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.

Bill C-29—Time Allocation Motion

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I actually find this really disingenuous from both sides. The Auditor General just spoke out about the Liberals' not investing enough in indigenous housing, calling the situation deplorable.

On Monday I was in committee, and we were talking about child welfare. The Conservatives were in the committee trying to obstruct the study of Bill C-92 on reconciliation, on providing and upholding the right of indigenous people to regain our self-determination over matters impacting our children. They were trying to hold up a committee with a carbon tax motion and were calling it urgent, when we have kids being murdered, pipelines and MMIWG, and kids going missing through the child welfare system. I find it very difficult.

We are talking about residential schools. There are lots of things the Conservatives can obstruct. I certainly hope that they are not using residential school survivors to obstruct a bill that needs to pass. If there is anything more scummy than that, it is obstructing the progression of lifting up the voices of residential school survivors.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question. Last June, the minister of justice did release an action plan. The challenge is that there are a number of different calls to action that need to be implemented, so there is a review of loss process that is being undertaken, which can take some time.

I do want to note that the UN declaration has been transformational. If we look at the decision on Bill C-92 and the Supreme Court of Canada, it really establishes how much of an impact UNDRIP has had on Canadian law. I am absolutely certain, and I know my friend opposite believes in this fundamentally as well, that this is going to transform this country in a way that other things have not. Therefore, I do look forward to working with her in furthering UNDRIP and also on other issues that are of mutual importance.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

I want to clarify. It's often said that it's at the pace at which communities want to go. I want to clarify that it's not really at that pace. I don't think we've ever not wanted jurisdiction over our kids. It's about the funding and resources that are provided to give back our human rights and to uphold UNDRIP so that we can care for our kids.

In the fall economic statement and the 2023-24 departmental plan, sunset of funding includes that in budget 2021 for mental health and wellness, and specifically funding from budget 2019 for continued implementation of Jordan's principle and supporting Inuit children, and funding to support individual compensation, capital expenditures, and immediate reforms of first nations child and family services and Jordan's principle.

What I find odd, when we talk about Bill C-92, is that there are still no plans for money. Jordan's principle keeps kids alive in my community, even though it's not often provided or given out in a timely manner in terms of service providers. That is sunsetting.

I've put forward amendments to EI to make sure that EI regimes would be consistent with how we choose to care for our children, which is a right affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It seems there's no consistency with this government in terms of when it is or isn't going to uphold the rule of law when it comes to indigenous human rights, particularly in relation to our children, depending on what the legislation is.

What concerns me is this. If there isn't a plan for total legislative reform, is this government really serious about implementing UNDRIP? We can't change things if people don't want to pay for that. There is a cost to violent colonization. One of the costs of that violence is the fact that we have an overrepresentation in the child welfare system.

Is there any plan to make sure legislation is consistent to affirm our right to have self-determination over the care of our children, whether in terms of EI, Jordan's principle or Bill C-92?

[Katrina Peddle]

That's a great question.

My colleague referred to the five-year review of the legislation. I think the best answers to those questions often come from communities in terms of what they've learned along the way. Just recently, several months ago, Louis Bull Tribe hosted a forum on lessons learned about using Bill C-92 as a tool to enact jurisdiction. We are trying to make sure that we always listen to those lessons around whether capacity building is broad enough. Does it do enough? Does it answer all of our questions?

Also, we really see, as we often see with these types of initiatives, the strength of communities helping each other to figure it out—saying what they did, where they found it challenging, and what worked really well—to try to make that as smooth as possible.

[Isabelle Quintal, Acting Director General, Strategic Policy and Planning Directorate, Department of Indigenous Services]

Yes, indeed, the Minister of Indigenous Services, in 2019, called an emergency meeting where indigenous partners, provinces and territories were all gathered to assess the fact that there was an overrepresentation of children in care. During that meeting, there was an agreement that six points of action would be developed and enforced.

One of those points of action was the creation of legislation that will allow indigenous groups to take care of their children. With that commitment and the desire to fulfill that point of action, Indigenous Services Canada met with over 2,000 indigenous people—elders, youth, agencies and communities—as well as provinces and territories, to gather their views on what that would look like. I think the engagement process of the development of Bill C-92 was really a co-development process, and it led to what is now the act.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

We're talking about children and reconciliation. I asked you a number of questions about Bill C-92 and monies attached.

Recently, the Conservatives put forward a bill, Bill C-318. I offered up amendments that were supported by the sponsor of the bill to include kinship and customary care in the new EI funding regime for adoption, to ensure that this government is upholding the rule of law, which now includes clause 5 of Bill C-15, which states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration”. Bill C-318 passed in committee, making the bill now consistent with articles 19, 20 and 21 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was thrown out by the Liberal government, even though they have the ability to provide royal consent. I wrote a letter, in fact, to the government on February 27, 2024. The government still has an opportunity to uphold the rule of law.

If we're talking about reunifying kids, and we know that 90% of kids in care, certainly in Manitoba, are first nations kids, often in kinship and customary arrangements, does this government have any plan to uphold the rule of law and amend that legislation?

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I see in subsection 22(3) of the act that indigenous laws prevail over provincial or territorial laws in case of conflict.

Could you tell us why that was important to include in Bill C-92?

[Katrina Peddle]

I can answer that question.

You made reference to the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, which is in the process of negotiating a coordination agreement. That process continues. I can't speak to the confidential nature of those negotiations, certainly, but I do think that what you see for the Northwest Territories is what you see elsewhere. There's an affirmation that the work that's been happening under Bill C-92 can continue, as the act has been found to be constitutional.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chair, I was hoping that we would have some very forensic, detailed information when it comes to presentations to committee. This is my riding. This is their involvement. It leaves me out in left field when witnesses come unprepared. I'll have to wait to get that information in writing, I guess.

I'll ask another question.

Can the witnesses provide an update on how indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories are moving forward with their own self-determination following Bill C-92's implementation?

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. Thank you for joining us today and providing us with some very important information.

I understand that the Government of the Northwest Territories chose to intervene in this case before the Supreme Court in support of the Government of Quebec's challenge to Bill C-92. Their involvement in this case was strongly opposed by the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, which has already passed its own child and family services law.

Are you able to speak to the arguments brought forward by the Government of the Northwest Territories and how the Supreme Court's ruling addresses their arguments?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

With all due respect, I'm asking all these questions related to financing after the current government just spent years battling in court over being found to be wilfully racially discriminating against first nations kids. We have now put forward Bill C-92. We're talking good talk about reconciliation, but we still haven't figured out the financial resources. There has been a pattern of normalized discrimination against indigenous kids in this country.

[Katrina Peddle]

Thank you for that very good question.

The $200 million-plus amount you see in the graphic is the amount that has been disbursed to support capacity-building, but a total of approximately $1.6 billion has been disbursed for that and coordination agreements.

I agree with you that child and family services need slightly different funding. The purpose of Bill C-92 is to focus on prevention and ensure that the communities have the flexibility they need to tackle great challenges. That's one of the principles laid out in the bill. No one can say that these are not great challenges. They are significant and they are difficult. However, the communities will be able to make their own decisions about where to prioritize investments and resources. For instance, they may choose to keep children in the community as opposed to placing them in foster care outside the community.

[Valerie Phillips, Director and General Counsel, Aboriginal Law Centre, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the question.

It is an interesting statement by the court. They really talk about that in terms of “legislative reconciliation”, and they talk about that in the broader role of Parliament and parliamentarians. They make reference to the ability of Parliament to have a conversation with society and the courts and how, in passing laws like Bill C-92, even if, for example, they make findings around the self-government affirmation, there's still a message being sent by parliamentarians to society and the courts.

In terms of what that means for the larger interpretation of Canadian law and the braiding of laws, I think that remains to be seen. They don't provide specific guidance, but it is certainly giving a message that the UN declaration should be considered by courts in interpreting laws and should be part of parliamentarians' consideration of laws.

[Katrina Peddle]

That's a very good question. Thank you for it.

I think what we see is a problem that everyone recognizes across the board: The status quo is not working. There have been significant investments in the first nations child and family services program. That program's funding has increased by about 200% since 2006. However, taking control of those services, the jurisdictional piece under Bill C-92, does take a period of time. What we hope to see is that a community seeks to assert jurisdiction, moves through capacity building relatively quickly—it can happen in less than a year, depending on what communities wish to do and the timing of that—moves through coordination agreement discussions, and then assumes jurisdiction.

When jurisdiction has been assumed, those decisions about how the services will be run and with whom they contract are made by the community. So—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good morning, colleagues.

Good morning, guests.

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 99 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We recognize that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting today for its study of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on February 9, 2024, regarding An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

From the Department of Indigenous Services, we have Katrina Peddle, director general, Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families branch, and Katrina is joined by Isabelle Quintal, acting director general, strategic policy and planning directorate. From the Department of Justice, we have Valerie Phillips, director and general counsel, aboriginal law centre, and Paula Quig, senior counsel, aboriginal law centre.

Welcome.

Colleagues, our normal rules for the committee allow for a five-minute opening statement, but the departmental officials have asked for 10 minutes, since this is a one-off study, to set the stage. I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to allow a 10-minute opening statement, and then we'll get right into the rounds of questions.

I'm seeing agreement with that.

We have 90 minutes with our officials on this one-day study that we're doing. Then we will move into committee business. We'll go into that when we get to that point in the agenda.

I'll use a handy card system. When you have 30 seconds left, I'll show a yellow card, and when your time is up, I will show the red card. Don't stop mid-sentence, but do wind up your thoughts. We'll keep things moving along that way. I'll set my timer for 10 minutes. Whenever you're ready, the floor is yours.

Welcome. Thank you.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do plan to split my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona

As I said, Bill C-35 would open the opportunity for a national system of early learning and child care.

A 2022 Statistics Canada study found that 38% of parents were changing their work or study schedule and 37% were working fewer hours. Bill C-35 would allow more parents to get back to work to provide for their families. This would benefit women, who are disproportionately impacted without this bill. We need Bill C-35 to become law.

The NDP will keep fighting for Canadians, unlike Conservatives, who make cuts, and Liberals who are forced to act only to avoid an election.

Today, the Conservatives tried to delay the important debate on C-35. They used a report from the 43rd parliament on food security issues as a delay tactic. They only pretend to care that nutrition north is not working. If they really cared about indigenous issues, they could have used any of their last 10 opposition day motions to debate nutrition north. Instead, they are playing games by making last minute changes to the orders of the day and obstructing important changes that could benefit many indigenous peoples, as well as the passage of Bill C-35.

I am proud that Nunavut was one of the first territories, along with Quebec and the Yukon, to commit to providing $10-a-day child care. More impressively, this milestone was achieved 15 months ahead of schedule. With the youngest population in Canada, it should come as no surprise. Ten-dollar-a-day day care does exist. Coupled with the high cost of living and other challenges, affordable child care is especially important to Nunavummiut.

Much work will be required after the passage of Bill C-35. There will need to be major investments for improving infrastructure in indigenous communities. Many first nations, Métis and Inuit communities lack the facilities for early childhood education. With crumbling buildings and overcrowded homes, there is nowhere to open a day care.

It is not just early childhood education; there is a severe infrastructure deficit across primary, intermediate and secondary schools in indigenous communities. In Pond Inlet, Arviat and many other Nunavut communities, schools are overcrowded. The communities desperately need investments in new schools. I heard from Pacheedaht First Nation members, who have to bus their children for hours in each direction because there is no school in their community. Even with existing schools, they do not have the resources to provide the same level of service as schools in non-indigenous communities do.

I take this opportunity to remind the Liberal government that it must both reverse its decision to sunset Indigenous Services Canada programs and fill the major infrastructure gaps. In combination, the lack of investments will result in over $14 billion that will force indigenous peoples onto the streets in the future. It will force indigenous peoples to remain addicted to substances and to remain on the margins of society.

The federal government must make additional investments to ensure that Inuit, first nations and Métis communities can build the infrastructure they need to provide culturally appropriate early childhood education.

An amendment was later added to address a potential charter issue, as minority language education is a right under section 23 of the Constitution. As parliamentarians, we have learned that there is an increasing lack of French-language child care services outside of Quebec. The amendment to clause 8 of the bill would ensure the federal government maintains funding for official language minorities. I am sure the francophone community in my riding will be very happy with this amendment. I am glad to see the amendment pass so this important legislation can go forward without potential legal challenges.

While there are two official languages in Canada, hundreds of indigenous languages remain. In order to keep indigenous languages alive, languages must be passed on to children at an early age. Governments have obligations to meet the obligations set out in the Indigenous Languages Act.

I highlight the recent court decision on Bill C-92, which was another big win for indigenous rights. Bill C-92 reaffirms Inuit, first nations and Métis rights to make decisions regarding their own children, youth and families. This includes culturally relevant child care services in their own languages.

For these reasons, I urge parliamentarians to support the passage of this bill.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji , I always appreciate my colleague's fierceness in the House. I always learn from her.

It has definitely been very disappointing to sit here since 2021 and to see the Liberal government not respect UNDRIP after passing Bill C-15. A very important aspect of UNDRIP, as she mentioned, is the importance of free, prior and informed consent. If the Liberal government, for example, had used free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, in developing the Métis bill, I think first nations in Ontario would have been a lot more supportive in helping to ensure that the bill is supported by all.

I think that ensuring free, prior and informed consent is something that helps to unite all indigenous peoples. It has been quite unfortunate to see the Liberal government dividing first nations, Métis and Inuit against each other. We need to see the examples set by the Supreme Court of upholding the constitutionality of Bill C-92.

In order for us to do better for first nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families, free, prior and informed consent must be at the core of our work. That is how we will make sure that our relationships are respectful, that we are working toward an overall sense of well-being for now and for the future of all of Canada. With Canada being founded on indigenous peoples' lands, if we work together, we can make sure that legislation is meeting the needs of first nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nunavut blows me away every day in this place.

She mentioned the SCC ruling on Bill C-92. In terms of self-determination, there are concerns I have had lately about child welfare matters impacting our kids. At committee, I pushed an amendment forward to an adoptive care bill, an EI bill, to include kinship and customary care to ensure that the bill was consistent with Bill C-15, meaning that all future legislation has to be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Winnipeg North member said the other day that they are in the process of trying to throw out those amendments, which, once again, with the SCC ruling, affirm the need for amendments to the current EI bill.

I was wondering what my colleague's thoughts were about the government's continual fight to not allow us to bring our kids home.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, before I begin, I would like to thank the member for Kings—Hants for his apology; I accept it, as he is correct that I abstained. Just to clarify, I abstained, along with my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, with the full support of the whole NDP caucus, because we felt quite strongly that the Liberal government had been failing on indigenous peoples' issues and that we need to keep fighting hard for indigenous peoples.

Representing Nunavut in the House has been a huge honour. I have learned so much more about first nations and Métis in Canada.

I acknowledge that we are on unceded Anishinabe Algonquin territory, and I thank my NDP colleague, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, for doing more land acknowledgements, because what they mean are that, before Ottawa, first nations thrived on these lands for thousands of years before these Parliament buildings were ever built. Acknowledging that we are on unceded territories also means that first nations still exist, despite government and religious efforts to erase them. I am thankful for the strength of first nations that continue to host and welcome us.

I thank the former minister of Crown-indigenous relations, who is now the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, for tabling Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of the national council for reconciliation, in June 2022. The introduction of the bill had been anticipated by indigenous peoples for years.

Before speaking to the bill, I am compelled to retell some of the experiences of indigenous peoples, in order to form the context of what would become the national council for reconciliation. Once I complete some of the context, I will speak to Bill C-29 and the amendments from the other place and conclude with remarks about the greater sense of hope I have for Inuit, first nations and Métis.

I recognize the strength and courage of first nations, Métis and Inuit, who have been waiting far too long for the bill's passage. I am guided by indigenous voices in my support for Bill C-29. I honour the survivors of residential schools. I honour their parents, who were robbed of raising their children. I honour the students who died in residential schools.

First nations, Métis and Inuit children who suffered from genocidal policies continue to ensure that Canada reconciles with indigenous peoples. Canada must do its part. Inuit, first nations and Métis experienced child sexual abuse and physical, emotional and spiritual abuses. These traumas continue to show in the form of intergenerational traumas suffered by children and youth today.

Just last week, I had conversations regarding education. Despite having explained what education was used for, genocide, I was expected to be okay with how it was described. I repeat: Western education was used as a genocidal tool against indigenous peoples. It is still used to keep indigenous peoples at the fringes of Canadian society. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls gathered important evidence. I implore all Canadians to read these reports, to incorporate them into school curricula and to ensure that all work in all of Canada is trauma-informed. These are important ways that Canadians can reconcile with indigenous peoples.

The national council for reconciliation was part of the 94 calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Calls to action 53, 54 and 55, specifically, call on the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with aboriginal peoples, to establish the national council for reconciliation.

The Liberal government not only took seven years to table the legislation but also failed to collaborate with indigenous peoples. I recall specifically the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami dropped support for Bill C-29 based on the concerns not addressed by Parliament.

Call to action 53 will have been implemented when there is monitoring, evaluating and reporting on Parliament's responses. Call to action 54 will have been implemented when multi-year funding is sustained for the national council for reconciliation so it has the financial, human and technical resources to function appropriately, and when an endowment of a national reconciliation trust is created. Call to action 55 will have been implemented when progress on closing the gaps in indigenous peoples' health indicators, on eliminating overrepresentation in the justice system, and on other areas is reported.

The important work of the national council for reconciliation would ensure a non-partisan approach to hearing what the issues are and the changes that need to be made. It would fulfill an important role in monitoring government programs and policies. I think all members of the House can agree on the merits of this work and the pressing need for the establishment of the national council.

Indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and gender-diverse people continue to go missing. Families on and off reserve live in overcrowded, mouldy homes that make us sick. Communities lack access to fresh water and affordable, healthy food. Suicide rates, especially among youth in Nunavut, remain among the highest in the world. The scars of residential schools and other sinister tools of assimilation persist through intergenerational trauma. Too often the government stands by. I have hope that the national council would help pressure the government to end these injustices and many others.

Reconciliation is an important process that demands the highest standards of implementation. When the Liberals tabled the original Bill C-29, it required some work. This is evidenced by the many amendments that were passed at committee stage and now by the Senate.

I am proud of the NPD's amendments that were passed at committee. We ensured the inclusion of important advice to be drawn from survivors, elders and indigenous legal professionals. We fought for language that would ensure that the national council would use a rights-based approach to its work on advancing reconciliation. These amendments would make the national council stronger.

I thank the committee in the other place, which took great care in its deliberations on Bill C-29, some of which I will outline. The inclusion of the word “post-contact” in the preamble differentiates Métis from first nations and Inuit. This acknowledges the fact that first nations and Inuit existed before the arrival of settlers. It is an important and welcome change. Next, adding a definition for “indigenous governing body” keeps Bill C-29 more consistent with other legislation. It is more accurate language than the previous use of “government”, as not all indigenous groups are considered governments.

Senate amendment 3 expands on whom reconciliation may be with. It would not be just between government and indigenous peoples but would also be expanded to between indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples. Senate amendment 4 provides greater clarity on what the national council for reconciliation would monitor and report, including education.

Amendment 5 clarifies the importance of the federal government's obligations with respect to the duty to consult. It clearly outlines that the duty to consult, which is owed to first nations, Inuit and Métis, would remain, and that consulting with the national council for reconciliation would not mean that indigenous peoples were consulted. This is an important distinction that would ensure that the national council for reconciliation would remain arm's-length and non-partisan. It reaffirms the section 35 rights of indigenous peoples. New Democrats agree, looking to amplifying the rights of indigenous peoples at every possible opportunity.

Amendment 6 is particularly important as it would enable the national council for reconciliation to seek clarification if the minister fails to comply with obligations set out in the act. Senate amendment 7 changes what the minister would be required to do, from a one-time activity six months after the national council is established to annually. This would be important for keeping the minister accountable always. One of the main flaws of the original bill was that it was overly vague. I am glad that the other place agreed and has added more prescriptive language around the national action plan that helps clarify the national council's research scope and follow-up actions. I am hopeful this would ensure more robust work and reporting.

Senate amendment 8 makes a small but meaningful change. The government's progress towards reconciliation would be reported, and progress by all levels of government and society would be reported separately. This would give the national council more flexibility in its reporting by not lumping the two together.

Overall, as I said, the amendments are welcome additions that would help strengthen Bill C-29. I remind parliamentarians that much work is still required in order for indigenous peoples to acknowledge government efforts in reconciliation. Reconciliation must remain at the core of our work. The passage of Bill C-29 would be another step. So long as indigenous peoples are deprived of their right to self-determination, their right to housing and so much more, reconciliation must continue. I am encouraged by the amendments that were made by the other place and I am encouraged to see the strength they would add to the national council for reconciliation.

To the future board members of the national council for reconciliation, expectations will be high. Inuit, first nations and Métis all across Canada will look to them to keep the governments accountable. It is not easy to challenge the established colonial structures and to hold the government to account on injustices. If anyone will be able to do it, it can be the national council for reconciliation. I urge all parties to support the Senate amendments so the national council for reconciliation can be established.

Finally, as I said in the beginning, I will conclude by sharing the hope I have for the future. I express my gratitude to the Supreme Court of Canada, which has upheld indigenous peoples' right to self-govern over children, youth and families. Indeed, prior to the damages caused by Canada's genocidal policies, Inuit and first nations, and later the Métis, exercised their own laws in areas that include well-being for children, youth and families.

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of Bill C-92 is an important milestone in Canada. It has acknowledged that indigenous peoples can make our own laws. It has affirmed the importance of implementing UNDRIP. I thank the 42nd Parliament for having tabled Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I shared the frustration that the pace of reconciliation is probably not where we want it to be. We want to advance things in a very expedient and fast way.

If we look at, for example, Bill C-92, which was a piece of legislation we brought forward, it was passed in 2021, was challenged, and today we have a resolution on it from the Supreme Court. Therefore, some of these issues take a bit of time.

I appreciate the question and look forward to working with the member opposite.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I had my staff do just a bit more research on “Indigenous governing body”. I asked them to do a search on where that term also exists.

The term exists in Bill C-35, the early learning and child care in Canada act; in Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage; the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages; Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence; Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts; and Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019.

I haven't looked at how these might differ from each other.

Having said that, have you been able to assess whether or not there are similarities or differences between what's in this act and what these other acts might be?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I would. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying previously, in the discussions today, one of the concerns we were trying to address with the amendment we proposed yesterday was this idea of how to address the term “Indigenous governing body” and the terms “collectivities” or “collectivity”, which appear in the bill nine times. How do we define that? How do we understand who that is? There was some concern, combined with some confusion and some lack of ability to explain and define what that term actually means.

In the context of the conversations today, this amendment is actually a relatively simple amendment to the original clause 8. Line 16 on page 4 becomes.... It was funny. Yesterday people asked what I meant by “-half of the Métis collectivity”. You have to read in the context of how it flows within the actual clause.

It would read, “on behalf of the Métis collectivity, including its citizens, set out in column 2 opposite”, and it would go on from there.

As we had it yesterday, we also include a definition of “Indigenous governing body” because that was a fairly important element for the Métis nations in the context of how it applies to Bill C-92 and their ability to provide the services under Bill C-92 for the kids in their jurisdictions. As well, on the end of that definition, relative to the one that started this whole conversation way back, I believe, on Monday morning, it adds “and, for greater certainty, includes a Métis government”, so there is an absolute assurance that an indigenous governing body includes a Métis government.

The point I would like to make in the context of the amendment to clause 8 on line 4—I guess it would probably roll over to line 5—is that the collectivity, including its citizens.... The thing that's really important to recognize—and this was something that was very important to the Métis nations—was this idea that a collectivity can be greater than just the sum of its citizens. There is an ability to recognize that and—I hope I'm not going to use the wrong word here—that they are able to advocate for people who could be part of their collectivity but may not have chosen to be part of their citizenship when it comes to things like hunting rights and some of those kinds of things.

I think I am satisfied that this explanation is reasonable and I'm satisfied that this is a good compromise that I think everybody at the table can get behind.

It's been an interesting week of getting here.

I'll leave my comments there. I'd love to hear the comments of our colleagues. I'd love to hear the comments of the officials, to make sure that we haven't overlooked something in this latest iteration of the inclusion of the definitions. Before we rush in to vote, I'd really like to hear the opinion of the officials and colleagues at the table who have been here through this process to make sure that I'm not the only guy who thinks we got here.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I move amendment 12796449.

Is that adequate for technical purposes? Thank you. That saves me about five minutes of reading.

I would like to address some of the elements of this amendment, and there are a couple of other things that I would like to read into the record.

This amendment addresses many of the concerns that we've heard. It uses language from the three self-government agreements back in February 2023 for the three Métis nations.

I want to take a moment and read from the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan agreement, chapter 5, paragraphs 5.02(c), 5.02(d) and 5.02(e) on page 14. It's from the “Recognition” chapter, which is exactly the section of this piece of legislation that we're talking about—the section on recognition. I get that I'm picking out a piece. I can read the whole thing if somebody wants me to. It's talking about some of the definitions here:

(c) the Métis Government is the democratic representative government of the Métis Nation within Saskatchewan and has the responsibility for providing responsible and accountable self-government for its Citizens and Métis collectivity throughout Saskatchewan;

(d) the Métis Government is the Indigenous Governing Body of the Métis Nation within Saskatchewan;

(e) the Métis Government is exclusively mandated to represent the Métis Nation within Saskatchewan based on the authorizations it receives from its Citizens and the Métis collectivity throughout Saskatchewan comprised of those Citizens, in respect of collectively held Métis Rights, interests, and claims, and in particular to:

i. implement and exercise the Métis Nation within Saskatchewan's inherent rights to self-determination, including the right of self-government

There are a number of other subparagraphs to the paragraph, or however you would technically frame that.

My purpose in presenting this amendment in this manner is this.

I'm going to be really frank with you. Since Saturday afternoon, I've lived and breathed this, trying to find the balance. I did that with two people on my side and some work with Ms. Idlout's team. We don't have tons of people to do this work. We went back and forth with the legislative clerk, who was fabulous, quite frankly. I think this is the fifth amendment that she's put together for me as we've tried to work through this. This is the one that we chose to use. She has been fabulous in working with us and giving us advice. We said, “Here's what we're trying to accomplish”, and she was tremendous at providing us with the legal advice to put these words together. In all fairness, she's the one who came up with a bunch of the language in this. I want to give credit where credit is due.

I believe this amendment creates very clear, unambiguous language, and it leaves no doubt whatsoever as to who is included or not included in this legislation. We heard from so many people the concern about the clarity of who is and who isn't included in this whole relationship that we're creating with this very important legislation. We heard it over and over again.

My intent is to create clear, unambiguous language so that we're not dealing with this somewhere down the road in a way that's causing issues for anybody. I tried to make it a compromise. I tried to make it a fair balance of the concerns that we heard from so many sources.

The language in the amendment also goes on to define “citizens” in each of the three Métis nations, and those definitions are literally from each of the independent agreements of the Métis nations from February 2023. I think that some of them were from February 24, 2023, and some of them were from February 23, 2023. The language is coming right out of those agreements.

The last thing that I would like to add to the conversation is that, out of respect for the conversations I had yesterday with some of the stakeholders, I wanted to ensure that we actually left “Indigenous governing body” in here because it is important in the context of how that applies to Bill C-92. I didn't want to come to a place where I took that out.

Specifically, I was talking to some of the folks from the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan. They assured me that they were talking to the people from the other provinces. I wanted to leave that in there out of respect, because this is what triggered some of the concerns in the first place. Out of respect for the fact that this is critical in the context of child and family services under Bill C-92 and ensuring they have a place there, I wanted to put it back in. As was explained to me, the assurance of putting it in there was to ensure they are included in that definition.

When you look at the end of the amendment, not only does it take the standard definition of “Indigenous governing body” that we talked about the other day in so many different places, but it adds and for greater certainty includes “a Métis government”. Nobody is left to doubt whether a Métis government is included in this definition of “Indigenous governing body”, especially as it would come back and refer to the approach on Bill C-92.

My intent, in fairness, was to find a balance, to find a compromise. My intent was to try to get it right. I look forward to the comments of the officials at the table, who would have some opinion on this, and to my colleagues' comments. Let's see where this goes. I'm happy to hear the comments of others.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I'm very familiar with Bill C-92. I was on this committee when that passed.

Are there other areas where “Indigenous governing body” is recognized by Canadian law that would suddenly be impacted by this?

I see now that that's what this is doing, and this would narrow it significantly. What would be the ramifications of that?

[Julia Redmond]

The clarification I would add here is that this doesn't necessarily have a direct impact on Bill C-92 as a piece of legislation. It also doesn't prevent any of the Métis governments addressed by this bill from meeting that test, that definition of “Indigenous governing body” for the purposes of that act. It's still possible that they would meet that test, but it would have to be shown.

One reading of what's in clause 8 is that this could still be shown from what is spelled out here. However, without that phrase in there, “for the purposes of this act”, it's not as automatic as it might be.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Yes. I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to beat something. Why couldn't the terminology just be that it's a Métis government that is authorized to act on behalf of a Métis collectivity? Why do we have to specifically add that terminology? Why are we not just taking that out? If there's no accepted definition, if there's no understanding of what that means, and it's only a definition that applies to Bill C-92 or Bill C-29, or even in the February agreements.... There's a definition in the agreements, and you're saying the only reason it needs to be defined there is that there are references to Bill C-92 in the agreements.

Why are we including this in clause 8? I don't think I've heard an answer to that question.

[Michael Schintz]

One of the points I want to touch on.... You referred to the 2023 agreements. If you were to do a word search in that agreement, you would note the only reference to an indigenous governing body is in the section dealing with Bill C-92. That's the singular reference.

In this instance, one of the challenges in the drafting is that there's an accepted definition of an indigenous governing body as our counsel has noted. That definition is somewhat broader, because it contemplates, for example, that there is an indigenous governing body that might represent a band. In this instance, we're not speaking about bands; we're speaking about these Métis governments. To include a definition, one of the challenges would be that there would be a reluctance to want to depart from the accepted definition found in Bill C-92.

What we're looking to suggest with clause 8 here is that these are indigenous governments. They've been authorized to represent rights holders, those who hold section 35 rights. Those are the two key components of the definition of an indigenous governing body as found in Bill C-92. I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with Bill C-29 offhand.

I'm trying to answer your question, Mr. Vidal. I don't know if that does or doesn't. Please let me know.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I'm sorry. Why add the term, then? It already says “Métis government”. Why add the term? Why add the addition that it's an...?

My sense is that there's no definition in the bill, or there's nothing in the definitions section—I think that's in clause 2 of the bill, which has the definitions that we're going to talk about later—that defines “Indigenous governing body” differently from what I would accept.

In fact, the exact same definition that you talk about in Bill C-92 or Bill C-29, which is intended to have a broader purpose, is the same definition that is in the February 2023 agreements for both MNA and MN-S, although it's not in the agreement for MNO.

Why include the term in the first place?

Where I'm going with this is.... We've heard concerns from people from all three provinces—very much less so in Saskatchewan, I must admit—that they're being included in something without their choice. We talked about the definition of communities, peoples and collectivities. Further down that road, in the agreements, there are definitions of citizenship, for example. Maybe if we use citizenship as a definition in some of these things, we could alleviate some of....

My concern is that, with this broader definition, by adding the words “Indigenous governing body”, we're broadening the definition of Métis government to include groups of people who don't necessarily want to....

There was discussion with Mr. Viersen and some of the witnesses who were here about both the Métis communities and the locals within the provinces. They feel they're being included in this without their consent, knowledge or willingness. Is this why they're feeling that? Is it because of this broader definition?

I don't get how you can argue that it's a narrower definition here, when it's exactly the same term and there is no definition that differentiates that.

Does that make sense? Maybe somewhere along the way, we should add a definition that then clarifies that.

[Julia Redmond]

To clarify, Bill C-92 contemplates a broader set of possible indigenous governments than is covered in Bill C-53.

Bill C-53 concerns only Métis governments. We're talking about a particular category. It's a subset of indigenous governments. Because Bill C-92 is broader, the definition of “Indigenous governing body” makes sense in that it would capture a broader set of indigenous governments.

They're trying to do two different things.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

You're saying that the definition in Bill C-92 has a different purpose from the one it has here. Is that what I caught?

Maybe I didn't quite...but that's what I heard.

[Julia Redmond, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice]

To start with the number of references to “Indigenous governing body” in this bill, what is relevant in particular is that this is the operative provision when it comes to recognition. This is the one paragraph that is the most important when it comes to providing that recognition to the Métis governments that are putting forward or are part of this bill.

In terms of the number of references, that's the reason why you're not seeing it throughout. This is also partially a drafting technique. It's used where it's needed, and it's not used where it isn't. It's as simple as that.

As for the term itself, you referenced the definition of “Indigenous governing body” that comes from Bill C-92. That one, as you rightly noted, has a broad scope. It includes things like a council and a band. Here, we're not dealing with a council and we're not dealing with a band. We're dealing specifically with Métis governments.

Essentially, the content of that definition—an explanation of what an indigenous governing body is in this particular context—is spelled out in the provision itself. The important part of that is the notion that a Métis government is authorized to act on behalf of a collectivity. Essentially, it takes that broad definition that's used in very broad contexts—like Bill C-92, which is meant to apply to all manners of indigenous governments—and is applying it, simply, to the circumstances we have in the bill.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do have a couple questions for the officials today around clause 8 that I think are very legitimate. I want to start by reading the part that I want to flesh out a little bit. The clause itself starts:

The Government of Canada recognizes that a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule is an Indigenous governing body that is authorized to act on behalf of the Métis collectivity set out in column 2 opposite that Métis government

If you go to the schedule, it's pretty obvious what that means. The question I have is around the use or definition of the term “Indigenous governing body”. There's no definition of “Indigenous governing body” in this piece of legislation.

Over the weekend, I did some digging and some research. To be honest with you, what triggered my digging on this was that I got the notice of the Senate amendments to Bill C-29. One of the amendments that the Senate proposed for Bill C-29—which I believe is going to be on the agenda sometime this week, but those are moving targets as well—is an amendment to include under “governments” the connection to “Indigenous governing bodies”. That caused me to look a little further for whether there is an accepted definition of that, what it means and how it expands what we're thinking about in clause 8 here. I went further to try to figure out what these definitions mean.

I went to the Métis National Council website, where it has an “Indigenous Governing Body” definition in reference to Bill C-92. That took me to Bill C-92, and there's a definition added in Bill C-92 that defines that—so there are so many other examples.

I said, “Okay, so where do we get the definition, and what do we accept as that definition for this bill?” I thought, “Okay, let's go back to the agreements,” because this legislation is driven by the February agreements with each of the three bodies. Interestingly enough, there is a definition of “Indigenous governing body” in two of those three agreements but not in the third. If we flesh out that definition that Bill....

By the way, these definitions across all these other places are identical. I think they're the same. I want to read one of those definitions. On the Métis National Council website, it says:

An Indigenous Governing Body, is defined in the federal Act, as

“A council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group, community, or people that hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (section 1).”

I'm trying to understand why this term has been added in this clause when the schedule very clearly talks about Métis governments and the collectivities that they represent. Now we're saying that they're also an indigenous governing body, which is a much broader definition, if I read these definitions. It includes other groups. It includes people. It includes communities. It doesn't anywhere in the definition talk about collectivities. It talks about....

Could you clarify for me and this committee the purpose of adding “Indigenous governing body” in clause 8? I did a word search, and that's the only place in the legislation where that term is used. In fact, the word “Indigenous” is only used, I think, five times in the legislation. Two of the times are in the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations' title, and two of them are in the title of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The only other place in the legislation where “Indigenous” appears is in clause 8 in “Indigenous governing body”.

I would open it up to our experts here to try to explain to me why that term is there. Then, that'll probably lead me to try to flesh this out on my own a little bit, if you don't mind.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Gary.

Thank you, officials.

There is a point of clarification we're working through, and it has been brought up a few times in the testimony over the past few weeks. What would change once this legislation passes, given the fact that Bill C-92 is already an avenue for Métis governments to have control over their children and family services?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Murphy, I'm very pleased and interested in your statement on the need for the amendment on kinship and customary care. We know that Bill C-92 has devolved the role for establishing child welfare codes to first nations and Inuit communities. It is so important.

In communities I represent, we have the kokums, the grandmothers, who are raising children. We have cousins and neighbours who are raising children. They are raising them with love, but they are often never recognized. We fight like hell to get them the child tax benefit because we have to prove it again and again. These are very natural ways that children are being brought into safe environments when they are in unsafe environments, when they are at risk or when the parents are not in a position to look after the children. In one of the communities I was in, they said, “We aren't going to take the children out of the homes; we're going to take the parents out of the homes. The children should have safe homes. If the parents are the ones causing problems, we'll take them out, and we'll look after the children in their home.”

From your work, what you've seen and your experience with your council, how important is it to frame language around the recognition of those family realities, for protecting and building loving homes for children?

[Julie McGregor]

If we take Bill C-92 as an example, the child welfare legislation, I believe they were consulted. Bill C-92 is actually a really good example of the difference with first nations. Bill C-92 recognizes the jurisdiction and inherent right of first nations to their children, and that was limited to children.

We are currently awaiting a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on whether Quebec's challenge to that legislation will be upheld. That just shows you the stark difference in terms of what first nations have to prove and the legal challenges they have to manoeuvre in order to have their inherent rights and jurisdiction recognized.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

We just had Bill C-92 pass, which gives the legal right for indigenous first nations to establish their own child and family policies, and particularly to address the inequities that were caused by the adoption of children who were taken out of their communities and lost their identity. Quebec, Manitoba—maybe not now, but then—and Alberta and the Northwest Territories are going to the Supreme Court to oppose this legislation. Have you looked at the potential impact of Bill C-92 and the challenge against first nations communities having the right to set their own adoption and family and child practices in terms of your bill?

[Andrea Sandmaier]

I think every indigenous governing body looking to Bill C-92 is at a different stage. For the Métis Nation of Alberta, we're in year three, I think, of building our authority, model of care and law. It takes time to do it right. We want to make sure we do it right. We don't want to be left, as soon as we do our coordination agreement, saying that we are now the authority over Métis children within Alberta and then get a whole bunch of files dumped on us. We don't want to go there. We know there are other indigenous governing bodies in Alberta that this has happened to.

We want to make sure we're doing it the right way. I don't think it's a matter of it not being implemented; I think governing bodies are taking time to make sure it's happening correctly and that we're doing the right thing.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

What has prevented the implementation of Bill C-92 up to this point? I know many communities in my area have already implemented it. They're doing their own care, essentially.

[Margaret Froh]

Thank you for the question.

I completely agree with Vice-President LeClair.

I think this is an incredibly important part of the bill: recognition of our governments as indigenous governing bodies. Give us the tools we need to utilize Bill C-92, if we need them. That is critically important.

I think she has done a beautiful job talking about the impact of many different colonial policies. The sixties scoop isn't just from the 1960s. There is a child welfare industry, and our Métis children are very much impacted by this. Bill C-53 recognizes our government's right to take care of our own children.

[Michelle LeClair]

Bill C-92 is at its beginning. Right now, we're doing an environmental community scan by engaging our communities to see what the gaps are and why kids are being taken.

When you think about child and family services, you don't just think about children and families; you think about what impacts those families: housing, the high cost of food, the ability to care for them in a clean environment and all those things. There's a lot with Bill C-92. It is an opportunity to look at those issues. Then, if you want to trigger Bill C-92, there's a lot of work to do in terms of legislation. As you know, as parliamentarians, you need to have things done right, especially when you're taking care of children and families. That takes some time.

We are working on that, but we're also working towards this other piece, which I think goes hand in hand with Bill C-92. The right to be able to take care of our families is a huge piece.

I'll tell you a story.

I met a young 16-year-old who was aging out of care. They gave her a book this size and a pittance of money and said, “Here you go. This is who you are.” That's when she realized she was a Métis kid. Her dad was from Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan, and the mother was from British Columbia. She had no cultural connection, nor did she know who she was. This happens every single day. I can walk out of here and down around the mall, where people are unfortunately suffering from mental health issues, and probably talk to kids who've aged out of the system.

It's not the provincial government's job or the federal government's job to figure out how to deal with those young people. The problem was created by churches and governments stealing our kids and doing all of that. It is our job to teach them their language and culture, and to meet their mooshums, kookums and families. That's one of the most important things in this legislation—for us to be able to say, “We are an indigenous governing body and we will take care of our own. You didn't do it very well. We need to do it, because we know how to do it.”

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

It's interesting. I didn't anticipate all the issues around child care.

I was here when this committee was dealing with Bill C‑92 back in 2019. Ms. LeClair, can you talk a bit about how Bill C‑92 is or is not fulfilling the child welfare issues that your community is dealing with, and why you need this particular piece of legislation to do that?

[Michelle LeClair]

I'll tell you, our communities are struggling. We are in the process of working outside of this with Bill C-92. It really is looking at what is happening to our communities, why the kids are being taken, and what kinds of services these kids have.

We've heard time and time again—and I'm sure everybody hears it across Canada—about mental health services for children. In Saskatchewan, you are on a two-year waiting list to get your child in for any kind of an assessment. People languish. Kids end up in correctional systems, or what have you, because we cannot give them the support they need at the times they need it. There's such a lack of programming. I mean, the provincial government isn't doing a great job of being in loco parentis, which means that the minister is their father. It's ridiculous.

We know. We don't need Canada or Saskatchewan to come into our communities and tell us what we're doing wrong; we know what's happening. It's been systematic. They've been doing it wrong, and it's time for us to take our kids back and figure out our own way to deal with this in our community.

[Michelle LeClair]

We're doing Bill C-92 consultations—which deal with the safety of children and jurisdiction and that sort of thing—in our community all throughout Saskatchewan. What's been really great about that whole process is that we've been able to work with our sisters and brothers from first nations communities to make sure that when we're dealing with families and children, we're doing it right.

I just wanted to make that point, after the red card.

[Dr. Jeffrey Schiffer, Director, Governance and Strategy, Native Child and Family Services of Toronto]

Thank you very much to the chair and to the committee members.

I'm joining you this morning—or this afternoon, I guess, depending on where you are in the country—from Treaty No. 13, the ancestral homelands of the Huron-Wendat, the Haudenosaunee and the Mississaugas of the Credit.

I'm here today to speak a bit about the federal transformation that's under way with respect to indigenous child and family well-being.

Native Child and Family Services of Toronto has served families in the Toronto and Peel area for the last 30 years. We started as a prevention agency and in 2004 began legislated child welfare. We currently serve about 8,000 unique community members annually from across Canada, last year serving members from 207 different first nations across Canada.

I'm here to talk a bit about federal funding with respect to the transformation currently under way through new legislation under the act respecting first nations children and families, formerly Bill C-92, and the impact that's had for service providers who are supporting indigenous children and families in urban centres.

Funding to date has largely been distinctions-based, which means that funding from the federal level is going directly to indigenous governing bodies. To be clear, that's something that Native Child certainly supports. I think what we're seeing is that federal funding trends meant to support Canada's most important relationship, as stated by the Prime Minister—the relationship with first nations—and meant to move reconciliation forward are not always getting to the children and families who require those services.

While funding at the federal level is going to first nations and other governing bodies to do the work, which is largely on reserve and is deeply needed and supported, we're seeing the majority of indigenous children and families across Canada from coast to coast to coast living and accessing services off reserve. That's creating challenges for agencies that are operating in urban spaces that are trying to support the youngest, most rapidly growing and most diverse demographic in Canada, which is indigenous children and youth.

While these children and youth are continuing to face challenges that have been made much more acute by the pandemic and are again being made more challenging by the current economic space, agencies like Native Child are struggling. Understanding that all three levels of government have a responsibility to support indigenous children and that it's a collective responsibility to do that work, I'm here today to speak to some of the things that I think the federal government can do to get ahead of some of these challenges before they become acute and before they become drastically more expensive.

There are three really well-developed mechanisms right now that agencies across Canada can access to support indigenous children and families.

The first is Jordan's principle. That's a funding program that is meant to support indigenous children regardless of where they are. This is just to state that our access to that program really is leading to phenomenal outcomes and to say that the budget coming in 2024 should continue to invest in Jordan's principle so that first nations children can get access to the medical and mental health services they need.

The second program that's well developed is the urban indigenous peoples program, UPIP. That program historically has been quite underfunded, I'll say. The amount of money that's available for agencies working in urban spaces is quite small, given the magnitude of the challenges in front of us with respect to decolonization and reconciliation. We at Native Child encourage the committee to think about how that program could be expanded or invested in, in ways that continue to allow agencies like Native Child to expand the service delivery that we provide.

Finally, I think the most complex equation in front of us as a nation is the recent Canadian Human Rights Tribunal final settlement, which really is going to talk about how indigenous governing bodies begin to create their own legislation and change the way indigenous child and family services are delivered across the country. To date, that's been very distinctions-based. It's been led by the Assembly of First Nations and other parties to the settlement, but urban voices, which are actually providing the majority of the services, have not been included.

As an example, here in the province of Ontario, where a quarter of the children in Canada live, 85% of all investigations involving a first nations child that involve child protection are happening off reserve, and the majority of the funding right now federally is going to on-reserve services. That inequity creates challenges for urban agencies that are trying to get ahead of some of these challenges and support those kids.

Given the status of first nations children and the numerous challenges they face with respect to the history of colonization and current barriers, I think we have some work to do collectively to work across jurisdictions between the federal and provincial governments to ensure funding is available for agencies providing child and family services to indigenous children and families.

I will leave it there and thank the committee for the time. I look forward to any questions later.

Meegwetch.

[Patrice Lacasse, Manager, Early Childhood Services, First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission]

Good morning, everyone. I'd like to thank the committee chair and members for having invited us to come and speak about the realities of indigenous first nations.

I acknowledge that we are in Wendat territory. In fact the commission's offices are located in the community of Wendake. As for me, I'm an Innu from the community of Uashat Mak Mani-utenam.

I represent the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission. The organization's mission is to help the communities meet their health, well-being, cultural and self-determination objectives. The commission is covers several sectors, including health and social services, research, social development, and child care. Needless to say, all these sectors contribute to the well-being of children. The commission was established in 1994 by the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador. This body gives it mandates, whether for the secretariat or policy matters. The commission also receives mandates from its board of directors, whose members are the directors of health and social services in the various communities.

With respect to Bill C-35, the main recommendation in the brief submitted last month was about developing a distinct act for indigenous early learning and child care. In this presentation, we will discuss elements that could considerably improve what has been put forward in Bill C-35. The goal is to better address the specific needs and realities of the communities. Even though the bill recognizes the needs and realities of each community, we feel that these are underestimated, whether in terms of access to services, geographical realities or the importance of language and culture.

As for indigenous self-determination, one of the basic principles is the decision-making authority of the first nations. This authority should rest with the first nations. Employment and Social Development Canada's indigenous early learning and child care programs, IELCCs, affirm the right to self-determination and the right to control, conceive, execute and administer an IELCC system that reflects our needs, priorities and aspirations.

There is nevertheless a paradox. The former Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, acknowledged the jurisdiction of first nations and indigenous people with respect to child services. We are therefore asking why Bill C-35 or some other act specifically for indigenous people, might not acknowledge this jurisdiction. Canada also recognizes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and has been working to implement it in its statutes. The government acknowledges the self-determination principle in the IELCC programs. However, the jurisdiction of the first nations and the Inuit over child care is required to implement these programs as effectively as possible. These powers need to be restored to the first nations.

For the implementation of the IELCC programs, the communities recently distanced themselves from the usual methods. Indeed, it was only last year that the organization signed an agreement with Employment and Social Development Canada. In order to show consideration for the powers of the communities, we recommend local coordination and mobilization. Early childhood is everybody's business, and not the preserve of a single sector. We would like to promote decompartmentalization. We have been straitjacketed for too long by certain programs. We would therefore like a development plan based not only on conditions, but also needs. The idea is to make sure that the measures introduced are aligned with children's needs, and also their environment, by which we mean the family and the community.

I'll stop there, because I've run out of speaking time.

[Suzanne Brant, President, First Nations Technical Institute]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the indigenous and northern affairs committee members.

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

[English]

My name is Suzanne Brant. I'm the president of the First Nations Technical Institute, a member of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte and bear clan.

Since 1985 we have been meeting the educational needs of indigenous students. We have served 112 different indigenous communities in Ontario and 189 indigenous communities across Canada.

We are an indigenous-led and -governed post-secondary institute. We're recognized under the Indigenous Institutes Act of Ontario, which was passed in 2017. We provide post-secondary programming in the areas of social science, health sciences, governance and policy, humanities, research and innovation, and aviation technology.

Currently, we have enrolled in our programs over 450 students. Eighty-seven per cent of those students are women. The average age of our students is 36 years. This is due to the barriers that currently exist in education. We provide high-quality education that links directly to employment. We use traditional ways of knowing and learning. We use indigenous knowledge, culture and languages within all of our programs. Not only are our students gaining the skills and technology they need, but they also gain indigenous knowledge.

We braid our healing and learning together. We recognize that a lot of our students have experienced many traumas. We want to make sure that they have the opportunity to unburden those traumas while they're in our programs. We provide student success facilitators and cultural advisers in all of our programming. They're there to help support the students. This helps to build pride and confidence within our students as well. This has lead to a graduation rate of over 92% in the last three years.

We have grown our enrolment by 203% since 2015. Every one of the programs we are currently running is oversubscribed. I'll just give you an example. We opened our enrolment for our practical nurse program on March 9. Today I can tell you that we have 80 applicants, and we can only take 15 students.

There's more that needs to be done to support FNTI and indigenous institutes so we can continue to support our learners. We require resources to deliver our programs to meet the needs and demands coming from our communities. Without adequate funding, we cannot provide our students with appropriate infrastructure and fully culturally relevant curriculum and support. We cannot meet the increasing program, community and economic needs.

I want to give you another example. Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, was passed in June 2019. First nations are working very hard to set up their own child well-being agencies, and we've been asked to provide the training. We went ahead and developed a four-year degree program in a bachelor's of indigenous social work. We obtained regulatory accreditation across Canada, and now the program is accredited in Ontario. We're going to offer this program in January 2024. This morning, there were 677 expressions of interest. We can only accept 36 students.

This issue is beyond social work. Every program we currently offer, as I mentioned, is oversubscribed. We have wait-lists. We have eight other indigenous programs under development for which there has been expressed interest and community interest.

It is frustrating that we have so many interested learners who want to enrol in our programs, but because of funding constraints, we can't serve them.

Madam Chair, I want to thank you for this opportunity to talk. I welcome any questions.

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

First, I want to acknowledge that I join my colleagues here, and those present virtually, in Ottawa, which is on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people who have lived on this land since time immemorial.

I too want to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her ongoing advocacy on this issue.

Tonight's debate reminds me of meeting for the first time with Bernie Williams and Gladys Radek, who came here to Ottawa on behalf of the families. They wanted us to know they wanted justice for the family member they had lost. They wanted healing for their families and they wanted concrete changes so no other families would need to go through what they had. They walked across this country seven times in the Walk4Justice.

It really was not until the death of Tina Fontaine, the surviving of Rinelle Harper and then the death of Loretta Saunders that the consciousness of all Canadians was raised.

This week, with the arrest of the serial killer in Winnipeg, it is a stark reminder of how indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people have been targeted and so disproportionately been murdered and gone missing. There is the serial killer in Prince George and the Highway of Tears, the horrific legacy of Robert Pickton.

On Monday I was able to be with my friend CeeJai Julian, a survivor from the Pickton farm. She reminds me every day of those we have lost and those whose lives, as well as the lives of their families and friends, have been changed forever.

Tonight's debate is about the hugely disproportionate numbers of indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people who have been murdered or gone missing. The numbers are horrific. Tonight we also must remember that they were mothers, daughters, aunties and nieces. They are loved and they are missed.

In 2016, when we launched the pre-inquiry, it was heartbreaking to hear first-hand from the circles of families and survivors coast to coast to coast. We had, I think, 17 circles, and they gave us advice on what they wanted to see in a national inquiry. They were also very clear, as we have heard tonight, that they wanted changes in policing and child and family services. They were clear that from the search to the investigation, from the charges being laid to the plea bargaining and to the sentence that the treatment was very, very different if the victim was indigenous.

We heard from families who, when their loved one went missing, felt they should not correct the missing person notice if it said that the person was white, because they felt the search, the investigation and everything would be different. We are really grateful to commissioners Marion Buller, Qajaq Robinson, Brian Eyolfson, and Michèle Audette who we are so proud to have here as a fellow parliamentarian in the other place, for their truly important report.

I particularly thank Gina McDougall-Wilson and all of those who served on the core planning committee to develop the national action plan. This week, I was honoured to meet with Sylvia Maracle, who chaired the subcommittee on the 2S chapter. I know it should be in the libraries of all the schools across this country how homophobia arrived on the boats and the history of how important the two-spirited people are in those communities, yet now they are so unfairly targeted.

Diane Redsky and her chapter on urban we know led to the $2.2 billion that was in budget 2021. We know we have very much more to do, but we are inspired by the changes in indigenous policing. There is Bill C-92, where families will be kept together. There is the incredible success of the rapid housing initiative for indigenous people.

Everyone who was at the Equal Voice reception tonight wishes that they could be part of this debate. We have a lot more to do and we will do it together.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-29 at third reading.

This is quite critical legislation and I will start with some preparatory comments. Our government is committed wholeheartedly to pursuing all avenues possible in the advancement of reconciliation in this country. It goes without saying that when we speak about reconciliation, a cornerstone of this concept is the idea about accountability, that the government, the country, needs to be held accountable for historical wrongs that have been perpetrated against indigenous peoples for literally centuries on this land.

Residents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto have spoken to me regularly over the past seven years about the importance of reconciliation, the need to advance it and to address the TRC calls to actions. I am very pleased to note that the TRC calls to action, five of them in particular, are really at the heart of this legislation.

What my constituents and people around the country have told me is that we need to ensure we are doing everything in our power as a government and as a Parliament to remedy the wrongs that were inflicted upon generations of indigenous people, particularly indigenous children who, through the residential schools program, were robbed of their families, their culture, oftentimes their language and, indeed, their history.

Going back seven years to 2015 before we came into power as government, we campaigned on a platform that called for a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples, one that would be based on the recognition of rights based on respect, co-operation and partnership. An important cornerstone of any nation-to-nation relationship as it is being advanced is basic respect for the autonomy and self-determination of the various indigenous peoples that we engage with, being first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. This is important on the international stage, but it is also important right here in Canada.

The reconciliation process that I am speaking of has to be guided by the active participation and leadership of indigenous peoples. I will digress for a moment. We had an example of that in the legislation I was privileged to work on, which, if memory serves, was either Bill C-91 or Bill C-92 two Parliaments ago. However, the important piece is not the number of the bill that we advanced at the time, but the indigenous languages legislation that we advanced and passed in this Parliament, which is now firmly part of Canadian law.

In that context, we co-developed the legislation in that spirit of reconciliation, in terms of giving full participation and leadership in the development role to indigenous communities, first nations, Inuit and Métis. That is an important aspect of reconciliation and how it manifests, but so too is this bill. With this bill, we would put in place institutional mechanisms that are called for in the TRC calls to action for indigenous peoples, so they can hold Canada and the Canadian government to account for meeting goals on the path toward reconciliation.

What is Bill C-29 about? It is called “an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation” and, like the indigenous languages bill that I was privileged to work on two Parliaments ago, it has been driven by the active participation of first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, organizations and individuals right across the country. What it would do is establish a permanent, indigenous-led, independent council with a mandate to monitor and support the progress of reconciliation in this country, including progress toward the full implementation of the TRC calls to action.

Let us talk about those calls to action. I mentioned them at the outset of my comments. The calls to action call on the government to create a non-partisan body that would hold the Government of Canada to account on the journey toward reconciliation. Specifically, calls to action 53 and 54 call for the establishment of this national council for reconciliation and for permanence of funding, which is very critical. We need to not only create the body, but adequately resource it.

Call to action 55 calls on the government to provide relevant information to the council in support of its mandate, providing it with the tools so it can execute its functions. Call to action 56 calls on the government to publish an annual report in response to the national council's annual report covering what the government is doing in terms of advancing reconciliation, another key component.

I will digress for a moment. I know there were some very useful amendments proposed at the committee stage, which I believe were universally adopted and it was unanimous coming out of committee. One of the components was for the government's response to be led by the Prime Minister himself, which is really critical in terms of emphasizing the prioritization and importance of this issue about advancing reconciliation. It is critical to not underestimate the impact that this kind of council will have on fostering the type of relationship with indigenous peoples I mentioned at the outset of my comments.

Through the annual response report, Canada would be consistently required to account for progress being made and also progress that has not yet been made, including identifying challenges, hurdles and obstacles.

It would be the people most impacted by such policies, the first nations, Inuit and Métis people on this land, who would have the power and wield that power to hold the government of the day to account.

That is really important. This is not about partisanship. This is not about what the Liberal government will be held to account for. This is what any government in the country would be held to account to do, going forward, with respect to advancing reconciliation, which is very critical in terms of such a pressing matter.

It is clearly only the beginning of some of the work we need to be doing. We know that, in Ontario, in my province, the median income of an indigenous household is 80% of that of a non-indigenous household. We know that the life expectancy of an indigenous person is over nine years shorter than a non-indigenous person on this land.

We know that while fewer than 5% of Canadians are indigenous, indigenous women represent over half of the inmate population in federal penitentiaries. We know that when we account for male participants, while indigenous men represent 5% of the population, they represent 30% of the prison population. Those are really chilling statistics.

