Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to such important legislation. Before us, we have what I believe has been a priority not only for me personally but also for the Prime Minister, as has been demonstrated time and time again when he has talked about how important our nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous people is today and will be in the future. It is in the best interests of all. Truth and reconciliation is so important. That is why shortly after the commission's report was tabled back in 2015, the Prime Minister, who was leader of the third party at the time, made it very clear that if we were in government, we would be in favour of enacting and encouraging in any way we can all 94 calls to action. Today, we are talking about a piece of legislation that creates the national council for reconciliation. It would be an important, powerful and influential council. The minister responsible has put forward an interim board, or a committee, if I can put it that way, to make sure that the council we are creating today gets off on the right foot. I am a little concerned regarding what we do as legislators, what takes place in the House of Commons and how information is disseminated in our communities, especially on the issue of reconciliation. Members will try to marginalize the types of things we are doing inside the House, as if the government is not responding to the calls to action. Nothing could be further from the truth. When members go outside of this chamber and start saying that the government is not acting on the calls to action or has only done 14 of 94, that is misrepresentation at its worst. It is misrepresentation because at the end of the day, many of the 94 recommendations are not even federal responsibility. Many of the recommendations are a joint responsibility between the federal government and provincial governments. Most of the recommendations are a work in progress, just like Bill C-29, which has been worked on for years and will, once passed, incorporate four calls to action. Let us look at the idea that every child matters and at residential schools. The people of Winnipeg North, and I believe Canadians as a whole, recognize how important that theme, idea and reality is. If we look at it, we see the government has been actively working on that file. We are working with different indigenous people to ensure they have the financial resources to do the things that are so critically important. Those are calls to action 72 to 76 and they are in progress. If members are trying to give a false impression to get Canadians and, in particular, indigenous people to believe that the government is not working on the calls to action, I would suggest that is exceptionally misleading, because the numbers clearly demonstrate that. I am going to give members an example. Today is about Bill C-29. I remember debating the child welfare bill, which was, in fact, on call to action number four and was completed quite a while back. That was Ottawa's sole responsibility and we completed that call to action. One call to action associated with that is the first one. Call to action number one deals with child welfare, which is not just for Ottawa. It includes the provinces. To understand why I feel so passionate about this particular issue, take a look at the province I represent. Back in June 2010, I was inside the Manitoba legislature raising the fact that the child advocate was saying Manitoba was in a child care crisis situation. Children in the province of Manitoba were in a very serious situation. That was after many, many years of a government run by a political party that I will not mention. Members can look it up with a Google search. At the end of the day, child welfare, the number one recommendation, is not just a federal responsibility. Ottawa is working with its provincial partners, setting up a council and working with indigenous leaders to deal with children. I would like to say that the recommendation in call to action number one has been achieved, but I think it would be extremely optimistic to see it achieved in the next number of weeks or months. It might take a while. It took the province and Ottawa many years to cause the problems we have there today. Thousands of children were displaced from their birth parents, and these are the types of issues that are going to take a while. When a member goes into the community and starts espousing that we are not acting on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, it gives a false impression to people who are looking for hope. Imagine an indigenous community looking for leadership. It is looking for people to be apolitical on such an important file. In fact, for over 80% of the calls to action, there has been significant progress when the federal government has been involved. A dozen or more have been completed, and today we will pass four more when the legislation passes. We have to take into consideration that this goes beyond the people in this room and take a look at others. It was great to see the Pope come to Canada. That was one of the calls to action. Yes, the federal government and maybe members in the opposition benches played a role, but do not let there be any doubt that it was the indigenous community that was ultimately successful at convincing the Pope to come, do the right thing and provide a formal apology. The federal government does not get the credit and the provinces do not get the credit. It was about the indigenous community working with the Pope and the Pope doing the right thing. That is how that call to action was resolved. This is about the people in our communities, such as Diane Redsky, the executive director of Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata, who is retiring after many years of running that organization. It is at the ground level dealing with indigenous health care and social and justice issues. I wish her the very best. At the end of the day, this is about communities, organizations like Ma Mawi and many others, and indigenous leaders. They are the ones who will hopefully be able to ensure that we continue to be held accountable. A big part of that is going to be done through the national council for reconciliation, something we are creating today. Time does not permit me to go through all the things I would like to highlight, but I can tell members about a few others. I like how we have responded to the statutory holiday and like what it has turned into. In my home city of Winnipeg, in year one, we had a wonderful gathering and a walk from The Forks to St. John's Park. This year, it was from The Forks to the convention centre. Thousands of Winnipeggers and Manitobans as a whole, and I suspect many from outside the province, showed up, recognizing how important it is that we achieve reconciliation. To me, that is the essence of what we should be striving to achieve. Truth and reconciliation is not just for politicians inside this chamber, the Manitoba legislature or any other legislature. I would even dare say it is not just for indigenous leaders. It is for everyone. That is one of the reasons that I think the legislation we passed to recognize it and see how it evolves will make all of us as a nation better, because this heightens the level of awareness and recognizes the truth. I will conclude my remarks with that in the hope that at some point today, we might see the collapse of debate so we can get the bill passed through third reading.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Conservatives are supporting the legislation. We have even seen some amendments brought forward, which shows the openness of the government to recognizing that we can improve upon the legislation. If the member was not here, although I suspect he might have been, when the minister gave the detailed explanation of how we got to this point, I think the member might benefit from looking over exactly what the minister said. However, again I would emphasize that from day one to where we are today, given the number of legislative actions and legislative pieces that have passed through the House, the numerous budgetary measures and the obligations to consult with indigenous partners not only on the calls to action but other pieces of legislation we have brought through the House, we have done exceptionally well. That is not to mention the fact that we have just finished going through a worldwide pandemic. There are all sorts of things at play here. If the only criticism is that we are not quite moving fast enough, I will compare our government in the last seven years to any other government in the history of our nation when it comes to dealing with indigenous issues.

