Debates of March 21st, 2023

International Trade

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. As I said, this reminds me of the Yiddish proverb: “A drowning man will reach even for the point of a sword”.

With respect to this file, the government talks about consultations, commissions, websites and attestations. That is not good enough. What we need are results from the CBSA, to ensure that goods imported into our country are not made with forced labour.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government can introduce all the legislation it wants and Parliament can adopt all the legislation the government presents. The government can introduce all the regulation it wants and it can sign all the treaties it wants. However, if it does not operationalize that legislation, does not operationalize those regulations and does not put into effect those treaties, it is all for nought. What is going on with Xinjiang is a good example of this.

Clearly, a genocide is taking place in Xinjiang. As members know, Canada is obligated under the genocide convention to prevent genocide. Article 1 of that convention says, “The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.”

One of the elements of a genocide is “[i]mposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said the birth rate in Xinjiang plummeted by 50%, one half, between 2017 and 2019. In two short years, 24 months, the birth rate went from 16 births per 1,000 people to eight births per 1,000 people. Clearly, one element of the genocide is taking place.

Two other elements of genocide under the convention are “[c]ausing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” and, second, “[d]eliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. There is evidence that both of these elements are also in place in the massive detention camps the PRC has set up in Xinjiang. There is evidence based on satellite imagery, survivor testimony, investigative journalism, leaked documents, smuggled videos and so many other pieces of evidence, documenting hundreds of detention camps built by the PRC in Xinjiang province.

It is estimated that more than two million Uighur Muslims have been detained in these camps. Some experts have called these camps the greatest detention of a group of people since the Second World War. PRC authorities first denied the very existence of these camps, but when presented with high-resolution satellite evidence, they recanted and explained them away as simply educational camps.

Documents obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists have highlighted what is going on in these camps, including torture and forced labour. There is evidence that Uighurs are being forced to pick cotton and produce tomatoes that the PRC is exporting around the world, which is just like what happened during another genocide. During the Holodomor in Ukraine in 1932 and 1933, millions of Ukrainian peasants were forced to produce grain that Stalin then exported to the rest of the world, leaving them with nothing, not even seed grain for the next year's planting and harvest. As a result, over three million Ukrainians starved to death. Therefore, clearly, a genocide is taking place in Xinjiang. Parliament recognized that a genocide was taking place in early 2021 by adopting a resolution in the House.

It is now time for the government to uphold the international rules-based order. It is now up to the government to uphold two treaties to which this country is a party. It needs to uphold, first, the 1948 genocide convention by preventing genocide from continuing, by preventing the importation of products like tomatoes and cotton that have been produced using forced Uighur labour. Another treaty that the government should be upholding, if it is serious about upholding the international rules-based order, is our obligation under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. Article 23.6 of the agreement requires Canada to ban imports produced by forced or slave labour. The agreement says, “Accordingly, each Party shall prohibit the importation of goods into its territory from other sources produced in whole or in part by forced or compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory child labor.”

Subsequent to the signing of the USMCA several years ago, Canada and the United States adopted legislation to implement the elements of the CUSMA treaty that ban imports that have been produced using forced or slave labour. Parliament amended the Customs Tariff Act in July 2020 to bring Canada's laws into conformity with CUSMA, and the government published regulations stemming from those changes to the Customs Tariff Act that came into effect that same month, July 2020, some two and a half, almost three, years ago. A year later, the United States also changed its laws to bring them into conformity with the CUSMA treaty, but here is where the similarities end.

While the similarity between Canada and the United States is that both of us have implemented laws bringing CUSMA into effect, and both are party to the genocide convention, it ends there. Since these laws have come into force, the United States has stopped thousands of cargo container shipments from entering the United States from Xinjiang, but Canada has not stopped a single shipment from entering this country. In fact, the government temporarily halted one shipment from coming into Canada and subsequently released it. I believe that was in the province of Quebec.

