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.

Public Accounts

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what is becoming more clear as this debate progresses is the attempt by the Liberals to distract.

What they are trying to distract from is their appalling position in terms of SNC-Lavalin, and the fact that they easily could have been debating Bill C-92 now in the chamber had they just exercised some of the tools they have at their disposal. They are trying to shift the blame. The reason the Liberals are trying to shift the blame is perhaps that the bill is as challenged as the indigenous languages bill, where they had to table drop 30 amendments, and it is unheard of for a government to have to table drop 30 amendments.

We absolutely think we should be looking at the child welfare legislation, but I hope it is not as dismally flawed as other legislation the Liberals have presented in the House.

How can the hon. member sit there and say that we need to talk about Bill C-92, when as a member of the government he is not exercising the opportunities that he has to make it happen?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the Champlain Bridge. This is a very important project for the people of Montreal, Quebec and Canada.

This infrastructure project began in 2007 when Le Journal de Montréal published an article about the need to build a 10-lane bridge across the river. A month later, Novaroute, a private firm, decided to conduct a study in order to publish a story about building a tunnel under the river. At that point, everyone had already known for more than 10 years that the bridge would have to be replaced, but the plan was several years in the making.

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts issued a report in response to the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General found that the Conservatives completely botched the job of ensuring that the bridge would be built in a timely manner and in the best interests of Canadians.

This report shows that the Conservatives mismanaged public funds. The Auditor General's report is astonishing. The report included a number of recommendations directed at the Harper Conservatives, who could have considerably improved their approach.

It is mind-boggling that the Conservatives are bringing these reports back to our attention to discuss them, but I will talk about them.

The reports indicate that, according to the Auditor General, the Conservatives did not even properly plan the bridge's construction. It is absolutely unbelievable that they did not even produce an adequate plan for getting the job done.

On October 6, 2011, the day after the announcement about replacing the bridge, an article reported that it would be a new bridge, not a tunnel, built through a P3, costing a maximum of $5 billion and that it would be ready within 10 years. Both the Office of the Auditor General and a government news release indicate that the decision to use a P3 model was made in 2011, a fact that is also supported by a news article. Deputy Minister Kelly Gillis said that the decision was made in December 2013, because that was when the government announced the accelerated timeline to replace the bridge in 2018, and the analyses carried out in 2012 and 2013 addressed the best way to complete the project quickly.

According to the Office of the Auditor General, the value-for-money analyses were of little use to decision-makers and contained many flaws favouring the P3 model. What is more, the department's analyses indicated savings that were unrealistic.

It was unrealistic. The Conservatives say that they are extremely good at managing the economy and public funds, but according to the OAG, the department's analyses were unrealistic. It took a Liberal government to get this bridge built and to make sure the work was done properly.

I would also note that the Conservatives wanted a toll on this bridge that would have cost every person who crosses the bridge five days a week $2,340 a year. It is unbelievable. That is $2,340 that would have been taken or practically stolen out of taxpayers' pockets. It is terrible when we think about it. Montrealers are lucky we are here now to manage the resources. The bridge is almost finished, and there is no toll. It is a bridge for public use. It is a bridge that everyone will be able to use. The Conservatives wanted this bridge to be used only by their wealthy friends.

The following is another recommendation from the Office of the Auditor General:

After completing the construction of the new Champlain Bridge, Infrastructure Canada should create realistic benchmarks for construction costs, risk evaluation, and efficiency rates in value-for-money analyses, for use in future requests for proposals for infrastructure projects.

This seems to make perfect sense, but former Conservative infrastructure ministers Lawrence Cannon and Denis Lebel did not understand it. They did not know what they were doing. I want to share another quote from the report:

Without obtaining results of durability analyses in advance, Infrastructure Canada could not know whether the proposed bridge designs would meet the expected service life requirement before it signed a contract with the selected bidder. [For instance]...they did not fully assess several deterioration mechanisms—for example, frost damage and the compounding effect of all deterioration mechanisms. As a result, [the OAG] performed comprehensive durability analyses on the designs of key non-replaceable components of the new bridge. In [its] analysis, [it] did not find design problems that would affect the examined components’ ability to meet their expected service life.

I would like to come back to the passage stating that Infrastructure Canada could not know whether the proposed bridge designs met the expected service life requirements. The Conservatives were so inept and incapable of managing public assets that they were not even able to figure out if this bridge would last. The bridge would be built and then perhaps one day collapse. A bridge should last at least 100 years and ideally 125 years.

According to the Auditor General, the Conservatives did not know if it would last because they did not even evaluate this requirement. Ten years ago, several people died in Montreal because of how certain structures were built. It is disgraceful that the Conservatives did not even take the time to evaluate this properly. We are now here to debate this issue. It is disgraceful that the Conservatives continue to put forward the proposals of Stephen Harper, Denis Lebel and Lawrence Cannon. We are pleased that they are no longer in power. We have come out of this decade of decay and poor management of our economy and public assets. They should be ashamed.

Now, I would like to remind members that we are supposed to be debating Bill C-92.

We are supposed to be debating Bill C-92, which is about the children, youth and families of first nations, Inuit and Métis. We are not debating that right now because instead we are doing what the Conservatives want, which is to debate this infrastructure report. This is an infrastructure report that demonstrates the poor management of the Conservative Party when it was in power, regarding the public good in Montreal with respect to the Champlain Bridge. Therefore, we are not debating this very important bill concerning child welfare for our children.

