Debates of Jan. 31st, 2023

Criminal Code

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑291. Some bills seem less substantial than others, but are just as important. The bill amends the Criminal Code to replace the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” and make consequential amendments to other acts. Words sometimes carry great weight.

As I just mentioned, this bill makes no other changes than replacing the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”, and has no legal consequences per se.

First, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. Even though this bill has no legal consequences, it does make us think about the importance of terms, their scope and their deep meaning. According to the bill's sponsor, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, the objective is to link the charge of child pornography to sexual abuse. Without changing the definitions, since the notions of consent and current sentences will stay the same, Bill C‑291 explicitly expresses the fact that such an offence is an act involving the sexual abuse of a child.

We understand and support the underlying principle. In my speech, I will share my thoughts on the importance of the words used to provide additional detail about this bill, reiterate the importance of training judges and conclude by expanding my argument to include cybercrime.

First, the term “pornography” seems overused and ambiguous in the sense of both the legal definition and the general definition, because its scope is very relative and can depend on a given individual's sensitivity. Moreover, some schools of thought disagree on the degree of consent pornography supposes and whether pornography is essentially a form of violence. Some feminist thinkers see it that way, and regular consumption of pornography also contributes to rape culture.

One thing is clear: Pornography in and of itself is not a crime, but there are the exceptions we are all familiar with, including child pornography. In other cases, it is difficult to see a clear and consensual difference between eroticism and obscenity, pornography and violence. It all comes down to the participants' consent, which is impossible to establish or obtain. When children are involved, the Criminal Code pretty clearly defines the acts, but I will spare my colleagues a reading of that.

It is understandable to be shocked by the fact that a term with no criminal or even negative connotations is attached to such despicable acts, hence the principle of Bill C-291. In the healing process, it is important, from the outset, that the victim is relieved of guilt about the events and that the burden is carried by the abuser. Naming the abuse can also help the victim. It may not seem important, but being a victim of child pornography does not have the same connotation as being a victim of child sexual abuse. A person charged with possession of child pornography will not be charged with sexual assault. However, they are indirectly participating in it by not reporting it and by taking advantage of the situation to deliberately indulge their deviant urges.

Most of the time, the victim is not mentioned in child pornography cases, except to say that they were indeed a child. When we talk about child sexual abuse material, we are doing two things: We are naming the abuse that the child is suffering, and we are calling the accused a child molester. These are much more powerful words, even though we are talking about the same act. They put things in perspective. In a crime involving child pornography, there is a victim of abuse and there is an abuser, the child molester.

In many types of crime, there is often a grey area, extenuating circumstances, possible doubt over the degree of guilt, participation and consent of the victim. In the case of child abuse, everything is clear and we have to call a spade a spade.

What is more, this term is already being used by some advocacy groups, including the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and Canada's national tipline for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children. Children are disproportionately the victims of sexual offences and are especially vulnerable. In Quebec, 54.4%, or the majority, of victims of sexual assault are adults, but the number of victims under 18 is growing faster than the number of adult victims, with annual increases of 9.5% and 4.3% respectively. Victims of other sexual offences are nearly exclusively minors, at 90.8%. These offences include sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, luring and publication of intimate images.

These statistics make it clear why victims and their loved ones feel as though these situations are being downplayed.

If an offence is not a direct aggravated sexual assault, then it gets classified under “other offences”. In reality, however, the possession of child pornography often involves sexual assault that is often even documented.

According to the Quebec Department of Public Safety, these types of crimes are on the rise. Cases of sexual interference and luring have risen by 6% and 9% respectively. These are moderate increases. Cases of incest have risen by 4.3%. Cases of publication of an intimate image without consent have risen by 7.4%, and cases of invitation to sexual touching have risen by 1.4%, and that number has held steady. These are chilling statistics.

Sexual acts and activities must only take place with the free and informed consent of the participants. The concept of consent is essential. It is based on the idea that the person is fit to make a decision and that they understand the implications and consequences.

