44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 4, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country and an honour to speak in favour of the legislation brought forward by my colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.
Bill C-318 is an essential piece of legislation because it would allow this House to ensure equity in our laws for every Canadian family, especially and specifically for adoptive and intended parents. Just to be clear, intended parents are parents who, for varying reasons, may need to engage with a surrogate in order to have a child, and there may be various scenarios around this. They often go to great lengths to have a child and welcome a child into their home.
The challenges all new parents face are too many to count. That is why it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to do all we can to ensure fairness and equity for all parents in the employment insurance program and the Canada Labour Code.
Today, any new parent will receive parental benefits, but adoptive and intended parents do not receive maternity benefits and, therefore, fewer weeks of benefits. We rightfully recognize that time for attachment is vital, and it is just as needed for intended and adoptive parents. Forming a loving bond can come with extra challenges, especially when it has been estimated that most children adopted in Canada are over the age of 10 at the time of placement.
The lack of a specific benefit to provide parents the time to attach with a child adds extra burden on the ability of these children in need of love to bond with the family they can make a home with. Intended parents need just as much time to care for and bond with a child as well. Any time there can be an opportunity for a parent and child to bond, we should embrace it, and any time we can support adoptive parents or intended parents and their children, we should embrace it.
I recall someone saying to me almost 10 yeas ago, “Find your voice,” and I did not know what that meant at the time, but with an opportunity like this today, on this legislation, I can be a voice not only for my life’s journey, but for others.
I am going to talk about something extremely personal right now, and I feel the context of this legislation warrants me bringing some of my life’s experience, through my voice, into this conversation and into the discussion around this legislation.
I was adopted at birth. I was born in Edmonton, and my parents drove to Edmonton from Lethbridge to pick me up and bring me back to their home in Lethbridge, Alberta, which is where I grew up. I tell part of my life story in this place today with the utmost honour, respect and love for my mom and dad.
My dad passed away in 2014 and my mom passed away in the middle of the pandemic lockdowns in 2020. My dad was a firefighter and my mom was a teacher. Choosing to adopt when they found out as a newly married couple that they could not have kids must have been a big decision for my parents. When my parents started building their family, my mom had to step back from teaching for many years.
I knew from as early as I could remember that I was adopted. My parents never hid this within the family, but they also never, ever, called me their adopted child, and I never saw my parents as my adoptive parents. They chose to adopt. They chose to devote their lives to having a family, to mentor and raise. They chose to be parents, and they are my parents. I say this at the same time with respect also for my birth parents, who, as a young unwed couple, chose to give me up for adoption.
This legislation would make equal the ability for parents, whatever that looks like, to be on equal footing and receive equal benefits. I am proudly supporting, and am actually the official legislative seconder of, this legislation, Bill C-318. It would support and be inclusive for all those who choose to be intended or adoptive parents. It would treat everyone equally.
Whether someone is part of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, whether they have children from other partners that they are bringing together under one roof as a family, whether they had to have a child through a surrogate, whether they adopt domestically or internationally, or whether they have a combination of the above or different family scenarios that I have not mentioned, all family dynamics and scenarios are embraced in this legislation. If we truly want to be inclusive, that means equity. Currently, if someone is an adoptive or intended parent, they do not have equity in the benefits they may receive in order to allow them time to bond with their child.
Let us talk about circumstances with some adopted children who may require extra levels of attention, care and compassion. Some children can come from places of trauma, loss or grief. Some children have complex medical or mental health challenges. Without that early care and attachment, these issues can alter their lives into adulthood. It is important to provide the time for the parent and child not only to bond but also to work on the needs of the child. For parents who adopt internationally or are caring for a child within Canada from a different linguistic background, that additional time can be used to help bridge linguistic or cultural barriers. For a family that adopts a child with special needs, the extra time for attachment will provide not just the chance to connect with their new child but also the time they need to learn more about the resources and services that may be available to manage their child’s unique needs.
