Debates of May 12th, 2021

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

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

Madam Speaker, at the INAN committee we heard a number of witnesses talk about what the benefit might be of having the action plan prepared and presented before we introduced the legislation, and that there might have been some benefit to that because it would have reduced some of the uncertainty and given clarity.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to the member, does he have some comments around that?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for all the work he does at committee as well. The really frustrating piece around this bill for me is that the Liberals are taking a victory lap, because they say they are fulfilling one of the truth and reconciliation requirements by implementing UNDRIP. In reality they are not implementing UNDRIP: They are putting into legislation a plan to make a plan to attempt to bring in UNDRIP. That is extremely frustrating to me.

Again, to go back to the beginning of all of this, it is the “say what you mean and mean what you say” principle. Bill C-15 does not implement UNDRIP. It provides a plan to develop a plan to start implementing UNDRIP. It is not bringing any clarity to the situation. It is not enabling us to move forward. It just leaves us in the limbo we were in prior to Bill C-15.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and did not find it very compelling. I feel like there is a kind of persistent confusion here. On one hand, he said that it is a bill to make a plan to implement a plan, which is silly, and why do they not just go ahead and do it. On the other hand, he said that this is all very complex and not that easy. What is clear to me at least is that the job is not done. We have seen that through the many controversies around projects on indigenous land, and through the frustration and dire need of indigenous people to get access to resources and the things that they need to live well. We are not going to get started unless we start taking those steps.

I am always on board with criticizing the Liberals for not getting done what they say they want done quickly enough, but we are not here, on our side at least, belabouring the complexities of it and having a record of sometimes not supporting moving forward toward a solution.

Which is it? Is this just a plan to make a plan for a complex set of issues? The gist of the member's position is really not clear to me after having spent some time listening.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the main point is that this bill does not bring any clarity to what it means to bring Canada's law into alignment with UNDRIP. We could have seen a bill that would have explained how we could improve duty to consult and bring it in line with FPIC. We could have seen mechanisms around land disputes. Do current land-dispute resolution mechanisms align with UNDRIP? We could have had a bill that would have tried to tweak some of those things. We could have had a bill that would have outlined each and every one of the UNDRIP protocols and said, “This is how we are aligning with it.” We do not have that bill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak again on Bill C-15, which seeks to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

At this point, we are cautiously confident that it will finally pass. I say “finally” because we have been waiting for this bill for a very long time. We hope it will pass quickly, although it is still not a done deal.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted on September 13, 2007. It is now May 2021, almost 15 years later, and it still has not been enshrined in Canadian law. It has been 15 years. Fifteen years is a long time. Fifteen years is the length of four Parliaments. Fifteen years is also slightly less than the difference in life expectancy between Inuit people and the rest of the Canadian population. Among men, the gap was 15 years in 2017. Fifteen years is half a generation, one-sixth of a century. That is a long time within a human lifetime.

Time passes, the world changes, but not for indigenous rights. Nothing moves, nothing changes, because Canada is the land of stalling. It is time for things to change. Despite a few flaws, we believe, as does the Assembly of First Nations, that we must move forward and pass Bill C-15 as quickly as possible, even if that means amending it later.

Today I would like to first talk about the history of our party as it relates to the Declaration and then dispel some persistent myths that are often associated with this bill.

Today I would like to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill even though the amendments we wanted to make to clarify the scope of the bill were not incorporated. We have long been convinced that implementing the UNDRIP is essential for reconciliation with indigenous peoples, and we still believe that.

The Bloc was there well before the declaration was signed. When the working group on the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples met in Geneva in September 2004, the Bloc was there to advocate for their right to self-determination. The Bloc was there again in 2006 during the final sprint to adoption, when we had to redouble our efforts alongside indigenous peoples and the international community. The Bloc was there in 2007, condemning Canada for voting against the declaration at the United Nations general assembly. The Bloc was there in the years that followed to put pressure on Harper's Conservative government to sign the declaration.

The Bloc was there, the Bloc is there, and the Bloc will always be there to promote the declaration. Parliament's ratification will not only recognize the inherent rights, emphasis on “inherent”, of indigenous peoples, but also clarify them for everyone because, let me remind the House, indigenous peoples' rights are not a privilege. Indigenous rights are legitimate and, as I said, inherent.

The Bloc Québécois believes that implementing the UN declaration will not only improve social and economic conditions for indigenous communities, but also guarantee greater predictability for companies operating in the primary sector, while ensuring sustainable and responsible resource development.

In that sense, if only in that sense, it will be a win for everyone, including the economy and first nations.

I stated earlier that time is standing absolutely still for indigenous rights. I am therefore appealing to my colleagues from the other parties and those in the upper chamber. It is now up to them to get the clock going again.

I have to admit that I have never understood the Conservative Party's visceral opposition to the declaration. Last August, in an interview with Perry Bellegarde, the Leader of the Opposition justified his objections to the declaration by saying that, in his view, case law already creates a duty to consult, so there is no value added in the declaration. If it changes nothing, why be afraid of adopting it?

At the same time, the Conservatives are trying to scare us. We saw this during the debates and in the last few minutes. They say that adopting the declaration will block projects because it creates new duties to consult.

They cannot, on the one hand, say that it will not change anything and, on the other, fear that it might change something. The Leader of the Opposition should clarify his thoughts. Is he against the change because it will change something, or is he against it because it will not change anything? He will have to explain this to us because his argument is self-contradictory and sounds to me more like an excuse.

Now is the time to dispel myths like this one. I cannot remain silent about the notion of free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, which is much more controversial than it should be. It has been at the centre of these debates, and it haunts the nightmares of my colleagues in the official opposition.