No shipment has been blocked, interdicted and prevented from entering Canada, despite the fact that, south of the border, the U.S. government is upholding the rules-based international order and has prevented the importation of thousands of cargo containers containing things such as tomatoes, cotton and solar panels that have been produced using a labour force of millions of Uighur Muslims in the Xinjiang province. Despite the U.S. interdicting thousands of shipments, the U.S. government has admitted that this is not good enough. In fact, it has plans to hire over 300 new positions at the border to continue to interdict even more products coming into its country from Xinjiang. It has plans to implement new computer systems and new training, and to conduct outreach to importers to prevent further shipments from arriving on American shores.

However, in Canada, nothing has happened, despite the fact the law came into effect almost three years ago. One shipment was temporarily blocked and then admitted into Canada. Meanwhile, thousands of cargo container shipments have been blocked from Xinjiang by the U.S. government because it is upholding its treaty obligations, its laws, the regulations it has published and the rules-based international order, which the current government says it supports. However, as the CBC, The Globe and Mail, and so many other investigative journalists have reported, tomatoes and cotton produced in Xinjiang, likely with forced labour, have continued to flood Canadian supermarket shelves and retail shops. The government turns a blind eye despite the fact it has these treaty obligations under CUSMA, it has these laws in place, and there are regulations that have been gazetted.

Let me conclude by saying this. The government can introduce all the regulations it wants, Parliament can pass all the laws it wants and the government can sign all the treaties it wants, but none of this has any effect unless the Government of Canada and its agencies operationalizes these laws and regulations, upholds these treaties and starts putting the work in place to actually block shipments from Xinjiang from coming into Canada.

That is why I will support the motion in front of the House. If the government is truly going to uphold our international reputation and the rules-based international order that it says it so deeply believes in, then that starts with doing exactly what we are calling for in this motion: to start blocking cargo container shipments at the Port of Vancouver and other Canadian ports that contain tomatoes and cotton from Xinjiang that have been produced using forced and slave labour.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I made reference to during my comments was in regard to the Minister of Labour and the mandate letter provided by the Prime Minister, which gives very a clear indication that we are to be developing legislation. That legislation is, in fact, in the works. I am not going to indicate when we will see it, because I am sure the member can appreciate that it does require a great deal of consultation and working with a wide spectrum of different types of stakeholders.

Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to the type of work that should be done prior to introducing legislation, given the consequences of a substantive piece of legislation that we hope to be producing at some time, whether it is in months or years?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not need new legislation. It has immense powers under existing framework legislation. It has immense powers under the Customs Tariff Act and its regulations.

The government needs to get its hands dirty and figure out exactly what it needs to do to empower the Canada Border Services Agency officers to interdict these shipments. It needs to sit down with frontline officers and ask what they need, in terms of training, computer systems and personnel. Let us get this done in the next six months so we can stop bringing in these products that have been produced using Uighur forced labour.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have to say that I completely agree with him on the answer he just gave to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government. We do not need consultations or other measures.

Billions of dollars are at stake. That may be why the situation is not going to change anytime soon and also why the government is acting with a little too much caution. Between 2015 and 2020, there was even an increase in the estimated dollar value linked to forced labour.

My colleague provided many suggestions about how to improve all of this. Does he believe that transparency and perhaps even labelling could also be solutions?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I believe that the government needs to provide us with more information. I believe that is a problem here in Ottawa. We could even say that this place is information-free compared to the capitals of other G7 countries.

It is a huge problem with the lack of transparency and information. It is very difficult to find out from the government whether or not shipments have been interdicted and blocked. We often have to get that information through access to information requests or other investigative techniques, rather than the government being transparent about what is going on by default.

That adds to the problem. People are generally not aware that we are not upholding our treaty obligations. We are not upholding the rules-based international order when it comes to preventing imports using forced Uighur labour. Part of that problem is the lack of transparency from the government about what exactly is going to be interdicted at the border.

