debate on this bill. As a new member of Parliament, I am not privy to all of the history and all of the stuff that has happened in prior Parliaments. I have the opportunity and the responsibility as a member of Parliament to speak to this legislation, and to speak on behalf of the many stakeholders who have reached out to my office and who have concerns about this legislation.

For the government to now invoke closure after one hour of debate, before we even get into the second hour of debate, is unconscionable in my opinion. Could the minister explain why he does not want to hear the voices of indigenous leaders who are asking to speak on this piece of legislation?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth.

I have been in constant dialogue with indigenous leadership in its myriad forms across Canada. I continue to be. I did not stop when the bill was tabled in the House of Commons, and I continue to speak to industry groups. We had a specific consultation targeting industry groups across Canada, led by NRCAN. We have had a very intensive consultation process, which continues.

I would point the hon. member to experiences in this Parliament, where we debated a fall economic statement for much more time than we would have debated a budget. Speaker after speaker from the Conservative Party got up and said the same thing. It was the same on MAID: Speaker after speaker got up and repeated the same arguments ad nauseam.

It is the Conservative Party and its dilatory tactics that have forced us into this position today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was going to bring up the fall economic statement when trying to highlight what has been going on in the House.

The fall economic statement was introduced on November 30, and we still have not gotten to vote on it because the Conservatives have been dragging their feet.

I actually do not think they have anything against this piece of legislation and that they are going to be supportive of it. What I feel is that, unlike the Bloc and the NDP, the Conservatives are trying to prevent any legislation from getting through so that they can somehow declare a victory, in the sense that we are not able to accomplish anything.

We could look at MAID, which the minister brought up, as well as conversion therapy, which we are supposed to be debating. I have a feeling, based on practices I have seen over the last five years, the Conservatives will not let these issues be voted on unless we come forward with a motion like this.

Would the minister agree with that?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. On this particular day, I also salute our common Italian-Canadian heritage, given our announcement yesterday.

It is critically important to look at the dilatory tactics of the Conservative Party. The fall economic statement is a perfect example, as was MAID: a very important piece of legislation that Canadians wanted and that courts were requiring. Thankfully, in that particular case, the Bloc Québécois stepped up and supported a time allocation motion.

I do not like time allocation any more than the next member of Parliament. I would like to see everything debated fulsomely. However, there is a responsibility, and I know the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has brought this up on a number of occasions, to debate responsibly, not just with prepared talking points but with new arguments. We are not getting those from the Conservative Party. We are getting arguments repeated ad nauseam for the purposes of delaying.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to talk about the reality today. I would remind the minister that it is actually the government House leader who sets forward what we will be debating.

I am in total agreement. I want to get this through the Senate this time. I was part of the last Parliament. I saw this bill go through. I fundamentally believe that the need for legislation that is going to help us build a framework to acknowledge indigenous rights and title in this country is imperative. However, doing it this way is really a choice of the government.

When we look at the long history that we have here, we still have indigenous communities without clean drinking water. We still have indigenous communities trying to take steps forward, and we have the government blocking the way at every step. I am really disappointed that this is the only way that the government sees the bill being able to go through.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her dedication to this process. I am glad that she brought up the process last time for Bill C-262, under the leadership of Romeo Saganash, where we did get it through all three readings in the House and then it died in the Senate. We do not want this bill to have the same fate. The composition of the Senate is different now. In particular, thanks to our government, there is a great deal of indigenous leadership within the Senate itself, which is absolutely fantastic and a wonderful point in Canadian history.

Again, I do not want perfection to become the enemy of the good. We have had a robust consultation process. That robust consultation process will continue through the rest of the parliamentary process and through the Senate process. In particular, that robust engagement and collaboration process will be part of the bill once it is implemented in the action plan. This is a positive way forward. This is long overdue. There are no surprises in the bill, and this is the time to do our best as parliamentarians to move this forward and engage in those substantive debates as we move forward through the action plan.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

For those keeping track, we are going to try to get three more questions in.

We will go next to the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the blame game that the minister tries to put forward. I do not think anyone is buying it. We all know it is the government House leader who controls the House schedule and decides what we vote on.

The minister earlier alleged that the Conservatives keep bringing up the same things. Here is some new information that was brought forward since we last met. Treaty Six first nations chiefs utterly reject Bill C-15. That came out just a week or so ago. They are asking the government to begin a process of engagement with them. We have heard from elders from a number of first nations who wrote to us because they flatly reject and refuse to accept Bill C-15. Many others have been talking about it.

What does the government have to say to these indigenous communities and leaders? Why will the government not practise what it preaches?