Parents of adopted children, or intended parents, already take this time today. However, they often take unpaid leave to do it. That is simply not fair. Government policy must treat all new families fairly and equitably. Supporting the benefits that Bill C-318 would extend to all families will make Canada a better place.
According to a report from the Adoption Council of Canada, in the 2017-18 fiscal year, 2,336 children were adopted. However, the council admits that these numbers do not reflect customary care placements. Even if we assume that those placements would double this number, it would pale in comparison to the 30,000 Canadians eligible for permanent adoption, a number given in a 2021 report from the Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada. These children are waiting for good homes. Benefits like the ones Bill C-318 seeks to create will ensure that we fully respect all families.
In closing, I would like to refer back to the report from the Adoption Council of Canada. Specifically, there is a quote that provides context to this debate from the point of view of an anonymous adoptive parent. The life experience it refers to is very similar to mine. It says, “It is incredibly important for not just the federal government but society in general to recognize all parents”. It goes on to say, “My daughter is my daughter. She is not my ‘adopted’ daughter. I am her mother. I am not her ‘adoptive’ mother. There is still much that needs to change.”
These families are Canadian heroes, providing loving homes to children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. We should erase any dividing lines in our laws or support systems by which they are not entirely recognized as the families they truly are.
I sincerely hope that all members of the House can put their partisanship aside to support this wonderfully positive and family-focused bill, which was put together by a caring mom and seconded by a mom who was adopted at birth and who has an incredible son. Let us ensure equitability for adoptive and intended parents and pass this bill.
1364 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always encouraging when we get members standing up speaking on legislation who share their personal story. I do want to thank the member. I know I speak on behalf of all members. When members explain a very personal story, such as she has done in such an elegant way, it really brings the importance of the issue to the floor of the House.
The deputy House leader and I did get a chance to talk about the issue. I think there is a great deal of sympathy in regards to why the government should do what it needs to do in order to enhance EI. I am sure that the member is aware that we, as a government, have talked about the importance of EI generally speaking. However, when we think in terms of the specifics of what this legislation would do, we talked about during an election and post election. We saw a very passionate minister who is actually very keen on looking at ways in which we can improve the employment insurance regime.
A considerable amount of consultation needs to take place, but I will bring a bit of a different perspective.
There is absolutely no doubt of how an adoptive parent and adopted child love and care, which is reciprocated between them such that, in essence, we could drop the word “adopted”. The adoptive parent will raise the child as his or her own, and we will see the multitude of sacrifices that are made by the parent for the child with a very happy heart, because it is their child. As the child grows, we will see that it is most often reciprocated where the child sees the adoptive parent as their parent. There is no denying the strength of that bond, which is equal, I would suggest, in many ways to a natural birth parent in terms of the care and love connection.
I would like to add something to that. Last year, I was at an event in Winnipeg North with my daughter. We were sitting beside this wonderful lady, Myrna, who is a foster parent, which we just found out that evening. We knew she had a wonderful family, as I had met Myrna in the past, and I had seen her children, who are older, but I did not know that she was a foster parent. I was so impressed with the discussion that we had that we were inspired to do something with respect to foster parents, because the connection that foster parents have with children is strong. In fact, we will find that there is a very direct link when a person gets a child virtually from birth, and this happens quite often, until adulthood.
I do not know if it was in March or April, but there was a debate inside the Manitoba legislature about the connection between non-biological parents and children who are adopted or provided foster care. I have seen the connection. It is very tangible. In fact, what we ended up doing in that particular situation, and the same principles could be applied elsewhere, is recognize them with the jubilee pins we were given for honouring foster children. Based on the discussion we are having here this evening, I suspect we could have just as easily, and I wish we had, given some recognition to adoptive parents, because we should never take this for granted.