I can say, parenthetically, that TRC call to action 55 has several subcategories. Two of the subcategories, and I will just cite from them, talk about the council ensuring that it reports on the progress on “reducing the rate of criminal victimization of Aboriginal people” as well as, in call to action 55, subsection vii, “Progress on reducing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the justice and correctional systems.”

I think one important facet of what the council will be doing, and also how the government will be responding, is highlighting some of the initiatives we have already started to take.

I am very pleased to say that, about two weeks ago, we secured passage and royal assent of Bill C-5. The bill addresses mandatory minimum penalties in the country, which have been in place for far too long, and how those mandatory minimum penalties served to take low-risk, first-time offenders and overly incarcerate them, disproportionately impacting indigenous men and Black men in Canada.

That is an important facet, in terms of how we advance this fight for reconciliation and how we advance some of these terms that are specifically itemized in the calls to action. That is exactly the type of thing I would like to see reported on by the council and included in the responses by the Canadian government, as to what further steps we can take to cure such instances, such as overrepresentation.

There are lasting effects. All of these statistics I have been citing demonstrate the lasting effects of the intergenerational trauma in Canada that has been inflicted upon first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. They are the result of enduring systemic discrimination and systemic racism in this country. That is critical to underline. It should be an issue that is really incontrovertible in the chamber.

We cannot begin to address such serious issues until we put into law a mechanism for holding the government of the day accountable, consistently accountable, for the actions, both past and present, and for what we are doing to remedy these historical injustices.

I was quite pleased to see this bill get the support of all parties at second reading. I am very confident that, hopefully, it will get support, once again, of all of the parties in the chamber.

I note, again, some of the important amendments that were made. I mentioned one of them right at the start of my comments. Other useful amendments presented by a multi-party group at committee included having elders and residential school survivors and their descendants populate the board of directors for this council. That would be a really critical feature.

I will say, somewhat subjectively, that I was quite pleased to see the fact that the importance of revitalizing, restoring and ensuring the non-extinction of indigenous languages also forms part of the amendments that were suggested by the committee, something we have wholeheartedly adopted already in Parliament.

As I mentioned earlier, the response to the annual report will be led by the Prime Minister himself.

That being said, this bill would do more than place obligations on the government. It would compel the government to continuously hold a mirror to itself, to urge us to never stop striving to do the best job we can vis-à-vis reconciliation. It would urge us to take ownership of the wrongdoings of the past and of the challenges of the present, and to work toward a commitment to do better going forward.

I think this type of honesty and accountability has been long sought after, and Bill C-29 is a step in the right direction.

I commend the bill and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same and ensure its passage.

[National Chief RoseAnne Archibald]

Thank you very much for that question.

The process of developing legislation, even if we say we are codeveloping it, it is always flawed.

We saw that with Bill C-92 for child welfare. We saw that with languages, and we saw that with the UNDRIP bill, and so there's never a perfect process in which everybody gets what they want, but we do, at the very least, expect to be properly engaged. In this case I, as National Chief, have definitely not felt fully engaged in the development of this legislation, so that's a problem. However, it was the regional chiefs and I who had a meeting last quarter and recommended that we actually go ahead with implementing—

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Chair, I want to acknowledge that the riding the member opposite represents, as she knows well, is part of the epicentre of the tragedy. Her advocacy is key in making sure that this tragedy ceases to continue and in fact ends. We all know, sadly, that it will not end tomorrow. However, investments that we have made, particularly in her riding for the Ka Ni Kanichihk, for example, very recently, thanks to the member opposite's advocacy, will be key in continuing to accompany survivors and people who are suffering violence.

What we have seen in the last two years is an escalation of that violence, due in part to the pandemic. It is something we have to be very clear-eyed about and acknowledge. The work that has been done over the last six years by this government, whether it is the passage of UNDRIP, the passage of the Indigenous Languages Act or the passage of the child and family services inherent rights in Bill C-92, is part of this immense puzzle that, without being resolved, is continuing the tragedy.

There are steps and goals over the next three years that we will have to be very bloody-minded in achieving. Clearly we will need to accelerate the path on this, and that is something I have undertaken to do.

[Denis Gros-Louis]

Public servants have a number of tools available to work on reconciliation, to rebuild trust, and, most importantly, to enable the communities to develop, in spite of what the Act requires. Sticking to the framework of the Act takes too long. Today, we want fast, concrete actions.

The Indigenous Languages Act and Bill BILL C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, made it possible for the communities to get their languages back, to reappropriate them and to preserve them.

I won't talk about the Indian Act today, because we don't have enough time. But I could come back.

Each of the tools available has to be used. We have to reverse the trends.

What can Canada do to enable the communities to get out of the framework imposed by the Act? It has to get involved with the languages, work with us to produce translations and manuals. That is how trust will be rebuilt. The Act doesn't create an atmosphere of trust, but the people who administer it have a responsibility and a duty to maintain that trust with us.

[Prof. Naiomi Metallic]

I was talking to a colleague of mine who works with a lot of first nations in New Brunswick. It seems that they're interested in moving some of this stuff forward, but there hasn't been a lot of uptake from the provinces in this or other areas. I think that is a big roadblock.

As I tried to convey, I do think there could be a role for Canada here, whether that is more related to funding or providing supports in terms of capacity development and infrastructure dollars. I also think we've seen more recent examples of Canada starting to legislate more in the area in terms of accommodating indigenous rights, like Bill C-92 and the indigenous language rights bill, for example.

I do think the possibility is there. There are authorities to support that if the need to go that far is required, but probably a very good starting point would be looking at the infrastructure and capacity support.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I'm going to jump in and pick up on that again, because you led me right down another path that I wanted to ask about. You talk about the very young children who are being exploited and whatnot. Bill C-92 is a move for first nations communities to take over their own child and family services. I'm sure you're very aware of that.

Could you speak to the benefit of children being able to be in the care of their own communities and having a culturally appropriate upbringing, and the impact of that longer term as well? What benefit might that have from a longer-term prevention perspective?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

This touches on a question that I, perhaps, can't answer in the time remaining, but closing those socio-economic gaps, talking about those issues that have driven the inequities and violations of human rights, is key. We don't want to get into a court process, but again, people who have suffered harm need to be compensated.

Transforming the system is a part of that, and as you note by implication, no single court case can transform the system when it comes to child and family care as Bill C-92 can and aspires to, as well as all the transformative pieces of legislation in and around languages and inherent right and that form of reparations that we need to do to transform Canada into what people believe it to be but that, frankly, with the news in the last two weeks, is not.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

I would qualify your earlier question. There are a great number that are under way currently. The legislation under Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, the immigration notes, currently the movement on the national recognition date, as well as UNDRIP, which your party opposed, are all key to transforming the relationship.

I think one of them is trust. Certainly you mentioned money, but you put forward a false dichotomy. Obviously, we want to see progress from the money, but we have to be relentless in our investments. This is about closing socio-economic gaps. The record shows that has moved. It's about closing the financial gap in education and in all the other investments in infrastructure and housing investments. These are all things that have happened and we want to continue on those.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Yes, and I'll be quite frank: It's slow. Certainly, the pandemic, where people have focused on their health and safety of the communities has resulted in a slowdown. This is a revolutionary piece of legislation that lifts up inherent rights of indigenous peoples. We have dozens and dozens of communities across Canada that have expressed interest. There was about $500 million or more in the fall economic statement that was dedicated to working on capacity, to putting those laws forward and entrenching them.

We want to make sure that we have proper coordination agreements in place with provinces that hold the bulk of that responsibility. There's a relationship aspect there with the provinces, including your home province, that we can't discount in all of this, but there are many more.... There are some that have lifted up their own legislation and have said, “We're not necessarily interested in Bill C-92, but this is how we're going to protect our children.” That has some validity as well.

We're very cautious in those estimates, but I would say for the benefit of this committee that there are dozens and dozens that have done good work along the way. There are some difficult challenges ahead in and around capacity, so I won't hide that from you, but it is a long road, and it is part and parcel of everything we've seen in the last week.

Opposition Motion—Action Toward Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by congratulating you on your 10-year anniversary in that chair as Deputy Speaker and your distinguished service as a parliamentarian in this chamber, respected by every one of your 337 colleagues.

I want to speak today about something that is critically important, not just now but all of the time, that has come to the forefront given this opposition day motion that we are discussing, and that is the events at Kamloops in terms of the shocking discovery of the mass grave of 215 children who belonged to the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation.

After hearing about it on the radio, and the sheer magnitude, my first reaction was simply one of horror, and I had to explain to my kids why I was reacting the way that I was.

My second response was as someone who came to this chamber as a lawyer who has some experience with international law, particularly with Rwanda at the UN war crimes tribunal. I thought of how we usually associate mass graves with foreign conflicts and not with Canada. Then I started to think of what we have done vis-à-vis indigenous people of this land and how sometimes it is not much different in terms of the overt assimilation that we have propagated against them, and when the declared policy of the government at the time was to “take the Indian out of the child”.

I also reacted as a parliamentarian who has not been in this chamber as long as you, Mr. Speaker, but for six years now, who feels like he has gathered some understanding of the situation. I had gone through the calls to action, but I was still shocked and surprised. However, we do not have to dig too far to realize that there were a lot of people who were not surprised, and a lot of those people are indigenous people of this land, particularly elders.

This led me to the question of how we value knowledge and recognize its legitimacy, and how this Eurocentric idea has been passed down that unless something is reduced to writing or photographic or video evidence, it probably did not happen. This is a bias that we bring to the table that we have to acknowledge. I thank a constituent of mine who wrote to me about the issue of Canadians, including Canadian parliamentarians, who need to learn to embrace oral histories as legitimate histories so that we can truly come to terms with the magnitude of what we are dealing with.

I also reacted as a father, as I mentioned, when I heard the news that morning on CBC Radio while my children were eating cereal in front of me. My boys are very dear to me. I mean, everyone's children are dear to them. My wife, Suchita, and I are raising two young boys, Zakir and Nitin, and we try and do right by them. However, it one thing for me to imagine my children being removed from my home against my will, but it is another thing entirely to imagine them never returned to me and to never know their whereabouts, which is exactly what has transpired over and over again with indigenous families of this land. This is the true tragedy that needs to be dealt with and understood, and it needs to be accounted for, which can only start with a very strong, historical, educational exercise.

There are some people in this House who are younger than I am, which is the tender age of 49, who had the benefit of actually being educated on this. However, I went through every level of school, including post-secondary education and through law school, and never once was I instructed about the history of the residential school legacy in this country, which is quite shocking for a guy who graduated law school in 1998.

I know that people are now getting that education, and that is important. I also know that people are taking steps, and we heard the member for Kings—Hants talk about what was happening in his community in Nova Scotia. In my community of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto, there was a vigil just yesterday about this very issue, which raised awareness, and that is important. I thank my constituent, Eden, for organizing the vigil. She took the reins on doing so, because she felt so strongly about it. I took my oldest son to that event, because I wanted him to be there to understand, to learn, and to see how others were reacting to what we had learned on Friday morning.

It is one thing to read stories, and I do read him stories, particularly the orange shirt story of Phyllis Webstad, the woman who wore that infamous orange shirt, which was removed from her at that residential school. She is also a member of the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation. However, it is more than just the stories, and I wanted him to get that. It is not just past or distant history, it is still unfolding around us, which is very important, because we should not deem it relegated to the past. It was also important for him and for me to see the turnout, the number of young people who were there, and to hear the demands, and there were many.

There were many directed at the federal government, the government that I represent. There was outrage, shock and horror, but it was important for me to hear the demands. It was important for my son to hear the demands. If I could summarize it, which is difficult to do, but they want justice, accountability and transparency and they want it now, not at some date to be determined in the future.

I hear that sentiment and I very much share that sentiment. I say that in all sincerity in this chamber for those who are watching around the country. In particular ,what I think is most critical is just having a sense that if this happened to the Tk'emlúps First Nation, in Kamloops at that former school, we know that there are 139 sites around this country where it may very well have happened there as well. That forensic investigation, that radar investigation must be done and it must be done immediately.

I know that we have dedicated as a government almost $34 million to address some of the calls to action we have heard extensively about during the course of today's debate. If more money is needed, it must be provided forthwith. That is what I am advocating for.

Others have also said to me just get on with every single one of those calls to action, get it over with now. It has been far too long. I hear that outrage and that sense of urgency. I pause because I know in looking at the calls to action that some of them relate to us at the federal level, us as parliamentarians in the House of Commons. Some of them relate to provincial governments, city governments. Some of them relate to institutions and school boards. Some of them even relate to foreign entities.

I, for one, would be dearly appreciative to see a formal papal apology. That is call to action 58. That is a call to action that the Prime Minister squarely put to the Pope on a visit to the Vatican and that has not yet been acceded to. I think that stands in stark contrast to what we see with other denominations of Christian churches in this country that have formally accepted and apologized for the role that the church played in terms of administering many of these residential schools. That needs to be forthcoming and Canadians are demanding that, rightfully so.

Others I believe have been met at least in part if not fully. I count myself as very privileged to have served in the last Parliament when I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Heritage. We worked on and co-developed with first nations, Métis and Inuit leaders what became Bill C-91, Canada's first ever Indigenous Languages Act.

I personally count that as one of my most significant learning opportunities as a parliamentarian. It took that lawyer who was not educated about this stuff in law school and it turned him into a parliamentarian who was dealing directly with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders about the difficulties of not having that connection to one's language and what that does to one's psyche, one's level of mental anxiety, one's connection to one's culture.

We have remedied that. It speaks directly to TRC calls to action 13, 14 and 15. We have also made great strides with respect to indigenous child and welfare legislation. That was Bill C-92 in the last Parliament. The most important piece there is that the norm now based on that legislation is if we must remove a child, then we keep them within their group, within their first nation, among their community and only as an absolute last resort would they be removed.

We have worked on UNDRIP with members of the opposition parties including the NDP. We have worked on Bill C-22, which I count myself privileged to have worked on as parliamentary secretary to the current Minister of Justice. It deals with curing the overrepresentation of indigenous people in this land. Much more remains to be done. I do not discount that and it needs to be done quickly. We need to do that work together.

I welcome this debate. I welcome the discussions we have been having literally all week, not just today about this important topic, because they are critical. I do feel at my core that we will only gather sufficient momentum when all Canadians are talking about this stain on Canada's history and Canada's legacy. That is critical to see. We have seen it over the course of this pandemic where people, non-white and white, people who are racialized or not racialized have taken up the call for addressing systemic racism and systemic discrimination in wake of George Floyd and in this country people like Regis Korchinski-Paquet.

I am seeing that again now. I am seeing that massive outreach now and that is a good thing because it gives us momentum. It gives us the initiative to keep working hard at these issues and to keep focused on these calls to action in addressing the needs of indigenous people, but always in a manner that is led by indigenous people and done on their terms, because gone must be the paternalism where Ottawa dictated to indigenous people the appropriate remedies. We must be listening and responding.

Indigenous Affairs

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this moment, in front of the House, to thank the former attorney general and minister of justice for the work she did to move these important issues forward, in answering the TRC's calls to action and the MMIW's calls for justice, in making sure that indigenous languages affirmed their inherent right to have a rightful place in this country, and that child and family services, which betrayed indigenous children and is broken in this country, was reformed through Bill C-92.

Obviously, this time of mourning is a time to reflect on the speed at which reconciliation is going, but as we continue to search for the truth, I think it is also a time to recognize the progress and the tens of billions of dollars this government has invested in reconciliation. I want to thank the former attorney general and minister of justice for the work she has done in contributing to this.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that these calls are for all of Canada and particularly non-indigenous Canadians. The federal government has a very large role to play in this and there are a number of calls to action that we have moved on quite quickly.

I would note the implementation and passage and royal assent of Bill C-91 on indigenous languages, and Bill C-92 on child and family services. These are all transformative documents to fill the inequities that have characterized our relationship as a country.

We will continue to move on today's pathway announced by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. It is one that is equally transformable with respect to missing and murdered indigenous women. I would point to the over $2 billion in the budget dedicated to implementing that.

Opposition Motion—Action Toward Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, today I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

Kwe. Unusakut. Tansi. Hello. Bonjour. I want to acknowledge that I am speaking today from the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Indigenous communities, families and friends are hurting. Emotions are high, and the pain is real. For indigenous people, the events this week may not be a surprise. It does not make it less of a shock or less painful. There is not a single community that is not grieving today. The news that came from Kamloops last week has opened up wounds that were not closed, even if people thought they were closed.

Our thoughts and actions at this time must support the communities and families in recovering the truth, so that they could continue to heal. We cannot heal without the truth, as painful as it is. It is on the hearts and minds of all Canadians, and frankly, if it is not, it should be.

Over the past week, people have shared piercing and atrocious anecdotes that really show what kind of places those facilities were, and indeed the testimonials today from members in the House certainly reinforces that. I thank them for their testimonials.

I was reminded by a faith healer friend who I rely heavily upon that, for example, the Mohawk Institute in Six Nations had an orchard and had apples, but the kids could not eat them. They were punished if they did. There were chickens, but the kids could not take the eggs because the eggs were sent to market. The only time they would get one was at Easter. Calling those places schools is to use a euphemism. They were labour camps, and people starved.

I know people are eager to get answers as to what the federal government will do, what we will do nationally and what Canada will do. Let me say this clearly, we will be there for indigenous communities that want to continue the search for the truth.

The reality is that this is something that will be dictated to us by the communities that are affected, as set forth notably in call to action 76 in the body of the Truth and Reconciliation Report. We will be there for communities. We do have to respect the privacy, space and mourning period of those communities that are collecting their thoughts and putting together their protocols as to how to honour these children. They have asked us specifically for that. We will do that, and Canadians must respect that.

Yesterday, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations announced $27 million in funding to support the ongoing NCTR and to implement calls to action 74 to 76. This will fund support for survivors, their families and communities across Canada to locate and memorialize children who died or went missing while attending residential schools.

We also have to look one another right in the eyes and face the fact that the general public either misunderstands or is ignorant of certain chapters of our history, especially the most painful ones. This truth is hard to bear, particularly for the indigenous communities affected and for the individuals and families who are reliving very painful parts of their own history or that of their parents, cousins, uncles and aunts.

As leaders, politicians and members of Parliament, it is also our role to educate and contribute to that education. In light of what we have learned this week, it is once again clear that many more truths remain to be uncovered. Explanations are needed. Too often, that explanation comes from indigenous peoples themselves. Too often, the job of educating Canadians has fallen to them, and, too often, we do not transmit that knowledge to our children. Fortunately, children are now learning about this in school, and they are telling us the harsh truth about what happened. Placing this burden on indigenous peoples is not fair. It should not be their burden to carry.

I repeat: We will be there for indigenous communities and families. We will support the search for truth and we will implement calls to action 72 to 76, among others, with an initial investment of $27 million. This funding will be distributed according to the priorities and requests of the communities themselves.

The government's role is to financially support communities in their grieving and healing process, as the wounds are still very fresh in this case. The communities will decide themselves whether they want to proceed with more extensive searches or not.

In this particular case, we spoke directly with indigenous leaders in Kamloops and the surrounding communities to offer mental health and security services, because emotions are running high, but we will respect the space they asked us to respect.

Obviously, this is painful for families who may have had uncles, aunts or cousins who disappeared and were never heard from again, but the key point here is that the Government of Canada will be there with the necessary support and funding for the communities that need it.

One of the many things being highlighted and underscored this week, in the midst of the heartache in Kamloops, is that indigenous children belong with their families and communities. Kids belong at home, where they can be with their relatives and elders; where they can learn their nation's culture, language and traditions; and where they can be given back all that was taken from, their parents and their grandparents. Bill C-92 affirms this inherent right. I would note that this basic right is one that the rest of us take for granted.

All of us share the responsibility to ensure this happens. The number of indigenous children who have been taken away in care in recent years far exceeds the number who attended residential schools. That should set in. In 2016, more than 52% of children in foster care in Canada were indigenous, and they account for 7% of the child population. The truth is that for children taken away from their community, their connections to their cultures and traditions were impacted too.

Fixing a broken system requires long-term reforms. The Government of Canada is determined to eliminate and continues to eliminate these discriminatory policies and practices against indigenous children, and we are doing it hand-in-hand with indigenous partners. The Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, which responds to calls to action, is a new way forward. Indigenous governments and communities have always been empowered to decide what is best for their children, their families and their communities, and the act provides a path for them to fully exercise and lift up that jurisdiction.

As a result of this work, led by indigenous communities, two indigenous laws are now enforced: the Wabaseemoong Independent Nations law in Ontario and the Miyo Pimatisowin Act of the Cowessess First Nation in Saskatchewan. In each of these communities, children will have greater opportunity to grow up immersed in their culture and surrounded by loved ones. They will be welcomed home.

We are moving closer to achieving our shared ultimate goal of reducing the number of indigenous children in care. Systemic reform of the child and family services system is one important step. Compensation for past harms is another.

Since the CHRT issued its first order for Canada to cease its discriminatory practices in 2016, we have been working with first nations leaders and partners to implement the tribunal's orders.

We have the same goal of fair and equitable compensation. Let me be clear that no first nations children will be denied fair and equitable compensation. Children should not be denied the products or services they need because governments cannot agree on who will pay for them. It is why, via Jordan's principle, we have funded approximately $2 billion in services, speech therapy, educational supports, medical equipment, mental health services and so much more. This is transformative and the right thing to do.

The government is not questioning or challenging the notion that first nations children who were removed from their homes, families and communities should be compensated. We are committed to providing first nations children with access to the necessary supports and services, but it is important to obtain clarity on certain limited issues, which is why we brought the judicial review forward. We need to focus on what is really important, ensuring fair and equitable compensation of first nations children affected by the child and family services program and that first nations children have access to the supports they need when they need them.

I would remind the House that there are also two competing class actions that deal essentially with the same group of children. We are, nevertheless, in discussions with the parties to the various cases, but those discussions must remain confidential out of respect.

Finally, no court case can achieve the transformative change that we need to achieve as a country.

As the recent discovery in Kamloops reminds us once again, every child in this country should have the support and services they need to thrive.

Removing a child from their family or community must be an absolute last resort. We need to do the work to change the system and ensure that every person is treated equally and fairly, without prejudice or injustice, and with respect and dignity. It is our responsibility as a government and as Canadians who want to make Canada a better place for everyone.

We cannot change the past, but we can learn from it and find ways to right some historic wrongs, to acknowledge what never should have happened and do everything we can to ensure a better future.

Meegwetch. Nakurmik. Masi cho.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave a very heartfelt speech today.

The other night during debate, the member for Northwest Territories said, “It is time to move forward. It is time to take action. We have to start moving and get all the TRC recommendations done.” We all agree with that, and the member mentioned it in his speech.

The TRC had a full section on child welfare, and I know the hon. member was part of the last Parliament when we passed Bill C-92. In 2020, the government allocated $542 million for capacity building and agreement tables to implement Bill C-92. There was additional funding in budget 2021.

I just wonder what the hon. member's thoughts are on the importance of implementing Bill C-92 so that we do not have children being taken out of their communities and away from their families, and on returning the inherent right to indigenous communities to look after their own children and provide—

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to providing comprehensive, full, fair, equitable compensation to first nations children. We are committed to addressing the long-standing unmet needs of first nations children. We have implemented Bill C-92 and are working to ensure that children can stay in their communities.

[Laurie Sargent]

I will be pleased to provide an initial response and then see if my colleague Ross Pattee from Crown-Indigenous Relations might wish to add, because it really has been a whole-of-government effort to implement and reflect the principles of the UN declaration across the federal system.

Minister Bennett mentioned that there are already many laws that reflect the declaration itself in their language, their preambles or their purpose clauses. We have Bill C-92, the act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; the Indigenous Languages Act passed in the previous session; and the preamble to Bill C-69, the impact assessment legislation. There are many examples in legislation itself.

Then, of course, the declaration has been informing a lot of the work that Crown-Indigenous Relations is doing in a number of different areas, including in the recognition of rights tables and the negotiations there.

With the chair's permission, I could ask if Ross might also wish to add anything.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you so much. Thank you for reminding us of the decades of work that have gone into this. This week at the UN permanent forum, for us to be able to thank Wilton Littlechild for all his work.... But there are so many other Canadians and indigenous representatives from Canada, like your family, Jaime. You've lived this your whole live. I don't think we could have a stronger advocate. Thank you for all you do.

Also, in talking about the kind of engagement, I just want to say that we want meaningful engagement, and that means that the excellent Bill C-262 that Romeo Saganash brought forward was evergreened—because the declaration is not—to include two-spirited peoples and to make sure that the definition of the diversity within indigenous communities is not only in the preamble but also in the body of the bill.

This is an exciting time and it helps that the reference to the UN declaration is now in eight of our bills in Canada, including Bill C-91 and Bill C-92. The intent and the commitments in the UN declaration are now part of Canadian law. This will serve to help people understand better what section 35 rights mean, and that indigenous rights and treaty rights are not debatable. They exist, and they will continue to flourish with the understanding of all Canadians.

[David Chartrand, Vice-President and National Spokeperson, Métis National Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for allowing us to come to this very important committee. I want to start off by saying good morning to everyone and thank you to the members of the committee for inviting me to speak today. My apologies for a late submission that is coming your way in French translation. We don't have a lot of funding in this particular area, so we always seem to be late. I want to express my apologies to our friends in Quebec. We will never forget them for standing up for Louis Riel. We do apologize to them for not having the French translation on time.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Métis nation in support of Bill C-15 and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. The Métis nation is a distinct indigenous nation based in western Canada. We are a rights-holding nation under section 35 of the Constitution, and we are a partner in Canada's Confederation.

For the past year, the Métis nation has worked collaboratively with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Assembly of First Nations, and the Government of Canada to develop legislation using former Bill C-262 as the floor. Bill C-15 is the result of this process. The human rights contained in the UN declaration are the minimum standards for our survival, dignity and well-being, and Bill C-15 sets out an effective process to implement these rights in Canadian law.

In 2008, former MP Tina Keeper introduced a private member's bill to implement the UN declaration in Canada. In 2016, Romeo Saganash did the same under Bill C-262. We are here today because, unfortunately, these bills did not receive royal assent. On the positive side, we have the foundation that these previous bills have provided, and we have the momentum to make change right now. We must not allow this opportunity to slip through our fingers. We have waited for too long to see the rights of indigenous peoples fully recognized.

We believe that passing this bill into law is critical to a future that respects our rights as a nation. We urge members to expedite the process to ensure that Bill C-15 is passed in this session of Parliament. We urge members to reject proposals for amendments that would impede this objective, including the amendments put forth by the Assembly of First Nations and the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations. I will speak to this more in a few minutes.

In November 2020, we held nationwide engagement sessions, at which we heard from a broad range of Métis nation citizens from across our homeland. I think each of you has a copy of this. You can read it. Hopefully you've read it. If not, please read it. We heard from Métis nation women, elders, youth, persons with disabilities, gender-diverse persons and two-spirit persons. We heard from our leaders within Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak-Women of the Métis Nation, which is part of the governing structure of the Métis nation.

In our engagement processes, the citizens of the Métis nation voiced their strong support for the implementation of the UN declaration, and expressed hope that this bill will become law and positively impact their lives and futures. During these sessions, our citizens emphasized a number of areas in which their rights matter in their daily lives. These included education, language, housing, health, child and family services, jobs and economic opportunities. They also feel strongly about their right to self-determination and jurisdiction over lands, territories and resources. We are strong protectors of our land. We also understand the role that responsible resource development plays in the economic security and well-being of our communities and the prosperity of Canada as a whole.

The Métis nation is uniquely positioned to strike a balance between the environmental and economic factors of our homeland and resources. The recognition of our rights supports this. Our Métis nation governments must have a central role in implementation, and we will work in partnership with the Crown and with industry when it comes to our land.

The common theme in all of this is our inherent right to self-determination. This is our cardinal right. Much of the discussion around this bill and the declaration has centred around free, prior and informed consent. This is a natural and necessary part of our right to self-determination. I will speak more on this later.

Our lives are rich and deep, and our self-determination is exhibited in many different areas. As you can see from the priorities of our citizens and from reading the declaration itself, our self-determination fortifies our citizens, communities and nation in a holistic manner.

Bill C-92, passed in June, 2019, is a good example. It was developed in partnership with indigenous peoples and makes good progress toward implementing the UN declaration in the area of child and family services. It does this by affirming our right to self-determination and affirming our jurisdiction over our nation's children. We continue to support this approach to implementation.

It's also important to the Métis nation that implementation of the UN declaration, through Bill C-15, is done in a meaningful, transparent and accountable manner. The inclusion of the reporting requirements and an oversight mechanism to provide recourse for rights violations are key additions that strengthen this bill.

Likewise, the success of the action plan is crucial for meaningful implementation. The declaration affirms the right to self-determination and supports the role of indigenous governments in representing their nations. The action plan must reflect this. It must be developed in true partnership between the Government of Canada and indigenous governments. It must not be unduly limited in scope. It must be properly resourced so that indigenous peoples in Canada have the means to truly implement their rights.

I'd like to turn now to the issue of certainty. As with Bill C-262, claims that this bill will result in uncertainty and threaten economic opportunities has been a major point of contention. Let me be clear. Economic growth is very important to the Métis nation and to Canada. Free, prior and informed consent is not a veto. Implementing the UN declaration will result in more certainty, not less.

We must recognize that we have been living in this uncertainty for years. This has resulted in using the court system to try to find certainty. We fought for our land rights in court for 32 years in the Manitoba Metis Federation case. We'll always stand up for our homeland and our self-determination, but Bill C-15 offers us a better way forward than fighting battles in courts. This is why I call the UN declaration a blueprint for clarity.

The market always tries to find greater certainty. This point has been raised several times before this committee, but look at how the market has responded to the uncertainty we have been living in. Industry has moved towards forming more respectful relationships with indigenous peoples, and some companies such as the Mining Association of Canada have even looked to incorporate policies on free, prior and informed consent under processes. This is how they have found greater certainty. The idea that moving further towards this approach through Bill C-15 would result in less certainty is nonsense.

I would hold up the productive relationship the Métis nation has formed with industry groups, such as the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Mining Association of Canada and Enbridge, as further evidence that Bill C-15 will create greater certainty. These relationships have translated into projects that have provided tangible benefits for the Métis nation and for Canada, such as projects that the Manitoba Metis Federation has undertaken with Enbridge.

Free, prior and informed consent is key to our ability to participate meaningfully in the decisions that impact our lives, our land and our rights. This is necessary if our right to self-determination is to be upheld. We will be involved from the very beginning as partners in natural resource projects on other developments. We will look together for the best way forward in a way that builds consent.

This is not a veto. I repeat that again: This is not a veto. It does not undermine or override due process. There is no due process if we are excluded. Free, prior and informed consent ensures due process by ensuring our participation.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

I would be of the opinion that we certainly have the right to review our position, reassess our position, in light of the current political context. Since BillC-262, what have we experienced? This is where I go back to the position of provinces. We all know that at least six jurisdictions have expressed concern, going back to last fall, and before that, as the federal government was getting ready to introduce Bill C-15 in December.

At the time, what we also had in that evolving political context, if you will, was the Province of Quebec challenging a bill that was co-developed with first nations, which is Bill C-92. It's the same for Bill C-91. This is where we expressed, in my view, very legitimate concerns in terms of making sure that Bill C-15.... And, again, I want to restate the fact the UN declaration poses no concerns when it comes to our first nations. It's how we—

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

I'll do it in the two official languages, starting with French.

Thank you all very much.

[Witness spoke in an indigenous language]

[French]

The Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, or AFNQL, wishes to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to present its brief, as part of the study of Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The AFNQL is a forum for the chiefs of 43 first nations communities in Quebec and Labrador. At the heart of its mission and objectives are the affirmation of and respect for first nations laws, the recognition of first nations governments, the coordination of first nations' positions and the representation of their positions and interests before various forums.

Please note that the AFNQL is tabling a brief that will detail its views on Bill C-15. With all due respect, I want to make it clear that the brief reflects the positions of a majority of first nations in our region. You have heard or will hear the position of the Cree nation. That nation's way of thinking deserves our respect, even though our brief will confirm that we do not necessarily share the same views.

By tabling its brief, the AFNQL is requesting that amendments be made to clarify and strengthen certain parts of Bill C-15, a bill of the utmost importance. To this end, the AFNQL chiefs unanimously adopted a motion that “amendments to Bill C-15 are a minimum condition in order for the AFNQL to even consider supporting the bill.”

In fact, the implementation of the rights and principles from the Declaration for the Survival and Welfare of Indigenous Peoples Located in Canada requires that Bill C-15 take a greater step to move beyond the status quo.

To be clear, the chiefs support the principle of a bill that proposes the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, they cannot support Bill C-15 in its current form. The bill must go much further. The political context in Quebec, which conditions the relationship between first nations and the provincial government, deserves particular attention. We have to deal with a provincial government that refuses any discussion on the implementation of the declaration in Quebec, despite a resolution from its national assembly, which commits it to negotiate the terms of its implementation.

Next, the constitutional validity of the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, Bill C-92, passed in 2019, is being challenged by the Quebec government in the Court of Appeal. With the federal government considering the introduction of additional federal legislation, including in the areas of first nations health and policing, it is essential that the legislative context be conducive to ensuring that all future federal legislation is consistent with the rights and principles of the declaration.

The implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada must be done in true partnership, nation-to-nation, that is, with indigenous peoples, and must generate concrete results for the members of our communities. The Prime Minister's commitments to reconciliation are clear, but they are somewhat less clear about results. It is important to note that reconciliation in the Canadian political framework involves a clear commitment from the provinces as an essential condition for any progress in relations with first nations.

In closing, this measure cannot be treated as a form of relinquishment by first nations governments of their areas of jurisdiction, over which first nations will continue to fully exercise their right to self-determination.

Indeed, our region has carried out a vigorous examination of the bill, and we conclude that essential amendments are required so that it meets the minimum standard of legal and political acceptability. Several provisions of the bill must be amended to move beyond the status quo, including achieving certainty that the provisions of the UN declaration will be applied to interpret section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and to enable the effective implementation of UNDRIP in Canadian law.

The following amendments of Bill C-15 have been identified for the bill to meet the minimum standard.

One, during a discussion with the AFNQL on March 12, Mr. Lametti indicated that his understanding was that UNDRIP should serve to interpret section 35. The statement has also been made by Minister Bennett and the AFN. Unfortunately, section 2.2 of the bill fails to clearly state this and meet this standard.

Therefore, section 2.2 should be amended to expressly state that the laws of Canada, including section 35, must be interpreted in accordance with the rights and principles derived from UNDRIP; and that the law does not operate to abrogate or limit the aboriginal treaty rights of indigenous peoples recognized in the current section 35.

Two, the wording in this same section concerning non-derogation should therefore be removed from this provision.

Three, we are also concerned about overreliance on an expansive preamble that fails to reflect the substantive provisions of the bill. In numerous preamble provisions, the body of the bill most importantly, our region has identified that the bill must include a substantive provision in the body of the bill devoted to the remediation of the doctrine portion of discovery in Canadian law.

Four, finally the bill must include a provision requiring that all courts consider the rights and principles of UNDRIP when ruling on matters, issues or subjects directly or indirectly affecting aboriginal and treaty rights of indigenous peoples.

These amendments are what is minimally required for this bill to obtain support from the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, and our written brief also proposes additional amendments that should be considered.

The FNQL deplores the fact that the emergency regarding the adoption of the bill to implement the declaration has lasted far too long, and that we are now being asked to support this bill under duress. A bill of such great importance cannot be subject to instrumentalization with urgency as its sole argument.

The FNQL fully supports the principles of UNDRIP, however, the FNQL opposes Bill C-15 in its current form and has clearly indicated which amendments could be made to make it more acceptable. This is not necessarily a missed opportunity, and Canada can still do what it takes.

Thank you very much.

[Witness spoke in an indigenous language]

Thank you very much.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services]

Thank you, Chair.

Kwe kwe. Ullukkut. Tansi. Hello.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that I am here, in Ottawa, on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

I welcome this opportunity to provide you with an update on our continuing effort to confront the evolving COVID-19 pandemic and to answer your questions on supplementary estimates (C) and the main estimates.

COVID-19 has presented many challenges for all of us, and in particular at-risk or underserved communities. Throughout this time, Indigenous Services Canada has supported first nations, Inuit and Métis to ensure they have the resources they need to keep their communities safe and respond to COVID-19.

I would like to thank the committee for its report, titled “COVID-19 and Indigenous Peoples: From Crisis towards Meaningful Change”, which it presented to the House of Commons at the start of the month.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the government has invested approximately $4 billion in COVID-19 funding for indigenous communities and organizations. And more recently, we have worked with key partners to support self-determination and community-led action for the administration of vaccines to indigenous peoples, in culturally safe settings. Strengths-based, culture-informed strategies have worked, reinforcing our commitment to reconciliation.

This pandemic has heightened entrenched health and social inequities that exist in Canada. It's why our pandemic preparedness response and recovery actions need to prioritize health equity to protect the people of Canada from the threat of COVID-19 and future pandemics.

As we support vaccine administration [Technical difficulty—Editor] vaccine rollout for indigenous adults living in cities and towns across Canada, it's a race to get the last person vaccinated, not the first. With vaccine production ramping up at Pfizer and the recent approval of the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, we can confidently [Technical difficulty—Editor] opportunity before fall 2021.

As of March 18, 2021—for the committee—200,560 doses have been administered in first nations and Inuit communities in the provinces and to residents in the territories. Vaccinations are under way in 586 indigenous and territorial communities.

Over the past two months members of the Canadian Rangers have worked in more than 25 communities across the Nishnawbe Aski Nation in northern Ontario, in particular, helping provincial authorities with tasks related to immunization. This is in addition to the 46 first nation communities that the CAF has supported in recent months to manage COVID-19 outbreaks and facilitate vaccine distribution.

As announced last week by the Prime Minister, my department and the Canadian Armed Forces will soon begin supporting an unparalleled accelerated vaccination program in a number of isolated first nation communities, as well as a select number of larger indigenous communities, starting in Manitoba.

We're currently working closely with Public Safety and the Canadian Armed Forces to expand on an accelerated vaccine rollout in first nations communities in the northern part of Manitoba. Over the next few days we'll be working in partnership with indigenous leadership to assess community needs and ensure the appropriate CAF resources are sent to communities requiring assistance. This deployment may include up to 23 different communities, and more details will be shared as we proceed with planning in the coming days.

Now let me turn to the estimates items. With supplementary estimates (C), the total authorities for 2020-21 will be $17.8 billion. These supplementary estimates reflect a net increase of $1.5 billion. Of this, $1.1 billion is related to various COVID-19 response measures previously announced. This includes $530 million to support surge health infrastructure, primary care nursing surge capacity and urgent public health responses in indigenous communities; $380 million in additional funding for the indigenous community support fund; $63.9 million for supportive care in indigenous communities; and $58 million to indigenous community businesses.

As a clarifying note, several COVID-19 initiatives were previously authorized under the Public Health Events of National Concern Payments Act. Following the repeal of the act, ISC is requesting the unspent amount as voted appropriations through the supplementary estimates (C) to continue these initiatives.

These estimates also include, among other things, additional funding to improve access to safe, clean drinking water in first nations communities and to support the implementation of An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, as well as to reimburse first nations and emergency management response and recovery activities.

For 2021-22, the department's main estimates are $13.5 billion. This reflects a net increase of about $693.9 million, or 5%, compared with last year's main estimates. Our two biggest increases are a net increase of $508.6 million in 2021-22 to improve access to safe, clean drinking water in first nation communities, and an increase of $122.6 million in 2021-22 for supportive care in indigenous communities.

Before concluding and proceeding with questions, I would like to address two additional points. First is the current situation in Pikangikum First Nation. These reports of harassment towards members of the community are extremely concerning and require a thorough investigation by the police. Our top priority is ensuring the health and safety of the community members and the staff who support that community.

Due to safety and security concerns, the ISC primary care practitioners were evacuated yesterday evening. The choice to relocate the health care staff, after some time, was not a decision that was taken lightly and was only done after careful consideration and planning to ensure necessary resources are in place to serve community members in the event medical assistance is required. I want to assure everyone that we are working in partnership with the community to find a long-term solution that meets the health and security needs of both community members and health care workers.

Secondly, as this is World Water Day, I would like to take a brief moment to highlight that last week the chief and council in Wet'suwet'en First Nation confirmed that they had lifted their long-term drinking water advisory, which had been in place since 2012.

With this, our government, working in partnership with first nations, has now lifted 102 long-term drinking water advisories since 2015. During the same time, 177 short-term advisories have also been lifted, ensuring clean drinking water to first nations. Projects are also under way in 38 communities to resolve the remaining 58 long-term drinking water advisories.

This commitment to clean drinking water is not just about ending long-term drinking water advisories. It's about building sustainable systems that ensure first nations communities have access to safe drinking water now and in the future. We know that further action is required as drinking water issues remain. We continue to support first nations in meeting this commitment.

With that, I look forward to your questions.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marci. Thank you.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Again, I can certainly highlight a number of initiatives with regard to education. I think you would see our government's commitment by the introduction of Bill C-92 to address child welfare and our commitment to implementing Jordan's principle with a concomitant investment of over $1.2 billion over the next three years, as well as the legislation regarding the protection of the best interests of every indigenous child.

These are just three concrete examples in which our government is doing everything we can to ensure that every indigenous child is raised in a healthy and safe atmosphere in which they can pursue an education. From that, I think we can draw lessons whereby we can educate others who do not have the lived experiences of indigenous peoples, so that they understand how this work contributes to reconciliation. That is the commitment of our government.

[Jocelyn Formsma, Executive Director, National Association of Friendship Centres]

Thank you.

I think you just spoke right to my heart on that one. Both President Sheppard and I are alumni of our own national youth council for friendship centres, so we were mentored and developed through the friendship centre movement, and up until about 2016, we actually had a national youth program, which was the cultural connection for aboriginal youth. Prior to that were the urban multipurpose aboriginal youth centres, called the UMAYC for short.

These programs had a profound effect on indigenous young people across the country, and many of the colleagues that I met when we were young people in our early 20s are now leaders in national indigenous organizations, banks and companies, and they've started their own.... We're all over the place, and we're still in contact with each other.

Indigenous young people are the fastest-growing population in Canada. We know that. We know that more than half of the indigenous population across the country is under the age of 25. We have no national indigenous child care or children's framework or strategy, and we have no national youth strategy. To me, those are two major things.

In our budget submission, we've housed our request under the children, youth and family programming because we know how important it is to maintain cultural connections, to maintain family connections and to create new community connections for those urban indigenous children. Friendship centres do so much for young people in care, and even during the pandemic we've heard of friendship centres that were finding young people who were aging out of care, finding them safer homes that weren't overcrowded, and making sure that they had connections to employment and could come to the centre to apply for their CERB and receive support.

I would definitely agree, and we're also working on an anti-indigenous racism in health care initiative. We just started this past month. We don't know how things are going to roll out with urban indigenous young people as Bill C-92 is developing in jurisdictions or developing within first nations, Métis and Inuit governments, so we've been wanting to be involved in those conversations.

What I would say is that it's on our radar. Youth engagement, children and youth are huge areas of interest and passion for us, the friendship centres. Hence, we are asking for investments in children and youth programming as part of our budget ask.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, since we are starting off with personal greetings and messages, I would like to wish my grandmother, who turned 90 yesterday, a very happy birthday. I am so incredibly proud of her. She continues to be in good health. I am sad that I was not able to be with her.

Earlier this month, on November 5, I asked a question that I felt the government did not give a meaningful response to. The government has been told, repeatedly, by the Canadian Human Rights Commission that its discrimination against indigenous children has to stop.

We know that indigenous children in Canada are overrepresented in our child care system. It is very clear. We have looked at the numbers. We know that children from these communities are facing systemic racism, and that the resources given to other children are not the same as are given to these children.

We know the history of Canada. We know where we have come from. We know about residential schools and the colonial system, and we are still not seeing indigenous children given the respect they deserve.

I am here because indigenous children matter, and because they do not get a second childhood. The history of Canada is one of generations of indigenous children being stolen, and then having their childhoods stolen. Now we see the pattern is continuing and not ending.

In his response to me, the Minister of Indigenous Services said:

We intend to compensate first nations children harmed by the discriminatory child and family services policies. Throughout this process, our focus remains on advancing a plan that prioritizes the best interest of the individual child and puts the safety, well-being and security of that child at the forefront.

However, we know that the government is still taking indigenous children to court. We know that, repeatedly, the government has received non-compliance orders telling it that it is still not fulfilling its obligation. The problem is vast, but the core of it is that we do not see the care and concern for indigenous children that we need to see in this country.

I just want to remind all of us that there is a plan. The First Nations Child and Family Caring Society has brought forward the Spirit Bear plan, which is looking to end the inequalities in public services for first nations children, youth and families. I am tired of hearing that the government has gotten another non-compliance order.

Indigenous children matter so very much, and we have to keep them safe. The only way we can do that is by making sure that they have the resources in those services to support them. We also have to start looking at our government departments and making sure that any part of our government that interacts with first nations is starting to look at the inequalities, and that the investment is there.

Even in Bill C-92, which the government assures will finally fix this, one of the biggest gaps in it continues to be the number of resources.

It is time to get real and to get on to it. We know that in September 2017, the Assembly of First Nations passed a unanimous resolution supporting the Spirit Bear plan to end all inequalities in federally funded public services. Why has the federal government simply not implemented it, three years later?

Citizenship Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, not that long ago I stood in the chamber speaking to the second and maybe even third reading of Bill C-92 in the previous Parliament. Within that legislation, we allowed for and encouraged the further devolution of childcare to indigenous agencies so that they would be more engaged with respect to children of indigenous backgrounds. I saw that as a positive step. Call to action No. 1 talks about children. Yes, there is still more for us to do and we are committed to doing just that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank both our honoured guests for being here and sharing their perspectives with us. This has been extremely interesting and extremely important.

I have a question for both of you, but the first question is for the chief of Ekuanitshit. I want to follow up on some of the comments you made regarding racism and the colonialism that impacts your communities and all of our communities across Canada.

We speak of Joyce Echaquan, who perished in a hospital in Quebec. We have a horrifying story of an Inuit woman in the Ottawa Hospital this week. There's Bill C-92 that you speak of, and in my province of Alberta, Bill 1 is deeply racist towards indigenous people.

One of the worries I have with a day for truth and reconciliation.... Of course I'm strongly supportive of it. It's something that my colleague Georgina Jolibois brought forward in the last Parliament. One of my worries is that we will use it as a way to sort of check a box. It needs to be a start. It needs to not be our efforts at reconciliation. It needs to be recognized as an important start, but a very beginning piece on how we deal with racism.

I'd love it if you could talk to me a little bit about those next steps that you think the government needs to take to deal with the systematic institutional racism in every province in this country.

[Chief Jean-Charles Piétacho]

As I said, it's your system. You have elections every four years, you have bills that die on the order paper, as most of them do. We work very hard in our communities. We work at the grassroots. We're raising awareness among our people. For example, Bill C-92 is important for the protection of our children, and it's being challenged in Quebec, which is unfortunate. There are documents and tools that we should refer to, but they don't have the scope they should have. It's really a long-term job, which would deserve the consideration of Parliament.

[Chief Jean-Charles Piétacho, Innu Chief of Ekuanithit, Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador]

Normally, I would talk for a day, but I will restrain myself and take only five minutes. The fact remains that this is a very important moment in our lives.

My name is Jean-Charles Piétacho. My family name is actually not like the Oblates wrote it back in the day. In Innu, my name means "he who comes with the wind”. I have been chief of the Innu community of Ekuanithit for 30 years. I have been elected for many years.

Before I forget, I would like to highlight an important event that involves one of our legendary figures. I am talking about Grand Chief Max Gros-Louis, who has left us and was laid to rest yesterday. Vigils were held for three days, around the clock. They were powerful moments. I was present for the beginning of the ritual and I went to pay my respects to the family, both personally and as chief.

Let me start by telling you that I am a former residential school student. I will say “wave” because that's often the word used these days. I am one of the second wave of kids who were abducted, put in trucks, and taken to the airport on an old American base. Then we were put into planes. We were very young and we were having fun, until the evening when we realized that we were no longer at home.

I am trying to imagine and describe, as quickly as possible, what that was like. You should do the same. We were no longer at home. I don't know how many kids from the Innu community of Ekuanithit left that day. My grandfather and grandmother raised me. I imagined my grandfather and grandmother crushed because they could no longer hear me speak. They could no longer hear me cry. I knew that there would be no more communication because I was no longer there.

I was at the residential school for a long time. Some of us went to live in the school to the west of our community of Maliotenam. We stayed there one year, three years, seven years, 10 years. Some never came back. Times like those are what we are now trying to have people understand.

I am trying to not make this speech about victimization anymore, but I want all Canadians to remember, and never to forget, that tragic period for our families and for ourselves. It happened during the 1950s and 1960s. There were a lot of children. When we got to the residential school, they took off all our clothes and cut our hair. We understood not a word of what people were saying to us.

I want to tell you something I have said before: this is not about money. My wife and I were not entitled to the amounts that all former residential school students received. My wife comes from Sept-Îles. Her case was considered inadmissible because her school was described as a day school. We are following what is happening in British Columbia with day schools very closely. They are in court at the moment, and our thoughts are with them.

For administrative reasons, I was denied the amount that should have come to me. However, what hurts me most is the sexual abuse. That does hurt. Sometimes I have difficulty, because it comes back to me. Certainly, it is good to decide to hold a day of commemoration and acknowledgement. However, for some, including myself, it brings back painful memories.

Today, I am a chief and I have had to watch other children being abducted. I've seen young children leave as a result of an order issued by an external legal body. In the present case, it is the director of youth protection who once again has decided that those kids will go somewhere other than into our families. That is too much for me; I must not fail to react.

We are in the process of handling things ourselves, although Quebec is challenging Bill C-92. Despite the lack of funding, the bill would have allowed us to come up with our own solutions. We will get there anyway, with nothing. We have succeeded in placing our own children in families in our communities. That is my greatest concern.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Thank you, MP Blaney.

First, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment, as well as the recent briefing with my team on Bill C-92, which I know is near and dear to everyone's heart on this committee.

This is an exceedingly difficult topic, and particularly because of what we've seen in the last month or so with respect to indigenous people. While it was a shock to non-indigenous people in Canada, it was not shocking, but a repeating pattern of a lived experience to indigenous people, who are treated badly and poorly and are subject to systemic racism across the health care system.

This is something that, as you well remember, was announced in the Speech from the Throne. COVID, again, like many things, has just exacerbated the reality.

In terms of putting forward health care legislation, we have to do this in proper consultation with indigenous communities. I have asked my team, conscious of the fact that we are operating in COVID times and have to observe physical distancing for people's health and well-being, to take the time to do the proper consultation with indigenous partners and treaty areas. A number of them have different perspectives on health needs and health engagement.

A number of the recommendations, as you'll recall, do exist in a number of reports. The one that comes to mind, obviously, is the Viens report. These issues are intermingled with jurisdictional challenges. The federal government has its role to play, which is unquestionable, but this is something we will need to do not only in partnership with indigenous people, first and foremost, but also in partnership with the provinces.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional homeland of the Dene, Métis and Inuvialuit of the Northwest Territories.

I am of Métis descent. I am a member of the Dehcho First Nations. We are known as the “big river” people. I believe I am the only sitting member who attended the residential school program, or the hostel program as we knew it.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in support of the government’s bill that would revise the oath of citizenship. It continues our government’s important work to walk the shared path of reconciliation and the implementation of the TRC's calls to action.

I would like to point to a number of key legislative initiatives that address calls to action and advance reconciliation.

Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act, received royal assent in June 2019. This act supports the Government of Canada’s efforts to reclaim, revitalize, strengthen and maintain indigenous languages in Canada. The act was developed to address calls to action numbers 13, 14 and 15; elements of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP; and the Government of Canada’s commitment to a renewed relationship with indigenous people based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

That same month, in June 2019, royal assent was given to Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. It came into force on January 1, 2020. This act was codeveloped as part of Canada’s efforts to reform indigenous child and family services, which included implementing call to action number 4. It affirms the rights of first nations, Inuit, and Métis to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services and establishes national principles such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality, which help guide the provision of indigenous child and family services.

The act was the result of extensive engagement with first nations, Inuit and Métis, treaty nations, self-governing first nations, provincial and territorial governments, and those with lived experience, including elders, youth and women. It reaffirms the government’s commitment to advancing self-determination and eliminating existing disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous children and youth.

The act also lays out flexible pathways for indigenous governing bodies to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services at a pace they choose. Through the act’s legislative framework, they can move forward with their own service delivery models and laws and choose their own solutions for their children and families. It ensures indigenous children are cared for in the right way, with connections to their communities, cultures and languages. Furthermore, since January 1, 2020, every service provider, province or territory delivering child and family services to indigenous children and families will need to follow the minimum standards found in the act.

Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation, was introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on September 29, 2020. If passed, this bill will be an important step in responding to call to action number 80 by establishing the national day for truth and reconciliation on September 30 as a statutory holiday for federally regulated workers. This national day would honour survivors, their families and communities. It would also remind the public of the tragic and painful history and legacy of residential schools that remains a vital component of the reconciliation process.

The Government of Canada continues to work closely with partners to address the remaining calls to action.

In June 2019, the government received the final report from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, entitled “Reclaiming Power and Place”. It responded to call to action number 41, which called for the launch of a public inquiry into the disproportionate victimization of indigenous women and girls.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada is committed to gender equality and reconciliation with indigenous peoples, and has eliminated all the remaining sex-based inequalities in the Indian Act registration provisions, which go back to its inception 150 years ago. We committed to eliminating all sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act registration, and we delivered on that promise.

Bringing Bill S-3 into force also responds to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls calls to justice and provides justice to women and their descendants, who fought for these changes for decades. We will continue with partners and other levels of government to respond to the findings of the national inquiry and to this national tragedy.

In closing, I reiterate that the government is determined to address the historical, colonial racism and injustice of yesterday, just as we are determined to root out and expose the racism of today. As Canadians have seen all too clearly during this difficult time, racism, both systemic and social, continues to be all too prevalent in our country. It must not and cannot be tolerated, for that, too, is part of the healing process, just as this bill is part of the healing process.

This bill represents progress on the shared path to healing and reconciliation. It responds to concerns expressed in the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It points the way to a more inclusive Canada. Moreover, by amending the oath of citizenship, it represents greater awareness and answers call to action 94.

I am pleased to offer my full support of the bill before us.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today. I would like to acknowledge that the House of Commons, where this debate is based today, is on the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation. I am speaking today from my riding of Labrador, which is the traditional homeland of Inuit and Innu. We are very proud of the culture that we share together in this big land.

The story of indigenous peoples in Canada is a history that stretches far into the past, before the arrival of the European newcomers to Canada. Indigenous peoples have a fundamental role in Canada's past and are a strong pillar of our society. Those are words people hear at many citizenship ceremonies across Canada. Taking the oath of citizenship is a vital step in the process of becoming a Canadian citizen, and it is recited as the final legal step to becoming a Canadian citizen, which is important to note.

During the ceremony, participants accept the rights and responsibilities of citizenship by taking the oath of citizenship, after which they become Canadian citizens and receive a certificate to mark that particular designation. It is important for both new Canadians and those who are born here to learn about indigenous people and the rich history of indigenous culture. This legislation, an act to amend the citizenship act, proposes to change Canada's oath of citizenship to include clear reference to the constitution, which recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

The proposed amendment to the oath reflects the Government of Canada's commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples, based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. It is part of the government's ongoing response to the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Of the 96 calls to action, 70 are within the Government of Canada's purview. We are working very hard to deliver on those recommendations because we believe that it is the right path and it is the true path to reconciliation.

The changes are an important and necessary step to advance Canada's broader agenda for reconciliation and to strengthen the country's valued relationship with indigenous peoples. The government's proposed amendment to the Citizenship Act would allow new Canadians to fully appreciate and respect how indigenous peoples are a critical part of our country's history and our country's identity. The new citizenship oath will also reflect our expectations that new Canadians demonstrate an understanding of indigenous peoples and their constitutional rights.

Canada must continue to stand up for the values that define this country, whether that is welcoming newcomers, celebrating our LGBTQ2 communities or embracing our two official languages.

Put simply, the walk toward reconciliation includes the need to address systemic racism in Canada. No relationship is more important to our government than the one with indigenous peoples, and we continue to forge a renewed relationship with them based on the recognition of rights, trust, respect and a true spirit of co-operation. That is why across the country we have worked together to close the quality of life gap between indigenous and non-indigenous people. We have made important progress on this. The last three budgets alone provided $16.8 billion in new funding for indigenous peoples, an increase in planned spending for 2021 of 34% over what was budgeted in 2015.

All children in Canada deserve a real and fair chance to reach their full potential, no matter where they live. By continuing to collaborate with first nations and with Inuit partners, the government is working to eliminate barriers to quality health care and to foster the culturally relevant, social supports that children need in order to succeed. Bill C-92 helped reform the indigenous child care and child welfare in this country. We know from our co-operation with indigenous governments, from learning from them and taking their advice that we can lead in a better direction for all indigenous people.

When we look at distinctions-based funding for post-secondary education, we know it is helping first nations, Inuit and Métis students access better education and succeed in their studies. We have seen it over and over again.

In addition, the government has taken action to help communities reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen indigenous languages and to sustain their important cultural traditions and histories. By promoting indigenous entrepreneurship and business, the government will help first nations, Inuit and Métis people. It will help them fully contribute to and share in Canada's economic success. This is a critical part of advancing reconciliation and self-determination.

While the path to reconciliation is long and we know it is challenging and will often be met with difficulty in different aspects, as a government, we will continue to walk that path with all first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and with all Canadians. We will do so in our actions and interactions.

