Dane Lloyd
Parkland, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“He is a very intelligent man who I think put forward some very reasonable amendments. We as Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois wanted to have him sit in on the meeting so he could provide his insight on the more technical nature of some of the amendments and the issues we were talking about.”
“However, ever since the government received its manufactured majority, it has not been interested in working with other parties. Now we see that it is using this programming motion to try to ram through the legislation so that we cannot scrutinize it further. I respect the members of our non-partisan public service.”
“It has been ruled unconstitutional in the European Union to mass-keep the data of people in the European Union, yet this is what the government is putting forward. Some people would say that it is not going to misuse the data and that it would have to get a warrant in this case.”
“It was over a short matter of weeks in two-hour meetings, where we had panels of very intelligent experts who had a lot to say about the legislation. Every day I was getting emails from the public safety committee clerk with new submissions and briefs.”
“Madam Speaker, the hon. member was indeed there. It was very concerning because we had the Privacy Commissioner come to committee, and I had received nothing from the Privacy Commissioner prior to the start of that meeting.”
“As such, part 1 of the legislation seeks to create a subscriber confirmation, and I think that this could be an effective way to have something that does not require a warrant and to ask electronic service providers and telecommunications companies a simple yes-or-no question: Do they provide services to an IP address, or do they provide…”
The complete record
Every one of 268 lines we hold for Dane Lloyd, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“It would require electronic service providers to build and maintain systems capable of supporting the lawful access regime, including real-time interception when authorized. In practical terms, this means that companies would be required to design their systems in such a way that law enforcement could access communications once the appropriate legal authorization has been obtained. With respect to the scope of the application, one of the key concerns with part 2 is the breadth and the definition of what an electronic service provider is. As the bill is currently drafted, this is not limited to traditional telecommunications companies and could extend to a very wide range of entities, including digital platforms, messaging and cloud services, and potentially businesses where communications are only an incidental part of the business.”
“It was partially in response to the Bykovets decision of the Supreme Court. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that IP addresses have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In that case, police had received an IP address voluntarily from a financial company that had flagged suspected fraudulent transactions to the police. However, since the IP address was not acquired using a production order, this evidence could not be used. Privacy experts have raised concerns that the provisions in the bill may not actually address the issues created by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. That is concerning. Part 2 of the bill would enact the supporting authorized access to information act. It is in this section of the legislation that privacy experts seem to have raised the most concerns.”
“(1650) There is also a section on publicly available and voluntary information. The bill clarifies that law enforcement would be able to receive and act upon information that is either voluntarily provided or publicly available, without the need for a warrant or a production order. This appears to be a reasonable clarification, but I do wonder if it raises questions about scope, because what exactly qualifies as publicly available information? Does it include information that has been exposed through data breaches or leaks? Without clear definitions, there is a risk that this provision could be interpreted much more broadly than seems to have been intended. This is something that needs to be addressed. I want to talk about one of the reasons the legislation was brought forward.”
“I want to talk about foreign data requests. Another significant element of part 1 of the bill is the introduction of a mechanism that would allow Canadian judges to authorize requests for data held by foreign entities. This reflects a very real challenge to modern investigation, as data is frequently being stored outside of Canada, often by companies that operate in multiple jurisdictions. Providing a judicially authorized pathway for these requests may improve co-operation and provide greater legal certainty for foreign service providers. However, it is important to recognize that this would not fully resolve the challenges associated with cross-border data access and whether there would be any way to compel foreign service providers to comply with the requests.”
“One of the proposed powers outlined in part 1 is the confirmation of service demands. This would allow authorities to ask a telecommunications provider a very narrow question, which is whether or not it provides service to a particular person or subscriber. The response would be limited to a simple yes or no. Compared to what was proposed in Bill C-2 , this is a much more restrained approach. In Bill C-2, information demands could be issued to any person who provides services to the public. This would now be limited to telecom providers. One of the more concerning elements of Bill C-2 was other subscriber data. For example, there was concern that people's medical records could be accessed. Thankfully, I believe that this has been clarified and the scope has been narrowed with the new legislation.”
“It would amend existing search warrant provisions to permit the examination of computer data during the execution of a warrant, and it would also introduce new information demands and production orders that could be used both by police forces and by CSIS. In addition, it would create mechanisms to facilitate access to data held by foreign-based service providers, which reflects the reality that much of the information that law enforcement and security agencies need in this country is not even being stored within our own borders. These would be very practical changes, and they would respond to real challenges faced by investigators. However, the details of how these powers would be structured, and the limits that would be placed on them, remain critically important. I want to talk about the confirmation of service demands.”