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely totally disagree with what the member is saying. I understand the calls to action and the truth and reconciliation report. When it was tabled back in 2015, it was the leader of the Liberal Party who stood up virtually immediately and said we would act on all 94 calls to action. Even Thomas Mulcair did not do that. We have done this consistently from day one, both legislatively and from a budget perspective. We can take a look at the numbers and the reality. Members of the NDP need to have a better understanding that, not only are they doing a disservice here in the House, but by spreading misinformation outside the House, they are taking away hope that the indigenous people in particular, but Canadians as a whole, have for truth and reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, I want us to imagine we are of indigenous background, and we look at the calls to action. We are looking for leadership. What we see often from this House is a high sense of co-operation where in fact we are moving forward. We see a sense of hope that, for the first time, we have Canadians looking at truth and reconciliation and acting on the calls to action. Then, we have some members of Parliament who are going out and about spreading misinformation and trying to give the impression that Ottawa does not care and Ottawa is not acting on the calls to action. That sort of misinformation takes hopes away from young people and it takes hope away from indigenous people. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a government and a House of Commons that want to deliver, and we are delivering, whether it is financially or on the calls to action. As I say, there are 94 calls to action, and we are responsible, wholly or in part, for well over 80% either being complete or in process. Hopefully after today we will be able to say four of those calls to action have passed third reading.

Madam Speaker, I will start off with a bit of a different perspective. I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-235, which has been sponsored by a dear friend of mine, the member for Winnipeg South Centre. The member and I go back to 1988, actually. I have heard a great number of speeches from my friend. Over the years, one of the things that I have really appreciated, and I think we need to put this into the context of the legislation that we are debating, is that the member for Winnipeg South Centre is very much a visionary. Virtually from day one since I have known him, he has brought forward ideas that can really make a difference. This legislation is something which the member is very passionate about, because he understands the needs of the Prairies. The member has met with many mayors, councillors, stakeholders, not only in our home province of Manitoba but also throughout the Prairies. There is a bit of a mindset that some like to say about people from the Prairies and that is, yes, we are all about economic development but the climate is an afterthought—

Madam Speaker, one might question the actual timing of that particular quorum call, knowing full well that members are, if not here, in the MP lobbies. I would think this would not be done, at the very least out of respect for the fact that we are talking about private members' legislation. The point I was attempting to make, prior to the quorum call, was the fact that what we have before us is something to enable a strong and sustainable prairie economy. Some might try to give a mindset that the people on the Prairies are only concerned about the economy, which is somewhat of a false impression. People from the Prairies are also concerned about the environment and recognize that climate change is indeed very real. There are two points I want to emphasize with regard to the legislation. One is that I do not believe there is any form whatsoever of jurisdictional creep. This is about a framework. It is not about jurisdiction. It is about bringing people together in order to establish a framework so that the Prairies could move forward on the issue of a strong, sustainable prairie economy. For people who would try to suggest that it is anything other, I would really encourage them to meet with the member for Winnipeg South Centre. He would be able to alleviate those concerns. In 2019, we had a wonderful organization. It used to be Western Diversification. There were a number of prairie members of Parliament. and I like to think I was one, who wanted to establish PrairiesCan, as opposed to Western Diversification. The Prairies is something I am very familiar with. It is very unique in its very nature. PrairiesCan brought together over 125 experts to deal with the issue of water management. They were brought together in the city of Regina, and it involved a wide spectrum of stakeholders, from the federal government, the provincial government, municipalities, indigenous community members, labour, industry reps and others. At the end of the day, what we saw was a compilation of ideas and thoughts dealing with the issue of water management. In fact, I think out of that group came a report that has been referenced in many ways from many different jurisdictions. I would suggest that we are better off as a region as a result. I can say, as I have heard many from the Prairies say, water, and the flow of water, does not respect jurisdictions. Water management issues in the Prairies are a prairie issue. This bill recognizes that climate change is real. This bill recognizes that the future of the prairie economy is immense. The potential, and I know the member for Winnipeg South Centre would be able elaborate in great detail, is equal to or greater than any other region of Canada. I remember consistently over the years that the member would talk about having lots of wheat and many different types of resources coming from the Prairies, but it is the processing that gives us the jobs people in the Prairies want. When we talk about a greener economy, as this legislation is referencing and wanting us to move toward, the prairie provinces, as a region, need to continue to invest in that. Clean energy and clean tech are absolutely critical for the future growth of our Prairies. Whether they are big corporations or new start-up companies, all of them recognize that the future means clean energy and moving towards an economy that is greener. People of the Prairies do not fear that. The bill recognizes the need for the Prairies to come together, bring the stakeholders and establish that framework. We have many bright people on the Prairies. The member for Winnipeg South Centre highlighted a Nobel Prize winner from Edmonton. Whether it is from Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon or the many municipalities in between, and I have lived in all three provinces and am proud to say I am from the Prairies, I believe the future is there, and we should not be fearful. It is not a jurisdictional issue to establish a framework of prosperity, and that is what this bill would do. I commend the member for Winnipeg South Centre for taking the initiative and once again providing a vision, not only for people in the Prairies, but for the entire country.