When we look at what the government has been talking about, I am sure the member is aware that the minister has a mandate letter. Within that mandate letter, as I understand, there is direction with respect to adoptive parents. We have to take a look at what has been taking place over the last couple of years.
One thing we have seen is that the whole EI area can be very effective at responding to the needs of Canadians in a very real and tangible way. We saw that during the pandemic. We might have had to put some limitations on some of the things we wanted to do as a result of the pandemic and the crisis that all Canadians had to deal with at that time. However, let us not let that discourage individuals following this debate from trying to push forward the idea and principle that we need to recognize adoptive parents through EI reform.
The minister herself has indicated that she genuinely wants to see changes to the EI system. The Prime Minister himself has recognized the importance of the issue. The Prime Minister not only came up with the mandate letters, which all prime ministers have done in the past, but also singled this issue out to this particular minister—
793 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I am sorry, but I do have to cut the hon. member off. The next time this matter is before the House, he will have two minutes left for his speech.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:28:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am here to follow up on a question I asked the government last week that is tied to a number of issues. It was tied mainly to the ongoing strike, but highlighted a key concern that I and many Canadians have right across this country in a number of areas.
The current government has increased the public service by, I believe, 53% over the last few years, to the tune of over $21 billion, and unfortunately, service has declined. The strike that just happened is the largest strike in Canadian history. While I will acknowledge it has tentatively come to a conclusion, it does not really get to the point of my main question, which is why it has taken the government two years to get this situation resolved.
That strike, and just the general lack of service support across federal government departments, has impacted, for example, Afghans, who helped Canada, get here because the IRCC has been proven incapable of processing the necessary paperwork. In particular, in the last month, the strike has had an impact on Canadians trying to get their tax returns done on time and, with the challenges many of them are facing due to pandemic benefits that were paid out and now, in some cases, being clawed back, trying to get clarity to understand what they owe and how fast they have to pay it back or work out an appropriate level of support. I personally took issue with the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development having the audacity to tell Canadians, while the strike was going on, that their passports were not essential and not to bother applying.
There is another issue that specifically impacted my riding. Georgian College runs a marine program and Transport Canada reassured the college, and the 40 students in the process of finishing the program, ahead of time that they would still have the ability to write their exams and they would be administered on time. Unfortunately, there was a change in tune by Transport Canada while the strike was going on, and those students, who are to become much needed navigators or marine experts in our labour force, were not able to be qualified and get out there as quickly as possible. I am hopeful that will be resolved in a very short time frame.
The fact of the matter is that the strike had a huge impact, and I really just want to understand better why it took the government two years to resolve this situation with the unions when it could have been resolved before a strike even needed to occur.
439 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:32:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. Before I answer his fundamental question, I would first like to provide an update to all my colleagues in the House of Commons and to Canadians.
As I am sure everyone is aware, we have reached a tentative agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, or PSAC, for the four bargaining units in the core public administration. This is great news for employees and for Canadians.
It was not easy. We negotiated, we compromised and we found creative solutions. After long days, nights and weekends of hard work, we reached fair and competitive agreements for employees, with wage increases of 11.5% over four years, consistent with the recommendations made by the Public Interest Commission. These agreements are also reasonable for taxpayers and provide an additional year of stability and certainty.
The Government of Canada values the important role that public service employees play in providing services to Canadians. PSAC members play an essential role in this work, and these agreements will provide them with important benefits and improvements that recognize their vital contribution.
Now I would like to address the issue of services raised by the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
There are a couple of things I will do.
First, I would like to directly answer why it took this long to have negotiations.
I would like to inform the hon. member that the Government of Canada tabled its negotiations just over a year ago. Unfortunately, PSAC chose not to negotiate with us. It walked away from the table. We were always there and ready at the table to start the negotiations so we could have avoided what we experienced over the last two weeks, but it was not to be. It was not until after the publication of the public interest report, as well the public interest commission's report, and some other processes related to the strike mandate before the unions returned to the table. We then negotiated night and day with the bargaining units at the table and came up with a deal that is not only fair and reasonable for public service employees, but also competitive, fair and reasonable for Canadians.