When I gave my maiden speech in the House of Commons three years ago, I spoke about child welfare. The speech was about the 11,000 kids in care in the province of Manitoba.

Since that time, I have had the opportunity in my riding, one of the poorest ridings in the country, to speak with mothers and fathers who have had their children taken, such as Chantelle Hutchison, who drove all the way from Brandon, Manitoba, to see me in Winnipeg to advocate to, somehow, get her child back, her little girl. I keep this photo of the little girl above my stove so that when I am cooking in my apartment here in Ottawa I remember why I was elected. Even though we were not able to help the mother get her child back, I hope if Chantelle is listening right now she knows that this legislation we have here today is because of her hard work advocating not only on behalf of her child but for the thousands of children and families in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and right across the country.

This legislation is so important that I call on the Conservatives to not play games anymore and to stop debate on this report, which I am sure is very important, but this child welfare bill is so important it needs to move forward. It needs to move on through this House and to the Senate. If we spend a lot of time playing these games, this legislation will not become law and we will not effect change. We will continue doing the same things we did with the Indian residential schools.

I will admit that I was mean to the Conservatives. However, I will throw them what I hope is a rose. I was proud when Stephen Harper stood in the House and gave the apology for the Indian residential schools, because it was a defining moment in the history of our nation. We were able to come together in a good way. We had indigenous leaders here. We had all-party support. The apology was made and then we built a stained glass window just outside the old chamber to commemorate it, so that every time we as parliamentarians go through our door, in and out of that chamber, we remember the Indian residential schools. I think this law is like that.

Indian residential schools were about placing children in large institutions. However, back in the sixties we slowly changed how the system worked. We started to place children up for adoption. We call that the sixties scoop, the stolen generation. Then, in the eighties, we stopped using adoption and started placing them with foster families in child welfare. We continue to do that today. It is extremely sad that it continues. We are perpetuating the same mistakes of the past but in a different way. It is more diffused. Instead of concentrating children in one place, we are spreading them around society.

Therefore, I hope we can stop debate on this lovely report. I am sure the committee members worked very hard on it. I can continue hammering away on the Conservatives if they would like. I can do it all in French, with all the costs. However, what I really want to get to is this. I think the legislation, Bill C-92, should go to committee. If we can get it passed at second reading and to committee, we can have the debate, we can hear what indigenous organizations and indigenous peoples want, deal with the legislative amendments from some provincial governments and come to a conclusion.

It was mentioned in the debate about the indigenous languages legislation from last night, which is very important, how over 30 amendments were table dropped. That does not mean the government was just willing to table legislation and not see any changes at all. It means it was willing to consult and listen to people. I think it is important that things are not written in stone when it comes out of the justice department so that improvements can be made through public discussion. That is what needs to happen with this law. It is great to debate and get people on the record here in this chamber, but what we really need is to have this legislation move on to committee, because that is where we will see that change.

I am going to leave the House with a statistic. We know there are 11,000 kids in care. We know that every day in Manitoba a newborn baby is seized, a newborn baby is taken from the mother, sometimes for good reason and sometimes not. In Manitoba, if someone was in the child welfare system and they give birth, there will be a note on their health file and if they give birth in the Manitoba health care system, their child will automatically be taken.

I see men and women come into my office, week after week, trying to get a letter of recommendation, not for immigration purposes, not for a visitor visa, but to say that they are a good parent. I look at the certificates and all the training they have gone through to become good parents and to prove they are good parents. It is strange that they have to get certificates to prove they are good parents. Not everyone else has to do that. I never had to do that. I am sure most of the members here never had to prove that they were a good parent.

However, that is what happens day in and day out in this country for some of the poorest citizens who cannot afford lawyers, who cannot afford to really advocate on their own behalf, who are sometimes only 18 or 19 years old, who got pregnant and who want to love their child.

I know there are people who will say online or will write me to say that there are terrible people who need to have their children taken. The Province of Manitoba, through the Health Sciences Centre research branch published a report looking at child welfare, and 87% of all children taken are taken not because of issues related to abuse but are taken because of issues related to poverty. That leaves 13%. Incredibly enough, that 13% is where we have allegations of abuse. Of that 13%, only 12% are substantiated abuse. This means that in the vast majority of cases, there is no abuse involved. It is just because people are too poor to look after their own children, or for other issues.

That is a travesty of justice in our age. That is why it is important that we have some consensus to stop debating report 51 and move on to Bill C-92, a historic piece of legislation that will affect great change across our nation, which is needed now, before this Parliament ends, while we have the opportunity and the chance.

Do not let this occasion slip through our fingers. Whether members win in this upcoming election or not, every parliamentarian who participates in this debate on Bill C-92, who lets this legislation move forward, will be able to look at themselves in the mirror. When they are at home and wondering why they lost or won that election, they will be able to look themselves in the eye at two o'clock in the morning and know that they made a difference.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is finally becoming clear what the government is trying to do. It was absolutely so incompetent with the indigenous language legislation that it had to table drop 30 amendments. The Liberals know that there are some real challenges with Bill C-92. They were after their friends to say it is the Conservatives who are stalling, when we know they have tools they could use today to enable us to get on with that debate.