“Law enforcement and national security experts have long argued that they do not have the tools to effectively go after terrorists, organized criminals and child predators, who are coordinating a lot of their activity online. Part 1 of the bill focuses on investigative authorities, and in many respects it is an improvement over what was previously proposed in Bill C-2 . That said, while the direction in this legislation is more measured than Bill C-2, concerns remain, particularly with respect to the legal thresholds, scope and the adequacy of any safeguards. I want to talk about the new powers and authorities proposed in the legislation. Part 1 proposes a number of changes that are clearly aimed at improving the efficiency of investigations in a digital environment.”
“Conservatives were and remain supportive of any efforts to provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to keep Canadians safe, but we could not support Bill C-2 in its original form. We know that civil liberties organizations and all opposition parties in the House felt that Bill C-2, in particular the lawful access regime in parts 14 and 15, fell short of what was needed. Bill C-22 represents the government's second attempt at enacting lawful access legislation. While I would say that there are improvements, particularly in narrowing certain provisions, some of the structural issues remain and have to be looked into further. Law enforcement and CSIS need modern tools to deal with modern threats. The issue that the bill is attempting to address is real.”
“That means holding government accountable when we are talking about important issues such as expanding state powers in relation to increased surveillance. It is our responsibility as an official opposition to scrutinize, to challenge, and to ensure that any new authority is absolutely necessary, proportionate and consistent with the rights and freedoms of Canadians. This legislation has evolved from the original Bill C-2 legislation that was brought forward in the fall. It is important to give a bit of background on that legislation and why we are here today. The first substantive piece of legislation introduced in the sitting of the current Parliament was Bill C-2, which proposed a number of significant legal changes regarding Canada's national security, to disrupt organized crime and secure the border.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-22 , an act respecting lawful access. I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Kitchener Centre . I want to give a shout-out to my excellent staff here in Ottawa, Harry McGuire, Aidan Plesa and Andrew Gelok, for their great work in helping me research, both in committee and in the House, this important legislation. Conservatives recognize that we need to ensure that law enforcement and national security agencies have the tools required to investigate serious crime in this increasingly digital age, but as members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, our job is to hold the government accountable to ensure that we can get the best legislation for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the telecom sector is very concerned about the costs of complying with this legislation. I wonder what sort of compensation schemes, if any, the government anticipates putting into place to ensure this legislation can be complied with.”
“These measures recognize that compassion for victims and public confidence in the justice system demand more than silence from convicted offenders—”
“As a result, our family has been denied the most basic elements of closure: truth, accountability, and the ability to lay our loved ones to rest. “Bill C-236 addresses a profound gap in Canada's criminal justice system. Meaningful rehabilitation and any credible assessment of parole eligibility must require offenders to accept responsibility for their crimes. In cases such as ours, the responsibility includes providing information about the whereabouts of victims' remains. Without such accountability, parole processes risk compounding the harm suffered by victims' families. “Comparable legislation has already been adopted in other Commonwealth countries, including Australia's ‘No Body, No Parole’ laws and the United Kingdom's Helen's Law.”
“The only requirement the legislation would impose is that our judicial system actors consider this very important factor, and I think that is the least we can do for victims' families. It would also require that, in cases where they choose not to utilize these tools, they provide reasons for not utilizing them. Again, I think that providing those reasons to victims' families is the least we can do. I want to read a letter from Bret McCann, the son of Lyle and Marie: “On July 3, 2010, my parents, Lyle and Marie McCann, were murdered. The individual responsible was later convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, yet he has never acknowledged his crime nor disclosed the location of my parents' remains.”
“I want to assure all members of the House that there is nothing in the legislation that would dictate to judges, parole boards or correctional officials what they must do. They would retain full discretion to utilize the tools that Parliament provides them in the legislation as they find appropriate. I know that the people who work in our criminal justice system, our judges, parole board members and correctional officials, are professionals and may have reasons why they may or may not consider the co-operation to find a victim's remains as a factor in their decision-making. For example, if they have a reasonable belief that the remains of victims will never be found, of course it would not be appropriate to use this legislation in that case.”