Madam Speaker, I would like to add a couple thoughts. When the member makes reference to names, I think of individuals such as Diane Redsky, Sharon Redsky, Cindy Woodhouse and Amy Chartrand. These individuals have committed so much of their lives and efforts toward indigenous people on the issue of reconciliation in a real way. There are obviously many others. I am referring just to Winnipeg North, and it is a relatively small number of individuals that I could recognize. I would like to pay a compliment to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on how effective he has been as an indigenous caucus chair. He has provided advice to the Prime Minister and to members of Parliament, such as myself. He has provided us very valuable information to ensure we continue to be on the right track. Back in 2015, when the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberal Party in third-party status, the 94 calls to action were tabled here. The then leader of the Liberal Party made a solemn commitment to indigenous people from coast to coast to coast, and beyond, to implement and work toward getting all 94 calls to action moving in a positive direction. Upon the election results later that year, we made it very clear that our priority was indigenous reconciliation. That was something that was not optional. If one were to check the mandate letters provided to ministers, they would see a very clear indication on indigenous people. This is something that is of a strong personal nature for our Prime Minister. It has been a priority for our entire caucus, with the guidance of individuals like our Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. If we look at budgetary measures or legislative measures, virtually from day one to today, we will see calls to action being responded to in a tangible way. We hear some members of Parliament say we are spending too much, implying there is too much waste. Others will say we are not spending enough. What is clear is that we have never before seen a government invest so much in financial resources, and other resources, to deal with truth and reconciliation and justice for indigenous people in Canada. There should be no doubt about that. When I was in opposition, I on occasion made reference to the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls from indigenous communities. That is an issue I recall asking for a public inquiry on. That was before the calls to action. I would like to read call to action 41. It states: We call upon the federal government, in consultation with Aboriginal organizations, to appoint a public inquiry into the causes of, and remedies for, the disproportionate victimization of Aboriginal women and girls. The inquiry’s mandate would include: (i) Investigation into missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls (ii) Links to the intergenerational legacy of residential schools. I raise that because one of the very first actions of this government was to call for the public inquiry. We have many actions being requested of the government that have come out of that public inquiry. Fast-forward to today, and we are talking about Bill C-29. If we look at what Bill C-29 is all about, let there be no doubt that it is specifically in response to calls to action 53, 54, 55 and 56. Call to action 53 states: We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal Peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation. The legislation would establish the council as an independent, national, oversight body with membership jointly appointed by the Government of Canada and national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members. Its mandate would include, but not be limited to, the following.... Call to action 53 then goes on to list five points. Call to action 54 states: We call upon the Government of Canada to provide multi-year funding for the National Council for Reconciliation to ensure that it has the financial, human, and technical resources required to conduct its work, including the endowment of a National Reconciliation Trust to advance the cause of reconciliation. Call to action 55 states, in part: We call upon all levels of government to provide annual reports or any current data requested by the National Council for Reconciliation so that it can report on the progress towards reconciliation. The reports or data would include, but not be limited to.... It then lists two items. Finally, call to action 56 states: We call upon the prime minister of Canada to formally respond to the report of the National Council for Reconciliation by issuing an annual “State of Aboriginal Peoples” report, which would outline the government’s plans for advancing the cause of reconciliation. Those four calls to action are in this legislation, in the amendments that were brought forward. I highlighted call to action 41, which we took action on immediately after we became government back in 2015, and today we are debating those four calls to action. It is not only budgetary and legislative measures that the government makes on a daily basis. If we focus our attention strictly on truth and reconciliation, we can talk about not millions, but billions of dollars that the government has allocated in working in partnership with indigenous people, whether it is on issues such as systemic racism, health care, housing and so much more. In terms of legislation, we can talk about enactments to support indigenous child welfare. We can talk about legislation to support indigenous language. We can talk about Bill C-15, the UNDRIP legislation that was brought forward. What about the statutory holiday that was brought forward in legislation? There is legislation dealing with the oath of citizenship. When we hear that every child matters, calls to action 72 to 76 are ongoing. We can talk about the lobbying that took place and call to action 58, which was the formal apology from the Pope here in Canada. If we look at the 94 calls to action in total, well over 80% of them have been acted on in one form or another, and many of them have been completed. It is important to recognize that, as a national government, where we have responsibility, we act on it. That is a commitment that the Prime Minister and Liberal Party made before we formed government, and now that we have the reins of government, we are implementing these calls to action because it is the right thing to do. I recognize there is a lot more that needs to be done. I suspect if we were to check with the Prime Minister, cabinet or any individual member of the Liberal caucus, we would find the same sentiment.

Madam Speaker, that is one of the nice things we have as parliamentarians, in terms of a process. We have the second reading stage followed by the committee stage. There is a lot of fine work done at the committee stage. That is why members will often find I am anxious to get bills into the committee stage. Where we have a sense of openness, we will see amendments brought forward that would make the legislation even better in terms of, as the member puts it, reflecting the actual intent of the calls for action. I suspect that is why we are going to see the amendments pass.