Please keep your blame for those who deserve it, which is right on yourself. You could have moved on. Thank you very much, but please tell us why you did not do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We should have started the debate on Bill C-92 yesterday.

Bill C-92 affects thousands of children throughout our country; in fact, it affects hundreds of them in Winnipeg North alone. In Winnipeg North, there are hundreds of children in foster care. In Manitoba, well over 10,000 children are in foster care and many of them are indigenous. Our indigenous communities talk about reconciliation, and this is a big part of it.

However, the Conservatives are filibustering, and today we are now talking about the Champlain Bridge. Members in the Liberal caucus, like my colleague, very much want to see that bridge. We are the ones who are pushing for that bridge to be completed. We recognize the importance of the bridge to residents of Montreal, and that is why we are pushing it.

If the Conservatives want to have a debate on the bridge, then they should go to the public accounts committee, which will have future discussions about it. Is it really necessary here in the chamber, especially given that we are supposed to be debating Bill C-92? No, it is a filibuster by the Conservatives, and shame on them because they do not understand what the priorities of Canadians really and truly are. They should get back on track with Canadians and get rid of the former Harper government-style, gutter-type politics.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, even though the Champlain Bridge was not incorporated in it.

Having said that, I am glad there is support and encouragement for the government to use the tools within the Standing Orders so we can get this important legislative agenda, in particular Bill C-92, through the House. That means at times we will have to move to Government Orders and use time allocation to do that, because as has been demonstrated yesterday and today, the Conservatives, and we will have to wait to see about the NDP, continue to filibuster.

As a result, the member is right; there are tools within the Standing Orders, and I hope that when the time comes for us to use those tools, the NDP House leader will be behind us in making sure they are effective in enabling us to pass the legislation, because it is obvious the Conservatives do not want us to pass anything. They have demonstrated that through obstruction, both here and in our standing committees.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the government wanting to move to Bill C-92. It has made commitments for years that it finally tabled in a flawed bill. That bill could be improved and do the job it is supposed to do if the government is willing to accept amendments to it.

As we know, the government has all of these tools in the tool box, which is the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The member protested that he wanted to move to debate on Bill C-92, but during the entire half-hour speech, he did not move to adjourn the debate and go to orders of the day. He has in his possession a whole range of tools that he chose not to use.

My question is very simple. If the Liberals really believe in going to Bill C-92, which Canadians have been waiting years for, why did he not use any of the tools he has? Is that incompetence, or is it because the government actually does not want to go to Bill C-92?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it shows the sensitivity of the Conservatives when they have to reflect on their past performances inside the House. In this debate, the two previous Conservative speakers talked about SNC and serious allegations. Now when I challenge them on those allegations, we find that they are very uncomfortable, and justifiably so, because if we compare Stephen Harper and his administration on the issue of judicial independence to this government, it is ultimately night and day, with Harper being the darker side. A vast majority of individuals would recognize that. We only need to look at some of the appointments that were made or attempted under that administration.

I want to provide some thoughts in regard to the standing committees. It was not that long ago when there was a memo sent out by the Conservatives at the time. They wanted to deliberately obstruct committees. That is something that has not changed with the Conservative Party. If we want to get into the details of what is taking place here in Ottawa, I would summarize it by saying that the official opposition is continuing to follow the memo that was issued many years ago to deliberately obstruct committees.

Standing committees can contribute in a very valuable way to the proceedings of this House, and so can the proceedings that take place in this chamber. Preventing debates, such as debate on Bill C-92, is a disservice to Canadians. The Conservative opposition needs to get back on track and start thinking and acting on what is in the best interest of Canadians, as opposed to the best interest of the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Montreal were waiting for many years to see the replacement of the Champlain Bridge. Stephen Harper and the Conservative government failed the people of Montreal and thereby the people of Quebec, and in fact all Canadians, on many fronts. This is a good example of how the Harper government could not get the job done. With this government, we have seen historic investments in infrastructure in every region of our country. The Champlain Bridge is a good example.

The Conservatives, once again, have taken this day to attempt to bump debate on government legislation, Bill C-92, which is critically important legislation. In my own riding of Winnipeg North, hundreds of children are in foster care. This is about reconciliation, and the Conservatives continue to want to filibuster on what is important legislation that needs to be debated.

Why does the member opposite feel that the Conservative Party is entitled to deny Canadians good, solid legislation and debate while it tries to play politics on the issue of SNC-Lavalin, when his own leader and that party have met with SNC-Lavalin? He did not make reference to that either.

Justice and Human Rights

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I often will stand in my place and talk about what a wonderful privilege it is to speak to a particular issue when we talk about legislation, whether it is government business, private members' business, resolutions or motions of the day. Today, I am feeling a bit different. I am feeling somewhat discouraged because I know what we were supposed to be talking about today and how critically important that debate was supposed to be for all Canadians but in particular indigenous people and literally hundreds of children who live in Winnipeg North who are in foster care.

To get an appreciation of it, the province of Manitoba has well over 10,000 children in foster care. A vast majority of them are of indigenous heritage. For me, this was very important legislation. It was providing hope for communities across the country. In fact, during the break, I had a wonderful discussion with Sharon Redsky about the potential of the legislation we were supposed to be debating today.

