House of Commons photoLost their last election, in 2021, with 34% of the vote.
Official Languages December 3rd, 2020
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to remind the hon. member that when she speaks in French, to switch to the French channel so the interpretation does not overlap with her speech. It is awfully difficult to hear the interpretation.
Richmond Christmas Fund November 25th, 2020
Mr. Speaker, last year, the Richmond Christmas Fund helped brighten the holidays for nearly 3,000 of our neighbours in need, including over 1,200 children and youth and 300 seniors, enabling them to enjoy a festive holiday celebration with family and friends. This holiday season, the fund continues to ensure those experiencing financial hardship can share in the holiday spirit.
For the outpouring of generosity, I would like to thank the fund's “Angel Donors” for helping surpass donations and set another record year amidst the pandemic: Platinum Pro-Claim Restoration, Tony Scott; Herbaland Naturals, Aisha Yang and Musharaf Syed; Pacific Gateway Hotels, Eda Koot; Auto West Group, Joachim Neumann; Richmond Auto Mall Association, Gail Terry; TD Canada Trust, Tony Mauro; Patti Martin Real Estate Group, Patti Martin; Stage Foundations, David Sheng and Fanny Lagun; Canadian Tire Richmond, Terry Sanford and Sean Disdero. We thank them.
Happy holiday, happy Hanukkah and merry Christmas.
Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020 November 24th, 2020
Madam Speaker, I have a question that relates to applicability, which was mentioned by my colleague.
In my previous job as a software development professional, I learned that the European general data protection regulation was applicable to anyone who provided goods and services. Our company, even though we registered it in Canada, does business there as well. Therefore, I imagine many of the businesses in Quebec would also do business in Europe, and the GDPR would be applicable.
Could he comment on that?
Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020 November 24th, 2020
Madam Speaker, we have had a lot of time to talk about the current situation of privacy in Canada. As the member forPortneuf—Jacques-Cartier mentioned, there are many situations in Canada where privacy has already been a problem. I wonder what the member's thoughts are on this. We are like a sinking ship. We have many holes in the Canadian privacy ship. Meanwhile, the government is talking about a scheme that would make it perfect. Why not just plug the big holes, such as the infiltration by Russia, Iran, or even China through Huawei's 5G network? To me that is not the wisest way to handle our current situation.
Citizenship Act November 23rd, 2020
Madam Speaker, my speech was addressing a long frustration that I have accumulated and what I have observed in the one year that I have had here in the House. There is a lot of promise here. There are a lot of sunny way promises, except it is still snowing and it is still cloudy out there. I am not directly referring to the current proposal of the oath of citizenship that we are looking at here.
Again, a mere changing of words would not help improve our aboriginal peoples' lives.
Citizenship Act November 23rd, 2020
Madam Speaker, in its early days the Harper Conservative government actually did recognize Quebec as a nation within a united Canada. That was a very bold step that would actually lead to the united Canada that we are enjoying so much today. What I am trying to say is that when we are facing reconciliation with our first nations peoples in Canada, there are many better things we could do, and more substantive actions we could take, than changing the oath of citizenship, as the Liberal government has proposed.
Citizenship Act November 23rd, 2020
Madam Speaker, such is the burden to govern. I imagine the member would also understand that changing the oath is not something that will substantially benefit our first nations people. What I am saying is that if the government is actually genuine about reconciliation and helping improve the lives of our first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, it should actually consider what I recommend. It should either help restore the clean water provision or implement recommendation 93 instead.
Citizenship Act November 23rd, 2020
Madam Speaker, it is yet another substantive virtue signal by the Liberal government. Canadians are growing tired of this cliché. The government consistently fumbles through crisis after crisis, desperate to take attention away from its failings when it comes to Canada. While the government takes pride in this as a form of reconciliation, Canadian indigenous people are still dealing with drinking water and boil water advisories. The government should be putting more time and energy into steps to ensure such advisories are not necessary in the future, that the safety of drinking water is sustainable and that access to basic priorities like clean water is no longer a concern.
For a government to place such emphasis on reconciliation as a core priority, it must be willing to do what is necessary to provide equality of opportunity for all Canadian communities. Like every Canadian hurt throughout the pandemic, first nations people want to work and do what is best. They have had both opportunities denied under the Liberal government. Before the pandemic, Canada's first nations showed that they wanted to work and contribute to Canada. They sought opportunities by supporting the jobs and benefits to the economy that pipeline construction creates.
As the year has progressed, on the opposite side of the country we have seen first nations continue to seek economic advantage by fighting for their moderate livelihood fisheries. In 2020, jobs have been lost and the deficit is skyrocketing. Canada cannot afford more indecision and meaningless gestures. Canadians need to see meaningful actions taken. Canada has a long and complicated relationship with its indigenous peoples, and I readily agree that further steps are required to strengthen our relationship.