“In Canada, first-degree murder already requires that there be a period of parole ineligibility of 25 years, and in second-degree murder cases, a period of parole ineligibility of 10 to 25 years. In the McCann case, as well as others, the killer was not found guilty of first- or second-degree murder but was found guilty of manslaughter and was eligible for parole after a period of seven years. In cases where someone is found to be withholding crucial information about the remains of their victims but is not convicted of first- or second-degree murder, the legislation could be utilized by the judicial system and parole boards to increase the period of parole ineligibility and to deny parole.”
“I would like to quote directly from the transcript of the killer in this case's parole hearing in December 2024. The Parole Board clearly stated that accountability and co-operation is not a requirement to be granted parole. Ryan Nash, a member of the Parole Board, stated to the killer, “You are entitled to hold your position of denial of accountability and responsibility, and it is not required to be granted parole that you admit to your offences.” I think this summarizes why the legislation is so needed. In debate today, there were some other criticisms brought forward. My colleagues claimed that the legislation could result in killers' receiving a shorter period of parole ineligibility than is currently prescribed by law. That is simply not the case.”
“I believe that the continued withholding of that information by convicted offenders is an ongoing crime against the victims and their families. It is a crime that currently has no consequences. The possibility that people could be released on parole and be walking our streets while knowing where they hid their victims' remains, or that they could pass by their victims' families on the streets while they still know that information, is abhorrent to Canadians. I want to address some of the criticism brought forward with respect to the legislation, and I do appreciate the opportunity to address it. I think it is unmerited. The fact is that the Parole Board does not need to consider an offender's refusal to co-operate and/or admit to their crime as a factor in parole hearings.”
“Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak to this legislation that I brought forward. I want to start by thanking the McCann family, my colleagues of the House and all the supporters of the legislation and the victims' families. This has been a nine-year journey for me. I was first inspired to bring forward the legislation before I was elected. I was inspired by the model put forward in Australia, and I was also inspired by advocates in the United Kingdom fighting for justice through Helen's law, so I want to thank them for inspiring me. The legislation is named after Lyle and Marie McCann. Their killer remains incarcerated, but he is currently eligible for parole. He has refused to disclose where he hid the remains of his victims. The victim's family, the McCanns, has never been able to hold a proper funeral or have closure.”
“Madam Speaker, it was a true pleasure working with my colleague on the public safety committee. I want to talk about one particular area where we worked together to improve the legislation. Often, we have seen, when passing new or novel legislation that would give the government new powers, we put in review clauses to ensure that, after a specified period of time, usually five years, we could review the legislation to make sure that it is working as intended. Unfortunately, we have seen many pieces of legislation passed for which these reviews have never taken place. I am very proud that I was able to work on what was initially brought forward by my colleague to try to strengthen that, to ensure that the government has to complete a review. It cannot just keep kicking the can down the road.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals can try to distract and make Canadians look away from their absolute failure. The Auditor General's report is damning: 3,400 RCMP officers short. The Liberal government is continuing to fail to train and retain the officers we need to protect our communities, and it could not come at a worse possible time. After 10 years of the justice minister's failure to toughen up our justice system, there is a wave of violent crime rushing across our country and our police are completely burnt out. Why is the Liberal Prime Minister failing to live up to his promises to strengthen law enforcement and protect our communities?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals talk about hiring 1,000 new RCMP officers. They cannot even keep up with losses. The Liberals are failing to recruit, train and retain the police we need to protect our communities. In rural Canada, which I represent, police are stretched to the breaking point. They cannot keep up with the wave of violent crime that the Liberals have unleashed. The Auditor General has now reported that under the Liberals' watch, the RCMP is short 3,400 officers, and the gap is continuing to grow. The Liberal Prime Minister and his party made big promises to Canadians. They promised 1,000 new officers, but they are yet again failing to deliver any results. It is time for these Liberals to stop promising and start delivering. Why will they not?”
“I see it as legislation that would acknowledge the pain experienced by victims' families and seek to reduce their unnecessary hardship within the parole process. Supporting the bill, in my view, is about ensuring that families like the Ilesics and others are treated with the respect and compassion they deserve. It is about ensuring that our justice system would recognize not only the rights of offenders but also the enduring impact of violent crime on families who have been left behind. For these reasons and many others, I strongly support Bill C-243 . I encourage all members of the House to support this bill to get it to committee so we can finally get it passed and stand up for victims' families.”