Opponents to the declaration have said over and over that free, prior and informed consent is tantamount to a veto. Nothing could be further from the truth. This time, the legislator's intention is evident, as it was in Bill C-262 introduced by my predecessor Roméo Saganash, to whom we owe a lot in this fight and whom I salute with respect and friendship. The legislator in no way sees FPIC as a veto. The Minister of Justice has said so many times. The courts cannot ignore that fact.

The declaration is absolutely clear on this issue. It states, and I quote:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent....

That is a requirement to consult in good faith. There is no mention at all of a veto in the declaration. It cannot be repeated often enough, or perhaps it bears repeating until it is understood, that this argument falls in on itself.

For me, the legislator's intent also seems very clear with regard to the scope of the bill. It applies only to areas under this Parliament's jurisdiction. Even though that is something that stands to reason and that just seems to make sense, the sponsor of the bill still went to the effort of reiterating that Bill C-15 will not impose any obligations on any other levels of government. That could not be more clear. In fact, it is crystal clear. We need to keep in mind that, if the members of the Bloc Québécois support this bill, as I am sure the government members do, it is because they understand and believe that the incorporation of the declaration into our laws should be done in partnership with the provinces and with complete respect for their areas of jurisdiction.

I must insist on this point.

In an article in the most recent issue of Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, lawyer Camille Fréchette wrote, “In light of the sharing of jurisdictions within the Canadian federal government system, the implementation of the right to [free, prior and informed consent] directly concerns the provinces, which have exclusive jurisdiction over public lands and natural resource development”.

We believe that the different levels of government must work together if the act is to be properly implemented. The provinces will have to be consulted and participate in the implementation process to ensure consistency. In our humble opinion, this bill will only help with reconciliation, provided that everyone acts in good faith and strives to maintain a dialogue.

On that note, I want to make a little aside to clarify something, because we must be thorough and there is a lot of disinformation about Bill C-15. Some people have tried to claim that the Bloc Québécois was jeopardizing Quebec's sovereignty. That is an absurd idea, but I can refute that claim with the example of territory.

The Constitution Act, 1867, makes it clear that the provinces own and are the guardians of their territory. To paraphrase constitutional expert André Binette, if that were not the case, then Hydro-Québec would not exist. Quebec's inalienable sovereignty over its territory just reinforces the need for a collaborative approach to ensure that the declaration is implemented consistently and seamlessly.

In 1985, led by René Lévesque's government, the Quebec National Assembly recognized 10 and later 11 indigenous nations on Quebec territory. In 2006, the House of Commons recognized Quebec as a nation. The Bloc Québécois has said and will say again that nation-to-nation dialogue is the only way to achieve peace and harmony, among other things.

That said, at this point, I think we have debated the implementation of the declaration long enough and should move on to the next step. Let me point out that indigenous nations have been waiting almost 15 years — 163 months or 4,990 days, to be exact — for us as legislators to take decisive action. Indigenous peoples have waited long enough. I would venture to say that they have waited too long. Their eyes are fixed on us, and the clock is ticking. It is up to us to take action now, because their inherent rights are at stake.

Tshi nashkumitin. Thank you.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, in British Columbia, where I live, the B.C. government has passed the B.C. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which is based on this declaration. In Quebec, the National Assembly had a unanimous motion to recognize its principles.

Does the member think that it is time for every province, including Quebec, to bring in legislation to enshrine the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in provincial law, in addition to the federal law?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I mentioned that first nations have been waiting too long for their rights to be enshrined in federal legislation.

As a member of the House of Commons, I will leave it up to Quebec's National Assembly to decide. Quebec has always led the way on this, as evidenced by treaties signed with the Cree and Naskapi nations. The relationship is one of such deep respect that it is exemplary.

I am certainly in favour of Bill C-15, so of course I want these inherent rights to be enshrined in federal legislation, but I will leave it up to the National Assembly of Quebec to work out its own legislation. After all, everyone knows the Bloc Québécois does not appreciate anyone interfering in anyone else's jurisdiction.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just returned from the traditional territory of the Kyuquot First Nation and Coast Salish First Nation.

I really enjoyed my colleague's speech.

She touched on the issue of future rights. Article 13 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples deals specifically with the right of indigenous peoples to transmit their language and oral traditions to future generations. Two-thirds of indigenous languages in Canada are currently threatened. In other words, dozens of languages are at risk.

How much support will the federal government be giving these resources and languages so that these oral traditions and languages can be passed on to future generations?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

As a member of the Bloc Québécois, I am very sensitive to the issue of culture and language. For me, culture and language form the very foundation of identity, of who we are as individuals, who we are as a distinct nation and what we want to bring to the world.

First nations must be able to preserve their language, which is what drives their culture. In the case of my Innu friends, Innu-aimun is the language and Innu-aitun is the culture. This is important to preserving the rich identity that inhabits the Quebec territory and the North Shore. I see this as essential.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, in her speech my colleague referred to the fact that much time has passed. It has been 15 years.

I may have an explanation for this. Canada is allergic to the recognition of national minorities. Indigenous peoples are a national minority and I have always felt that the Liberal and Conservative governments have been reticent to establish a precedent because they would have been obligated to recognize another national minority, Quebeckers. What does my colleague think of this?

Could that explain in part why so much time passed before we were able to debate this bill?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the member for Manicouagan, this is my own personal read of the situation, but I think it may be an after-effect of colonialism. Indeed, that is my personal view. In my opinion, that may be a holdover from our colonialist past, although, colonialism still exists.

I will come back to the issue of minorities.

Whether it is first nations or francophones, we see that they are treated differently. When a nation is prevented from speaking its language and practising its culture through the use of institutions, legislation and budget standards, that is the result of a colonial past that is very difficult to move on from.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech, and I want to ask her a question about free, prior and informed consent. Some people have characterized FPIC, as it is known, as an absolute veto. Others have said no, it is not a veto. This is of course of concern, as we have to know what free, prior and informed consent really means.

