Bill C-92 (Historical)

An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families

This enactment affirms the rights and jurisdiction of Indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services and sets out principles applicable, on a national level, to the provision of child and family services in relation to Indigenous children, such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality.

First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has opened its wallet anytime a corporate CEO shows up. Loblaws was given $12 million. Kinder Morgan was given $4.5 billion, which is $1 billion more than the government should have paid for the old pipeline. There was $14 billion in corporate tax cuts for CEOs from Bay Street just last November.

Here before us is a bill with great words, but it does not have the action and the funding that is required. As members know, some noted indigenous scholars have given the Bill an F in a report by the Yellowhead Institute. It notes, “While Canada is presenting Indigenous jurisdiction as the main selling feature of this Bill, without adequate funding, this will simply be jurisdiction to legislate over our own poverty.” The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has said, “It does not meet the...need in addressing the humanitarian child welfare crisis in Manitoba.”

This is because the government does not walk the talk.

With respect to the most recent budget, even though the minimum amount of money required to address the crisis taking place in child welfare across the country is $3 billion, the government gave less than half of what needed to be allocated.

That is really the issue here. Yes, it is a good bill, but the funding has not come with it. The government has not walked the talk, and that is why so many indigenous communities are criticizing the government's hypocrisy. The government is the height of cynicism in presenting good legislation but not backing it up with the required funding. It provided less than half of the minimum needed. The government was not even willing to give the minimum.

Are the Liberals not ashamed that they were not willing to walk the talk that is required to make the bill's aims a reality?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite disappointed that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby is seeking to make partisan gain out of something that should be supported unanimously in the House. However, I will address his comments, because funding is an important part.

With legislation, we create a framework for transferring jurisdiction. As I indicated in my opening speech, the legislation would empower first nations communities around the country, including Inuit and Métis communities, to structure agreements with provincial and territorial partners that have key responsibility over the child welfare system. This is a matter of the constitutional division of powers, which the member, as an experienced member, should know.

I reject out of hand the notion that we are not walking the walk. I recollect the first budget we tabled. Perry Bellegarde was in the gallery. He gave a standing ovation to that budget which tabled $8.6 billion for indigenous communities across the country.

I also readily defend our most recent budget, which the member highlighted. It allocated money on a distinctions basis for education for Inuit, Métis and first nations kids. It has also allocated money for indigenous languages and $700 million to expedite the path we are on to lift all boil water advisories across the country by March of 2021. That funding commitment meets our policy commitments. The characterization by the member opposite is simply false.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would put into law what indigenous nations have been asking for generations, which is the ability to do what is right by their communities, children and families. The crux of it is the affirmation of inherent jurisdiction of their territories and nations.

Could the hon. member speak about the importance of affirmation of inherent jurisdiction?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his work as parliamentary secretary and for his leadership with the Métis community. The notion of inherent jurisdiction is fundamental. It is fundamental toward a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples, which informs everything we are attempting to do as a government. It is also fundamental to something that an NDP member raised in the House and we rightfully supported it, which is UNDRIP. I believe it was Bill C-262 on inherent jurisdiction, governance and control over the services delivered to indigenous people.

To round out the position that was raised in the previous part of this debate, an additional reason funding allocations have not been prematurely allocated in the legislation is simply because we need to ensure we are listening to indigenous communities on a community-by-community basis as to what their needs are. To presuppose at this stage that we now have some sort of crystal ball we can look into to verify exactly which community needs what level of funding would put the cart before the horse and not empower indigenous communities to make that determination for themselves.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are pre-studying this legislation at committee. Numerous witnesses have made it very clear that they do not feel they were part of a co-development process. They may have been included in some discussions, but a lot of those were done very last minute and quickly.

The top three issues we hear from folks in committee are around jurisdiction, accountability and funding. All witnesses, which I happen to agree with, have been very clear that this is not a question around funding of a dollar amount. It is about ensuring that within the legislation there are actual principles of what that funding will look like. This is key. Witnesses are saying that if this is not part of the legislation, it will be considered hollow legislation.

I hope and believe that we in the House care about indigenous children and we do not want this to be hollow legislation.