We do know one thing, which is that no shipment has been blocked from Xinjiang that has been produced using forced Uighur labour.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the CBSA officers, one of the things we had this summer was mandatory working during vacation time and mandatory overtime. One of the things we could do is actually expand their operations and boots on the ground, so to speak.

What are the member's comments about that, versus what right now is an agenda to actually move to more automation? Where do the Conservatives stand on that?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to give a specific answer to that question, because we are not presently in government and I do not have access to that information, unfortunately.

The minister should sit down with frontline CBSA officers and, obviously, the head of the CBSA, to talk about what resources and tools they actually need to start blocking these cargo container shipments. Ninety-eight percent or so of the world's trade arrives on these cargo containers. There has to be a way to implement computer systems, training and other measures in order to interdict these shipments. The United States has been doing it and they are further improving on their record. There is no reason why Canada cannot do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to talk a bit about the forced labour happening around the world and the concerns around the importation into Canada of some of the products that have been produced by forced labour. I want to talk a bit today about products that get a free pass.

Increasingly, we have these environmental, social and governance indicators, or ESG indicators. To some degree, that ends up having a watering-down effect and folks who have a so-called environmental footprint get a free pass on some of the other issues.

A number of organizations around the world have pursued looking at so-called green technology, wind turbines or solar panels, for example. What happens then is that these products get a great brand around their environmental bona fides. People with solar panels or wind turbines get a relatively free pass. We can override a number of other issues. We have seen this right here in the province of Ontario. A lot of locals who live in areas where wind turbines or solar fields are being put up are frustrated. They do not necessarily appreciate these, yet they have little recourse to fight them.

We see the same thing happen when it comes to forced labour around the world. When it comes to the production of wind turbines or solar panels, for example, a blind eye is turned to the use of forced labour. For instance, most of the cobalt in the world, if not all the cobalt in the world, comes out of Congo. Vast amounts of that cobalt are harvested by forced labour and child labour.

There have been examples from the U.S. Department of Labor, where up to 75% of the polysilicon that goes into the making of solar panels comes from forced labour around the world. Reports have identified 90 Chinese and international companies whose supply chains for these solar panels come from forced labourers. Seven of the top 10 wind turbine manufacturers come out of China and over 50% of the installations around the world come from these seven companies in China. Most of these companies have been identified by the Sheffield Hallam University. It has shown that forced labour is a major part of all of these companies' supply chains.

I want to highlight today that while these are green technologies, they sometimes allow us to overlook the forced labour that is in many of these products.

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

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

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.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

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

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

Baldwin East Aerodrome

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by thousands of Canadians, including the residents of the Town of Georgina and the small but mighty community of Pefferlaw.

The petition calls on the government to prohibit the development of the so-called Baldwin east aerodrome. To date, the Liberals have done nothing to prevent the planned dumping of more than 1.2 million cubic metres of potentially contaminated soil on the environmentally sensitive area within the Lake Simcoe watershed and have ignored the previous involvement of the aerodrome proponents in waste management and illegal fill dumping.

The petitioners call on the Minister of Transport to prohibit the construction of the Baldwin east aerodrome and amend related Transport Canada regulations to ensure that the false pretense of building an aerodrome could not be used to illegally dump fill. We need action.

Hazaras

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this petition comes from constituents of mine, who are calling on the government to prioritize Hazaras coming into Canada as part of the target of 40,000 Afghani refugees.

The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that over 28,000 Afghans have been brought to Canada as refugees. They also remind the House that for the past 130 years, the Hazara ethnic group has faced genocide and systemic ethnic cleansing in Afghanistan; that since the fall of Kabul in August 2021, Hazaras have once again been targeted by the Taliban regime, as they are also a minority religious community; that the Taliban regime is responsible for the massacre and genocide of Hazaras; and that Taliban gunmen have directly been involved in executing Hazaras and forcing them to leave their homeland.