The courts have spent decades defining the duty to consult, which informs Canadians, who want to develop and build our country, about our duty to consult with first nations. Now we have introduced the new concept called free, prior and informed consent. Is the member not afraid that when the courts start to interpret this new standard and judicial creep sets in, FPIC is going to become a veto right that would dramatically undermine Canada's ability to get things done, develop our economy, etc.? I would like her comments on that.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I will go over two different things. First, in the speech I just gave, I repeated, and I actually pointed out that I was repeating myself, that this veto does not exist. It is not a veto.

In my opinion, one of the first things to do is to stop pushing the idea that FPIC is a veto. The legislator was clear about this, and it is in the legislation. It is not the legislator's intent.

That being said, it is like being scared there is a monster under the bed. Just look under the bed, and then the fear will go away. My colleague should do the same thing with the issue of veto versus FPIC. It does not exist.

Second, I also talked about Quebec and Hydro-Québec as examples of development. On the North Shore, back home, there are mines, fisheries and forestry. There are nine Innu and Naskapi nations collaborating on these projects, and they want to collaborate more.

I do not think that consulting the first nations, working with them and talking with them to ensure that they are involved in the process will undermine the economy. On the contrary, I think mutual respect would make things much easier.

[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]

Madam Speaker, I will reinforce something. From my perspective and the government's perspective, at the core this is a human rights issue. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets a minimum standard for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous people of the world, which includes protecting their rights to self-determination, self-governance, equality and non-discrimination.

Would the member agree that there was an opportunity to incorporate this in previous sessions, but because of delays, which are not necessarily attributable to members of the House of Commons, it did not pass previously?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I hope I understood what he was asking. If I am not mistaken, he is asking me whether this could have been done sooner. I definitely do think it could have been done sooner.

I would also like to comment on something my colleague said. Yes, we need to get this done sooner and more quickly, but when I hear members of the official opposition saying that this does not add anything or take anything away, I get the impression that they are not seeing the big picture.

The bill—

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

I must unfortunately interrupt the member.

Resuming debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I cannot reiterate strongly enough that this bill is long overdue.

Canada was built on the violent dispossession of the lands and resources of indigenous peoples. It is the kind of violence and genocide that we see perpetrated against indigenous women and girls, 2SLGBTQQIA individuals and sacred life-givers, including our mother earth and waters. We see a continuation of environmental destruction, supported by governments that violate human rights and continue to marginalize and oppress indigenous peoples on our own lands.

While big oil, big corporations and Canada benefit from resources, we continue to not even have our minimum human rights respected. The most minimum human right that anyone, indigenous or not, needs to have is joy. Our rights are constantly up for debate while corporations benefit.

I will be honest here today: There is no political party in this country that has not participated, or that does not continue to participate, in the violation of indigenous rights. Indigenous peoples on our very own lands are consistently and constantly a second thought, and our rights are often totally disregarded. This normalization of violating the rights of indigenous peoples needs to end. It is time that our very own Constitution is upheld, which includes aboriginal rights and title, along with the international legal obligations that Canada has signed onto.

We need to change this. We need to change the foundation of our relationship, which was built on human rights violations of indigenous peoples that were legislated through the Indian Act, and create a legal foundation that is grounded in a respect for human rights of all peoples, including indigenous peoples. We need the minimum human rights that are articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Although imperfect, I, along with our NDP team, believe that Bill C-15 is a step forward in upholding and protecting the fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples in Canada. As I mentioned, it is long overdue.

I will remind the House of what the General Assembly highlighted last December. It indicated that the declaration has “positively influenced the drafting of several constitutions and statutes at the national and local levels and contributed to the progressive development of international and national legal frameworks and policies.” In addition, it is also important to remember that the UN General Assembly has reaffirmed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the 10th time since its adoption by consensus. This means there is no country in the world that formally opposes the declaration.

After the second reading of Bill C-15, we undertook a study at committee, and we are reporting the bill today with amendments. I would like to take this opportunity to address some of these amendments.

First, as a legislator it is my legal obligation to be clear about the purpose or purposes of any legislation. As such, our party supported an amendment at committee to clarify that Bill C-15 had two purposes, which include to affirm the declaration as having application in Canadian law; and, second, to provide a framework for the implementation of the declaration.

This bill would not “Canadianize” the declaration, but confirms that United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has application in Canadian law as affirmed in preambular paragraph 18, which reads, “Whereas the Declaration is affirmed as a source for the interpretation of Canadian law”, in addition to other legal frameworks which include indigenous law, the Constitution, international law and treaties with indigenous peoples.

This legal reality has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as early as 1987. Even the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has heavily relied on provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in their rulings about the racial discrimination that first nations children face living on reserve.

The declaration, in fact, has provided a source for legal interpretation for courts and tribunals, and protection of children, families and communities. Our children need this legislative protection to ensure that they are able to thrive, not just survive, to ensure that children and families are afforded the legal protection to ensure they can live with dignity and human rights, especially with the current government who willfully violates their rights.

As former Chief Justice Dickson confirmed in 1987, “The various sources of international human rights law—declarations, covenants, conventions, judicial and quasi-judicial decisions of international tribunals, customary norms—must, in my opinion, be relevant and persuasive sources for interpretation of the Charter’s provisions.”

Another significant amendment to Bill C-15 I would like to highlight is the inclusion of the living tree doctrine in preambular paragraph 19. This is a critical amendment. The living tree doctrine recognizes that rights are not frozen in time and that rights and treaties need to evolve overtime as our nations evolve and circumstances change.

The living tree doctrine is an important constitutional principle, which has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. An example I would like to highlight is that in the 2004 Same-sex Marriage Reference Case, the court emphasized that the Constitution was a “living tree” subject to “progressive interpretation”.

The Supreme Court in this case ruled as follows, “The 'frozen concepts' reasoning runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation: that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.”