Could we see some of that language put into the legislation? We have had recommendations that the principles in the Human Rights Tribunal around funding be in it. Even some of the information about those principles in the preamble could be put in the legislation. We need to see that action taken. Unless there are actual principles, not dollars but principles, about funding in the legislation, it will become a hollow bill. It will be a deep shame to this Parliament if that happens.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, jurisdiction, accountability and funding are extremely important points. We look forward to the work of the committee in bringing forward suggestions and proposing amendments to the bill.

On jurisdiction specifically, when we say that in the event of a conflict between indigenous jurisdiction or authority and provincial or territorial authority that the indigenous authority will trump or be paramount, it establishes exactly the kind of jurisdiction that needs to be asserted here. That is an important aspect of the bill.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the second reading debate today on Bill C-92, indigenous child welfare.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Durham. Recognizing that we have about 22 minutes remaining in this afternoon's debate, I will keep my remarks relatively brief to allow the member for Durham to have some time to debate this important issue.

Today in Canada, it is an unfortunate reality that the number of first nations, Inuit and Métis children in care continues to be far higher than that of the general population. In fact, according to Statistics Canada, more than 14,000, nearly 15,000, indigenous foster children under the age of 15 are in private homes. That represents over half of all foster children in Canada. This is a statistic that should be troubling to each of us in the House and all of us across Canada.

When children are taken away from their families, too often, especially in the indigenous context, the language, the culture and the tradition of that community can also be lost when the children are no longer in their homes or communities.

Bill C-92 focuses on children living both on reserve and off reserve. It seeks to affirm the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services and establish national principles, such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality, to guide the interpretation and administration of the bill.

I am hopeful the bill and its implementation lives up to those objectives. I hope all members of this House and those in future Parliaments hold all governments to account as we strive toward this implementation.

Unfortunately, for too long in Canadian history, we have failed indigenous communities in Canada. It is now incumbent on all of us to work together on the journey toward full and true reconciliation.

The purpose and principles outlined in clauses 8 and 9 of the bill aim to guide indigenous communities on the delivery of child and family services to keep families together and, ultimately, consistent with the call to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, reduce the number of indigenous children who live in care.

I draw the House's attention to “Canada's Residential Schools: The Legacy”, the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, volume 5, which was released in 2015. Chapter 1 is entitled “Child welfare: A system in crisis”. Unfortunately, it is not an easy read. In fact, at page 11, the report articulates the lasting negative legacy that the residential schools have left on indigenous Canadians and child poverty. The report reads:

Why are so many Aboriginal children taken into care? Poverty, family violence, sexual violence and substance abuse continue—conditions that are part of the sad legacy of residential schools—certainly play a role. The connection between residential schools and the present-day crisis of the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in the child welfare system was painfully obvious to many Survivors who shared their statements with the Commission. Kay Adams explained that “all these years of growing up in the dorm I didn't go home to my family. I wasn't taught how to love. I wasn't taught how to be a family. I knew none of that.”

That is a very troubling legacy and it is a legacy that all Canadians have to face and address.

While there may be some concerns with the bill, on principle, we must support it. On principle, we must all work together as parliamentarians to ensure we can reduce the number of children who are no longer with their families, no longer in their communities, no longer learning their language, no longer learning their culture and history. So often, the greatest teachers are those within the community. They are family members, neighbours, leadership within the community. When a family loses that, we lose so much.

Unfortunately, this is not ancient history; this is recent history. Indeed, further within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, it states:

Aboriginal children were placed in non-Aboriginal homes across Canada, in the United States, and even overseas, with no attempt to preserve their culture and identity. The mass adoptions continued between 1960 and 1990.

Within our lifetime, within the lifetime of members of the House, aboriginal and indigenous children were being removed from their families, removed from their communities, not given the option to learn of their culture in the place that was best able to pass that on.

I want to wrap up to allow my colleague some time to speak, but I do want to mention a couple of points from a local level.

Reconciliation really does necessitate the participation of all Canadians. I want to highlight a couple of the things that have been undertaken in my riding of Perth—Wellington. A number of blanket exercises have taken place to help inform people of the experiences that were undertaken within indigenous communities. Local churches have undertaken efforts to reach out in reconciliation with indigenous communities.