Madam Speaker, I suspect that is one of the reasons we saw such unanimous support in regard to Bill C-15, which passed not that long ago, dealing with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is something all of us could take a great of credit for, sharing, promoting and encouraging what UNDRIP is all about. I represent an area in Winnipeg North that has one of the higher per capita populations of indigenous people. I have a very good understanding of many different related issues. Like many others in this House, I want to make a positive difference on reconciliation. That is why I often comment on the issue of reconciliation and just how important it is for us as a nation.

Madam Speaker, in my final days as an MLA, before I became a member of Parliament, I released in the Manitoba legislature a condemnation from a child advocate, saying that Manitoba had a child care crisis. The NDP failed the children of the province of Manitoba in the managing of children, foster children. That is one of the reasons I was in wholehearted support of the legislation we came up with to deal with indigenous-led child welfare. I believe that will make a positive difference because, in good part, of the failure of the Gary Doer regime back a number of years ago.

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in many of the things the member said. However, the question I have for him is in regard to Bill C-5. When we think of the calls to action, a lot of things deal with the issue of systemic racism and the percentage of indigenous people in our prison system. Bill C-5 would attempt to deal with that by looking, at least in part, at what the calls to action are talking about, which is minimum sentences and repealing them. Could the member provide the Conservative Party's position on addressing that aspect of a number of calls to action that are looking at ways in which we can decrease the high percentage of indigenous people in jail? What are the member's thoughts in regard to, in particular, Bill C-5?

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important in the sense that we have before us legislation that would establish a national council. That council has been in the makings now for a while. We have had an interim council that has been advising the government and which has assisted in getting us to the point where we are today. The member made reference, as have other members, to a number of indigenous-related issues, especially the issue of reconciliation. I am wondering if the member could expand her thoughts on the 94 calls to action and the fact that a lot of those have a shared jurisdiction. Not all of them are federal. The council would play such a critical role going forward in terms of ensuring how that reconciliation would be best achieved. Could the member provide her thoughts on the significance of that fact?

Madam Speaker, this is very progressive legislation that deals with an area of concern that Canadians have, and it is something the government is concerned about. That is why we have the legislation. It is for safety and privacy, which are of critical importance. We are moving into a significant digital economy with databases. The issue is there, and I am interested in knowing where the Conservatives are going to fall on this legislation. When I listened to the member, she seemed to express concerns about this area, but there was no indication of whether the Conservative Party would be supporting the legislation. We just heard from the Speaker in terms of voting on the three parts. Does the member have any suggested amendments that she is thinking about? I believe that Canadians need this legislation. Would it not be nice to have legislation of this nature pass second reading before the end of the year?

Madam Speaker, I note that the last time we had any real changes to the privacy legislation of this magnitude was a couple of decades ago. We did not even have iPhones 20 years ago, so I would ultimately argue that there is a need for change. Tim Hortons aside, I believe the legislation we are talking about provides a good balance between consumer rights, the issue of privacy and the whole digital market out there. No doubt, it would be nice to see the legislation go before committee and, ideally, for that to take place sometime before the end of the year. Given the urgency of the issue itself and the fact that we have not seen anything for 20 years, would the member agree that it would be nice to see the legislation pass before the end of this year?

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was in response to a question by the leader of the Green Party that a member of the Conservative Party responded by implying that the best thing we could do would be to defeat the legislation and send it back to the drawing board. I do not believe that would be the position of the leader of the Green Party, but I do have a question for her. I can appreciate there is a fear factor. We want to be cautious as we move forward, and what I suggested before in my question is that it seems to me there is a great deal of interest on all sides of the House to get into the nuts and bolts of the legislation. Given the limited time for debate in the House, would it not be better to see the legislation go before a committee because a committee has a lot more time to get into the details of the legislation? After all, we would still have all of third reading and so forth. That is why I made reference to whether we should be looking at trying to get this legislation through second reading before the end of the year, given the importance of the issue.

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a fascinating issue, which is the capturing of images and how one would protect the privacy of the individual, especially when it is in a public setting. I think that could be applied in many different ways. It would be interesting to see how that sort of a discussion would, in fact, take place at a standing committee. The member is right in the sense that the legislation is not that far off. I do not know all of the details of it, obviously, but I am led to believe that Quebec has done some fabulous work on this issue. I wonder if he could provide any insights into how the Quebec legislature dealt with the capturing of images and the public versus privacy issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would concur with the member and the many others who are, in essence, saying that Bill C-27 is a substantive piece of legislation that is ultimately designed to ensure privacy for Canadians. As I made reference to earlier, I think we could look at how effective the legislation of the Quebec legislation has been, which was passed just over a year ago, and what the response has been to it. I understand that was what the member was saying. Taking into consideration AI, the tribunal, digital and just how much the digital economy has grown, 20 years ago is the last time we have seen any sort of substantive changes to our privacy legislation. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to why it is important that we update and modernize. After all, 20 years ago, we did not even have iPhones.

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to some things that were mentioned previously. I am forming the opinion that the Conservative Party does not support having a tribunal. I guess I am looking for clarification on that point. Is it the Conservative Party's approach to say that, once the commission has made a decision, a tribunal would not be warranted and that the only recourse would be to take it to a federal court? What would it replace the tribunal with, or would it replace it with anything?