Therefore, I would be happy to talk to the member about the consequences of what has happened and the effects that this two-week strike has had on various services, but I see that I am running close to time, so I will wrap up here. I hope my colleague will allow me to continue providing him the response that he has sought.
442 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:35:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will definitely give the parliamentary secretary a chance to follow up in his remaining minute to really address the issue. I would like him, as well as the government, to acknowledge the terrible impact the strike has had in general, and on the lack of services to Canadians over the last number of months or years in some cases.
Also, I would ask for his advice with respect to what they have learned so that future governments, regardless of political stripe, can get to a resolution prior to a strike reoccurring. Does the parliamentary secretary have anything to offer so that in the future we do not have to get to the same point where our hard-working federal employees have to go on strike?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:36:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the advice I would have is to start the negotiations as early as we can. There are times where it would be unreasonable to expect any future government to start negotiations years in advance of the ending of a contract because conditions will change over time. If we go back three years, I do not think people would have predicted that we would have seen interest rates rise to 5% or 6% as they have. At the time, we were staying at historically low rates for almost a decade, so it would be unreasonable to expect that. However, as soon as they can, say a year out, it makes a lot of sense for governments to do that. I would encourage all future governments to ensure they sit down and negotiate an offer in good faith, and I hope the bargaining units will do the same, because it takes two to tango.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:37:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question to the government on February 9 quoted the government House leader's statement in the January 25 edition of The Hill Times that “protecting Canada’s economy and infrastructure from foreign interference and from the rise of despotism” would be the government's third priority in the upcoming session. Today, we can also add the government's repeated promise to protect all members of this House from foreign interference and threats. One hopes that protecting democracy, upholding Canadian laws and ensuring the safety of MPs would ordinarily be a priority for any government.
Therefore, I would again ask the government how its stated priority is coming along, especially in light of the matter involving the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. For some unknown reason, the government is incapable of taking immediate action and kicking out a Chinese diplomat, irrespective of the fact that the individual is a poster child for persona non grata under article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. The section says, “The receiving State [Canada] may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State [China] that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable.” It is pretty straightforward. Is there any ambiguity here? A threshold appears to have been met several times. Why, then, has there been such a delay?
Also, why is there no movement on creating a foreign agent registry similar to those in the United States and Australia? In fact, speaking about Australia, I want to read into the record something that Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, now retired, former commander of the Royal Canadian Navy and Canada's high commissioner to Australia, has said. He points out that relative to Australia, Canada's “[e]xposure to economic coercion is much less than in [Australia], yet Australia has stood up to the CCP [the Chinese Communist Party], absorbed the costs, diversified trade, and made it clear that no foreign power will be permitted to undermine its democracy and values.”
Is it the government's intention to send a clear signal to Beijing that Canada is a doormat? How difficult is it to create a registry? Did the PSAC strike set it back a few weeks? Moreover, how beneficial is it to place an RCMP car outside two illegal Chinese police stations in Quebec? Why can the federal government not shut down these stations? How long would it take the Americans or the Chinese to eradicate illegal police stations in their country? It would not take very long.
How has the government stood up and confronted, head-on, Chinese interference in Canada? Given its feeble record, I am sure its action is not on a sound foundation. With such an abysmal record, how safe should any member feel about the government working to guarantee their safety? Can the parliamentary secretary inform Canadians if we can expect the creation of a foreign agent registry in our lifetime?
527 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:41:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about our government's record when dealing with foreign interference. However, I want to start with where the member seemingly left off.
He asked how long it would take for the U.S. or China to react to these things. I am surprised that he would suggest in the House that we should follow the lead of the Chinese government in how it handles things, whether it is foreign interference or the rules of law and order in its country. We will not take lessons from the Chinese government on that. Instead, we will follow the rule of law in this country as parliamentarians.