“It would not eliminate parole eligibility, nor would it prevent offenders from having their cases reviewed. Instead, it would ensure that after a parole application is denied, the next review would occur at the automatic review period already established in law, which is approximately five years. I see this as a practical adjustment that would reduce these unnecessary repeated hearings while maintaining a fair process for evaluating parole eligibility. It would also reduce the administrative burden within the system while ensuring that families are not forced to revisit their trauma year after year. When I consider everything we have discussed in the House today, I believe that Bill C-243 , which is supported by a wide range of law enforcement and victims groups, represents a balanced and compassionate reform to Canada's justice system.”
“However, to force these families to go through this process year after year is a grave injustice. When I look at other cases in Canada, I see how these repeated parole hearings can have a deep impact on families. One example we are very familiar with is the Bernardo case. His parole hearings have required the families of his victims to repeatedly revisit the horrific crimes committed against their daughters and their friends. When I hear the testimony of those families, I am reminded of the emotional toll of those hearings and that the process itself can create more trauma. These examples reinforce my belief that the parole system must be reformed and structured in a way that respects victims and victims' families. That is why I am proud to support Bill C-243 . I believe it proposes a reasonable and balanced solution.”
“When I think about that process, I imagine what it must be like for those families to receive notice of another parole hearing year after year. I know some people might say these families do not have to attend the hearings, but I can tell members that every single victim's family I have spoken to feel it is their duty, as a family, to their loved one to show up to every one of those hearings, so they can stand up for their loved one who cannot be there because of the crime. That often means a very painful experience of preparing victim impact statements and revisiting the details of the crime again and again. I am not saying this process is completely flawed. Obviously, we know, it is necessary for people to have the right to a parole hearing.”
“(1400) I fully recognize that our courts have a role in interpreting the charter and our laws, and I believe Parliament has an important responsibility to examine the broader impacts of those decisions and to enact the democratic will of the Canadian people through the laws we make. In this case, one of the consequences of this court decision has been the increased uncertainty and distress for victims' families who believed at the time of the sentencing of their loved one's killer that they would not have to go through these repeated annual parole hearings but now, because of this decision, are being forced to. Under the current system, once somebody who has been convicted of first- or second-degree murder becomes eligible for parole and applies for it, if that application is denied, the offender can apply again the following year.”
“When the murderer in this case was convicted, the court imposed a life sentence with no chance of parole, at 40 years. At the time, that sentence reflected the seriousness of a crime that had taken three lives and permanently changed the life of another. I understand that for those families that were involved, this significant sentence provided some degree of certainty and reassurance that they would not have to repeatedly confront that offender through the parole process. However, that situation changed dramatically in 2022, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bissonnette. That decision struck down legal provisions allowing for consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murders. As a result of this decision, parole timelines for offenders have been significantly reduced.”
“I think of the McCann family, who I have been advocating for through my private member's bill, which I hope to get passed in a couple of weeks here in Parliament. They have to go through parole hearings for the man who murdered their elderly parents. I want to quote from a CBC article that quotes the Parole Board head in the most recent Parole Board meeting, stating that it is not a requirement that the offender admit to their crimes. How traumatizing is that for families, to have somebody brought before a parole board, face the uncertainty and the potential that this person who murdered their loved ones could be released, and hear the head of the parole board saying to the offender that they are not even required to admit to what they have done?”
“I want to focus for a moment on the families that were left behind, because they are the people who must carry the consequences of this tragedy for the rest of their lives. I think about Brian's parents, Mike and Dianne Ilesic, who are here today and who lost their son in this tragic, senseless act of violence. I think about Brian's daughter, who was only a child when her father was murdered and who grew up experiencing many of life's milestones without him. When I consider those realities, it reminds me that the pain of losing a loved one to violent crime does not simply fade over time. It is not something that heals. In my view, our justice system does not reflect and recognize that reality. It does not ensure that the processes that we have do not unnecessarily reopen the pain those families feel every day.”
“I was working the night shift at the Imperial Oil refinery in Strathcona, Edmonton, and I could see the helicopters flying overhead. All of us working on the job site were asking ourselves what had happened. It was a fatal shooting, a fatal and evil betrayal. Brian was working as an armoured car guard with his colleagues at the University of Alberta HUB Mall in Edmonton when a co-worker, somebody who should have had their back, turned on them and murdered them. In that attack, Brian Ilesic, Michelle Shegelski and Eddie Rejano were murdered, and another colleague, Matthew Schuman, suffered severe and life-altering injuries. When I reflect on that tragedy, I think about the families of those victims and the entire community in the Edmonton area that knew them.”