I would like to quote from a Stratford Beacon Herald article of November 2018 about the Anglican church:

Though one memorial service can’t erase the Anglican Church’s role in subjugating Indigenous populations throughout Canada, that’s not the point. The point of Friday’s service was to continue the conversation around Truth and Reconciliation and foster a broader base of understanding between the church and Indigenous peoples in Canada.

This is a worthwhile goal for all of us to undertake, to foster a conversation and to work toward true reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, the nexus of the bill is that we will put into law what indigenous nations have been asking for generations, which is the ability to do what is right and what is proper with their children. The nexus is really the affirmation of indigenous jurisdiction for indigenous nations to make their own laws.

I know the member is a constitutional lawyer. Could he speak to the importance of inherent jurisdiction for indigenous nations?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the record. I am not a constitutional lawyer. I am a scholar. Political science is my background. However, it is a matter that I do take a great interest in with respect to policies and governing in a self-governance perspective.

We have had this debate for so many decades. The 1992 Charlottetown accord was before my time with respect to awareness of constitutional matters, but it did spark the conversation. In this matter, it is so important that we work with indigenous communities to ensure they have the authority, the ability, the jurisdiction and the opportunity to manage and work with child welfare services so the focus of the child is forefront in the jurisdiction.

Enabling and ensuring that indigenous communities have that jurisdiction is something we as parliamentarians and Canadians absolutely have to work toward to ensure the best interests of the children, that the protection of their language, culture and community is protected in the legislation we pass here to enable indigenous communities to undertake that jurisdiction.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges I have is the fact that a decision was made by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. I believe the current government has now been asked to comply seven times and has been served with non-compliance orders. That concerns me deeply.

As I mentioned earlier, we want to ensure this legislation is not hollow, that it has those key parts in it around accountability, Rather than a number for funding, there needs to be accountability that the resources are there and that they are equitable across all communities. That means indigenous children would finally receive the same amount of resources and, in some cases, more if the case warranted it.

Could the member speak to that issue?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for North Island—Powell River raises the important point of accountability in legislation such as this.

Legislation is a first step, but if there is no accountability to back it up, we really have not achieved what we set out to achieve. The member mentioned the concept of funding. Perhaps equality of funding may only be a starting point, and in some cases additional funding may be needed so that an indigenous community may receive slightly more than a non-indigenous community, given the circumstances, given the needs of that community, given the needs of a particular child.

We need to ensure that indigenous children are not left behind, that we have the resources to fund the important needs, particularly in this case in terms of child welfare services, but also to ensure that the opportunity is there for them to thrive and do well, to expand their culture, to expand their language so they can truly learn the culture of their ancestors.

Absolutely, there need to be accountability mechanisms within the bill and there need to be the resources to back it up, to ensure that we truly achieve the objectives that are set out in black and white print.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before I go to the next speaker, I want to remind the hon. member for Durham that he will have about 10 minutes. Unfortunately, we will be running out of time and there will be no time for questions and answers, unless he finishes before his 10 minutes and whatever comes up before the end of the time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I probably will take the time. I am known for sometimes going on too long in the House. I am sure my Liberal friends think that. However, this is a very important issue to me, to the Conservative Party and, I am sure, to all members of Parliament in the chamber.

Indigenous youth welfare, Métis youth welfare is an area of collective failure of this Parliament since our earliest days, and there are a variety of reasons for that: cultural, historical and societal. Looking back at those failures means that we have to look forward to make sure that we fulfill the true opportunity that is Canada to all Canadians, particularly those in our first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, who have had ties to this country for far longer than all of us. That is why it is important to see that there is progress.

We support Bill C-92 going to committee, because we do think that reforms are needed in this area, and that was called for by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Child welfare was the first recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In fact, the future of improving the outcomes for members of these communities, reconciliation at its heart is going to be achieved by our young people. It is paramount for us to get this right.

Recommendation 1 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was to reduce the number of children in foster care, in government-supported care of some sort. That was the number one recommendation, and we know why. It was because of our failed history in that regard.

This was said so eloquently by former prime minister Harper in his apology for the generations-long program of residential schools in this country. In fact, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission grew out of the work by our previous government and prime minister Harper to apologize and to make sure that we learn and never repeat the mistakes of our past.

I am going to quote from the former prime minister's apology, from June 2008:

We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions, that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this. We now recognize that, in separating children from their families, we undermined the ability of many to adequately parent their own children and sowed the seeds for generations to follow, and we apologize for having done this.