However, the Conservatives, and what I refer to as the unholy alliance between the Conservatives and the New Democrats, have decided to change the channel. They do not want to talk about reconciliation and the importance of that legislation. They knew it was on the Order Paper today. Instead, they want to continue the debate on an issue that has been debated extensively. What did the opposition do in order to bring forward this debate? They did not really give it too much thought. They brought forward concurrence in a report.

Even when I was in opposition, and I was in opposition for many years, that was a give-me. The Conservatives went through all these different possibilities. They looked at the kind of a report they could bring in today to try to throw the government off track. The opposition members chose a report that was brought in back in June, not 2018 but 2017. That report has been sitting, collecting dust and that is the report they have chosen. They could have chosen from many reports, but that is the one they wanted to zero in on in order to try to frustrate the government so we would not be able to talk about what was important to Canadians.

This is not the first time the opposition has done that. The opposition continuously looks at ways to do two things: to attack the persons of this cabinet and individuals within this government on a personal level more often than not it seems; and come up with ways in which they can filibuster or try to frustrate the government so we cannot implement the type of good things on the agenda we made to Canadians back in 2015. Today is an excellent example of that.

I will get right to the point on that debate shortly. However, let me assure those individuals who are following the debate or watching what is taking place and the behaviour of the unholy alliance between the New Democrats and the Conservatives, that as much as they want to focus inside the gutter in many ways, we will continue to be focused on Canadians from coast to coast to coast in ensuring we are bringing forward progressive legislation and budget bills and plans that are in the best interest of Canadians. We know it is in the best interest of Canadians because we are working with Canadians day in and day out. In fact, we have a Prime Minister who has ensured that we there is a higher level of transparency and accountability, second to no other especially compared to Stephen Harper. There is a lot of irony there.

The Conservatives talk about the importance of the rule of law and the charter. I remember the attempt by Stephen Harper to get Mr. Nadon into the Supreme Court when I was in opposition. Recently, when I was posting something on Facebook, I saw something that had been posted regarding 101 Harper scandals. If members want to get a sense of the violations against the independence of our court system and the government of the day, they should look at Stephen Harper's performance.

I believe that absolutely nothing has gone wrong here. The Prime Minister and his government have done their jobs. I want to assure members that no matter what sorts of frustrations the opposition works together to come up with to prevent this government from presenting good legislation and positive budgetary measures, we will continue to represent, argue and debate what we believe is important to everyday Canadians who are trying to make it: Canada's middle class, those who are trying to be a part of it, and those who are in need, all of whom are priority one for this government.

We will not be sidetracked by an opposition that has one focus alone. That is why its members reach back to June 2017, when the item we are debating right now was brought forward. I hope later today that my colleagues across the way will reflect on what we could have been debating. I made reference to the 11,000 children in my home province of Manitoba. There are thousands of children all over our country who need to see the progressive legislation in Bill C-92 pass. I hope we will have a better chance of opposition members working together to ensure that this legislation is able to pass, even though they want to maintain their focus on attacks on the government.

I have been in opposition. I can appreciate that in opposition, they want to look at ways to hold the government accountable, and there could be some merit in that.

I listened to a lot of the debate. I would like to go over some of the things I picked up from the committee meetings. Some of the comments I heard were interesting, in particular those of Mr. Wernick. He was Canada's top civil servant. There was no one higher than Mr. Wernick within the Canadian civil service. The Conservatives have implied that this is scary. However, they should realize that this professional civil servant worked with Stephen Harper too. It was not one political party. This is an individual who committed his life for over 30 years to serving Canadians.

Mr. Wernick came to committee and made a presentation. When he looked at the matter as a whole, this was his conclusion. He stated:

It is my conclusion and my assertion, based on all the information I have, that there was no inappropriate pressure on the Minister of Justice in this matter.

It was interesting to listen to the former minister of justice with respect to two questions that really caught my interest.

The member for Edmonton Centre posed a question to the former attorney general:

did the Prime Minister...ever direct you to enter into a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin?

The former minister was very clear: “No.”

If Canadians listened to the Conservatives and the New Democrats, they would think that the Prime Minister was in her office every day of the year telling her to interject. However, she used her own very simple word to a very simple question, “No.”

The leader of the Green Party posed a question to the former attorney general:

do you believe that...the pressure...contravened the Criminal Code?

What did she respond? The former minister said, “I don't believe that.”

It is pretty straightforward stuff.

There are many quotes from those committee meetings. I would encourage members to do a little research on some of those quotes. What I believe they will find is that nothing has taken place that could not be defended in any sort of public meeting.

I would welcome members opposite in Winnipeg North. If they are so bold, and they feel they are so righteous on this particular issue, I would love to host any one of them in the riding of Winnipeg North to deal with this issue.

Every Saturday I go to a local restaurant. Some days I get 30-plus people coming to see me at that restaurant, and I have had maybe two, possibly three, talk about this issue, and one of them was actually very favourable. The other one expressed concerns. He expressed concerns, and I said that it sounded like he might be listening to what the official opposition was talking about and that maybe he was on an email list or something of that nature. He kind of laughed about it. He has come back since, and we have changed topics.

I give the Conservatives credit for being good in opposition. They are very good in opposition, and I wish them many more years in opposition.

