John Aldag

[Historic Sites and Monuments Act, May 3rd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, as I noted in my comments, this is a Canadian story. Reconciliation is not just an indigenous issue, but something we all need to understand and work toward. In that spirit, understanding the history we have as newcomers to the land about the indigenous peoples who have lived here since the beginning of time is a way to understand some of the past wrongs and the legal frameworks we live with, such as treaties and constitutional guarantees. It is about fostering the discussion with Canadians about how we can co-exist and support each other. That is really what reconciliation is about. That is how we can make a stronger Canada and ultimately achieve reconciliation for all of us living in this amazing country.

[Historic Sites and Monuments Act, May 3rd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, should this become legislation, I think the intention is to have the process overseen through a Governor in Council appointment process.

To me, what was really important in the legislation was to respect the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation that we not limit it to one indigenous voice but that we truly make it inclusive. Therefore, the proposed legislation includes a representative from first nations, from Métis, and from Inuit. When the legislation comes into play, that would go into the formal appointments process, which will be transparent as our government has committed to and as we are delivering on for other government appointments.

[Historic Sites and Monuments Act, May 3rd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I had a slight problem with the volume on my translation. I will do my best to answer the question.

It really is important that we start now and work toward reconciliation. I appreciate the support of all parties and their work in advancing this discussion and moving forward in a concrete way through their support of Bill C-374.

[Historic Sites and Monuments Act, May 3rd, 2018]

moved that Bill C-374, An Act to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act (composition of the Board), be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-374, an act to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, composition of the Board.

I would like to begin by recognizing that we are gathered here today on the traditional land of the Algonquin people. This recognition is a small but important way in which to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

Bill C-374 shares the same objective of advancing reconciliation and to ensuring that the perspectives of indigenous peoples are incorporated in our decision-making processes federally. I am extremely privileged to have Bill C-374 make it to third reading in the House and thankful for cross-partisan support of this legislation.

Bill C-374 seeks to include a much-needed indigenous representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. The board, which is responsible for advising the Government of Canada through the Minister of Environment on the designation of people, places, and events of national historic significance, currently lacks formal statutorily mandated representation of indigenous peoples on its board.

The fact is that we cannot hope to accurately commemorate issues of historical significance if we do not fully include the perspectives of the first peoples of this land.

My personal motivation to put forward Bill C-374 is rooted in a career spanning more than three decades with Parks Canada. I had the opportunity to live and work with indigenous communities in a variety of settings and it helped inform my opinions about the need to do things differently with indigenous communities. When I was elected, I came across the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

In the TRC's Summary of Final Report, there is a section on commemorations which spoke quite personally to me about the need in the commemorations field to do things differently. Drawn out of this section were calls to action to change and improve upon the ways in which we commemorate our past.

Bill C-374 is specifically intended to implement call to action 79(i), which states, “We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Survivors, Aboriginal organizations, and the arts community, to develop a reconciliation framework for Canadian heritage and commemoration. This would include, but not be limited to”, and this is the section that is covered in Bill C-374, “Amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to include First Nations, Inuit, and Métis representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and its Secretariat.”

The implementation of call to action 79 was also put forward by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. In our report, “Preserving Canada's Heritage: the Foundation for Tomorrow”, the committee recommended the implementation of several of the TRC calls to action, including 79, as reflected in our committee's 17th recommendation of the report.

Our government has made clear our support for the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action. Implementation of over two-thirds of the calls to action under federal responsibility is ongoing, and Bill C-374 continues in this spirit.

We have endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, without qualification, and committed to its full implementation. This includes support for Bill C-262.

In February, the Prime Minister announced in this place the creation of a recognition and implementation of indigenous rights framework. This will ensure that the recognition and implementation of rights is the basis for all relations between indigenous peoples and the federal government going forward. To ensure the protection, preservation, and revitalization of indigenous languages in the country, we are working with first nations, Métis, and Inuit communities to co-develop an indigenous languages act.