In the Hunter v. Southam Inc. case of 1984, the Supreme Court described the doctrine in the following way, “A constitution....is drafted with an eye to the future....It must, therefore, be capable of growth and development over time to meet new social, political and historical realities often unimagined by its framers.”

For example, the $5 given to treaty people during treaty days every year should have gone up with inflation. I would argue that it is not a symbolic act but an act of bad faith. Let us not forget Canada was built on the violent and ongoing genocide of indigenous peoples. This is why this amendment is so critical. We need legal tools to hold the government to account when it acts in bad faith.

Five dollars fails to take into consideration inflation or compensation owed for destroying lands, impairing our ability to participate in traditional forms of sustenance, perpetuating violence in our communities and leaving many unsheltered on our very own lands, while the masses and corporations continue to privilege off the human rights violations of indigenous peoples. This is gross privilege.

Since the time of invasion, our nations have gone through change, whether by choice or as a result of aggressive assimilation policies. This transformed our families and nations. However, although our colonizers set out to eradicate us, we are still here standing strong in the protection of our rights, the very rights that our ancestors put their lives on the line to protect.

We are still in this battle, whether it is in the courtroom or at the end of an RCMP sniper gun, as witnessed in Wet'suwet'en territory or at the military siege of Kanehsatake. We continue to stand strong. Now we see the very little land that has not been exploited is still under threat, and it makes us stand even stronger.

We will never concede our rights, and our rights evolve and change over time. These are indigenous lands, yet we still have to fight for crumbs against the disregard of our treaties and a lack of good faith by governments to respectfully interpret the meaning, intent, and letter of them. I have not forgotten, we have not forgotten and we will never ever forget.

This is also an important constitutional principle. It is why the new preambular paragraph 19 is so important. It states:

Whereas the protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights—recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982—is an underlying principle and value of the Constitution of Canada, and Canadian courts have stated that such rights are not frozen and are capable of evolution and growth

I would suggest, in this particular instance, that UNDRIP is a new political, historical and certainly legal reality that Bill C-15 is acknowledging. I must admit, however, that I would have preferred this addition to be in the operative articles of the bill. In fact, I believe that it belongs in the operative articles, as some have proposed. However, I also recognize that the preambular paragraphs have legal effect, as confirmed in article 13 of the federal Interpretation Act.

The last amendment I wish to speak to is the addition of systemic racism as one of the measures to combat injustice and human rights violations against indigenous peoples.

We have serious issues with systemic racism in this country, and we have witnessed examples that have cost lives. The many indigenous lives that have been lost at the hands of the police include Eishia Hudson, Jason Collins and Colten Boushie. There is also the late Joyce Echaquan, who lost her life trying to get assistance in a health care system that intimidated her, mocked her, disrespected her life and let her die under its care, as though her life was of no value, leaving her children without a mother and her partner widowed. In addition, there is a continued lack of action to address the ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls, and we see a rapidly rising movement of white nationalism and a growing number of white supremacists around the world and right here in Canada. This is a critical amendment to Bill C-15.

We need to move forward in a manner that ensures that all indigenous people can live with dignity and human rights in Canada. We need to begin living up to our identity as a country that values and respects human rights. We need to model behaviours and decisions that actually reflect that. That is still not happening in Canada, as we are witnessing with the continued violation of indigenous rights because, although the rhetoric that we are all equal in Canada continues, there is still a very clear division between the oppressed and the oppressor. The Canadian government continues to perpetuate a relationship of violent settler neo-colonialism in real time.

There is still no action plan to address the ongoing violence against indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA individuals, and it is two years late. There are 10 non-compliance orders to immediately end racial discrimination against first nations children on reserve. People have unequal access to health care and education. There is continued inaction and a mould crisis. There has been a failure to end all boil-water advisories on reserve, in spite of the Liberal promise to end this by 2021.

The number of children in care is more than at the height of the residential school system. We have the highest level of unsheltered individuals in this country as a result of the violent dispossession of lands that left many of us homeless on our own lands.

There continues to be violation of land rights, privileging corporations over upholding the human rights of indigenous peoples. These include, but are not limited to, Kanesatake, Site C, TMX, Keystone XL, Muskrat Falls, Wet'suwet'en territory, Baffinland Mary River Mine and 1492 Land Back Lane. There is a continuation of the violation of the Supreme Court ruling in the Mi’kmaq fishing dispute, more than two decades after that decision was made. We continue to see a violation of our constitutional and international legal obligations in this House, and we are obliged to uphold these as members of Parliament. The list goes on.

The violation of indigenous rights by the current Liberal government is not even limited to Canada, but is perpetuated globally. In fact, Toronto-based Justice and Corporate Accountability Project, a legal advocacy group, noted, “28 Canadian mining companies and their subsidiaries were linked to 44 deaths, 403 injuries, and 709 cases of criminalization, including arrests, detentions, and charges in Latin America between 2000 and 2015.”

A working group states, “The financial and political backing that the government of Canada has provided to its mining companies has been strengthened by the de facto conversion of its cooperation agencies into mining investment promotion bodies.”

This working group reported human rights violations by Canada against indigenous peoples related to mining in, but not limited to, Venezuela, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Guatemala.

We are watching on the news and social media events unfolding right now in Sheikh Jarrah, and Canada is turning a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing. It is failing to uphold international legal obligations, and children and loved ones continue to die. That is another gross example of Canada and the privileged picking and choosing when to uphold human rights, which is when it suits economic interests and does not threaten power and privilege. This must change.

I share this because, although we are working toward passing a bill to affirm the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law, in addition to other legal frameworks including indigenous law, international law, our Constitution and treaties, we consistently fail to uphold rights.

We must move forward in a manner that upholds these human rights in Canada and around the world. Lives depend on this. We have moved beyond a time when rhetoric cuts it, and we know what the violation of rights looks like in real time. It is denying individuals of their right to live in dignity, sometimes resulting in death.