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time the House is dealing with measures in right to repair legislation and modifications to the Copyright Act. In fact, Bill C-244 was here a bit earlier in the year. It was introduced by the member for Richmond Centre, and we had a fairly healthy debate on that issue. As alluded to earlier, some members had the opportunity to put some comments on the record with respect to that legislation. Many of the things that were said during that debate could also be said for this particular debate. Today, Bill C-244 is still at the committee stage, and I suspect there is going to be a great deal of seriousness in looking at the ways we can improve upon it. With respect to the member's bill, Bill C-294, the government will be supporting the legislation. More importantly, I think there is a great deal of sympathy from all members on all sides of the House in recognizing the importance of the principles the member is trying to achieve through passing Bill C-294. Modernizing the Copyright Act is of critical importance. There are certain things one has to take into consideration. Whenever we think of copyright, we like to think it is pretty simple and straightforward. We should be able to do this and that to different products, and there are things in place related to international trade. We can talk about, for example, the trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States. We can talk about international agreements. Copyright does play a very important role in society, and we can look at it from both an economic and a cultural perspective. That is why it is absolutely essential that we have copyright legislation. The member made reference to modernization, and I think that is, in essence, what we should be looking at, whether it is with Bill C-244 or Bill C-294, the bill we are debating today. They demonstrate that it does not matter what side of the House we are on; there is very much a keen interest in the copyright legislation we have in Canada today. This speaks to the need for us to look at ways to maybe further study the Copyright Act. The nice thing about Bill C-294, and why we will be supporting it, is that ultimately, by going to committee and listening to the different stakeholders, we can make some changes and, at the same time, still abide by those important agreements that allow for our economy and cultural sector to continue to grow and prosper. It is so very important. I have indicated that things tend to get a bit more complicated and a bit more expensive, and I recall the days when I could buy a car, pop the hood and do all sorts of wonderful things to it. Believe it or not, I even did a motor transplant of sorts back in the late seventies on a 1976 Mustang. Today, if I pop the hood on a 2022 Mustang, I am not going to touch it. I suspect that if we were to investigate it, we would find TPMs on all forms of things that are locked. Some of that no doubt is justifiable, but other aspects, I would suggest, are not. I like simplicity and to think I own something. This year we are focused a great deal on agriculture. I remember, from many years ago, the farms out in Saskatchewan. It was truly amazing to see the farmers' abilities to fix equipment. We see a lot of equipment on a farm, from tractors and combines to cultivators. The ingenuity and expertise there is such that farmers can add something to a piece of machinery that would even make it work better. If something breaks down, they do not have the opportunity to call John Deere or whomever else to get them to come out to the field and fix the machinery. There are issues, and we are talking about hundreds of thousands if not going into the millions of dollars' worth of machinery. There is a great deal of understanding and sympathy that there are certain aspects where we do need to come down a little harder in recognizing that consumer rights are very important. Consumer rights and competition in society is of the utmost importance, which is why I think that, as legislators, we need to be diligent in terms of what comes before us, with the idea of recognizing that we have a responsibility to look at ways in which we can protect consumer rights and encourage, wherever we can, competition. Through that competition, we are able to ensure that there are better price points and better quality products. Someone earlier made reference to the fact that when we purchase something we like to think that it is ours. Unfortunately, because of things such as the TPMs that are put in place, a lot of things ultimately go in the garbage a little sooner than they should have. Often it is more practical or less expensive to throw something into the garbage and buy something new in some situations. In other situations, if we had the simple solution of having a third party, or better yet a third party part as opposed to having to purchase a manufacturer's part, it could save us a great deal of money. It could also make it that much more accessible in terms of availability when we actually need to use that part. When we think of it from that perspective and factor in the issue of competition, at end of the day, there is more that we can look at, which is why I am pleased that not only do we have one but now two pieces of legislation. One is from the Conservatives and one is from my colleague and friend from Richmond Centre in the form of Bill C-244 on the right to repair. When I spoke on the right to repair, one of the examples I used when debating Bill C-244 was something as simple as a washer and dryer. It is amazing what we see when we go to landfill sites now. We can compare to average usage to the ability to repair. These are the types of discussions that I would like to see at committee, with the idea that we keep an open mind and look at ways in which we can make some modifications to the Copyright Act. However, we do have to take into consideration how important the Copyright Act is. As I said, it does foster creativity and innovation, which is why we have it. There are also obligations through international agreements. After all, Canada is a trading nation, but we are also a nation that cares deeply about consumer rights, which is the primary reason I think it is important that the bill before us be passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize, whether it is the RCMP or border controls, the people who fill those positions do a fabulous job. Like in any other occupation, there are bad apples. What is nice about the legislation being proposed is that it would build confidence from the public in our institutions. By establishing an independent, arm's length commission, we are allowing for that confidence from the public. Could my colleague reaffirm why it is so important for us to have these independent commissions? After all, it is the bad apples who often cause the issues that get the media's attention and make things look bad for the RCMP or the border control. A vast majority of those civil servants do an outstanding job for all citizens here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would look at Bill C-20 as progressive legislation that is bringing forward a higher sense of accountability to an area that has not really had it before, and that is the Canadian border control, with the independent commission. It will be dealing with not only the RCMP but also the border control officers at the same time. Can my colleague provide his thoughts on the importance of bringing both agencies in under one commission?