In this spirit of indigenous language preservation, I have also worked with Senator Jaffer on a bill to designate February 21 as international mother language day. The bill has been tabled in the Senate and debate has already started on it, another small step toward reconciliation.

This week, we witnessed all-party support for a motion respecting TRC call to action 58, calling for a formal papal apology for the role of the Catholic Church in the establishment, operation, and abuses of residential schools.

These are important steps forward, but the work does not end here. Reconciliation is a complex and difficult journey that grapples with the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. The TRC summary of the final report discussed this complexity:

To some people, reconciliation is the re-establishment of a conciliatory state. However, this is a state that many Aboriginal people assert never has existed between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. To others, reconciliation, in the context of Indian residential schools, is similar to dealing with a situation of family violence. It's about coming to terms with events of the past in a manner that overcomes conflict and establishes a respectful and healthy relationship among people, going forward. It is in the latter context that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has approached the question of reconciliation.

To the Commission, reconciliation is about establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in this country. In order for that to happen, there has to be awareness of the past, acknowledgement of the harm that has been inflicted, atonement for the causes, and action to change behaviour.

The report goes on, and this is important in the context of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and the changes that Bill C-374 would make. It states:

Too many Canadians know little or nothing about the deep historical roots of these conflicts. This lack of historical knowledge has serious consequences for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, and for Canada as a whole. In government circles, it makes for poor public policy decisions. In the public realm, it reinforces racist attitudes and fuels civic distrust between Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians.

Too many Canadians still do not know the history of Aboriginal peoples' contributions to Canada, or understand that by virtue of the historical and modern Treaties negotiated by our government, we are all Treaty people. History plays an important role in reconciliation; to build for the future, Canadians must look to, and learn from, the past.

Bill C-374 would ensure that indigenous perspectives are fully incorporated into our commemorations process federally. Indigenous peoples' participation in our commemorations decision-making process will help us move beyond the colonialist and paternalistic approaches of the past and allow us to engage in a more frank and authentic manner.

This bill is not a criticism of the work of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board over the past 100 years of their existence but shows that there is a need to evolve by creating structural inclusion for indigenous perspectives in how we commemorate the persons, places, and events that are of national significance.

Our history is as messy and complex as the process of reconciliation itself. The legacy of our residential school system is a stark and tragic reminder of this. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission explored this complexity:

For Survivors who came forward at the TRC's National Events and Community Hearings, remembering their childhood often meant reliving horrific memories of abuse, hunger, and neglect. It meant dredging up painful feelings of loneliness, abandonment, and shame. Many still struggle to heal deep wounds of the past. Words fail to do justice to their courage in standing up and speaking out.

There were other memories too: of resilience; of lifetime friendships forged with classmates and teachers; of taking pride in art, music, or sports accomplishments; of becoming leaders in their communities and in the life of the nation. Survivors shared their memories with Canada and the world so that the truth could no longer be denied.Survivors also remembered so that other Canadians could learn from these hard lessons of the past. They want Canadians to know, to remember, to care, and to change.

During our heritage study at the environment committee, we heard the powerful testimony of Mr. Ry Moran, the director of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, who discussed the intricate and delicate nature of commemorating residential schools. Our report stated:

Mr. Moran is particularly concerned about the state of conservation of the 17 remaining residential schools if nothing is done to preserve them. He explained to the Committee that some Indigenous communities want to preserve these residential schools as evidence of history. However, he said it is easier to obtain funding to demolish these schools. Mr. Moran noted that Indigenous communities wanted to be able to choose whether they preserve or demolish these buildings. Moreover, he emphasized the need to commemorate the places where demolished residential schools once stood, as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended

That includes the burial locations of the missing children.

The committee heard that the inclusion of indigenous people was a priority and a necessity for the heritage community; that today's heritage organizations, departments, and agencies were ill-equipped to protect and preserve indigenous heritage; that indigenous people must be involved in defining, designating, commemorating, and preserving their heritage; and that indigenous communities, governments, and organizations wanted to have a voice and a place for their people to have a voice in heritage conservation.