In Canada, the age of consent to sexual activity is 16. However, in the case of all minors, including those who are aged 16 and 17, a young person cannot legally consent if a sexual partner is in a position of authority over them. If the young person is dependent on their sexual partner for support and has nowhere else to go and no one else to care for them, then they are in a relationship of dependency.

The relationship is exploitative when, as of the age of 12, there are close-in-age exceptions. A person who is 12 or 13 can consent to sexual activity if their partner is less than two years older. A person who is 14 or 15 can consent to sexual activity if their partner is less than five years older. That means that even if one of the partners is over the age of majority, as in the case of a couple consisting of a 15-year-old and a 19-year-old, consenting sexual contact can take place with a minor as long as they are close in age.

This also means that, conversely, in a situation where one member of the couple is over the age of majority, as in the case of a 14-year-old and a 19-year-old, the child cannot legally consent to sexual activity and the act becomes a sexual offence, even with the consent of the minor's parents. There is no possibility of consent when a child is under the age of 12.

It is worth noting that the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee took only 30 minutes. This is an uncontroversial bill, despite the number of amendments that were moved. In fact, most of the amendments came from the government. There was absolutely no debate on the substance of the bill, and all the amendments proposed by the government, 15 in all, were adopted unanimously. This is important work. Amendments G-1 and G-12 essentially added the notion of exploitation to the term “child sexual abuse material” to make it clear that possession of such material automatically involves the exploitation of a child. Naturally, these amendments were also adopted.

Also, not all judges have the knowledge required to deal with sexual assault cases or cases involving certain groups. We have been talking about this for a long time. Training for judges is important. The case of Judge Jean-Paul Braun is a shocking example. He said out loud during a trial that the victim, who was a minor at the time of the assault, had a pretty face and should feel flattered to have attracted the attention of an older man. An Alberta judge was fired after making what were considered sexist and racist remarks about indigenous people, abused women and victims of sexual assault.

An acquittal was overturned because a judge who found a man accused of sexually assaulting children not guilty relied on stereotypes. The judge suggested that, because nobody noticed anything, the girl, who was only between the ages of 6 and 12 at the time, was not credible. The judge said the child's testimony was not transparent, reliable, sincere or credible. Forcing all judges to participate in sexual assault and social context training would destroy certain stereotypes and myths that influence judges' decisions and their attitudes toward victims.

Fortunately, Bill C‑3 called on the Canadian Judicial Council to ensure that federal judicial appointees to various courts have the tools to help them preside over sexual assault cases. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who worked on that bill, pointed that out. The third time around, Bill C‑3 was finally unanimously passed by all MPs. It was passed on division in the Senate and received royal assent on May 6, 2021. It is an important bill.

In addition, the whole issue of cybercrime is also troubling. Last week, I had a chance to talk with Hugo Loiseau, a professor at the Université de Sherbrooke who is studying this issue. A cybercrime is a criminal offence committed through a computer system that is usually connected to another network. This whole issue of child pornography content, along with incitement to terrorism or hatred, falls under the category of cybercrime.

In conclusion, the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking is following this issue closely and is considering recommendations that could be made to the government to take action.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this House as the representative of the great people of North Okanagan—Shuswap as I make some final comments on Bill C-291.

Bill C-291 proposes to change the term in the Criminal Code from “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”. I would like to acknowledge and again thank my colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who drafted this bill after recognizing the need for Criminal Code amendments that this bill proposes. I also acknowledge members from all parties who have made meaningful contributions to the development of this bill, both in this chamber and at committee stage.

Committee review of the bill strengthened it by adding the words “and exploitation” to the proposed new term in the original bill, and I thank the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Justice for their collaboration and continuation on this important initiative.

Expressions of support and collaboration from all sides reflect that this bill is a step in the right direction, a step that must be followed by more steps: additional steps toward strengthening the Criminal Code and other federal laws to increase protection of children; additional steps to increase capacities of those entrusted with enforcing and prosecuting offences; and additional steps to support healing and recovery of those victimized by child sexual abuse and exploitation.