Changing the oath of citizenship does not accomplish this great task. Work done should add to strengthening relations within the Canadian social fabric. For failing to act on this, the government will be held to account by the people. Canadians deserve better than another empty promise of sunny ways made by politicians wishing to cater sympathetic favour to reduce proud citizens of this country to tokens cynically used to curry political favour.
As a Conservative member of Parliament, I stand for the improvement of Canada. My party stands for the improvement of this country. We represent many Canadians who want better than a government that consistently failed in its mandates by changing the rules and not providing urgent or transparent actions to address the concerns. No matter the gravity of the issue facing Canada or the concerns of indigenous inhabitants, the government has served the House unappealing word salads in its responses.
Similarly, the bill is but another response devoid of any substance. Perhaps Bill C-6 is something that should be delayed until such time as call to action 93 or more meaningful action, such as ending all boil water advisories and making real, meaningful progress on reconciliation, is accomplished.
Citizenship Act November 23rd, 2020
Madam Speaker, I am here today to debate Bill C-8, an act designed to implement a change in the oath of citizenship, in response to recommendation 94 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a simple amendment to the Citizenship Act to pay lip service to respecting the treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people.
I find that there is little logic to support this bill when it is so glaringly exclusionary of many Métis, Inuit and B.C. first nations that are not under treaty rights. They have no effective treaties in their respective area.
What purpose does the bill serve beyond virtue signalling to hashtag-loving armchair activists on social media? It is more than mere symbolism to say that our nation is a nation of immigrants that stands on traditional territories of, and shoulder to shoulder with, our first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Canada is one of the few countries in the world where indigenous rights and treaty rights are entrenched and enshrined in our Constitution. I do believe that educating Canadians about these rights is an important part of the path to reconciliation.
Education is about more than platitudes. I am proud to say that in Canada this education is already taking place. New citizens, having completed their residency requirements, and having studied the handbook of history, responsibilities and obligations, are expected to be aware of the rights entrenched within the Constitution. This gives them at least a general view of the spectrum of resolved and unresolved treaty rights in different parts of our country. In learning about our nation's history, new Canadians develop respect for what is among Canada's existing body of laws. They learn to appreciate the need to fulfill the remaining unfulfilled treaty obligations within the process of reconciliation and aspire to see their new home improved for all.
Apparently, the Liberal government believes Canadians are so unsophisticated that they would think this task could be accomplished by merely changing the oath of citizenship. Such empty gestures shows that the leadership of our government is more interested in patronizing minorities and photo ops than substantive policy development.
Over 30 years ago, I came to Canada as an immigrant. Like a few members of this House, I have taken the oath of citizenship of our great nation. The oath is simple. Unlike the government's promises, it is not a word salad. It represents the final step of a journey from the initial entry to planting roots and eventually becoming a citizen. The oath of citizenship need not be and should not be complicated, nor a thorough examination of the rights and obligations of what it is to be Canadian. It is merely an affirmation of loyalty to the Queen of Canada, representing the head of state of our constitutional monarchy, and an affirmation to obey our laws and obligations as Canadians. These laws include the Constitution. The Constitution, in turn, recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. To accept the proposed legislation is, therefore, an unnecessary redundancy.
I ask again: What purpose does this bill serve?
As I have mentioned, along the way to becoming a citizen, a new immigrant must read materials relating to the origins of Canada, including Canadian indigenous people. I believe Canada's indigenous peoples would be better served by emphasizing recommendation number 93, rather than 94, of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, by strengthening this education. This recommendation calls upon the federal government, in collaboration with national aboriginal organizations to revise the information kit for newcomers to Canada and its citizenship tests to reflect a more inclusive history of the diverse aboriginal peoples of Canada, including information about the treaties and histories of residential schools. My alternative to Bill C-8 is just this: implementing recommendation 93 would go further to educating new Canadians about history with our first nations and the obligations the Crown has to them.
Such content can also discuss part II of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 35 states, “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” Despite many months and many new ideas being presented, the government continues to retable the bill verbatim. I and many other Canadians continue to have the same reaction now as we did each time the bill was brought forward. It is yet another insubstantial virtue signal by the Liberal government.
Canadians are growing tired of this cliché. The government consistently fumbles through crisis after crisis, desperate to take attention away from its failings when it comes to Canada's indigenous peoples. While the Trudeau government takes pride in this as a form of reconciliation, Canadian indigenous people are still—
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns November 23rd, 2020
With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Steveston—Richmond East, between January 2019 and October 2020: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the applicant, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether the funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (viii) project description or purpose of funding; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Steveston—Richmond East that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (v) project description or purpose of funding; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Steveston—Richmond East by recipients tasked with subgranting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding allocated, if the funding was approved, (v) project description or purpose of funding?