At the end of the day, if members join me at that local restaurant, they will find that what people are talking about is immigration, the economy, and all sorts of other personal matters. People are not talking about SNC-Lavalin, at least not at that local restaurant. I might have had maybe 10 or 12 verifiable emails coming from my riding of Winnipeg North on the issue. If I compare that to other agenda items, what people want us to be debating in this House is what is important to Canadians.

The Prime Minister stood in his place today and said that over 900,000 jobs have been created by working with Canadians in all regions of our country. I will compare our efforts to former prime minister Stephen Harper's any day of the week.

Even when it comes to the rule of law and the charter, this is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are the ones who brought the Constitution home to Canada. We do not need lessons from an opposition party that, when it was in government, tried to put in a Supreme Court judge, which ultimately had to be taken away because of the prime minister's interference, in good part.

Seriously, do we need to take lessons from a previous government that had such a lack of respect for our charter that it often brought in legislation that violated the charter? When the Supreme Court made decisions, the Conservatives were found lacking in bringing in the legislation required to make amendments that were necessary. Some of the first legislation we had to bring in as a government was because of the Conservatives' unwillingness to respect the decisions of our Supreme Court.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives and their unholy alliance with the NDP will stand up and talk about SNC. However, I believe one of their biggest motivating reasons is that they have nothing else they really want to talk about.

If we look at the last three and a half years, we see a government that has consistently delivered from coast to coast to coast on a wide range of ideas, plans and programs that have assisted in the generation of well over 900,000 jobs, lifted thousands of children out of poverty, lifted thousands of seniors out of poverty and provided hope for many who did not have hope before. It has implemented a national housing strategy that is going to make a difference not only today but into the future. It has implemented an infrastructure program that is going to build stronger and healthier infrastructure across Canada. These are the types of things this government has been doing for the last three and a half years.

The NDP and the Conservatives realize that, and that is one of the reasons that today it is SNC, but they will always come up with something personal. We see that in their questions. We see that in their actions, as opposed to debating good, solid legislation. This is just one example.

At the end of the day, I believe that if the NDP and Conservatives—

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I have three quick clarifications and then a question. The sub judice rule applies to two ongoing matters in respect to SNC-Lavalin: the judicial review that the member opposite just mentioned and the basic prosecution. Second, the member asked about the rule of law. A statement from the office of the DPP head, Kathleen Roussel, is that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.

The statement about the rule of law from the former attorney general at committee is, “I do not want members of this committee or Canadians to think that the integrity of our institutions has somehow evaporated. The integrity of our justice system, the integrity of the director of public prosecutions and prosecutors, is intact.”

Those are the three clarifications.

The member invoked the indigenous leaders he met with during constituency week. The member for Timmins—James Bay is participating in this debate as well. He is a strong advocate for indigenous reconciliation. Do those members believe it would be better served for those Canadians to be addressing Bill C-92 and child welfare legislation that would address indigenous reconciliation in a meaningful way rather than raising this issue, which is debating a report that was tabled not in June 2018 but in June 2017?

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, I will confess that I do find it a bit concerning that we are doing this on a day when we have the Minister of Indigenous Services in the House and are meant to be addressing Bill C-92, regarding something that the member for Timmins—James Bay always advocates in the House with vigour, as he should, in terms of indigenous reconciliation and how fundamental it is as a priority.

Instead of working on how to get indigenous children out of the child welfare system and back in their communities, ensuring that their language, culture and customs are preserved, we are discussing a report that was tabled almost a year ago, a report that all members of the justice committee concurred in at the time. The Conservatives are using this as a means of further elaborating on the issue of SNC-Lavalin. I find that very concerning in terms of the business of the chamber.

People have been asking what the most fundamental important priority is. I would say it is the security of Canadians. It is economic security, but the most fundamental relationship for any government of any stripe has to be its relationship with indigenous peoples.

We have the opportunity this afternoon to get on with the important business of passing legislation that could be era defining, in terms of assisting children in indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast. My position is that we should be getting on with that very issue.

[Arif Virani]

Madam Speaker, I am painfully aware of the fact that we are debating a subamendment, but I thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for his desire to clarify the record. If he needs to rise on another point of order, I am sure he will feel free to do so.

The point is that the member for Timmins—James Bay stood in the House just moments ago and asked a question of the member who just rose. That question was whether what he sought to do would jeopardize the independence of the director of public prosecutions. Therefore, let us unpack that.

The notion of the director of public prosecutions, if memory serves, was created around 2004 or 2006 specifically to address the need to ensure there was a depoliticization and an arm's-length nature of important matters and decisions that were taken with respect to prosecutions in the country. That is an important feature. It is hallmarked in the rule of law and the constitutional precepts that the member opposite has raised on numerous occasions in this very House.

By bringing that individual before the committee, the member for Timmins—James Bay raises an important point of whether that might be, unwittingly or de facto, politicizing the very exercise and decision-making power of that very individual. I put that to the House for the purposes of returning to this debate.

What is important to outline is that when we talk about the independence of the director of public prosecutions, a critically important role, it is a role that has been created for many reasons and a role that we need to jealously protect and safeguard.

I find it a bit ironic as well, as a prefatory comment to the comments I will be making, that the official opposition is seeking to direct the committees with respect to their work. We know from the record that when the official opposition was in power, which has been alluded to on numerous occasions by the government House leader, it reduced the resources provided to committees and took parliamentary secretaries like myself and inserted them completely within the committee structure and in so doing, ensured they served almost as de facto whips on committees.