As I mentioned earlier, the proposed changes to the oath that we are talking about today are an important and necessary step to advance Canada's broader agenda for reconciliation with indigenous people in this country. These changes demonstrate to new Canadians and, in fact, all Canadians a deep respect for indigenous peoples, and they recognize that the histories of first nations, Inuit and Métis people are a vital part of Canada's fabric and identity.

Since Liberals became government in 2015, we have invested more money historically than any government before us to address the significant challenges that have faced indigenous peoples in Canada. We are very proud of the reform that we have done around the child welfare act. We are very happy with the progress that we have been able to make in so many different indigenous communities across Canada.

We were the first government to commit to addressing the issues of clean water, housing and so many other pieces of important infrastructure, where we knew there were huge gaps. However, we did not do it alone. We did it with the support, guidance and input of indigenous governments through the Crown-Inuit partnership table and through the partnership tables with first nations and Métis. We heard first-hand from national leaders, band councils and heads of governments in indigenous communities what was important to them, what they wanted from government and how we should move forward in partnership with them.

Out of that, we have seen a lot of investments that were directly needed, important and critical at the time, along with longer-term strategies: strategies to eradicate tuberculosis over a 10-year period, strategies to deal with mental health and addictions in indigenous regions, strategies that looked at their own education systems and how they could play a more critical role in the delivery of health care and social welfare programs on reserve.

We have continued to work with leadership because we know that they know it better. As the Government of Canada, we are here as a true and full partner at the table not only to listen and learn but also to walk the path of reconciliation and make the tough choices that have to be made on that path to reconciliation. The Government of Canada and the Prime Minister have stood up and apologized for the past wrongs that have been done to indigenous peoples in this country, to make amends. It is all part of our walking together in reconciliation as a country.

Reconciliation is not just with indigenous people; it is with all Canadians. I have heard that statement many times. I have heard many members in the House of Commons make that statement, and no words could be truer.

We all have a job to do and a role to play. What members are seeing today with the calls to action under the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is just one other way the Government of Canada is stepping up to do what is right and what should have been done for a long time—

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I really do believe that the tabling of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.... The legislation that is on the floor, the bill that has passed through the House of Commons, Romeo Saganash's bill, unfortunately got held up in the Senate. I hope that we will be able to table that this fall. Minister Lametti is just finishing the engagements that are necessary to do that in the technical advisory committee, and we look forward to doing that.

As you know, the UN declaration was part of Bill C-91 on languages, part of Bill C-92 on child and family. We are already acknowledging how important that declaration is for us to be able to move forward, and to explain to people that the UN declaration is not scary; this is the way forward for certainty.

Bills of Exchange Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member takes some time to look at the reality of his own government. Bill C-92 came up in the last Parliament. One of the things that was fought for, by me as the vice-chair of the indigenous and northern affairs committee and by many indigenous leaders across Canada, was the amount of resources the people need to get this work done.

The reason indigenous children are in care today at such high rates is because we have had continuous Conservative and Liberal governments pass the buck and continue to use language like the parliamentary secretary did in his question: to get indigenous communities to come together and create solutions. They are coming together. They are working hard every day because they do not want to see their children leaving their communities. What they require are the resources. Any time any government wants to stand up and be accountable for that I will be happy to work with it, but I still have not seen it.

Judges Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, definitely I will tell the member what happened when it came to the Senate delay.

It was coming to May of that year and the government woke up and realized that it had passed the least legislation of any government before it. It decided to put a slew of things in. We had Bills C-91, C-92, C-93 and a whole bunch of them come in. The Senate has a protocol where they have to address government business first, before private members' business, which this was at the time. That is what happened there.

I assure the member that the Conservative senators are on the page and absolutely believe that we need to do something to address sexual assault in this country, and will support this bill as well as others that take that measure.

[Julian Falconer]

It's important that indigenous communities choose for themselves. Not everyone wants the Queen's act, and that's fair enough. There may be cultural identity protections in the legislation—I can tell you there are—but they need to be able to opt in.

I'm saying to create that option across the country. It's being done in child welfare. Bill C-92 is passed federally, even though there is provincial legislation. I'm just trying to say that this is an area where the federal government could step in and create federal standards legislatively.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

You also talked about Bill C-92, which created the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, which recognizes first nations jurisdiction, including through child and family services. It can be argued that not all communities are necessarily at the same point.

Do you believe that all communities have been given the tools they need to adequately develop the infrastructure to provide appropriate training for social workers? That also includes financial logistics.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

Nationally, we have political committees of chiefs that cover just about every sector. That’s the way we usually operate. However, in this case, we did not agree that it would be a process similar to the one we already have. It could be another process, for example, a working group.

In the case of Bill C-92, there was a policy and technical working group, that is, a policy group of chiefs and a technical group of experts in the field of social services. This may be possible in this case as well.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

Thank you for your question, which is most relevant.

There is indeed a commitment. We are currently at the commitment stage. The next session will be held in the fall. Obviously, we hope that work will begin quickly in preparation for that session. As we all know, time is of the essence. Therefore, the sooner things are done, the more we will be able to table legislation that meets our expectations.

We had the opportunity to co-author a bill, which was a very successful experience for us. I am talking about Bill C-92, which deals with first nations children, youth and families, that is, aboriginal people. Of course, we would like to see things done in a similar way.

I should add that, for several years now, we have often maintained that our services should be recognized as essential. That being said, as the national executive, we recently passed a resolution stating that funding should be granted based on the needs expressed by the communities, and not just on a parity basis. I think this is an extremely important nuance.

In short, we hope that it will be possible, in practical terms, to get to the table quickly and begin the work.

Supplementary Estimates (A)

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Chair, I must confess I am having some difficulty seeing the member opposite on the other side of the House. It is much more comforting to have her here, although she does keep us quite heavily to account, as people paying attention can clearly hear.

The member will have noticed, and underlining her point is the fact that the national action plan is not a static document. Vote 10 in particular has $6 million appropriated to continue engagement with members, including families and subscribers, for the calls to justice.

The member will also have noted last week that we announced $40 million for 10 new shelters across Canada. This is not a static document.

I will take the time to also say that this is not a federal document. This is a document that involves input from provinces, from territories and, most importantly, from indigenous peoples who guide the way forward as to how we move forward as a nation. The funding response is one element. We did not wait to do so.

There is a legislative response that is embodied in Bill C-91 on indigenous languages and in Bill C-92 on child and family services. These are all part of what we call a whole-of-government approach, but underscoring that, more important should be the fact that this is about keeping people safe and keeping the most vulnerable people, indigenous women and children, safe in our country as we move forward. Again, the document is not a static document. It will be a guide for how we move forward as a nation.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

If you could provide me with a number on that and follow up, that would be appreciated as well. I can then take that number back to the chief and provide it to him directly.

Minister Miller, to you as well, the last time this committee reviewed estimates—I think it was the main estimates—I questioned you or talked to you about the department and the implementation of Bill C-92 and how that was going and whatnot. In these supplementary estimates now, there's an additional $468 million that's identified as being for Bill C-92 implementation.

Can you identify for us how many first nations have applied to take control over their child and family services? I understand they have to indicate their intent as part of the application process. How many have actually started down that journey?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

It's a big issue. It relates back to the missing indigenous women and girls, and it calls for justice to commit to all the 232 calls for justice. That's where this will rest, and we have to focus on the implementation strategy for that.

That is one big piece, and our Assembly of First Nations Women's Council has the lead and they are developing the plan for implementation.

Another big piece is Bill C-92, the child welfare legislation. We have 40,000 first nations children in provincial care across Canada. That's not acceptable, because that just leads to child prostitution. It leads to gangs. It leads to group homes. It leads to further jail. It is a cycle that has to be broken, so if you can start looking at the full implementation of Bill C-92 and respect first nations' jurisdiction and start focusing on prevention and keeping these children at home in their safe, loving, caring homes with their families and communities and their nations, that's the way to start. So for MMIWG, implement all the calls to action, and start respecting Bill C-92 first nations' jurisdiction over child welfare going forward.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Thank you for the question. I'll go to the throne speech first.

This is the first time ever in the history of Canada that there is a whole chapter dedicated to indigenous people's issues. In that throne speech, there is strong reference to the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That was number one, because if that's implemented, that will create economic stability and economic certainty right across every province and territory. Then there is talk of a treaty commissioner, because we have 634 reserves or first nations across Canada, over 60 different nations or tribes, over a million people, but we have a treaty relationship through sharing the land. This is a lot of land first nations people are sharing with 37 million people called Canadians now. We're sharing land and resources, so the treaty commissioner to implement with the “spirit and intent” was a key piece.

Then there was C-91 on languages and C-92 on child welfare. Then we had the implementation of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and then youth suicide. There was mental health talked about in the throne speech. We are seven times the national average for youth suicide. Then as well there was that the infrastructure gap would be closed by 2030. That's investments in housing, water, infrastructure, all those things—huge things. If the throne speech can be implemented, that will be huge.

In terms of what this government is doing and how we communicate, we communicate to the 634 bands through our newsletters, our updates, our websites and our communiqués. That's what we're doing from the Assembly of First Nations' side. We have constant chiefs committees. We also have a chiefs committee and a COVID task force in place to deal with this. We have the systems in place, no question, but there's lots of work to do post-COVID-19 to kick-start the economy. People on this call should know that first nations have contributed lots through our treaty relationship with the Crown. That's a a lot of land across Canada and a lot of resource bases that have been shared to help develop the GDP and the overall economic growth here in Canada.

That's my comment. Thank you.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services]

Members of the committee, good morning.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we come together on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

It is my pleasure to be here to discuss the 2019-20 supplementary estimates (B) and the 2020-21 main estimates for the Department of Indigenous Services.

From Indigenous Services Canada, I'm joined by Sony Perron, associate deputy minister, Philippe Thompson, chief finance, results and delivery officer, Valerie Gideon, senior assistant deputy minister of the first nations and Inuit health branch, and Joanne Wilkinson, assistant deputy minister for child and family services reform.

Since its creation in 2017, our department has focused on closing socio-economic gaps and working with partners to improve access to services for first nations, Inuit and Métis. The department works in collaboration with partners to improve well-being in indigenous communities across Canada and to support indigenous peoples in assuming control of the delivery of services in their communities at the pace and in the ways they choose, of course.

Over time, it is our goal that indigenous peoples will have the capacity necessary to deliver programs and services to their peoples, and this department, and my role, will be obsolete. We are working with partners to build this capacity.

To support this essential work, the department's 2019-20 supplementary estimates (B) detail initiatives totalling approximately $1 billion. This brings total appropriations for the department to $13.8 billion for this fiscal year.

More than half of this new funding—$588.3 million—is to support the ongoing delivery of the first nations child and family services program, bringing the program's overall budget from $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion.

Members will be aware that this committee served a vital role in addressing the overrepresentation of indigenous children in care with its study of Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, which came into force at the start of this year and empowers indigenous peoples to assert their inherent jurisdiction over child and family services and the well-being of their children.

Of the amount requested for this program, $414.9 million supports the implementation of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rulings from 2016 to September 2019 related to first nations child and family services by funding agencies based on their actual needs and focusing on activities and programs aimed at preventing children from being taken into care.

Our government believes in supporting a prevention-based system, where the needs of first nations children come first. Funding for the first nations child and family services program has more than doubled between 2016 and 2018-19. Since 2016, we've worked with partners to implement systemic remedies in support of the needs of first nations children. This means taking steps to keep children with their families to keep them connected with their communities and their culture.

The other two major items presented in the supplementary estimates (B) are funding to support Jordan's principle and emergency management service providers.

I'd like now to turn to the main estimates for 2020-21.

For the upcoming fiscal year, the department's main estimates are $12.8 billion. This reflects a net increase of approximately $538.7 million, or 4%, compared to last year's main estimates.

Further to these estimates, the department also anticipates funding from any investments announced in budget 2020, as well as future Treasury Board decisions. This additional funding is expected to be accessed through the supplementary estimates process.

This year, the department's main estimates reflect a net increase of $483.6 million related to the transfer of individual affairs and lands and economic development programs, as well as internal services from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.

In addition to this, you will see increased funding related to some of the department's core priorities. For example, these estimates reflect an increase of $85.7 million for elementary and secondary education, as well as post-secondary education programs. From 2011-12 to 2018-19, actual expenditures in education have increased by about 41.7%. This is reflective of our government's commitment to ensuring that every first nations child has the best start in life and that first nations maintain control of first nations education.

You will also note that, in these estimates, $1.5 billion in funding is set aside in 2020-21 for first nations that have entered into the 10-year grant agreement, including 85 first nations that moved to the grant model last fiscal year, with additional first nations communities that will move to the grant in 2020-21.

The 10-year grant is a key initiative of our government's ongoing commitment to establish a new relationship that moves towards flexible, predictable and sustained funding for first nation communities.

I hope this presentation has provided insight into the department's supplementary estimates (B) and main estimates documents.

We have made, and are continuing to make, important changes in our relationships with first nations, Inuit and Métis. While there is still much work to do, our government's historic investments are making a difference in closing the gaps that exist and are improving the quality of life of indigenous peoples, all while advancing self-determination.

Before I end my remarks, I would like to briefly update the committee on COVID-19 as it relates to indigenous peoples in Canada, as I know you share my concerns about that. I thank those who attended the meeting with Valerie Gideon this morning for a more detailed briefing. In fact, I would invite further questions, should you so choose.

Our government is working with all levels of government, including actively supporting indigenous communities to prepare for COVID-19. This is a matter of the health and well-being of all Canadians. This is a time for jurisdictional co-operation, not divisions.

These efforts are supported through a federal-provincial-territorial special advisory committee for COVID-19 that is focused on coordination of federal, provincial, and territorial preparedness and response across Canada's health sector for all Canadians, including first nations, Inuit and Métis.

The federal government, including Indigenous Services Canada, has multiple systems in place to prepare for, detect and limit the spread of infectious diseases, including COVID-19.

In budget 2019, I would note, our government invested $211 million over five years, including $79.86 million, as the first-ever investment in health resiliency and health emergency preparedness on reserve. These investments have enabled first nations to strengthen their capacity, have allowed us to establish effective inter-jurisdictional networks, and are supporting us in our work to monitor and manage COVID-19.

My officials are working very closely with first nations communities to support them in implementing their pandemic plans, to provide surge capacity where needed, and to offer technical assistance as required.

The importance of clear, concise and timely communication and information-sharing can't be overstated. We all have a role to play in ensuring that our communications are based on the best science and the clearest recommendations. Factual, practical and clear information is essential. We're working with partners to make this information available in indigenous languages through print, radio and social media.

We have learned from past outbreaks. Accurate information is critical, and we all have a role to play in making sure that people are referring to information from trusted sources such as governments and community leadership.

My officials are working with local health directors, health workers and nurses through various social networks including with regional medical officers of health. These medical officers of health are also working with provincial partners in ensuring that supports to first nations, whether they live on reserves or not, are fully integrated into provincial plans.

The department has a network of regional emergency management and communicable disease emergency coordinators, as well as regional medical officers. Together, they advise and support first nations across provinces and lead public health emergency preparedness and response as required.

While recognizing that, in the territories, primary health care is delivered by the territorial governments, my department is working closely with indigenous partners and territorial governments to share information and prepare for COVID-19 and will be available to provide surge capacity support in a timely manner if needed.

While we have in place solid planning, monitoring and surge capacity, we also need to be very vigilant.

Proximity-related factors, such as overcrowding, and other determinants of health can increase the risks for some populations, including indigenous peoples. This is why we need to be focused on supporting communities on an ongoing basis and ensuring that we are able to reduce risks where possible.

I would now be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

Meegwetch.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you. I have one more quick question.

One of our most important priorities is reducing the number of indigenous children in care. I was pleased to see Bill C-92 receive royal assent in 2019.

Can you tell the committee how C-92 will return jurisdiction over child and family services to indigenous communities so that they can decide what's best for their own communities?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions will mostly be for the indigenous services group, because that's the file I'm looking at.

As you mentioned in your report, in June of 2019, Bill C-92, an act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, became law. It was implemented on January 1, 2020. Jeffrey Schiffer, director of Native Child and Family Services of Toronto, Canada's largest urban indigenous child welfare organization, is quoted in a CBC article as saying, “I think it was quick and it was hasty.” He went on to say, “Honestly, it's a little bit reckless to have this legislation come into force without regulations that guide its implementation, and we still have so many different ideas across Canada about what's going to happen [with this].”

I have two questions in that regard. What is the status of creating the regulations to guide the implementation from coast to coast? How many indigenous communities have currently given notice of intention to the Minister of Indigenous Services to assume responsibility for their children?

Relations with Indigenous Peoples

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand here this evening on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

First I want to thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for calling for this important debate this evening.

It is important for us to be able to discuss the issues and possible solutions here in this place no matter what our party lines are.

Canadians are upset. As the Prime Minister expressed so eloquently this morning, Canadians expect us to work together to get through this together. Young people have tearfully expressed to me how upsetting it has been for them to see the images and hear from their friends of being arrested for standing for what they believe in. This happened a year ago and then again earlier this month.

As we heard in the heartfelt words of the Minister of Indigenous Services, we believe we have learned from the crisis at Oka, but also Ipperwash, Caledonia and Gustafsen Lake. Last year, we said that we never wanted to see again the images of police having to use force in an indigenous community in order to keep the peace.

Canada is counting on us to work together to create the space for respectful dialogue with the Wet'suwet'en peoples. We all want this dispute resolved in a peaceful manner. We want the Wet'suwet'en peoples to come together and resolve their differences of opinion.

We want absolute clarity and a shared understanding of the Wet'suwet'en laws.

We are inspired by the courageous Wet'suwet'en people who took the recognition of their rights to the Supreme Court of Canada in the Delgamuukw case in 1997. Since 2018, we have been able and proud to invest in their research on specific claim negotiations, negotiation preparedness, nation rebuilding and the recognition of rights tables, as well as their contributions to the B.C. Treaty Commission processes.

Two years ago, I was proud to sign an agreement with hereditary chiefs of the Office of the Wet'suwet'en on asserting their rights on child and family services. Since then, our government has passed Bill C-92 so that all first nations would be able to pass their own child well-being laws and no longer be subject to section 88 of the Indian Act, which gave provinces laws of general application for things other than where Canada was explicit about the rights of first nations on health and education.

Across Canada, over half of the Indian Act bands are now sitting down at tables to work on their priorities as they assert their jurisdiction. From education to fisheries to child and family services to policing or to their own court systems, we have made important strides forward in the hard work of, as Lee Crowchild describes it, deconstructing the effects of colonization.

In British Columbia, we have been inspired by the work of the B.C. Summit, as they have been able to articulate and sign with us and the B.C. government a new policy that will once and for all eliminate the concepts of extinguishment, cede and surrender for future treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.

We have together agreed that no longer would loans be necessary for first nations to fund their negotiations with Canada. We are also forgiving outstanding past loans, and in some cases paying back nations that had already repaid those loans.

We have worked with the already self-governing nations on a collaborative fiscal arrangement that will provide stable, predictable funding that will properly fund the running of their governments.

This new funding arrangement will provide them with much more money than they would have received under the Indian Act.

The conditions are right to move the relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis to one based on the affirmation of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership as written in the mandate letters of all ministers of this government.

It has been so exciting to watch the creativity and innovation presented by the Ktunaxa and Sto:lo nations in their negotiations of modern treaties.

We were inspired to see the hereditary chiefs and the elected chief and council of the Heiltsuk nation work together to be able to sign an agreement with Canada on their path to self-government. Many nations have been successful when elected and hereditary chiefs have worked together, and I look forward to having these conversations with the Wet'suwet'en nation.

It is now time to build on the historic Delgamuukw decision. It is time to show that issues of rights and title can be solved in meaningful dialogue.

My job is to ensure that Canada finds out-of-court solutions and to fast-track negotiations and agreements that make real change possible.

After the Tsilhqot'in decision, we have been inspired by the hard work of the Tsilhqot'in national government to build its capacity as a government, to write its constitution and its laws, and establish its government.

I look forward to hopefully finding out-of-court processes to determine title, as we hope for Haida Gwaii. There are many parts of Canada where title is very difficult to determine. Many nations have occupied the land for varying generations. I will never forget that feeling on the Tsilhqot'in title land at the signing with the Prime Minister, looking around, the land surrounded by mountains, where the Tsilhqot'in people have lived for millennia. It seemed obvious that anyone who stood there would understand why they had won their case at the Supreme Court of Canada.

We are at a critical time in Canada. We need to deal effectively with the uncertainty. Canadians want to see indigenous rights honoured, and they are impatient for meaningful progress.

Canadians are counting on us to implement a set of rules and processes in which section 35 of our Constitution can be honourably implemented. We are often reminded that inherent rights did not start with section 35: They are indeed inherent rights, as well as treaty rights.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an important first step in getting there. We need to properly explain, as have many of the academics and so many of the courts, that free, prior and informed consent is not scary. Consent is not a veto. Bill C-69 means that indigenous peoples and indigenous knowledge will be mandatory at the very beginning of a proposal for any major project.

Section 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has really been described as a process for land use planning in which the rights of indigenous people are respected.

As we have learned from the experience in Nunavut, where the land claims have been settled, good projects receive a green light, bad projects a red light, and mediocre projects are sent back to the drawing board to improve their environmental stewardship or cultural protection or employment for the Inuit beneficiaries. Nunavummiut accept the decisions of this process wherein the federal, territorial, and Inuit rights holders have taken the decision together.

Canadians acknowledge that there has been a difference of opinion among the Wet'suwet'en peoples. We have heard often in the House that 20 elected chiefs and council agreed to the project in consultation with their people. Women leaders have expressed an opinion that the project can eliminate poverty or provide meaningful work for young men and reduce domestic violence and incarceration. Some have expressed that in an indigenous world view, providing an energy source that will reduce China's reliance on coal is good for Mother Earth.

However, it is only the Wet'suwet'en people that can decide. We are hoping the Wet'suwet'en people will be able to come together to take these decisions together, decisions that are in the best interests of their children and their children for generations to come.

We applaud the thousands of young Canadians fighting for climate justice.

We know that those young people need hope, that they want to see a real plan to deal with the climate emergency. We do believe that we have an effective plan in place, from clean tech to renewable energy, public transit, and protection of the land and the water.

We want the young people of Canada and all those who have been warning about climate change for decades to feel heard.

They need hope, and they need to feel involved in coming up with real solutions.

Tonight there is an emergency debate because our country is hurting. It is for indigenous peoples and all those who are being affected coast to coast to coast.

Yesterday I met in Victoria with British Columbia minister Scott Fraser, and this afternoon had a call with hereditary chiefs and conveyed that we are ready to meet with the hereditary leadership of Wet'suwet'en at a time and place of their choosing.

Together with the Prime Minister and the premier, we want to support the solutions going forward. We want to address their short- and long-term goals. We want to see the hope and hard work that resulted in the Delgamuukw decision of 1997, to be able to chart a new path with the Wet'suwet'en nation in which there is unity and prosperity and a long-term plan for protecting their law, and as Eugene Arcand says, LAW: land, air, water. We also want to see a thriving Wet'suwet'en nation with its own constitution and laws based on its traditional legal customs and practices.

We want to thank Premier Horgan for his efforts to resolve this problem and Murray Rankin for the work that he has undertaken since April of last year to work with the elected chiefs and council as well as the hereditary chiefs on their rights and title. We want to thank Nathan Cullen for his efforts to try and de-escalate this situation.

I am very proud to work with the Province of British Columbia, and I think all in this House congratulate it on the passage of Bill 41, where in Canada the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is now legislated.

Our government is invested in and inspired by the work of Val Napoleon and John Borrows at the Indigenous Legal Lodge at the University of Victoria. They will be able to do the research on the laws of many nations so that they can create a governance structure and constitutions in keeping with those laws. It is important to understand the damage done by colonization and residential schools that has led to sometimes different interpretations of traditional legal practices and customs.

We think that, one day, Canada will be able to integrate indigenous law into Canada's legislative process, just as it did with common law and droit civil.

We are striving to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and to increase awareness of our shared history. We all need the indigenous leadership to know that we are serious. We are serious about rebuilding trust and working with respect, as the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Prime Minister have expressed today in such heartfelt ways.

We hope that the Wet'suwet'en will be able to express to those in solidarity with them that it is now time to stand down to create that space for a peaceful dialogue, and to let us get back to work towards a Wet'suwet'en nation with its own laws and governance that can work nation-to-nation with the Crown.

Although I returned to Ottawa for this debate tonight, I am hoping to be able to return to B.C. as soon as possible to continue that work.

[Daniel Wilson, Special Advisor, Research and Policy Coordination, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to speak with the committee today as we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin nation.

The Assembly of First Nations has developed a submission reflecting a broad range of investments that would support the participation of first nations in the economy. I believe it has been distributed to members. My thanks to the clerk.

As we have noted with this committee in the past, closure of just the education and employment outcome gaps between first nations and other Canadians would provide an additional 1.5% to Canada's gross domestic product. Among the investments set out in the document we have provided, I'd like to highlight four priorities that I believe could provide the greatest return on investment, with each of these moves forward a shared priority of first nations and the Government of Canada, building on important work already done and being done.

The first is the implementation of the Indigenous Languages Act, passed by the previous Parliament. The revitalization of first nations languages is a key step in reversing one effect of Canada's former residential school policy—the erasure of our languages. Knowledge of one's language also leads to better educational attainment and supports better employment prospects, part of that GDP growth to which I alluded earlier. The investments detailed in our handout were calculated by former associate deputy minister of finance Don Drummond, and take into account the investment made in budget 2019.

The second priority I'd highlight is similarly about implementing legislation passed in the previous Parliament, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. Again, the roots of that legislation lay in our colonial history and the failure to provide adequate care to first nations children. The important step of recognizing the jurisdiction of first nation governments through legislation is most welcome, but that jurisdiction needs financial support. The investment called for in our submission will support implementing first nations' jurisdiction. It would result in fewer children in the system and reduce the social costs of the damage being done to them currently. Those reduced social costs will be joined, once again, by better outcomes for first nation citizens and concomitant benefits to Canada's economy.

The third area I would like to highlight is housing. Regional Chief Picard of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador spoke to this in this committee yesterday, so I will use this time solely to augment his remarks. I would point out that the investment called for in our submission would also give effect to one of the simplest and most concrete recommendations from the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls that this government conducted over the previous Parliament. As that inquiry reported, lacking suitable housing alternatives, young women move out of their communities and find themselves in environments that are not secure and that expose them to harm. This investment can prevent that vulnerability and save lives.

In addition, it is well established that the ability to function at both school and work is dependent on the quality of housing. Committee members can easily imagine how difficult it is to function at school or work the next morning when upwards of 20 people are sharing a three-bedroom house, as is too often the case in first nation communities. Addressing this need will reduce social costs and provide benefits to the greater Canadian economy through enhanced productivity.

The final priority I'd like to bring to the committee's attention is governance funding. The Assembly of First Nations welcomes the unprecedented investments made by the current government over the past four budgets. The investment in governance detailed in our submission will increase the return on investments made to date and any that may come in the future. Every government requires strong governance systems in order to make efficient and effective use of the resources at their disposal. First nation governments are no exception.

Funding for first nations governance has not risen by more than 2% in any year since 1997, thus failing to keep up with inflation, let alone other cost drivers. As a result, current funding for first nation governance amounts to just over 3% of spending, whereas most governmental organizations operate in the 10% to 15% range of expenditures. This is simply unsustainable for our governments. The investment outlined in our submission would provide for institutional development; the creation and functioning of shared service organizations; recruitment and retention of qualified staff; and the strengthening of financial management, human resource, and IT systems, and all other essential governance structures required to run an effective and efficient government. By investing in good governance, first nations are able to make better use of the resources available to them.

Canada and first nations share a desire to increase self-determination for first nations, as we agree that this, above all else, will improve the quality of life of first nations' citizens. However, jurisdiction, without the fiscal capacity to exercise that jurisdiction, is hollow. This investment in governance funding could be the most important step that Canada can take to support the important work that first nations and Canada are engaged in together.

First nations' priorities are Canada's priorities. The return on investment is clear and benefits us all.

I look forward to your questions.

Thank you. Wela'lioq.

Supplementary Estimates (A), 2019-20

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Chair, Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families is something that has received a lot of support in the House. The throne speech has articulated that the government plans to move forward with indigenous communities.

How can indigenous communities move forward on Bill C-92 by making their own decisions regarding child welfare when there is no plan for transition?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, the first nations, Inuit and Métis across the country are very grateful for Bill C-92. With respect to asserting jurisdiction, we have to allow that the people can assert the jurisdiction to look after its own families with the adequate funding to do that. We know that in terms of how we determine fair and equitable funding, our government did not think we would be able to get that done throughout an election and by this week. Therefore, it is really important. The January 29 date is coming up, but I am hearing from families. They want this to be fair and they feel there has to be a negotiation at a table to actually determine what is fair.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his ongoing advocacy.

Any child who dies in care is one child too many. This has been a national tragedy and is a key part of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. It is a key part of how failed government policies for generations have resulted in this terrible tragedy.

Our government has decided, with the families, to do everything we can to not separate families and not have children in care. Bill C-92 will mean that communities will have the resources necessary to keep those families together, to get that child to the healthy auntie or healthy grandparents and to bring their children home.

The children in care who are in unsafe circumstances in the cities of this country are leading to this tragedy. I also want to assure the member that we have to compensate the people who were harmed by this failed policy.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde, Assembly of First Nations]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

To all the distinguished members of the committee, I'm very happy to be here acknowledging you all as friends and relatives. I also acknowledge the Algonquin peoples for hosting this on their ancestral lands. For me, from our AFN, I'm happy to be here.

I want to share some perspectives. I'm very honoured to speak here on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations regarding Bill C-100. I'll also say a few words about the process to negotiate, ratify and implement the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement.

Trade in resources and goods in this land, I always say, began with us, the indigenous peoples. The participation now in 2019 in international trade should not be seen merely as part of history. Going forward, how do we get more involved?

As self-determining peoples, we have interests and rights respecting today's international trade agreements. We've always said that for far too long we have not seen the benefits from international trade flow to our businesses or to our communities as first nations people. These facts should form a part of legal and political frameworks when Canada explores new free trade agreements. I've always said, from a first nations perspective in Canada, that whenever Canada goes out to negotiate or discuss anything from softwood lumber to trees, anything from potash in southern Saskatchewan, to uranium in the north or any oil, coal, or whatever natural resource it is, indigenous peoples should be involved and should be participating, because there's respect or reference that we still have unextinguished aboriginal title and rights to the land and territory and resources. It's a simple fact. So we need to be involved.

When Canada, through Minister Chrystia Freeland, welcomed me to be on the NAFTA advisory committee, it was very important, because to date, indigenous peoples haven't been involved. We also had indigenous officials working as part of the working group. In the end, we'll say that this work resulted in the most inclusive international trade agreement for indigenous peoples to date. It's not perfect, but to date it's the best that we have in Canada.

With the ratification of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, we would take a step to making international trade more aware of and more equitable in its treatment of indigenous peoples, and especially for indigenous women entrepreneurs. We still have more work to do.

We believe the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement is a step in the right direction with the new general exception for indigenous rights with respect to inherent and aboriginal and treaty rights. As well, with specific preferences to carve out procurement benefits and other opportunities for indigenous businesses and service providers, there's also a promise of future co-operation to enhance indigenous businesses. As well, importantly, the investor-state dispute settlement process, which was a threat to indigenous people's rights, will be phased out for Canada. This is the groundwork for positive change.

While the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement is a new example of the difference it makes to engage with indigenous peoples at an early stage, there must be increased opportunities for first nations participation not only in international trade negotiations but also in trade missions.

Canada should extend an official role to first nations in negotiations of all international agreements on trade and investments that impact inherent treaty aboriginal rights. This would better reflect the nation-to-nation relationship and the whole-of-government commitment by Canada to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In addition, the inclusion of first nations leads to better decisions and better outcomes.

With regard to Bill C-100, what I'm recommending to all the committee members here is that there should be in place a non-derogation clause. It's a safe clause, that nothing in this agreement will affect existing aboriginal treaty rights, which are affirmed in section 35 of Canada's Constitution. I'm making that recommendation as well as that it be interpreted and implemented consistent with those rights in section 35. It's good to have it ratified by Canada, the United States and Mexico on one hand, but each nation-state will come back and do some sort of legislation with the implementation. That's the piece we're looking at making the recommendation on. I'm not advising that we open up the agreement; no, leave it the way it is, but move in tandem with the other two countries to get it ratified. We have to be careful to be not too fast and not too slow, because if one of the three countries doesn't get it ratified, the deal is not going to be implemented.

It's not just that international trade and investment agreements can impact our rights, but also how the agreement is implemented through domestic regulatory and policy matters. That has to be looked at. Once the agreement is ratified, we must work together to realize the economic gains and ensure the provisions related to indigenous peoples in international trade agreements are implemented in a manner that brings greater economic equity to first nations peoples.

The first area where indigenous peoples can see the benefits from this agreement is government procurement. Procurement is always a big thing. Everybody says this should be easy, that it's low-hanging fruit. Canada must move from policies and objectives to mandatory requirements for procuring goods and services from first nations businesses. The Assembly of First Nations is ready to work with Canada to make sure we develop legislation together for social procurement that benefits first nations and other indigenous peoples.

The only other thing I'd like to share here before concluding is there are three or four very important bills we want to see passed before this week is up. Bill C-91 on languages, Bill C-92 on child welfare, and two private members' bills, Bill C-262 and Bill C-337, all need to be passed. If in the event the legislature is called back, those should form the priority. But we're hoping and praying that all MPs, all the leadership here on Parliament Hill, will get behind and pass those pieces of legislation as soon as possible.

That's it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the time.

Access to Information Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member was speaking, she talked about and was very critical of the Access to Information Act. She was very critical of Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, all of these wonderful pieces of historical legislation that have moved the bar significantly forward.

The other day, we talked about national pharmacare, and the New Democrats asked, what about hearing and all of these other things? We talk about a national housing strategy, and they say we need to have more houses. We could never, ever please the New Democratic Party here. There is no legislation before the House that they would say they agree with it in its entirety and that we have done a good job on.

Does the member opposite not recognize that within this legislation, where there are significant reforms that have been long overdue, over 30 years overdue, along with other pieces of legislation, there are a lot of good things happening? They can say some positive things. Even when I was in opposition, I said positive things at times to the government. It is okay to agree that the legislation is good at times. Would the member not agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to the government motion on the Senate amendments to Bill C-58.

Before I do that, though, I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate my brother Toron and his wife Jacqui.Today is their wedding anniversary, and I know that they are spending the day with my nieces and nephew, Abby, Malcolm, Josie and Zylia. I just wanted to acknowledge that this is another day, as many of us know in this House, that we do not get to be with family. I wanted to make sure that they know that I am thinking about them today.

Today we are talking about something that is fundamentally important, which is access to information, the tools we have to access information as parliamentarians representing everyday Canadians, and how that information can be accessed by journalists and reporters in this country.

I have been in this place for almost four years. I have worked really closely with my constituents on these issues. I have talked to them about the different tools I have as a parliamentarian and where they need to go to get information. They need to feel more connected to the government and to the people who represent it here in this place. I am very passionate about this issue.

Today we are talking about Senate amendments that would improve what I felt was a bad bill by making sure that the Information Commissioner would have real teeth, real power, to address some of the issues that come up in this place.

One of the things I have found very distressing, and the member who spoke before me also addressed this issue, is how often folks request information and are given a letter from a department authorizing itself to delay. Someone asks a question and now is told that the wait will be another 200 days for that information.

One of the most startling examples was that The Globe and Mail reported in April 2018 that it took one year to receive RCMP statistics for its well-received investigative series “Unfounded”, which revealed that police have been dismissing one in five sexual assault claims as baseless. This is really important information. When we see these kinds of startling facts, we know that there is something happening in this place and in this country that we need to address. These important investigations need to happen so that we know that something in the system is not working that we need to see addressed in multiple ways. If that information is not released, how are we supposed to do our work, and how do Canadians trust us?

I asked a question earlier about cynicism. I see that growing. I see it growing all the time. I talk to people who are frustrated with the government. They feel that when they want information, they have no way of knowing it. The automatic response is that something sneaky is happening and that they cannot trust those people.

I think we need to discuss what happens to democracy when we have everyday Canadians feeling that every politician is sketchy. We have an oath in this country. We sit in these seats and represent thousands of our constituents. We have the honour, as I do, to represent hard-working people who do everything in their power to live a good life, look after each other and look after their community. If they cannot trust the people who represent them, that should concern every single one of us.

If information cannot be uncovered to understand how things work, and, when something seems unfair, why it happened, how do we build that relationship, and how do we improve democracy?

I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the member for Vancouver Granville, who used to be the justice minister. I have a deep respect for her. I have known her for many years. I am very proud to represent the nation she comes from. I am very proud to represent the people of her traditional territory.

When that happened with SNC-Lavalin, it sent shock waves through my riding. It was very personal. I had constituents from my riding calling me and saying that she was in their class, that they know who she is, that she was from their family. They could not believe what was happening. They asked, do Liberals not know who she is, because they know who she is? Constituents were frustrated by the lack of information. They were frustrated by the process that unfolded. It was very troubling to them.

When I think about that and look at that happen, it takes away that sense of trust and connectivity. It brings all of these issues to the forefront when they are not addressed in a good way, and, in my opinion, these issues were not addressed in a good way. A lot of constituents contact me and say that they still do not know what happened, but that what happened was not right.

We look at the systems, and that is important. As legislators in this place, what we look at, debate and discuss is the process, how something is going to happen. Right now, we know that the Information Commissioner still will not have the ability to review whether in some cases like that one cabinet confidence is being claimed and whether it should be claimed.

I think about this a lot. I want to see a better democracy. I was very frustrated when the government campaigned to have electoral reform. It was very meaningful. I did multiple town halls in my riding. It was really interesting. People came forward. They were not sure and they did not know if they wanted to move to a different system, but they wanted to talk to me about it. They wanted to hear information. We tried to bring people in who were non-partisan to talk about different systems and how they would work. We had a lot of intelligent questions.

I will admit, people walked out the door saying that they were not sure; they were not sure if that was the right way to go forward. However, when they were told that it was no longer a discussion, when the Prime Minister stood up and said that Canadians do not want electoral reform, people were upset. They felt that they did not get to be a part of the decision-making process. That is really important.

Sometimes people get frustrated in this House, and they let us know by their heckling. However, we need to look at these systems. We need to make sure that everyday Canadians are part of the decision-making process. When that does not happen, we should have systems in place for them to be able to find out why it did not happen that way.

Again, we are seeing a failed piece of legislation. I am really disappointed. It is another broken promise. One of the things that was talked about in the last election was making sure that the PMO and the ministers were subject to these acts. That was one of the promises of transparency, that Liberals were going to do it differently and that Canadians would see a more open, transparent government.

Unfortunately, what we are seeing, again, is that the PMO is still blocked off. It is something to really think about. When everyday Canadians cannot get access; when journalists cannot get information from these particular departments, these ministries, what are we telling people? We are telling people that their voice does not belong in those places. However, they do belong in those places. In fact, we are here to represent those very voices.

I am really disappointed in this legislation. I think we could have gone so much farther. It is time for daringness. When I listen to constituents in my riding, what they want to see is honesty, openness and an authentic touch. They do not want to hear lines repeated. Some people think that if they just keep saying the same thing over and over that people will believe them.

However, when we look at democracy, the invigoration of democracy, and when we talk about why people do not get out to vote, it is because we are allowing cynicism to grow. We are not making sure that we open these doors and allow things to go forward.

Toby Mendel, the executive director of the Centre for Law and Democracy, said, in response to this bill, “The proposed reforms are just not good enough. At this point, we need root and branch reform, not incremental tinkering.”

I am a person who stands in this House, who looks at a lot of legislation. Most recently, in my role as vice-chair of the indigenous and northern affairs committee, we looked at Bill C-92, which talked about indigenous children in care. One of the things that was really heartbreaking for me is what I see happening again and again, which is this: “We will do a little better. It will not be enough. It is not going to save people's lives in a profound way. It is not going to look at the very foundation of the things that are broken. But we are going to make it a little prettier on the surface, and hopefully that will fix it.”

A little bit better is not good enough. It is not good enough for democracy, and it certainly is not good enough for indigenous children in this country who are struggling in profound ways every single day.

We were told very clearly that the new score for Canada would be 92 out of a possible 150 with this legislation. That means we would get bumped up from 49th to 46th.

I do not like our country to be in the middle. I want our country to be challenged to do better, because I want Canada to be at the top. I want other countries in the world to see the work we are doing in this place and think they have to aim higher because of what Canada is doing. I want them to look at how accountable we are to our constituents, to the Canadian public, to our reporters, and that we are not afraid to have these discussions, even if they are really painful and really hard.

We have to talk about really painful things in the House. If we are not brave enough to do that, if we do not allow people to have the information they need to make decisions for themselves, it is like saying that we are separate. However, we are all one.

I remember one of the elders in my community, Alberta Billy, telling me that a long time ago the cedar trees were so big that they would go into the forest and pick one to build a canoe for the community. They would respect that tree and then they would make a canoe out of it to be used by the community.

We do not have those big trees anymore. We have to find two trees now and find a way for them to come together. Finding two trees that are going to fit seamlessly together is a lot of work. That is the world we live in now. We do not have those big trees.

If we look at that canoe as if we were all in this together, then we know we have a western world that came here as colonizers and we have an indigenous world and we are trying to build a canoe together.

Let us look at the fact that indigenous communities around this whole country had great systems in place. Let us look at how we can do better, be more accountable to the people we serve. That is what a leader is. It is the person who follows behind, who serves from behind. This legislation fails to do that.

Bill C-68—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, in the Senate there are a number of bills that are so important, just like this exact bill here, Bill C-68. There are also Bill C-88, Bill C-91, Bill C-92, Bill C-93, Bill C-391, Bill C-374, Bill C-369 and Bill CC-262. All these bills are being delayed by the Senate because they are taking far too long.

I was wondering if the hon. minister could tell us why the Conservative senators are delaying all these bills, delaying us from doing the job that Canadians have sent us here to do. They gave us a mandate in 2015, after a decade of darkness with the Conservatives, to repair the damage they had done to the environment and to indigenous communities and to make sure we get this job done.

Can the hon. minister talk a little bit about that, please?

Third Reading

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

Once again, this bill, like many other bills we have seen in the House, is being debated and rushed through Parliament in the last few days before the House rises for the summer. It is worth noting that this is a bill that was only studied in our committee on indigenous and northern affairs for one meeting before we went into clause-by-clause consideration. As a result, we were unable to hear live testimony from stakeholders such as the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce.

We have recently seen these legislative delays with other important bills, such as Bill C-92, which was passed at third reading in this House just last week, on June 3. It is totally unacceptable that the Liberals have so utterly mismanaged their legislative schedule when it comes to the bills that are now before us, days before we rise.

Bill C-88 is a bill that forms part of a long Liberal saga to kill natural resources development in this country. The bill would amend subsection 12(1) of the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to arbitrarily ban any oil and gas activity across the Arctic offshore. Under this bill, the government would only need to invoke the national interest to ban oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea. However, the term “national interest” remains undefined in this bill, so the government would have complete discretion to decide when it should ban oil and gas activities in the Arctic offshore. These opportunities for greater economic prosperity in the north would therefore be limited and controlled by the ministers here in Ottawa. Again, under the current government, Ottawa knows best.

We have already seen the Liberals reveal their paternalism when it comes to economic opportunities for northern communities. We just have to go back to December 2016. While the Prime Minister was in Washington, D.C., he announced that there would be a moratorium on offshore oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea. No, he was not up in northern Canada. He was, in fact, meeting with President Obama in Washington.

There was absolutely no consultation with the Government of Northwest Territories before this moratorium was announced in Washington. In fact, the territorial leaders of the day were given less than half an hour's notice before the Prime Minister declared the moratorium, in the United States, the farthest destination away from northern Canada.

By single-handedly introducing a moratorium on oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea, the Liberals are telling northern communities that Ottawa knows best. The Liberals are saying, through their actions, that northerners do not have the right to pursue their own economic opportunities without the approval of the current federal government.

We heard from multiple witnesses in committee about the devastating impact the Liberals' moratorium has had on northerners. Wally Schumann, the minister of industry, tourism and investment and the minister of infrastructure for the Northwest Territories, said the following about the moratorium:

I guess we can be very frank because we're in front of the committee.

When it first came out, we never got very much notice on the whole issue of the moratorium and the potential that was in the Beaufort Sea. There were millions and millions, if not billions, of dollars in bid deposits and land leases up there. That took away any hope we had of developing the Beaufort Sea.

We also heard from Merven Gruben, the mayor of Tuktoyaktuk. He was very disappointed with the Liberal decision to unilaterally impose this moratorium on northerners. He was very concerned about the effects this ban would have on the people of his community. He said:

It's so easy to sit down here and make judgments on people and lives that are some 3,500 klicks away, and make decisions on our behalf, especially with that moratorium on the Beaufort. That should be taken away, lifted, please and thank you. That is going to open up and give jobs to our people—training and all the stuff we're wishing for.

Unfortunately, the Liberals are not listening to the voices, again, of the northerners, and as a result, communities are paying the price now for the Liberal government's arrogance. There is absolutely no doubt that Bill C-88 is just another attempt by the Liberal government to polarize oil and gas extraction in this country. It explains the power of cabinet to block economic development and adds to the ever-increasing levels of bureaucratic red tape that need to be navigated by proponents of energy development.

The bill makes northern energy development more difficult by increasing the obstacles that must be overcome by energy proponents before they can even put shovels in the ground.

In response to these polarized anti-energy provisions, many stakeholders have voiced their concerns. One of the numerous stakeholders that want to see the Governor in Council power to ban oil and gas development removed finally from the bill is the Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce. It has written submissions to our committee. The chamber indicated its opposition to the final authority of the Governor in Council to ban northern oil and gas development.

The chamber wrote to us as follows:

The final decision needs to be approved by the Indigenous Nation of the prescribed area who are the steward's of the area but also rely on the land to provide economic independence to their membership and throughout the NT.

Of course, in pushing through Bill C-88 without any amendments, the Liberals have demonstrated that they do not care about the opinions and concerns of our northern communities, which will be deeply affected by this piece of legislation. These northern voices are once again being ignored by the Liberal government.

Another important stakeholder that expressed really serious concerns about Bill C-88 was the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. Unfortunately, like the Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce, the IRC was not afforded the opportunity at all to present live testimony to our committee, because, as I mentioned before, we were only given one day to hear from witnesses on this very important matter.

Again, the Liberals rushed the process. It was the result of the Liberals' mismanagement of the parliamentary agenda and a consequence of the fact that the Liberals left this bill to the very last minute for deliberations.

Like so many other crucial stakeholders, the IRC is opposed to the unilateral power to ban oil and gas development in the Arctic offshore, which the bill gives to the Governor in Council.

It is hardly surprising that the IRC is against the arbitrary power given to politicians here in Ottawa to determine the fate of energy development in the north. Bill C-88 says that the Governor in Council can ban oil and gas development projects when “it is in the national interests to do so”. However, does Bill C-88 tell us what the national interest is? Does Bill C-88 tell northern communities what the national interest is? No, of course not.

Like so many other Liberal anti-energy policies, questions of the national interests are only for the Liberals to decide and nobody else. The bill is simply a reinforcement of the arrogant mantra that the Liberals know best.

Given that the IRC was not given the opportunity to offer live testimony on this discussion on Bill C-88, I would like to read into the record some of the serious concerns the IRC highlighted in its written submission to our committee.

First of all, it bears noting that the IRC is an organization that was created way back in 1984 to manage the settlement that formed part of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, better known as the IFA. The Inuvialuit occupy the Inuvialuit Settlement Area, or the ISR, and beyond.

The IFA was the first comprehensive land claim agreement settled north of the 60th parallel and only the second settled in Canada's history.

Why was this land claim agreement so important for Inuvialuit people, and why did they initiate the negotiations with the Government of Canada? In the IRC's own words, the land claim negotiations “came in response to our limited influence in increasing development activity on our lands and the vast marine areas of the ISR.”

In the short term, then, the Inuvialuit secured a land claim agreement, in part, so that they could have greater influence over development activities on their own lands.

With this background in mind, the IRC has written about its serious reservations with regard to the power the bill would give to Ottawa to declare oil and gas moratoriums on IRC lands. In fact, the IRC already saw the Prime Minister declare a moratorium in a significant portion of their settlement region when the Liberals were first elected to power in 2016. In regard to this ban, the IRC wrote,

it is important to note that the imposition of the Moratorium by the Prime Minister was done without consultation with any Inuvialuit in contravention of the IFA and with the framework established and the promises made under the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement.

The Liberals simply seized the opportunity in 2016 to unilaterally implement a moratorium on oil and gas in the north while the Prime Minister, as I mentioned before, was not even in this country. He was in the United States of America looking for photo ops and free publicity. The Liberals did not consult at all with stakeholders before they took on this decision. What is worse, instead of apologizing to many of the northern communities that are suffering because of this moratorium, the Liberals are going full steam ahead with Bill C-88, as we see tonight, to ensure that they can unilaterally put bans on northern oil and gas development again and again.

Bill C-88 says that the Governor in Council can make these bans when it is in the national interest to do so. The IRC and Conservatives would like to know what the Liberals mean when they say “in the national interest”.

The IRC had the following to say on the issue of the national interest:

The national interest criterion is problematic as it elevates the national priorities of the day vis-à-vis Inuvialuit priorities within our traditional territory. It would be akin to an appropriation a constituent might experience in the south without any restitution from the government. Bill C-88 does not define national interest or incorporate an express requirement to consider how the national interest ought to be balanced against the ability of rights holders to provide for their economic future.

Despite these concerns from indigenous stakeholders in the north, the Liberals have demonstrated repeatedly, through their anti-energy policies, that they have no intention at all of ever balancing their vision of the national interest against the views of indigenous groups that do not share the Liberals' hostile attitude toward natural resource development.

Unfortunately, Bill C-88 is not the only bill the Liberals have pushed forward, to the detriment of the indigenous communities across this country. We have just heard from indigenous communities about the real concerns they have about Bill C-69, the Liberal environmental assessment act.

Stephen Buffalo, the president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council and a member of the Samson Cree Nation, said:

Indigenous communities are on the verge of a major economic breakthrough, one that finally allows Indigenous people to share in Canada's economic prosperity. Bill C-69 will stop this progress in its tracks.

Roy Fox, chief of the Kainai or Blood tribe first nation, said the following about Bill C-69:

...I and the majority of Treaty 7 chiefs strongly oppose the bill for its likely devastating impact on our ability to support our community members, as it would make it virtually impossible for my nation to fully benefit from the development of our energy resources.

Bill C-48, the northern B.C. oil tanker ban, is yet another Liberal anti-energy bill that the Liberals have rammed through this Parliament against the wishes of major indigenous stakeholders. Bill C-48 shuts the door to the Eagle Spirit pipeline proposal, an energy corridor that is supported by over 35 first nations and is an indigenous-led and indigenous-owned initiative. It is a $17-billion project that has the potential to provide economic opportunity to numerous indigenous communities. However, as with Bill C-88, this one tonight, Bill C-48 is another Liberal anti-energy bill that is both hurtful and patronizing to indigenous communities. Bill C-48 is another example of the Liberal government here in Ottawa telling indigenous communities that they cannot pursue their own natural resource development when it does not suit the interests of the Liberal agenda of the day.

Indigenous communities are tired of the paternalism that has been constantly demonstrated toward them by this anti-energy Liberal government. The chair and president of Eagle Spirit Energy, Calvin Helin, who is a member of the Lax Kw'alaams First Nation, had the following to say about the viewpoint of the 35 first nations that are in favour of the Eagle Spirit pipeline. He said that these first nations “do not like outsiders, particularly those they view as trust-fund babies, coming into the traditional territories they've governed and looked after for over 10,000 years and dictating government policy in their territory.”

However, the Liberals clearly do not think that these indigenous viewpoints are part of the current government's idea of a national interest, so they choose to ignore these voices. As a result of Liberal indifference to the concerns of these indigenous groups, in 2018 the chiefs council for the Eagle Spirit pipeline had to launch a GoFundMe campaign just to help pay legal costs in a court challenge to Bill C-48. The Eagle Spirit project noted the sad state of affairs by stating that this action is required to be taken by Canada's poorest people against a federal justice department with unlimited resources. Other indigenous groups have either filed lawsuits or are planning to do so pending the legislative fate of Bill C-48.

Sadly, the Liberals again did not listen to these indigenous voices then, and they are not listening to the indigenous voices in our northern communities today. It is glaringly clear that all the Liberals care about is the pursuit of their anti-energy policies at all costs. However, the cost is a very real human cost to the ability of northern communities to be in control of their own economic development opportunities.

The Liberals have promised time and time again to work with northerners. With only days left now in this Parliament, when will the Liberals finally live up to this promise?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Just like Jordan's principle and Bill C-92, it starts with children, correct?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm pleased to be appearing once more before the committee to discuss the main estimates of Indigenous Services Canada.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we're on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

I'm joined by Jean-François Tremblay, deputy minister; and Paul Thoppil, chief finances, results and delivery officer.

Now if my French didn't wake you up....

Also, I am also pleased to have Valerie Gideon here.

Before getting into my remarks, I would like to, first of all, thank members of the committee for their work over the last month studying Bill C-92 and the proposed amendments. The amendments accepted last week from all sides strengthened this bill. As many of you know, I was glad to see that it passed third reading last night unanimously. Thank you very much. Your hard work on this was really appreciated.

A vital component of our government's renewed relationship with indigenous peoples is our commitment to take action and dismantle the colonial structures of the past. Since the Prime Minister's announcement on August 28, 2017, my officials and Minister Bennett's officials have been working hard to establish the necessary structures and processes to make this transformation a reality.

In 2019-20, we look forward to dissolving Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and in its place creating Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada as one department and Indigenous Services Canada as another. This change will better enable the government to continue its work on a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. It better positions the government to build that relationship while closing the socio-economic gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous people and improving the quality of life for first nations, Inuit and Métis people. It finally responds to a very clear recommendation by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

Our focus at Indigenous Services Canada is working with partners to improve access to high-quality services for indigenous people. Our vision is to support and empower indigenous peoples to independently deliver services and address socio-economic conditions in their communities as they move forward on the path to self-determination.

As Minister of Indigenous Services, I am continuing the important work of improving the quality of services delivered to first nations, Inuit and Métis. This includes ensuring a consistent, high-quality and distinctions-based approach to the delivery of these services. A rigorous results and delivery approach is being adopted, focused on improving outcomes for indigenous people. Over time it is our goal that indigenous peoples will directly deliver programs and services to their peoples. We are working with partners to do this. I am working my way out of a job.

I would like to turn your attention to the reason that I am here today. I am now pleased to present to you my department's main estimates for 2019-20, which would total $12.3 billion if approved by Parliament. The 2019-20 main estimates reflect a net increase of about $2.9 billion, or 32%, compared to last year's main estimates. The net increase in budgetary spending primarily reflects the continuation of our investments in budgets 2016, 2017 and 2018 and in our most recent budget: all in all, investments totalling $21.3 billion to support stronger indigenous communities and to improve socio-economic outcomes.

Here are a few examples of where this year's increase will help.

There is $404.1 million in renewed funding for Jordan's principle: supporting children who need orthodontics, medical transportation, respite, land-based culture camps, medical supplies and equipment, educational assistance, mentorship, wheelchair ramps, vehicles, nutritional supplements.

There is an increase of $481.5 million for the first nations water and waste-water enhanced program, improving monitoring and testing of on-reserve community drinking water, and building on investments that have not only led to the lifting of 85 long-term drinking water advisories since 2015, but that also keep us on track to lift all LTDWAs by March 2021.

There will be an increase of $357.9 million related to non-insured health benefits for first nations people and Inuit.

There will be an increase of $324.8 million for infrastructure projects in indigenous communities.

There is an increase of $317 million for the first nations child and family services program, ensuring the actual costs of first nations child and family services agencies are covered fully, but also supporting initiatives to keep children and families together.

There is an increase of $300.2 million for first nations elementary and secondary education, supporting a renewed approach for K-to-12 education on reserve as co-developed by us and the Assembly of First Nations.

There is an increase of $113.6 million to build healthier first nations and Inuit communities, including our work to eliminate tuberculosis in Inuit Nunangat by 2030.

And there is an increase of $101.1 million to advance the new fiscal relationship with first nations under the Indian Act.

These investments continue to build on the work we have already done to foster a renewed relationship based on respect, co-operation and partnership. Together with indigenous partners, we are working hard to improve the quality of life for first nations, Inuit and Métis people. Through budget 2019, we are making investments in first nations and Inuit health, social development, education and infrastructure.

In addition to Jordan's principle and ensuring first nations children now receive the services they need when they need them, our investments in the child first initiative ensure that Inuit children have access to the essential government-funded health, social and educational products, services and supports that they need when they need them.

Budget 2019 proposes an investment of $220 million over five years to the Inuit-specific child first initiative, which will address the immediate needs of Inuit children. This investment would also support the ongoing work among the Government of Canada, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Inuit regions, and provinces and territories to develop a long-term Inuit-specific approach to better address the unique health, social and education needs of Inuit children.

There are also new investments to address urgent health and wellness needs to reduce suicide rates in Inuit communities. In order to deal with the ongoing suicide crisis in the Inuit communities, $5 million has been set aside to support the national Inuit suicide prevention strategy.

The government is also making unprecedented new investments in indigenous post-secondary education, including 2019's proposal for $327.5 million over five years to renew and expand funding for the post-secondary student support program while the government engages with first nations on the development of integrated regional education strategies.