During my 32-year career with Parks Canada working with heritage spaces, I similarly encountered the often difficult nature of commemorations. I witnessed both successful and unsuccessful approaches to commemorating people, places, and events of historical significance.

I have spoken about those in the House, including the great success of retelling the story of the place of Yuquot, originally commemorated as Friendly Cove and celebrated as the first point of European contact. That location was actually the birthplace of the Nuu-chah-nulth people. The repackaging and rethinking of that designation showed it as a place of welcome by the indigenous people, who had lived there since the beginning of time, and a place of welcome to the Europeans when they arrived in Canada. It was the indigenous people's voice that helped with the retelling and reframing of that story.

I am proud that Bill C-374 has made it to third reading with unanimous support at report stage. This is a proud reflection of the non-partisan nature of reconciliation. Reconciliation is not an indigenous issue. It is truly a Canadian issue.

The success of Bill C-374 and this opportunity to advance reconciliation would not have been possible without the support of the government and a royal recommendation to deal with remuneration provisions in the bill. I am grateful to the government for supporting Bill C-374 and for granting it a royal recommendation, which is the third of its kind since 1994, to the best of my knowledge. This support reflects our government's commitment to a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on a recognition of rights, mutual respect, co-operation, and partnership.

The road to reconciliation is a long and difficult one, but with Bill C-374 we have the opportunity to advance this objective by improving upon the ways in which we commemorate our past. I am hopeful that all members will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Bill C-374 is poised to move to the Senate, where I am proud to have the support of Senator Murray Sinclair, who has agreed to sponsor the bill in the Senate. Members will no doubt know that Senator Sinclair has a distinguished 25-year career in the justice system and served as the chief commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I hope members of the other place will recognize the importance of this legislation and work, as we have in this place, to continue advancing reconciliation.

I would like to thank all members for their consideration of this bill and ask for their support at third reading so this important piece of legislation can move one step closer to becoming law.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that we actually have an amazing plan. The pan-Canadian framework was a great way to move the conversation forward on climate change in Canada. We were able to meet with the provinces and territories to negotiate reductions. We were able to deal with Alberta and bring Alberta into the pan-Canadian framework, which gives really good targets on limits for emissions. Discussions are continuing within provinces and territories about other ways that they can contribute by looking at things like methane reduction limits, from which we will all benefit, so I tend to disagree with the statement that was made. I offer that our government does have a lot of substance and a great vision for the country to deal with a very real and pressing issue, which is that of climate change in Canada and across the world.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to represent the community of Langley, and we do share a portion of the township of Langley. I hear from drivers about the price of gas. I would like to point out that in the Lower Mainland, the structure of our gas pricing includes a transit levy. We see that things like the price of gas do provide direct incentives for people to change behaviours. When people buy a litre of gas, that is also supporting transit improvement.

I can proudly say our government has committed over a billion dollars to the South of Fraser transit improvement. It is through these kinds of investments, the things that I talked about, that we will be able to help citizens in the Langley area to transition and get out of their vehicles and use transit as we build those cleaner and more efficient ways of moving people around our neighbourhood. It also means people are out of their vehicles and not sitting in traffic, but spending time in our community and enjoying the beautiful—

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that pollution is not free. We see the cost of droughts, floods, wildfires, and extreme weather. We see the effects of pollution on our health. Canadians expect polluters to pay because it is the right thing to do for our kids and our grandkids.

Putting a price on pollution is one of the most efficient tools we have to drive clean growth and cut carbon pollution. That is why carbon pricing is being adopted by countries around the world, and is a critical part of Canada's clean growth and climate plan. According to the World Bank, 67 jurisdictions around the world are putting a price on carbon, representing about half of the global economy. Pricing makes pollution more expensive, which encourages people and businesses to pollute less. On the other hand, it makes clean solutions cheaper, and puts more money back in the pockets of people, where they can better insulate their homes, ride the bus more often, or get a more fuel-efficient car the next time they buy one.