What we did, conversely, was campaign on a different role for parliamentary secretaries and a different role for committees. We fulfilled that campaign commitment by providing better resources to committees and by ensuring that parliamentary secretaries like myself and 34 of my colleagues would not have a vote, for example, at committee. Those are important features that enhance the very committee process that the members opposite say we are somehow impugning.

Perhaps most egregious, and Canadians need to be reminded of this, is that on a day when the official opposition seeks to somehow take the side of the committee process, that is the same party that, when in power, circulated a memo to all committee chairs about how to deliberately obstruct committee processes to better manage the committees to do the Conservative Party's bidding. Those are facts and those facts are important so people understand how perhaps ironic and incredulous I find the position currently being taken by the members opposite.

Let us now look at the work the committees have been doing thus far. Official opposition members who sit on the justice committee, on pretty much every occasion I have seen when a justice bill is being debated in the House, have said it has worked in an amazingly harmonious and consensual manner. They have gone to great lengths to point out on many occasions the work of the member for Mount Royal, as chair, who has always sought to produce consensus-based, multi-party reports and have a consensus-based model and approach toward the committee deliberations, which is very important to note. It happened again earlier today, for Canadians watching or consulting Hansard.

Earlier today, we were debating Bill C-84 and the member for St. Albert—Edmonton talked about the member for Mount Royal, his studious chairmanship of that committee and his efforts to build consensus on numerous occasions. At the same time, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton reflected on the fact that he proposed an amendment to Bill C-84. What we did, like any logical government that is taking a non-partisan approach to committees should do and one that is empowering committees to do their work should do, we accepted that amendment, as we have done on other occasions on other bills, such as Bill C-75, the Criminal Code review amendment.

Again, those are prefatory comments about how committee structures operate and committees work. It is very important for people to understand that the justice committee stands out as an example of the great work committees can do on a multi-party basis. It stands out as an example where committees are fulfilling that kind of role.

In this context, what have we heard from the justice committee? We had people questioning their desire to engage in a discussion about the issues. We had people perhaps being surprised that the justice committee was very willing to hear from people.

The justice committee heard from the former attorney general, the current Attorney General of Canada and the deputy attorney general. It heard from the former principal secretary to the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council. I will pause there to particularly acknowledge his 37 or 38 years of non-partisan service to the people of Canada and the Government of Canada and recognize that body of work.

It also heard from important experts and legal academics. That is something that I will confess tickles my fancy, as a lawyer who came here after 15 years of practice in human rights and constitutional law. It heard from people talking about the constitutional precepts that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is regularly invoking here. The member for, I believe Victoria, from the New Democratic Party, who is the vice-chair of the justice committee, has also referred to it on numerous occasions. They have invoked concepts about what we call the Shawcross doctrine, which has been invoked so many times that people are starting to develop a familiarity about it. They have been talking about the importance of the role of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, and the fused notion that we have here in Canada, both federally and at every provincial level.

They have also talked, by comparison, about how things operate in Britain. For example, in Britain, there is a divorced role. Each entity is fulfilled by different individuals, which helps to address or alleviate some of the concerns that have been expressed here. That is an important issue. It came up today once again in question period.

These issues are being discussed and entered into the public debate, which is a very good thing. It is a hallmark of the committees and Parliament doing their work, which is an important precept. The Canadians who are watching right now should understand that these issues have all been advanced because the committee has been allowed to do its work.

What has the committee learned or what has come out of the committee process? Let us go there for a moment.

A motion was raised today by the member opposite, when we were meant to be debating Bill C-92, child welfare legislation, which would take indigenous kids out of the child welfare system and keep them in and among indigenous families and communities. Instead, they wanted to raise the issue of committee structure and to compel the reappearance of Ms. Roussel at the committee. However, in understanding our position on that, the members opposite need to understand what has already been heard at committee. What I am hearing and learning from reviewing the materials and watching the proceedings is this.

We heard testimony that the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her this was her decision to take. We heard her state on the record that it is appropriate to discuss job impacts. We heard her say that nothing occurred that was unlawful. In response to a question by the leader of the Green Party, she said that nothing that occurred was criminal. We heard her say that she was never directed. We heard her state that the state of our institutions, the rule of law and the independence of the legal process, are intact.

I want to go to a couple of quotes that arose during the context of the proceedings to illustrate this point. The former attorney general herself stated this at the very committee that the members opposite are impugning. She said, “I do not want members of this committee or Canadians to think that the integrity of our institutions has somehow evaporated. The integrity of our justice system, the integrity of the director of public prosecutions and prosecutors, is intact.”

This position on this issue of the rule of law, which is an important point, has been raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills on numerous occasions in the context of this debate. It was also raised in the context of Mr. Wernick's testimony, when he said, “I think Canadians should feel assured that they work in a democracy under the rule of law.”

In the same exchange with the member for Willowdale, Mr. Wernick went on to state, “I think Canadians need to be assured that their police and investigators, with the powers of the state, operate independently, and that the prosecution service, the state charging people with offences, is completely independent. There is a legislative and statutory shield around that, which demonstrably is working...”