I want to thank people who have approached me in North Okanagan—Shuswap on the streets and at events to express their support and appreciation for this bill. The spontaneous face-to-face support from constituents is always reassuring that we are moving in the right direction. I also thank all of the Canadians who supported the bill by signing petition e-4154 initiated by Rachel Enns back home in Vernon. I would especially like to acknowledge and thank the organizations that have expressed support for this bill, that work every day to fight child sexual abuse and exploitation.

I look forward to the vote on Bill C-291 and I hope all members support this important bill to move it forward and send it to the other place toward completion so that it will establish the proposed changes in Canada's Criminal Code.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

The Environment

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are going through tough financial times. We see higher interest rates, inflation, high food costs and soaring housing prices. This all leads to a very shaky and uncertain future for many Canadians.

On top of this, the government is proceeding with a series of taxes on fuel at a time when many households are just trying to heat their homes. If the clean fuel standard led to just a $30 monthly increase for Canadians, what harm would it cause? The answer is, plenty. According to the Daily Bread Food Bank, “A $30 per month increase in rent would lead to 73,776 more visits to food banks annually in Toronto and 375,512 more visits across Ontario.” That 375,512 is equivalent to everyone in Spadina—Fort York, my riding, and two other ridings of my Toronto colleagues, the parliamentary secretary's colleagues. How disconnected from the economic realities of Canadians is the federal government?

The clean fuel standard adds $1,277 annually to energy costs. It also does not stop at creating higher prices for gasoline, diesel or home heating fuel. It is added at every component in production processes. For example, it is added to the cost of nitrogen that is purchased by farmers to grow food we all eat, to trucks transporting food to the grocery store, and to the selling of food to consumers. Even if people do not drive, they still eat, and the clean fuel standard will drive up those costs. These associated costs contribute to higher prices at the grocery store but also to inflation, and everyone is struggling with inflation.

On the one hand, we have the Bank of Canada trying to wrestle inflation to the ground by raising interest rates, and on the other hand we have the government trying to pile-drive Canadians into the ground by raising taxes. What a tag team of indifference to economic hardships that abound.

The government has refused my request to delay implementing the clean fuel standard until the Canadian economy no longer faces a looming recession, to a time when Canadians have some breathing room and the government has found realistic answers on how to get the country back on some semblance of sound financial footing. Moreover, to add insult to growing food bank visits, the lack of environmental benefit from the clean fuel standard is appalling. The only thing that is being cleaned is what little money is left in the pocketbooks of Canadians.

In light of the fact that the clean fuel standard would actually increase net emissions, what environmental catastrophe would occur if we delayed the implementation of the clean fuel standard by six months? Is this just another way for the government to pay for its wanton overspending off the backs of Canadians?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I will be presenting a starkly different view from that of the hon. member.

The clean fuel regulations, CFR, are critical to meeting Canada's 2030 climate targets and laying the foundation for a net-zero economy in 2050. The CFR will deliver up to 26 megatonnes of GHG emission reductions in 2030. This is a significant contribution to Canada's climate change goals, equal to removing about two weeks of annual greenhouse gas emissions from the entire Canadian economy.

The CFR will do more than reduce emissions. The regulations have been designed to work in conjunction with the Government of Canada's $1.5-billion clean fuels fund. Together, these measures will drive innovation and send a clear market signal for investors and industry to bring more clean technologies and low-carbon fuels, such as biofuels and hydrogen, to market to help decarbonize the economy.

The refinery in Come By Chance, Newfoundland, has recently been retrofitted by Braya Renewable Fuels to produce renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel. This is an example of the type of new investments in Canada's transition to a net-zero economy supported by the CFR. The CFR will reduce emissions across the life cycle of fossil fuels, similar to the approaches that already exist in British Columbia, California and Oregon. These jurisdictions have benefited enormously from the expansion of clean technology industries as a result of these regulations.

Working in tandem with carbon pricing, the clean fuel regulations will also help diversify energy choices and promote faster adoption of zero-emission vehicles by incentivizing the deployment of vehicle-charging infrastructure.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, what my hon. colleague does not mention is that, to comply with this regulation, U.S.-imported ethanol will need to be used, which has a greater carbon intensity than gasoline.