As we have heard throughout the debate today, when it comes to illegal police stations, it is absolutely unequivocal that they need to be shut down. However, the suggestion that it is the federal government that polices them in this country shows how naive the member opposite is in terms of the role of the RCMP. I have every bit of faith and trust that the RCMP will do the right things to ensure not only that any illegal police stations that are open will be shut down, but that any additional police stations would be shut down as well. The suggestion that the police require this House to tell them to enforce the law is frankly insulting to our very capable RCMP members.
When it comes to foreign interference, it is not a new phenomenon. It is not unique to Canada. In fact, we have seen many examples of it around the world. The member opposite raised the issue of Australia. We also saw very public cases in the U.S. in the 2016 presidential election, as well as in France, Australia and New Zealand. We hear often of incidents in Estonia of foreign interference by the Russian government.
This is not new. In fact, it was the 2019 NSICOP report in this very House that raised issues of foreign interference and the targeting of MPs. As I have said in the House time and time again, reports are tabled in the House, and even though the suggestion is made that the government somehow never took this seriously and never addressed it, it was in those very reports that all members of the House had access to. It was actually our government, right from the beginning, that took serious action on foreign interference by creating NSICOP and the oversight body NSIRA. We are also moving ahead with a foreign agent registry.
We continue to take serious action on this. If the member opposite thinks there is a silver bullet to solve foreign interference, I would like to inform him that foreign interference is always going to be a threat that all governments must take incredibly seriously. We must be diligent. The forms that foreign interference takes may be changing. All governments and all parliamentarians need to be very aware of that, and all Canadians need to be able to trust the democratic institutions in this country. All governments must take this extremely seriously and continue to combat it.
523 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:45:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the issue of foreign interference touches all Canadians in Canada, and over the last year, I have closely examined circumstances and events involving my situation in Spadina—Fort York. I have reached the conclusion, which is certainly within the realm of possibility, that I may have been subjected to Chinese interference in 2021 such that it destroyed my name and worked to prevent my election in 2021.
I have had a substantial meeting with CSIS of over two hours to discuss my thoughts and concerns. I also plan to meet the Hon. David Johnston to provide him with my information and things that I had shared with CSIS.
I want to assure the government and anyone else that, having put up with racist comments, innuendos, false accusations, threats and sketchy political machinations, I will go forward to determine what and who was behind the despicable takedown effort against me, my name and my reputation, whether they be of Chinese origin or otherwise.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:46:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that, if any members feel they are subject to foreign interference or are in any way being intimidated, then that absolutely should be raised.
I also want to caution that the threats around foreign interference are extremely serious, and that using instances without being able to provide credible evidence is also not a way to simply rebuild a reputation. I read the article in the National Post from May 3, wherein the member opposite makes some of these allegations as to what he believes. I will just point out that, if what was reported in the article was, in fact, true, then it would mean that a foreign entity would have had to have known that he might be potentially a candidate in Spadina—Fort York over three years in advance of the sitting member ever deciding he was not going to run again.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:47:37 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, before colonization, Inuit, first nations and Métis were self-governing nations that each had their own forms of keeping well with each other. They had their own laws governing behaviours. They had their own laws governing land and wildlife management. Indigenous peoples were independent nations.
Since about 150 years ago, the ravages of colonialism and the genocide against indigenous peoples have resulted in too many examples, such as what we saw in the tragic story of Dale Arthur Culver. To his family and friends, some of whom I had the privilege of meeting, I again send my sincerest condolences.
For those who may have forgotten, Dale Arthur Culver was a first nations young man from British Columbia. He was racially profiled, which led to his untimely death. I still find it appalling that it took six years to have charges laid against the five RCMP officers who were responsible for his death. Dale and his family deserve justice.
One hundred fifty years later, even after the ravages of colonialism, we are seeing indigenous self-determination. Most nations are starting to be self-governing again, which I am so proud of.