There is $125.5 million over 10 years, and $21.8 million ongoing to support an Inuit-led post-secondary strategy, and $362 million over 10 years, and $40 million ongoing to support a Métis Nation strategy.

Starting this fiscal year, a new transfer to first nations communities, entitled “Grant to support the new fiscal relationship for First Nations under the lndian Act”, more commonly known as the 10-year grant, has been implemented.

More than 250 first nations expressed interest in the 10-year grant; 103 first nations were determined to be eligible based on criteria that we co-developed with first nations partners. They have received an offer, and I am happy to say that 83 first nations have now signed 10-year grant agreements.

The new grant, representing $1.5 billion, is funded through the existing programs of Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, which are primarily related to education, social development, infrastructure, and first nations and Inuit health programs.

To ensure that the 10-year grants grow with the needs of first nations, budget 2019 proposes that starting April 1, 2020, funding for core programs and services provided through the 10-year grants will be escalated to address key cost drivers, including inflation and population growth. The 10-year grant provides communities with the flexibility and predictability needed to support effective and independent long-term planning. This initiative is a key part for establishing a new fiscal relationship that moves towards sufficient, predictable and sustained funding for first nations communities.

Last, I think it's imperative for me to highlight the work of everyone involved in making progress on our commitment to end long-term drinking water advisories on public systems on reserve by March, 2021. Since 2015, a total of 85 long-term drinking water advisories have been lifted, and 126 short-term drinking water advisories were lifted before becoming long term. We are well on our way to meeting our commitment. This will be aided through the 2019-20 main estimates by an additional $66.7 million proposed by budget 2019, which has been dedicated to keeping us on track. I am extremely proud of this, as all Canadians should have access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water.

We have made, and are continuing to make, important changes in the government's relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis people. While there is still a lot of work to do, our government's historic investments are making a difference in closing the gaps that exist, and improving the quality of life for indigenous peoples.

I'd now be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

In our first budget, we maintained historic investments. In 2016, the government provided $2.6 billion over five years to respond to call to action 8, which calls for the elimination of the discrepancy in education funding for first nations children being educated on reserves and first nations children being educated off reserves. In 2017, the government invested $1.7 billion over 10 years to respond to call to action 12, which calls for the development of culturally appropriate early childhood education programs for indigenous families. In 2018, the government invested $1.4 billion over six years to respond to call to action 1 and help reduce the number of indigenous children in care in the child welfare system. There was also Bill C-92, which is very important.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Well, I would have to disagree with that, honourable member.

After the interim report, there was an off-cycle budget for $50 million that included the money for healing, the money for commemoration, the special unit in the RCMP and in policing. There are billions of dollars here in the estimates on housing, and all of the things that are truly moving forward. As I've said before, to me, as a family doctor and as a mother, the changes to child and family services, Bill C-92, are transformational. The fact that once again nations will have jurisdiction over their children and their youth and will no longer be vulnerable, preyed upon, to me, is transformational.

As well, the commission really made strong calls for justice on language. I think that Minister Rodriguez, in Bill C-91, has done important work there. Everything we have done is about changing the relationship, which was a colonized approach, one of paternalism, of disempowerment, to one of empowerment and a real respect for indigenous rights, and a relationship based on respect and partnership and co-operation.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

The interim report was really a compilation of all the previous reports, and so that was what we were able to respond to. I think, regarding the needed changes to child and family services that are reflected in Bill C-92, we need to be aggressive about those changes. We know that there's significant money being invested, unfortunately, in lawyers apprehending children and in agencies and non-indigenous foster families. It has to go to community to prevent that. That's where, I think, there needs to be significant work. I don't think I really understood that certain communities were doing much better because they just refused to abide by provincial laws and kept jurisdiction of their children.

I think the other issue is the ongoing racism and sexism in policing. We are calling on the Senate to pass Rona Ambrose's bill. We have to get that judicial education, and we have to do a much better job on that. I think the racism and sexism throughout all of our institutions is something that the commission has really underlined, how prevalent and sinister it is across our country.

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, Bill C-92, an act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, is deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to speak to this bill because I believe that the health and well-being of indigenous children is one of the most important issues before us as federally elected representatives. We are responsible for them and, sadly, we have made too many mistakes that affect them. As elected representatives, it is our duty to fix those mistakes. That is why this bill was crafted following court rulings stating that indigenous children were victims of a discriminatory funding system and identifying our obligation to remedy that. It took five court rulings for a bill to be introduced.

It would have been really nice if the committee had agreed to amendments to the bill, regardless of who proposed them. I believe that all the committee members sincerely wanted to improve the lives of indigenous children, but I think many more amendments would have been agreed to if the members truly wanted to set aside partisanship in order to improve the lives of these children, even though this parliamentary session is almost over. I am sad that the vast majority of the amendments put forward in committee were rejected.

I myself wanted the chance to speak to this bill at second reading, but I chose not to do so because I did not want to unduly delay adoption at second reading, so the bill could be sent to committee. Now I am fortunate to be the last member to speak to this bill before it goes to the Senate. I really wanted to emphasize the importance of making quite a few of these amendments because children's well-being is at stake. We do not want to have to start all over again. This I humbly submit to the senators who will study the bill and who may choose to revisit some of the amendments.

When I leave Ottawa to head home, I drive north for at least six hours. Each time, I pass through Kitigan Zibi, a reserve just outside of Maniwaki. As an aside, Parliament is located on their ancestral land. Every time I make this drive, sometimes twice a week, I see the photos of Maisy Odjick and Shannon Alexander, two teen girls who have gone missing since 2008 and have not been heard from since. Community members are still worried about them.

This is why I am particularly pleased to speak today. We must recognize that many indigenous children have had some very difficult experiences. For example, some children were placed with foster families who do not understand their traditions or language. A huge proportion of these children are placed in foster care every day, and, unfortunately, not all of them are lucky enough to live with people who understand their culture and their identity.

Many of these children are placed with foster families who do not understand their realities, while others still are raised by parents who did not have the chance to be raised by their own parents, who were forced to send their children to a residential school. This generation must now raise teenagers without having learned from their own parents.

I believe that members of indigenous communities deserve our admiration, because they are doing the best they can to pass on all aspects of their culture to their children, to show them who they are and where they come from, even though they themselves were unable to learn these things from their own parents.

As an MP, I have had the opportunity to visit a number of schools in indigenous communities and to see young people learning the Algonquin language, using charts with Algonquin words written on them. Young people are starting to learn the basics of Algonquin. When I was a young adult, I shared an apartment with a young Algonquin girl who had never had the opportunity to learn the language. She had a workbook that her mother had found for her. She was 18 or 19 years old and had never had the chance to learn the language.

This generation is trying to catch up. To do so, they need to be involved with child services on a daily basis. Indigenous peoples have a very different way of raising children. Over time, working as a nurse, I realized that everything related to pregnancy is very different for them. Too often, we tend to judge based on our own perspectives.

In indigenous communities, it is not unusual for teenagers or 18-year-old girls to already have two or three children. That often does not make any sense to us, and we think it must be a problem situation. However, when we talk to those girls, we realize that they do not have the same view as we do of getting pregnant at 15 or 16 years old. If we continue to judge these sorts of situations from our own perspective, unfortunately, it could result in child placement services being called in, even though the girls see the situation completely differently.

Children are placed in care when there is a concern for their safety and their development is at risk. However, we are somewhat responsible for some of those risks, because no new housing has been built on reserves in 30 years and we are failing to provide clean drinking water and schools that are not falling apart. All we have to offer these children is mould-infested schools.

When children have absolutely nowhere to play and community infrastructure is in a pitiful state, child development may well be compromised. How much of this is the parents' responsibility? At what point should there be consequences? In fact, most of that responsibility falls to the system the children are forced into. It is up to us as elected officials to change the system and give power back to the communities, so that they can invest, build housing and make sure that pregnant teens can continue their education while also looking after their children. It is up to us to make sure that schools full of mould quickly become a thing of the past.

I was lucky enough to see a beautiful school built in my riding, in Long Point First Nation. It has made such a difference. Kids used to have to go to a mould-infested school that was eventually shut down by the school board. Since the school was located in the next town, the kids had to take a bus. That building was in really bad shape. Teenagers went to school in their own community, but they had to take classes in the gymnasium, where there were no windows, because there was mould everywhere else. The young people were self-harming. It was a disaster. It took years for them to finally get their school.

The design of this school is quite unique. It is well lit, a lot of wood was used, and it is in the shape of a hive. The children are put in a circle so that they can see each other and communicate with one another. We can see on their faces that these children are doing better. The community knew that the children needed a nice school that they could be proud of in order to be happy.

Today I am calling on the House to pass Bill C-92, for it to be referred to the Senate, but also that we not forget that the indigenous communities need to be allocated a significant amount of funding to ensure that the children are happy. It is the responsibility of elected members to ensure that indigenous communities can benefit from funding to fully develop and that children can stop being exposed to discrimination.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and all members in this place for speeding up the passage of Bill C-92. I would have had a chance to make a speech tonight, and I stopped myself, because it is more important that we get this bill through.

I have some of the same misgivings as my friend. I put forward 28 amendments in clause by clause in an attempt to take up some of the recommendations of Dr. Cindy Blackstock and the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society, the Carrier Sekani Family Services and others who testified at committee, but it is important that we pass it.

I was present this morning for the very moving presentation of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Tina Fontaine's grandmother was there. I am sure that my friend from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo recalls that Perry Bellegarde, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said that she could feel that her granddaughter's spirit was with us. One of the key recommendations from the inquiry is that safe shelter for indigenous young people must be available 24 hours a day, because Tina sought help, and the doors were closed.

I know it is a 1,200-page report. We cannot have read all of it. I know I have not, but I hope everyone in this place, in Tina's memory, will commit at least that no first nation child, no child in this country, should go without protection, regardless of the time of night.

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

Mr. Speaker, because of that motion, I have to cut my speech down by 10 minutes and share my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, which I do with great pleasure. I will highlight some of what I originally intended to talk about.

Today is a particularly important day and I truly am glad we came to an agreement to move this forward.

Having been at the ceremony for the murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and knowing how much the child welfare system played a role in some very tragic outcomes for many of the people we have heard about today, to pass this child welfare legislation on to the Senate is absolutely significant and very appropriate. It also shows significant good will in the House.

We have always expressed concern about how late in the day we received the legislation. The Senate has only about two and a half weeks. However, on the House side, there is a recognition and good will to get the legislation passed.

When we think about the murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and the child welfare legislation, many cases come to people's minds. However, the tragedy of Tina Fontaine stands out in all our minds. Her body was found in the river on October 17, 2014, wrapped in a duvet. No one was ever convicted. The authorities had someone whom they questioned, but no one has ever been convicted.

Tina Fontaine represents so many things that have gone wrong, that have been wrong for too many years and that we all need to work together to address: colonialism, intergenerational trauma, the sixties scoop and the residential schools.

In honour of Tina's memory and the significance of the day, I want to share a few details from the report that was done on Tina Fontaine. This is a bit of the executive summary and some other parts of the report. It says:

Tina Fontaine might always be known for the tragic way in which she died, but it is her life that is an important story worth knowing. It was on August 17, 2014, when most people would learn her name, but Tina's story began long before that day. It began even before Tina was born on New Year's Day in 1999. To know Tina's story, to really understand how she came to symbolize a churning anger of a nation enraged, each of us can look as far back as the arrival of European settlers, and as close to home as the depth of our own involvement or indifference in the lives and experiences of indigenous youth.

It is a certain challenge to conduct a child death investigation. To gather files and evidence, to sort through boxes of information, to speak with an ever-growing list of people who knew the child, and then to create an accurate and thoughtful story about the life of that child. This is a process of honouring legacy and uncovering truths. To understand the complexities of any child and to truly understand their life within the broader context of a family...

It goes on to say:

Tina's story was her own, and yet, it mirrors the stories of many others. The losses she experienced, the fracturing of her family, the inability to access necessary support, the promises of services that were never delivered, these are the echoes of so many other children and their families. These barriers that are experienced much more often and pervasively by Indigenous families is the story of Tina and the one that we have the opportunity to change.

One of the things the report talks about is the areas on which we need to reflect:

What were Tina's needs and those of her family?

What interventions and supports were offered and when?

What is the family perspective on the services they received?

What needs to be improved?

What do the experts say needs to happen?

What do the Elders say we need to remember?

What do youth say they need to feel supported? And,

How can tragedies like Tina's death be prevented in the future?

This morning, the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls released its report, which is 1,200 pages with 231 recommendations. I do not think anyone has had the opportunity to really digest that report and the different recommendations. As I read through them, certainly there are some that jump out right away and make a lot of sense, around policing and our processes around protocols. Then there are other recommendations that one questions and wonders how they will work.

However, it is incumbent upon us all to have a look at that report, look at the recommendations and consider what we need to do. The recommendations are for all levels of government. It is federal, provincial and municipal, but also indigenous levels of government, as well as indigenous and non-indigenous communities. There is a role for everyone to play.

I will go back to the report:

While I know that the child and family services (CFS) system has long been blamed for Tina’s death, this is short-sighted and serves only to reinforce the existing structures and beliefs. In fact, Tina did not spend much time inside the CFS system.... While she was in care for a few short periods when she was very young, Tina had a family who were a significant protective force—especially her grandma and grandpa—who loved her and raised her from the time she was five years old....

It is a long story, but it is a very compelling and important one to read. Some relatives of Tina's decided that they had to do something, and I understand the Bear Clan evolved from the legacy of Tina. Her uncle was part of getting that initiative going. There are hundreds of people who volunteer and travel the streets, and they are really making a difference in that community. Out of a tragedy, there is a reflection, changes in the community and the inquiry.

In terms of Bill C-92, we had very interesting testimony from many leaders. The most compelling testimony was from the youth in care. There were three youth who came to us and shared their experiences. They talked about who they were, what they were and what the challenges were in terms of the system: how it either helped them or, in too many cases, let them down. We all owe them a great gratitude for their ability to come and share their stories so that when we looked at Bill C-92, we did not look at it as a lot of words on a piece of paper; we looked at it and reflected on their stories and how that legislation needed to change their stories.

One thing that is not in the legislation, and perhaps there needs to be better discussion about it sometime, is the whole issue of youth aging out of care. I do not know how many parents would send their children at 18 or 19 years of age out the door, wish them the best of luck and say that they have done what they needed to do. There was discussion that we would not do that to our own children. The province, the first nation community or the federal government is the parent of a child in care, and we need to think about how we can support them better. These days, someone who is 18 or 19 years old truly is not ready.

On that note, I give a big shout-out to Kamloops and the White Buffalo society. It has a home for youth aging out of care. They are bringing elders who need affordable housing into their structure, and they are going to have youth aging out of care. It is a really positive cultural experience.

My final shout-out is that Bill C-92 is a step. It is not a perfect step, and we have many other things we need to think about.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Winnipeg Centre for standing in this House and raising a point of privilege to ensure that when it came to indigenous languages, they would be able to be interpreted and heard in this House. When the government took action, he was the first member to stand and share a speech. I was pleased to be able to hear the interpretation and understand what he was saying. I commend the member for knowing the language of his roots and of his foundation.

When it comes to Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, this is legislation that I have had to give notice of time allocation on. When it came to this piece of legislation tonight, it is the first time that I will not have to move time allocation, because the opposition has finally realized it is the right thing to do.

I would like to hear directly from the member what this legislation means to him, and for his roots and for future generations, and why he is pleased that we are moving ahead.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.

I am pleased to rise today during third reading debate on Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

Let me first recognize that we are gathered on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Bill C-92 seeks to establish a framework for indigenous communities to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services. This is in keeping with the inherent right of self-government of indigenous peoples. The bill also sets out principles, applicable on a national level, for the provision of child and family services in relation to indigenous children and families. These principles intend to help ensure that indigenous children and their families will be treated with dignity and that their rights will be preserved.

To be specific, the bill before us provides clear affirmation of the inherent right of first nations, Inuit and the Métis to exercise jurisdiction in relation to child and family services. This would strengthen the mandate of indigenous governing bodies to administer prevention and protection programs and services for child and family services in a way that reflects their customs, practices and traditions. The bill would also empower them to enact laws in this area if they choose to do so.

One size does not fit all. Indigenous peoples would be free to assume partial or full jurisdiction over child and family services at their own pace. This would enable indigenous people to tailor the exercise of their jurisdiction to their needs.

I want to emphasize that this bill is not about imposing solutions; rather, it is about opening the door and beginning a new era in which indigenous peoples can pursue their own solutions for their children and families.

In fact, this proposed legislation has been co-developed with the first nation, Inuit and Métis peoples whose child and family services it will affect. We introduced it only after careful engagement. We held over 65 different meetings and heard from nearly 2,000 people from across the country. However, just as the bill was co-developed with first nations, Inuit and Métis, so will be its implementation, and we will continue to engage with indigenous partners, provinces and territories throughout the implementation, should the bill receive royal assent.

All too often, past decisions affecting children and families have been made without putting the best interests of the child first. This bill changes that and has the best interests of the child as its central objective. Bill C-92 establishes principles that help to identify factors to be considered in determining the best interests of the child. These principles would have to be observed by provincial and territorial courts as well as by providers of child and family services.

Nothing would preclude provinces and territories or the indigenous governing bodies from offering more protection than that which is set out here. This bill represents the floor, not the ceiling, of the provisions to protect the best interests of an indigenous child. The end result would be to have the cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage of the child given more priority in determining his or her best interests.

A number of amendments that strengthen the bill were adopted by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs during the clause-by-clause consideration. One of these amendments would ensure that when determining the best interests of an indigenous child, primary consideration would be given to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security, and well-being, as well as to preserving the child's connection to his or her family, community and culture.

Clause 10 was also amended to clarify that the best interests of the child are to be interpreted, to the extent it is possible, in a manner that is compatible with a provision of an indigenous law.

Another amendment deals with fiscal arrangements. It outlines the importance of fiscal arrangements to help ensure that the indigenous governing bodies can provide services that are sustainable, needs-based and consistent with the principle of substantive equality.

A third element was added to the bill, stating more clearly that it will align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which the government declared unqualified support in 2016. Taken overall, the bill before us seeks to ensure that indigenous child and family services are aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Bill C-92 is the product of broad engagement and the result of a codevelopment process with indigenous partners. It represents a historic opportunity to break from the past and protect indigenous children and their families for generations to come.

It was such a privilege to be on the committee that studied the bill and to hear the many witnesses who came before the committee to express their support for it. I feel the reason they expressed support for the bill is that, as mentioned earlier, it is a framework. It is a starting point for indigenous communities and peoples to take control of indigenous family and child services and put in place their own laws that they feel will benefit their communities, their families and, most importantly, their children.

As has been noted many times in debate, that is what this is all about. It is about children and their best interests. For too long, our country has not had the best interests of indigenous children in mind. I am so proud that Bill C-92 is going to change that and provide the opportunity for indigenous communities to enact their own laws that will be in the best interests of their communities and in the best interests of their children.

We heard from so many about the importance of the paramountcy of indigenous law over federal and provincial law. That is such an important component because it helps indigenous communities, once again, to have the certainty that they know what is best for their own children and what laws best reflect their communities, their culture and the best interests of their children.

I was very happy to see the collegial atmosphere that existed at committee with my NDP and Conservative colleagues and counterparts as we made sure that the bill moved through committee as quickly and efficiently as possible. One message rang true at committee. It was the overwhelming desire, from every person and witness who came to committee, to make the legislation a reality as quickly as possible so that indigenous communities can make the determination of what is in the best interests of their children.

I urge all hon. members to join me in supporting the bill to move it through the House as quickly as possible.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, I have seven first nations, and one of them is Cowessess First Nation. Chief Cadmus Delorme was here last week. Cowessess First Nation has done tremendous work. They have built windmills that are producing megawatts to the SaskPower system. They have put in big solar panels as well.

In the past week, they have brought forward a youth transition home for 10 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 to allow these 10 girls to come back to the first nation to live and be cared for.

I am wondering if the member can tell us how she sees that Bill C-92 will be a benefit.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is so important. There was discussion about the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. The bill they proposed presents an entirely different world view. Bill C-92 is going to allow a lot more leeway for that world view to shine forth. The bill from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs talks about ceremony. It is about the interconnected, holistic nature of the indigenous philosophy, which perhaps we will not find in federal legislation but which is extremely important in how indigenous peoples seriously view the world.

I hope, as the bill moves to its final stages through the Senate, that when the Governor General gives royal assent to the bill, ceremony plays an important role. I know that the bill that was developed by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs was developed in ceremony, through prayer and through the use of the pipe, with a great amount of spirituality and the use of the drums.

This might sound strange in this place with respect to how we deal with legislation here, but it was extremely important to the people of Manitoba and the people who developed that bill and the way they wanted to move forward. I hope the government will be able to find an additional accommodation at the royal assent stage to know that this bill is imbued with the spirit of all Canadians in coming together in the belief that our children really do matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak to Bill C-92, which deals with the important issue, especially to my riding of North Island—Powell River, of indigenous children in care.

I want to take a moment to thank all the local indigenous communities and organizations that represent first nations, Inuit and Métis groups and communities in my riding for the hard work they do every day for the children they represent.

In indigenous communities, children are sacred. I think of some of the communities I represent. I think of the elder, Elsie Paul. She talked to me about how children were seen as a gift from the Creator, that they were given to the community to raise and when that child was taken, what that meant to the community.

I think about Alberta Billy, elder in another indigenous community that I represent. He talked to me about the impact of colonization and residential schools on the community. He told me to imagine my community right now. He said remove every child from the age of four to 16 from the community and see how the community would react and respond. I think of those elders who have watched their communities struggle through the challenges of colonization, residential school, the sixties scoop and many more and how hard that has been on them.

We also need to look at the numbers, and I have some of them today.

One hundred and twelve years ago Dr. Bryce, a medical health officer, linked federal health funding inequities to preventable deaths of first nations children.

Seventy-three years ago child welfare experts called for increasing family support to reduce the number of first nations children in state care. This speaks to something important and something we still have not done, which is prevention and support for those communities.

Thirty-eight years ago experts called on then INAC to resolve jurisdictional disputes resulting in service denials to first nations children.

Twelve years ago the Assembly of First Nations and Caring Society filed the human rights case against Canada.

Two Auditor General reports confirmed child welfare funding inequity since 2008.

There are 165,000-plus first nations children affected by Canada's discriminatory services.

Twenty-five million is the approximate number of nights that first nations children spent in foster care since 2007.

These numbers are startling and they tell us a story about which all of us should be concerned.

Since 2016, seven Human Rights Tribunal orders have required in Canada to cease its discrimination. How many of these Canadian Human Rights Tribunal orders has Canada fully complied with? Zero.

Whenever we stand in this place and speak about indigenous children, we must always remember and acknowledge Jordan River Anderson, a Cree child from Norway House Cree Nation. He died in Manitoba in 2005 at the age of five after the Manitoba and federal governments spent years fighting over who would pay for his home care. This speaks to the very core of this issue. It is about valuing indigenous children and the communities that love them. This young boy died as a result of discussions between two levels of government on who would fork over the money.

Nobody wants to know that this is the truth of how their children will treated, so I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that precious, sacred child, a gift from the Creator who should have been supported and looked after by the whole community, which also includes the country of Canada, and the family that worked so hard to support him and had to meet that terrible end. We cannot forget.

Today, there are three times as many indigenous children in government care as during the peak of the time of residential schools. The conditions and outcomes for kids in care today are often tragic and many experts say that the modern fallout of the child and family services program will now be called “the millennium scoop”. That is devastating. It shows that the history of the country is repeating itself, and this is unacceptable.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the many indigenous artists out there who have spoken, be it through art, poetry or music. We cannot begin to recognize what this has done to the indigenous culture of the Métis, the first nations and Inuit people across the country.

I would like to take this opportunity to share some quotes from members of the Haisla Nation.

One is, “I can't remember my name.”

Another is:

500 years my people have been humble

500 years we have dealt with the struggle

500 more years for all of my youngins

For 500 years we have been drumming and drumming.

We are in this important place, where important decisions are made that will have long-term impacts on people. It is too bad the government waited so long to introduce the bill. Now we are rushing it through.

That is hard for me. I take this really seriously. I have spoken about this in the House and in committee, in my role as vice-chair, about being a foster parent on a reserve, about the hard work we did in the community to try to keep the children at home, connected to their culture. I think of my husband who has taken foster children, young men, out to the river when their voices are changing. We want to keep them connected to the tradition that when they have that change of age, they do the hard work, go out and get the support of the community to do the sacred baths.

Here we are rushing and trying to get it done. Indigenous children need action. However, in the rushing process, I am a little afraid that we will not get it right. We will get it done, but we will not get it right. Indigenous children deserve much better.

Earlier I mentioned the two Auditor General's reports on the failure of the Canadian governments on first nations children in care. In 2008, the Auditor General report found that since 1990, when the child and family service program was created, INAC had given money “to First Nations, their child welfare agencies, and provinces to cover the operating costs of child welfare services on reserves and the costs related to children brought into care.”

The Auditor General also concluded that as of 2008:

The funding INAC provides...is not based on the actual cost of delivering those services. It is based on a funding formula that the Department applies nationwide. The formula dates from 1988. It has not been changed to reflect variations in legislation and in child welfare services from province to province, or the actual number of children in care.

This really speaks to a systemic issue. It speaks to the reality that indigenous children have been left behind and not valued. Not only have they been left behind, but the value and the preventative support that families and communities desperately need are not a priority.

This country knows its history. We know the colonial history. We know the devaluation of indigenous members of the country. We know the history of trying to destroy, in multiple ways, those communities. If we break it, we have to pay for it.

One of the things that concerns me greatly about the legislation is that the principles for funding are not in it. There is a small mention about funding, but it is nothing that will be strong enough. This is framework legislation. It is supposed to create something that is strong enough to hold that legislation indigenous communities bring forward. If the resources are not there, this will be another failure. Another Auditor General's report will tells us that this still has not been addressed.

In 2011, again, the Auditor General reported that:

Despite the federal government’s many efforts to implement our recommendations and improve its First Nations programs, we have seen a lack of progress in improving the lives and well-being of people living on reserves. Services available on reserves are often not comparable to those provided off reserves by provinces and municipalities. Conditions on reserves have remained poor. Change is needed if First Nations are to experience more meaningful outcomes from the services they receive.

Years have gone by. We are now sitting in a Parliament after a Human Rights Tribunal decision was made in 2016. The government of the day received seven non-compliance orders. We are here tonight talking about this legislation. I am concerned, because the proof is in the action, and I do not see that action. What I am most concerned about is the resources required to deal with this systemic issue, to realize that the racism and discrimination is built right into the system. To pull that out takes a lot of work and a lot of resources. If we want to make a difference for indigenous communities, if we want to honour first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, we have to see those resources finally there.

The Human Rights Tribunal in Canada concluded that the then INAC's delivery of services and funding of services was inferior to comparable provincial services and discriminatory on the basis of race. It ordered the government to make up the funding gap and implement Jordan's Principle. As of June 2017, the government has spent $707,000 fighting against this decision, and that is really sad.

When we look at Bill C-92, it is like history is repeating itself. I will support the legislation. I will trust that indigenous communities across the country will do their hard work.

I want to recognize as well that indigenous communities, like the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, have been very clear that they do not support the legislation. I have asked the committee to recognize that and ensure that indigenous communities have the right to opt out, but that they still would get the resources they desperately need to make a difference. However, that is still not addressed in the legislation and it needs to be. It is time for substantive change. It is good to speak about it, but it is important that we act on it as well.

The bill would set national standards, but it has numerous question marks and gaps that are outstanding, including accountability, jurisdiction, data collection and reporting and, most critical, funding. The bill leaves funding to negotiations between Canada, indigenous groups and the provinces, meaning it could vary widely.

As the member for North Island—Powell River, I represent small indigenous communities. Often they are very remote and have a lot of challenges they specifically face. I do not know if the legislation before us will do it, but I will watch and continue to propose solutions. Those small communities have very big challenges and the capacity can be very hard for them to gather. We want to ensure those communities have a voice at the table. We want to ensure they have a process they can move forward with and have faith in. However, there is some concern that those resources will not be there.

A lot of people came to committee and talked about a lot of issues. The vast majority of the witnesses expressed concern. They wanted to see funding principles in the legislation. We were not successful in getting that amendment passed. Therefore, we will all be watching this very closely.

The government was given an opportunity to support funding provisions with which nearly every witness at committee agreed. What we saw were half measures. I am concerned about that and I will be watching for this. We will be talking to communities and ensuring they see the progress that the government has assured us will happen. We need to see that progress. Enough is enough.

These children deserve the right to be children. When they do not have the resources or the home they desperately need, their right to be a child is taken away.

Ms. Natasha Reimer, the founder of Foster Up, spoke to the committee. She said:

Yes. I think funding is a key component. Without adequate funding, services and resources, we are failing these children and youth in care. We leave them unsupported, and unable to thrive and reach their full potential. I think it's crucial that we have legislation ensuring that there is funding allocated for this and that these resources are given the utmost that we could possibly give, because these are children's lives we're talking about. They deserve an opportunity. They are kids, at the end of the day.

I think it is sad how many children in this country have a history of not being allowed to be children. We heard some of that testimony from children who had spent great portions of their childhood in care, and they talked about the challenges. They talked about how hard it was to go home, how they did not know who they were, how hard it was to figure out who to connect with and when to connect with them. We had witnesses who were from multiple nations who did not know which one to go to or who to go to first, or how.

When we look at the system, we can see how broken it is. We heard it from those witnesses who came and talked about their addiction issues. One person gave testimony about the challenges he faced and how hard he had to work to become a parent because he did not know how to be one. I think it is important that we in this place recognize that this falls on our shoulders, because decisions were made here. This decision has to be made and has to be made respectfully, because those children deserve it.

Naiomi Metallic from the Yellowhead Institute stated:

This [funding] is intertwined with jurisdiction because, really, if there is no funding and accountability built into this act, what this bill will do is merely provide indigenous people with the jurisdiction to legislate over their own poverty.

Another issue that came up was the number of children who are taken away from their community because the community does not have the resources, the basic necessities, to provide for their children, which should never happen. That does not mean we should leave children in substandard housing; it means this place has to take responsibility and look at how it can become an ally. This is still an issue. We still do not know where the indigenous plan is for housing. I think that is devastating in this day and age.

Another thing that really concerned me was the best interests of the child. That has been defined by court systems across Canada, both provincially and federally. In the community I married into, the Homalco First Nation, when I had my children with my husband, I was told the relationship between the parent and the child is deemed completely sacred and that nothing should ever interfere with that loving relationship. In that community, the historic practice was that aunties and uncles were in charge of disciplining the child, because they did not want that to interfere, ever, with the parents' ability to love that kid up. There are ways that certain things are done, and making sure that this is recognized is important.

I want to thank the national chief from the Assembly of First Nations, who stated:

...the best interests of the child sections should be amended to clarify that first nations governing bodies that pass laws prescribing the factors for determining the best interests of the children will add to the factors in the bill, creating recognition and support for our ways of caring for our children and families. This is important, because for some of our people we do not remove a child. We remove the person harming the child and keep the family intact. We believe that this is in the best interests of the child. Our laws must be affirmed and our practices supported to preserve family unity.

Therefore, we must understand in this place that indigenous communities do it differently. Quite frankly, I think we have a lot to learn from that. What concerns me is that this legislation is not clear enough to make sure that the definition is defined in those communities. It has been defined already in the court systems in this country, which could be a serious concern. I do not think that was addressed as clearly as it could be.

I know my time is ending, so I want to take this opportunity to recognize the first peoples of this place—the indigenous communities, the first nations, the Inuit and Métis—and say that it is with great sorrow that we are here today debating this. This should not be what is happening. The history of Canada is a shameful one.

As my granny said, we have to make it right, so I will support this bill and I look forward to continuing to work hard in the future to make it right.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that we are bringing Bill C-92 to the House tonight after what we experienced this morning with the report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. It was a tough day in Gatineau as we heard the stories from the commission.

The issues are intertwined. I talked to a lady who, 27 years later, is still dealing with this. How we deal with child welfare going forward in this country, with 37 million of us today, is so important. It is so important to get this right, and we all want to see it go correctly. It is in the best interests of the child, and that is what we are here to deal with.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, love is the big word in the best interests of the child. It is not in the best interests of the child to remove that child from one area of the country to another area. We have seen it with residential schools and the sixties scoop.

I recently saw the movie, The Grizzlies. It talked about the Inuit situation up north, where people have no hope, no love. It is a fabulous documentary, which was released in this country about five weeks ago. It talks about suicide. It talks about hope and love. When we reach out to communities, it is surprising what we get. I hope Bill C-92 addresses that, because we have seen in the past that we have failed. I hope the indigenous, Inuit and Métis take the ball and run with this, as they know what is best for their communities.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital has been a great contributor to the indigenous affairs committee.

Recently, maybe 10 days ago, I spoke at the FSIN spring assembly in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan. There are 74 bands there, and not all of them agree with Bill C-92.

As I have talked about, consultation with Manitoba was not done, and the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario both have issues with the bill. However, I guess one cannot get everything right, and we have to move forward.

We heard some great testimony from the Peter Ballantyne Child and Family Services when they came to committee. It was all about children. We want to make things better for everyone's family situation. I talked about this in my passionate speech. It is most important that these kids stay connected to their communities for good.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure tonight to speak to Bill C-92.

Before I get into it, I would like to say a few comments about this morning when I attended, along with our shadow minister, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report release.

I think we all agree in the House that it is a national tragedy. I was reminded of that this morning when I struck up a conversation with the woman seated next to me. I did not know her, but when we sat down, I noticed that she was holding a 5” x 7” picture of a young girl. I was inquisitive and asked her if she would share her story with me.

The woman was an auntie from Six Nations, and she immediately filled me in on the story. The picture she was holding was of 14-year-old Patricia “Trish” Carpenter from Alderville First Nation. It was 27 years ago, in 1992, when Ms. Carpenter's body was found at a construction site by Yonge Street in Toronto face down. Going further, I found out that Trish Carpenter was a mother of a two-month-old baby boy. The coroner's investigation said that she died of asphyxiation. An inquest later concluded that Trish's death was indeed suspicious.

The national inquiry report stated that indigenous persons, especially first nations, Inuit and Métis women, are overrepresented as victims of this violence. The tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women is one that the Liberal government has failed to adequately address over its three and half years in office. As with that important issue, the Liberals have left the introduction of this important bill, the indigenous child welfare legislation, to the very last minute, which brings me to the topic tonight of Bill C-92.

I started talking about missing and murdered indigenous women and girls because it is directly related to the legislation before us. Many of the victims were part of the failed welfare system, maybe even the woman I was talking to this morning during the release of the report. However, Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, is a bill that would bring forth important national principles applicable to the provision of child and family services in relation to indigenous children. These principles in relation to the administration of child and family services with respect to indigenous children are in the best interest of the child, would have cultural continuity and certainly substantive equality in this country. These principles are very important. They are pieces of our country's long road towards reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

However, as important as these principles in the bill are, I should point out that the current Liberal government has introduced the bill at such a late stage in the parliamentary agenda that Parliament will barely have any time to study it at any length at all. We have seen that in committee. It was all crammed, and we had a couple of weeks at the very most to talk about this crucial bill.

We want to make sure that the principles described in the bill are actually reflected in practice, but that task is made more difficult when important bills such as this one, Bill C-92, are tabled so late in the parliamentary calendar with no excuse at all.

The history of the Canadian government's treatment of indigenous child welfare, we all know, is dark and tragic. Through the use of its residential schools, the Canadian government separated generation after generation of indigenous children from their families, their communities, their culture and their way of life. During the sixties scoop, countless numbers of indigenous children were taken away from their families of birth and placed into non-indigenous homes, where they were simply cut off from their cultural background and their ties to their communities. I know several people in Saskatchewan that this happened to. These are just some of the tragedies that have been inflicted on indigenous children in this country.

As Canada moves forward on a path toward reconciliation, it must do so in a way that represents and respects the rights of indigenous peoples and respects their unique cultural heritage. We support the principles that this bill seeks out in relation to the administration of child and family services with respect to indigenous children. As my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo has pointed out many times in this House, in moving forward with the principles of this bill, we are not denying the hard work of social workers, nor are we not acknowledging the families that have adopted children in the past; we are simply pressing on to do better when it comes to this very important issue.

However, in committee, the Minister of Indigenous Services referred to child welfare workers as being participants in “abduction”. Yes, he said that in committee. This kind of language is both inflammatory and very unhelpful. It divides us rather than bringing us together. In this respect, the minister owes the social welfare agencies, including those run by first nations, an apology. Insulting and inflammatory language has no place in any discussions of this important principle that we are putting forth here tonight.

The first of the principles laid out in this bill is the best interest of the child. That is first and foremost. This principle dictates that among other factors, an indigenous child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage must be considered in the context of decision-making by child and family services. This principle is crucially important, as child and family services around this country are moving toward a focus on preventive care in order to keep indigenous children in their communities where they can maintain their valuable cultural ties.

According to Indigenous Services Canada, 52.2% of children aged 14 and under who are living under foster care in private homes are indigenous. This statistic shows that indigenous children are extremely overrepresented in child and family services systems across Canada, especially considering that indigenous children make up only 7.7% of the general population of children 14 years of age and under in this country. It is clear that more work needs to be done so that indigenous children can stay in their communities and build everlasting relationships with the members of their community. This bill highlights the need for the administration of child and family services to have a focus on preventive care so that fewer indigenous children end up in foster homes and away from their culture and their community.

Our former Conservative government also recognized the need to focus on preventive care when it came to the provision of child and family services for indigenous children. Among the different concrete steps that we took to develop a prevention-based orientation was the creation of the enhanced prevention-focused approach, better known as EPFA. The start of it was in 2007. This was a reform of the funding model that had been formerly used by the first nations child and family services program.

It took effect immediately in Alberta. Then a year later Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia adopted it. It was subsequently adopted in Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba.

Funding was specifically redirected towards a prevention-based approach in order to keep indigenous children in their communities and to support the self-sufficiency of these communities in a culturally appropriate manner.

The prevention-oriented focus that was put in place by our former Conservative government refocused child welfare services to a family-centred practice with children-centred outcomes. This approach delivered real and positive results towards turning back the trend of increasingly larger numbers of indigenous children being placed in foster care in this country.

During the length of our former Conservative government, the percentage of first nations children on reserve placed in foster care decreased from 89.67% in the first year, which was 2006-2007, to 76.08% in the year 2014-2015. I think we could all agree we would like it to be zero, but this was a major reduction of over 13%, according to stats gathered by the first nations child and family services program. Over that same time period, the percentages of first nations children placed in kinship care increased from no recorded amount to 17.83% in 2014-2015.

Our former Conservative government also increased first nations child and family services national expenditures by about 50%. These results represent concrete progress achieved by our former Conservative government towards improving child and family services for indigenous children, both in quality of service and, maybe most importantly, the prevention-based outcomes.

Another key aspect of this bill is that it would affirm the rights and jurisdiction of indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services. It would allow indigenous governing bodies to pass their own laws, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in relation to child and family services, and these laws would have the same force as the federal law. On this issue, however, there are still some outstanding questions that need to be answered.

One such question regards situations in which more than one indigenous governing body claims jurisdiction over a particular child. Today there are many indigenous children who identify as being part of multiple indigenous backgrounds. It is not hard to imagine a child who may have a first nations father and a Métis mother, or vice versa. In these kinds of situations, it is conceivable that two different indigenous governing bodies may each claim full jurisdiction over the provision of child and family services in relation to that child.

While the bill addresses jurisdictional disputes between a province and an indigenous governing body, it does not properly address jurisdictional disputes that may arise between indigenous governing bodies that both have equally strong ties and connections to the indigenous child in question.

This jurisdictional question is one of the concerns that was directly raised in committee while we were studying Bill C-92. One of the committee's witnesses was Raven McCallum, a well-spoken young person who is a youth adviser on the British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development Youth Advisory Council. She is of British and Haida descent on her mother's side, and of Métis descent on her father's side. In her testimony, while talking about Bill C-92, she stated:

I do not see any reference about how to approach situations when a child belongs to more than one nation.

She goes on to say:

I think it's something that is important to acknowledge. We need to know all aspects of our identity.

Time and time again, we heard in committee that indigenous identity is complex and multi-layered. However, this bill still has not adequately addressed these complexities as they relate to jurisdictional issues in the provision of child and family services for indigenous children.

We also want to make sure that this bill would not negatively impact the existing self-government agreements that exist between indigenous governing bodies and the provincial and federal levels of government in relation to child and family services. These kinds of agreements include the three which were recently concluded this past March in my province of Saskatchewan between the provincial government and the Saskatoon Tribal Council.

One of these agreements was a delegation agreement which re-established the Saskatoon Tribal Council's child and family services agency, which will provide services to the on-reserve communities covered by this governing body. Another agreement is the reconciliation partnership agreement, which strives to ensure that indigenous children maintain connections to their culture and communities. These sorts of agreements further the important principle of cultural continuity, which recognizes that one of the crucial interests of indigenous children is to live and grow within their unique cultural and linguistic communities.

As Saskatoon Tribal Council Chief Mark Arcand noted about the agreements in committee, “all of this work is about prevention”. In committee, he stressed the importance of the work once again, stating, “Our opinion is we have to build partnerships and relationships, as we've done with the federal and provincial governments. To us, it's meaningful because it's building bridges. We have to work together.”

As we move forward in our consideration of Bill C-92, we need to study how this bill will impact agreement such as these, in order to be sure we are upholding the principles which are stated within the bill itself.

Delegation agreements, such as those made between the Province of Saskatchewan and the Saskatoon Tribal Council are incredibly important. They are about returning the jurisdiction of care for the indigenous child to the indigenous communities themselves, so that these children are no longer cut off and separated from their culture and heritage.

Cultural continuity is one of the key principles of this bill. It is clear from the testimony of many witnesses that agreements made between the provinces and indigenous governing bodies often play a large role toward ensuring that child and family services are provided in a way that ensures indigenous children maintain strong relationships to their culture and community.

Another issue that arose in committee was the discovery that some major stakeholders who would be immediately impacted by this legislation were not consulted. When Grand Chief Arlen Dumas of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs came to testify at our committee, he said that his governing body was not consulted at all. The AMC had already crafted its own legislation with respect to child and family services, which was uniquely tailored to the experiences of that governing body's work in the province of Manitoba.

Given that all the groundwork had already been laid, the grand chief told us that Bill C-92 was thrust upon the AMC. He said, “It was quite a surprise when Bill C-92 was presented to us. It was almost [like] a slap in the face, because we had invested so much of our time in bringing forward a solution that everybody could build upon.”

How could the Liberal government introduce a bill that brings such dramatic changes to indigenous child welfare without consulting one of the largest indigenous governing bodies in a province with one of the highest numbers of indigenous children in foster care?

I am running out of time. In general, we support the principles laid out in this bill, and we want this bill to progress. However, the Liberals have put this piece of legislation at the back of their list of priorities. As a result, the Liberal government has left us with hardly any time to peel back the onion and have a great conversation about this bill.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today has been a powerful and emotional day for indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians alike. With the release of the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, we took another step in identifying the unacceptable gaps that exist between first nations, Inuit and Métis people and the rest of Canada.

Our government is working to end the ongoing national tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. The commissioners of the national inquiry did important work, and now it is up to us as the federal government and up to us individually as Canadians to develop a national action plan and to implement those recommendations in partnership with first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

The bill before us addresses an important part of the work we need to do to advance reconciliation, and that is to address gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, thereby improving the quality of life for indigenous peoples right across the country.

Protecting and promoting the well-being of indigenous children and families should be the top priority of the federal government and all governments across the country. That has obviously not always been the case. Members of the House are aware of the pain and suffering that continue to be inflicted on indigenous children and families in this country.

Separating indigenous children from their families is not just something that happened in the past. This is something that occurs every day, to this very day. In fact, it is a worsening problem. More indigenous children are in care now than at the height of the operation of residential schools.

In terms of hard numbers, more than 52% of children in foster care in Canada are indigenous, yet they represent less than 8% of the population. Studies show that the average indigenous child in foster care may live with anywhere between three and 13 different families before turning 19 years old. This is unacceptable and it has to stop.

I think we can all agree that the current system needs to change. As parliamentarians, we must act. We believe in a system where indigenous peoples are in charge of their own child and family services, something we recognize should have been the case all along. Indigenous families are currently bound by rules and systems that are not their own and do not reflect their cultures, their identities, their traditions, their communities or their ways. No wonder they have not worked. This bill sets out to change that.

First and foremost, Bill C-92 sets out principles that would apply across the country to guide the provision of child and family services involving indigenous children and families. These principles are informed by extensive engagement with indigenous people all over the country. The principles in the bill, which are the best interests of the child, substantive equality and cultural continuity, are aligned with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

If no agreement is reached within 12 months, but reasonable efforts were made to do so, the indigenous law would also have force of law as federal law. In other words, should a government not act in good faith after 12 months of negotiations of a coordination agreement, indigenous child and family services law would have precedence as a federal law. To be clear, as a federal statute, the indigenous law would stand on its own; it would not be subject to the whims of a federal or provincial government. It would be equal to, not lesser than.

To promote a smooth transition and implementation of Bill C-92, Canada will explore the creation of distinctions-based transition governance structures. The co-developed governance structures would identify tools and processes to increase the capacity of communities as they assume responsibility of child and family services. During this phase, we would continue our work with first nations, Inuit and Métis partners, as well as with the provinces and territories, to set out the details about how to support communities to exercise their jurisdiction. The bill also provides a clear affirmation of the inherent right of first nations, Inuit and Métis to exercise their own jurisdiction in relation to child and family services.

Pursuant to Bill C-92, if an indigenous group or community wishes to exercise its authority in relation to child and family services and have its own laws take precedence over federal, provincial or territorial laws, the Minister of Indigenous Services and the provincial or territorial government shall enter into trilateral discussions to develop a coordination agreement.

If a coordination agreement is reached within 12 months following the request, the laws of the indigenous group or community would have force of law as federal law and would prevail over federal, provincial and territorial child and family services laws.

Gone are the days of top-down colonial solutions. It is contrary to the spirit of reconciliation, goes against the principle of codevelopment that has guided this proposed legislation, and they just do not work.

This legislation is an accumulation of intensive engagement, including nearly 2,000 participants across 65 sessions, from elders, youth, women, grandmothers, aunties and from those with lived experience in a broken child and family services system. We heard what needed to be included in the bill to make successful the exercise of jurisdiction that is already an inherent right of first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

What we heard included values and cultural practices, lived experience and academic research, as well as recommendations of a reference group that was comprised of representatives from national indigenous organizations.

First nations, Inuit and Métis people have asked time and again for codeveloped legislation, from resolutions passed by the Assembly of First Nations in May and December 2018, to hearing that Inuit leadership wanted a distinctions-based approach, and that the Métis wanted jurisdiction over child and family services to be recognized through legislation.

Since the emergency meeting convened by my predecessor in January 2018, there have been extensive meetings and consultations across the country in an effort to get this right.

Even in weeks preceding the introduction of this legislation, we were incorporating the suggestions of indigenous groups, provincial and territorial partners. Those suggestions made the bill that I was fortunate enough to inherit much stronger.

We did not stop there. There are no closed doors to our indigenous partners or to the provinces and the territories. This legislation and the children it aims to protect are only served if we collaborate and ensure their best interests.

Many came forward and offered suggestions on how to improve the bill, and I am pleased to support the changes made by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. These amendments reflect what was heard from a number of witnesses, especially around funding, around balancing physical and cultural security in the best interest of an indigenous child and around ensuring implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples as a purpose of the bill.

With regard to funding, we cannot presume that the funding models that have supported the current broken system will be what indigenous groups want to use while exercising their jurisdiction. Those models and levels should be discussed and designed through the coordination agreement process to ensure they reflect the unique needs of each community and are not a one-size-fits-all approach.

We pledge to work with partners to identify long-term needs and funding gaps. The amendment supported at committee guarantees that funding will be sustainable, needs-based and consistent with the principle of substantive equality, so that long-term, positive results for indigenous children, families and communities are secured.

Both the House committee and the aboriginal peoples committee in the other place heard that there needed to be a better balance between the physical well-being of a child and the preservation of cultural identity, language and connection to the community. We completely agree, and we fully support the amendment that will see primary consideration given to a child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being, as well as to the importance of that child having an ongoing relationship with his or her family, indigenous group or community.

In committee, members of the official opposition and the NDP also presented important amendments to strengthen the bill. I thank them for their efforts. Bill C-92 establishes a legislative framework and will ensure that solid guiding principles are in place to protect the needs of indigenous children and families for generations to come.

Now is the time to follow through on our promises to indigenous children, families and communities. Our promise is that the same old broken system that needlessly separates so many children from their families, that removes them from their culture, that cuts them off from their land and their language, not be allowed to continue and that we affirm and recognize that indigenous families know what is best for indigenous children.

Ours is a historic opportunity to make a real, meaningful change to address centuries of harm and improve the lives of first nations, Inuit and Métis people. I hope everyone will join me in supporting this bill.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, this afternoon, we will resume debate at report stage of Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. Tomorrow, we will start report stage of Bill C-97, budget implementation act, 2019, No. 1.

Currently, the intention is to have Monday, June 3 and Friday, June 7 as allotted days.

Next week, priority shall be given to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act; Bill C-93, concerning cannabis pardons; Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; Bill C-88, concerning the Mackenzie Valley; and government business no. 29, the national climate emergency.

We will also give priority to bills coming back from the Senate.

Finally, I would like to mention that following Private Members' Business on Tuesday and Wednesday evening next week, we will have three hours set aside for speeches by members not seeking re-election in the next election.

These are our current intentions, but as we know, things can always change.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

The first is the 19th report in relation to Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. The committee has studied the bill and has decided report the bill back to the House with amendments.

With the introduction of Bill C-92, we mark a historic turning point for first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families. Bill C-92 would finally put in law what indigenous peoples across the country have been asking of governments for decades: that their inherent jurisdiction be affirmed so they can decide what is best for their children, their families and their communities. The amendments that we accepted at committee yesterday would strengthen the bill further. We will continue to listen to our partners on this important legislation.

The second is the 20th report in relation to Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening. I am always proud to speak on behalf of my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, whom I am proud to represent.

I would like to tell my colleagues who are here this evening that I am proud to represent Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and also Deux-Montagnes, Saint-Eustache, Boisbriand and Rosemère. We have been dealing with flooding again this year, but we are working hard for our fellow citizens.

Today I am debating Motion No. 30, which is very important. This motion is about how the House will operate from now until we adjourn for the summer. This is important because it will allow us to make progress on files that are important to Canadians, including the people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. These issues are the reason Canadians elected us.

Motion No. 30 will enable the House to act on the excellent work our committees have already done. I want to emphasize that this work is not carried out solely by committee members from this side of the House. This work is carried out by all parties and all individuals on committees so that proposed legislation can come back to the House and be voted on before we rise for the summer. This is very important.

There has been a lot of talk during today's debate about how the government's legislative measures have reflected only what the government wanted to do. My participation in committee activities and the work I have been able to accomplish there have taught me that, most of the time, committee members work well together. They collaborate, they set partisanship aside to some degree and, more often than not, they are able to compromise. At least, that was the case in the committees I belonged to.

I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade for two and a half years. We always agreed with members from across the aisle on free trade agreements, whether with Europe or Asia or NAFTA 2.0, on which we worked very hard. There is only one party we never agree with when it comes to such deals.

I was also a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for two and a half years. It is a non-partisan committee whose goal is to ensure that official language minority communities are properly represented. I can assure the House that there was no partisanship. In my new role as deputy whip, I am now a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where there is a little more partisanship. Let us speak plainly.

If we do not adopt this motion, if we do not extend the sitting hours of the House, we will end up in a situation where all the work we have done will basically be lost before the fall election. That is why it is so important that we adopt Motion No. 30.

I want to highlight some of the important work done by the committees. I want to point out that during the 2015 election, the Liberal Party, of which I am a proud member, promised to strengthen parliamentary committees. We promised to have more respect for the fundamental role that parliamentarians play on committees in order to hold the government to account.

That commitment, included in the mandate letter of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, means that parliamentary committees are freer and better equipped to study legislation. Among the many changes that were made, committee chairs are now freely elected by the committee members. They are not appointed by the government. Voting is now done by secret ballot to allow members to vote freely for their selection for chair.

Now parliamentary secretaries also sit on committees, but as non-voting members. They can contribute to the discussions if necessary. They are present, enabling them to stay abreast of the committee's work. Since they do not have the right to vote, no one can accuse cabinet of interfering in the work of the committees. The standing orders that made these changes official were passed in June 2017. I believe, and I think most members would agree, that committees can now act more openly, more transparently and more freely.

I would like to briefly go over some of the major bills currently before Parliament that might not be voted on and passed by the end of the session if this motion is not adopted.

I will start with Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. This bill sets out the legislative framework and the principles needed to guide work among first nations, Inuit and Métis nations, provincial and territorial partners, and the Government of Canada to achieve truly meaningful reform in child and family services.

The purpose of this bill is twofold. First, it affirms the rights and jurisdiction of indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services. Second, it 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.

Bill C-92 is a milestone piece of legislation that would have significant impacts on the lives of indigenous youth, their families and their communities. It is an important step in advancing meaningful reconciliation and in implementing the vital recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The second example that I would like to give is, in my opinion, the most important bill for Canadians, and that is Bill C-97, budget implementation act, 2019, no. 1. This bill will affect Canadians across the country. It seeks to respond to Canadians' most pressing needs. For example, buying a house or condo is probably the most important investment most Canadians will make in their lifetimes. However, many Canadians are not able to enter the market. That is why, through budget 2019 and with Bill C-97, the government will build on Canada's national housing strategy and take action to improve the affordability of housing, especially for first-time homebuyers.

Our government also wants to make sure that Canada's seniors have more money in their pockets when they retire. That is why, with Bill C-97, the government is proposing to enhance the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption by providing a full or partial exemption on up to $15,000 and extending it to self-employment income.

This proposal was very well received by seniors in my riding. We have a labour shortage and we have seniors with incredible expertise. If seniors are able to work one day a week because of this measure, so much the better. Our society as a whole will reap the benefits. These seniors will pass on their knowledge to everyone around them and will have the opportunity to work if they so desire. It is a way for them to meet people, network and maintain friendships.

This is a very important measure for me. It will put more money in the pockets of eligible seniors who work. I want to reiterate that this measure was very well received by seniors in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Another measure concerns electric vehicles. We want to electrify transportation. The $5,000 federal subsidy has made a huge difference in my riding. The Quebec government already gives an $8,000 subsidy, and when you add the $5,000 from the federal government, it is incredible. That will considerably reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

All of that can be found in Bill C-97. It is absolutely crucial that we pass Motion No. 30 today so we have enough time to pass all this fantastic legislation. It is worth reiterating that this budget implementation bill is entirely consistent with the current government's agenda, which differs significantly from the previous government's agenda. We are steering Canada in a direction that will truly reduce inequality. We always talk about the middle class, but we have created one million jobs and have lifted 300,000 children out of poverty, not to mention the adults. We are the ones who have reduced inequality. We have the strongest economy, and the unemployment rate is at its lowest in over 40 years.

The previous government had very little interest in this important societal objective, namely reducing inequality in this country. On the contrary, during the Harper decade, inequality in Canada actually increased. The two examples of bills to be implemented, and also of budget items, will help us go even further.

These are two bills among others that we would like to pass before adjourning. For all these reasons, it is truly important that we pass the motion now to let us sit longer and ensure that we complete the work entrusted to us by Canadians.

I would also like to take a few minutes to speak about the amendments to the motion that were moved yesterday. I know that there has been a lot of discussion about the amount of time spent on government business compared to that spent on opposition motions and days. This is not about who gets what; the goal is to ensure that we can place more items on the agenda. That is why it is important to ensure that we sit longer into the evenings so we can do more.

The items I am talking about are the ones that all members from all parties in the House collaborated on in committee. This is why I personally cannot support the amendment. I do not think the amendment is particularly positive, because it does not address what we need to do, which is to examine more bills. Instead, it would proportionally increase the time available to each political party, which unfortunately reflects the partisan nature of this debate.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

As I stated earlier, C-92 is co-developed with partners and so will its implementation. If the bill is adopted, the discussions will take place with indigenous partners, provinces and territories to determine if there is a need for such an advisory committee and to determine what its role should be. These discussions will take place when the distinctions-based transition governance structures are established to provide recommendations on the implementation of this bill.

We will not be supporting this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 31)

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

The term “apprehension” is still generally used throughout Canada in child and family service matters. To avoid creating any uncertainty that could result from adopting new terminology, it would be recommended that the term “apprehension” be used within Bill C-92.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

In paragraph 9(3)(e), when addressing the principle of substantive equality, the bill does state that:

a jurisdictional dispute must not result in a gap in the child and family services that are provided in relation to Indigenous children.

In paragraph 11(d), it is stipulated that:

Child and family services provided in relation to an Indigenous child are to be provided in a manner that...

(d) promotes substantive equality between the child and other children.

Sorry, this is a substantive amendment, and that's why it's taking me a little while to get through it all.

While some indigenous partners have indicated the need for the inclusion of such reference within the bill, some others have requested that Jordan's principle not be referred to. In the context of Bill C-92, Jordan's principle does not apply to Inuit and Métis. Also, substantive equality is a legal principle guaranteed constitutionally by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and by human rights legislation such as the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It is a fact and context specific that requires flexibility instead of a set of statutory definitions. What substantive equality requires will depend on many different circumstances and therefore should not be defined in this bill.

The bill addresses substantive equality in clauses 9 and 11, as has already been stated. Like I said, it goes on quite a bit, but I think that's enough to justify our position that we won't be supporting this amendment.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak to the government motion that would, among other things, extend the hours we would be sitting in this place until we have completed this Parliament on June 21. It would also take away a lot of the tools we have as the opposition to hold the government to account.