“I believe that my colleague has brought the bill forward because Canadians have identified a very real problem in our parole system, one that is forcing families to repeatedly and regularly re-undergo the trauma of their loved one's loss through parole hearings that can happen as often as every year. I am supporting this legislation because I want to ensure that we have a justice system that does not impose these unnecessary traumas on families who have gone through the worst experience imaginable. I want to talk about what brought this law forward. It is called Brian's bill for a reason. I am referring, of course, to Brian Ilesic, a father, a son and a hard-working Canadian whose life was taken in a brutal murder in 2012. I remember where I was the night of the HUB Mall shooting.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Lakeland for that very impassioned and personal speech. I was very moved by it. I want to thank the member of Parliament for Edmonton Griesbach for bringing forward this very practical and reasonable legislation that I think would make a significant difference in the lives of victims' families, something that I have been very passionate about ever since I was first elected to Parliament just over eight years ago. I want to frame my remarks around the principle that our justice system has to strike a balance between protecting the rights of offenders and recognizing the lifelong suffering endured by victims and their families.”
“Last year, this Parliament gave the Liberal government the power to build at unimaginable speeds, but the Prime Minister has failed to deliver, and Canadians and our allies are suffering the consequences. We can not afford another 10 years of Liberal anti-energy ignorance. It is time to lay some pipe, create jobs and get our country back on its feet.”
“Mr. Speaker, the world is facing the biggest energy crisis since the 1973 oil embargo. Millions of barrels have been taken off-line, and Canada is one of the few countries that could provide critical energy to our allies. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources said that Canada would do its part, but the Liberal government has no plan to get our energy to world markets. After 10 years of Liberal anti-energy policies and economic mismanagement, we have missed the greatest opportunity to show up for our allies in a meaningful way to address this energy crisis. Meanwhile, today's job report shows that Canada lost 84,000 jobs and that unemployment is up to 6.7%.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are failing to stop criminals from stealing our cars. Vehicle identification numbers, or VINs, from exported vehicles are being used to sell stolen cars. The CBSA has a record of these VINs but refuses to share them with Canadian used car dealers, who would use them to identify stolen vehicles. Instead, the government has given an American company a monopoly on this data, charging Canadians $40 million each year just to get access to our own data. It is absurd. Why will the Liberals not give Canadians access to our own data so that we can stop car theft?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who is in my neighbouring riding. He will be well aware of the history of the Michel band in Sturgeon County, one of the only first nations in Canada that was forcibly enfranchised. I am wondering if he can talk about the impact this legislation would have on first nations peoples like those in the Michel band and how we can do a better job of creating reconciliation to recognize first nations' status in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberal spin cannot avoid the facts. Under the Prime Minister , the rich are getting richer while working Canadians are falling further and further behind. Liberal inflation has made the bankers rich, but the cost of food, vehicles and housing is out of reach. Young people are facing record-high unemployment, and even those who are lucky enough to have a job cannot even afford to pay their bills, let alone save for the million-dollar homes the Liberals are talking about. We need to restore jobs with powerful paycheques to ensure that the next generation can be better off. Conservatives are fighting for that future. When are the Liberals going to get on board?”
“Mr. Speaker, the situation out there is dire. After 11 years of Liberal inflation, housing unaffordability and job insecurity, Canadians, particularly young Canadians, are facing the consequences. We used to take pride in this country when we said that the next generation would be better off than the one before, but for young Canadians today, that just is not the case. Under the Liberals, the well-off are better off than ever before, but people struggling to get ahead are falling further and further behind. When will the Liberals finally get off the backs of Canadians for a change?”
“That is hurting not only indigenous children but all the children in the school district, and the federal government is squarely to blame.”
“Madam Speaker, this is a huge issue in my riding, in my hon. colleague's riding and in ridings across the country, where school divisions, which are primarily provincially funded, have been receiving support from the federal government following the court decision on Jordan's principle. That court decision stated that for at-risk indigenous youth, the federal government would be there to provide support for educational assistants and additional supports to help many of these children, who are struggling with very unique challenges, to get ahead and up to the same level. The government members have decided to withhold funding from groups like the Parkland School Division, resulting in layoffs of over 100 educational assistants in our area.”