Those were probably some of the most impassioned and important words said by Stephen Harper in Parliament.

The former prime minister and Speaker Milliken at the time erected a stained glass window recognizing the apology for residential schools in the Centre Block of Parliament, importantly placed over the members entrance. When I gave tours of the building to young people, friends from the military or whomever, I would point out the window and tell them that it was placed there so that members of Parliament, regardless of party, when they walk in, know that the decisions made in the chamber can impact people, families and children in a positive way or in an extremely negative way. I thought that the powerful statement of the truth and reconciliation stained glass window in Centre Block was a recognition that what we do, including the debate here today, is an important part of reconciliation.

What is key, and what I am going to speak about substantively in my concerns with the approach of the Liberal government to this bill, is that it seems to neglect the central role of the provinces.

In the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, a commission that grew out of the apology and the work done by Stephen Harper and our government, the second recommendation in the section on child welfare called for collaboration with the provinces and territories. That has not happened in the bill adequately, and that is a valid concern. I am so upset about this because it did not need to be this way.

The Prime Minister, to his credit, talked a lot about the need for reconciliation when he was running for Parliament and running to be the prime minister. In their platform, the Liberals said they would implement all of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations. He said that reconciliation would be central to his term as prime minister.

Then why are we getting the most substantive piece of legislation on healing that indigenous rift in the final few months of Parliament, along with a bill on indigenous languages? It did not come early on or after two years of consulting with the provinces, but in the final months. It was introduced in February of this year. That is unfortunate, because we need to get this right.

Child welfare services are almost entirely provided by the provinces and territories. The central learnings many of them have experienced mean that some provinces are further ahead. Therefore, while we have a section 91 and section 92 debate in Parliament about the paramountcy of the federal Parliament when it comes to decisions related to indigenous peoples and Métis, we have to recognize the fact that a range of things, such as education, health, child welfare and victim services, are delivered by the provinces. Therefore, this is where reconciliation requires collaboration and consultation, not just with the provinces and territories but with first nations leadership. That can be a challenge.

In the last government, we sometimes got it right. The number of children in care went down by about 12%. However, it is still vastly too high. There are 15,000 indigenous youth in care right now. Fortunately, changes made in the last government and in the current government are bringing that number down, but not fast enough.

One way we focused on it was making sure that child welfare or child care could at least happen through family relationships within the first nations community, so that the connection to language and culture could be tied and it would not be like the sixties scoop or our failures of the past, but recognizing that this has to be centrally done with first nations leadership and with the provinces and territories. That is my disappointment.

I have said positive words here. However, why are we debating this in the final months of Parliament? There has been no significant consultation. If we were debating it now because the provinces, territories and first nations were all on board, I would say that is great, because the people at those levels of government who care, who deliver the services, feel that this bill is going to fulfill the mandate. Right now, I do not think they do.

I want to embody this in one tragedy out of many, one tear in an ocean of tears, in the 151-plus years of our country. That is the tragic case of Tina Fontaine, a young woman from the Sagkeeng First Nation in Manitoba, who was tragically killed in 2014. She was brutally murdered. I would recommend to Canadians the report done by the Manitoba children's advocate, Daphne Penrose. I thank Ms. Penrose. As the children's advocate for Manitoba, she is doing important work, along with Cindy Blackstock and others. They have made recommendations. In fact, we failed Ms. Fontaine many times throughout her life. We have to learn from that. We collectively have to say that we need to do better.

Ms. Penrose's report regarding Ms. Fontaine was entitled “A Place Where It Feels Like Home”, because she did not have a home; she was in care. If we look at the report, we see that all of the central recommendations are provincial. The absentee and expulsion policies that led Ms. Fontaine out of the school system, where someone could have helped her, are provincial. Victims services, health, provincial justice and addiction support are all provincial. In some cases, the federal government is not delivering the services, and kudos to the many outstanding first nations that are looking at delivering these services on and off reserve.

I ask the government this. When this goes to committee, because we are supportive of that, let us get it right. Let us use the goodwill that is here to make sure that the provincial, territorial and first nations organizations delivering child welfare services, addiction services, victim services and education are part of the solution. That is our obligation to reconciliation. It is not just through the federal government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 11, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.