As we listened to some of the answers by the government House leader, it is no surprise that in the dying days of the scandal ridden, promise breaking, tax raising and very severely ethically challenged disaster of a Liberal government, we are seeing Liberals use disrespectful, draconian and bully-like mannerisms to get their agenda accomplished.

It was quite interesting and telling when the government House leader was answering questions and referring to a couple of things. First of all, when I asked her about our opposition day and whether she was going to make those days short, she stood and said to my colleague, the House leader for the NDP, as well as to me, that somehow our behaviour earlier in this Parliament was the reason she was going to punish us with shorter days.

That speaks volumes, and not in a positive way, to the utter lack of respect the Liberals, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the government House leader, have for the work we do in the opposition. We are not doing anything on this side of the House outside of the rules. We are using the rules, mechanisms and the tools we have to hold the government to account. What is the answer from the government to that? It is going to punish the opposition because it can. It is going to punish the opposition by giving us a very short day and not extend our hours of opposition. That answer was very indicative of the attitude of the Liberal government and the Liberal Party in general to this House of Commons and Parliament.

Secondly, when the government House leader was giving answers about debate, she talked about members of Parliament repeating themselves or speaking about partisan issues. She felt that that was when she should tell her members not to speak quite as long and that they should shut down their comments. Are we now in a new day and age when the Liberal House leader will tell duly elected members of Parliament that they should not use all of their time, and that she is going to shut down the opposition as well because she thinks that what we are saying is not relevant and that we are repeating ourselves?

When the Prime Minister appointed the House leader to her position three years ago, a lot of us had concerns because she was a very newly elected MP. She had not been in the House as a backbencher or sat on committees. She had been in her role for I think 70 days or so. She has really done a commendable job in that time with the hand she has been dealt. However, I do believe that with her comments that I mentioned, it is clear that is the message she is getting from the top. That is what she is hearing from the Prime Minister and the people at the top who direct her. She has been told by them to shut the backbenchers down. If members are talking too much on our side, she is to shut them down, as well as do whatever she can to shut down the opposition.

At the end of the day, the Liberals are in charge and are the bosses, so they are going to tell people what to think and members of Parliament what they can and cannot say. If they are talk too much or for too long, or the Liberals think their remarks are repetitive or partisan, because God forbid, Conservatives act like Conservatives and New Democrats act like NDP, they must be shut down. The Liberals are clearly partisan, but the Liberal belief is that if something does not align with what they think, then it must be dismissed and shut down. We have seen that on a number of occasions.

Sadly, the House leader's comments in the last few minutes regarding opposition days and that she is going to punish us, as well as telling her own members not to speak because it would be repetitive, are absolutely unbelievable and a very sad reflection of what we have seen over the last four years.

Now here we are. We have all returned from another May constituency week to another Liberal motion to extend our sitting hours. I have already acknowledged, and will say for the record, that our previous Conservative government did the same thing in 2013 and 2014.

In the last election year, 2015, however, we did not have to extend our sitting hours, because we managed the House in an efficient, respectful way. Stephen Harper's government had a well-managed parliamentary agenda. His House leader, my former colleague, the very well-respected Peter Van Loan, would often remind the House of the ambition to have a hard-working, orderly and productive Parliament. That is what Canadians enjoyed up until the 2015 election.

Since then, things have changed, and they have changed drastically. That change is where the seeds for today's motion were planted. In came a new Prime Minister in late 2015, heavy on charm and light on substance, as it would turn out. One government, ours, with a track record of delivering, was replaced by a government obsessed with something called “deliverology”. Do members remember those days? I think my colleagues opposite were also kind of interested in what deliverology meant and where it was going to take us.

Deliverology was like a lot of things from the government. There are a lot of buzzwords. No matter how many buzzwords the failed Liberal government has repeated, it has conjured up pretty well zero results.

Let us go through some of those buzzwords, because they really are interesting to reflect on. Let us look at what was presented to Canadians, what was advertised and what was actually delivered, which was not as advertised.

Let us begin with the buzzwords “hope” and “hard work”. I am afraid the Liberals put way too much emphasis on a lot of hope and very little emphasis on hard work.

There were some things they worked hard on. The Liberals worked very hard on mastering government by Instagram and Twitter. They worked hard on posturing and, unfortunately, on dividing Canadians. The Liberals worked hard on finding ways to run endless deficits, to the point where it would take decades for the budget to balance itself, as our Prime Minister said. The Liberals have also worked hard on virtue signalling. In fact, they have that one down to an art form.

What about actual hard work and actual accomplishments here in the House of Commons? So far in this Parliament, 48 government bills, other than routine appropriation bills approving spending, have received royal assent, with 17 more passed by the House. Some of these bills were simply matters initiated by us, the previous Conservative government, such as a number of the bills related to the border. Those were bills we initially brought forward.

There were also free trade agreements, such as with the European Union and the Trans Pacific Partnership, as well as bills on victims' rights in the military justice system. Obviously, we agreed with those bills. We basically brought the government to the one yard line, and it took it across the finish line. The Conservatives know that we did the heavy lifting, but we were in agreement with those bills. Those are among the bills the government passed.

These numbers are also in spite of the government regularly using time allocation and relying on omnibus bills, even though that flies in the face of all the sanctimony the Liberals have thrown our way. Let us remember that. Let us remember that during the 2015 election, the Conservatives were preached at by the then-Liberal candidate, soon to be the Prime Minister, about how Parliament was going to be respected. He was not going to use time allocation. The Liberals would not be using omnibus bills, and they would allow parliamentarians to have their say. Let us remember the sanctimony.

By comparison, when the 41st Parliament drew to a close, a total of 95 government bills, other than appropriation bills, had received royal assent. That was under the Conservative government.

The contrast gets no better for the Liberals when it comes to private members' bills. Since the 2105 election, 20 private members' bills have received royal assent. At the close of the previous Parliament, 41 private members' bills had become law. That is why the previous Conservative government was able to claim that it had posted the strongest legislative results in a generation. No matter how many midnight sittings the Liberals plan, they simply will not be able to match our record.

I think of all the time the Liberal government has wasted. I think back to a year and a half ago when the Liberal government tried to bring forward changes to the Standing Orders. Those changes would have given us a four-day work week, when the rest of Canadians work all week long. The Liberals wanted us to get Fridays off. The Liberals wanted to make changes so that the Prime Minister would not have to come and answer questions in this place.

The Liberals wanted to make a number of massive changes, and they fought tooth and nail for them. Thankfully, between the NDP and the Conservatives, we were able to put a halt to that. With the small tools we had that they had not tried to take away, we were able to stop that.

We have seen, again, the lack of hard work on matters of substance that needed to be completed in the House of Commons on the legislative agenda. It never really happened. That is one buzzword we heard.

Here is another buzzword we were all really interested in. That was “Canada is back”. Do members remember that one? Boy oh boy. That one has not turned out well at all.

Right now, under the present Prime Minister, Canada has probably fewer friends than ever. The Prime Minister has managed to tick off and offend just about every one of our major friends and allies. It has been shameful to watch. We know that we will have our work cut out for us when the Conservatives win government in October. We will once again restore respectful, principles-based foreign policy on the world stage so that countries around the world know that they can respect us. They will know that we are not just lecturing them. We will have a relationship with our trusted allies, and we will build on those relationships.

The Liberals first talked a big game on peacekeeping, then they stalled and dithered. Then, when the rubber had to hit the road, they put forward a token effort, limited in time and scale, yet quite dangerous and misaligned with Canada's national interests.

In the NAFTA talks, the Prime Minister capitulated and failed to get Canada a better deal. Instead of negotiating, the Liberals focused on opportunistic leaks, photo ops and sound bites.

The Liberal leader, in the presence of the Japanese Prime Minister, twice mistook him as a representative of China. Do members remember that? That was only a few weeks ago. I am still shocked by that.

Then there was the strident, knee-jerk virtual signalling tweet sparking a diplomatic standoff with Saudi Arabia, with ramifications in a range of areas, including front-line health care in Canada.

Speaking of social media, the Prime Minister's infamous “Welcome to Canada” tweet sparked a massive, unprecedented surge in illegal border crossings into Canada.

In foreign relations, we were told what wonderful doors would open in China for Canada with the arrival of the new Liberal government. Tell that today to canola farmers. Tell that to our pork farmers. Tell that to any number of Canadian businesses, large or small, trying to do business in China. Tell that to individual Canadians who have been harassed by the Chinese government, denied visas, detained and arrested on political grounds.

Of course, there was the Prime Minister's unforgettable trip to India. It was a seven-day trip with half a day of government meetings. Each outfit was more colourful than the last; each development was more embarrassing than the previous one. The Prime Minister spent tens of thousands of dollars flying in a celebrity chef to cook supper, a celebrity chef who happens to be on his hand-picked Senate selection panel.

However, that was hardly the worst. The Prime Minister invited a convicted attempted murderer to hobnob with him at two receptions, and when that was discovered, the fingers started pointing. Wow. Of all the things that happened in the Liberal government, when we look back at the India trip, it was probably one of the most embarrassing for Canadians, not only because of what their Prime Minister did in India but because of the aftermath and the blame that was levelled. It started with it being a backbencher's fault. The Prime Minister threw one of his own backbenchers under the bus. He does that quite often.

Then it was an Indian government plot, then maybe it was someone else. In the end, Daniel Jean announced his retirement. In no circumstance would the Prime Minister fess up and acknowledge that he had blown it and that his office had blown it with a bad decision and bad judgment.

God forbid that the Prime Minister would actually apologize for something he did. He will apologize for all kinds of things, but there have been so many opportunities, as we have seen in the last four years, when he has done things that are wrong, when he has done things that are unethical and when he has done things that are on the borderline of illegal. That remains to be seen. He has fired people. He has treated people disrespectfully. He has done things that have shocked and appalled us.

The India trip was one of those where the Prime Minister could have stood up and said, “I am sorry. I made a mistake. I have issues with bad judgment. I'm trying to learn from my mistakes. All of you are paying for it, but I am human. I err a lot." He should have said that, but no, he did not. Everyone else got the blame.

Saying “Canada is back” really has not panned out very well, has it? It certainly did not help the Liberals advance their agenda here in Parliament.

Let just try another one on for size. How about “Sunny ways, my friends. Sunny ways”? Do members remember that one?

To start with, I think this is one of the things that has disturbed Canadians across the board, even those who voted for the Prime Minister. There were a lot of people, obviously millions of Canadians, who voted for the Prime Minister, believing him, believing his promises, believing that he was a fresh face who was going to do things differently. One of the things that is so frustrating and disappointing is his lack of ability to really embrace diversity. People may wonder how I can say that, because the Prime Minister always says that diversity is our strength. Just like everything with the Prime Minister, he says one thing with his words, but his actions are completely different.

The Prime Minister has very little tolerance for diversity of thought and different opinions. He wants to embrace diversity when it is easy for him and when it might help him score some political points. However, if an individual dares to disagree with him, that is when his real character seems to be exposed.

One of those items became very clear when illegal border crossers started crossing into Canada. There were a lot of concerns. A lot of Canadians, including in my riding, have been doing a wonderful job helping refugees who are coming into this country who need solace, who need protection and who need to be able to be in a country where they can live, worship and raise their families. Canada is welcoming them. We have so many private sponsors and Canadians across the country who are helping them, but there have been concerns raised about people coming across the border illegally. However, the minute these concerns were expressed, the Prime Minister, Prime Minister “Sunny Ways”, began the reckless name-calling, calling people racist, or, as his minister said, “un-Canadian”. It is un-Canadian if someone dares to ask questions of the government.

We will remember the Canada summer jobs attestation, where if one disagreed with the government on matters of conscience, one would not be allowed to have government funding. So much for diversity, again.

We should have seen this from the very early days and early months of this Parliament, when the Prime Minister almost lost a vote, and certainly lost his temper. Everyone will remember, after his legislation to help his friends at Air Canada squeaked through on the Speaker casting a vote, the Liberals proceeded with the draconian and outrageous Motion No. 6. Does everyone remember Motion No. 6? I think we all remember Motion No. 6, an outrageous and scandalous power play to silence the opposition and sideline critics.

In the midst of the uproar over Motion No. 6, the Prime Minister, as everyone will recall, stormed across the floor of the House, jostled some MPs who were slowing down his day and fiercely elbowed one of my colleagues. It was clear then that this was a prime minister who would have his way when he wanted it. We understood those words just recently with respect to the SNC-Lavalin scandal and how the Prime Minister would ensure he would get his way. We saw this tactic coming, foreshadowed by Motion No. 6.

Then, a year later, the government House leader released the so-called discussion paper, which I alluded to earlier, about standing order changes. It was a naked power grab that her colleagues on the procedure and House affairs committee were keen to rush through.

I also remember the government noting that committees were free to do what they wanted to do. That has become the biggest punchline around this place. Committees are not free to do what they want to do. They are completely directed by the Prime Minister. We saw that at the procedure and House affairs committee regarding the Standing Orders.

This would have eliminated 20% of question periods, would have the Prime Minister show up once a week, would have silenced the opposition at committees and would have created a new time allocation on steroid procedure. Thanks to the efforts of the opposition, the Liberals would back down some six week later on the worst parts of their proposal. That did not represent a very sunny ways type of government.

With respect to name-calling, I want to mention something particularly disturbing. We heard the finance minister call our deputy leader a “neanderthal” because she dared challenge him on some of the policies he was bringing forward. Then the Prime Minister called her an “ambulance chaser”. I think that was during the time when we were asking why in the world Terri-Lynne McClintic was being moved to a healing lodge. At around that time, the Prime Minister called the Conservatives ambulance chasers.

Not only are the Liberals trying to shut us down in what we do in the House of Commons, but they are trying to shut down Canadians through this name-calling. We have been specifically called names by the Prime Minister, again, with no apologies at all. I think the former attorney general has also been victim to the same kind of thing. She has been accused of things, called names, maligned and has not been able to defend herself. She not only has not received an apology from the Prime Minister, but has not been able to defend herself.

This brings to mind somebody else who needs an apology from the Prime Minister. In all honesty, this man more than anybody deserves an apology from the Prime Minister, and it is Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

All of us on this side are used to these kinds of attacks from the Liberals and the Prime Minister, but not Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who has served his country with such distinction. Before any charges were even brought against him, the Prime Minister was already saying the issue would go before a court. It looked as if the Prime Minister and the PMO tried to bankrupt him. They accused him of things and put him and his family through such an emotional ordeal. I am sure it affected his family's physical health, financial, mental health and reputation. It is absolutely disgusting to see what the Prime Minister and his minions did to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

I do not like that the Conservatives were called neanderthals and ambulance chasers and that Canadians were called racists and un-Canadian, but above anyone, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman deserves an apology from the Prime Minister. All of us, including those on this side, need to remind the Prime Minister that before he writes up any more apologies to anybody else, for whatever reason he thinks might do him well politically, he needs to apologize to that man, this honourable Canadian. He needs to show the courage that he should have as a prime minister and apologize to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

The actions and this attitude reflected in the Liberals' relationship with Parliament have only served the paralyze the House, not facilitate the passage of an agenda. As I said, so much for sunny ways.

I have given a few examples of all these empty gestures and slogans, but I want to highlight a few of them.

The next one is, “better is always possible”. That was another one from the government. After watching how the Liberal government has approached the criminal justice system, I cannot help but think this. After the Liberals leave office, things will get better for Canadians on a lot of fronts. Better will definitely be possible.

For example, the Prime Minister sees the criminal justice system as a toy. We saw the Prime Minister weigh in and condemn a unanimous jury verdict that he did not like in Saskatchewan. However, that was just small potatoes, as we would learn later.

As I said, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman would be charged with the breach of trust. That was his interference in that case. The charge was not a surprise, of course. The Prime Minister had been musing for months, a year actually, that Mark Norman would end up before the courts. How could he have known that?

He had demanded an investigation into an embarrassing leak that some members in the Liberal cabinet were looking to do the bidding of well-connected friends. The RCMP had clear signals from the very top that something must be done. Therefore, once before the courts, the government denied the vice-admiral access to the material he needed to defend himself. He was not even allowed access to his own emails. Things kept getting worse and worse for the Liberals. Finally, a well-respected MP, the Prime Minister's former chief whip, announced he would testify against the government. Days later, the charges were withdrawn.

I refer back to that case because I want to link it to the SNC-Lavalin affair. Even though a lot has been said, again it very much shows the disrespect of the Prime Minister.

In short, the Prime Minister wanted yet another friendly corporation to enjoy the blessings of its well-groomed Liberal connections. Amendments to the Criminal Code, as members will recall, to let SNC-Lavalin off the hook from a trial for foreign corruption and a ban on government contracts were shoved into a mammoth omnibus budget bill, the very thing Liberals swore off, and whisked through Parliament last spring. However, the Liberals were stumped, even though they got this bill passed. The director of public prosecutions was simply not going to do what the Liberals expected her to do.

Therefore, the Prime Minister set all kinds of pressure from various angles upon the former attorney general to get her to overrule the Public Prosecution Service, but she was not going to do it. She said no to the Prime Minister. How dare she, but she did. She said no not only to the Prime Minister, she told the finance minister that he and his staff needed to back off. She told the Prime Minister, his chief of staff and the clerk of the Privy Council, as we all heard on that tape, to back off, that they were interfering.

However, let us remember that the Prime Minister is used to having his way all the time. Some people who feel they are entitled and have never had to go through a hardship in their life and have a lot of privilege are used to getting their way. Clearly, the Prime Minister is one of those. When the former attorney general stood up to him and stood by her respect for the rule of law in Canada, she stood up to political interference in the criminal justice system. For that, she got fired. Sadly, we have not been able to hear her full story because the Prime Minister has not waived that privilege, but we have seen enough that we can connect the dots. We can see that when she was fired as attorney general and moved to Veterans Affairs, that was the reason why.

Thankfully, courageously, all of this has been exposed. Although we still do not have the full truth of what the Prime Minister has done, again it has shown Canadians that the Prime Minister is not at all as advertised. So much for hope and hard work, so much for sunny ways, so much for diversity, so much for tolerance, all of that is a sham under the Prime Minister.

We do hope the Prime Minister will one day lift the gag order. If he will not, the next prime minister probably will, and I think there will be an opportunity for that to happen. Canadians will hear the truth at one point or another.

What happened? Both the former attorney general and the former president of the Treasury Board stood up to the Prime Minister. and not only did they get fired and resign from their positions, they got kicked out of the Liberal caucus in violation of the Reform Act, again in violation of the law. That is a day in the life of the Prime Minister.

How many laws did he break with respect to conflict of interest and ethics? Four. He is the first Prime Minister in the history of Canada to break those laws. Then he broke the rules and the law regarding the Reform Act.

That entire episode gripped this entire House and paralyzed the government. It was in chaos. I think it had 10 cabinet shuffles in three weeks. The government was in absolute chaos. While there were all kinds of issues going on across the country, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister could only focus on one thing. It lost the clerk of the Privy Council. The principal adviser, Mr. Butts, resigned. It lost a number of cabinet ministers. It was in absolute chaos and shambles. We were gripped with this in the House of Commons as well.

In fact, it is the continuing mismanagement by the government that has brought the need for it to propose government Motion No. 30, which we are debating right now. It is the mismanagement that comes from the very top.

The Prime Minister is so infatuated with his own image and so focused on being a celebrity that he overlooks the substance and hard work of leading a government. That is a very sad reflection of the government and where we are in the country today. This is a prime minister who does not understand that being a prime minister is not a ceremonial role, not something just for a celebrity, but the top job in the country. It is governing not only the people of the country but the budget, the economy and foreign affairs. All of these aspects of a country like Canada should be at the forefront in the mind of the Prime Minister. Instead, he is focused on his celebrity status and getting on the pages of Vanity Fair or Vogue. Perhaps it is GQ, People or TigerBeat, if it is still a magazine. Imagine Donny Osmond and the Prime Minister on the cover of TigerBeat. He is sadly overlooking the substance and hard work of leading a government.

I have been here for almost 11 years and it really has been quite a privilege. I started as a backbencher. Backbenchers are underrated. They do such tremendous work.

I was on a committee for a number of years and learned so much about how committees worked. I was then privileged to chair a committee. That also helped me understand the rules of this place. I chaired a committee during a minority parliament. Even more so, when chairing the committee, I had to ensure I was impartial and applied the rules equally to both sides, the government members as well as the opposition, which at that point was a smaller Liberal opposition, the NDP and the Bloc. It was such a privilege to learn and work with colleagues. Then I was privileged to be a parliamentary secretary. In 2013, a number of years later, I became a minister. I believe that experience really helped me become a good minister, and now the opposition House leader.

Many of us on both sides have worked our way up from being backbench MPs to maybe working on committees and into other offices.

As I watched, I was inspired by the example set by our former prime minister, Stephen Harper, an exact opposite of the current Prime Minister. Stephen Harper knew every file backward and forward. He was not concerned about celebrity status. He wanted to connect with Canadians to know what their concerns were and to govern in a responsible way. He was an example of tireless devotion and hard work on behalf of Canadians.

The current Prime Minister has not helped his case by building a PMO where everything is reportedly bottlenecked through just one or two staff. We are hearing a lot about that. Even current Liberal MPs are very concerned with what is going on in the PMO and how decisions are being made there. As the House leader just confirmed, she tells her backbenchers whether they should shorten or lengthen their speeches.

Another example, and I already mentioned that, is the government House leader's early appointment. As I said, the hon. member for Waterloo had been here 70-some days when she was appointed as the government House leader. I felt that it sent a message. This is with respect to the House leader. She and I work well together. We certainly disagree, and I am certainly not happy that she is giving us more short opposition days, but as I said earlier, I think she has done the best she could with the hand that was dealt to her.

When the Prime Minister appoints as a House leader an individual who has been here only for 75 days, it tells all of us that he really is not very serious about getting things done. Maybe he thinks her position is just a ceremonial role as well. We certainly have seen her have to carry a lot of very difficult answers and non-answers to questions for the government. She has been put in a position where unfortunately she has lost a lot of credibility. While the Prime Minister is sitting there silently or signing autographs, she is having to defend his trip to billionaire island. While he is sitting in question period staring off into space or thinking about things, she is the one who is standing and answering or not answering very difficult questions. It is sad because I feel that the Prime Minister set her up to fail, and it is very disappointing to see that he has done that.

I did give a longer speech about this point previously. It was a speech around the Prime Minister's so-called approach to feminism, which I find to be fake. It is a lot of signalling and not true respect for the equality of women, and for us as women in this place being able to be where we are based on merit, based on our ability and our strength, being able to speak truth to power, being able to stand in this place knowing that we got here absolutely on our merit. When the Prime Minister appoints people just because they are women and then does not even respect them and listen to them, as he did with the former attorney general, we have seen time and time again that his approach to feminism is a lot of words and no action.

I am going back to the power of the PMO. I imagine the House leader has had a lot of struggles with the PMO behind the scenes trying to line up a legislative agenda and trying to get departments to hustle and bring their long-overdue proposals to the cabinet table and convert them into bills, and trying to get her colleagues to meet what a coordinated plan requires of them. However, it sounds like she is basically just telling her colleagues what to do.

News flash for them, that is not the way it happens. In the previous government, not only did we pass many private members' bills, but we had more government MPs vote against the government's position. We had more free votes than any other government. It was really quite remarkable.

I would never betray caucus confidentiality, but I will say this. I think this is a departure for the Liberals and it might be a good thing for them to think about when they are the third party again or maybe opposition after the next election, which remains to be seen, but they may want to allow their caucus members to speak their minds freely and not have to set their agenda ahead of time or allow the Prime Minister and his minions to tell them if they can speak. It is wonderful in caucus to be able to stand and not get permission, but be able to speak to the leader freely. He or she listens, and sometimes decisions are changed.

That actually happened in our previous government, and it is wonderful to be able to speak freely in our caucus to each other and to our leader. That would be a nice thing. Maybe those who have served under previous leaders like Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin or Michael Ignatieff were able to speak freely, but it does not appear that they are able to do that with the current government.

It is the Prime Minister's way, or they are out. Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more members of Parliament who were Liberals and who, under various circumstances, were disrespected and did not feel welcome anymore in the Liberal caucus. That is very sad to see.

Let us get to the next mess that the Prime Minister has made, and that is in the Senate. It is quite something to see what is happening in the Senate. The Prime Minister has a leader of the government in the Senate whom he tries to disavow. The Prime Minister has, however, done an excellent job appointing ideological fellow travellers to the Senate, though he likes to call them “independent”. At the end of the day, though, when something comes to a vote, the Prime Minister has always been able to count on his so-called independent senators' votes. However, getting there has not always been very pretty. I have to say it is a bit entertaining to watch on this side.

The real litmus test for his so-called independent Senate will be whether it heeds Liberal political imperatives in an election year, follows the spirit of Motion No. 30 and passes all of the Prime Minister's bills in the way that he wants. I guess time will tell.

In the meantime, it means that we have seen a number of Senate amendments to current legislation. Of course, at the end of the day, the Senate has backed down to the government's opinion every single time. It is quite interesting. While there is something generally reassuring about an elected House, even under the thumb of a majority government carrying the day, it has nonetheless meant that the House spends an extra two days or more on every government bill that gets bounced back from the Senate.

It is also a reflection of the government's lack of consultation with Canadians over many of its pieces of legislation. Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and Bill C-71 are all bills where, had the government just taken a little time to listen to Canadians, had it admitted that maybe it made some mistakes and had it made those adjustments, it might not be seeing the problems it is seeing with the current legislation in the Senate. However, that is what the government is getting.

The Prime Minister's mismanagement of the Senate has directly contributed to the mismanagement of the House of Commons, hence the need for government Motion No. 30. Here is the present scene: a scandal-ridden, disastrous Liberal government flailing about in the dying days of this Parliament in a rush to just do something, to get something done, something other than making pot legal. That is about the only thing the government has done, and it has actually done that pretty poorly. The legalization of cannabis is really the only notable accomplishment of the government to date. Even with that, it turned out to be a disaster.

What does the government have left to do, which it is in such a hurry to achieve? The government has horribly failed in meeting any of its lofty commitments to indigenous peoples. Now it is in a panic to rush through Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, the indigenous languages and indigenous family services legislation, so that it can say, “Look, we have done something.”

There is, of course, yet another omnibus budget bill that it is ramming through the House at this moment. The government will no doubt want to see that piece of legislation and all of its provisions to implement another promise-breaking, deficit budget through Parliament. Rumours have also started to fly that the government will seek to implement, before the election, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement, the new NAFTA, where the Liberals capitulated to the American administration on replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement.

On the NAFTA negotiations, the Prime Minister wasted a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a better deal. However, Conservatives worked hard to get tariffs removed, and we recognize how important free trade with the United States is. We will be voting to ratify the deal in Parliament, but the Liberals cannot take this as a licence to abuse Parliament. We are already well into the 11th hour for this Parliament. I can confidently predict that the House will not be a happy place if the implementation legislation is brought forward at the very last minute and then we are called to rush through the bill with little or no scrutiny to make fundamental changes to the world's most important bilateral economic relationship.

Again, we need the government, at this very late hour, to show some responsibility and let Canadians know, let members know, what it is planning to do with this agreement and with the ratification.

Turning to other priorities the government will seek to advance this spring, we see other economic legislation that is really hurting our economy. The government is the proud owner of a $4.5-billion pipeline, which has not even started to be built. Government members are scrambling to shore up the support of environmental activists, whose votes they heavily courted in 2015 but clearly are losing. Today we are going to be seeing the welcoming of a new member of Parliament from the Green Party. I think when the Liberals talk about an emergency, that is an emergency they are very much seized with, the emergency of their losing their so-called environmentalist vote.

However, there is some legislation that is really problematic, such as Bill C-88, which is a bill that would restrict pipeline and resource development in Canada's north. Bill C-68 would make negative changes to fisheries laws, which would result in economic activity being hampered. Bill C-48, and it is quite interesting to see what is happening in the Senate with that one, is a symbolic gesture; well, it is more than a gesture, as this bill would ban tanker traffic from part of the B.C. coast, which is where many first nations are calling for greater pipeline development and economic opportunity. At the same time, there is no proposed tanker ban on the east coast, where Saudi Arabian and Venezuelan oil is coming to Canada.

Of course, there is Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, which would absolutely stop any energy infrastructure development in Canada. We have heard from experts, stakeholders, provinces and first nation groups that Bill C-69 is an absolute disaster for this country. We would not have any more pipelines built. They will be built in other countries. Canada will miss this window of opportunity. Again, the government does not seem to understand the consequences of its actions. However, I understand there have been many amendments by the Senate, up to 200 amendments, so it will be interesting to see if those are overturned by the Liberals, who are hoping to regain their environmentalist votes.

In Canada, majority government policies are usually assured of being put into place. Therefore, the shadow cast by these bills has, unfortunately, already done a huge amount of damage in our resource sector and in other parts of our country, putting a chill on investment and development long ahead of these bills becoming law.

Adding to that is the sad, sorry spectacle of the duelling climate emergency motions before the House this month, which is another interesting thing to watch. Before Victoria Day, the New Democrats put forward an opposition day motion declaring a climate emergency, and the Liberals defeated it. Lo and behold, the very next day, the Liberals brought forward their own climate emergency motion, which we debated for just a few hours. Then, the day after, they were on to something else, and the Prime Minister was flying somewhere in his jet. Can members imagine that there is a climate emergency and the Prime Minister gets on his jet and flies away? It is pretty unbelievable. I call that a high-carbon hypocrite.

Here we are this morning, back from our constituency break. Where is the emergency debate? I do not see it. The government's emergency is worrying about what is happening on its left flank, worrying about the senators and worrying about getting legislation through. However, this morning we have this debate, which is something different still. This afternoon, the Liberals are going to squeeze in another two or three hours on their climate emergency, hoping that some of their environmentalists are listening and they can fool them into thinking they care about the environment, when in fact the only plan the Liberals have for the environment is a tax plan. Who knows? The motion goes back into the parliamentary ether under the who-knows-when category.

I think this is just a political emergency. As I mentioned, the Green Party won a by-election on Vancouver Island, with the Liberal candidate running fourth, which is really quite something. I think the Liberals are very worried. They have to be worried about what is going on in B.C. The Prime Minister, as I said, scrambled and stuck something in the window to look like he was doing something. It is sort of fun to watch them do this.

I know what the Liberals are going to do. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change actually mentioned it on the weekend. Their approach, according to the minister, is that if they stand in the House and say it loud enough, as well as yell it in question period, Canadians will just believe it. Now we know why the Prime Minister and that minister stand and yell. It is sad to say, but they believe that if they say it loud enough and yell it enough times in this place that Canadians will believe it. That is horrible. It is cynical, disrespectful and shameful. I certainly hope that maybe at their next caucus meeting, some of those Liberals will have the courage to speak up to their boss, the Prime Minister, and maybe a few of their ministers, and tell them that it is about time they respect this place and respect Canadians.

Here we are debating government Motion No. 30, because the Liberals claim they are working hard to pass legislation. Then we will turn to a virtue signalling motion that will not change one law or do one thing. It is really interesting to see what the Liberal government is doing.

Let us go back to Motion No. 30. Those were my opening remarks, and now I am getting into the real substance of my speech. I appreciate the encouragement. Motion No. 30 before us today calls us to sit until midnight on four days a week, as well as for most votes to take place after question period. These are understandable. We were in government and understand it, but we did not have to do it in 2015. We were able to manage things so efficiently under Peter Van Loan and Stephen Harper that we did not extend into night sittings in the summer of 2015. However, for all the reasons I have pointed out, the Liberals had to.

Some of these measures can be understood by us, as Conservatives, as they are things we have asked the House to do. There is one addition to the motion that is truly a nice one, and I am going to compliment the government on it. There is a provision in this motion to have a couple of evenings that are dedicated to statements by retiring members from all sides. We will have the opportunity to set aside partisanship for a short period of time to hear the farewell speeches by our departing colleagues. That is something we do not always get to enjoy when we have one-off statements made in the midst of one political battle or another. I am really glad to see that provision. There are members on every side of the House who are retiring and not running again for various reasons. In the last Parliament, we set aside a couple of evenings for those members, who could invite their families, friends and staff members. It is a really good thing and I am grateful. I thank the government for putting that provision into this motion.

However, the motion is not perfect. This is where I am going to discuss the parts of the motion that we do not like and believe are a greedy approach on behalf of the Liberals. I have already talked about 2017 and 2018 when the government motion proposed reducing opposition days to opposition half days. We objected then, and we object again.

This year's motion is very aggressive in some other ways also. The rules normally require report stage votes and third reading debate to occur on separate days. Under government Motion No. 30, that waiting period would be eliminated. Again, this is another way that the government can rush through legislation.

With regard to the way that the previous motion on extended hours worked, there was a one-day delay between a vote on the previous question and a vote on the main motion. That would be eliminated under government Motion No. 30. In previous years, all dilatory motions were banned after 6:30 p.m., but now ministers would be allowed to propose them. The government wants us to sit late every night, yet wants to keep for itself the power to send us home early.

On the last opposition day in each supply period, we vote on the estimates. That is when we go through the government spending plan line by line and approve the items. Unfortunately for the current government, these have often fallen at times when the government was being particularly arrogant, like in March when the Liberals were insisting on preventing the members for Vancouver Granville and Markham—Stouffville from speaking. Therefore, we did have to hold the government's feet to the fire and we triggered marathon voting, which is one of the very few devices left for us to make our disagreements felt.

Now, government Motion No. 30 would create a backdoor procedural trick to group and apply these votes. That is in an effort to spare the Liberals from standing and voting for their spending proposals, and that is if a voting marathon even happens this spring. Again, this is one of the small tools we have to hold the government to account and draw attention to what the government is doing. The Liberals have taken that away as well. It is shameful. The takeaway from this is that while the Liberals are setting long hours, they want to make light work. Again, it is a lot of hope but very little hard work.

There is also one small curious difference between this motion and those from the previous years. Normally, when a concurrence debate is interrupted, the government has 10 sitting days to reschedule the conclusion of that debate. Under past motions for extended hours, whether Liberal or Conservative, that 10 days has been increased to 20 days to avoid further extending some House sittings from 2 a.m. to 3 a.m. Instead, the government motion proposes 31 sitting sitting days, not 20. It is an interesting little change, nuance, in this motion. Since there are only 20 scheduled sittings days left, that tells me one thing: The Liberal government now recognizes it has mismanaged its agenda so badly that it could be preparing for the House to have a summer sitting. I am wondering if all the Liberal members were aware of that little nugget. Again, it is going to be a matter of our watching this space to see what happens.

Finally, something that is not in the motion also has us concerned. That is the prospect of amendments to the Standing Orders getting rammed through this spring under the cover of midnight sittings. On one hand, there is a private member's motion, Motion No. 231, sponsored by the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard. It did not come through this morning, but many of us have had a chance to look at that private member's motion and have to wonder if it is not under the direction or the support of the Liberals. The Liberal government did—

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 21, 2019:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., except that it shall be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (e), when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday, provided that, if a recorded division on the previous question is deferred and the motion is subsequently adopted, the recorded division on the original question shall not be deferred;

(c) notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6) and paragraph (b) of this Order, no recorded division in relation to any government order requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 20, 2019, or at any time on Friday, June 21, 2019, shall be deferred;

(d) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) or Standing Order 67.1(2);

(e) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(g) a recorded division requested in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(h) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(i) when one or several deferred recorded divisions occur on a bill at report stage, a motion, “That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass”, may be made in the same sitting;

(j) no dilatory motion may be proposed after 6:30 p.m., except by a Minister of the Crown;

(k) notwithstanding Standing Orders 81(16)(b) and (c) and 81(18)(c), proceedings on any opposition motion shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. on the sitting day that is designated for that purpose, except on a Monday when they shall conclude at 6:30 p.m. or on a Friday when they shall conclude at 1:30 p.m.;

(l) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates, (i) all remaining motions to concur in the Votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the question deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested, (ii) the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker will be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage;

(m) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the 31st sitting day after the interruption; and

(n) Members not seeking re-election to the 43rd Parliament may be permitted to make statements, on Tuesday, June 4, and Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for Private Members’ Business for not more than three hours, and that, for the duration of the statements, (i) no member shall speak for longer than ten minutes and the speeches not be subject to a question and comment period, (ii) after three hours or when no Member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the House shall return to Government Orders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 30, which allows for the extension of the sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment.

I rise today to speak to Motion No. 30. This motion would allow for the extension of sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment. There is a clear and recent precedent for this extension of hours to give the House more time to do its important work. It occurred last year at this time and also the year before that. As well, in the previous Parliament, the hours of the House were extended in June 2014.

Four years ago, our government came forward with an ambitious mandate that promised real change. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our government has introduced legislation that has improved the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. However, we have more work to do.

So far in this Parliament, the House has passed 82 government bills, and 65 of those have received royal assent. The facts are clear. This Parliament has been productive. We have a strong record of accomplishment. It is a long list, so I will cite just a few of our accomplishments.

Bill C-2 made good on our promise to lower taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. There are nine million Canadians who have benefited from this middle-class tax cut. This tax cut has been good for Canadians and their families. It has been good for the economy and good for Canada, and its results have been better than advertised. On our side, we are proud of this legislation. We have always said that we were on the side of hard-working, middle-class Canadians, and this legislation is proof of exactly that.

As well, thanks to our budgetary legislation, low-income families with children are better off today. We introduced the biggest social policy innovation in more than a generation through the creation of the tax-free Canada child benefit. The CCB puts cash into the pockets of nine out of 10 families and has lifted nearly 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty.

Early in this Parliament, in response to the Supreme Court of Canada, we passed medical assistance in dying legislation, which carefully balanced the rights of those seeking medical assistance in dying while ensuring protection of the most vulnerable in our society.

Also of note, we repealed the previous government's law that allowed citizenship to be revoked from dual citizens. We also restored the rights of Canadians abroad to vote in Canadian elections.

We added gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Also, passing Bill C-65 has helped make workplaces in federally regulated industries and on Parliament Hill free from harassment and sexual violence.

We promised to give the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer the powers, resources and independence to properly do its job. We delivered on that commitment through legislation, and the PBO now rigorously examines the country's finances in an independent and non-partisan manner.

Through Bill C-45, we ended the failed approach to cannabis by legalizing it and strictly regulating and restricting access to cannabis, as part of our plan to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and profits out of the pockets of organized crime. Along with that, Bill C-46 has strengthened laws to deter and punish people who drive while impaired, both from alcohol and/or drugs.

These are just some examples of the work we have accomplished on behalf of Canadians.

We are now heading into the final weeks of this session of Parliament, and there is more work to do. Four years ago, Canadians sent us here with a responsibility to work hard on their behalf, to discuss important matters of public policy, to debate legislation and to vote on that legislation.

The motion to allow for the extension of sitting hours of the House is timely, and clearly it is necessary. We have an important legislative agenda before us, and we are determined to work hard to make even more progress.

Passage of this motion would give all members exactly what they often ask for: more time for debate. I know every member wants to deliver for their communities and this motion will help with exactly that. We have much to accomplish in the coming weeks and we have the opportunity to add time to get more done.

I would like to highlight a few of the bills that our government will seek to advance.

I will start with Bill C-97, which would implement budget 2017. This budget implementation act is about making sure that all Canadians feel the benefits of a growing economy. That means helping more Canadians find an affordable home, and get training so that they have the skills necessary to obtain good, well-paying jobs. It is also about making it easier for seniors to retire with confidence.

Another important bill is Bill C-92, which would affirm and recognize the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families. The bill would require all providers of indigenous child and family services to adhere to certain principles, namely the best interests of the child, family unity and cultural continuity. This co-drafted legislation would transfer the jurisdiction of child and family services delivery to indigenous communities. This is historic legislation that is long overdue.

We have another important opportunity for us as parliamentarians, which is to pass Bill C-93, the act that deals with pardons as they relate to simple possession of cannabis. As I mentioned, last year we upheld our commitment to legalize, strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis. It is time to give people who were convicted of simple possession a straightforward way to clear their names. We know it is mostly young people from the poorest of communities who have been targeted and hence are being left behind. This bill would create an expedited pardon process, with no application fee or waiting period, for people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. Canadians who have held criminal records in the past for simple possession of cannabis should be able to meaningfully participate in their communities, get good and stable jobs and become the contributing members of our society that they endeavour to be.

Meanwhile, there is another important bill before the House that we believe needs progress. Bill C-88 is an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. This legislation only impacts the Northwest Territories, and its territorial government is asking us to act. This legislation protects Canada's natural environment, respects the rights of indigenous people and supports a strong natural resources sector. This bill will move the country ahead with a process that promotes reconciliation with indigenous peoples and creates certainty for investments in the Mackenzie Valley and the Arctic.

Earlier this month, our government introduced Bill C-98, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act. This bill would create civilian oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency. It would provide citizens with an independent review body to address complaints about the CBSA, just as they now have complaint mechanisms in place for the RCMP. Let me remind members that it was our government that brought forward Bill C-22 that established the national security intelligence committee of parliamentarians, which has tabled its first annual report to Parliament. We are committed to ensuring that our country's border services are worthy of the trust of Canadians, and Bill C-98 is a significant step towards strengthening that accountability.

We have taken a new approach. We, as a government, have consulted with Canadians when it comes to our legislation. We have seen committees call witnesses and suggest amendments that often times improve legislation, and we, as a government, have accepted those changes. We were able to accomplish this work because we gave the committees more resources and we encouraged Liberal members to do their work.

Likewise, currently there are two bills that have returned to the House with amendments from the Senate. I look forward to members turning their attention to these bills as well. One of those bills is Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. Our goal is to make accessibility both a reality and a priority across federal jurisdictions so that all people, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, can participate and be included in society as contributing members. Bill C-81 would help us to reach that goal by taking a proactive approach to getting ahead of systemic discrimination. The purpose of this bill is to make Canada barrier free, starting in areas under federal jurisdiction. This bill, if passed by Parliament, will represent the most significant legislation for the rights of persons with disabilities in over 30 years, and for once it will focus on their abilities.

The other bill we have received from the Senate is Bill C-58, which would make the first significant reforms to the Access to Information Act since it was enacted in 1982. With this bill, our government is raising the bar on openness and transparency by revitalizing access to information. The bill would give more power to the Information Commissioner and would provide for proactive disclosure of information.

There are also a number of other bills before the Senate. We have respect for the upper chamber. It is becoming less partisan thanks to the changes our Prime Minister has made to the appointment process, and we respect the work that senators do in reviewing legislation as a complementary chamber.

Already the Senate has proposed amendments to many bills, and the House has in many instances agreed with many of those changes. As we look toward the final few weeks, it is wise to give the House greater flexibility, and that is exactly why supporting this motion makes sense. This extension motion will help to provide the House with the time it needs to consider these matters.

There are now just 20 days left in the parliamentary calendar before the summer adjournment, and I would like to thank all MPs and their teams for their contributions to the House over the past four years. Members in the House have advanced legislation that has had a greater impact for the betterment of Canadians. That is why over 800,000 Canadians are better off today than they were three years ago when we took office.

We saw that with the lowering of the small business tax rate to 9%, small businesses have been able to grow through innovation and trade. We see that Canadians have created over one million jobs, the majority of which are full-time, good-paying jobs that Canadians deserve. These are jobs that were created by Canadians for Canadians.

That is why I would also like to stress that while it is necessary for us to have honest and vibrant deliberations on the motion, Canadians are looking for us all to work collaboratively and constructively in their best interests. That is exactly why extending the hours will provide the opportunity for more members to be part of the debates that represent the voices of their constituents in this place, so that we continue to advance good legislation that benefits even more Canadians.

It has been great to do the work that we have been doing, but we look forward to doing even more.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you to both groups for participating on the video conference. We all appreciate it. This concludes our public hearings on BillC-92. We look forward to your briefs. If you're sending them in, we'll all have a chance to look at them.

Meegwetch.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Chief Judy Wilson]

Bill C-92 cannot create more division and cannot create more discrimination against our nations. I think there has to be recognition for those nations, whatever path they're choosing, because the whole overall intent of the legislation is to reunify children with their nations, their communities and their families and support those collective rights of the children and the families. The bill needs to aim to do that, not to further create any more divisions. I don't see why the bill cannot do that because all the nations, whichever path they're choosing, need to be recognized and affirmed as well as how they work with the federal government and provincial government. It needs to be resourced no matter what, because the children did not have that choice when they were removed from the home, whether they're going to be resourced or not or what's going to happen.

The bill needs to be able to look at the adequate healing, the adequate resourcing, the adequate reunification and reconnection of those children with their family, their nation and their community so that we can get on with the work of healing.

I think viewing the legislation such that it's going to be an answer for all of the nations is the wrong thing to do. I think it's about just looking at the legislation as a step forward for the nations that have their pathway set up, but also supporting the nations that do not want to have the legislation limit them in any way in the exercise of their treaty or their inherent title and rights.

[Chief Judy Wilson, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs]

Thank you.

[Witness spoke in Secwepemctsin]

[English]

I'm acknowledging and honouring the unceded lands and the peoples of the Algonquin territory, where these proceedings are taking place.

I'm from the Secwépemc Nation, one of the largest nations in the interior of British Columbia. I am a member of executive of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. We've been working towards the implementation, exercise and recognition of our inherent title and treaty rights. The union has been involved in advocacy work and efforts with the provincial government and the federal government to recognize and affirm our inherent jurisdiction over our children, for many decades.

It's important that the work of advancing the policy and legislation for our children is a priority of our B.C. first nations, and for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. I'm also a member of the First Nations Leadership Council in B.C. We're made up of the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the B.C. Assembly of First Nations. Our three organizations work together, and bring respective political mandates to build a strong collective and unified voice in British Columbia. One of those issues has always been the children and youth.

It started in 2002, with the Tsawwassen Accord—it will all be in our brief we submitted to you—and also in the leadership accord developed in 2005. We've been working toward these outcomes and changes for our children. Bill C-92 does offer practical and meaningful progress that aligns with our work here in B.C.

It is the utmost importance in critical timing this legislation is presenting. Even though we've done some provincial changes to the legislation out here, with respect to children and family, we find that we're still stuck in a lot of the old models. The only thing we were able to do was delegated agencies for many years. Really, the delegated agencies were supposed to be a transition to full jurisdiction for our nations.

We have been stuck in that process. We need to carry on with that work, into the affirmation and recognition of our inherent title rights, especially with our children. We have to change, because indigenous children across Canada are overrepresented in the system. The first contact with the settlers and colonial laws impacted our families, and broke down our families, through residential schools. It's documented in all the different commissions and hearings that have happened in Canada.

We need to make that change. Our families are fractured, and we need to bring them back together, for that meaningful change in the lives of the children—to be able to bring them home.

In our community, we recently brought 20 children home, but it was a lot of effort and fight to do that. We held an honouring and recognition for our children. Our nation also held one, about a month ago, in Vancouver, where many families were reunited with their children. That's only the start of the work. There needs to be a lot more work in bringing up our children, and truly connecting them with who they are, in their lands, their families and their communities. We have to have that meaningful change for our children and families.

One of the core purposes of this legislation must be to implement the United Nations declaration. It's truly a framework for reconciliation, and it was recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Yet, the provisions in the bill, under clause 8, do not reference the United Nations declaration as the context for the reconciliation in child welfare. It's only referenced in the preamble, but not in the critically important and substantive clause 8, on purpose and principles. That needs to change in this legislation.

I also emphasize this because the United Nations declaration reflects the minimum standards of the survival and dignity of our indigenous people. It sets out the minimum standards of human rights. It's an important provision that needs to be emphasized in the implementation of Bill C-92, once it becomes legislation. Article 22 focuses on the importance of respecting the rights of girls and women and ensuring they do not experience discrimination. For this reason, I urge you to consider an amendment to clause 8 of Bill C-92, adding paragraph (c), as follows, “To implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People as a progressive framework for the resolution of human rights issues impacting children, youth, and families.”

One of the other things I wanted to note is that this is a historic and transformational moment for Canada and for indigenous people across Canada. We cannot let this moment pass. If we went back in time to the residential school policy legislation changes, for example, had we made that change, how many families would not have had to go through that whole residential school experience? We're saying that with this child and family legislation, we have an opportunity to make these changes, stop the number of children going into care and reunify them with their community and their family.

There must be that meaningful change, because there are more children in care now through this child welfare system than at the height of the residential schools. It's continuing to grow. Former minister Philpott mentioned that this was a humanitarian crisis, which it very much is, so we can't sit by idly and let this go. We have to keep pressing forward on these changes that are to come. We've been doing it in the courts. We've been doing it in other avenues, but now we have the opportunity through legislation.

It's been about four years now since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released its final report urging Canada to deal with the residential schools and the child welfare system, and to support languages. We're on that threshold, and we need to be able to carry on with this work and not let another year pass by.

Bill C-92 provides a means by which we can begin to action some of these calls. I think the core...the families, the communities and our legal systems are really important. Since the time it was established, that colonial law, as I mentioned, severed that connection. It was meant to assimilate our people into the system, and the result was the removal of our children and the disruption of our family systems.

The other part of this is the funding piece. Bill C-92 must include the funding. We can't rely just on the coordination agreements that dictate the resources for this rebuilding. Because of the colonial impact, it's important that Canada also attach the funding to this process so that we don't have to rely on, as Bernie mentioned earlier, the western view of the best interests of the child. It's really important to rely on the collective interests of not just the child, but the families as well. They were trying to stop the transmission of our culture, our ceremonies, our language and our laws, but in a reverse way we can turn that around so that we're empowering the children, the families and the communities for healing and for rebuilding. It's really important to rebuild our families, our communities, our nations.

Our Secwépemc Nation is doing a lot of that work in our child and family jurisdiction. It's called Stsmémelt. We've been working with the Secwépemc Child and Family Services and the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council in rebuilding that. It's a lot of work, and it does need to be resourced.

This approach didn't survive, because our people had resilience and have survived it. I stand before you today despite the damage that the colonial laws caused. We're going to continue to rebuild our people and our children, our families. Canada has an obligation to right these wrongs that impacted so many of our families and children across Canada. We really need to bring our children home so they can be raised in our communities by our own people and know that they can connect with their communities and their language and their laws.

I wanted to touch on one other area. I acknowledge and support a lot of the nations that have issues with this legislation, because each nation has a right to self-determination under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, article 3. If they wish to enact their own laws, they just need the recognition, whether it's their treaty recognition or their inherent recognition; they have the free choice to do that themselves. This legislation must find a way to respect that, or again, it will be a colonial path, and we don't want to go down that path.

We want to be able to respect those nations that make their own decisions for their nations and do not rely on Canada's laws to do that. It's their choice if they don't want to recognize the bill. We have a mandate here in B.C. Our chiefs have already identified the mandate to work with this bill, Bill C-92. It's federal legislation. It provides affirmation to our inherent children's rights that exist and does not rely on these colonial laws.

We will submit our brief. Again, thank you for the time to discuss these issues with you. I look forward to the questions you may have.

[Bernie Charlie]

Okay.

In closing, thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts about Bill C-92.

[Bernie Charlie, Senior Resource Specialist, Resources and Foster Care, Secwépemc Child and Family Services Agency]

Good morning.

[Witness spoke in Carrier]

[English]

I introduced myself to you in my Carrier language.

My name is Bernie Charlie. I am a proud Carrier matriarch in training. I am the youngest child of nine of my mother, Dil-za Dza-kiy, Violet Charlie, who holds this hereditary chief name that she acquired through the traditional governance system of my people called the bah'lats also known commonly as the potlatch.

I want to acknowledge my late father, Ben Charlie Sr., who has crossed over to the spirit world to watch over us with our ancestors.

In our bah'lats, we have four clans: the Jihl tse yu, which is the frog clan; Likh ji bu, the bear clan; Gilhanten, the caribou clan; and.... Sorry, I can't read my own typing.

Anyway, I sit with the Likh ji bu, the bear clan of my people, and my late father belonged to Gilhanten, the caribou clan. In our bah'lats, children are born into the clan of their mothers. Before contact, it was the matriarchs, the mothers, the grandmothers and the extended family who were the decision-makers for the people in relation to the political, social and economic governance of the communities. The bah'lats are still very much alive in our nation. My community of origin, which is the Lake Babine nation, is statistically the third largest band in B.C.

I want to acknowledge the unceded ancestral homelands of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc, where I have the privilege to work, to live and to play. I am very fortunate that I have a surrogate family in this beautiful territory of the Secwépemc people. I have an entire network of surrogate parents and extended family who I find comfort in when I need support in my life.

I am the mother of two beautiful children and a surrogate mother to several others who refer to me as a guide, a mentor and a protector for them. I am also a kyé7e, a grandmother to one beautiful biological baby girl and to several others who refer to me as their grandmother in our cultural customs.

As the youngest child in the family of my siblings, my siblings would say that I was the spoiled one. However, I do recall that the multiple cousins who lived with us through many of my formative years were often fed first, given new linen and often bought new clothes as opposed to the recycled clothes that I recall I was able to choose from first. I did not realize at that time that they were foster children and that they were given to our family because they were abused or neglected in their own homes down the street on our reserve.

My recollections of my childhood include living in a government-subsidized, four-bedroom CMHC house that was filled to the brim with multiple generations, including my aged deaf and blind xpé7e, my grandfather, my parents, my siblings and my cousins. At one point in time, there were 13 people living in our four-bedroom home. My parents ensured that we were always fed, that we were clean, and that we were sent to the local Catholic school for our education. When my older siblings completed elementary school, they were sent away to the Catholic boarding high school, which was almost 300 kilometres away from us.

I needed to share with you this small bit of my history and how it relates to this pre-study on Bill C-92.

My work on the front lines as a resource social worker with Secwépemc Child and Family Services Agency has given me some excellent first-hand experience in sharing some of what I have learned. I take a completely relational approach from the perspective of a C6 delegated social worker, which simply means that I have the authority and the obligation to remove a child from an unsafe environment.

I made some notes of potential considerations, and I will just review them according to how they appear in the document.

In regard to the principle of the best interests of the child, historically children were raised in communal family systems where the extended family group all assumed the responsibility of caring for children: parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents and others in the community.

Currently, under the provincial legislation, the focus is primarily on the individual child. This has been the practice in child welfare. Due to the high numbers of indigenous children in care, it is proven that this process is not working.

In moving forward, the focus needs to be on the family unit: the family and the extended family that cares for and provides for children. What is best for families and communities will always be best for children.

With regard to the best interests of the indigenous child, may I suggest the wording in subclause 10(1) read, “The best interests of the family must be the primary consideration”.

Another theme is capacity, building the foundation for children to be home and stay home in times of crisis, investing in rebuilding what was lost. This lends itself to communities coming back to life and caring for families naturally.

Among other factors to be considered, with regard to the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, or lack thereof, segments of the urban population, specifically in B.C., have seen that due to multiple factors such as—

[Lyle Thomas, Cultural Advisor, Secwépemc Child and Family Services Agency]

Thank you. Good morning.

[Witness spoke in Secwepemctsin]

[English]

I'm a member of the Neskonlith Indian Band, but I reside with my wife, who is from the Kamloops Secwépemc. We have five children and one grandson. I work for the Secwépemc Child and Family Services Agency. My title with the agency is “cultural worker”. We are caregivers for the agency, and currently we have two little girls who are part of our family.

I'm honoured and thankful that, on behalf of the agency, I can share a small part of the thoughts on the new Bill C-92. However, before I get started, I'd like to recognize that these proceedings are taking place on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. I would like to thank them for allowing me the chance to share what my feelings and thoughts are for the children and families who we serve.

After reading Bill C-92, the first thing that I thought was this: How does it affect the families and the culture of those families as a whole? Yes, Bill C-92 focuses on the child or children who have a chance to be placed with extended family or with members within their community. However, what is most important is how it keeps the family connected.

For children, their main want is to be with their parents. With these thoughts and feeling of reconnecting, this needs to go beyond the children and should involve their parents. It should allow them to grow together and to learn and reconnect. This love will always be between a child and a parent as a group, and they will find their roots in remembering who they are.

It is exciting to see that the government, with the introduction of Bill C-92, is recognizing how important it is for individuals to be grounded and to have a place and a sense of identity. However, there are also times to remember that these children may be in a different nation or territory learning their ways and traditions. There may be something from the past of the parents that has made them move to another nation, that has made them move away to protect the children they love from their own nation, their own reserve, their own people. For the interests of the children, they may be placed with caregivers from those host nations who treat and love that child like their own. They have a connection with the family, but most of all, they teach the child in their home with the same values, the same love and the same respect that all nations have.

Bill C-92 may be as strong as the language in the assurances in the old law that families will be afforded the opportunity to remain connected throughout any interaction with child and welfare services.

I'd like to thank you for allowing me a brief time to speak. Now I'd like to pass it on to my colleague.

[Morley Watson]

Again, as both the grand chief and I mentioned earlier, we'll always act in the best interests of our children. We have some challenges ahead of us, there is no doubt, but I really think that at the end of the day it's about working together. Getting this bill to where it's at today took work. It took understanding on behalf of all parties. I really believe that in anything we do in the future, as long as that respect is given to the first nations to make some decisions that affect our lives, affect our children's lives, there is nothing we can't overcome here.

Keep in mind that the government has to understand that we now have that ability, not only to make decisions but more importantly to look after our children properly. We have to get away from colonial thinking. We do have the ability. In each and every one of our first nations across Canada, we have the ability to do things if and when we're given that opportunity. I certainly hope we're given the opportunity with Bill C-92.

[Morley Watson, First Vice-Chief, Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning to our senators, members of Parliament, as well as our Assembly of First Nations staff who are with us. I want to thank you for the prayers offered to us this morning. I want to, as you did Madam Chairman, acknowledge the Algonquin nation as we are meeting on its territory.