“6 area, to stand up in the House and fight for them and hold the government accountable, to ensure it takes action to live up to its promises.”
“Madam Speaker, I am familiar with the first nation community in the member's riding. My ancestors came to this country with the Mohawk peoples in 1783, fleeing the United States at the time. It is absolutely unacceptable that first nations continue to face these challenges in a country as wealthy as Canada. What we are seeing with issues like talking about creating a new commissioner is a government that is talking about window dressing, when what we really need to be talking about are tangible investments to make life better for indigenous peoples in this country. It is performative, and what we really need is accountability. That is why I am very proud, as a member of Parliament who represents communities in the Treaty No.”
“Madam Speaker, we talked about these solutions in the last election campaign. We wanted to give more powers to first nations to take control over their resource development and allow them to collect the revenues needed so that they could build up their own nations. They could build up local services. That is not to say we want the government to take a step back. The government could lean in, together with those increased resources for those first nations so they could be empowered to support their citizens. Enoch Cree Nation in my community is a great success story, with the River Cree Resort and Casino. It has had oil and gas development and agricultural development. When first nations are empowered to develop their own resources, we see prosperity created on first nations, and we need government to lean into that as well.”
“The government cut that funding, and it has been devastating for those families. We do not need a commissioner to tell us the government is failing. We are here talking about it in the House right now. We need action to support those families that are being hurt by the government's cuts related to Jordan's principle. We need real action to support all of those first nations that are facing boil water advisories and facing a government that has been continually breaking its word with first nations. That is why we are going to stand up here and represent them and fight for them.”
“This type of disruption echoes the very history that Jordan’s Principle was created to stop.” (1305) I wanted to share that story because it is an example of how the government is already failing to stand up for first nations communities in my riding. Vulnerable indigenous children, whom the courts decided the federal government would have a responsibility to support, have had their funding from the government cut when they go to school off-reserve. I can tell the House that in communities like mine and communities across the country where there is not a comprehensive K-to-12 education system on-reserve, indigenous students have to go off-reserve to go to high school or junior high. When they do that, when children suffer from impediments like those, Jordan's principle should be there to provide funding for them.”
“Students who were once quiet and unsure have begun to speak. Those who carried worry and heaviness have started to open their hearts. They look forward to their sessions. Families have shared that they notice new calmness, confidence, and connection in their children. These are not small steps—they are the beginnings of healing. “However, because the funding [from the government] remains outstanding, we now face the painful reality of stopping these services. Ending supports after children have finally begun to trust and feel safe goes against our cultural teachings and against everything Jordan’s Principle stands for. Interrupting care will undo progress, break relationships, and cause harm that could have been prevented.”
“I want to read part of a letter I received from Nicole Callihoo. She is the education director of Paul First Nation in my riding. Here are some excerpts from the letter: “We are writing today with a heavy heart and a deep sense of urgency. Despite submitting full Jordan’s Principle applications and following every step as required, our school has not received the funding necessary to continue services for our students. We are now in the fourth month of the school year, and these delays contradict both the spirit and the purpose of Jordan’s Principle. “In the true way of our ancestors, we did not wait for approvals before taking care of our children. We honoured their needs and began services immediately so they would not experience further hardship or delay. These supports have brought powerful changes.”
“Reconciliation needs to be measured by results, and ministers and their departments should be focused on meeting their existing obligations under treaties and under our Constitution, rather than shirking off those responsibilities to a new office that would table reports that would go on to be further ignored by the government. One area of particular concern for me, and I have raised this in the House before, is the government's failure to adequately fund services for at-risk first nations children. Jordan's principle is intended to fund services for these children. It exists to ensure that no child is caught in delays, conflict or jurisdictional confusion, and it is rooted in a principle that we can all agree on: that care for children, not jurisdictional squabbles, should come first.”
“...some Indigenous Services Canada programs to support First Nations communities do not have clearly defined service levels. For instance, the department has defined service levels for First Nations communities with only 1 province for evacuations during emergencies, and it has not defined service levels for comparable access to health care. Creating a new bureaucracy in the form of a commissioner would not build any more houses. It would not hire any more indigenous police officers, and it would not ensure clean drinking water.”