Shame on the government's smoke and mirrors. Shame on it for resorting to sham taxes to bankroll its overspending and shore up its lack of prudent economic action, and for raising taxes to pay for things that are questionable to the protection of Canadians during difficult times. Shame as well on the NDP for propping up the government until it manages to get a few dollars to undertake a precision, Rolex-type election without having to get a high-interest bank loan to compete in it.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Catch this one, Terry.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to have some order, please. We are doing the late show, and there is no opportunity for questions and comments other than those from the person who is bringing forward the question they raised during question period. I would ask members to please ensure they do not participate during this debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving that good talking to to my hon. colleague from the ENVI committee, who I enjoy working with.

I would just in closing say that the impacts from the CFR on the cost of fuel for transportation will be gradual and will not occur for several years. In 2030, Canadians who drive gasoline-powered vehicles may see between six cents to 13¢ per litre in an increase to the cost of gasoline. Any increases in fuel prices will be partially offset, as new vehicles sold in Canada are required to become more fuel efficient every year, and as more zero-emission vehicles that do not use any gasoline enter the market.

The federal government is moving to increase the availability and the affordability of zero-emission vehicles. The government is also investing in charging infrastructure across the country.

Taxation

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here this evening to discuss an issue that Canadians are very concerned about. That, of course, is the cost of living. Life seems so unaffordable for so many these days. We have folks lining up at food banks in record numbers. A third of those users are children, which works out to about 500,000 children using food banks in a single month. People are telling us that they cannot afford to heat their homes. They are skipping meals and reducing their grocery orders because they cannot afford to feed their families.

That is the backdrop to what took place and started on January 1, a year of tax increases from the Liberal government. Payroll taxes went up on January 1. Workers and employers are paying more. We know that the Liberals are continuing their march to triple the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. The carbon tax is going up on April 1. Then we have what will affect most especially our restaurant industry and hospitality sector, the alcohol escalator tax. That will go up this year as well.

There has been a rising cost of living and rising taxes under the Liberal government. After eight years under this Prime Minister, Canadians are getting less and they are paying more. They are looking to elected representatives from across this country for some relief. We have proposed straightforward steps to the government that it can take. I hope that it takes note of these as we prepare for the presentation of the budget in a few weeks.

To introduce new spending, one needs to find new savings. Where are we going to find those savings? We could start with the increase in consulting fees at 50 times more than before. That is one spot. McKinsey & Company has received more than $100 million in contracts from the government. We do not know exactly how much but more than $100 million. What are the virtues that it brings? Certainly not its ethics or international reputation because it has proven to drag Canada's down.

At a time when so many Canadians are hurting, it is so important that the government pay close attention to what Canadians are looking for: relief. Let us stop the tax increases and not introduce any new taxes. For any spending that the government plans it needs to make sure that it finds savings to match.

Is the government ready to provide that relief to Canadians today?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I think we have to say that we all know global inflation is stretching the budgets of many Canadians. This is why we have put together a comprehensive affordability plan.

Whether someone is a student, in a young family, a working professional or a senior, our government has worked hard to make life more affordable and to build an economy that works for everyone. While Canada's inflation is down from 8.1% to 6.3%, and has continued to trend down over the last six months, it is still far too high. Our fiscal prudence to date has ensured that Canada's inflation levels have remained below those of our economic peers, including the United States, which is currently at 6.5%; Europe, at 9.2%; and the United Kingdom and the OECD, each of which are over 10%, but there is obviously more work to do.

Our government's track record of continuously ensuring that we lower our debt-to-GDP ratio, outside of the pandemic, has helped assure that Canada has retained its AAA credit rating. In fact, Canada now enjoys both the lowest deficit and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Our job recovery plan has also paid dividends. We have recovered 121% of jobs lost since the pandemic; that is 659,000 jobs created by Canadians.

It is this economic strength that allows our government to fund programs like the GST rebate, an initiative that helped 11 million Canadians, more than 50% of our seniors, cope with the increases in prices. I think this is an excellent example to share in the House tonight, and to start with, because it is an initiative that my hon. colleague supported. I rightfully thank him and his party for their support.