I am Vice-Chief Morley Watson, and I hold the portfolio of health and social development for the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations.

Bill C-92 contemplates critical and long overdue reconciliation of jurisdiction over first nations children across Canada. It is the top issue for first nations in Saskatchewan as we realize that we have the second highest number of children in care and more than 80% of those children are our children. We have also endured, and continue to endure, one of the most dysfunctional child welfare systems infested with some of the most racist and derogatory attitudes that effectively produces results contrary to the fundamental values and principles of child welfare.

From residential schools to the sixties scoop, to modern-day decisions to apprehend children, when healthier and safer alternatives are available, first nations children are ultimately the victims. Provinces are failing the first nations children and families for which they have been delegated responsibility for protecting and supporting. It is time for our provinces to step aside and support those who actually are passionate about supporting first nations children and families.

Here are why six provisions of Bill C-92 are so important to us.

Number one is clause 18, the affirmation and recognition that is our inherent right to provide for our children, to care for them, and to keep our families together.

Number two is clause 14, that the priority must be on prevention and keeping our family units together.

Number three is that if a child is removed, the priority must be on placement in the family and in our communities.

Number four is that birth alerts must be stopped. The trauma of removing children in hospitals is so traumatic to the mothers and family that it represents everything that has failed about a provincial child welfare system imposed on our people. That is also in clause 14.

Number five is clause 9, that the best interests of the child must be interpreted with understanding of our identity, connection to our families, culture, languages, territories and values.

Number six is that poverty and poor health are not reasons to remove a child from our families and communities.

We know this bill was not co-drafted with first nations. Canada drafted it on its own, but shared a consultation draft with our federation. It was developed with our input into the process and our office met with the current and former minister many times, as well as with officials. We submitted briefs and positions to inform the changes we believed were required. Canada did not accept all of our policy positions, but we urged Canada to include predictable, sustainable needs-based funding provisions.

In Saskatchewan, the 74 first nations of the FSIN, for over 50 years, have built distinct, co-operative institutions to serve our people in our communities, such as the First Nations University of Canada, the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies and the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority. Other bodies have been created and operated with great impact.

We are rebuilding our nation, supporting our young people to provide them with the education their grandparents were denied. We want to build more supports for our first nations in relation to child welfare. Our demonstrated ability to create jobs for our people and economically enhance opportunities for the people of our region is a key goal and issue. By building capacity, first nations will not be looked upon as an economic burden, as we currently are. We will build our own economies with more opportunity and jobs from this bill, and we will build families at the same time.

The bill needs to reference the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Bill C-91 has a “purposes” section that references the United Nations declaration, because the protection of human rights and the implementation of the United Nations declaration is the framework for this cultural, language and family-building work that we must do together in Canada.

I thank you for this opportunity to address this important bill for our first nations people in Saskatchewan. We know this work is difficult and it will take many strategies and collective efforts. We urge you to accept the importance of this bill and to make improvements, but not to delay it. The FSIN and many of our other tribal councils and first nations are working to implement their authority and laws for children and families.

We cannot be held back any longer. Our children deserve better than the status quo of today. We hope that this bill will help to influence continued recognition of inherent and treaty rights, title and jurisdiction in future co-developments. We know that the only way to maintain healthy and thriving communities is by supporting our people to raise their children in accordance with our own history, culture, languages, customs and laws.

We know that our children are not subjects or commodities to be owned or to be considered property. They are a gift from the Creator. It is a sacred responsibility to protect and nurture our children. It is inherent to us, as people, to care for our children according to our laws, no matter where they reside.

In all aspects, children are considered—always. This was true even at the time of treaty. Our elders wanted to ensure health and happiness for all of our children, as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow.

Madam Chairman, thank you for this opportunity.

[Grand Chief Jerry Daniels, Southern Chiefs' Organization Inc.]

Good morning. Thank you, members of the committee, for allowing me some time to speak on a very important matter that affects our children, our families, our communities and the nation.

My name is Jerry Daniels. I'm the grand chief for the Southern Chiefs' Organization: 34 first nations in southern Manitoba, primarily the Anishinabe and Dakota peoples; 90,000 citizens in total.

[Witness spoke in Ojibwa]

[English]

My relatives, I am happy to come and join you and to speak about a legislative act that I know is being discussed in great detail about how it can impact the quality of life of our children, how it can create opportunity. We're talking about a system that has had very detrimental effects on many of our children and our families, and has caused great harm over a great number of years. Some have even characterized it as a continuation of the residential school era.

First nations have the inherent right to self-determination and self-government. We have laws, customs and have entered into treaty. First nations have our own ways of caring for our children. What I will share with you as well is that I'm actually a member of the people who have gone through the CFS system. As a young person I was in group homes and I struggled as a young person. My family moved around a lot and I ended up there. However, in my experience I was able to meet many elders and many good people who were a part of the system and helped me to become who I am and helped me to establish some values. In fact, the first sweat lodge that I went to was through the CFS system. It was at the Selkirk Healing Centre in Manitoba.

First nations have our own ways of keeping our families and communities strong and intact. However, our laws, institutions and system have been impacted by the Canadian legal system, specifically the CFS Act.

We have been focused on supporting community-driven solutions. Since I've been in office, which is a little over two years, I have tried to focus on what's working in Manitoba. My focus shifted to the Sandy Bay First Nation where we've seen changes in the number of children who were in care. They brought down the number of children by using more practical techniques in working with families. They worked with families and with the extended family and they found other means to ensure the best interests of the child...which didn't result in the apprehension or the break-up of the family. That's where I'd like to focus, and I think that's where the priorities need to be when we think of CFS.

We have a CFS liaison at the Southern Chiefs' Organization. We are actually the primary authority for CFS in southern Manitoba. We make the board appointments to the southern authority, which is the regulatory body for all of the agencies in southern Manitoba. We have been collaborating with them over the last couple of years very intensely to ensure that the regulations are reflecting community needs and that they're supportive of what needs to happen on the ground.

We have a lot of challenges, but I don't think the challenges are insurmountable. I think we're quite capable of ensuring that families are reunited and that the best interests of the child are established, as well as the cultural values and traditions of our people, which enable our children to have a strong foundation in their identity.

I want to talk about how we really need federal intervention when it comes to CFS. We've had a great deal of trouble working with the province on finding common ground when it comes to the customary care. The Southern Chiefs' Organization supported it. I steer, with the province...and we work with them and we agreed in principle what customary care would be, which is community laws, community direction.

That would drive priorities and regulations and how children would be supported or how we would deal with a situation that isn't in the interests of the child.

It has been our focus over the last couple of years. What we are starting to see is that there is a change from where we had thought it would be—where the customary care would be really done with the community and the family—to now almost like an agency-driven personal care plan, which you can already do through the current legislation.

When I look at the proposed legislation when we're talking about substantive equality and the best interests of the child, I think that these are good things. I don't think that we're ever going to get it totally right. I think that the practicality of any legislation on the ground is subject to the people who are implementing it and subject to the interpretation of those people in the communities and throughout the region.

People in the communities care. They're not there to kidnap our children. They're there to protect our children and to do the best job that they can. I truly believe that. I don't think that people in CFS agencies, the workers, are there to do anything other than that, so if they are given the ability to direct funding towards helping families and ensuring there is a plan and that families are supported, you're going to see better outcomes.

That is why I support Bill C-92. It is really about being able to give first nations the jurisdiction, to not allow interference in that jurisdiction and to support it. Like others who are here and who have just presented at this committee, and like others, I'm sure, who have been here, I have concerns about funding: that it may not be enough for the governance side, that it may not be enough for the service delivery side.

My hope is that the substantive equality provision will reflect that and that it will translate into enough funding so that we get it right. The fact that Manitoba has such a high number of children.... It is ground zero for CFS. We have to be given an opportunity to take direct control of CFS, and it needs to be funded properly. We are prepared to do that. We've been doing that. We've been working with CFS directors. We've been connecting them with our community leadership. We've been including our women and our grandmothers in the process. That is the approach that we're taking, so it's my hope that people continue to work to move the agenda forward, to focus on supporting families and the community. If we can allow for them to take the lead on this, I think you're going to see child and family services, child welfare, delivered much more effectively in the community and supported much more effectively.

It's time for government, really, to get out of the way and to allow for that. They're going to make mistakes the same way government has been making mistakes for the last hundred years, and they're going to continue to make mistakes. However, we learn and we adjust, and we continue to build off knowledge from those situations.

That's our argument. We do not think that Bill C-92 is going to be the end-all for CFS. We think that it's going to be an interim measure. Like any other act that is passed through this Parliament, it's going to have to be changed and adjusted through the experience that's lived on the ground.

That's what I'm here to communicate to you. I hope that this bill is moved forward so that we can get on with supporting the development of laws at a community and regional level, and focus on what substantive equality really means and how that's actually going to look through the comprehensive negotiated agreements that are going to have to take place after the bill is passed. Those are going to include community members. They're going to include people in the community. They're going to include regional bodies.

That is going to be the final agreement in the interim, once again. It's an agreement, but it's still a wait and see, because you have to see the impacts. The quality of life of those people who are ending up in jails, who are ending up on the street, is going to improve, because you're going to have a community-driven strategy. That is the most important part of this bill.

Meegwetch.

[Dr. Pamela D. Palmater]

I would love to respond to several things you've said.

The AFN, MNC and ITK had claimed that this was going to be co-drafted, and that's not how Justice Canada actually does legislation. There is no co-drafting of legislation. So then they changed the wording, admitted it wasn't co-drafting and said it was “co-developed”.

Co-developing with an organization is not actually co-developing or taking instruction from actual rights-holding first nations. I have heard the testimony both here and in the pre-study in the Senate. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, which represents 63 first nations, is categorically against Bill C-92. They had protests against it on Friday. There's a coalition of first nations across the country that are doing national days of action against Bill C-92, including first nations from the Chiefs of Ontario and first nations from Alberta. All of this stuff is on the record. There is significant resistance, and there have been experts like Cindy Blackstock and others who have testified that there are big problems with this bill.

It's not how you presented it. You've kind of left out all of the people who are in opposition to it for rightful reasons, and you have to keep in mind that these so-called first nations laws that allegedly have paramountcy are federal laws. They're to be treated like federal laws, not first nations laws in and of themselves, subject to the charter of the Canadian Human Rights Act, section 35, division of powers, coordination agreements and clauses 10 to 15 of the bill.

You can't just read one section in isolation when you interpret legislation. You have to read it all and look at all of the provisions.

[Joshua Ferland, As an Individual]

Hello, my name is Josh Ferland. I was born in Winnipeg, where I still live. I'm proud to be here today to talk about Bill C-92, and to share my experiences and hopes for the bill. Thank you for having me and allowing me to share my thoughts. I hope that my voice will make a difference for young people.

I was once a child in care. I understand this is the first time the federal government has entered child welfare in such a big way. I am in favour of Bill C-92 because I'm Métis, and this is the first time Métis people will get support and funding from the federal government for child welfare.

Having grown up in care, I believe it's important to have better supports for youth in all stages of their development as well as supports that will help them achieve long-term goals. What I would have preferred over group-home living was to have found a long-term foster home much earlier than I did. They took me in and treated me as their own. They taught me skills and values that serve me well as an adult: the importance of working hard, developing a good work ethic, to be respectful and considerate of all people, the importance of giving back. In spite of why I was there, I'm thankful to my foster family for their love and acceptance.

I'd like to talk about some of the other supports I've had in my life. I'm thankful to the Manitoba Métis Federation, which funds the Metis Child and Family Services Authority, for having a Métis spirit worker. They have helped me as I transitioned out of care. I know from my own experience that there's not a lot of support for young people who age out of care. That's why having funding for programs such as this is so important. The Métis spirit worker told me about job training the MMF was providing. She helped me sign up and get ready, and even drove me to the training site an hour and a half out of the city of Winnipeg. I'll continue to work with Rhiannon Lynch as long as I can. This program ends support to youth after the age of 25.

I believe these types of programs are essential and should be a priority for helping young adults. Through my training, I earned several certifications that led me to a great opportunity. I still had to figure out a few more things before the job became a reality. The job was an hour and a half out of town and I had no way to get there. I don't have a car and there are no buses that go out there. I didn't have a place to stay or any money for rent. There is no startup funding available for youth like me. It's crazy to think how many thousands and thousands of dollars were spent on my 12 years in care. And then, when I finally got to a place where I could start to pay my own way, I just needed a few hundred dollars to start working, but there was no help. I just needed enough to get to my first paycheque. I was so close.

I'm telling you this because sometimes it isn't the big things that kill our dreams—it's the little things. This is something that I would like people to remember as you decide what can happen as a result of this bill.

I was lucky that I had people in my life who were willing to go above and beyond what they had to do. My Métis spirit worker fundraised for me, and collected and donated gift cards. Pat Horsley from the Métis agency, who is here with me today, drove me out to my job and arranged accommodations for me until I got my first paycheque. Pat contacted the MMF and the Metis Community Liaison Department, and they donated a gift card so I could buy food. Even though they don't get provincial funding to help youth after they leave care, the Metis Child and Family Services Authority pitched in so I could get started. I'm so glad they found a way to make it work.

I was so thankful they put me ahead of a system that seems so clunky.

As kids in care, we feel like we hear lots of “no's”, and much of what happens to us is out of our control.

I hope the new bill will give new hope that we can do things differently going forward. It has the potential to have more positive outcomes for our current youth in care.

Thank you for listening. I am honoured to have this opportunity.

[Dr. Pamela D. Palmater, Chair in Indigenous Governance, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, As an Individual]

Hello. Thanks for having me.

Kwe, ni'n teluisi Pam Palmater.

I am from the sovereign Mi'kmaq nation on unceded Mi'kmaq territory. I have been a practising lawyer for 20 years, 10 of which were spent at Justice Canada and Indian Affairs, where I received all the training in the legislative process, statutory interpretation and legislative drafting. I also have my doctorate in law on legislation that impacts indigenous people, so I have a very particular focus here, and it's very legislative, as opposed to policy-based.

I'm here to speak against Bill C-92 as it is currently drafted. I think that without substantive amendments it risks interjurisdictional chaos, legal chaos and chaos on and off reserve. In addition, of course, it won't do anything to address the humanitarian crisis.

I have several core problems with it. One is the same problem I have with Bill C-91 and Bill C-97, which is that they are pan-aboriginal legislation. By being pan-aboriginal, in fact, it discriminates against first nations because it doesn't focus on first nations' specific rights, our unique histories, our unique socio-economic conditions or our specific interests. To my mind, first nation rights should never be limited by the different legal, political and social statuses of other groups.

For example, the Métis do not suffer the same acute socio-economic conditions that first nations do. That's just a fact. We also know that in Canadian law, when you treat everyone formally the same, you end up treating the most disadvantaged unequally. What we're advocating is substantive equality that is first nations-specific, so first nations-specific legislation and not formal equality.

The other concern is that there is no independent recognition or status for first nations laws that make them paramount. They are only considered to be a federal law, no different from a bylaw under the Indian Act. For anyone who has ever worked with first nations or at Justice Canada or Indian Affairs, it is nearly impossible to get the RCMP or anyone else to enforce Indian Act bylaws.

Right now, under this legislation, instead of being paramount, first nation laws are conditional or subject to the provisions of the Charter; the Canadian Human Rights Act; section 35 of the Constitution Act; all of the limiting Supreme Court of Canada cases; the division of powers under section 91(24); coordination agreements and all of the interpretations that courts would give to those coordination agreements—of which there could be upwards of 634—and failure to abide; pre-existing provincial court definitions of “best interests of the child”, which I have to remind everyone here are court-defined and open to the same amount of racism and abuse that's already been shown in the courts against first nations children; and, of course, clauses 10 to 15 of Bill C-92 itself.

Those are a lot of things that trump first nations laws, and that's a problem. There has to be a discussion that is not only about recognizing first nations jurisdiction in and of itself but also about issues around paramountcy of laws and how these jurisdictions will work together.

My other concern is that it forces first nations to negotiate agreements with federal and provincial government, when provincial governments are the problem. The federal government is the problem in the sense of discriminatory, chronic underfunding. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has already talked about that. However, it's the provinces that have allowed these human rights abuses to continue despite the research and despite all of the evidence. The last people many first nations want to work with are the provinces, which commit the abuses. To actually force that is to reinforce this horrendous humanitarian crisis, and that is something that I think many first nations have already testified to being rightly against.

The biggest thing, I guess, is that despite being sold as committing funding to first nations, there's no statutory commitment for funding. It is one thing to acknowledge in a “whereas” clause that there are calls for funding, that in principle maybe we'll talk about funding or we'll figure out ways to talk about it. However, there is no statutory commitment saying the minister will fund first nations for all of the services and actually define what those services are—and leave it flexible enough.

There are no guidelines around how that funding would be provided such as population, demographics, birth rates, actual costs, first nations rights around this, which are very different from Métis and Inuit rights. There's nothing that makes Jordan's principle mandatory in this legislation, and that should, in fact, be a core part of the legislation. It's certainly a core part of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. There's no commitment to address the underlying root causes of child apprehension, which for first nations specifically tend to mostly be socio-economic conditions. It's not just good enough to fund aftercare or parental programs if you're not also saying we will also make a commitment to housing, food, water, education and access to health care, which are all the reasons why most of these kids are taken away to begin with.

Another core legislative problem is that the minister retains all of the powers under the act, including the power to make regulations. There's only a requirement to consult with indigenous groups, and we all know how poorly consultation works in practice. We've been subject to hundreds of court cases because the federal government still doesn't understand how to actually consult, accommodate and get consent, because all of those things work together as a package. Now with UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we're talking about free, prior and informed consent. This bill is the opposite of that. It's basically saying we'll talk to you but we get to do all of the regulations, and it's in the regulations where a lot more damage can be done, a lot more control can be had. Or there can be no regulations at all, because we've seen ministers promise, “we're just going to do this act and we'll solve all the problems in regulations” and, hello, no regulations. We're just going on past practice.

The global pan-indigenous consultations also skew what should be in the regulations. What is good for first nations may have nothing to do with Métis, so why would Métis have a voice in what kind of regulations will apply to first nations and vice versa? That's part of the legal problem with the pan-indigenous nature. By empowering one entity, that is, by empowering the minister throughout all of the sections of this legislation, you are in essence disempowering another. Whatever power the minister has, that's something that first nations don't have, and that's a real problem.

I do find it really disturbing that in all of this legislation, knowing how closely related forced and coerced sterilization is to child apprehensions and how they've been linked, there is no provision in here that specifically prohibits the use of forced or coerced sterilizations in any child and family services situation, especially with regard to child care

There are lots of other issue around wording. There should be a discussion about jurisdiction over off-reserve, issues around data collection, but my specific suggested amendments are that if you're going to do legislation for those first nations that consent, it needs to be specific first nations legislation whether you're talking about languages or child and family services. Only first nations are under the Indian Act. First nations have an entirely different set of rights and laws, and you cannot put them all together.

There needs to be, if there is legislation, fully funded opt-out provisions so that first nations that are already engaged with child and family services don't have to be a part of this legislation, that their choice isn't just status quo or nothing, that a fully funded alternative means if we're not funding you under this process, we will fund you under your own process.

There needs to be targeted and committed funding specifically for first nations that is based on population, inflation, costs and needs. The first nations inherent right to be self-determining over child and family services must be recognized in their own right, not attached to section 35, not attached to UNDRIP, not attached to anything external. The inherent pre-existing right needs to be the foundation of any legislation going forward.

I would also add that if you want to give real effect to this, repeal section 88 of the Indian Act to oust provincial jurisdiction over first nations altogether.

My last recommendations specifically reference UNDRIP and all of the provisions, and specifically reference the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and say that this bill should not pass as is. It needs at a minimum comprehensive review with first nations experts, including people like Dr. Cindy Blackstock, who has extensive amendments to make, and organizations like the National Association of Friendship Centres.

Thank you.

[Jocelyn Formsma, Executive Director, National Association of Friendship Centres]

Thank you so much for the invitation. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments this morning.

Wachay misiway. Jocelyn Formsma nitoscheen.

I'm from the Moose Cree First Nation. I'm currently the executive director at the National Association of Friendship Centres.

For the last 15 years or so I've also been an indigenous children's rights advocate and an advocate for indigenous youth engagement and leadership development. I've also been engaged with various aspects of child welfare reform.

I've been a board member of the National Indian Child Welfare Association for the last 12 years. I assisted with their international advocacy work, which resulted in helping to bring about the first set of Indian child welfare act regulations in the 36 years of the act's enactment.

Today I'm going to provide you with an overview of how friendship centres have been engaged in child and family services, our perspectives on the bill, and how we think it might affect indigenous people living in urban settings. I'd also be happy to speak to questions related to experiences with the Indian Child Welfare Act if I'm asked following this presentation.

The work of friendship centres in child and family services is largely unknown and unrecognized. As you know, friendship centres provide a wide range of services, many of which can be considered prevention services such as prenatal supports, parental supports, child supports, programs that help families keep and care for their children and programs that assist parents to get children back if they are apprehended.

We have developed a cultural competency curriculum for foster parents, providing essential cultural programming for children living in care. Foster and adoptive parents often use friendship centre programming to ensure their foster or adopted child or children have access to culture and community.

Friendship centres are the sites of supervised visits, have sometimes been the sites of apprehensions and have also been called upon to provide intervention services on behalf of child and family service agencies or court supports to indigenous children, youth and families. Friendship centres also provide aftercare support services for youth who are leaving care.

In regard to the bill, we do not see the explicit consideration for urban and rural-based indigenous children, youth, families and communities.

The NAFC, as the secretariat for the Urban Aboriginal Knowledge Network—soon to be disbanded due to lack of funding—facilitated community-driven research initiatives that looked at the situation of indigenous children in care and indigenous families involved with the child welfare system, exploring the need for culturally appropriate training for non-indigenous caregivers of indigenous children in care—all from an urban lens.

Many definitions within the act currently are broad enough that arguments could be made for our inclusion, but we fear without explicit inclusion, it also allows for passive exclusion.

We have drafted a brief paper that outlines some of our perspectives and we would like to provide that to the committee for your consideration. It outlines some of the perspectives that we feel are necessary to consider before finalizing the act.

In reviewing Bill C-92, the NAFC has some concerns around the on-the-ground realities of implementing jurisdiction regarding indigenous children who live in urban settings. While the NAFC fully supports and promotes first nations, Inuit and Métis jurisdictions, we know that in reality the resources are often not available or sufficient for indigenous governments to be able to provide the full range of services required in the towns and cities in which their members reside. Friendship centres and other urban indigenous organizations that provide similar services are often unintentionally left to work with indigenous children, youth and families who are not currently receiving services and supports from their respective indigenous governments.

The NAFC would like to be put on record as being interested in, and having unique perspectives to inform, the development of any and all regulations that may come if Bill C-92 is passed. The regulations section of the proposed act makes mention of the inclusion of indigenous governing bodies in the consultation process of developing said regulations. We believe our insights and the insights of friendship centres can help ensure that regulations and policies will be reflective of the needs of indigenous peoples who reside in urban settings.

We have a number of recommendations on Bill C-92.

One regards urban indigenous inclusion. Rural and urban-based indigenous children, youth, families, communities and organizations ought to be mentioned in the drafting and implementation of this act. At present, we feel the broad language of the act does create space for the inclusion of urban indigenous peoples, but we also fear that the broadness may result in exclusion.

In terms of jurisdiction, there needs to be more clarity on the expression and extent of jurisdiction amongst and between different first nations, Métis and Inuit governments; provincial, territorial and federal governments; and the roles of civil society and non-political, yet indigenous-owned and operated, entities such as friendship centres. What we find in the urban spaces is that often these jurisdictions will overlap, and unless there's collaboration and coordination on how those jurisdictions will overlap within the urban spaces, we worry that children are going to be either left out or be subject to the cases that led to the unfortunate situation with Jordan's principle.

Stable funding commitments and mechanisms are needed to ensure that the implementation of this act will be possible for communities. Furthermore, those funding provisions should take into consideration the work that will be required following the passing of this act, which will include education, stakeholder engagement and advocacy, which also could include data collection.

Capacity dollars should be considered as communities will need to work towards building capacity if they are to assume jurisdiction over services and resources to support partnership development and engagement with stakeholders.

Bill C-92 contains no mandate for data collection. As the representative organization of friendship centres, the NAFC knows the value of data and how it can inform and guide effective programming and services, which results in better outcomes for the people that friendship centres serve. Data collection is a tool necessary for the improvement of services and for identifying gaps that need to be addressed. Without a specific mandate to collect data, Bill C-92 may inadvertently promote the current data status quo, which is lack of in-depth national data regarding indigenous child and family welfare. This was an experience that we found in the Indian Child Welfare Act. Although there were provisions for data collection, they weren't adequately funded and supported, which has led to a lack of data despite almost 40 years of the existence of the act.

We thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments and perspectives on this bill; we trust our submissions will inform your work. We look forward to any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Welcome, everybody. Thank you very much.

We're running a little bit late as we transition from one bill to another. In this case, we're going to Bill C-92, which attempts to begin to deal with one of Canada's most horrific circumstances: indigenous children being placed in foster homes and being moved and losing their culture. It is estimated that there are more children in care than there were in residential schools. This bill aims to address the negative impacts of that circumstance, so we're very interested in hearing from our panellists. We are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people here and we continue our discussions.

We have three panels. We have one panel with three witnesses. You have up to 10 minutes each and then we'll go into questions from members of Parliament.

Jocelyn Formsma is the executive director of the National Association of Friendship Centres. Welcome.

[Jean-François Tremblay]

Co-development is a difficult area of the business, because it involves...and could mean a lot of people at the table. You can look at Bill C-92. We have been co-developing the legislation with the national organizations, but we also did a lot of engagement at the regional level and at the local level over the last year. The objective of this legislation—and it's an important element that we're trying to do as much as possible—is defined less...as little as possible in the legislation.

The real story about Bill C-92 is not just the legislation. It's that actually we say to first nations, Inuit and Métis, “Go ahead and develop your legislation and come to us with it.” It's not legislation that tries to impose an approach. It's legislation that just says, “You should be the ones developing this approach.” It's a co-development that leads to an approach that is actually their developing of their own legislation by themselves. I think it's important to see the distinction. Case by case, we did a lot of co-development on the education side.

In terms of reporting to indigenous people, as I mentioned before, we have more and more regional discussions and annual gatherings among our staff and first nations, Inuit and Métis—with first nations specifically because of the services on the reserves—where we discuss how the relationship is going.

I invite the national organizations to come to my senior management committee every three or four months—we try to be regular—to discuss how things are going. We attend their meetings with them: their executive committees, their committees on housing, their committees on education. For us, as much as possible, it's to be transparent in the way we do our business and what we are doing, and that's how we achieve co-development. I think we made significant progress, to be fair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have another couple of questions.

Both of you referred in your presentations to the work you're doing to co-develop; I hope I got that correctly. We're hearing in terms of different pieces of legislation—and, of course, most obviously Bill C-92—that a lot of people and organizations are not feeling that this is the correct way to describe the interaction and that it was certainly not co-development. We have heard that repeatedly.

I am just wondering what your mandate is around co-development. How is that progressing through time?

We know that on Bill C-97 we've heard from the AFN that there are concerns around jurisdiction. We've heard from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs that there has not been a meaningful consultation. There seems to be a lot of interest in making sure that consultation is actually defined as something a little more concrete and not interpreted by the government.

I think co-development is the way that the language is moving, but is the actual action behind it happening? How, in both of these departments, are you accountable to indigenous communities across the country in terms of developing the definitions of co-development and consultation?

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

Minister MacLeod, was the meeting that you had just a couple of weeks ago your first conversation with the ministers about Bill C-92? Have there been any other conversations?

[Lisa MacLeod, Minister of Children, Community and Social Services and Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues, Government of Ontario]

Thanks very much, Chair.

Colleagues, fellow presenters, my name is Lisa MacLeod. I'm the minister responsible for children and youth, community and social services; women's issues; immigration and refugee...and poverty reduction in the Province of Ontario.

Two weeks ago I had the privilege of joining my federal, provincial and territorial colleagues in Saskatoon to discuss a wide variety of issues, indigenous child welfare and Bill C-92 among them. I can assure the committee that Ontario takes indigenous child welfare seriously, which is why we have supported 12, soon-to-be 14, indigenous-led children's aid societies focusing on customary care. We have 38 non-indigenous child welfare agencies. I'm happy that both Amber and Theresa are here today.

We recognize that indigenous children are overrepresented in care and we are committed to better outcomes for these children, their families and their communities. As I said in Saskatoon, Ontario is cautiously optimistic about Bill C-92 and the desire for better support for indigenous children and youth in care.

That said, in alignment with my provincial and territorial colleagues, I do have some concerns that I'd like to share from our perspective. After consulting with indigenous leaders in Ontario, there are a number of implications for Ontario, specifically with respect to definitions, standards and requirements, paramountcy, affirmation of self-government, jurisdiction and, of course, funding.

Let me walk through some of the implications for the Province of Ontario.

Our preliminary analysis has identified a number of potential impacts in the following areas.

One is definitions. Where definitions in Bill C-92 differ from or are inconsistent with those in the Children, Youth and Family Services Act, there could be resulting implications for the interpretations of the CYFSA. For example, the roles contemplated for indigenous governing bodies in Bill C-92 may not align with those set out for bands and first nations, Inuit and Métis communities under the CYFSA.

Two is the standards and requirements. Requirements, for example, related to rights to make representations and information sharing in Bill C-92 that are different from or inconsistent with those in the CYFSA could impact how Ontario's indigenous and non-indigenous children's aid societies provide services to first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families. For example, Bill C-92 and the CYFSA contain different provisions addressing the best interest of the child. A further clarification from Canada would be appreciated on how the provision of “minimum standards” is to be interpreted in the case of conflict or inconsistency, particularly where they are lower in Bill C-92 than within Ontario's CYFSA.

Three is paramountcy. Further clarification from Canada would be appreciated on how paramountcy will operate in relation to a number of issues, including situations of conflict or inconsistency between or among indigenous, provincial and federal laws. Further analysis will be required to identify CYFSA provisions that may be rendered constitutionally inoperative under the doctrine of Bill C-92 if it becomes law. We would appreciate the constitutional law branch of Ontario working...to best address that.

Four is the affirmation of the inherent right of self-government. This affirmation by Canada in Bill C-92, that the inherent right of self-government is recognized and affirmed in section 35 and includes jurisdiction in relation to child and family services, goes beyond the current state of the law. This affirmation could support trilateral discussions on jurisdiction in order to advance indigenous aspirations. We would appreciate clarification on how we can best address that.

Five is jurisdiction and law-making. There may be implications for a bilateral process with first nations' partners on the potential implementation of laws and systems. Some partners may see federal legislation as a complication or a burden and press the province to rush agreements in advance of the legislation's coming into force.

Six is funding. Without mandated federal funding to support Bill C-92, there is no clarity on how implementation will be funded and how existing funding relationships among Canada, Ontario and first nations will be impacted. The absence of mandated funding in Bill C-92 also reinforces the existing gap in federally funded services for Inuit and Métis children and families.

Finally, I want to reiterate the chief's point on Jordan's principle. As you will see and probably hear from my provincial and territorial colleagues, we would like greater clarification with respect to that.

The positions of indigenous partners in Ontario will be represented here today, but I just want to share a few that I have received in my ministry.

First nations in Ontario have also been analyzing the intent of the bill to assess its implications and determine their support, but all have raised concerns with our ministry about the lack of a specific commitment to funding in the act. Ontario Regional Chief Archibald, in her response, noted that “Nothing guarantees funding...will be needs-based and equitable”, and that without funding tied to the legislation “we risk not being able to exercise our jurisdiction”. The Chiefs of Ontario has also expressed concerns that Bill C-92 will erase gains in Ontario and lower standards. The NAN Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler noted in his response that the bill fails to recognize exclusive first nations jurisdiction over children wherever they reside. The Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians Grand Chief Joel Abram noted that a lack of statutory funding could result in a lack of support from AIAI. Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Glen Hare has stated that the Anishinabek Nation is “encouraged by the introduction of this bill today and see[s] a path forward to right the wrongs that continue to be endured by our families and our communities.”

Other first nations, Inuit and Métis partners have indicated similar concerns to our ministry over the past several weeks since I arrived back from Saskatoon.

With that in mind, I would request clarity from the federal government, both for Ontario and for our indigenous partners in Ontario, on which sections would be proclaimed upon passage. Here I would reiterate the call by my provincial and territorial partners for the federal Minister of Indigenous Services to come back to the table and meet with his counterparts so that we can seek greater clarity on how this will impact child welfare in our indigenous communities throughout not only our province of Ontario, but also the rest of Canada, as we are sharing our jurisdiction here.

Thanks very much for your time and attention. It was a great honour to be here with you, Chair, as well as my esteemed presenters and, of course, with your colleagues.

[Katherine Hensel, Principal Lawyer, Hensel Barristers Professional Corporation, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the minister.

[Witness spoke in Secwepemctsin]

[English]

I also am Secwepemc. I am a mother of four and a litigator. Roughly 60% to 80% of my practice is in indigenous child welfare on behalf of indigenous agencies, nations, communities, grandparents, parents and occasionally other agencies.

My initial and very brief comments are that of course I endorse and am subject to the comments of our national kukpi7, Wayne Christian, and I unreservedly agree with all of them. I would note for the committee's benefit, and it's likely not news to you, that Bill C-92 does not grant anything to indigenous people. It merely constrains and compels provincial and federal systems and governments. Our jurisdiction, insofar as it exists...our laws are inherent, and, as has been noted to you by chiefs and other technicians who have appeared before you, are not subject to federal or provincial oversight. It has been open to any indigenous nation and community in Canada to exercise jurisdiction at all times—but for the act of suppression and lack of resources and the negation of that jurisdiction, or the attempt at negation of that jurisdiction, by provincial and federal Crown agencies and governments.

That said, with regard to this bill, while there is room for improvement, as you see reflected in the submission by Kukpi7 Christian and others, it comes at a time when, as you have heard from other witnesses, the situation on the ground is so critical that the legislation must occur in a timely way for a number of reasons that the committee is well aware of. While it was always open to any nation or community to exercise jurisdiction, the room and the resources were simply not there to permit them to do so. Jurisdiction has been continuously asserted since time immemorial, but no one other than Spallumcheen and Kukpi7 Christian's communities have been able to exercise it successfully and exclusively.

I have only one other comment with respect to Kukpi7 Christian's comments, and that is with respect to care providers. I would just qualify that where kohkom, or kikia7as—grandmothers—are care providers, they also, under many indigenous systems of law, may have standing, so they should not automatically be precluded from having standing under the bill. That's my one qualification of my unreserved endorsement of Kukpi7 Christian's comments.

Thank you. Kukwstsétsemc.

[Chief Wayne Christian, Tribal Chief, Secwepemc Nation, Shuswap Nation Tribal Council]

[Witness spoke in Secwepemctsin]

[English]

Hello, everyone. My Indian name is Big Voice that Speaks the Truth. I'm the chief of the people of the Splatsin Shuswap nation.

I acknowledge the ancestors of this territory, their present-day descendants and this very important issue we're talking about. I'm a father of five, a grandfather of 28 and a great-grandfather of one. I'm a former child in care from the sixties scoop. My mother was a survivor of residential school.

As I speak today, I'm honouring my past and my deceased brother, Adelard, who took his life. We came back to our community in 1977, and my mom passed shortly after him, two years later.

I became involved in this issue at age 23. I've been involved in this for 42 years in the capacity of chief and councillor for my community for 23 years and working in the healing and addictions field, helping our people for close to 20 years. That's the perspective I'm going to present to you, members of Parliament.

We all know why we're here in terms of how Canada's legislation and legislative genocide, as I call it, has created the situation we are in today. Our response to this, I think, is important, because in 1980 when I was elected chief, a young mother came to me and asked for help for her four boys who were going to be removed by the province. We asked our elders this question, “What did we do before they imposed white law on us? How did we look after ourselves?” They told us we had our own Indian court. We had our own jails. We had our own laws. We had our own systems to look after ourselves.

Knowing that, we put in place community-based legislation in over one year, working with a very young lawyer called Louise Mandell. You may know of her. She's quite well known in terms of aboriginal title and rights across the country. She worked with us for a whole year to design that process and put that law into place.

Since 1980, we've been operating under our own jurisdiction and our law that's based on our inherent right. The relationship we've had with the provincial government has been an interesting one, because they, as you know, claim alleged jurisdiction over our children but they don't have jurisdiction.

We had to mount a political campaign called the “Indian Child Caravan” in 1980, and the then deputy premier and the minister of children and family, Grace McCarthy, came to an agreement with our community to recognize our jurisdiction and return the children. We jointly planned for each child and we would seek resources from the federal government. Since 1980, that's what we've been doing.

It's really important to understand that the basis of our jurisdiction is notwithstanding residency. It's not just on reserve; it's everywhere. Wherever one of our children is in need of protection, we go. We've been to the United States, in Dallas, Texas, and in Georgia. We've been right across Canada. We've been to all the cities in British Columbia, Vancouver and the major cities. You need to have a good understanding.

Bill C-92 that has been proposed opens the door for that space of inherent jurisdiction. We've been doing this and we have some experience in this field. You've heard a lot of presentations around different aspects of what takes place. We've been doing this for 40 years, and I think it's important that people understand that. It has not gone without its struggles, because the provincial government started to try to enforce the fact that they had jurisdiction for children not in our communities.

We tabled a writ, a constitutional challenge, in 2015, challenging the provincial government's assertion of jurisdiction. We went into a negotiation with British Columbia and got an abeyance order, and we established a memorandum of understanding with British Columbia to say we would talk about the issue of jurisdiction, establish a jurisdictional process, an operational process, as well as look at a transition from where things are to where they need to go. We did that as a community, but also established that as the Shuswap Nation.

You have a written submission that explains who we are as a nation. There are 32 communities, 17 Indian Act bands, a population of about 15,000 and a territory of 180,000 square kilometres. We're bigger than 168 countries in the world in terms of our land mass.

I think you really need to understand that, in the context of Bill C-92, there are some specific fundamental issues that have to be addressed.

First is the issue of changing funding to a fiscal relationship, because we really believe it's about a nation-to-nation process with Canada. You've heard other chiefs talk about that. Stop calling it funding and move it to a fiscal relationship and, within that, move it out of the preamble of the legislation and right into the main body of the legislation. It's an easy fix. I think it's possible.

In the preamble, we also talk about UNDRIP. I think that needs to move out of the preamble and into the body of the legislation.

The issue of Jordan's principle is cited in paragraph 9(3)(e). We find this very interesting, simply because in our jurisdiction, for approximately 40 years, we've had situations where children are physically disabled and their parents can't look after them. In the system, they would have just been lost or they would have died, quite honestly.

In terms of what we've been able to do with children who have come into our care, we have a young girl who's now 25 years of age and is alive because we intervened and took care of her for all of her life. I think that's really an important part. That's what jurisdiction is about, having the resources and making those decisions for that child.

I think Jordan's principle is really important as to how it's addressed. It has to be addressed in terms of how jurisdiction flows from the community up, not into the community but from the community up into the process. I think that's important.

Those kinds of things are important in terms of the process.

Amend subclause 10(1) on “best interests”. The provision needs to include family, communities and cultural continuity as primary considerations in the application of this bill. That's really important. I think the issue of best interests has to be defined by the community and by the nation, not by Canada or British Columbia.

On paragraph 13(b) and the definition's inclusion of “care provider” having “party status”, we disagree with that completely. Care providers only become care providers because they have a contractual arrangement to look after the children. They shouldn't have legal standing in those processes and in those decisions around our children.

On the issue of “stronger ties”, that needs to be amended so that it's nation to nation—indigenous nation to indigenous nation working with each other to have a really clear idea of where that child belongs, so that whether it's with the Secwepemc, the Sq'ewlets, or the Tsilhqot'in—whoever—we have that ability ourselves. We have historical treaties with the nations around us, around what are called kwséltkten, our relatives. I think it's really important.

The last comment on the legislation is really that the five-year period is too long. It should go to a yearly review, because I think we really need to get on the ground with this stuff right away. In speaking about these issues, my experience is that in a community-based process, you can correct problems.

This was a big issue that we had with Grace McCarthy. She kept asking me, as chief, in 1980, “Can you look after your children?” What I said to her was this: “Look, when you make a mistake in your system, you can't correct it. It takes a long time to correct it.” That's what's going on right here today. Here it is, 40 years later, and the system is still the same. It has not been corrected.

We can change rules and regulations and adjust to the system on the ground. For Canada and British Columbia, in your laws, you can't, and I think that's the problem with the system. I appreciate each and every one of you. You're lawmakers. You make laws for Canada. Our laws come from our oral history and our interaction with the land. We've been on the land for 10,000 years, so it informs what we do. In our oral history, we have numerous stories that talk about children. Simply put, what they say in those stories is that the person who pays the ultimate price is usually the child. These are oral histories that go back a long way. We have to pay attention to that.

With this legislation as it goes, you will have an opportunity to change lives for literally thousands of children. I'm speaking here as a former child in care, as a father and as a grandfather. I speak on behalf of my mother and brother. Like my brother's death in 1977, there have been thousands of deaths in the system since then. Like my mother, there are a lot of mothers who have no voice in the system. You heard about them today. They're taking the children away from the mothers right in the hospitals. That is ridiculous. It has to stop.

Is Canada going to grow up? Seriously, we have to have this legislation so that it creates a space for recognition of our laws and our jurisdiction. Simply put, it's the right of self-determination. Communities can decide if they're in or they're out. It's up to them. That's what's critical to this piece of legislation.

I'm getting the high sign.

[Cora Morgan]

I think at the end of the day we did the work of the bringing our children home act, and that was something that was committed to us. We had laid out those parameters in that document and it was a first nations' approach because of the crisis in Manitoba.

We did ceremony. We had a lot of hopes in this and a lot of work in it. It covered a lot of areas that Bill C-92 doesn't, because we also need to bring all of our children home. I know that you heard from Natasha and Jeff this morning, and about all of those things that scar our young people who have already aged out. We're talking about thousands of people.

Bill C-92 is not doing anything to address those sorts of pieces. We're only looking at moving forward and not in the very short term either, because we have this provincial involvement. I can see that they are not going to let go easily.

The funding piece is huge, if you want to be able to make this extension and it be seen as genuine and legitimate that there would be resources. My concern, in Manitoba, is that right now the province contributes 60% of the $546-million budget. The feds only come in with that 40%, so I'm wondering if the funding model is somehow going to be changed completely. Is there going to be a need for the province to pony up dollars to make this fly?

If that's going to hold things up, then we'll never have Bill C-92. That's why we want that commitment for the bringing our children home act, because we want those direct relationships with Canada.

[Cora Morgan]

We have that right now in our current Child and Family Services Act in Manitoba, that it's in the best interests of the children. That's how Manitoba operates; it's in the best interests of the children. So when I saw that in Bill C-92, it's frightening for us because apparently we're working in the best interests of children and in our first nations' opinion that's not—

[Cora Morgan]

Sure.

At the end of the day, we do not have a great relationship with the Province of Manitoba. Their reforms over the years have been more detrimental. The number of our kids in care has continually grown. Their current reforms are really dangerous for our families. Our Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs experts, elders and women's council members have invested a lot of time in creating the bringing our children home act. I believe that our families in Manitoba deserve nothing less.

I don't believe there is going to be a will for the province to accept Bill C-92. Because the question of finance and funding is so up in the air, I could hardly see them doing a paradigm shift and, on top of that, investing in this. Because the funding isn't spelled out, you can't have the expectation that our provincial government will contribute.

Meegwetch.

[Karen Baker-Anderson]

Okay. The last point I want to make is that we talk about this being a child welfare issue. It is a system issue. We know that children are being apprehended through many systems. We know the calls are coming from schools, police and pediatric care. We need to ensure that this is a system approach that ensures the intent of Bill C-92 to turn around the children protection situation in this country. We owe this to our Inuit children so that the story of the next generation of our children is filled with hope and not dismay.

Thank you.

[Karen Baker-Anderson, Executive Director, Ottawa Inuit Children's Centre]

What she's saying is that I'm old.

Dear members of the standing committee, I'm honoured to be here to speak to you about a topic that I am completely passionate about, Inuit children and child protection.

As the Executive Director of Inuuqatigiit, I have walked the journey with these families who have had involvement with child welfare. I have witnessed the look in the child's eye as they leave our centre and are put in the car of a complete stranger, not knowing where they are about to go. I have seen the eyes of a mother who has lost her child and know that the pain cannot be described.

If this legislation can result in positive change for our Inuit children in this country, then Inuuqatigiit fully supports this legislation and the work, and we support the views of ITK. We support Bill C-92 in hope that it recognizes, in order for this legislation to put the rights of children at the centre of all court decisions, the change from a systemic point of view must occur at the same time and on the ground. We cannot wait for this bill to be passed. We already know what the issues are. Otherwise, this legislation just becomes an attempt to solve a problem from a political viewpoint but truly without a foot in the reality of the community and the children we see every day.

How do we as Canadians ever accept in this country that 52% of the children in care are indigenous while they only represent 7% of the population?

The connection of this legislation to the calls of actions under the TRC are to be commended. As an agency that serves Inuit children from all four land claims, we have worked with our Ottawa CAS to build a relationship with them to ensure that families stay together. It isn't perfect, but we know that real change is happening in Ottawa. Child protection services are required in this country.

Canadians need to realize the context for why we have so many kids in care. Inuit have lived experience of years and years of multiple levels of trauma. This trauma has a profound impact on them, including on their ability to parent their children. I do feel this is acknowledged in this legislation.

If trauma is the root cause, and Canadian government takes ownership of the causes of that trauma, then why are we here just talking about legislation? We need funding. We need to ensure that the healing process is happening now.

In reviewing the files of the children in care in Ottawa, we can tell you that the causes.... I have actual stats on the number of Inuit children in care and what the causes are for them being apprehended. I can you tell you that they are trauma based.

[Grand Chief Arlen Dumas, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs]

Excellent. Thank you very much.

I am Grand Chief Arlen Dumas from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on this very important issue.

As our moderator said, Manitoba is ground zero for child welfare apprehensions. That validates statements made by representatives of the government who have said that it is a humanitarian crisis.

First, I want to acknowledge the land we're on, with our relatives here, and bring greetings from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. I want to also acknowledge the work of the chiefs and members of the women's council, who have carried the brunt of the work for the past few years, at the behest of the chiefs. I also want to commend Manitoba for the great work it has done in child welfare for the last 40 years, to figure out innovative ways to collaborate with our partners. When you have willing partners, you're able to do tremendous things.

However, today I'm bringing forward the message that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs cannot support this legislation as is, and that if we continue to work down this path, it is going to do nothing but cause further complications. It will open doors for conflict. It will do away with the past 40 years of good work and collaboration we've attempted to do. Fundamentally, the problem is our province.

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs—our region—was never consulted to work on this legislation. We took the initiative well over a year ago to do some groundwork, build upon the successes of our past and come up with a tangible solution and concrete plan, with our own legislation to deal with the intricate nature of our province and our history. The department invested in that past practice—that good work—and we had begun quite an extensive engagement, working with our whole region to come up with a concept that would better serve everybody. That is called the bringing our children home act, which is Manitoba-made.

Therefore, it was quite a surprise when Bill C-92 was presented to us. It was almost a slap in the face, because we had invested so much of our time in bringing forward a solution that everybody could build upon.

I've heard the aspirations of previous presenters, but the reality of our lives, in our communities, is that if you don't nail things down properly, you'll have an interim agreement for 40 to 50 years. We took the initiative, as Manitoba, to bring forward a solution that everybody could build upon.

There was no consultation. This will interfere with our operations in our communities and our nations. It will bring forward more division. It will create, as I said earlier, more conflict with our partners in our region. Therefore, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs will not be able to support Bill C-92.

Another part of the problem with this bill is that it's pan-indigenous in nature. All of you whom I've spoken with before come from various parts of the country where you have unique agreements and relationships with your communities. This legislation will impact those individual agreements. There's actually quite a concern that you will be doing away with very important work that has been done in other regions, simply because you will be pulling the province into more of a role than they need to have. It's very problematic.

The whole issue we have in Manitoba is the province. To assume that, over time, we will have a wonderful working relationship with the very entities that are actually kidnapping our kids is wrong. We can't even get the Province of Manitoba to sign on to a carbon tax, let alone make a meaningful agreement with first nations communities or their first nations partners.

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs is the political apparatus for our region. There are other entities that the assembly has mandated to play specific roles in regard to working with our partners, but we represent the will of the chiefs, and the will of the chiefs is that we want to secure our own future, with our own processes and our own practices.

We've established our credibility over the past 40 years, and that is the direction we're going. We won't be able to support Bill C-92, as it comes with a myriad of issues and actually will exacerbate the problems that currently exist, as well as the fact that there are no fiscal guarantees in this legislation. It will continue to perpetuate the conflicts and the jurisdictional fumbling that happens. Therefore, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs will not be supportive of Bill C-92.

I plead with you now that we rethink this legislation and that we bring our minds together in the best way. If we don't, I guarantee we will have conflict because we will be forced to kick the provinces out of our communities. The instruments that we've attempted to work with over the past 40 years will bring conflict to our communities. They will further kidnap our children. They will further displace people from their homes and their identities, and we will all be hard done by if we allow this to go through. That's the message I'm bringing today.

If there are any technical issues, I'm happy to provide you with whatever technical expertise you want. As I said, we have a wealth of skilled people who've brought forward our bringing our children home act, and who have engaged our communities to bring forward a true representation of what we want and need to do in Manitoba. This pan-indigenous approach won't work.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

I know time is precious.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We're committee bingeing, but it has been well worth it.

Welcome to the unceded territory of the Algonquin people, and a special recognition of Manitoba. I come from Treaty 1. That's where I live now in the homeland of the Métis people, but I've had the opportunity to be on many nations in Manitoba and across the country.

What is happening to indigenous children is a tragedy and the system is not working, so we are very anxious to hear from you and to hear your perspectives on Bill C-92. In this panel we will begin with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

Welcome, Arlen. You can start anytime you like.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

It's a good question, again, and I know we've met with your leader as well many times and we've discussed these. I would say there are many important bills, but we always focused on C-91, languages; C-92, child welfare; and then C-262, the UN declaration.

I said that I'd be a happy national chief if they all pass by the end of June. I know the issue is free, prior and informed consent. People think, “Is it a veto?” and “Did you hear from Paul Joffe and other experts?”

I say that it's not a veto, but you have to respect aboriginal rights, inherent rights and treaty rights, and involve the rights and title holders sooner than later in any initiative. With free, prior and informed consent, when people.... You mentioned that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs are going to say, “Don't pass this”. That is a region and that's a regional chief. Grand Chief Arlen will be here to say that.

You know the numbers in Canada. There are 203 chiefs in British Columbia. There are 47 in Alberta. There are 74 in Saskatchewan. There are 66 in Manitoba. There are 134-plus in Ontario. There are 47 in la belle province of Quebec. There are 13 in Nova Scotia, 15 in New Brunswick, two in P.E.I., two in Newfoundland, 14 in the Yukon and 28 in the Northwest Territories.

Do you think there's unanimity?

There you go, but we have 400-plus chiefs supporting this. We have numerous resolutions to support this. I would encourage people to look at starting to fix this, because I'm going to disagree with people in a respectful way that the status quo is not acceptable, and it should not be acceptable to have 40,000 children in foster care. That's where my head goes at all times.

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

First of all, that's quite an old case. It's an important case. There's actually an 1867 case called Connolly v. Woolrich, which is important for British Columbians because Sir James Douglas's wife's mother is the plaintiff's family. It was a Cree marriage of the country between a fur trader and a Cree woman. There was an issue in the Quebec court in 1867 as to whether the laws of the Cree.... There was an obligation to make sure that customary family law applied. In Connolly and Woolrich it was recognized that there was something called “marriages of the country” and aboriginal laws around family, and those were valid marriages.

There are a whole variety of cases. That's one very important one, and the case you reference is also critical. There are recent decisions as well, on issues like custom adoption and other things. We have three sources of law in Canada. We have indigenous law, civil law and common law. We must always think about how to harmonize these.

This is why I think BIll C-92 is quite positive. By focusing on children and child and family reunification, we will probably get beyond some of these concepts, like adoption, which are not necessarily indigenous concepts. We will get more into family unity. I think that's a progressive thing. I think it's consistent with jurisprudence, but we have to understand that after 1982, the jurisprudence in Canada has progressed.

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond]

I think the argument is not well founded. For instance, even Professor Newman appeared before you, prior to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rendering the decision in the carbon tax reference, which put some of these issues into context, as well. I think the idea of a constitutional challenge to Bill C-92 by a province.... Of course, provinces can make references to any court. As we saw in the carbon tax matter, it doesn't always go the way people wish it would go. The legal reasoning and constitutional principles are very clear, as Professor Hogg and others will indicate. This is constitutionally valid legislation.

It's perfectly fine if people wish to challenge things. It's good for the salaries of the legal profession, but it isn't something that should be overly worrying to this committee, because people use strategies to address these things. Sometimes, they have other conflicts between Canada and a province, or what have you.

When it comes to these issues of child welfare, this is constitutionally valid. Moreover, because it's about children, I would hope very much that wouldn't happen. I've been involved recently in the first-ever reconciliation agreement with the Province of Saskatchewan and the Saskatoon Tribal Council. You heard from the tribal chief earlier this week. That was the first time the Government of Saskatchewan ever entered into a process to recognize jurisdiction. I was there to bear witness to the premier and speak passionately about the fact that, for the sake of children, we must not go to court and fight. They effectively buried the hatchet on a court fight that day, and said they are going to work together.

I think that's a wise strategy. I hope that any province thinking of a more aggressive stance will take that strategy.

[Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Director of Indian Residential School Centre for History and Dialogue, and Professor, Allard Law School, University of British Columbia, As an Individual]

Thank you very much and good morning to everyone. It's an honour to be here. It's a great pleasure to join the national chief in addressing you on this significant bill and to recognize the importance of the work that members are doing. I have had the opportunity already to present to the standing committee at the Senate, so I appreciate that both Houses are working with great attention to these significant national issues, which deserve careful and thorough review and I feel have had enormous attention over a long period of time.

I wanted to also note that I have had the great privilege to be a special adviser to a number of chiefs, including the chiefs of a legislative working group of the Assembly of First Nations who have been meeting since the national emergency meeting on child welfare, which was held in January 2018. We have been working in a unity-seeking methodology, which is chiefs from all over Canada, their advisers and their child welfare experts have convened approximately 12 times with day-long meetings to evaluate what the positions are that first nations would like to bring to Canada for inclusion in a bill.

That process has been a very positive process. I've certainly enjoyed it a great deal, but when I say unity-seeking process, I appreciate that you can't always achieve complete consensus. However, it was our objective, guided by the spirit and approach of the Assembly of First Nations, to be unity-seeking, work together and build together. That was a substantial period of work and that work was shared with the Government of Canada.

We've had several meetings with the Government of Canada and I'd like to, as well, acknowledge the significant work by public servants on this matter and on this bill. There are many, and I don't want to name them all, but there are at least three who I think deserve particular attention because they've worked tirelessly on this: the deputy minister for indigenous services, Jean-François Tremblay; the assistant deputy minister who has this file and education; Joanne Wilkinson; and the director for this area, Isa Gros-Louis. Those are just three public servants who have attended to the meetings with the chiefs and listened to us and heard our positions. As well, I've had a chance to work with them as an independent expert. I just wanted to give a shout-out to the incredible, hard-working professional effort that public servants in the Government of Canada have brought to this file and their focus and determination, especially since January 2018 after the national emergency meeting, to get this work done.

I wanted to start by addressing some of the constitutional issues that have come before this committee. I have observed the proceedings and read the Hansard and I am familiar with the fact that Professor Dwight Newman appeared and raised some constitutional questions with respect to the bill. I'm also aware of the fact that probably our most eminent constitutional professor in Canada, Peter Hogg, appeared just earlier this week to address the constitutional issues regarding the bill.

I wanted to clarify that from my own position as a constitutional expert, a professor of law, a former judge, a practising lawyer who's appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada several times and as someone who now is practising again dealing with constitutional issues, I feel that it is beyond question that the bill before you is constitutionally valid.

I think it's important to note that the provincial paradigm that's in place in Canada for child welfare is not really based on a correct understanding of the division of powers as it affects indigenous people. I would direct you, of course, to the very important work also of now-Justice Sébastien Grammond, who was also the dean of law at the University of Ottawa and who has written extensively on the area of child welfare legislation. I'm in full agreement with him, and as he's in full agreement with Professor Peter Hogg, then I would say to you that the preponderance of constitutional opinion in Canada would be that the federal government is well within its authority under 91(24) to enact this legislation.

Even beyond that position, the federal government may enact a national strategy to address issues of enormous importance. You will note in Bill C-92 there is reference to the fact that this is a national project with the government working with the provinces in the preamble. This is the indication, and in the position on coordinating agreements, it is seeking to have a new national approach.

I read those provisions of the bill as saying that there's respect for provincial authority and jurisdiction in child welfare. There is clear authority, constitutionally, for the federal government to act. However, ideally, we would harmonize and have what we sometimes call “double aspect”, or we would have a collaborative approach to child welfare.

I would go one step further to say that based on the scholarship and jurisprudence of Canada, and the recognition and affirmation of the inherent rights of indigenous peoples and first nations, in particular in section 35 of our Constitution Act of 1982, it is important to have this legislation for the following reason.

Until recently, for whatever reason, perhaps because of the colonial history of the Indian Act and the treatment of indigenous people, the federal government took the position that it was a mere funder of child welfare and had no obligation for the people who were in child welfare systems.