We need to change this. Lives are on the line. Although Bill C-15 is not perfect, it is a start, and it must be followed with action. It is only then that we will achieve justice. There is no reconciliation without justice.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to my friend's comments. I know she has been working diligently over the last several years, not only on Bill C-262, but also on Bill C-15.

Much discussion has taken place with respect to FPIC. I would like to get a sense from my friend opposite of her views on it, and whether it constitutes a veto, or whether that is a strategy being used to deflect the real aspects of Bill C-15. I would ask her to comment with respect to her experience in engaging with other indigenous leaders and communities on the perspective of FPIC.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is almost like a hamster wheel. I hear this debate go on and on. This bill does not in any way imply that there is a veto. A veto is an absolute concept in law, whereas free, prior and informed consent requires one to consider all the facts and the law in any given circumstance and situation.

I would agree with the testimony we heard at committee from Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond when she said that hysteria has been created around FPIC that is not based on legal fact, has no legal merit and certainly does not form any part of Bill C-15. I hope, moving forward, we can accept this.

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

It being 6:36 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Émilie Sansfaçon Act

[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]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill C-265. I would like to draw a comparison. There is no doubt that there are members on all sides of the House who are very concerned about workers and want to do what we can in order to support them, whether they are currently in the workforce or they find themselves in a situation where they are disabled temporarily or even long term.

Bill C-265 is an attempt to address an issue. Having said that, there are a couple of concerns. One would be in regard to the scope of the legislation. Is it going beyond the scope of what was intended? Bill C-265 recognizes the scope of the EI programs in terms of their objectives, which are quite simple. It is there to help keep workers connected to the labour force.

Members will find that a majority of the workers who end up taking leave beyond 26 weeks do not return to work. In many ways, we need to look at other programs. The government recognizes the need to support Canadian workers who find themselves out of the labour market, either long term or permanently due to disability, and does this through the program that Canadians will be very familiar with, the Canada pension plan disability benefits. The EI program really is not meant to provide that avenue of coverage.

There are concerns regarding the bill we have before us. I would ask members to take a look at what is being proposed by the government, particularly through Bill C-30. The minister has done an excellent job in understanding the importance of making changes to benefit workers in Canada. We have seen that through some temporary measures that have taken place because of the pandemic. When the pandemic hit, we made sickness benefits a priority.

We introduced a number of temporary changes to the EI program in order to support Canadians during this difficult time over the last number of months. Some of those temporary measures were to facilitate access and increase the generosity of EI benefits, including EI sickness benefits, just to cite a few of them. This allowed Canadians to qualify for EI with only 120 insurable hours. I think that was a very well-received initiative by the government.

There was a need, and the government responded by implementing a minimum benefit rate of $500 a week. This particular change had a very positive impact, much like we had through the CERB program with that minimum amount of money. We saw how Canadians benefited in all regions of the country. I thought it was very encouraging when we heard there would be a minimum benefit rate, which was established at $500 per week.

There were also temporary measures to provide access to up to 50 weeks of regular benefits and the freezing of the EI premium rate at the 2020 rate for two years. I see those as very strong, positive actions that were necessary. The minister and the civil servants responded quite quickly in terms of making sure that injured and disabled workers were being seriously looked at and supported during the pandemic.

Bill C-30 has some things within it that I would recommend the House seriously look at. There are many reasons to support Bill C-30: After all, it is our budget bill and a wide variety of things affect so many Canadians. I would encourage members to support this legislation.

There are some specifics about workers. For example, budget 2021 contains commitments to modernize the EI program for the 21st century. It announces consultations on future long-term reforms to EI. Many times, we have seen private members' bills, resolutions and a wide spectrum of other types of debates hit the floor of the House of Commons that talk about EI and how important the program is, and how important it is that we look at ways in which we can make modifications to it that benefit workers.

For years in opposition, I wanted to see some changes to it. With the 2015 election results and the change in government, I was very happy that, for the first time, I had some sense that the government was going to be acting on worker-related legislation that would be more favourable to workers. Many of my Liberal colleagues have wanted to see changes to EI. The announcement of extending or allowing for consultations on future long-term reforms will do us and the people of Canada quite well into the future because of the spectrum of issues we face today. They were not necessarily prioritized in previous years. Extending EI sickness benefits to 26 weeks is a component of that reform.

Budget 2021 is a more balanced approach than the private member's bill that we have before us today. I would encourage members to look at it. In particular, we are seeing the extension of EI sickness benefits. They are a very important component of any reform.

I highlighted some other areas. When we think of sickness benefits, what are they and what do they currently provide? Sickness benefits provide short-term income support and help maintain workers' labour market attachment while they are temporarily unable to work due to a short-term illness, injury or quarantine, which is most appropriate at this time.

The EI sickness benefit would provide up to 15 weeks of temporary income support at an amount equal to 55% of an individual's average weekly insurable earnings, up to a maximum weekly amount. The commitment to increase EI sickness benefits in budget 2021 would also increase the maximum number of sickness benefit weeks available, from 15 to 26. If passed, the bill would provide $3 billion over five years starting in 2021-22 and an ongoing $967 million per year to do just that.

This extension would take effect in the summer of 2022. I would encourage members to look at the benefits to the workers in the budget that the Minister of Finance has brought forward and support it.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to talk about this important bill. I just need a minute to recover from what I heard the parliamentary secretary say a moment ago about extending EI sickness benefits to 26 weeks starting in July 2022. He seemed pretty proud of that, but I do not think this is a very pleasant way for people who are sick now or who are going to get sick in the coming weeks to find out that they will not be entitled to additional protection.

As I said, Bill C-265 focuses on a topic that is especially relevant now considering the circumstances: employment insurance sickness benefits. The bill would extend those benefits to provide essential financial support to people who cannot work because of illness, injury or quarantine.