When I first asked the government when it would finally introduce an indigenous policing bill, which it promised it would introduce years ago, instead of answering the question, the government responded by saying it has provided funding. As such, I will repeat my question: When will the current government pass legislation so indigenous peoples can keep themselves safe?
251 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:49:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her strong advocacy.
Indigenous communities, like all communities in Canada, should be places where people and families feel safe and secure. Culturally sensitive, respectful and properly funded police services are essential for community safety and well-being.
The Minister of Public Safety has been mandated to co-develop first nations police services legislation. This legislation is an opportunity to recognize first nations police services as an essential service and provide funding that is adequate, stable, predictable and responsive to first nations police services needs.
We recognize the federal government cannot do this alone, especially given provincial and territorial jurisdiction over the administration of justice, including policing, and the role of first nations in managing their first nations police services.
Over the past several months, department officials, the minister and the parliamentary secretary have continued to work with the Assembly of First Nations, provinces and territories, the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association, the First Nations Police Governance Council, first nations police services, and modern treaty and self-government agreement holders on the first nations police services legislation.
I also want to note the legislation would be focused exclusively on first nations policing services. However, we know there are needs from coast to coast to coast.
Everyone on this land deserves to live in safe and healthy communities. Without safety, we know people cannot thrive. Police services that are professional, effective, culturally appropriate, responsive and accountable are critical to building safe and healthy communities.
For this reason, in budget 2021, the Government of Canada invested $540 million over five years, and over $126 million ongoing, to support communities currently served by the first nations and Inuit policing program, and to expand the program to new communities. As part of this expansion, I am pleased to note that, for the first time, Nunavut would be receiving dedicated RCMP resources under the program, filling a long-standing gap given Nunavut's majority Inuit population.
In addition, funding was announced as part of indigenous policing investments in budget 2021 for Public Safety Canada's crime prevention and community safety planning programs, and Indigenous Services Canada's pathways to safe indigenous communities program. They continue to provide options to Inuit communities and populations to address their community safety needs.
We also continue to dialogue with Inuit partners on their distinct policing and community safety priorities consistent with the Minister of Public Safety's commitment to continue to engage with Inuit and Métis on policing matters. This comes with support from the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations so that we can continue to meet the diverse needs of Inuit into the future.
Financial investments are one step toward increasing the equity of indigenous police services across Canada. Though the work is not done, we continue to work closely with Inuit partners to identify and explore the policing and community safety solutions that they need.
497 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:53:38 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, I appreciate the response, but I still consider the response to be quite piecemeal.
The government has had years to be guided by important works led by indigenous peoples. Two of the major works include the calls for justice and the calls to action. Both of these reports provided comprehensive frameworks that can lead to positive change and can lead to the overall improvement of indigenous well-being. Meeting these calls would ensure systemic changes so that Inuit, first nations and Métis can finally experience the reconciliation they deserve and so they can finally experience the justice they deserve. Despite these great works, the government continues to take incremental steps. These incremental forms of justice only perpetuate Canada's genocide against indigenous peoples.
When will the government finally implement what it touts will be its whole-of-government approach, rather than the incremental steps it—
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:54:54 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:54:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I understand the need for an all-of-government approach. Again, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member and will certainly continue to work with her on ways we can improve this.
This is also why the Minister of Public Safety has mandated to co-develop first nations police services legislation. In addition to this, the government is funding the first nations and Inuit policing program, including expanding the program to new communities. As part of this expansion, I am pleased to note that Nunavut will be receiving dedicated RCMP resources for the first time under the program. Given Nunavut's majority Inuit population, this will fill a long-standing gap.
In addition to other programs, such as crime prevention, community safety and planning, we will be working with Indigenous Services Canada's pathways to safe indigenous communities program to continue to build—
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:56:03 p.m.
- Watch
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 20, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:56 p.m.)
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