Again, the petitioners remind the Government of Canada that, as part of its international obligations, it has an obligation to also ensure that the Hazaras form a sizable portion of the 40,000 Afghans who are being brought to Canada as refugees.

Corporate Social Responsibility

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

Mr. Speaker, as I rise to present a petition today, I am struck by how timely it is. We would not have known, when I pulled this petition for today, what we would be debating in a concurrence debate.

The petitioners from my riding are calling on Canada to pay attention to the fact that companies within Canada, Canadian-based companies, are responsible for human rights abuses around the world, such as killing, attacking, harassing indigenous peoples and other citizens in societies around the world and marginalized groups, and are on their way to also damaging the environment in those countries.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to require, through new legislation to protect human rights and environmental due diligence, that Canadian companies prevent adverse human rights impacts and environmental damage throughout their activities and supply chains; to require these companies to do due diligence as to subcontractors and so on; to be sure that the products Canadians buy from them do not involve human rights abuses, forced labour or slavery; to avoid, insofar as it is possible, environmental damage around the world; and to establish a legal right for people who have been harmed by Canadian companies overseas to seek justice in Canadian courts.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from December 2, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Historic Places of Canada Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to talk about legislation that all members of the House should get onside with and support.

Bill C-23 is all about people, places, our history and our heritage. When I think about our heritage, a flood of things come to mind about our Canadian identity. It was not that long ago that we were talking about the $198-billion, 10-year health agreement between the national government and all the different provinces. I remember saying that our health care system was at the very core of what it meant to be a Canadian.

We can talk about a policy of that nature or about Canada's rich diversity, which is second to no other country in the world. In fact, I often have had the opportunity to talk about that diversity when I have gone to a multitude of different types of events whether in Winnipeg North or outside it.

We often hear that one of Canada's greatest assets is our diversity. Our heritage is changing everyday through people and the things we do as a society. Compare our values today to what they would have been 30 years ago with respect to diversity and the way in which we approach a wide variety of different areas.

When we a look at Bill C-23, one cannot help but reflect on a private member's bill that was passed through the House a couple of years back. It went through second and third reading. It ultimately went to the Senate, but unfortunately it died in the Senate. It was a private member's bill, Bill C-374, which was introduced by my friend and colleague, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, a man who is very passionate about our heritage and our parks. I believe that legislation received unanimous support in the House of Commons prior to going to the Senate. That legislation was not word for word to this legislation. In fact, there is a significant difference between what we have before us today and ultimately what passed through the House unanimously but died in the Senate.

The principle of the importance of our historic places, people and acts is something we have to ensure we preserve. Bill C-23 is all about that. That is why I hope that at the end of the day all members will support it.

I did not know about the number of canals in Canada. Why is that important? There are nine historic canals listed in the bill, such as the Rideau Canal, Trent-Severn Waterway, the Sault Ste. Marie Canal. The canal that really made me reflect upon is in the province of Quebec, the Saint-Ours Canal. My ancestry, a few generations back, came from that area. I suspect that some of my family might have even historically been a part of that. The bill goes on to list the canals, whether in Ontario, Quebec or Nova Scotia, and the important role they play. It gives specific directions.

I use the canals as an example because if we look at what the legislation would do, it would establish a very strong framework to deal with something that should be important to all of us.

The designation of a place, person or event in Canada is something we should all take an active interest in. That is what I like about the legislation. I believe passing this legislation will put us at par with and maybe even better than some other jurisdictions. As the member for Cloverdale—Langley City pointed out to members a couple of years back, it is warranted and necessary, and I am glad the department has made it a priority to such a degree that we are now debating it after it was introduced the other day. I hope members see fit to support the legislation so it can go to committee and hopefully receive some sort of passage. Let us get it back into the Senate, hopefully before the end of the year, because as I said, while it is not identical to Bill C-374, it sure did receive a great deal of support.