That echoes exactly what we heard from the member for Timmins—James Bay. It also echoes what we heard from communications that have been put out by the director of public prosecutions. That office has gone to pains and at length to reassure Canadians that it has not been influenced in this case, nor has it been influenced in any other case with respect to how it conducts prosecutions. That is a critically important point to raise in the context of contemplations by the members opposite about recalling Madame Roussel before the committee.

In the end, what we heard at that committee was that the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way. What we have also heard, and what we know, is that the rule of law has remained intact. Those are critical points to be underscored at this juncture.

I want to return to what was raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton this afternoon when he first raised the motion about the issue of appropriate versus inappropriate discussion points with respect to the remediation agreement regime. I want to read this into the record so that it is crystal clear for Canadians. The remediation agreement regime exists in the Criminal Code. It is entrenched in the Criminal Code of Canada, based on amendments that were made last year.

The remediation agreement regime was studied at length in Canada-wide consultations. Following that study, it was proposed in legislation. That legislation was then studied by the finance committee and the justice committee of the House of Commons as well as a Senate committee. That remediation regime was then enacted into law and fully gazetted in an open and transparent manner to the public.

As has been stated on different occasions in the context of debates that we have been having over the past five or six weeks, the remediation agreement regime exists in five member countries of the G7. Those include the United States, Britain, France, Japan and now Canada. What we are doing by invoking a remediation agreement regime is harmonizing Canadian law with the laws of many other western democratic nations, particularly many other western democratic nations with whom we have trading relationships, which is an important point.

What is misunderstood here is this notion of what the remediation agreement concept invokes, or more specifically what it involves. There have been active discussions about whether the Prime Minister invoking the necessity and propriety of discussing jobs and job impacts was in fact appropriate. The position of Her Majesty's official opposition, articulated even earlier this afternoon, is that somehow that was inappropriate.

I want to read this into the record so that is is absolutely crystal clear. This is how one would conduct this matter if we were debating it in a much more rigorous way in a court of law. One would look to the statute for guidance.

Section 715.31 of the Criminal Code of Canada says:

The purpose of this Part is to establish a remediation agreement regime that is applicable to organizations alleged to have committed an offence and that has the following objectives:

It then lists six objectives:

(a) to denounce an organization’s wrongdoing and the harm that the wrongdoing has caused to victims or to the community;

(b) to hold the organization accountable for its wrongdoing through effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties;

That is an important point, because much has been made by members opposite about there being no accountability if a remediation agreement even enters the discussion points.

Paragraph 715.31(c) of the Criminal Code states:

to contribute to respect for the law by imposing an obligation on the organization to put in place corrective measures and promote a compliance culture;

That objective is clearly redressing the circumstances or the harm or the organizational capacity that allowed such a problem to occur. The fourth objective is as follows:

(d) to encourage voluntary disclosure of the wrongdoing;

That is to ensure that corporate actors or other actors come forward on a voluntary basis. The fifth point for the remediation agreement regime is this:

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community;

Again, that is addressing the victims. We have repeatedly heard invocations about the harms that has occurred in the context of SNC-Lavalin or other corporate actors in the context of remediation agreement regimes. What the statute itself talks about is ensuring that there are reparations for harm done to victims. That is important.

However, the last point is the most important point. It addresses precisely what has been raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton in his comments, which is why government members or the Prime Minister are even talking about jobs. Well, here is why, and, again, I am reading the Criminal Code of Canada, subsection 715.31(f), which says that the purpose of a remediation agreement regime is as follows:

to reduce the negative consequences of the wrongdoing for persons—employees, customers, pensioners and others—who did not engage in the wrongdoing, while holding responsible those individuals who did engage in that wrongdoing.

I will simplify that for the viewers. A remediation agreement is meant to ensure that the people who make decisions at a corporation are held accountable because they committed the wrongdoing, but those who are on the front lines, such as people who work on the assembly lines, answer the phone, stock the water cooler, are not held responsible, nor are people who no longer work at the company because they are pensioners. That is the point of a remediation agreement, which is why it has taken hold in now five member countries of the G7. It is why it has been adopted into law in Canada. It is important. The fundamental priority of any government is to keep its citizens safe and to promote their economic stability and security. That is a critical component.

These are important aspects, and I raise them today because it shows that concepts such as these need to be understood better. We can already understand them better by looking at the committee track record thus far. It has been a robust one. It has heard from a number of witnesses. That committee work is continuing as it should, in a manner that has been forthright and transparent.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to participate in this discussion. I will be frank in echoing the comments that were made by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. In the context of a debate we have had, which is an important debate and discussion, we have had fruitful testimony, justice committee hearings and an Ethics Commission investigator.

However, what has been questioned at times has been our government's commitment to indigenous reconciliation throughout all of these past four or five weeks. This afternoon we are meant to be debating Bill C-92, which is legislation that is defining in its content. It seeks to do something that I think all parliamentarians should seek to support and expedite in all candour.

Bill C-92 seeks to reverse the situation we have today. Any member of the Assembly of First Nations, the ITK or the Métis Nation could tell us that we now have a situation today where we have more children in child welfare custody proceedings than at the height of the residential school system. That is a fact. Bill C-92 is meant to address that by ensuring we are not taking indigenous kids from indigenous environments and putting them into non-indigenous environments, removing them from their families, communities, clans, reserves and their people. That is what we are meant to be debating right now, but instead we are debating the current motion. Therefore, I will debate it, because the opposition has chosen to do just that.