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Bill C-20 is a piece of legislation that really does make a difference. We are taking a look at the RCMP and ensuring there is an independent commission to reinforce public confidence in our RCMP when we get bad apples, but it also extends out to Canada's border control. Again, a vast majority, whether they are RCMP officers or border control officers, do a fantastic job seven days a week, 24 hours a day for Canadians, but we need to recognize that there are bad apples and within that group, there is a need for this legislation and for the independent commission. Can I get the member's thoughts on the importance of enforcing public confidence in our institutions?

Madam Speaker, if I may, just at the onset, recognize Senator McCallum and the member for Fredericton, our colleague in the House of Commons, who have ensured that today we are debating this piece of legislation, which I suggest should receive unanimous support of the House. I anticipate it will. I listened to the former speaker. I think it does not matter what political party one comes from, as we all understand and appreciate the true value and meaning of the legislation that is before us. There is no political party, whether Conservative, Liberal or, in fact, NDP, that has conducted itself purely over the years when it comes to indigenous issues. However, when we have legislation like this before us, it provides us the opportunity to come together and recognize the true value of what is being proposed. Recognizing national ribbon skirt day on January 4 of every year would be a very powerful thing to do for a number of reasons. We often recognize special days in the year and talk about the benefits of doing so. This is something that is very tangible. It is tangible because all 338 members of the House of Commons talk about the issue of reconciliation. A part of reconciliation is recognizing the truth. It is recognizing that mistakes were made, and there are things that we can do to make life better and make our society better. What we have before us today, national ribbon skirt day, is an opportunity for us to rectify, at least in part, in a symbolic way, a grave injustice. I want to very briefly read something about how Senator McCallum was inspired to sponsor this bill. Senator McCallum heard about an experience of Isabella Susanne Kulak from the Cote First Nation in Saskatchewan. On December 18, 2020, which was not that long ago, when she was about 10 years old, Isabella went to elementary school wearing her ribbon skirt to a formal day, but was told by a teacher's assistant that her skirt was not formal or appropriate for the day. Out of that particular incident, a great deal of courage and an understanding by many, we now have before us legislation that recognizes the meaning of a ribbon skirt. It was not that long ago that the House passed a piece of legislation to recognize a statutory day of truth and reconciliation. When we did that, it highlighted an annual event, which has occurred twice now. The first year I was in a walk from the Forks in downtown Winnipeg to St. John's Park along Main Street. This year it went from downtown to the convention centre. Those who have participated in those walks, as I did, will know that there were many women who were wearing ribbon skirts. The ribbon skirt is more than just a symbol. It is something that is a reflection of life in many ways. It is also intergenerational. We may see a red ribbon on the dress, which I understand is a reflection on murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. We need to recognize that, even though we actually have a red dress day, when we see red dresses in Manitoba hanging from trees, in windows of homes or, obviously, being worn. These are opportunities. I suspect it is only a question of time before we see some form of programming taking place, whether it is in our schools, in community centres or in the workplace, and there will be opportunities for individuals to become more aware of why the ribbon skirts are so important. One time it was explained to me how a ribbon skirt can be very meaningful in different ways. I was able to do a bit of research this afternoon in anticipation of having the opportunity to see this bill pass. I recognize very much that at the end of the day, statutory holidays matter. Days of recognition also matter. In fact, when we recognize those days when there is no statutory holiday, it affords another type of opportunity that might not necessarily be there during a statutory holiday. It is what the community wants to make of it. I fully believe we will see opportunities for indigenous and non-indigenous people, for people of all backgrounds, to be engaged and participate directly or indirectly in national ribbon skirt day. We see it with the national Red Dress Day. In fact, a lot of residual carries over. I know of at least a couple of places where I still see the red dresses up virtually year-round, and there is a message there. I had an interesting discussion with a group of young ladies regarding the red dress and the issue of missing and murdered girls and women. I do not know to what degree people really appreciate the fact, but there are still indigenous girls and women who are disappearing and being murdered. It is just like we have Orange Shirt Day, which somewhat coincides with the statutory holiday and talks about residential schools and the thousands of students, and I believe it is well over 100,000 over the years, who were taken out of their homes and put into residential schools, and the impact it had. Culture and heritage means everything. We are very proud of our Canadian heritage, and our Canadian heritage grows virtually every day. Our indigenous heritage, our first nation, Métis and Inuit heritage, is what enables Canada to be a diverse country and adds to its value second to no other community, because it is our first community. We all have a responsibility to understand and appreciate that. That is why the idea of a national ribbon skirt day is a positive thing, and I would like to compliment all those who were involved in making this legislation possible. I give a very strong shout-out to the young person, Isabella Susanne Kulak, for having the courage to do what she did.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am tabling a petition on health care. Many of the constituents of Winnipeg North want the House of Commons, in particular the Prime Minister, in fact, all members from different political parties, to recognize the importance of Canada's Health Act. They emphasize the five principles: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility. The petitioners emphasize that there is a role for the national government to play on issues such as mental health, cancer care, long-term care and how important it is for national health standards. It is with pleasure that I table this petition.

Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to speak to legislation. Once again, the government is providing very progressive legislation that will make a real difference in our judicial system. I very much would like to emphasize just how important it is to take a look at Canada as a society and how we are envied around the world. One of the reasons for that is because we understand the importance of judicial independence. There is the political realm and the judicial realm, the rule of law. Canada is recognized for this around the world and is held in fairly high esteem. In fact, many jurisdictions around the world look to the Canada system. Whether it is our Constitution, Charter of Rights or how our judicial system is so successful in providing the public confidence, they are really second to no other. I would like to refer to my father. Many years ago, after he was unable to go to work due to personal disabilities, he took a great deal of time, and made it a hobby, to go to the courts to listen to the proceedings. He virtually was there on a full-time basis. As a result, his confidence in the system grew to a point where he had a wonderful relationship with a number of judges and attorneys both on the Crown side and the defence side. He had a very good understanding. I use that as an example because I believe that if people had a good assessment of what takes place in our judicial system, it would add to public confidence. Personally, as a chair of a youth justice committee for many years, I had the privilege of working on the balance, the community needs and desires and the need for some form of consequence or disposition that was fair to all sides, including victims and the perpetrators. Through that experience, I gained a deeper respect for our judicial system and the importance of it being independent of politics. Let us fast-forward to the pandemic. We have heard the Prime Minister, many of my Liberal colleagues and members on all sides of the House recognize that things occurred during the pandemic from which we all can learn. A good example of that is Zoom. Three-and-a-half years ago, I did not even know Zoom existed, and now it is a major part of my life. We can look at the House of Commons' hybrid system. Now members of Parliament from British Columbia, as an example, who are serving their constituents in their ridings, can speak on the floor of the House of Commons. Why is that relevant to this legislation? Because this legislation, in essence, is about that. We are looking for ways to improve our judicial system. During the pandemic, certain aspects of our judicial system incorporated a more virtual contribution to the delivery of justice. That is the essence of what this bill would do. It is important to recognize that accessibility, efficiency and effectiveness are three fundamental pillars of justice. We need to strive for that. We in government have been doing that from day one, with a number of substantial pieces of legislation to make our judicial system that much better and stronger. We have seen over the last couple of years, that the courts desire this. When I say “courts”, I mean it in the broader sense of the word, all the different stakeholders at play, whether it is victims, perpetrators, lawyers, court clerks, sheriffs, everyone involved. I suspect we would find universal acceptance on the need for modernization. That is the essence of Bill S-4. Bill S-4 proposes a range of reforms that would make court proceedings more flexible, while protecting the rights of all participants. It would enable presentations of different forms to be done by video conference. As we look at the whole issue of modernization and how things have changed through time, we all have an obligation to look at ways to support our courts and our judicial system, and it is not unique. In fact, members will recall Rona Ambrose's private member's bill that had recommendations that we, as legislators, felt would be in the best interest of our judicial system to ensure there was an educational component on sexual violence. After the former leader of the Conservative Party brought forward the legislation, we could not get it passed through the private members' system. The government very quickly then took the initiative and made it happen, and there was unanimous support for it. Yesterday, during the debate on Bill S-4, we started to see the same thing. Members of the Conservative Party, the Bloc Party, the NDP and Green Party indicated support for it. It seems that once again we have achieved unanimous support for progressive legislation that will help us modernize our court system. This has been around for a while and there is no reason why we could not see it go to committee and listen to the stakeholders. I know a great number of stakeholders have been waiting to see this legislation advance, and hopefully we will do that.

Madam Speaker, the member asked two questions and I will provide some detail on both. Regarding legal aid and the financing of legal aid, we need to recognize that there are jurisdictional responsibilities at both the federal and the provincial level. In terms of legal aid, there is an obligation for the federal government to work with the different provincial jurisdictions. I do not know if that answer will satisfy the member, but that is the reality. There is a sense of obligation to work with the different provincial entities, and I just do not know the more detailed background work that has been done on that. Regarding Bill S-4 and its predecessor as a piece of government legislation, the original legislation came out through the House of Commons. One of the ways we can ensure we get it passed is to have support, and the Senate has been fantastic in ensuring that we can have the legislation before us today. Hopefully we will be able to get it through even more quickly.

First of all, Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that judges today who are appointed are not appointed on a political basis. There is a process that has been in place, and the government is very careful in terms of the manner in which judicial judges are appointed. I believe one of the changes was put in place back in 2015, when the Prime Minister was elected and instructed with the Minister of Justice at the time. I see that as a very strong positive. In fact, with respect to the judicial appointments and judges who have been appointed to the different chambers, there is a better cross-section and reflection of what our society looks like. I would suggest that the government of the day has done a first-class job in terms of judicial appointments. I am anticipating that we will continue to see that, as we are very aware of the importance of ensuring that, as much as possible, we are getting justice as quickly as possible.

Madam Speaker, my colleague and friend has been a very strong advocate for rural connections with the Internet. In talking to him prior to standing and addressing the legislation, he talked about how the Province of Quebec was able to utilize what we are suggesting. We know, in many ways, Quebec leads the country on many different progressive issues, and it is one of the reasons, for us as a national caucus, to always keep a close eye on what our Quebec members of Parliament are saying. We recognize that through time things change. Technology and the Internet have had such a profound impact on society. They are second probably to very few other things, if any, in the way that society has evolved. We have seen the Internet interplay with everyone in Canada. Today it is an essential service, and it would be wrong for us not to look at ways we can use that technology to modernize, whether it is our judicial system, the House of Commons or anything else.