We have also taken other measures, such as eliminating interest on student loans and introducing dental care for children under 12. In fact, I am happy to report that more than 150,000 children have now had a chance to see a dentist, thanks to the program, which lifts a significant burden from those kids' parents. Those parents should also benefit from our Canada child benefit and our new child care program. The Conservatives said child care was wasteful, but now they seem to be leaning toward supporting it. I welcome their support. It is a great program that will allow hundreds of thousands of parents to go back to work. This is good for young families, and it is also good for our kids and our economy.

I think putting a price on pollution will be a similar lesson for Conservatives. They are opposing it today, despite the fact that they supported it in the last election. They campaigned on it, in fact. It was a worse version of it, but it was putting a price on pollution nonetheless.

Contemporary Conservative policy is actually pretty hard to follow overall, ever since the new leader took over. If we look closely at the solutions they suggested, we will discover that they are not solutions at all. They want to raid the pension benefits of seniors. That is the payroll taxes my friend opposite was referring to. They want to stop fighting climate change. That is the “triple, triple, triple” or eliminating the price on pollution. Their plan is literally to make pollution free again.

The leader of their party has even recklessly offered investment advice, and now many Canadians took that advice and lost their life savings as a result. The Leader of the Opposition does not think it is reckless, does not think it is inappropriate and will not even apologize for it.

We, as a government, are going to continue finding innovative and responsible solutions to make Canada more affordable, to create high-paying sustainable jobs and to build an economy that works for everyone.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was certainly not an answer, and there were no lessons to be taken there.

This is coming from a government that just had a fifth occurrence of one of its cabinet ministers breaking ethics laws in this country. We have corrupt ministers, which includes the Prime Minister, who have been found guilty of breaking ethics laws: the Prime Minister twice, the intergovernmental affairs minister, the former finance minister and now the international trade minister. There are lots of savings to be had, and the handouts, freebies and high-priced consultants the Liberals seem to favour, instead of looking after everyday Canadians, is what they should turn their attention to. They should take after everyday Canadians and stop the corruption. Are they ready to do that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member that he needs to be judicious in his words. I think the word “corrupt” is one word that we should be very careful to not use in the House.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think if individuals were to objectively go through the speech I presented with the solutions that are being proposed by the government, in fact some of those solutions are already implemented, and the non-solutions I also presented on behalf of some of the things the Conservatives have brought forward over the last six months, I think that they would see objectively that we are actually doing things that are helping make life more affordable for Canadians. At the same time, we are doing it in a fiscally prudent way to make sure we get inflation under control. We can help get Canadians through these tough times in an appropriate and responsible way while simultaneously ensuring the government acts with prudence while addressing the impacts of global inflation.

Health

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, Inuit elders and indigenous peoples have been calling for the development of Inuit- and indigenous-specific wellness programs. For generations, indigenous peoples have been suppressed and oppressed. Canada’s genocidal policies continue to impact the mental health of indigenous peoples.

For generations, indigenous peoples have told all levels of government that indigenous peoples have the capacity to help each other. Decolonizing mental health programs is crucial. For generations, indigenous peoples have been ignored by successive governments.

Nunavut has the highest suicide rate in Canada. It is ten times the national average. The government has a responsibility to address the mental health crisis it generated. The impact of Canada’s genocidal policies can be heard when indigenous peoples say that they need more mental health services.

In 2019 the representative for children and youth in Nunavut conducted a study. The study found that 91% of people felt that the availability of mental health services does not meet the needs for youth, and 83% of people reported that the quality of the services was inadequate.

Indigenous peoples in indigenous communities do have mental health resources. These resources are not recognised by the federal government and this forms part of the systemic racism experienced by indigenous peoples. Communities are asking for culturally appropriate services that are accessible in their indigenous languages.

Inuit, first nations and Métis want access to culturally appropriate training and resources for wellness programs. First nations, Métis and Inuit deserve access to indigenous traditional counsellors and healers.