When I think of the legislation, there are certain parts that are worthy for me to reference. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is something that many members of the House of Commons and I hold very dear. We want to see action on the calls to action. Over the last number of years, we have seen many calls acted on by this government, whether through statutory holidays or the language legislation. Many different calls to action have been acted on, and within this legislation we are seeing call to action number 79.

It is gratifying, but at the end of the day, it is hard to believe we need to put this into legislation. I think this should have been automatic many, many years ago, and perhaps decades ago. This legislation would ultimately put into place a guarantee of indigenous representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, for example. This is a board that helps portray Canada's history and where we have come from. How can one not incorporate call to action number 79? I am glad to see it has been incorporated into the legislation. I am also glad to see it note that when a board is looking at some form of designation, it would need to take into consideration indigenous knowledge so we ensure there is a fairer reflection of our history.

I want to give a tangible example that I think has made a profoundly positive difference in the city of Winnipeg. In the city of Winnipeg, we have what we call The Forks, where the Red River and the Assiniboine River come together. There are some historic buildings there. There is the Via Rail station, which is such a wonderful heritage building where often someone can get their citizenship court ceremony. There is also what used to be freight type buildings. At one time, The Forks was a rail yard and there was very limited access to the Red and Assiniboine rivers.

What we had was different levels of government recognizing the heritage within The Forks and investing millions of dollars to convert The Forks into what it is today. They took heritage buildings and converted them to have a modern use while preserving their heritage. We can take a look at the walkways along both the Red River and the Assiniboine River and the value they have added to the city of Winnipeg. Today, it is the most visited spot in the province of Manitoba. I heard a while back there are close to two million visits a year at The Forks, and there is a very important educational component to it for children and adults alike as it continues to evolve.

Prior to this investment and recognition, we might have had virtually no people going down to The Forks. Compared that to what it is today, and ultimately there is no comparison. There is no comparison because at one point in time it was hidden away from the residents of Winnipeg and those who were visiting our city, whereas today it is recognized as one of our shining attractions. If anyone is going to Winnipeg, they have to check out The Forks. It is an area that Winnipeggers are very proud of.

We can talk about downtown Winnipeg, or we can go into rural communities, where there is Riding Mountain National Park. If we were to check with some of my Conservative colleagues from the rural northern area, we would find they are very proud of Riding Mountain National Park, the many things it has to offer and the museums located in many different communities.

What is important, I believe, is that within the legislation, there are mechanisms that would enable anyone to ultimately make a suggestion about and bring forward what they believe should be recognized. It is therefore not just top-down. It is something that allows anyone in our communities to suggest any individual, an example for me being Louis Riel from Manitoba; place, like The Forks, as I highlighted as an example; or event. One could talk about the occurrence that took place in Upper Fort Garry many years ago or what was taking place in Lower Fort Garry, all of which are examples in Manitoba of things that could be recommended in hopes they are accepted.

I talked about the fact that this legislation would put into place a very strong framework, and through it and complemented by regulations, we would see criteria. There is no doubt that we all have personal opinions on what we think should be recognized from a national historical perspective; we all have our personal thoughts on that. However, we need to establish criteria.

First and foremost, I would say that within the legislation, anyone could come up with their thoughts on a person, place or event, and recommend or suggest that it be recognized. The criteria and eligibility would likely restrict a number of those thoughts and ideas, at least possibly in the short term, but at the end of the day, we have an excellent organization in the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.

With respect to issues of transparency and sustainability and the issue of reconciliation, we have a board in place to protect the interests of Canadians in preserving the important things that we hold dear as part of our Canadian identity. As I mentioned, the legislation would mandate full participation from indigenous community members, along with provinces, which have been there in the past, and a few others. At the end of the day, this is the group of individuals who would ultimately provide recommendations and assist in drawing conclusions.

One thing I did not make reference to is heritage buildings. We have beautiful heritage buildings across our country, and I made reference to a couple of them in my example of The Forks. I am promoting The Forks today, as members can tell. There are federal buildings throughout the country that have played some historical significance.