Madam Speaker, there are a number of factors that have to be calculated into a call of a federal election, such as the opposition's behaviour in playing obstruction and not allowing anything to pass. Canadians should not be fooled to believe that the Conservative Party was even going to be prepared to allow that legislation to pass. We will have to wait to see what takes place with Bill S-4. I am suggesting that we once again have unanimous support. It would appear that every member of the House of Commons is going to be supporting the legislation. Hopefully, the Conservatives will allow this legislation to pass without time allocation, but only time will prevail. We will find out.

Madam Speaker, in order to be able to facilitate additional debate time so that the member opposite would be able to speak, the government has offered the opposition the opportunity to sit until midnight. If the opposition does feel that it would like to have more debate on this legislation, I would invite its members to approach the government House leader and say that they have x number of members who would like to speak, and maybe we could sit until midnight. Many Canadians from coast to coast to coast work past 6:30. I would suggest that the Conservative Party acknowledge that fact and be prepared to debate late into the evening. If there are more people who would like to be able to speak to legislation, which is virtually unanimous, we will find that I can be exceptionally accommodating to ensure some form of discussion. Whether it is here at second reading, at the committee stage or ultimately at third reading, there are plenty of opportunities for members to be able to speak. There is a good number of stakeholders out there who are anxious to see the legislation ultimately pass. If everyone is supporting it, then why not allow the legislation to go forward? At the very least, we can have Canadians provide their direct input during the committee stage.

Madam Speaker, by the sounds of it, the member continues to add to the unanimous sense that the legislation will in fact be supported by everyone inside the chamber. My question for the member is related to the idea that through time, things change and there is a need for modernization. I made reference to victims consistently throughout many of my comments. I have spoken about the importance of allowing and enabling victims to be present in different formats. Would the member not at the very least concur that in supporting the legislation, we are recognizing the importance of having technology and its modernization within our judicial system?

Mr. Speaker, there should always be an appropriate consequence for a crime that is committed, but I want to shy away from that and refer to the fact that Bill S-4 is really about the partial modernization in which our judicial system would be able to incorporate video conferencing or video taping to assist the system. We learned that through the pandemic. Could the member reaffirm, which I understand to be the case, that the Conservative Party will be supporting the legislation and getting the important feedback on it once it goes to committee?

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-4 takes into consideration the idea of technology and the experiences we had during the pandemic. The judicial system sees the benefits of having video conferencing and incorporating that. It is legislation that has been around for quite a while now. It even predates the last federal election. I understand the Conservatives will be supporting the legislation, and they have taken the opportunity to add additional comments. The additional comments leave the impression that the Conservatives are tough on crime and that they think about the victims. They can say what they like but it is important to recognize that I believe all parties in the chamber understand and have a great deal of sympathy and empathy for victims. We have a judicial system to protect the interests of all Canadians. It is something of which we can be proud. Does the member not feel that given the very nature of the support of the legislation that we can all get behind it? It is important to recognize technology and the advancements of it.

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, many of the changes to the legislation we are talking about today originate in the different provinces. There has been a great deal of consultation with provinces around ensuring that we modernize our system. That is something really important to recognize. It is about building confidence. It is about ensuring Canadians feel that we are keeping up with the times. With technology advancements come opportunities for us to ensure a better, more solid and confident justice system. Could my colleague provide her thoughts on why it is so important that we continue to look at advances in society from a technological point of view, and how those advances can be beneficial to our judicial system? Our system is something that I would suggest is looked at around the world as one of the best systems. Other countries come to take a look at Canada's system because of how good it has been.

Mr. Speaker, in acknowledging the importance of judicial independence, it is important we recognize that Bill S-4 is a reflection of the desire of a lot of provinces to make changes coming out of the pandemic, taking advantage of the technology today that is always an option. That is what the bill would provide: options for our courts to take advantage of the technology. I am wondering if the member would concur that it is a positive thing and a reason to support the legislation.

Madam Speaker, the legislation itself is, in a very real way, a reflection of what the provinces were looking at seeing some changes on. It also takes into consideration some of the things we witnessed through the pandemic; in other words, modernization to a certain extent and recognizing the importance of technological advances. I understand that the Conservatives are supporting the legislation, which is a really good thing. Providing this opportunity is healthy for our judicial system, which is in fact independent, and there seems to be fairly good ground support to see this legislation pass. Could the member provide his thoughts on the importance of the legislation itself?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the words the member has put on the record regarding Bill S-4. I do not necessarily agree with everything, but I agree with some of it. We have had a fairly good discussion on Bill S-4 today. I believe a vast majority of us, if not all members, will be voting in favour of the legislation going to committee. I have consistently made reference to the fact that this legislation is before us today because of provincial input and the fact that we are going through COVID, which clearly demonstrates the importance of recognizing technological change and how that change can assist us in the judicial system. It is important for us to recognize the issue of judicial independence, which goes to my question. It is really encouraging when we pass legislation like this, because of the direct impact. It is also always good to get unanimous support wherever possible, as we saw, for example, with Rona Ambrose's private member's bill, which ultimately became a government bill. I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts regarding the importance of judicial independence.