We know from both cases, significant class action and civil cases, and constitutional decisions, that all governments have a fiduciary obligation to their citizens, but particularly to first nations citizens, where the honour of the Crown is at stake. Canada is well within its right to enact legislation of this sort to act in that position as a fiduciary, understanding that the honour of the Crown is at stake.

There have been some abysmal and horrific failures with respect to child welfare. They are well known. I worked as an independent child advocate for a decade in British Columbia in that capacity, with a small staff. I had 17,000 child welfare cases, most of which were indigenous children. I catalogued report after report of the incredible failures that happened because of the absence of this legislation that we're dealing with today.

I want to begin by emphasizing to you, being open to answering any questions you may have, or bringing forward to the committee any material you may require, that the paradigm we have now is flawed. In particular, the provinces have authority over child welfare, because there's a provision of section 88 of the Indian Act that allowed them to apply child welfare legislation to first nations people without their consent. That is because of the Indian Act itself, which came into effect in 1876, which was a consolidation of some of the most heinous colonial ordinances. This horrible colonial chapter in our history sought to deprive indigenous people of their identity, their lands, their culture. That Indian Act continues to be on the books and that is the vehicle through which the provincial law is applied.

The world of Canada changed somewhat in 1982 when our Constitution was repatriated. From 1982 to today, our Constitution, which is called “a living tree”, has changed. We've had 40 major decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada on the rights of indigenous people that have consistently found precisely what I am presenting today, which is that there have to be novel collaborative approaches to addressing these persistent public policy failures.

One cannot help but conclude that with respect to child welfare, this is an abysmal and total public policy failure, and a failure of our legal framework to address in a contemporary way, profound issues that need to be addressed.

The legal and/or policy position that I wish to share with the committee today is that Bill C-92 is not only constitutional. It's overdue. It's vital. It's essential. I think it certainly would withstand constitutional challenge. That is not to say that if it is passed, the application of this bill to particular cases in particular places would not always have to be carefully assessed so that it balances the rights of individuals, like children who may be facing peril, and the collective rights of their families and their nations and their peoples.

In application, there will be many issues to be worked out. All legislation, when it's new, takes time to be worked out in practise. It doesn't happen overnight. However, the shifts that are present in this bill are very significant shifts for Canada.

I have worked directly in the child welfare system on literally thousands of cases. I did the first custom adoption in Saskatchewan for a first nations nehiyaw child. I have represented chiefs repeatedly in courts to try to get them to at least have standing to speak for their children, which often times they have been denied that standing. I've had the opportunity, even now, to appear in child welfare matters for first nations chiefs and others, and I see the barriers.

In fact, we have a child welfare matter under way in a court in British Columbia, where the judge read the draft bill and said, “This is a very helpful approach. Maybe I should hold off deciding the matter until this has passed, because it would give us a new pathway forward to do things that we couldn't do before to support this family, the chief and this grandmother. We could have family reunification.”

I want to conclude my opening remarks by saying that there are technical issues, of course. No bill, as the national chief has said, on its own, is going to respond to the incredible human rights failure and policy disaster that child welfare has been, for first nations children in particular. Will this bill create new tools and opportunities to shift things in a positive direction? I think it will. Will it require very close scrutiny? Yes, it will.

Significant resources are needed, and new resources have come into the child welfare system. I feel very strongly that there has to be careful evaluation of outcomes for children. Those resources need to go to the children who need them. When we're shifting public policy like this, everything should look at the framework of being accountable to children. Are children getting the resources needed? We do know that the outcomes lens is significant.

I'll leave it there. Thank you again. I'm more than happy to answer any questions and to provide references for the matters I've identified in my testimony.

Thank you.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Witness spoke in Ukrainian]

[English]

That's little bit of Ukrainski. I know your background.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

That's “I'm happy to be here” in Cree.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

I'm thanking you all, as relatives and friends, and I'm thanking you for acknowledging the Algonquin territory here.

This morning, I also welcome the good thoughts, mind and brain of my colleague, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond. She is a well-known person across Canada and an expert in child welfare, amongst other things.

The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada provided many concrete proposals for moving forward on the reconciliation and human rights of first nations. The TRC acknowledged in the first five calls to action that the matter before you today, child welfare, has to be addressed.

The TRC specifically identified the need for federal legislation to launch the change needed to end the crisis of over-apprehension of first nations children. The TRC also said that meeting the minimum human rights standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is foundational to reconciliation.

This approach informed the resolutions adopted by the Assembly of First Nations, which led to our involvement in this initiative. The reason is compelling. We have many resolutions from our chiefs in assembly. Nobody can question the mandate or ask why the AFN is doing this. You don't get a hundred per cent of everything all the time. I don't think any of your parties do. I don't think Canadians do, on any issue, and neither does the AFN, but we have a mandate and we have direction as per our process. That's why we're doing this.

When rights have been violated and children's lives have been harmed, we say that, over time in these systems, the respect for the basic human rights of children, families, communities and nations is only the proper framework.

Why is Bill C-92 important? Bill C-92 must be understood within the context of the status quo today for first nations children. I know it sounds repetitive—you've heard many witnesses—but we're going to keep saying it until people get it. There are 40,000 children in care right across Canada. Some of the provinces are worse than others.

You have two systems. There are on-reserve child and family services agencies, but now there are the provincial systems as well that need to be addressed. That's what this is trying to look at.

When we say that there are 40,000 first nations children in care in Canada, we know that there are more children in care than were in the residential schools at the height of their operations. That's a very astounding stat and figure and number. It's a human rights crisis in Canada. So we say that it's a humanitarian crisis and a national human rights crisis. It's not a challenge that will be met by federal, provincial and territorial governments continuing to impose their assumed jurisdiction over our children while ignoring the inherent rights of first nations people.

The status quo has been a clear and unconscionable failure. It has huge consequences for generations of children, families and communities. Bill C-92 marks a significant shift from the legal status quo regarding first nations jurisdiction. The bill includes several provisions that affirm the inherent aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, including self-determination and the inherent right of self-government in relation to children and families. Many first nations are ready to operate under their own laws, and they have been pushing for this for decades.

I always say this: Occupy the field. You have federal laws. You have provincial and territorial laws, but you also can have—and should have—first nations laws in different sectors. Occupy the field and assert that jurisdiction as part of that inherent right.

Splatsin First Nation and Kukpi7 Christian—he's going to be here later on today—is a case in point. Kukpi7 Christian and the tribal council are ready, as are many others across Canada. We are being held back by the lack of legislation supporting and recognizing full first nations authority and jurisdiction over child and family services.

In addition to the jurisdiction and law-making affirmations in the legislation, operational principles were added to ensure that critical problems in child welfare can be addressed immediately.

Principles such as the priority on prevention and the placement of children are designed to recalibrate the child welfare system on the first day after royal assent. Prioritizing prevention over apprehension, along with the importance of culturally relevant placements, are immediate improvements available to first nations even before first nations pass their own laws.

Bill C-92 also advances substantive legal recognition of the human rights of first nations peoples by affirming collective rights, critical rights of individual children and youth, and the rights of their families and caregivers.

Bill C-92 is a good step forward. It's a step forward for first nations, and there is a pressing urgency to complete the work and see the bill passed. It's very important work of this committee. Roll it all up. You have to get it into votes and then over to the Senate. That's another avenue to look at. June is coming and there's a sense of urgency for friends and relatives.

We say that no one piece of legislation is going to reverse all the problems, but this legislation is a step forward.

It's a step forward. No single legislative instrument will be enough on its own. Starting with a national framework while regional and first nations-level innovations continue is a good first step. There's flexibility. This legislation will complement and not detract from existing self-government agreements.

The impact of the child welfare system is felt every day in first nations communities and families. You've heard constantly—and it's true—that there is no greater gift from the Creator than our children. They deserve to grow and develop within their families, with full knowledge of their culture, languages, customs and traditions, and with the love and support of their first nations.

We require a system that affirms our identity and our family systems, where we no longer are required to push and plead for support and recognition from provincial governments: governments that have merely taken their cues from the Indian Act and consequently have imposed harsh policies on us that have failed our children.

Bill C-92 recognizes and affirms what we firmly believe that we have always had: a right to raise and take care of our children according to our own practices and values and to transmit our languages and cultures across the generations and into the future.

Clause 18 of the bill is critical for us. There must be a rights-based approach that affirms our inherent rights, including self-government for child and family services. It's time that Canada shifted the system to do what should have been done years ago.

Bill C-92 is an important step forward because it affirms our jurisdiction and creates space for first nations laws and practices regarding our families. It is rights-respecting legislation within the context of implementing the UN declaration, which is the minimum standard for the survival and dignity of indigenous peoples. It sets out key principles that will prevent children from being removed from their homes unnecessarily, promotes children staying in their communities and ensures that the principle of the best interests of the child is understood and applied with a first nations lens for our children and families.

We know that Bill C-92 is not perfect.

I made my little line here: Perfection in any bill or law can be seen and viewed as an enemy of good. Begin and build perfection over time, because there are reviews, but at least start. Start. Get it passed.

This can be strengthened and we have recommendations to strengthen it. There are four areas.

Number one is funding, a very important piece. Funding should be clarified through three amendments: (a) the language on funding in the preamble needs to be more precise to affirm that Canada acknowledges the call for funding and accepts the call for funding; (b) a funding provision in the body of the bill is needed; and, (c) clause 20 of the bill on coordination agreements needs to be more precise about the fiscal arrangement needed to support first nations governments and coordinate services across systems on the reserve and off the reserve. There has to be coordination.

That's one piece on the funding.

Number two, the UN declaration reference in the preamble is important but must also be included in the purpose section, clause 8, to include advancing the UN declaration as a key purpose of the legislation. This provision must be done in the same manner as was done in Bill C-91, the indigenous languages bill. The UN declaration is a framework and has many important provisions for children and families, like clause 8, on preventing forced removal of children from one culture to another.

Number three, the best interests of the child sections should be amended to clarify that first nations governing bodies that pass laws prescribing the factors for determining the best interests of the children will add to the factors in the bill, creating recognition and support for our ways of caring for our children and families. This is important, because for some of our people we do not remove a child. We remove the person harming the child and keep the family intact. We believe that this is in the best interests of the child. Our laws must be affirmed and our practices supported to preserve family unity.

The fourth one, Jordan's principle, should be given explicit reference in relation to substantive equality for children to ensure that this useful legal tool is confirmed in Bill C-92, building upon the resolutions of Parliament that have adopted Jordan's principle. This can be added to the preamble and to all sections referencing “substantive equality”, including subclause 9(3).

I say all of this foremost in the interests of first nations children and families.

Madam Chair, these are the formal amendments that I have just read. I want to formally table these amendments to the committee. It will help in your report writing. They're all here.

That's it.

[Katherine Whitecloud]

I haven't made a direct reference to Bill C-92; I've left it unsaid. One of the reasons is that there are so many people who are actually working in the field. My colleagues who spoke earlier this morning have spent a great deal of time and effort in addressing these matters and have done so through the national advisory committee and through the regional forums that have occurred throughout the country.

Mr. Waugh, my background is as an educator. I was a teacher. I'm a director of education and I've taught in universities. Although I do not speak directly to Bill C-92, there is a reason for that. In our culture we do not give voice to things that are real. It's like when you step out the door and it's raining. You tend to look at each other and say, “Hey, it's raining.” For us that is silly. We know it's raining. We don't have to voice it.

It's a completely different approach. In my work and my efforts in supporting our children, I live in my traditional ways and utilize the knowledge and experience I've gained throughout my entire professional life in service to our people.

[David Chartrand]

Without a doubt, I've been involved right from the beginning. I've been president for 22 years. Just as a background so people know who I am, I come from the Department of Justice. I worked for Department of Justice for 10 years before I became president. I was a probation officer and then I was a director in the courts division in one of the departments. I've been intervolved in the justice and child welfare system for a long time.

I took over as president in 1996. When we finally had devolution in 2003, we were transferred the mandate of the child welfare system, but larger policies did not change. As I said earlier in my comments, the system was designed to apprehend children. It wasn't designed to keep the children with their family or with the community. It was designed to take them out. Your funding formula was based on that system: to help the family, you had to take the child. People must realize this. You're taking the child, and the family has no way—if you heard Katherine speak on certain issues—of having money to defend themselves, no way of having the right to even speak or understand this complicated system. Now it was with the court lawyers and all these things were involved.

Yes, Danny, the issue has been completely the opposite. We've kept a record of all the people we prevented from being apprehended. It had no value to the province, which we thought was absolutely ridiculous, because that shows prevention. I'm talking in the thousands. When you look at it from that side, it was designed for apprehension.

Now there's a major shift. I know in Manitoba, customary care legislation, etc., has come in to work towards prevention. But the problem now lies because we're completely underfunded—data, stats and all the evidence show that—yet they're telling us we can start working on prevention with the surplus funds. How can you have surplus funds when you're already underfunded? There's no way we're going to change to the prevention side of things.

This is our hope in Bill C-92. The focus on Bill C-92 is to go to prevention, to work with the family, to keep the family at home. To ensure that the grandparents, the aunts and uncles are all involved. Let us take care of our own children. I don't know how many times we told you and outside society. Let us take care of our own.

[Katherine Whitecloud, Grandmother, As an Individual]

Good morning, Madam Chair, and thank you very much.

[Witness spoke in Lakota]

[English]

My relatives, it's with a glad heart that I shake your hands for the opportunity to be here in front of you. I used my language to announce to my ancestors that I am here speaking on behalf of our children, from our people and our community.

Although I would love to speak about all of the technical aspects of this bill, my learned colleagues who presented before me have done so, as have my relatives from Saskatchewan spoken to the technical aspects. I'm going to talk about and share with you the realities and what needs to be done, and what works for our people with regard to our families and our children.

Terminology is so very important, and in our culture and in our ways, we do not have a term for “child welfare”. We only have a term for our children, which is wakanyeja, our “sacred ones”. Our life is to wrap around our sacred ones as the gifts they are.

The history of child welfare is extensive. Successive governments have studied and reviewed and made recommendations for addressing the state of child welfare and therefore the state of our people and our nations. We can talk about the litany of reviews and recommendations. However, my purpose in being here today is to share with you how and what we, as [Witness spoke in Lakota], have committed to do to bring about family wholeness and family well-being, and in so doing, community well-being and a thriving nation.

We all are aware of the residential school effects. Our people have felt it. My family has felt it. My parents lived it. Our people have lived the sixties scoop, where whole families were decimated because of child welfare and the loss of family. I attended a funeral just before I left to come here of a girl who grew up through the sixties scoop. Her younger sister knew nothing about who her relatives are. It brought tears to her eyes when I addressed her as my relative and about how important she was to our family and how important all of us are for each other.

Many of our relatives, through the sixties scoop and the residential schools, and through the child welfare system, especially our women and young girls, have been taken advantage of and been decimated through missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. The report that is going to be presented to you shortly, also, will be coming down.

There is a direct correlation between all of those past government policy impacts—residential schools, sixties scoop, child welfare—and other government policies that removed our children from our communities and our families. It is especially the women and the girls who have been directly impacted. They have suffered, and are missing and have been murdered because of their experiences and their parental experiences through all of those policies that I mentioned.

Our people are unique. We are distinct. We have a language and a culture that is like no other. Our traditions are strong. Our spiritual life is powerful and guides us in every moment of our lives. This is the reason that I used my language to begin my presentation and to share the resurgence of our ancestral knowledge of our knowing—the knowing that runs in our blood and our veins, the knowing and understanding that our grandparents and our ancestors watch over us and guide us and that their teachings and all of their knowledge run in our veins. It's powerful, and it's alive.

We are fully cognizant that for our people to flourish, we must be whole and healthy in body and spirit. We must take care of ourselves and we must take care of each other. We must protect and care for our sacred ones, our sacred wakanyeja, our children.

We who have accepted the gift and responsibility of parenthood, just as all or most of you have, who have lived and thrived with the sacred knowledge of our ancestors through our language, must do this. No one can do this for us. This is to bring wholeness and well-being to our families. This is to mend the broken hoop of our families. This is to reconnect to the land, to our place, to our homes. This is to make our families and homes whole again, with our wakanyeja at the centre of all that we do. This is to fulfill our roles and responsibilities as [Witness spoke in Lakota], and to fulfill our purpose in life.

Others of our people have articulated succinctly and with great passion the history of devastation inflicted on our people, on our lands and our ways of life. The most heinous have been the atrocities inflicted on our most vulnerable, our innocent and sacred children.

Our children are the ones who have suffered beyond suffering. When you have stripped a mother and a father, or a grandmother or a grandfather of their purpose in life—their purpose for being—you've inflicted the greatest harm known to man.

It is within this context that Bill C-92 is viewed. Can we trust you? Can we trust your word? Can we trust the honour of your word, the honour of your purpose and the honour of your people that you represent and speak on behalf of? That is the state of the relationship between you and our people, our families and our children.

There are gaps within Bill C-92 that have been identified and brought forward. Colleagues who presented this morning have spoken to the needed changes. Those who have written the words and those who continue to argue for paramountcy inscribing this legal document must remember that our children are witnesses to the outcome. Our mothers and fathers, our grandparents, our aunts, our uncles and our siblings are silent witnesses to the outcome. They've not had the opportunity to express to you how they see their families being whole again. Those who are affected the most have no say and no input to the life decisions you are going to make.

That document you are working on is fragile. It can be destroyed, just as families have been destroyed through the loss of their children. Our children are our flesh and blood. They are our future. They are our lifeblood. They are our destiny. They are our ancestors. Only we, [Witness spoke in Lakota], have the responsibility for our children.

History shows that all of the efforts to help our children have failed. Our children are a gift and a responsibility provided to us by our maker. Each child is brought to us as unique human being, to teach us, to connect us to our ancestors and to our future, to provide that path for greater things to come, to carry our history and to make history. We honour our child; we uplift our child. We love and cherish, and we are all equal in purpose and design.

Sadly, our children are caught in a political firestorm. They are right in the middle of it. The reality of a child's spirit and well-being is left out of the jockeying of positions for who is going to win a legal or political battle. Our children are trapped. Not one can speak for themselves, except for our colleague and our brother who presented this morning as an adult.

A system that doesn't understand our culture, doesn't speak our language and doesn't understand our traditions and protocols cannot understand the needs of our child. That's the process we are trapped in. We know what the solution is. Our plan and intent is to transition to supports for family well-being built on our original child caring, child rearing, nurturance of the individual spirit and family-centred way of life. They will be built on understanding our kinship relationships and will re-establish the undefeatable foundation of families rooted in our language and culture and, in doing so, reconnect to our knowing the ancestral knowledge that has sustained us since time began: the power of respect, kindness, truth, honesty, integrity, sharing, helping, giving and love.

What are commonly referred to as preventative services—what we know as expressing kindness, as caring and love and providing supports to our kinship systems—means providing mentoring, guidance and support for the healing of families. It means taking responsibility for our families through our children, through our heads of families, through our family leadership, through our grandmothers and our aunties. It means committing to family and to coming together as a family. It means giving life to our laws and rules that are inherent within our language. Within our languages, our kinship system, our rules of conduct and our role in life, we are blessed with this gift of our language. It is our lifeline.

I have the utmost faith that we can and will accomplish what our children and our people have given us direction to do, that our children will come home, that our families will be whole and our people will survive. Our young people are committed and our relatives are committed and our leadership—the leaders of our families—are committed. We have no other option.

I have five pages, MaryAnn.

We will accomplish this with honour and integrity. We have given our word. We love our children and our relatives. No one can do this other than ourselves. No one understands our language but us. No one represents our children but us, our tiyóspaye.

In my childhood it was looked upon as bringing dishonour to our family and extended family, our tiyóspaye, if children were apprehended. If that blue government car came in your yard, people would hide, ashamed. Grandmothers wouldn't allow that to happen. That blue car is in our yard every day now, but it's driven by our own people. That practice has to stop, and we'll not allow it to continue. This is work we have to do in our homes and our communities for our people.

The legislative process we are engaged in right now has no understanding of this, the heart of our people and the legacy of our ancestors that we carry. This is where the answers lie.

Our youth are connecting to this. Our young girls are seeking out isnati, our coming of age. [Inaudible—Editor] are also seeking their coming of age. Our young men will understand their role as protectors, gatherers and providers and about their responsibilities in life. Our children will be honoured and uplifted, and our families and homes will be whole. They have to be.

[Marlene Bugler]

All right.

In closing, I want to stress the importance of ensuring that Bill C-92 provides indigenous child welfare agencies with the capacity to deliver culturally appropriate services.

Thank you for your time.

[Marlene Bugler, Executive Director, Kanaweyimik Child and Family Services]

Thank you.

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the standing committee as they consider Bill C-92. I'm going to speak from a technician's perspective as the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations will speak from the political perspective.

I have a master's in business administration with 35 years of experience in human services and 25 years in child welfare. I've worked in first nations child welfare agencies, as well as social services child welfare in Saskatchewan. I've seen children come into care as a result of neglect caused by addictions. Parents are susceptible to addictions as they mask the pain from intergenerational trauma. We have learned that parents need culturally appropriate trauma recovery programs to break the cycles of addictions in dysfunctional families. Kanaweyimik Child and Family Services has stabilized the number of children ending up in care due to culturally appropriate, early intervention services and intensive supports provided to children and families.

We service five first nations communities and we average 50 to 60 children in care at any given time; 85% of these children are either long-term wards or person of sufficient interest orders, meaning they're in care until they're 18 years of age. The remaining 15% are new apprehensions, but we've seen that they come in and out of care in a very short time frame. Too many indigenous children are in care. Many extenuating factors cause these numbers to rise. Many of our indigenous families are suffering from decades of unresolved traumas they've experienced, and this is affecting their ability to be effective parents. Removal from parental homes is very traumatic for children. We can see this will impact the children's lives as they grow up to be parents themselves. These children always end up returning to their families when they age out of care, regardless of the history of neglect.

It's important that we consider ways to keep families together and to work towards reunification in a timely manner with culturally appropriate supports. I am in support of Bill C-92 as it will enable first nations child and family service agencies to expand culturally appropriate services to children and families living off reserve, but we must be careful in the transition of responsibilities to ensure that no child falls between jurisdictions [Technical difficulty—Editor] lead to the readiness of Saskatchewan first nations child and family service agencies.

We have 16 agencies in Saskatchewan, [Technical difficulty—Editor] 20 to 25 years of experience in delivering child protection services. Sixteen agencies have 10 years of experience in developing and delivering a range of culturally appropriate early intervention and intensive supports to children and families. Two agencies from northern Saskatchewan have entered into agreements with Saskatchewan Social Services to assume delivery of child welfare services off reserve to any resident in those areas. Three agencies have entered into agreements with Saskatchewan Social Services to deliver culturally appropriate early intervention and intensive supports to children and families involved with social services. For example, Kanaweyimik has entered into agreements to manage visitation services for children in the care of social services. In North Battleford, Saskatchewan, social services refers all the families requiring family visits to Kanaweyimik. The agency coordinates, schedules, monitors and transports children to and from visits. Kanaweyimik also provides two emergency foster homes to serve children apprehended by social services so they're in a first nations home. We provide culturally appropriate early intervention and intensive supports to children and families involved with social services, resulting in a lot of returns of children in a timely manner.

As another example, we have agreements with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice to deliver family violence treatment for any individuals, regardless of race, who are involved with the domestic violence court in The Battlefords. All our agencies have agreements with Saskatchewan to locate and screen families and caregivers for indigenous children in care of social services. We all have agreements with Saskatchewan, again, to case manage children in care files once children have been placed in homes that have been screened and approved on reserve. All our agencies have been trained by social services to deliver the P.R.I.D.E. foster parent program to potential caregivers, so I believe Saskatchewan is in a position to transition our prevention services to off reserve.

Some critical considerations for Bill C-92 are that it needs to ensure that first nations child and family service agencies' capacities will be sustained, and we need legislation that commits governments to ongoing funding for agencies based on actual needs, not only for on reserve, but also for off reserve. This is a whole new area for us.

We need legislation that addresses liability, such as the Saskatchewan Child and Family Services Act, section 79, which provides for immunity as long as an official is acting in good faith. We need legislation that requires establishment of a process for interjurisdictional transfers, similar to the interprovincial transfer protocol, so that no children fall in between jurisdictions.

Legislation must commit to Jordan's principle on an ongoing basis in order to prevent gaps in services to vulnerable children.

We need legislation that enables agencies to radically change the way child protection is done, such as removing parents versus removing children from the home. Current provincial legislation doesn't allow us to do that, nor does Bill C-92. This is an area that Kanaweyimik Child and Family Services is moving to. We've tried it in voluntary situations and it has been very effective.

Our elders have advised us to concentrate on the children and young people, as they are our future. We need to balance our modern-day techniques and traditional values and practices to strengthen our families.

[Tischa Mason, Executive Director, Saskatchewan First Nations Family and Community Institute]

It's 10 minutes in total.

We would like to thank you for the opportunity to present today on our support for Bill C-92 as it relates to first nations children, youth and families.

My name is Tischa Mason, and I am the Executive Director for the Saskatchewan First Nations Family and Community Institute. With me is Marlene Bugler, the Executive Director of Kanaweyimik Child and Family Services. She's also one of our board members at the institute. We're presenting from Treaty No. 6 territory and the homeland of the Métis here in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Here's a little background. The institute was established in 2007 as a non-profit organization. We were established at the request of the First Nations Child and Family Services executive director, who identified the need for an organization to provide support and training that meet first nations needs and are culturally appropriate. We're non-political.

The mission of the institute is to help build capacity for organizations that provide services to children, youth and families based on first nations values. We do this through research, the development of policies and standards of practice, the development of curriculum and the delivery of training. We also provide on-site support to first nations child and family service workers on their risk assessment tools and child protection and prevention.

We did a first nations community engagement research report to understand the priorities for child welfare reform in Saskatchewan. We provided a handout that cross-referenced Bill C-92 with the institute's “Voices for Reform” research report. Bill C-92 has addressed and aligned to many of the areas that Saskatchewan first nations have identified as needing reform, but we would also like to recognize that some areas need to be further addressed and strengthened in Bill C-92.

Proposed paragraph 16(1)(e) should be expanded to read “with any other adult that is committed to maintaining child' connection to the child culture and community”.

Also, the fourth “whereas” clause on page 1 excludes males and boys.

As well, proposed paragraph 9(3)(e) can be strengthened with a reference to Jordan's principle to address gaps in services due to jurisdictional disputes.

The legislation does not commit the government to fund services. It's referenced in the last “whereas” clause on page 2, but is not included in the previous “whereas” clause that states the government “is committed...to cooperation and partnership...achieving reconciliation” and “engaging...Indigenous peoples”. We hope that government can commit to funding agencies based on need.

Our final point is that more emphasis is needed on collaborative and strategic partnership support to develop interrelated infrastructure and systems that impact or are currently impacting child welfare. An example of that would be family courts. Success is based on our ability to create and maintain relationships and on working together.

I'd like to hand it off to Marlene to further explain this from a technical perspective and present to you.

[David Chartrand, President, Manitoba Metis Federation]

Thank you very much. I've given you a document to keep on file. I want to apologize to Quebec and all French-speaking people that I didn't have it translated in time. I do sincerely apologize for that. I should have had it done, but somebody in my office didn't follow up as indicated.

Honourable Chair MaryAnn Mihychuk and members of the standing committee, good morning. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present my perspective on Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

Today I speak to you as a leader of the Métis nation, but I also want to speak to you as a parent and a grandparent. I want to speak to you as someone who has fought for decades for the children of my nation as they were ripped from their mothers, fathers, aunties, uncles, their communities and their nation. For too long and despite our best efforts, the status quo for our children has been removal, foster care placements and adoption. Our nation has been depeopled one child at a time, through the sixties scoop, the residential school, the day school and our child welfare system.

Last year, in January 2018, I spoke at an emergency meeting on indigenous child and family services and addressed what was referred to at the time by Minister Philpott as a humanitarian crisis and a human rights crisis. This year I watched as the Manitoba government cut from the already underfunded budget for Métis child welfare. Right now in Manitoba, the children in the Métis nation are worth, in the funding arrangement, $1.39 a day. That's the only additional money we're getting. This is less than a Tim Hortons coffee.

Despite the current reality, at least in the province, there have been some positive changes. That has been through our own work and our own development. After the sixties scoop, when thousands of our children were taken, the Métis federation in 1982 developed its own plan through all kinds of fundraising events. We raised our own money to find our children and bring them home. We were fortunate to find close to 100 of them, I think, but many we will probably never find. We are still finding them today. We're still connecting with them and trying to reconnect them with their family. The stories you hear....

I'll just set this aside for a moment and speak to you as a leader. For those of you who may never have been to any of these meetings, I would encourage you to try to go to some of them. As a committee member, you especially have the power to make a difference in this country through legislation, through actions and through voting. I've been in politics close to 40 years now. I've won seven elections as president, and I've been president for 22 years. There are 400,000 Métis people in western Canada. I've chaired many a meeting in my time, not only in Canada but internationally. Throughout this time, I've had the toughest time in my life as a chair to oversee the discussions involving sixties scoop survivors. I don't know how many times I've cried on that podium, with them, hearing their stories of sexual and physical abuse—just abuse; animals were treated better than they were. In fact, Minister Philpott and I sat at a meeting and listened to the young people speak. They were child welfare survivors, and we heard their stories. Philpott and I cried along with the rest of them and promised them that we would fight and continue to fight for change, that change one day would come, that it would never happen again, and that this can't happen again.

I'm sad to say, however, that it's still happening because of the way the system is designed right now in Manitoba, even though we have a mandated child welfare system. We're the only Métis nation government in the prairies that has it. We got it through several inquiries, for which people had to die, and then the recommendations came from there. Now we're at a stage where we see a bill that will give us an opportunity to ensure that the key provisions that we speak of and fight for will be protected. These are culture and identity, ensuring that the family is the number one priority, and ensuring that the child stays within the community. We will have the federal protection that we don't have as the Métis nation. We will have something that ensures us that we will not, in fact, have to worry that our children will ripped away or taken out of their homes and placed in foster homes with those who aren't our people and don't protect our culture.

In fact, we lost one—no disrespect to the Filipino family—to a Filipino foster parent. The court ruled that the child was there too long. I think it was 18 months.

The child was young enough not to fully understand who his parents were. To take them from the Filipino family would have had a devastating effect on his mind. They kept him there and we lost him. We went to court and we lost based on a court decision. We can never let that happen again. I'm proud of the Jewish people, for example, who would never let that happen.. We have a Jewish Child and Family Service in Manitoba, and I applaud them for having the strength and prosperity to ensure that this does not happen to their children. But why does it happen to ours, and why do we let it happen? It can't happen anymore—this is the new millennium. This is not the 1800s, or the late 1900s. It's the time of change, and change is here.

This bill is not the perfect bill. We all know that. I heard you speak here. I heard you state again that money should be set aside. If there's anybody who should be worried about money, it should be the Métis. We don't have a system in Canada right now. The first nations offer services at different jurisdictions they're working in. In fact, two grand chiefs in Manitoba, SCO and MKO, work together with me. We're the only three that have mandated child welfare agencies in Manitoba under the auspices of the governance. Clearly, under leadership counsel we've been fighting with government trying to protect our children.

We just had meetings, the grand chiefs and I, and we're desperately moving forward on our plan to change the direction the Province of Manitoba is going in. We're left at the mercy of the province and at the whim of changes in elections. You all know what happens in elections, you guys. All of you are politicians and somehow have been involved in politics. New leaders and new ideologies come in. In my province right now, the number one issue is cutting and slaying the deficit. Everything else is secondary. With that comes cuts, and cuts came to the child welfare system. Like I said, $1.39 day is all our children will get for the next three years.

How can we change that? We're taking a system in Manitoba that used to be based on grabbing and taking possession of the child. That was the system and that's how you got funded. Now everybody is talking about prevention, including the federal government. How do you shift an entire system that was there for grab-and-take and move it to prevention, where it should have been several decades ago? Now we want to change to prevention and that's the right approach, the direct approach. Keep the child in the family, in the community. The opportunity is going to be there in this bill. I heard Cathy talk about certain things, and I know there are jurisdictional issues that come into play, but common sense should prevail. We've always had our challenges as governments, but I'm sure that if we sit together with open minds we'll come to a solution. The provinces will either opt into that solution or opt out of it.

Right now, I know the provinces don't want to pay the bill. They want the federal government to pay the bill. That's an issue we'll have to figure a balance on. When it comes to resources, I understand that there are issues around where the Métis will fit into all of this, but we trust that if we have this bill the funding will come later. We'll negotiate it. We don't know exactly what our goal or our plan will be, or how far we're going to go with it regarding prevention and expenditures. I understand there was a question posed to my president when he was here. He doesn't deliver child welfare, because he's the national president. I deliver it. There's a question of how you get notice to the community, the Métis. You have reserves, and you have a band council. We too have our political structures, and they've been around since 1967. I have one of the strongest governments in the homeland. Our system is designed to be the most democratic in the country—it ensures that we're participating. We have local leadership right across all of our villages in our urban centres, and we have offices right across the province.

There's no issue of how to get hold of the Métis and advise the people. We have one of the most robust ways of getting our people interacted and involved. That shouldn't even be a question around this table, because the system has been here for a while and it's working well.

Madam Chair, I can say to you that the Métis government in Manitoba, as well as the Métis nation, supports Bill C-92 strongly. We will stand with it and hopefully convince you...I heard you say that all of you support it. You said that. But there are some exceptions, some areas of caution. It is not the perfect bill. It's not pan-aboriginal. I'm hearing people say it's independent, and every nation has the right to choose. Everybody has the right to opt in or opt out. The options are there. From our perspective, we will support it because we know it's going to make changes that are going to save our families, save our children.

Hopefully, in the next decade or so, we'll all be proud to see that we were all involved in a massive change that took place in this country for the Métis nation, and we'll see that change actually come to where we will be able to say, “Look at the money we're saving today and at the costs that have gone down. The families are stronger because we made a decision to support Bill C-92.” You'll get that support from the Métis nation.

[Bobby Narcisse, Director of Social Services, Nishnawbe Aski Nation]

Good morning, everyone. My name is Bobby Narcisse. I'm with Nishnawbe Aski Nation, NAN, originally from the Aroland First Nation within Treaty 9 and Treaty 5. We too would like to acknowledge the territory of the Algonquin people. We are very happy to be here to do a submission to the standing committee.

Nishnawbe Aski Nation takes this opportunity to share its views on Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. NAN is supportive of the idea of federal legislation affirming first nations jurisdiction in the area of child and family well-being, but is concerned about certain weaknesses in the current drafting of Bill C-92.

Nishnawbe Aski Nation has a chiefs committee on children, youth and families, and it has deliberated on federal child and family service legislation on multiple occasions over the past nine months. Our chiefs committee members are intimately and painfully familiar with the violent failings of the current child welfare paradigm and with the harms caused by well over a century of federal and provincial interference in the lives and governance of Nishnawbe Aski Nation communities and families. Equally important, the chiefs committee members are intimately and gratefully familiar with the strengths and wisdom of our elders and ancestors and the cultural, intellectual and spiritual richness they and their communities have to draw from and build on.

This submission assesses Bill C-92 against key characteristics for legislation as identified by the chiefs committee on children, youth and families, and endorsed at a chiefs meeting on child welfare on October 2018. Federal indigenous child welfare legislation must facilitate a paradigm shift in child and family services. For too long, these services have failed our children, youth and families.

With this in mind, Nishnawbe Aski Nation advocates for federal legislation that, first, affirms inherent first nations jurisdiction in the area of child and family well-being and affirms that such jurisdiction is exclusive where so asserted by a first nation, regardless of the place of residency of a first nations child. Such affirmation recognizes that first nations are best positioned to make determinations about what is in the best interests of their children.

Second, we advocate legislation that guarantees adequate, sustainable, predictable, equitable funding for first nations to enable the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in the area of child and family well-being. The legislation ensures that the use of words such as “co-development” and “collaboration” are defined and operationalized as meaning “true collaboration”. Such concepts should be used to facilitate fulfillment of, and not replace, the duty to consult and obtain free, prior, informed consent. These concepts should also ensure a complete break in the way in which the “best interests of the child” has been used in relation to first nations children, youth and families.

With respect to jurisdiction, the first stated purpose of Bill C-92 is to affirm the rights and jurisdiction of indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services. This is a good starting point. The current drafting of Bill C-92, however, waters down first nations jurisdiction. The lack of recognition that we may exercise exclusive jurisdiction over our children, together with the retention of an overriding power by Canada and provinces and/or their service providers and judges through invocation of the best interests of the child, mean that Bill C-92 does not fully recognize our people's inherent jurisdiction over child and family well-being.

With respect to funding, Bill C-92 contains no legislative guarantee of funding for our children and families. This is deeply concerning. It is not enough that the statement in the preamble acknowledges the ongoing call for funding for child and family services that is predictable, stable, needs-based and consistent with the principle of substantive equality in order to secure long-term position outcomes for indigenous children, families and communities. This call needs to be met with legislated guarantees of such funding.

The Caring Society case at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has shed light on human rights violations that occur when funding for our children is not legislated.

In 2011, the Auditor General of Canada identified the lack of a legislative base for on-reserve programs and inadequate funding mechanisms as two of four structural impediments that severely limited delivery of public services and hindered involvement in living conditions on our first nations communities.

The deputy minister of aboriginal affairs and northern development Canada at the time testified before the Standing Common on Public Accounts, in 2012, about the Auditor General's report and explained the following:

One of the really important parts of the Auditor General's report is that it shows there are four...missing conditions. The combination of those is what's likely to result in an enduring change. You could pick any one of them, such as legislation without funding, or funding without legislation, and so on.

They would have some results, but they would probably, in our view, be temporary. If you want enduring structural changes, it is the combination of these tools....

We need a paradigm shift. We need enduring change. Legislation must come hand in hand with legislative guarantees of funding. The proposed legislation must have at least some sort of degree of funding guarantee. Ontario's new policing legislation offers a good template for what an effective legislative funding remedy might look like.

With respect to collaboration, since August 2018, NAN has raised several concerns with ISC about proposed indigenous child welfare legislation, including the use of co-development to describe the process. We want to ensure that given the concerns to date, Canada's process of co-development....

This provision regarding collaboration is worrisome. Canada has a constitutional duty to consult first nations when it contemplates actions affecting their rights under section 35, which the regulations under Bill C-92 would do. The duty is also articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which makes it clear that Canada must obtain free, prior and informed consent of first nations.

Also, “the best interests of the child” is a concern with the way it is drafted in the bill. In a statement of principles developed in September 2018 to guide its deliberations regarding federal indigenous child welfare legislation, the chiefs committee stated, “The federal government has utterly failed our children and families. In the name of “best interests of the child”, first the Indian Residential Schools system and then the child welfare system, have ripped our children from their families, communities.... The effects of these actions are ongoing and intergenerational. Canada and its provinces have no credibility asserting a right or ability to act in our children's best interests.”

NAN is encouraged by the thought of federal indigenous child welfare legislation with the purpose of affirming the rights and jurisdiction of indigenous people in relation to child and family services. Bill C-92 should be strengthened to clearly recognize that our inherent jurisdiction in this realm is exclusive, guarantee adequate funding for the exercise of our jurisdiction in this area, avoid ambiguity introduced by the ill-defined use of “meaningful opportunity to collaborate” and discard colonial, paternalistic, damaging notions perpetuated by “the best interests of the child” provisions to ensure a complete break from the past.

We are ready for a new paradigm in first nations child and family services.

Meegwetch.

[Grand Chief Edward John, Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, committee members.

I'd like to acknowledge the Algonquin people as well, and their traditional homelands.

We're from the same organization in British Columbia, so I won't go into that background. I do want to mention that on submitting this report, the Premier of British Columbia asked, given the significant numbers of children in care, to seek advice on what the province ought to be doing. It's close to a 200-page report with some 86 recommendations. It takes an extensive look at the impacts of laws, policies and practice standards.

I didn't start there. I started in the communities, asking them what they thought and how they felt about how these provincial laws, policies, regulations and practice standards impacted them. This story is really from their perspective. It's the practice side of this impact in our communities. The clerk has this, as well as a summary. There's another document that was tabled with the clerk with our position.

Bill C-92 represents a clear advancement for prevention, early intervention and protection services—in section 1—for indigenous children, youth and families in their respective communities while acknowledging and respecting the diversity of indigenous peoples.

The bill speaks to indigenous youth, but in the operative sections of the bill, the youth are not included. I think it's something that needs to be considered. It may be an oversight.

The national advisory committee is an advisory committee to the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada. The interim report from that committee was submitted to the former minister of Indigenous Services Canada, Jane Philpott, and the AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde. I chaired that committee. The recommendation from that committee was that the federal government consider enacting federal legislation to address the staggering challenges faced by first nations people relating to children and families. Minister Philpott concluded that these challenges amounted to humanitarian crises. We all recall that moment.

Indigenous peoples developing their own laws, regulations, policies and practice standards will exercise their responsibilities in a modern context and uphold and act on their inherent rights to support their children and families. Their laws: by them, for them. Clause 18, read together with clauses 2 and 8 provide a necessary and critical foundation for this.

The operative principles of “substantive equality” in subclause 9(3) and “cultural continuity” in subclause 9(2) are essential for indigenous peoples. When combined with the necessary and extensive support from the federal and provincial governments, they will help to address the deeply rooted ravages of over 150 years of deliberate and misguided assimilation of Crown laws and policies. The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called it “cultural genocide”.

Bill C-92 together with Bill C-91 on indigenous languages provide a substantive framework to remedy past government policy pillars to “kill the Indian in the child” by removing the child from siblings, family, community, foods, lands, territories and resources; and providing education to Christianize and civilize the child by declaring as inferior indigenous philosophies, teachings, languages and culture.

The proposed legislation has shortcomings and is not exhaustive. For indigenous peoples, there will be both internal and external challenges, obstacles and hurdles for the full and effective realization of this significant aspect of the right to self-determination. Constructive and desperately needed changes for indigenous peoples will take time.

I have three recommendations that I want to deal with.

Clause 15 should be strengthened by ensuring the necessary support and other measures for parents, extended family and community, so that no child is removed for reasons related to poverty or the socio-economic circumstances of the child's family.

The recommendation on financing and funding is critically important. There's only one reference in the preamble. The recommendation is that the underlying substance of this acknowledgement should be moved from the preamble to the operative provisions of the bill.

I agree with the recommendation on amending article 8 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We are hopeful that the three bills, Bill C-262, Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, will be adopted and royal assent will be given before the end of this Parliament's mandate.

Finally, the budget implementation legislation, which contains many significant financial commitments to first nations, Inuit and Métis people needs to be adopted. We cannot have Canada's commitments die on an Order Paper. We've been through that once before.

Thank you.

[Cheryl Casimer, Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit]

[Witness spoke in Ktunaxa]

[English]

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for providing me an opportunity to share some thoughts on the bill with you. I'd like to start off by acknowledging the unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples and thanking them for allowing us to do this important work.

I'm a member of the political executive with the First Nations Summit in British Columbia. We represent those first nations involved in and supportive of treaty negotiations with Canada and British Columbia. I'm also a member of the First Nations Leadership Council, which is a political collaboration among the First Nations Summit, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, and the BC Assembly of First Nations.

The bill before you for study is one of the most single important pieces of legislation for first nations people in a generation.

For the 204 first nations communities and tribal councils in British Columbia, and for our nations that are actively working to put in place our child and family laws and policies within our systems of government, this legislation is long overdue.

We have been working with Canada and British Columbia to prepare for implementation of first nations jurisdiction. We confirmed in 2015 that we would pursue legislative, policy and practice reform to achieve this objective. We know that the task of reform is daunting, but it is one of the most important tasks we will have.

Bill C-92 must be understood within the context of the status quo for first nations children. The reality is that there are approximately 5,000 first nations children in care in British Columbia and approximately 40,000 in Canada. This is more children than there were in the residential schools at the height of their operations.

We collectively face a humanitarian and national human rights crisis. I acknowledge the work of former minister Jane Philpott, who called a national emergency meeting in January 2018 to find a means to address this national crisis in partnership with first nations and address the issue around first nations children, family and communities.

We see Bill C-92 as a significant and important first federal step in the legislative reform necessary to support first nations in exercising their jurisdiction over child welfare. While there are opportunities to strengthen Bill C-92, the bill has many positive features.

First nations in B.C. want to take this next step of work, and Bill C-92 provides the necessary support for us to do so and to give proper footing to this work for the implementation stages. It will finally enable Canada to work with first nations in a meaningful way, based on the recognition and respect of our rights, to transform child welfare and restore indigenous systems and approaches to supporting children and families.

There are at least six major aspects of this bill that will build upon our work and take it to that next level: one, priority for prevention approaches; two, provisions on substantive equality; three, best interests of the child provisions; four, priority for placement of children with family and community; five, principles for service delivery; and, six, process rights. Yet, there will be a critical need to make sure that these concepts work on the ground, and that implementation of the legislation is effective in shifting away from the overrepresentation of first nations children in child welfare systems and toward prevention and the reunification of families.

Having said that, I would like to now focus on a number of key recommendations that we believe would strengthen the bill.

We recommend that Bill C-92 include a role for an independent children's advocate or commissioner at the federal level to support the implementation of the concepts and the rights in Bill C-92, and to monitor implementation and assist children, youth and families in navigating the systems that will be impacted by this law.

Second, we understand that there is a review period of five years to evaluate the effectiveness of the bill. We believe this time frame may be too long for the first such review. As such, we believe that the bill should be reviewed after three years and should make sure the special first review covers issues raised by many before this committee and in public comment on the bill, including the addressing of funding; jurisdiction; better outcomes for children and youth; reunification of families; and respect for women and girls, and elimination of discrimination on the basis of gender.

We'd also like to add a reference to the United Nations declaration in the purpose. I urge you to add a specific reference to the United Nations declaration in the purpose section of Bill C-92, as was done in Bill C-91 regarding indigenous languages, so that the United Nations declaration can form and provide necessary context for this work at all levels. We are proposing an amendment to consider a provision (c) to state: to implement the United Nations declaration as a progressive framework for the resolution of human rights issues impacting children, youth and families.

Next we'd like to address the issue of funding. We believe that we need to have statutory funding issues addressed in the bill as well. We're not sure about the mandate of the committee to recommend changes in that regard, but I do emphasize that funding is critically important to reform child welfare and to support first nations child and family services.

Next, in relation to the “stronger ties” rule, we draw your attention to the fact that some of the provisions of the bill may cause confusion with regard to our first nations laws and practices.

The provisions on stronger ties in clause 24 provide that when a conflict between two nations' rules appears to present a conflict over which first nations system applies to the decision for a specific child or family, the test in the bill is that the governing law will be that of the “community” with “stronger ties”. This kind of rule may be valuable, but it needs to be qualified to permit the first nations laws to sort out how conflicts will be handled as well. Our inter-tribal systems have worked this out for generations and the either-or nature of this may undermine some of our laws and practices.

For this reason, I believe there should be a section added to clause 24 which provides that “the rules for resolving conflicts between laws may also be resolved through agreements between Indigenous governing bodies or according to Indigenous laws applicable to children and families”.

I thank you for the opportunity to appear and provide feedback on this important and momentous bill, and I urge you to work with resolve to complete this task as a priority and to see this bill through to completion. It is long overdue and most urgently needed.

Thank you.

[Prof. Peter Hogg]

Bill C-92 is a good example of this. The bill talks about various expressions, but the act is all about indigenous people.

I have no doubt whatsoever that an act respecting children, youth and families is within Parliament's jurisdiction in this area, and that does provide the justification. The power over Indians and lands reserved for the Indians does provide the power for this kind of legislation.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament can legislate on provincial jurisdiction related to indigenous people, as long as the law is limited to indigenous peoples. That was in the NIL/TU,O case, and another related case. How relevant would you say that case is to Bill C-92, from a jurisdictional standpoint?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

In the recent NIL/TU,O case, the Supreme Court ruled on a labour relations dispute within an indigenous child welfare agency. In the case of Natural Parents, the court states that Parliament can legislate on provincial jurisdictions related to indigenous people, as long as the law is limited to indigenous people. Would you like to comment on that, and on how relevant this case is to Bill C-92?

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you. I want to ask the three leaders a question. Bill C-92 is framework legislation. Funding is not in the legislation. We have heard from many witnesses that although a dollar amount does not make sense in the legislation, there should be clear principles of funding in the legislation.

Can you share your thoughts on what that may look like? The three of you could respond, if you can.

[Michelle Kinney, Deputy Minister, Health and Social Development, Nunatsiavut Government]

I'm here today to provide a few thoughts on Bill C-92, and provide a perspective as a professional who's worked in the field for more than 30 years in both child welfare and mental health, and for the past 15 years as deputy minister of the Department of Health and Social Development for Nunatsiavut Government. That's in Labrador in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We represent about 7,000 beneficiaries.

Perhaps more important, I'm an adoptive parent, a parent of a traditionally adopted daughter; a foster parent of approximately 19 children, and a step-parent of a daughter who now has her own foster daughter, my granddaughter. I've been intricately entwined in the child-welfare system from both a personal and professional perspective for about 30 years.

I would like to start by commending the drafters of Bill C-92, as I feel the legislation is much needed and is timely. The principles of the bill—the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality—are ones that the Nunatsiavut Government fully supports and ones that have guided our own work within child welfare. I am pleased that the federal government recognizes that a new approach is needed and is taking steps to empower decision-making by indigenous governments, families and communities.

We have seen the impacts first-hand in our communities when children are removed from families and communities and assimilated into non-indigenous families and communities, often by the best-intentioned caregivers and professionals. We recognize that, as an indigenous government, we cannot simply criticize the current systems but need to play an active role in addressing the issues and proposing solutions.

Nunatsiavut Government has taken a very proactive approach in addressing child welfare and is taking steps toward devolution. We've implemented Inuit-specific bachelor of social work programs, a foster home recruitment and retention campaign with two social workers attached, and supervised access for families with children in care. We've engaged in an Inuit child welfare review with the child and youth advocate's office within the province, which will be finalized by June 1. We've taken an active role in consultations regarding the new provincial Children and Youth Care and Protection Act and are a big part of a policy working group around that new act. We have created a position of indigenous representative to carry out many of the duties that are listed in that new act around indigenous children.

We've developed an adoption protocol for Labrador Inuit children, and we exercise regularly our intervenor status in any adoption matters. We've developed a process for cultural continuity plans. We've done a lot of training that we call “allies in healing”, focusing on intergenerational trauma and healing training for professionals, including lawyers, child welfare workers and social workers involved in that system. We also have created a family connections program, which is an intervention program that I'm going to speak to a bit later. We've also carved out a portion of housing dollars received from the federal government to support families who are at risk of their children coming into care or potentially could have their children returned with appropriate housing and supports.

Often, we have been trailblazers and have struggled with having the province recognize our role in advocating and supporting Inuit children, families and communities, and the need for indigenous social work practice has been challenging. So having the support of Bill C-92 would mean a lot to us. We generally have had to foot the bill for developing all of the above or have sought out project funding and initiatives.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time speaking to the actual bill, as I think the intent and content for the most part are on track. However, I would like to speak to a key element that I think needs to be included in the legislation and is missing from our own provincial legislation as well; that is preventing children from coming into care.

Although not explicitly stated, this legislation seems to imply that the focus is on providing services when a child comes into care, stating:

The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in the making of decisions or the taking of actions in the context of the provision of...services in relation to an Indigenous child and, in the case of decisions or actions related to child apprehension, the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration.

The financial cost of having a child come into care is huge. In a time of fiscal accountability, that alone should give folks cause to look at the system. As a foster parent, I receive $2,000 a month to care for my current foster child. I also receive child care and additional expenses. Imagine what a parent could do with half this amount of money. They could pay rent, pay heat and light bills, buy groceries and pay a babysitter for a short break. Often we're told that prevention is the responsibility of another department—education, public health, etc.—but I'm speaking about specific, targeted interventions that will support families and prevent children from coming into care.

Nunatsiavut Government has developed a model of prevention and intervention. We call it the family connections program. It has been funded under the national family violence prevention initiative for three years. It was seen as a promising best practice, so it has now been extended for an additional three years and is currently being evaluated. We believe the model has supported families, kept children out of care, reunited children with families and involved the extended family in planning for children. With the addition of the creation of some supportive housing units, it has also provided safe spaces for families.

Within our communities, health and social service providers and their organizations intend to, and strive to, provide safe, effective and appropriate service programs to their indigenous clients. However, the reality is that many indigenous people have experienced having their cultural identity, beliefs and lifestyles maligned by non-indigenous service providers. The result is that there is often low utilization of available resources. It's well known that people who need services the most often do not engage in those services, and when they do, it's with reluctance. Services are provided many times as a one-off. In the past, service providers have often advised families on “what they need to do”, but this model allows families to advise service providers on “what they need help doing”. Sometimes, seemingly small things create stress. An unexpected expense, a family illness, a child having issues at school, paying a phone bill or hydro bill, buying winter clothing, family contact, financial issues of many kinds—they add up to an incident of relapse in addictions and family violence.

To effect change, strong relationships must be created that are supportive and non-judgmental, that value every member in the family, and that do not exclude, fragment or isolate individual family members. Interdisciplinary practice is an approach and philosophy that considers the family as a holistic unit. The western response to family violence and/or dysfunction seems to be counterintuitive to the Inuit way of life. Generally, women and children leave the home and enter a shelter that provides short-term safety. Counselling supports are offered to individual family members. Men often become involved in the justice system. As the cycle continues, all too often families are further fractured by children being placed in care. History repeats itself, and families once again become fragmented and dislocated, this time by family violence and addictions.

While it is recognized that there will be times when families can't remain together, with appropriate supports, inter-agency collaborations and community and cultural supports, family healing becomes possible.

[Chief Mark Arcand, Tribal Chief, Saskatoon Tribal Council]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

What I said was, “Hi, thank you for gathering here on the territory of the Algonquin people.”

It's a pleasure to be here today. The reason I'm here is to show support for Bill C-92. The reason we're doing that at the Saskatoon Tribal Council is to put our children first and foremost. Children have to be the primary reason this bill is passed. When we look at the situations that occurred with the Saskatoon Tribal Council and some of the history—MPs sitting around the table will know what happened in Saskatchewan—we understand that the Saskatoon Tribal Council has done something historic with Premier Scott Moe and the provincial government.

In June 2016, the Saskatoon Tribal Council lost its delegation authority and the ability to take care of its children. If we back up one step, we know about the residential school era, about the sixties scoop and all the things that have affected our people.

What the Saskatoon Tribal Council has done since June 2016 is sit down with Minister Paul Merriman, who I believe is doing good work in Saskatchewan, and members of the cabinet of Saskatchewan to work together to make a difference in our children's lives.

I can say this because, when I was elected in October 2017, I sat down and had a coffee with Minister Paul Merriman to talk about our situation. Eighteen months later, we've created one of the historic agreements in Saskatchewan, what I call “knocking down a brick wall” with the provincial government and creating a reconciliation agreement for child and family services for our children, which gives us the jurisdiction to get our children home.

That jurisdiction is not going to happen tomorrow. It's a process that happens anywhere from tomorrow to three to five years at the community's pace. However, it's a partnership and we're working together. It's a collaboration. We've set up some forums for leaders, which means me and our chiefs. We'll sit with the ministers and talk about how we can improve the situation. The second piece is the technical working group that allows our technicians to do the work and make sure there's an opportunity for our children to be safe.

I have to emphasize that the nation-to-nation relationship, the government-to-government relationship with the province and the chiefs I represent—they're the ones who signed the delegation agreement for the safety and well-being of our kids—is the most important piece of all because these people are the stakeholders for the children. It contains their views. I'm the voice of our leaders. I come here today to ensure that Bill C-92 moves forward in those directions because it's imperative that we break a cycle that has not been favourable to first nations children in our province.

In Saskatchewan, we have probably the second-most number of cases of children in care. I'm going to brag about our relationship with the province because it's important. People need to understand that we are working together for what's best for our children. Other first nations could be upset with us, or some could be supportive, and that's okay; that's their opinion. Our opinion is we have to build partnerships and relationships, as we've done with the federal and provincial governments. To us, it's meaningful because it's building bridges. We have to work together. In order to do that, Bill C-92, in clause 20, gives us the ability to call everybody together to emphasize what we're doing for children.

I'll give you an example. In Saskatoon the Saskatoon Tribal Council currently works closely with the province. We run six homes for the Ministry of Social Services. Currently, three kids out of the 45 kids in those homes are from my tribal council. We take care of other kids. We follow every rule, every regulation. We meet or exceed all the provincial government's expectations in running those homes.

The Saskatoon Tribal Council and our chiefs are accountable and transparent. We're doing what's best for the children. Finally, we have the opportunity to take care of our own children.

Currently we have 300 kids in care within the province from my tribal council. We have a plan to repatriate those kids. We plan to bring in another 10 homes and follow all of the rules and regulations of the province but also apply our rules and regulations from our nations. It's working together and respecting those rules and regulations that lead us to jurisdiction of our kids.

The second piece is, when we look at this whole process, I really have to give credit to Premier Scott Moe, Minister Paul Merriman, and the cabinet of Saskatchewan for taking a chance on the Saskatoon Tribal Council and building that relationship and that partnership with us. It's not too favourable in our province, but at the same time, if we don't sit across the table like this and talk about it, we're not going to get things done.

We all have to work together. It doesn't matter who the kids are or where they come from. It's about the safety of those children, because when you look at the youth justice system in our province, 90% plus of boys and girls who are incarcerated are first nations children, 90%. That in turn leads to the correctional centre. I'm working in the correctional centre right now with first nations men to better their lives so they can go home and take care of their children, because it's leading to broken families, and then the children end up in a system that's not favourable, and they lose their culture, their language and their identity.