I think of Pier 21 in Halifax. I remember having a tour of that facility. We get a sense of pride from it, as it is a part of our Canadian identity. Immigration today is so critically important to our country, as it has been in our past, and Pier 21 amplifies that.

Let us look at what has been done to the building. Obviously, if we had a picture that is hundreds of years old, it would look quite different from what it looks like today. However, because of intergovernmental investments and many volunteers who recognized the true intrinsic value of Pier 21, when walking through it today, we see a modernized facility that preserves and protects the heritage of the building itself. That is something we should be encouraging.

Not only does this protect our history and preserve it for future generations, but it also creates jobs. Through alternative uses, it brings people into the facility so they can learn more about our heritage. It becomes an attraction. If we talk to the Minister of Tourism, no matter where he is in Canada, he is talking about how wonderful our tourism opportunities are. We underestimate just how important our heritage can be in promoting tourism. It is used as a magnet for tourism.

If people look at the legislation, they will see it is not controversial. It is legislation that should be universally supported by all members, as we saw when the member for Cloverdale—Langley City brought in Bill C-374 a couple of years back and received unanimous consent. I hope my colleagues in the Conservative Party will recognize that and not want to filibuster this particular bill. Hopefully we will even see it get royal assent before the end of the year. How nice that would be.

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

I am really impressed that the hon. member was talking about the canals in Nova Scotia. The historic Shubenacadie Canal was on the list.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I struggle to understand why this bill had first reading in June of last year and is only being brought back now for second reading, almost a year later, if this is something the government feels is so important. It seems like the government lacks urgency on this, as with other things, like the concurrence debate we just had. There is no urgency there.

Going through law school, I was always told that the devil is in the details, and I have some details that I want the member to comment on.

With this piece of legislation, the minister would have the ability to “restrict or prohibit the navigation, anchoring or mooring of vessels in historic canals”. The Trent-Severn, for example, in Ontario, is a massive tourist draw and people use it all the time. The minister could shut it down with the powers in this bill. The other troubling part in the bill is that these powers could extend to lands adjoining or incidental to historic places, which could be privately owned lands. What safeguards is the member willing to put in place so there can be no overreach by the minister with respect to using historic canals or lands adjoining historic places?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would suggest that there is the issue of ministerial accountability. If there was an issue of closing down a canal, I suspect there would be a great deal of thought before a minister would do that, as it goes far beyond a department having to make a decision by itself. There are opposition members who would be more than happy to hold the minister accountable if, in fact, a poor decision was being made. That is not to say that our government would make a poor decision.

The member opposite also made reference to why we waited so long. Bringing forward legislation to deal with child care, dental benefits and a wide spectrum of issues to support Canadians, even though the Conservatives did not support most of that stuff, takes time to get through. If only we had more time to bring things back.

I can assure the member that it is a priority for the government. We do want to see the legislation pass, and hopefully the Conservative Party would be sympathetic to allowing this bill to pass, given what I suspect is the unanimous support of the House.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a speech on Bill C-23 given in December, the Bloc Québécois stated its interest in the issue and its intention of supporting the bill.

We support this bill because it is in keeping with Canada's desire to honour its international commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It recognizes indigenous knowledge, which could help the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.

My question is this: Will the bill be serious enough and tough enough to stop real estate developers from demolishing historic sites, tourist attractions, in order to do business and make major profits at the expense of the environment and this country's history?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is yes.

Through time, what we have witnessed is that people continue to understand and appreciate the importance of our heritage and our buildings. To this very day, I find it somewhat shameful that the city of Winnipeg lost its original city hall. It was an absolutely beautiful building. Obviously I was not part of the decision-making process back in the 1960s, but it was such a beautiful, historic building.

I do not think for a moment we would have lost that with today's values about or attitudes towards the importance of preserving our heritage. This legislation has teeth. Obviously, it will be supported by regulations. Support for the legislation goes far beyond just the House of Commons, as it also incorporates indigenous community support and provincial support.