Four out of five Canadians already live in a jurisdiction that has a price on carbon pollution. Those provinces led the country in economic growth last year. We have evidence right here in Canada that carbon pricing works to cut emissions while maintaining economic growth. The province that I live in, my home province now, is British Columbia, and it has had a carbon tax for about a decade. Research has shown that it has helped cut fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions while keeping the economy growing. Alberta has had carbon pricing in place for many years. It has among the highest employment growth rates in Canada.

The goal of putting a price on carbon pollution is to reduce emissions by sending a price signal to the economy as a whole. Recent projections by Environment and Climate Change Canada found that the national GDP is estimated to grow by about 2% a year between now and 2020, with or without carbon pricing. Businesses, investors, and consumers change their behaviour when they take carbon pricing into account in their daily decision-making. The clearer, more consistent, strong, and predictable the price signal, the greater its effectiveness in driving the choices that contribute to the transition to a low-carbon economy. Carbon pricing spurs innovation, and innovation is key to keeping Canada's economy competitive.

Canadian businesses already know carbon pricing makes good sense and will help ensure they remain competitive in the emerging low-carbon economy. Canada's five major banks, along with many companies in the consumer goods, energy and resource development sectors, also support putting a price on pollution, as members of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, which includes 32 national and subnational governments, 150 businesses, and 67 strategic partners globally working to support and accelerate carbon pricing around the world. Industry leaders know that cutting emissions makes good business sense. Businesses that become more efficient and use less energy also cut their emissions and save money on fuel. That makes sense for the economy and for the bottom line.

In a letter to first ministers, 60 business, labour, and environment leaders signed a statement in support of carbon pricing. This consensus includes Suncor, Cenovus, Rio Tinto, Tembec, Loblaws, Desjardins, General Electric, The Co-operators, and the Nature Conservancy. As some of Canada's largest employers have pointed out, putting a price on carbon is good for business. They have said we can meet our Paris climate commitments, grow our exports of clean technologies, energy, resources, and other products, and position Canada to prosper in a changing world.

Today, Canada's clean tech sector ranks first out of the G20 countries, according to the 2017 Global Cleantech Innovation Index. This year, 13 of Canada's clean tech companies were ranked within the top 100 in the world. That is an amazing result. Canadian companies are blowing away the competition for the Carbon XPrize, an award for companies that find innovative ways to reduce carbon emissions. This year, four Canadian companies reached the final round for the $20-million award. Canada's clean tech success stories include: CarbonCure, a business that retrofits concrete plants with a technology that recycles carbon dioxide to make stronger, greener concrete; Solar Vision Inc., a Quebec-based business providing solar lighting technology; Enerkem, a business that turns Edmonton's non-recyclable waste into commonly used fuels and chemicals; and Agrisoma Biosciences Inc., a Gatineau-based biotech firm that is expanding low-carbon options for the biofuel industry. For example, it is turning carinata, a mustard-like seed, into jet fuel.

Clean growth represents a massive economic opportunity around the world. Carbon pricing will help Canadian companies create jobs and compete successfully in the global shift to a cleaner economy, an opportunity the World Bank estimates will be worth $23 trillion globally between now and 2030.

Although pricing pollution is the foundation of our climate action plan, we have built on that foundation. We are working every day to implement Canada's clean growth and climate action plan, which includes over $21 billion in green infrastructure investment that will help build energy-efficient homes and offices and help families save on their energy bills and over $20 billion to support public transit to help reduce commute times in our cities, increase the use of clean transportation, and allow people to spend more time with their families and less time in traffic.

We are phasing out coal from our electricity system by 2030. This is the equivalent of taking 1.3 million cars off the road, significantly reducing our carbon emissions. This phase-out will prevent 260 premature deaths, 40,000 asthma episodes, and 190,000 days of breathing difficulty and reduced activity, resulting in health benefits of $1.2 billion over the lifetime of the regulations. With the help of an expert panel, we are making sure that the transition is a fair one for coal workers and communities.