We are all facing unimaginable difficulties because of the pandemic, but some people are in absolutely dire straits because they are sick. Canadians should be able to concentrate on recovering without having to worry about making ends meet.

Although the EI sickness benefits program is essential, it is troubling to see all the problems with it. The current maximum of 15 weeks of benefits was established in 1971 and has not been updated since.

It is important to remember that this bill also bears the name of Émilie Sansfaçon, a courageous young woman who fought on two fronts. She fought a battle against a fatal form of cancer and she fought for an increase in the number of weeks of EI sickness benefits in order to help others like her.

I would like to remind members that Émilie was a young mother and stepmother to two children. She was diagnosed with cancer twice in the same year. Because the maximum of 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits was not enough to meet her needs, she was forced to remortgage her house, max out her lines of credit and seek financial help from her family to make ends meet.

Less than a week after finishing chemotherapy, she went back to work in order to bring in some much-needed income. She had to go back to work instead of taking the three months she needed to recover both mentally and physically. Five months later, the cancer came back and this time it was more aggressive. It spread to Émilie's lungs and became inoperable. After going on sick leave a second time, Émilie once again found that she was entitled to only 15 weeks of benefits. For someone in her situation, 15 weeks is just not enough, since it usually takes months to recover.

I would like to honour the memory of Émilie, who passed away in November 2020 after fighting tooth and nail to have the EI sickness benefit period extended for all Canadians.

According to a report from the organization BC Cancer, the average treatment and recovery time for those diagnosed with breast cancer ranges from 26 to 36 weeks. For those with colon cancer, the average treatment and recovery time is 37 weeks. Those are two of the most common cancers in Canada. For less common cancers such as rectal cancer, the average treatment and recovery time is even higher, averaging a little over 47 weeks. Clearly, the current 15 weeks of benefits is not enough.

In its recent budget, the Liberal government partially responded to the request. Unfortunately, this policy announcement was disappointing on several fronts. The Liberals capped EI sickness benefits at 26 weeks, despite a motion adopted by a majority of members here in the House that called for a longer period. On top of that, the Liberals have only committed to doing so starting in the summer of 2022. There was absolutely no reason to delay this important change for sick Canadians until next year. People better hope they do not get sick until then.

It is not enough. It is too little, too late. I am not the only member here who is inundated with letters and calls from constituents who can no longer pay their bills and have to go back to work while fighting for their lives.

Allow me to share some examples. Annick wrote to me and I was able to speak to her this evening.

Here is what she emailed me: I am writing to you about employment insurance sickness benefits. I learned in January that I would have to battle an aggressive form of breast cancer. I started chemotherapy, which will continue until June. I will then have a total mastectomy, before having radiation. For this part of my treatment, I will have to travel to Lévis every day, which will cost a lot money. The Employment Insurance Act gives me 15 weeks of benefits. How am I supposed to focus on my recovery knowing that I will have no income after 15 weeks? I will not even finish chemotherapy until after those 15 weeks run out. My doctors expect my recovery to take around a year. I have been working since I was 15 years old. I am now 45 and I have always paid my taxes. I do not know how I will heal, survive, pay for medications, pay my heating bill, buy groceries, buy clothes or meet all of my basic needs. I hope that my email will inspire you and that you will challenge the Prime Minister to review EI sickness benefits. The Prime Minister has been telling us for the past year that Canadians' health comes first, and now is the time to prove it to those of us battling cancer. Thank you for your time. Annick, from Thetford Mines.

I also heard from Diane from Princeville, who received her 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits but cannot go back to work yet. Her only option was to apply for welfare.

Here is what another mother wrote: I would like to know what to do once the 15 weeks of sickness benefits run out. The Prime Minister was supposed to do something about this, but this promise, like many others, was broken. My daughter had a stroke in November. She just finished university in April and was supply teaching in schools, which meant she did not have any disability insurance. She is now in rehab for at least three months, earning no income.

Another example is Nathalie Beaudoin from Plessisville, who had cancer. Her benefits ran out, and her family was getting by on her partner's income. She died today.

Then there is Martine, who has a rare disease. Treatment to fix her immune system is not working and is causing undesirable side effects. She had to go back to work in November because she ran out of money. She is now on her second employer, and it is not easy because she has to miss work to go for treatment. She has been working for a month. Her employer already seems to be finding her absences troublesome because there is nobody to replace her.

We see cases like these every day. In February 2020, the House adopted a motion, backed by the Conservatives, to extend EI benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks in the next budget. At our last convention, we adopted a policy presented by the riding association of my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup to extend benefits to 52 weeks. I repeat: Canadians who are already grappling with serious and often fatal diseases on a daily basis should not have to worry about their financial situation. They should be focusing on their recovery.

Louis Sansfaçon, the father of Émilie, the bill's namesake, had this to say about the Liberals' broken promises: “Émilie fell asleep for the last time in a bed at Hôtel-Dieu hospital in Quebec City on November 5...with no answer, no commitment, disappointed.”

In advocating for a proper extension of EI sickness benefits, Émilie Sansfaçon was fighting not only for herself, but for other seriously ill Canadians, like Annick and Diane.

We all hope that the Liberals will not forget that when it comes time to vote on Bill C-265.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this bill. It actually looks a lot like my own private member's bill, Bill C-212, which effectively seeks to do the same thing.

It is in the spirit of an amendment that I tried to move to one of the government's most recent bills modifying the Employment Insurance Act for the purposes of the pandemic, where I sought to have the EI sickness benefit extended to 50 weeks. It is in the spirit of a motion that has already passed, not once but twice, in the House of Commons during this Parliament that calls for an extension of the EI sickness benefit to 50 weeks. Frankly, it is high time that this got done.

