Alistair spoke about National Security Act, 2017 and Impact Assessment Act in the House
June 6th, 2018 - 11:50pm
Mr. Speaker, here we go again with time allocation.
Now that I have the minister in the House, I have a question for her. Last week the minister and her government voted in support of Bill C-262, an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The member for Edmonton Strathcona moved roughly 25 amendments at committee to make sure that this bill actually lives up to what the Liberals did last week, and every single amendment was voted down by the Liberals. She now has several motions at report stage that seek to bring this bill in harmony with the UNDRIP.
Will the minister be consistent with her vote last week and support these amendments to make sure that Bill C-69 lives up to the provisions of what she voted for in voting in favour of Bill C-262, yes or no?
Impact Assessment Act:
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. We are debating time allocation for 30 minutes. It is completely unfair that you are recognizing government members when they are supporting this. Members of the opposition have only 30 minutes to voice their concerns. Liberal members should not be getting a speaking spot during these 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, for the minister's recollection, I want to read a summary from Bill C-262, an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Notice that it does not say anything about a preamble.
The minister previously mentioned that the Liberals accepted an amendment to the preamble, which, as every member in the House knows, is non-binding. I again ask the Minister of Environment, given that the Liberals rejected every single amendment by the member for Edmonton Strathcona at committee to make sure that Bill C-69 would be in harmony with UNDRIP, will she revisit her position and at least be consistent with her vote last week and accept the member for Edmonton Strathcona's amendments to Bill C-69? I am talking about the bill before us now. Will she be consistent? Will all of the Liberals be consistent with the way they voted last week?
The first nations of Canada are watching the government.
National Security Act, 2017:
Mr. Speaker, from the 41st Parliament, we have reams of quotes from Liberals regarding the use of time allocation by the then Conservative government.
The quotes we have from the member for Winnipeg North would fill several pages.
What we have seen over the last couple of weeks is the government's use of time allocation and using the bare minimum, allocating five hours for debate on this legislation, on Bill C-69, which was done just before this, on Bill C-75, and on Bill C-76. The list goes on.
I have a simple question for the Minister of Public Safety. Given his party's record when it was the third party in the 41st Parliament, does he not feel the slightest bit of shame and contrition over the complete reversal of his position, now that he occupies that side of the House?
Mr. Speaker, I have just been checking the legislative record for Bill C-59.
This bill was reported back to the House on May 3. When it came up for its first bit of debate at report stage on May 28, I think we had a couple of hours of debate. However, the only person who was able to engage in debate at report stage was the minister. The minister has been a member of this place for a long time. He knows that report stage is an important process wherein this House, as a collective body, gets to consider the work of the committee. I understand that the committee's work is very important and that the committee has gone through a long process. However, equally important is that this House consider the work of the committee at report stage.
Therefore, I ask the hon. Minister of Public Safety this. How is it right to limit debate at this very important stage to five hours when he is the only person in this House who has spoken to this bill at this very important stage?
Impact Assessment Act:
Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt at all the commitment of my fellow British Columbian across the way to indigenous rights. I have spoken to him privately about this.
What I am worried about, though, is the commitment of his government. I acknowledge that the Liberals did vote in favour of Bill C-262 last week, and I commend them for doing that.
Now we have an opportunity before us to put that vote into action with Bill C-69. The member will know that the member for Edmonton Strathcona has several report stage amendments on the bill. I will specifically reference Motions Nos. 12 and 13, which would insert language into Bill C-69 to recognize indigenous rights, and make specific reference to the Constitution of Canada and to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Will the member be consistent with his vote last week and vote in support of these report stage amendments so we can make the bill come into compliance, as per the instructions of Bill C-262, that the laws of Canada be brought into harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? I would like to see the member's commitment, right here and now, to support these amendments.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is an absolute master of hyperbole and revisionist history. When I look at the Liberal platform of 2015, I fail to see a commitment to buy a pipeline for $4.5 billion, but what I do see in there and what I clearly remember is the Prime Minister making a promise to British Columbians on August 20, 2015 that we would have a redone process. The ministerial panel was very flawed. There were so many problems with it, and that is why British Columbians and many other Canadians had problems with this process. Despite the problems of that panel, it still came out with a recommendation saying that Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline proposal cannot proceed without a serious reassessment of its impacts on climate change commitments, indigenous rights, and marine mammal safety.
Given all the criticism of what is going on, and all the factual evidence, surely even the member for Winnipeg North can admit that the reason there is so much opposition to this is that there was a flawed process and his government fundamentally failed to repair the damage of the previous government. The Liberals failed to live up to their promise, and that is why people are protesting. They do not have faith in the current government.