We are strengthening building codes and standards for energy efficiency and we are implementing a clean fuel standard to clean up the fuels Canadians use.

This is a comprehensive, smart, and practical plan, the kind of plan one adopts when one is serious about clean growth and climate action. That is the work we are doing every day for our kids and grandkids and to help Canadians prosper today.

The party opposite does not share that vision. Under Stephen Harper, the party wasted a decade failing to act on climate change. Over the weekend, we learned that the Conservatives' approach to our Paris targets is built on waving a magic wand and hoping the pollution goes away. Canadians simply deserve better. They deserve a serious, smart, and thoughtful plan to protect the environment and grow the economy, and that is exactly what we are delivering.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, April 17th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to close the second hour of debate at second reading on Bill S-210, an act to amend an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The purpose of Bill S-210 is simple and straightforward. It would repeal the short title of Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which was passed into law in the previous Parliament.

As I stated in the first hour of debate, there is no place for this language in legislation. It is inappropriate to associate culture with barbaric practices. This was reflected in testimony on Bill S-7 at committee, where numerous stakeholder groups objected to the inclusion of the word “culture” in the bill's short title. Senator Mobina Jaffer brought forward Bill S-210 to fix this.

The former minister of immigration, refugees, and citizenship, the hon. John McCallum, who was the Liberal immigration critic in the previous Parliament, also raised our party's objections to the inclusion of the word “culture”. Senator Salma Ataullahjan, the original sponsor of Bill S-7, has also indicated her support for the removal of the short title.

In her remarks on Bill S-210, my colleague from Vancouver East put the importance of this legislation in clear terms: words matter. The words we use, especially in this place and in the laws we pass, have consequences. Words reflect the values and ideas we present to the country and to the world. Suggesting that barbaric practices are associated with particular cultures only serves to divide Canadians and fails to communicate constructively to an open and tolerant society.

Canada prides itself on being a multicultural, inclusive society. Diversity is our strength. We know that Canada has succeeded culturally, politically, and economically because of our diversity, not in spite of it. It is important that we exercise care and thoughtfulness in the legislation we put forward. The short title of Bill S-7 is a blatant example of the previous government's attempts to divide Canadians, while doing nothing to advance the substance of the legislation.

I have been fortunate enough to sponsor two private member's bills, Bill C-374 and Bill S-210, which is before us today. I took great care in deciding what pieces of legislation I wanted to advance and sincerely believe in the importance of this legislation.

Language matters, and it is incumbent upon us as legislators to take the utmost care in the words we use. During Bill S-210's first hour of debate, I was disappointed to hear the member for Edmonton West refer to this bill as a waste of time. I find it unfortunate that Conservatives fail to understand this. They continue to demonstrate that they are out of touch with Canadians and would rather divide than unite.

I have the honour to represent a diverse riding that is home to Christians and Sikhs, Buddhists and Muslims, first nations and newcomers. This weekend I will have the pleasure of participating in the city of Surrey's Vaisakhi Day Parade, which is the largest of its kind in Canada. Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to participate in this year's festival, an important celebration of Sikhs in our communities. The Vaisakhi Day Parade is a proud display of our region's rich cultural tapestry and a demonstration of the diversity we celebrate as Canadians.

Unnecessarily conflating abhorrent and illegal practices with particular cultures is not a productive way in which to recognize and promote Canadian diversity. We do a disservice to our multicultural communities when we grossly misuse language, as was the case with Bill S-7's short title. Bill S-210 presents an opportunity for us to correct this flaw, and I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

[Natural Resources, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, no relationship is more important to this government than its relationship with indigenous peoples. Far beyond my province of British Columbia, the Trans Mountain expansion project stands to create jobs, grow Canada's economy, and respect environmental commitments. Benefits include over $300 million in mutual beneficial agreements signed with 43 first nations. Many first nations recognize this project as a source of prosperity and opportunity.

Can the minister responsible inform this House of our approach to engage meaningfully with indigenous peoples on this crucial resource development project?

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a great statement. Unfortunately, I have lost my train of thought.