I have to say I have not found the government's response to this proposal compelling in the least. The previous intervention by the member for Winnipeg North, just two speakers ago, illustrated the inadequacy of the government's response. He talked about EI as a program meant to maintain an attachment to the workforce. That is true, but there already other EI benefits that can extend up to 50 weeks.

It makes no sense at all to say that, because somebody is sick, they should not be able to maintain an attachment to their job and go back to work after an adequate recovery period, and continue to receive some benefit during that whole period. I do not see how sickness is a good way to choose people who would not get the length of benefit that they might otherwise receive under a normal EI stream.

The member then talked about some other general features of EI that have been changed throughout the course of the pandemic, but did not really speak again to the issue of sickness benefits.

The question that the bill really puts to the fore, and rightly so, is for people who are sick, how are we going to do right by them. Even prior to the pandemic, there had been a campaign towards 50 weeks going on for far too long already, with governments that refuse to act and to implement a 50-week EI sickness benefit.

We knew, already, that in terms of typical recovery periods for diseases like cancer, 15 weeks is simply not enough. However, the pandemic has put this question into even sharper relief. COVID-19 has led to the development of a condition that some people are calling long COVID, post-COVID syndrome or COVID long-haulers. These are people who are seriously falling through the cracks.

They are falling through the cracks for a number of reasons. In some cases, it is that they contracted COVID before the robust testing regime was in place, so they do not have a formal diagnosis of COVID. In some cases, their workplace insurance plan for things like short-term disability does not recognize long COVID as a condition, so they cannot get coverage.

One of the programs that has been there for these folks in their time of need and as we learn more about this new condition that is afflicting them is the EI sickness benefit, but that is only for 15 weeks. We heard from people some time ago who were already at the expiration of their EI sick benefits and unable to access any other kind of insurance program.

Without naming names, out of concern for folks' privacy, I do want to read some excerpts of the stories that have been sent to me by people who are struggling with long COVID, who I think really make the case for why it is so important that we make our EI sickness benefit a much longer benefit.

One woman who wrote to me said:

My symptoms started on April 2, 2020. In the weeks and months that followed, I have suffered and continue to suffer with multiple symptoms that affect my ability to function on a daily basis. I used my short-term sick credits available through my employer until October 2020. At that point my long-term disability through a third party insurance company should have started, but my claim was denied. I am currently going through the appeal process, which could take many months. I am receiving EI sick benefits, but when those end I will have no income.

Another woman from Quebec says, “Please help. I got COVID in March 2020. I've been sick since. I'm coughing uncontrollably and because of the cough, I can't resume my job working on the phone or any other job. Even going to the store I get stared at. I just exhausted my EI sickness benefits and I have nothing else available to me. I'll be sick and homeless. Fifteen weeks is just not enough to recover. I want to work but my doctor said that I'll end up being fired because of this cough.”

Another woman writes, “I am emailing on behalf of my 25-year-old child. They contracted COVID-19 at work at the end of May 2020 and have not been able to work since. They were eligible for CERB and received it until the end of September. They have been receiving the EI benefit since then, but are becoming concerned about what will happen if they continue to be unable to work when their benefits run out.”

A woman from Ontario wrote, “My husband and I are both COVID long-haulers and are about to lose our home because of lack of government financial support. As a result of my insurance company denying my long-term disability claim, I've had to rely on employment insurance sickness benefits, but the 15 weeks of benefits to which I'm eligible are almost up and I'll soon find myself without any income whatsoever. Though I filed a lawsuit against my insurer, it could take up to two years for my case to be resolved.”

There are more, I am sorry to say. We have heard from so many people who really had no other resort in the pandemic than the EI sickness benefit. Despite the fact that there have been many changes made to the EI program on a very quick basis throughout the pandemic, as yet no changes have been made.

I know the government committed to extending the benefit to 26 weeks in the campaign, but those have not surfaced in any of the legislative changes over the past year. They finally appear in Bill C-30, but what I cannot understand is why the government would choose to go with only 26 weeks, when we have an excellent bill like the one before us today. We have clearly demonstrated the will of the House of Commons to support a 50-week benefit.

When I tried to amend a previous government bill, Bill C-24, to include a 50-week benefit, one of the arguments, which I did not find compelling, made by folks on the government side was that making changes to the software that undergirds the EI system was very difficult and it was not just a matter of putting in a number of weeks in the system. It is very complicated, according to them.

If this is supposed to be a once-in-a-generation change to the EI sickness benefit, it would be a tragedy if it ended up only being for 26 weeks. Future governments are going to make that same argument that we cannot expand the number of weeks because the software does not support it. If this is the moment to make that change, and the government is clearly signalling a willingness to make that change, even though it was not willing a couple of months ago on Bill C-24, then let us get it right the first time.

There is an expression on job sites that there is never enough time to do the job right the first time, but there is always enough time to redo it three times after. The problem with this is that we are not slapping up a storefront here. People are sick now and their EI sickness benefits have already expired. People with that benefit, on the cusp of expiring, are going to suffer while the government struggles to get this right. The way is clear. The House of Commons has already said categorically that it should be a 50-week benefit. We have had opportunities with amendments that I have moved previously. We have another opportunity with this bill today.

This has already taken too long. Let us get this right the first time and do right by all those people who are out there suffering, either with new conditions like long COVID, or with long-standing conditions who have struggled to get their health needs met during the pandemic because our hospitals have rightly been focused on helping all those whose lives have been jeopardized by COVID-19. Let us ensure that sick Canadians have the financial support they need to get through these challenging times.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will try not to get too worked up, even though there is clearly good reason to do so. What we are talking about this evening is extremely important for our constituents, for those who put their trust in us to represent them.

If we polled people on the street about whether a certain bill should be passed, it would be very rare for 10 out of 10 people to agree. However, that would be the case with Bill C-265. This is more than just a number on a bill. It is a battle that has been going on for the past four Parliaments. The member for Salaberry—Suroît is currently waging that battle with passion and strength, and five or six other MPs have waged it before her.