What we are debating is a justice committee report, which was tabled, if I am correct, in June of last year, with respect to the appointment of Kathleen Roussel as the director of public prosecutions. The NDP member who represents the community of Attawapiskat rightfully outlined that this role, this body and this title were extremely important—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat sad that the opposition party has chosen today to once again attempt to conduct a filibuster.

Today we were supposed to debate Bill C-92. That would affect hundreds of indigenous children in my own riding. The minister has introduced the bill. It has long been waited for. The Conservatives are using a tool that is often used for a filibuster, and the member across the way knows that full well.

Does the member opposite not recognize the injustice indigenous people have had to incur for many years? We finally have legislation that would have a positive impact on children on the same day the Conservative Party has chosen to take such action. They have already had an emergency debate. There are all sorts of other opportunities to have that debate. Why put indigenous issues on the back burner?

Bills of Exchange Act

[Gary Anandasangaree, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the unceded lands of the Algonquin people and to give my thanks, first, to the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for bringing forward this private member's motion, and second, to the heritage committee, which worked very hard over the past several months to consult and discuss with many indigenous organizations as well as individuals who came forward to give their testimony. I also want to acknowledge the hard work of the committee members, including the chair, who is the member for Toronto—Danforth.

This bill would not be here today if not for the work of the members of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. They worked very hard, and it is very timely that we have one of the commissioners, Grand Chief Willie Littlechild, in Ottawa today. He made an enormous contribution, as did the other commissioners. I am so honoured that he is here.

He spoke earlier at committee, and you could have heard a pin drop in the silence when he spoke, because he brings a lifetime of wisdom to issues of indigenous rights, both in the international context and with his work as a commissioner of the TRC. As well as being a jurist, he has played many other leadership roles within the legal community, in sports, and in many other aspects of life. It is very fortunate that he is in Ottawa today.

Today is, in fact, quite an important day. Earlier today our Minister of Indigenous Services tabled legislation, Bill C-92, on child welfare issues for indigenous peoples. I believe it is a transformational piece of legislation, one that responds in many ways both to the issues that are faced within communities and to many of the complaints before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Thus, it is a very important step forward by our government, as is the indigenous languages legislation, which was introduced by the minister of Canadian heritage several weeks ago. In fact, the committee completed a study today, and hopefully it will advance to the other place in the next few weeks. We are very excited to have two pieces of legislation moving along that can be linked to individual calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

With respect to this particular day, the national day for truth and reconciliation is a direct response to call to action 80. Over many years, the commissioners spoke with thousands and thousands of survivors of residential schools and came up with specific recommendations for governments to follow.

There has been quite a bit of discussion, as the previous speaker mentioned, with respect to this particular day. Initially, June 21 was recommended as a celebratory day for indigenous peoples. While a lot of people agreed with that date, the general consensus leaned toward September 30, to keep in the spirit of the TRC calls to action, as well as to recognize that there are other injustices that took place relating to indigenous children. The sixties scoop is one of them. Another is the movement of individual communities in the north. There were a number of different harms that were caused by the Government of Canada in the name of the Crown.

Sadly, it is a legacy of the last 152 years that has put indigenous people in Canada in a very difficult and precarious situation, given the many social challenges we see, whether it be housing, education or water.

Fundamentally, however, with the leadership of our Prime Minister, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Indigenous Services, we are moving toward a path to redefine this relationship.

First and foremost is redefining the relationship based on the notion of inherent rights and self-determination. That is what our Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations is undertaking. I believe there over 70 round tables where discussions are taking place to draw up specific rights.

Concurrently, we recognize that many of the challenges we speak of, whether related to water or otherwise, need to be addressed. As a government, we have invested close to $16.8 billion over the last three years to address some of those issues.

Having said that, there is a long way to go. It is very important that we accept the 94 calls to action identified by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This would be an initial step toward fulfilling our obligations, and I think it is a very important step.

What does this proposal mean? It means that September 30 of each year will be a national statutory holiday. We expect that it will mirror Orange Shirt Day. Nationwide, many school boards and institutions have marked Orange Shirt Day and have started the process of education to let people know of the challenges, difficulties and pain faced by residential school survivors.

That is a starting point. However, it is important that over the years, we elaborate on and develop more educational programs and more support that will allow this day to be marked in a solemn way that will make every Canadian reflect. My good friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, stated earlier that only 50% of Canadians know about residential schools. It is important that this national holiday be used as a tool to educate people. It would not be a day off for people. It would be for every community.

As members of Parliament, we have a presence in every part of this country. It is incumbent on us to take the lead and put on events and programs in our local communities to mark this day and make sure that the spirit of the TRC's call to action 80 is adhered to.

I have a couple of items to note before I conclude.

First, I understand that a private member's bill for a national day of truth and reconciliation was brought forward by the member for Victoria. Sadly, he announced today that he will not be seeking re-election. I want to acknowledge the work he has done and his extraordinary leadership and friendship. He is well regarded in the House.

Second, I want to thank all the witnesses, both individuals and communities, who came forward and supported this legislation.

As a government, we are very proud and very pleased to support this and commit to the full implementation of all 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I thank the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for bringing this forward.