The Tukisigiarvik Centre in Iqaluit and the Ilisaqsivik Society in Clyde River are programs that are making a difference for Inuit in their communities and abroad. Currently, the non-insured health benefits program for first nations and Inuit does not recognize many indigenous-led counselling services.

Elders are volunteering their time while academically certified mental health service providers are overwhelmed and unable to keep up. Addressing suicide by taking a life-affirming, culturally appropriate and trauma-informed approach needs to be better resourced. Addressing suicide and its impact on families must be a priority.

Inuit-led mental health programs need federal funding. Will the federal government start funding indigenous-led mental health services?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, this day is an opportunity, an opportunity to raise awareness of mental health issues around the world and to mobilize efforts in support of mental health, not only a day, but a week, a month and years ahead. It is a chance for all of us to talk about our work and focus on what needs to be done. I would like to thank the member for continuing this conversation.

The member rightly mentions that suicide has had devastating impacts on families and communities in Nunavut. We know these high rates are linked to a variety of factors, including the impacts of colonization, discrimination and the loss of culture and language, but we also know the way forward. The way forward is to address the disparities in the social determinants of health and help people find a sense of hope and belonging.

That is why, on October 6, the Government of Canada and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami announced $11 million in new supports to help strengthen the implementation of the national Inuit suicide prevention strategy. This funding comes from budget 2022 and builds on previous investments in budget 2019.

The national Inuit suicide prevention strategy was launched by ITK in 2016, and I would like to take this opportunity to highlight its work. The strategy is an Inuit-led, evidence-based and globally informed approach to reducing suicide among Inuit and Inuit Nunangat. It focuses on six priority areas for action: creating social equity, creating cultural continuity, nurturing healthy Inuit children, ensuring access to mental wellness services for Inuit, healing unresolved trauma and grief, and mobilizing Inuit knowledge for resilience and suicide prevention.

ITK and Inuit land claim organizations are taking a holistic Inuit-specific approach to suicide prevention and focusing on systemic changes, early intervention, and support. The new funding that was just announced will support them in that hard work.

We are also working in close partnership with the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated to respond to the mental health wellness needs of Inuit in the territory. Through this partnership we are contributing more than $242 million over 10 years to the Nunavut wellness agreement for community wellness initiatives. In 2021-22, $24.6 million in funding was allocated to the Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and community organizations for mental health wellness teams and other mental wellness services. As one final example, and a strong example, I might add, of our strong partnership, I am pleased that construction is slated to begin this year on the Nunavut recovery centre. An enormous amount of planning, design and coordination has gone into this project since it was announced just a year and a half ago.

Once again, we are looking forward to continuing our work in partnership with the Inuit.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, funding is not enough. Government must expand the availability of indigenous-led mental health programs and services. Indigenous-led programs should be included in the non-insured health benefits as insured health care services. When indigenous-led mental health programs are not recognized, the message is clear: Indigenous traditional counsellors and healers do not deserve to be compensated for the valuable service they provide to their peoples.

On December 6, 2022, the indigenous and northern affairs committee tabled its sixth report, entitled “Moving Towards Improving the Health of Indigenous Peoples in Canada: Accessibility and Administration of the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program”. The first recommendation of the report calls for “immediate action to formally recognize the important role of traditional Indigenous counsellors and healers”.

When will the government implement this recommendation and ensure that traditional indigenous counsellors and healers are part of the overall health care system in Canada?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to once again thank the member for Nunavut for her question.

While territorial governments are responsible for the delivery of health care in the territories, we continue to work together to ensure Inuit have access to culturally safe supports and services.

We have made additional investments in response to the confirmation of unmarked burials at the sites of former residential schools, and $107 million was announced in August 2021 to expand access to cultural and emotional mental wellness supports related to intergenerational trauma. This is on top of the $330 million provided through budget 2021 to renew access to trauma-informed supports and crisis line services. Budget 2022 renewed this investment, providing over $227.6 million over two years to maintain these supports and build upon the services funded through budget 2021.

We continue to support indigenous partners and communities to meet their needs as well as their priorities.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:18 p.m.)