With all due respect for the opposite view, I think that the House needs to face up to its 80-year-old responsibility to improve employment insurance coverage for all Quebeckers and Canadians who lose their jobs. We need to do that not because people are asking us to, but because they need us to.

It might seem ironic for me to explain to the Liberals that we, as parliamentarians, are privileged. Relatively speaking, those of us in this Parliament are the elected officials earning the best living in Canada, and many of us came from a privileged background before we even had the privilege of sitting in this hallowed chamber.

When we lose our jobs, we have support from many people, we get severance packages that can often be considerable and, when we are sick, we do not end up on unemployment. No one feels sorry for us.

I say this because this is not the case for everyone. The workers who pay our salaries and make it possible for us to be here to represent them do not have one-tenth of the security we have. For the vast majority of people, becoming ill sets off a chain of misfortunes and difficult decisions, often because they have no choice. For some people with cancer or other serious illnesses, it can even mean death.

I bring this up a lot, but I want us to remember who we work for. It is always very important to remember, and I will name one of the people we work for. Actually, it is a person we worked for. This individual was let down by a number of governments, but there are thousands of others, including her two children and her spouse.

That person was Émilie Sansfaçon, a woman from Quebec who fought both her illness and the system that allowed her wretched disease to control her life. Nobody here believes that money saves people's lives directly. It does not. However, one thing money can do, especially money that replaces income, is give people a fair fight against disease. Nobody needs a crystal ball to see that health problems are at least as stressful as the possibility of losing everything.

The Bloc Québécois understands that. We have always fought to improve the program. We fought for an independent fund, we fought to eliminate the spring gap, we fought to improve access to regular benefits, we fought to end the classification of unemployed workers, and we fought to improve all types of benefits.

I think the debate on Bill C-265 is less about improving benefits and more about correcting injustice. Talk to anyone battling serious illness, such as cancer, and it will quickly become clear that employment insurance is flawed.

Refusing, as the Liberals do, to see that 15 or 26 weeks are not enough is a serious error in judgment. The Parliamentary Budget Officer outlined the problem very clearly. More than four out of five people who use up the entire special benefit end up taking unpaid leave for another 16 weeks on average. It is absolutely disgusting. Worse yet, not even a quarter of claimants are able to return to work after exhausting the benefit. In developing an important public policy, it is absurd to draw a line based on the least unfortunate quartile of the sick.

In any case, and I want to stress this because it makes me angry, behind all this foot-dragging there seems to be some acknowledgement that this does not look good, but there is also concern that the people who manage to recover will still get the benefit. These are people who are sick and their priority is to return to work, because that would mean they are in good health.

I cannot understand how parliamentarians here can be opposed to the idea of increasing the number of weeks. I recommend they do a little soul-searching.

For someone who is sick, their illness means living with a constant financial threat over their head. For a person who is sick, their illness means losing their job and their employment relationships while they are fighting the disease.

Since special sickness benefits were established in 1971, not only have federal sickness benefits not improved, but the labour market has changed dramatically. Needs are becoming increasingly urgent, especially with regard to achieving work-life balance. Someone who loses their job is entitled to receive regular EI benefits. Someone who has a baby is entitled to maternity leave or parental leave. However, someone who has cancer or a chronic disease and who needs to take frequent or multiple days off work gets only what someone who breaks their arm riding a bike would get. That is not right.

It is unfortunate, but no one wants to fall ill. I think it is high time Parliament made an effort to restore some balance.

For the last six years, it has been 2015 for the Liberals, except for employment insurance. When it comes to EI, they are still stuck in 1971. Must we bring back a DeLorean for the Prime Minister, like in the movie Back to the Future, so he can finally realize this? It would probably be useful for him to go back in time to see one particular thing.

In 2012, he voted for Bill C-291, introduced by the former member for Bourassa. That bill called for the exact same thing we are calling for today. It is a rare thing for me to quote the former member for Bourassa, but I will do it, nevertheless. Before his bill was defeated by the Conservatives, here is what he had to say:

In a non-partisan way, I am asking all my colleagues to make that gesture of solidarity and support my bill.

That is exactly what I am asking my colleagues today with an additional argument. The House has already agreed to extend EI benefits from 15 to 50 weeks in the event of a serious illness. That was not so long ago, on February 18, 2020. Furthermore, there are many reasons for supporting our bill. The lesser known reason is that employment insurance is a so-called stabilizing program. I am not the one who said that; it was Stephen Poloz, former governor of the Bank of Canada.

There is no doubt that because of the current crisis many people understand the importance of a good EI program. I really do not understand the government's foot-dragging. It claimed to be the champion of the less fortunate, but perhaps that was nothing but a publicity stunt. I hope not.

How will Liberal members explain it if they do not support the bill introduced by the member for Salaberry—Suroît? Is there something they fail to understand? The bill is not that complicated. It only amends the Employment Insurance Act by increasing the maximum duration of sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks. It is as simple as that.

I reiterate that this is nothing new, nor has it come out of the blue. We should all agree that this is just common sense. However, we need the government's support. On April 15, 2020, the Speaker of the House rightly reminded us that in order to pass third reading and head to the Senate, Bill C-265 would need royal recommendation. That means the fate of the will of the House, as expressed through a majority motion in 2020, rests entirely with this government.

If the Liberals do not support the bill, they will have to live with the consequences of their refusal, because vulnerable Quebeckers and Canadians will suffer as a result.

In closing, I want to thank the member for Salaberry—Suroît for her determination in championing this bill. I also want to thank the 162 members of the House who had the courage to set partisanship aside in February 2020 and vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion. I hope they will once again show their support for the struggle of survivors and those still fighting to make our society a little fairer and more supportive by voting in favour of Bill C-265 in memory of Émilie Sansfaçon.