As leaders, we have to stand up and do what's best for those people. We have to fight for them to make sure we're making a difference and providing every opportunity to change their lives. Again, I'm not just working with first nations people. It doesn't matter what race you are, how old you are, what colour you are or where you come from; it's about people.

Remember this analogy. When children are at a playground, they don't know race, they don't know colour and they don't know age. They play and they have fun. It's the same process here. We all have to work together to make sure that we make a difference in people's lives.

I'd rather sit in a meeting like this and work together instead of pointing fingers in the media and saying, “Something's wrong. We need to do things differently.” We need to sit down like adults and show our young people that we can make a difference for people.

That's the most important thing to me, because when we look at the direction of our leadership, it's to come here to build partnerships and to build relationships. All of the programs and services that we do in the city of Saskatoon.... We have 90 plus organizations that are part of Reconciliation Saskatoon that are knocking down barriers of racism and knocking down barriers of poverty and neglect for first nations children. That's the most meaningful part of why we're doing what we're doing.

I want to make it very clear that today is not about me as the tribal chief; it's about the children who we serve. It has to be what's best for the children who need to be brought home to their families. I'll give you an example: I was born in January 1971. Six months into my life, my mother gave me to my great-grandparents. There was never a certificate on the wall that said I had to follow a system or that my mom had to follow a system to give me to my great-grandparents. That's what we call kinship. We've lost that.

A system that has been imposed on us has to be changed, and Bill C-92 helps that system change. Is it going to be perfect? Show me any bill that's perfect. I don't see any bill that's perfect. We can always amend and make things better.

When we talk about these kinds of issues and moving forward, I really want to focus on how we can really work together. The important thing that I want to say today, over and over again, is that it's about building relationships and building partnerships, but understanding that we, as first nations people, have the inherent and treaty right to take care of our children. It was never given up.

I look back at the situations that occurred back in the day. When a child is taken now, we hear about amber alerts. Where was the amber alert when our kids were picked up from our first nation and put in the back of a truck to be taken to a residential school? We have an ability to change that, and I'm here today, not to come to you with a problem, but to come here with solutions. Based on what we've done with our work in Saskatchewan, we're moving mountains with solutions. It's very important that we all work together as federal and provincial governments to make that happen for all children.

To talk about how many kids we've saved, since I've signed my agreement, I've kept three kids from being adopted, and seven are going to be repatriated back to their community. Those are the numbers I want to talk about.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

The committee is now back in session.

I want to welcome you to the indigenous and northern affairs standing committee of Parliament. We are addressing the status and future of indigenous children in Canada, something which statistics and what we've heard in the hearings indicate we have failed to do. Bill C-92 attempts to address some of these issues. This is very important work, and we're glad you're here with us.

We're glad to see you, Mr. Hogg. We are anxious to hear your words on the constitutional aspects of this bill.

A total of 10 minutes is allowed per presentation, but if you take less, it allows for more questions and interaction from the MPs. I will indicate when you're getting close to your maximum allowable time. Each presenter will have up to 10 minutes, and then we will go to questions.

We'll begin with Saskatchewan. In front of us we have Chief Mark Arcand from the Saskatoon Tribal Council.

[Viviane Michel]

Once again, I'll talk about funding.

Bill C-92 doesn't mention funding or a commitment to remedy children's situation. If we want our children to grow up properly, we must give them a sense of belonging to the community, to the language, to the culture, and to life in the community, because we form a single whole. As such, we can't take a child, remove it from its environment, and place it outside the context of its identity, because the identity process is comprehensive.

If we want the child to grow up properly with all the values I've just mentioned, I think that funding is necessary to give youth access to language learning, because an increasing number of young people are searching for their identity or going through an identity crisis. Problems can be dealt with later, but, once again, there's no mention of funding in Bill C-92.

If you want us to sort out that situation, let's do it correctly. You will have to consider adequate funding.

[Raven McCallum, Youth Advisor, Minister of Children and Family Development Youth Advisory Council, As an Individual]

Good morning everyone. My name is Raven McCallum. I'm Haida and British on my mom's side and Métis on my father's side. I was born and raised in Vancouver. I now live in Victoria on the territory of the Lekwungen-speaking peoples.

I've been a youth adviser with the Ministry of Children and Family Development Youth Advisory Council for almost four years. The Youth Advisory Council is a group of former youth in care who provide advice and recommendations to the ministry based on their experiences and stories.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts regarding Bill C-92. It is an honour and I'm grateful that the youth voice is being heard as part of the reflection on Bill C-92. Overall, I find Bill C-92 to be a step toward necessary changes that need to occur. However, I do take issue with some of the material.

I will provide my insights describing both the highlights and areas for development. Before I begin, I feel that as a youth representative I need to share a bit about my personal story in order to provide context to my understanding of Bill C-92.

I was raised both in the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and a delegated aboriginal agency. Prior to moving into care, I lived with my mother and grandmother. When I lived with my family, I grew up knowing that I was Haida and Métis, and spent my time surrounded by indigenous family and friends.

While I was in care, I had almost no connection to my culture until my teenage years. Some homes disregarded my culture and many reinforced stereotypical notions of what it meant to be indigenous, and others, who made small attempts, assumed it was okay to simply connect me to any indigenous culture that was not my own.

This further discouraged me from participating in culture and it caused me to feel a loss of connectedness and confusion even within my own family. My first experience of being reconnected with culture did not happen until I was 17 years old when I went to a Haida homecoming. I was not connected with my Métis culture at any point during my time in care. I met people from my Métis community of Île-à-la-Crosse for the first time last year. Some of the most impactful times in my life were those times I connected with Haida Gwaii and Île-à-la-Crosse.

The current reality for Métis people in Canada is that our culture often gets brushed under the carpet, particularly if we also belong to another nation. There are many misconceptions about what Métis is and that results in culture being disregarded. It's a painful experience to believe that a person's identity is not important or is less important than other aspects of their cultural background. Just as much as anyone else, Métis children need to be connected to their community and culture.

The significance of my story is that these kinds of experiences are happening to so many young people across the country. Unfortunately, many people aren't as lucky as I am and often go their whole lives not knowing who they are, where they belong and that they are loved by entire communities.

In reflecting on Bill C-92, I considered whether or not it will aid in overcoming the same barriers to accessing culture in communities that I've experienced. While I was reviewing it, I asked myself the following questions: Are opportunities being opened for communities to know who and where their children are? Does it support them to bring their children home? Is Métis culture acknowledged to the same extent as others? Are youth's voices empowered?

There are definitely components of Bill C-92 that will support communities to know the location of their children. Paragraph 13(b) outlines that the indigenous governing body, acting on behalf of the nation to which their children belong, has the right to make representations, which I'm in support of. If my nations had been behind me doing these significant legal proceedings, alternative options to staying in non-indigenous homes may have been created.

Subclause 12(1) states that the service provider must provide notice to the child's parents, as well as to the indigenous governing body that the child belongs to. I believe this will allow communities the opportunity to share their thoughts on how to provide the best care possible for children and maybe even create permanent options or offer preventive services. I would hope this subclause would be applied in all circumstances. I have questions about what is meant by “before taking any significant measure”. In an ideal world, communities would be informed if a child's parents were being investigated before significant measures were needed or even thought of.

Additionally, clauses 27 to 30 discuss information sharing which is important to ensuring that all levels of government have strong communication channels, so that indigenous children can have the best care possible.

Indigenous communities should have the same access to information regarding their children that the provinces and federal government have. Given that there are many Métis communities across Canada and that many Métis people are living in provinces that their family did not originate from, who would be responsible? Is it the Métis group whose province the family lived in or the province where the family has heritage or extended family? Métis dynamics are complex and I don't think there was enough specific focus for Métis people in this bill. Additionally, I do not see any reference about how to approach situations when a child belongs to more than one nation. I think it's something that is important to acknowledge. We need to know all aspects of our identity.

I feel that the youth voice is not reflected very strongly in Bill C-92. The language is complex, and I hope to see documents that are youth-friendly in the future, particularly since the rights of the indigenous child are highlighted in the bill in subclause 10(3).

Paragraph 10(3)(d) describes that a child should be able to determine the importance of an ongoing relationship with the indigenous group. My interpretation of this point is that children can choose whether they want to be connected to culture and family. Connection to culture and family is a concept that is difficult for even adults to grasp, so how can a child be responsible for this decision? The situation is even more complicated because some children will have been placed in non-indigenous homes and might feel pressure to live a certain way, and some others have seen negative indigenous role models, so their ability to decide about this could be skewed. To be blunt, I think that this point might open opportunities to create excuses to decide not to connect a child to culture.

I think this paragraph should be omitted entirely, especially considering paragraph 10(3)(e) highlights the fact that the child's views and preferences should be a considered factor determining their best interests. Paragraph 10(3)(e) is a helpful point, and I think it encompasses many things, including relationships that the child chooses to maintain.

I would like to move ahead to discuss some of my general comments.

My understanding of subclause 13(a) is that care providers are being granted the same level of influence as parents and indigenous communities in legal proceedings. This makes me very uncomfortable, because some of my caregivers have not had my best interests at heart. I would not be comfortable if some of my caregivers had the right to party status in a civil proceeding, particularly without my permission. Given that many care providers are not indigenous, this also creates imbalances between families and communities.

I appreciate that Bill C-92 in subclause 16(2) discusses prioritizing siblings to stay together. This is an important point. I was separated from my siblings at a young age, and it was one of the most challenging experiences of my life. It's important to keep siblings together to support permanency and belonging.

In summary, I generally support the intent of Bill C-92. I think it is a step in the right direction and has the potential to create meaningful change, with some adjustments to reflect the needs of youth in community.

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to share my thoughts.

[Viviane Michel]

I have already had to shorten my speech two or three times.

The second priority is the state's duty to offer compensation. We all know that decades of assimilation policies have left deep scars on our indigenous peoples, scars which even now are too often passed down from generation to generation and will take time to heal. The state is responsible for this healing, the state that is the architect of the ills that beset us. Even though our child-rearing knowledge and skills must be recognized, respected and celebrated, that does not mean that the Canadian government can wash its hands of its responsibility towards our nations. The jurisdictional transfer, if it is truly to be in the interests of our children, must be accompanied by concrete measures to repair the damages caused by colonialism.

The third priority is substantive equality. The intricacies of federalism have for far too long served to justify the status quo, which is fundamentally unjust. It is unjust because even now, indigenous children do not enjoy their full rights simply because they are indigenous. It is unjust that because of our history, their needs are greater. And yet the resources given to them are less generous, hard to access and ill-suited.

I will quote the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's 2016 decision:

Substantive equality and Canada's international obligations require that first nations children on-reserve be provided child and family services of comparable quality and accessibility as those provided to all Canadians off-reserve, including that they be sufficiently funded to meet the real needs of first nations children and families and do not perpetuate historical disadvantage.

Using these three guiding principles, I will now make a few pointed comments on the current version of Bill C-92, in the hope that they will help shape necessary amendments before the bill is passed, in order to ensure that this desperately needed and long-awaited bill will really bring the hoped-for results for indigenous children, their families and their communities.

I will keep to three main topics: funding, Jordan's principle and living conditions for indigenous children.

You know as well as I do that funding is the crux of the matter. Without sufficient funds, it will be impossible for our nations to put into practice the guiding principles provided for in the bill when exercising their jurisdiction in the field of child and family services.

The current sad state of affairs is well known and can no longer be denied since the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal handed down its decision in 2016. Indigenous children are victims of racial discrimination in Canada. This is because of chronic underfinancing of child services in indigenous communities.

Given that the human rights of our children in our communities are being violated, we at Quebec Native Women Inc. were very surprised and disappointed to read that Bill C-92 is silent on the question of funding. The preamble includes a recognition of “the ongoing call for funding for child and family services that is predictable, stable, sustainable, needs-based and consistent with the principle of substantive equality.” And yet the word “funding” does not appear elsewhere in the bill. There are no sections that clearly state how this call will become reality.

Funding here is not a political issue. It is a question of human rights. These are non-negotiable, nor are they optional.

Consequently, Bill C-92 must provide solid commitments on behalf of the federal government for equal funding of child and family services in an indigenous setting in full compliance with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's orders. This is the bare minimum that would be acceptable to Quebec Native Women Inc..

I turn now to Jordan's principle and the call for action No. 3 which reads as follows: “We call upon all levels of government to fully implement Jordan's principle.” I would personally like to remind you that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has often times repeated that Canada is bound to fully apply Jordan's principle. It seems, however, that this principle is not included in Bill C-92.

What is Jordan's principle? It is simply a principle stating that no care or service can be refused, interrupted or delayed for an indigenous child because of a jurisdictional conflict. And yet in reality in our communities it is sadly not that simple. Too many indigenous children in Canada are still the victims of bureaucratic squabbles and their rights suffer.

Quebec Native Women Inc. notes that subsection 9(3) of Bill C-92, which establishes the principle of substantive equality, states at paragraph (e) that: “[...] a jurisdictional dispute must not result in a gap in the child and family services that are provided in relation to indigenous children.” We are therefore requesting that Bill C-92 be amended in order to fully include Jordan's principle and make it binding on all orders of government who are involved in child and family services for indigenous peoples.

As to socio-economic conditions, the problem of over-representation by indigenous children in youth protection services cannot be separated from other problems affecting indigenous children's well-being.

Quebec Native Women Inc. notes that section 15 of the bill states that poverty and the lack of suitable housing and infrastructure should not be used as a reason to justify the apprehension of an indigenous child by child services. Obviously, such a section is necessary but it does nothing to solve the underlying problems.

If Bill C-92 is indeed to solve the problem of over-representation by indigenous children in child protection services and to help the welfare of indigenous children and families, the bill should include a holistic approach which truly takes into account all the issues affecting our nations. This should include incorporating positive obligations in the bill so that the Canadian government and provinces take all necessary measures in order to improve socio-economic conditions for indigenous children and families. It is essential that these measures apply to all indigenous children, whether they live on a reserve or not and whether they are status Indians or not, in order to ensure substantive equality and to truly work in terms of prevention. I would remind you of section 21 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which Canada ratified and has promised to uphold.

Quebec Native Women Inc. has three recommendations concerning Bill C-92.

Firstly, we have to include a specific section in the bill on funding for child and family services for indigenous nations to guarantee predictable, stable, sustainable and needs-based funding in accordance with the principle of substantive equality.

Secondly, the bill must be amended to include Jordan's principle as legally binding on all levels of government and for all types of care and services for indigenous children.

Thirdly, the bill must include positive obligations for the Canadian government and provinces who will take all necessary measures to improve socio-economic conditions for indigenous children and their families, including those living off-reserve and in cities.

Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, I would like to remind you that today you have the opportunity to truly act for your country. Do not let it go by. The life and well-being of thousands of children depend on you. Don't let politics make you forget for whom you are working: children. Do not forget either why you are working: to give those children a chance to lead a rich and dignified life.

[Viviane Michel, President, Quebec Native Women Inc.]

Madam Chair, Honourable Vice-Presidents, Honourable Members of the Committee, kuei.

[The witness speaks in Innu.]

[French]

Before starting, I would like to take a moment to recognize the anishinabe nation and thank it for welcoming us on its vast unceded territory.

Quebec Native Women Inc., or QNW, is a non-profit, non-partisan and bilingual organization. We have been working to defend and promote indigenous women's rights for 10 nations in Quebec, including the rights of those living in urban centres, since 1974.

On behalf of all our members, I thank the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for inviting us to comment on Bill C-92. At the outset, I would like to state that Quebec Native Women Inc. is in favour of the federal legislator's intent to affirm indigenous peoples' rights to exercise jurisdiction in matters pertaining to child and family services.

Quebec Native Women Inc. is of the opinion that Bill C-92 must be aligned with three main priorities.

The first priority is recognizing our rights to autonomy. The preamble in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognizes our right to retain responsibility for the education and well-being of our children. This must include a formal and unequivocal recognition that we are those who understand best the needs of our indigenous children and families and have the necessary knowledge to accompany them in life. Our children are sacred and we believe that our communities are best placed to take care of the children and meet their substantive needs.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Let's get the committee back into session.

Good morning, everybody. We are televised and for all of those Canadians who are watching, you are watching the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We're discussing the important issue of how we treat indigenous children and families, and how some of the statistics indicate that indeed it has been a failure. We want to hear from you. We have experts on video conference and in person to talk about Bill C-92. You have an opportunity to speak for 10 minutes and after that the other member who is on the panel will have 10 minutes. Ultimately, when all of the presentations are done we'll go into questions from the members.

Let's gets started. From Quebec Native Women Inc., we have Viviane Michel and Éloïse Ouellet-Décoste.

[Greg Besant, Executive Director, Metis Child, Family and Community Services]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to you all today and for your work on this important topic and legislation.

I'd also like to thank our indigenous elders, leaders and politicians who assisted in bringing forward the issues faced by indigenous people when working with and for the welfare of indigenous children.

I would especially like to thank the leadership of the Métis people, both nationally and provincially, for supporting Bill C-92. For the Métis people most especially, this bill can lead to substantive and meaningful change.

I have had the honour of being the executive director of Metis Child, Family and Community Services in Manitoba for only the past one and a half years. I came to this role after working within and around child welfare systems for more than 25 years, and I have seen many changes in that time. I've worked in three different provinces during that time.

In child welfare, we see ourselves as helpers. One of the important lessons that we all learn eventually is that, without hope, there is no change. Bill C-92 gives me hope that we can finally have a child welfare system truly designed and controlled by indigenous people. Metis Child, Family and Community Services, for those who are unfamiliar, is a fully delegated child welfare agency. We deliver services in the city of Winnipeg, as well as in the Interlake and Eastman regions of Manitoba. Our specific mandate is to deliver services for Métis and Inuit, although the structure of devolved services in Manitoba is such that we also serve some non-indigenous and first nations people.

As a fully delegated agency, we provide services both to families to prevent children from entering into care but also to families as they work toward the reunification of children in temporary or permanent care.

Currently, 929 children of the 1,200 that Ms. Schibler referred to are in my agency's care. We are a very large agency. This number of children in our care has remained generally stable for the past five years, but it's disturbing that the proportion of those children who have been permanently removed from their parents is steadily increasing. At the end of the last fiscal year, 668 of these 929 children were in permanent care. In our agency, we still support families to have regular involvement and meaningful engagement with their children, even though they're in permanent care. They see them as often as weekly. Hopefully, they're placed within their families, and those families are involved in every important decision regarding them. It's a very important principle that we follow within our agency.

The reason for this change in the proportion of children in care being more permanent than temporary is not only that we're working hard to reduce the number of children coming into care through apprehension or temporary orders, but permanent orders are relatively long-lasting. That's the main piece of that, but there are systemic issues within our legislation and the justice-related systems that have really impacted how children end up staying in care.

Those of you familiar with the state of child welfare in Manitoba will recognize that we've been in a state of crisis for many years, despite having travelled a path toward devolving powers to indigenous agencies more than a decade ago. Where some would see this as a cautionary tale about empowering indigenous people, I would counter that it's cautionary insofar as Manitoba did not go nearly far enough with the meaningful sharing of powers, and Bill C-92 provides a mechanism to resolve this.

Currently, as a fully delegated agency, we can do what any other child welfare agency in the province can do. That's the problem. We can't do things differently. We have to do what child welfare has always done. The legislation in Manitoba is set up so that, once children enter care, the only exit point is adoption, except for those children we have a guardianship application for. The legislation supports adoption and the funding structure supports adoption, and we cannot follow that path.

When a child comes into care in Winnipeg, it's long been the policy that children be placed with their family or extended family. It's been that way precisely as Bill C-92 proposes. It's been that way for decades.

We have 270 related family caregivers in our agency. However, before a decision is ever made that a child must go into care, we created a family conferencing program to support and engage families and extended families. In many cases, the families themselves are the ones involved in the decision to have the children leave their parents' care, and they have come up with their own plan for that child's care.

Even though the provincial policy is for children to be placed with family, we receive no dedicated funding from the Province of Manitoba for either our kinship care program or our family conferencing program. Instead, I have to divert funding that is meant for child protection staff for that.

The province funds shelters and emergency care foster homes through private agencies. The vast majority of the children in these third party homes are indigenous, and yet the vast majority of these homes are not. As a result, we have had young Métis children speak Tagalog as their first language, and teenagers tell us that they're Filipino, not Métis. We've had other children raised within traditional Mennonite communities, and this has been a fact since devolution.

This continuing practice of funding third party care providers rather than funding culturally appropriate agencies is continuing the process of colonization. The historic funding structures and the relationship simply do not match the outcomes we are trying to achieve. This bill would allow us to work around these remnants of the colonizing structures and processes to further create specific Métis resources.

Another example of a Métis-specific resource, which has received considerable attention, is our living in family enhancement program. Within these homes, children live in a foster home along with their parent, ensuring that attachment is never broken or that it can be restored if they had previously been separated.

I want to emphasize the incredibly hard work and deep caring that is prevalent within the child welfare system across the country. However, listening to some critics, one would have to agree with a provincial MLA, who expressed to me in the context of a legislative review in Manitoba, that social workers act like they are crazy.

Child welfare systems are supposed to be designed to help families and protect children. People working within child welfare were attracted to it because they want to support families and protect children. Yet, we are caught between finely written principles that we wholeheartedly believe in and the dangerous situations we find children to be in. The only solutions that are funded by mainstream government are the removal of children from their family and nation, and bringing our own people into an intimidating court system that they have only experienced as being punitive towards them.

By supporting indigenous people to create alternative solutions, Bill C-92 creates hope. As noted earlier, with hope, we can create change.

Thank you for your time.

[Billie Schibler]

Okay.

Most importantly, I want to say that we know that our child welfare system is only one portion of service. We really are in full support of what we're seeing as a beginning step with Bill C-92, but we're only one service in the whole realm of this journey. All of the other services—justice, education, health, mental health—need to see a similar type of legislative change.

I thank you very much for your time.

[Billie Schibler, Chief Executive Officer, Metis Child & Family Services Authority]

Good morning. I'm Billie Schibler. I'm the CEO of the Metis Child and Family Services Authority in Manitoba.

I want to begin by acknowledging our members of Parliament as well as our Métis leader for our Métis National Council.

I want to begin by indicating that in my presentation—I don't know if you received any copies of it—I spend time discussing things from the perspective of someone who has not only been a service provider in child welfare in Manitoba but also a person who has been a recipient, been affected by and cared for many children who have been part of the child welfare system.

It's important for me to begin from that place, because it provides you with the greater context of my understanding of Bill C-92 and its importance.

I also want to acknowledge, as we begin to look at this, that there has been a lot of work done by the federal government and our indigenous political leaders to recognize this and bring this bill forward, and I'm grateful for it.

From a personal level, I've been very blessed in my life to have been able to live with my mother and grandmother as a child. My mother was 13 years old when she had me, and it was at a time when there was very little support provided to young single mothers. I'm able to look at life and my career in that context and through my own eyes, growing up as a child and having been provided that opportunity, when so many of our other families have not had that. I'm very welcoming of the legislative changes that are proposed.

My background is as a social worker. I've also been a foster parent for over 30 years. I have had more than 45 children come through my home, at any given time. I'm currently caring for one of my own grandchildren, whom I've had since he was a baby. He's now 10 years old. That's a very common thing with our indigenous families, as you know. If we're given the opportunity, we provide care when some of our family members are not able to do so.

I lost one of my brothers during the onset of the sixties scoop. We never found each other until we were in our mid-thirties. We learned a lot from each other's experiences, and it told us a lot about the child welfare system and what needed to change. That is so reflective of the history of our families and our people.

I have had the opportunity to deliver child welfare services in both Manitoba and Ontario, in leading child welfare in first nation communities as well as urban settings, and delivering front-line service. I've had a fairly rounded understanding of what needs to occur, and also look at it as a former children's advocate in Manitoba.

For those of you who don't know Manitoba's child welfare history—I'm assuming most of you do—we have a history that is deeply entrenched in a lot of pain. We have a long history of unclaimed struggles as Métis people. We now have some strong Métis leaders who have brought our matters to the forefront in their negotiations at the federal level, and we're very please about that. We have a larger number of children in care per capita than any other province. I'm sure you've heard those statistics.

Our Métis child welfare system is part of a devolved system. That happened 15 years ago. What ended up occurring in our devolution of child welfare was that the child welfare system never fully devolved the way it was intended to, and our ability to make our own decisions as to how to best support our families never occurred. While we were considered to be partners as part of the four authorities that existed, we never developed our own legislation. We were not able to control our own funding.

Currently as the CEO, I can say that we have two agencies. My colleague will speak on one of our agencies in a few minutes. We have the entire jurisdiction of the province for those who choose to come to us for service or for Métis families and Inuit families that we're mandated to serve. That is large.

We currently have 1,275 children in care out of the nearly 11,000 children in care in Manitoba. Even though our practice is to try our best to preserve families, many of these children are coming to us as permanent wards, with wardship granted through the courts. Once they have been made a permanent ward, they go to their culturally appropriate authorities if they're not being serviced there already. A lot of those children are coming to us through a permanent order of the child welfare system. We have not had any opportunity to provide service to their families, so it becomes very challenging for us to accept the children at that time, when they should have been part of our system right from the beginning.

We know from looking at any proposed legislation and the bill, that there has to be a complete mechanism whereby our system is notified of any Métis families coming to the attention of the child welfare system so that we can have early involvement. Otherwise, we're doing a major disservice to our families and to our children.

We know that it's very difficult to undo the history of child welfare services in Manitoba—or anywhere—that were not culturally appropriate to begin with. As we look at Bill C-92, first of all, I want to commend the way that it begins. The preamble clearly identifies and recognizes the history and the true issues that exist for our people. Most importantly, it acknowledges the significance of working together to accept and address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

With the history of indigenous peoples in Canada, we know what that looks like. We know about the residential and day schools, the sixties scoop, murdered and missing indigenous women, and the increasing number of indigenous children in care. We know that the effects of these tragedies have existed for decades and centuries. How, then, do we undo these effects? That's really what I think any changes in legislation—any proposed bills—need to take into consideration.

We need to look at how we can undo these effects and at how long that will take, considering the trauma and the impacts of racism, addictions, mental health problems, the high number of suicides, homelessness, non-sustainable traditional lands, family and community violence, gang affiliation and the overrepresentation in the criminal justice system.

We have fragmented family units and a disconnection from land, culture and identity that continues to afflict our people. We acknowledge that it is mental health week here; I'm not sure if that's across Canada. The current mental health of indigenous peoples and the escalating addictions crisis are further symptoms of generational pain and blood memory from trauma.

If we are still living out these effects and we see them every day on our streets, in our cities and in our services, how does the child welfare system move away from a protection mindset and practice? If we recognize that the truth is the entry point for reconciliation, then what brings us to reconciliation beyond that first step of telling our truths?

If we say “no more band-aids” and that we want to see legislation that allows us to reveal so that we can heal, then it must be recognized that the reveal is our truth of generational accounts of government policies and historic wrongdoings. How do we move forward into reconciliation without a focus on healing? What does that healing look like?

From our own individual value base, it's going to look different. Some might think that an apology is the road to healing, or that residential school payouts are the road to healing, or that changes in legislation are the road to healing. We can all agree that healing is a process of becoming healthy, but it isn't a one-size-fits-all. Healing is the purging of a lot of emotional pain and trauma—generations of it.

Healing and the anticipated transformation needs to be recognized as a journey. It needs to be a place where people feel safe to be able to tell their stories. It needs to be offered through positive solutions and planned options that support healing in everything we talk about in terms of prevention and support. In fitting with Jordan's principle, there needs to be jurisdictional accessibility to these services. There needs to be accountability and support from each level of government for the funding and provision of these services.

Yes...?

[Clément Chartier, President, Métis National Council]

Thank you, Chair, and good morning. Good morning to members of the committee.

I'm pleased to have an opportunity, on behalf of the Métis nation, to speak to you today on this most important bill, Bill C-92. This proposed act holds the promise of a better future for our children and youth, our families, our communities and our nation. The reality today is that too many Métis nation children and youth become institutionalized through mainstream child and family services systems, alienated from their personal identities, their family relations and their cultural roots.

The proposed act provides a road map for overcoming that reality through four main areas, at least, for the Métis nation.

The first area is the promotion of the right of self-determination possessed by the Métis nation through recognizing self-government and jurisdiction in the area of child welfare. Should this act be passed, the right of the Métis nation and its governments to exercise responsibility over the upbringing, training, education and well-being of our children will be recognized. Where indigenous governments enact child and family services laws, these will take precedence over provincial laws where negotiations over a period of one year do not result in agreement.

The second area contained in the proposed act is the promotion of culturally competent, equitable, responsive and effective care on the basis of substantive equality compared to non-indigenous children in Canada. The Métis nation has developed capacity in positive culturally based practices that have proven results, some of which you will hear about shortly from my colleagues this morning and in future hearings from other Métis nation leaders and care providers.

The third area concerns placing the best interests of the child as paramount, including rights of children to know their parents, families, communities and history.

The fourth area relates to placing prevention and early intervention at the centre of child and family services, replacing the current model and practices of intervention.

During the co-development process the Métis nation assessed the standards and rights contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This proposed act is one of many steps needed for Métis nation children, families and communities to fully realize their right to survival, dignity and well-being. The co-development process must continue in order to develop a regulatory framework for implementation of the act. Tripartite tables engaging Métis nation, federal and provincial governments will need to be established. Financial commitments required for the implementation of the proposed act will need to be made.

It is important that these next steps are not misconstrued as barriers to immediate adoption of the proposed act. It is important that each one of us who holds a leadership role takes the necessary action to ensure that this proposed act is adopted. Now is the time for transformative change that will positively impact, throughout Canada, the children and youth of the Métis nation, first nations and Inuit.

The Métis nation is appreciative of the support we believe we will be given by all parties to the passage of this bill. This legislation is about the future of our children and ensuring that they have the best possible opportunity for happy, healthy childhoods, living with their families and in their communities and culture.

I look forward to the passing of Bill C-92 and its implementation. I encourage all members of this committee to do their utmost to ensure that this happens.

Thank you.

[Natan Obed]

Currently there is customary adoption within legislation in the Northwest Territories and in Nunavut. It is still a widely practised custom of adoption and it is very different from the adoption that most southern Canadians would know.

I think it plays a very significant role within the well-being of Inuit children within Inuit communities. However, when you put it within the framework of federal or provincial-territorial legislation, there are constraints, especially in relation to funding and the ability for the rights of the children to be upheld by the families who are taking responsibility for those children.

Customary adoption is much less regulated than its alternative, and that is deliberately so, but there are still some challenges that come up because of that practice. With both customary adoption and also traditional midwifery, those are two areas that I think should be respected more as indigenous rights or as Inuit rights within a larger legislative structure and framework to protect those rights.

As far as its application in Bill C-92 is concerned, I think we would have to have further deliberations with our regions before giving you a more thoughtful answer.

[Richard De La Ronde, Executive Director, Child and Family Services, Sandy Bay First Nation]

Good morning.

It's an honour for me to be here. I'll try to bring an administrative perspective to you on Bill C-92 and what we hope it means for an agency implementing that legislation.

As Chief Roulette has mentioned, through what I'll call convenient interpretation of provincial acts, we've been able to return approximately 50% of our children in the last two years. We've gone from approximately 600 children in care to approximately 298. That was through our interpretation of standards and legislation that were actually in direct contradiction sometimes, because the rules wouldn't allow certain things.

One thing we find is that Manitoba is a unique province in terms of devolution and of services being turned over to first nations. We still operate within the context of original provincial legislation as drafted in the 1980s as we move forward with customary care, which has the community involved in decision-making around what happens to families, and resource sharing, whereby you have housing, education, health and the chief and council as parts of a customary committee in which we sit down together and make plans around how each service delivery body can contribute to the case plan for families in the community.

In addition, there's the block funding model, which your government more or less does already. Our federal funding flows directly to us. On the provincial side it flows through an authority that we're dealing with as well, because we don't think it's necessary for our funding to flow through an aboriginal authority to us, which would involve administration fees. We see such an authority as an extension of government, another level of bureaucracy that's unnecessary.

We deal with those kinds of things. Your government, as I said, is already there in terms of how our funding flows, and we're hoping that this bill will allow first nations, instead of being in contradiction of legislation and standards, to begin to develop their own, which would allow us to continue our unique way of providing services on reserve as they pertain to our families.

We're hoping that such a bill would mean that regardless of where children reside, whether they're on or off reserve, they're funded 100%, that the system is 100% and we get away from the sixty-forty split in Manitoba whereby the feds fund us 40% and the province funds us 60%. That is based on cases in which children are brought into care, if you aren't familiar with it.

We're hoping that Bill C-92 addresses this and that, regardless of where our children are, we are a federal responsibility and there are mechanisms in place for us to continue our own service delivery model and serve what has been mentioned, the best interests of children in care.

I know there are some documents such as “Bringing our Children Home” out there, and for Sandy Bay CFS that means something different, in terms of best interests. We've had discussions with our chief and council about whether the reserve is the best place for our children when there is no housing, high unemployment, huge health risks, gangs and drugs. Is that the best place to bring children home?

Child and family services is sometimes the dumping ground for other services, such as justice. They seem to think that child welfare can solve all of those problems, when we're currently certainly not equipped to address socio-economic conditions on first nations.

Through our customary care model and the sharing of resources, we can certainly change the outlook for kids in care. From an administrative service delivery perspective, Bill C-92 is something we're very excited about.

There are some cautionary things that we're also afraid of. Not every first nation in Manitoba has the relationship we have with our chief and council, and there is certainly a risk of agencies being enveloped by their chief and council. When you have elections every two years and faces change every two years, that can certainly be detrimental to the continuity of service of a child welfare agency. Be mindful of that. We're certainly mindful of it.

We're hoping—and it has already been documented—that Bill C-92 will supersede any provincial or federal legislation.

There was fear that such a bill would only apply on reserve, and then agencies would be forced to implement both provincial legislation and federal legislation. People would receive different services depending on where they were coming into contact with the system. We're being mindful of that, but we are highly optimistic about Bill C-92.

[Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

Nakurmiik, Madam Chair.

Ulaakut. Good morning, everyone. It's good to be here.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami is the national representative organization for the 65,000 Inuit who live in Canada, the majority of whom live in Inuit Nunangat, our homeland. About 65% of our population still live in our homeland, and 35% now live outside of Inuit Nunangat. Our homeland encompasses 51 communities, nearly a third of Canada's landmass and 50% of its coastline.

ITK is governed by the elected leaders of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Makivik Corporation and the Nunatsiavut Government.

These four Inuit representational organizations and governments are Inuit rights holders under section 35 of the Constitution, having negotiated comprehensive Inuit-Crown land claim agreements between 1975 and 2005. It is therefore an appropriate and positive development that the Crown engaged Inuit rights holders in the development of Bill C-92. ITK helped facilitate regional engagement with the Government of Canada throughout this process through our national governance structure.

Too many Inuit children and youth have been and continue to be placed in care because of issues of neglect that can largely be attributed to the lack of attention to addressing social and economic inequities among Inuit. Because of the limited number of foster homes, professional services and residential care facilities throughout Inuit Nunangat, children are often sent outside of their communities and/or regions to be placed in care. As a consequence, far too many of our children are unable to participate in our culture and society and as members of our communities.

In July 2018 ITK created a working group to provide input, review documentation and provide recommendations related to the proposed federal legislation to the ITK board of directors. The working group included representation from Nunavut Tunngavik, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Nunatsiavut Government, the Nunavik Regional Board of Health and Social Services on behalf of Makivik Corporation, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada and the Inuit Circumpolar Council of Canada.

ITK worked with the Government of Canada as well as the Assembly of First Nations and the Métis National Council to co-develop options for federal legislation to address the protection of Inuit children.

Through the input of ITK's working group and the engagement session organized by Pauktuutit, Inuit developed and submitted to Indigenous Services Canada a series of priorities for child protection. They included doing whatever is possible to keep children with their immediate and extended families, a goal reflected in clauses 15 and 16; ensuring that all care provided to Inuit children and families is culturally appropriate, as reflected in clauses 9 and 11; ensuring that Inuit children and youth living outside of Inuit Nunangat are identified as Inuit and are provided with culturally appropriate care, which is reflected in clauses 9, 11 and 28; ensuring that Inuit children and youth sent outside of Inuit Nunangat for specialized care remain in contact with their culture and home community, which is reflected in clauses 9, 10, 11 and 17. Inuit also called for the legislation to be outcomes-focused, distinctions-based, evidence-based and reflective of Inuit self-determination.

While much of what Inuit proposed was incorporated into Bill C-92, ITK is requesting an amendment to clause 28 of the bill, which speaks to information agreements. We know that indigenous children aged 0 to 14 make up 7.7% of all children in Canada yet represent 52% of children in foster care in private homes. However, with the limited data available in public reports, it is not possible to readily determine how many Inuit children have active statuses within child welfare services both within and outside of Inuit Nunangat.

Therefore, ITK requests that paragraph 28(a) be amended to ensure that data gathered on indigenous children in care are disaggregated to clarify whether they are first nations, Inuit or Métis, and in the case of Inuit, that their affiliated land claim organization be identified. This would enable service providers to connect with and serve notice to the Inuit land claim organizations so that Inuit children and youth can continue to receive the benefits they are entitled to under their respective land claim agreements.

At a high level, there is consensus across Inuit Nunangat about how child welfare services would ideally be delivered within Inuit communities; however, none of the regions has been able to make a significant shift towards this vision on a system-wide scale. Bill C-92 can help us do so.

The status quo is completely unacceptable. There may be systems that may work and there may be fears about creating new solutions or interventions that improve systems, but in the end we have to figure out a way to ensure that this broken system can be repaired and that indigenous and Inuit self-determination can be the focal point for the new way in which we think about how child services are delivered.

Nakurmiik.

[Anne Fournier, Lawyer, Conseil de la nation Atikamekw]

Hello. Thank you for inviting us here today.

My presentation will be wide-ranging.

The definition of a family as appears in Bill C-92 is very interesting, because it takes into account the child's perception, traditional indigenous customs as well as whom indigenous peoples consider to be a close relative of the child. This is very positive and the bill is respectful of the various concepts of family within indigenous culture.

There is an entire section on the child's socio-economic conditions. In Canada, the fact that indigenous peoples suffer from unfavourable socio-economic conditions and overcrowded housing is well-known and well documented. These conditions constitute clinical risk factors to be taken into account when evaluating a child's situation.

While it is positive that the bill expressly mentions that the child must not be apprehended solely because of its socio-economic conditions, in the absence of concrete measures to improve living conditions for indigenous peoples, this section is meaningless in provinces like Quebec, where it is possible for the authorities to intervene on behalf of a child by citing a serious risk of negligence.

As to Jordan's principle, which I'm sure you all know very well, legislators are not in the habit of putting names in bills. However, we could perhaps make an exception here. Canada could apply this principle as it was defined by the tribunal to all children, regardless of their place of residence. We hope that the bill will mention that the Government of Canada recognizes Jordan's principle and commits to putting it into practice.

In subsection 12(1) of the bill, we find the notion of “significant measure”, whereby before any significant measure is taken in relation to the child, the service provider must provide notice of the measure to the child's parents and others. Basically, one wonders what is the significant measure. Perhaps that should be defined.

I will stop here.

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

As first nations here in Canada, we all know what happened to us in the past. I think we've come to a time right now that we're at a crossroads: We work together or we keep fighting again for many generations.

For my part, I choose not to fight again. I will fight for our rights, yes, of course. I will fight for our recognition. I will fight so that we can enjoy living in peace here in Canada together. We have to foresee how life will be in the future. I think it's now the time—it doesn't matter whether you're Liberal, Conservative, or NDP—that you understand that you have to invest in first nations to ensure security, to ensure defence of our territory, to ensure that first nations have a sense of belonging to Canada and to ensure as well that first nations have a sense of stewardship towards Canada.

That's how we have to look at it from now on. So many of us are youth, and I say that everywhere. I'm starting to feel a little bit old, but 72% of my people are younger than I am. There are many people and there's a lot of potential. If we keep ignoring indigenous rights, we're just passing on more problems to them and to your kids and grandchildren as well. It doesn't matter, then, which party you're from. We all have to understand that we have to work together to ensure a better future for Canada, all together.

That's what I wanted to say before.

Canada recognizes that Indigenous peoples have the inherent right of self-government. This right includes legislative jurisdiction over child and family services.

Bill C-92 reaffirms this right, but adjusts its application. Although the legislation of the Indigenous governing body has the force of law, in the absence of a coordination agreement, it's difficult to see how the legislation would be applied.

An entity or authority could be designated to decide on the terms of the coordination agreement in the event of a dispute. This authority could be a two-headed authority, consisting of an Indigenous representative and a state representative, who should reach a joint decision.

In addition, proper funding is needed to enforce the provisions of the Indigenous legislation. In the case of child and family services, in the absence of guaranteed funding, the Indigenous authorities may adopt their own legislation. However, the legislation is unlikely to be implemented. It would be desirable to include a commitment to this effect in the legislation.

The minimum standards set out in Bill C-92 must also be met by Indigenous groups that adopt their own legislation. These clauses concern in particular the best interests of Indigenous children.

In the event of a dispute concerning the determination of the best interests of the Indigenous child, the state courts would make the decision. However, state courts reflect the culture of the dominant society. The application of this principle has led the courts to decide to place a number of Indigenous children in the care of non-Indigenous foster families without regard for the preservation of cultural identity.

The legislation says nothing about the grounds for which a child may be taken in certain situations by child and family services.

Will these grounds be the same as the grounds set out in the provincial legislation?

Could the Indigenous legislation include different grounds for intervention?

I'm already anticipating many issues with this part of the legislation.

Clause 13 of the bill states that the Indigenous governing body has the right to make representations in any civil proceedings.

The child and family services agencies are the most knowledgeable about the child's situation. As a result, it would be better if these agencies could intervene instead of the Indigenous governing body, which has more of a political role.

In addition, the legislation should be amended to establish the right of these service provider organizations to submit their observations, and not to make representations. The latter phrase is associated with party status, which isn't assigned by law to the Indigenous entity.

The bill's focus on an Indigenous child's living environment seems entirely appropriate. However, the bill under consideration could be amended to ensure a justification for the decision to place the child in the care of an adult who isn't a member of the child's family, community, nation or any other Indigenous community or nation. This is very important. The decision should provide reasons, from the start, describing all the efforts made to try to keep the child with their family. This should be added to the legislation.

I'll now turn the floor over to our expert legal counsel in this area. She has assisted us throughout the process.

For the people who don't know, the Attikamek nation is now a leader in child protection.

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish, Conseil de la nation Atikamekw]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to be here again. It's my second time being here, but this time it's on a different matter.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Constant Awashish, and I'm the grand chief of the Atikamekw nation. I'll share my thoughts on Bill C-92.

I can speak French, right? Does everyone understand?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Good morning, everyone. We're going to call the meeting to order because, as you saw in the last group, we ran out of time. There are many important words to be said and questions to be delved into.

We're on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. We are discussing indigenous child and family law, a bill called C-92. Before taking any more time, I want to thank everybody for coming out.

We will begin the presentations. You have up to 10 minutes. If you don't take that, it's fine. It gives us more opportunity for questions from the members.

We begin with the Conseil de la Nation Atikamekw. Then we're moving to the Inuit, and then to Sandy Bay.

Welcome, Natan, it's always nice to see you here.

We're going to start with Grand Chief Constant. It's nice to see you.

[Judy Hughes]

I would just like to talk a bit about two areas in Bill C-92 that need some more work—

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

I'm going to be very quick because of that.

I'll start with you, Adrienne and Marie, if that's okay. You talked about the child well-being law. Bill C-92 is seen as a framework of the legislation and there are multiple concerns that have been brought to us, such as the fact that in this bill there are no principles around funding. We understand the dollar amount, but there's nothing in there that holds accountability. If we want to make the change, the resources have to be in there.

You talked about your child well-being law. I want to know a couple of things. How does this legislation work with yours in terms of it being a framework, and what are the gaps? You talked about the restriction of jurisdiction and your concern around that, and then the idea that you may have to negotiate with every province and territory.

When we look at this, what could be done to change it to make it more effective, or is it not going to work at all?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Sixteen of the forty communities that you represent have adopted the Anishinabek Nation Child Well-Being Law. Can you tell us how Bill C-92 will affect these communities?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Sixteen of the forty communities that you represent have adopted the Anishinabek Nation Child Well-Being Law.

Can you tell us how Bill C-92 will affect these communities?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Hello, everybody.

I want to thank the witnesses for their presentations.

My first questions are for Ms. Hughes and Ms. Dubois.

In his presentation to this committee, Minister O'Regan made it clear that the families of Indigenous children, particularly in Saskatchewan, should be prioritized.

Do you think that Bill C-92 represents these considerations?

[Judy Hughes, President, Saskatchewan Aboriginal Women's Circle Corporation]

Tanshi and good morning, Madam Chair Mihychuk, committee members, elders and colleagues.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on Bill C-92. My name is Judy Hughes. I am a Métis citizen and I am the president of Saskatchewan Aboriginal Women's Circle Corporation, out of Saskatchewan, of course.

I appreciate the opportunity to gather on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin people.

Meegwetch to Georgina Jolibois for recognizing that SAWCC needed a voice at this table. We had to corner her in Meadow Lake, but we got it.

The Saskatchewan Aboriginal Women's Circle Corporation is the provincial not-for-profit voluntary indigenous women's organization. We're celebrating 16 years of providing programs and resources in education, advocacy, research and economic opportunities to all nations of indigenous women, their families and the LGBTQ2S+ community.

Our governance includes a provincial president, directors from the six regions of Saskatchewan, a kokum and a youth advocate. SAWCC is one of the 13 provincial-territorial member associations, or PTMAs, of the Native Women's Association of Canada, which is the largest indigenous women's organization in Canada and boasts a PTMA in every province and territory of Canada.

My comments today are specific to all Métis children and families. Our children are our essence of being. Who will be administering the services and the funds? I'm thinking about the jurisdictional gap that may arise if services are only provided to members of one Métis national organization or government.

How are Métis children going to be identified? I do not want any Métis child left out, as it is with status first nations with Bill S-3, where people are put into categories and then it's decided whether or not they deserve a service. Not all of us are members of the Métis National Council, or in Saskatchewan, Métis Nation Saskatchewan. It's our choice whether we want to be part of that organization. I'm not saying anything negative about it, but it's our choice.

As an example, someone who is not a member of those organizations, such as my niece who has autism, would not be able to, and cannot, access any services that are provided by them, because her mom and dad choose not to be registered members.

It is long overdue for us, as Métis citizens, to have an opportunity to build our child and family services from a blank page and do it right. Why? Because, from my perspective, there is nothing more beautiful than our Métis values, teachings, cultures, language, protocols and ways of being. It would be free of all this systemic discrimination that we find in all of the institutions in Canada.

Growing up, I wasn't able to exercise my right to practise and be proud of my Métis culture. Because of this discrimination, we were forced to pass ourselves off as white. In my younger days, which was quite a few decades ago, I lived in a mixed community of people who were considered white, half-breed and Indian. That's in Bertwell, Saskatchewan, on Highway 23. I was called a “koo-bah squaw” in school. This referred to my being of Ukrainian and Dene heritage.

Regarding Bill C-92, what I see as a significant limitation is that it is missing the voices of the women of many nations—the grandmothers, the kokums. We know that boys and girls have different needs and we want to put it on the record that culturally appropriate gender-based analysis still needs to be done on any legislation, programs and services.

The Métis citizens of Saskatchewan deserve time to understand the implications of Bill C-92, if the legislation passes, and also, the patriarchal approach needs to change. We need to do more research on successful child and family models, and we do have one with the Manitoba Metis Federation model established in 1982, which I think is quite successful. We need more communication and we need to involve the matriarchs.

We have abilities within our communities to develop and implement legislation and reparation programs, versus a top-down, “Here, this is in your best interests” approach. We need to be the ones saying, “This is in the best interests of our children.”

We need partnerships with all levels of government. We're willing to work with all levels of government, including our own indigenous governments, and Canada must be willing to enter into a sincere working relationship with us.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child said that every child has every right, and we must ensure that every Métis child has every right.

Meegwetch. Thank you for listening.

[André Schutten, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for having me.

I have put together a bit of a PowerPoint for you, as well—just pictures, no text. I am presenting as an individual because my family has a bit of a story that relates directly to some of the subject matter of Bill C-92, which you are studying here.

It is the story of this little girl. I will just refer to her by her first initial J., to protect her privacy. J.'s story starts about 25 years ago, when her mom was born in Gatineau and then brought into the child welfare system in Gatineau soon after. J.'s mom was in foster care for a while, and then there was a grandmother type of person. She wasn't a biological relation but there was a very close relationship. She lived on the Ottawa side of the river. That grandmother wanted to take J.'s mom into her care permanently in order to raise her in a stable, loving environment.

However, because of the jurisdictional issue between the fact that J.'s mom was actually in care on the Gatineau side and this grandmother-type was on the Ottawa side, they were not able to sort that out. The grandmother did not have the financial resources to challenge anything in court, or anything like that.

J.'s mom ended up being kicked around from foster home to foster home, and eventually aged out of the system. A few years later, she met a young man from the Peguis First Nation, north of Winnipeg. She met him here in Ottawa and they had a child, which is the little girl you see in front of you.

We knew J.'s mom because J.'s mom was living on the streets when she was pregnant. A priest found her there, sought to find her shelter and then also mentorship from some other ladies, including my wife. My wife met her, did her pregnancy photo shoot for her, took her shopping a few times and got her into a home where she could have care and help.

Eventually J. was born. J. lived with her mom for about eight to nine months, and then there was an incident which required the CAS in Ottawa to take J. into care. At that time, J.'s mom was completely traumatized by that because she herself had lived through foster care. She knew some of the harms in foster care. She had experienced many herself. J.'s mom was completely distraught that J. was in an anonymous home somewhere within the system here in Ottawa.

We showed up to be a moral support for her at her first court appearance. At that court appearance, we asked, “Would you like us to take J. into our home? Would that be any help to you?” Her face lit right up and said, “Would you do that?” We said, “Sure, we would be happy to try to do that.” It would be a temporary thing because the goal, of course, with foster care is to reunite the child with the parent.

After a long approval process, eventually J. was approved to come into our home. Unfortunately, we lived on the Gatineau side and J. was in care on the Ottawa side. Again, there was this jurisdictional issue. We could not be approved as a foster family for J. We made an arrangement where it was by consent. We did not receive any funding or assistance or subsidies or any sort of help from the Ottawa CAS. That was okay; we were happy to help out.

After quite a long time, it became clear that J.'s mom could not have her back. The next step, of course, was to decide whether or not J. should find a stable place that would be permanent. We were willing to do that, although our hope and desire was for J. to be reunited with her mother. That did not happen.

We spent a lot of time with J. We got to know her and love her as our own child. It was not always sunshine as it is in this picture. In fact, J. was up usually two to three, sometimes four times a night, which made for a very exhausted person, such as me, on some of those mornings.

Just to give you a sense of how far we are talking about, the Peguis First Nation is about a two hours' drive north of Winnipeg, a 25-hour car drive from us here in Ottawa.

The cool thing for us as a non-first nations family is that we have begun to learn so much about first nations culture here in Canada. We've been able to participate in some powwows, including the really big one here in June in Ottawa. We've been able to participate in blanket exercises to learn, with new eyes, the legacy of the residential schools. That has been quite remarkable for us.

Not only is J. a treasure in herself, but she also offers so much to a family such as ours. She is pictured here with my father, and with my grandparents. My grandfather actually just passed away five weeks ago.

Here she is hugging my grandmother. This is a woman who grew up in Nazi-occupied Netherlands during World War II, came over here to Canada soon after, lived a long and difficult but fulfilling life, and now has advanced dementia. Here you can see that J. is full of love for other people, including people with extreme challenges.

J. has integrated into our family quite well, and that is going well. She loves her brother, our son. They get along quite well. They love each other so much, and we love her.

All of this comes down to the point of this bill and where we think we see problems or at least a gap in the bill. There is some wonderful language in this bill, and I'm happy for it. One of the things that's very encouraging is that repeatedly in different parts of the bill, there's reference to the best interests of the child. I think that's very important, and we need to make sure the rest of the bill doesn't undermine that in any way.

This raises the two issues that I see from my lived experience and J.'s lived experience, and I raise two concerns for your consideration, two gaps I think I see in the legislation.

The first is that it creates a bit of a jurisdictional nightmare. I say this having experienced over the last 18 months the headache and the tumults that dealing with just two jurisdictions, Ontario and Quebec, has caused our family and J., and the intergenerational problems it created for J.'s mother and grandmother figure. J.'s mom ended up being kicked around foster care because of this jurisdictional issue.

When I look at subclause 20(1) and subclause 18(1), I have big questions. In fact, if I look at subclause 20(1), in our situation, if this were in place today, we could be dealing with up to five different jurisdictions in order to sort out how J. should be helped. In our case, it would be Manitoba, because the Peguis First Nation is in Manitoba. It would be the Peguis First Nation. It would be Ontario, because J.'s mom is from Ontario. It would be Quebec, because that's originally where we lived, and then it would be the federal government as well, because we're dealing with first nations issues that require the input of the minister.

It's been nothing but crazy. We've had to move from the Quebec side to the Ontario side temporarily in order for this file to wrap up—18 months in the process. I can't imagine what this would be like if we had to deal with five jurisdictions.

Of course the other question with subclause 18(1) is about jurisdiction over non-first nations parents, where one parent is not first nations and the other parent is first nations. How do we deal with that? This ties directly into my second concern about the bill.

It seems to me that there's a gap, a big gap in the bill. I could be wrong about this, but my impression in reading through this bill a couple of times now is that there's an assumption that when we're dealing with first nations children, the parents of the child will both be first nations.

I'm wondering how we use Bill C-92 if it's passed into law. In J.'s situation, her father is first nations but her father wasn't really part of the picture because her mom, who is not first nations—she's French Canadian—was the primary caregiver. How do we deal with that situation? I'm seeing a pretty major gap there.

When we tie that in with parents' interests, again, that's dealt with in this bill where it says that the parent should be able to have a say in how their child is taken care of, but which parent? Does one trump the other? Does it matter if one is first nations but not the primary caregiver, and the other one isn't first nations but is the primary caregiver? How does that work in the order of priority, for example, in subclause 16(1)? How do we wrestle with these questions?

In the last 30 seconds that I have, I'll end with this. The best interests of the child does require stability, and there is a reference in the bill to stability being so important. Our hope and prayer is that this is something we have provided for J. and that she has a stable home where her new dad and her new mom not only love each other but love her and put her interests first and primary. I hope that pays dividends for her as she grows and develops.

Thank you so much. Meegwetch.

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

[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.

[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 are in private homes under the age of 15. 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak on a historic piece of legislation, Bill C-92, an act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

It is also an honour to welcome over 30 students from Mr. Dingwall's grade 12 politics class at Humberside Collegiate Institute in my riding. They are here to study xenophobia and refugees, but the concerns and the aims of that study have a link to this legislation. The link is that their study and this legislation both identify key areas of inclusion, of the promotion of diversity, and of the remediation of historical injustices.

Let us talk about Bill C-92.

Bill C-92 seeks to do two very important things. First, it would affirm the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services. Second, it sets out several principles, including the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality, that would be applicable on a national level to the provision of child and family services to indigenous children.

Let us start with my past role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage in 2017. At that point, I had the privilege of engaging with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and elders, and subsequently assisting in the co-development of a different bill, Bill C-91, which aims to promote and preserve indigenous languages in Canada. I am very pleased to see that this bill, a companion bill, seeks to enshrine the importance of culture and language when it comes to determining what is in the best interests of the child.

When indigenous children are navigating our child and family services system, their culture and language must be taken into account and must be protected.

Indigenous leaders across this country have called on successive governments to make changes to address the overrepresentation of first nations, Inuit and Métis children in the child and family services system. They have been doing that important advocacy work on this file for over a decade and have highlighted the important voices of indigenous children from across the country to shed light on the shortcomings of our current child and family services systems.

It is undeniable that the levels of indigenous children in care have reached the point of what has been described as a humanitarian crisis. Indigenous children under 15 make up 7.7% of the Canadian population, but they account for 52.2% of children in foster care in private homes. That is a staggering statistic—7.7% of the population, yet 52.2% of the children in foster care. Incredibly, we know that there are more indigenous children who have been removed from their homes and placed in the child welfare system, right now in 2019, than there were at the height of the residential school system, which is such a shameful legacy in Canadian history.

We also know that often indigenous children are separated from their families and communities, which deprives them of their language, their culture, and their connection to their people. That is absolutely and categorically unacceptable. It is vital that we address the root causes that have led to this humanitarian crisis, including such things as poverty, intergenerational trauma, and culturally biased child welfare policies and practices. That is what Bill C-92 will address.

Our current child and family welfare system is failing indigenous peoples and has been failing them for some time. It is for this reason that our government is taking steps today with Bill C-92 to redress the situation.

Our goal as a government has always been to support legislation that respects the principle of self-determination of indigenous people and legislation that advances what we would call meaningful reconciliation. These two objectives were the basis for our actions taken while crafting this legislation.

Recognizing the urgency of addressing these issues, the Minister of Indigenous Services at the time hosted an emergency meeting on indigenous child and family services in January 2018. During that meeting, our government had the opportunity to hear from experts, advocates, indigenous partners, and provincial and territorial people, but most importantly from youth, such as the youth who are here today from my riding, but especially youth from right around the country who had a lived experience of navigating the child and family services system. It is of the utmost importance to continue to elevate the voices of those with first-hand experience so that we can learn from their experiences and make the legislative changes that address the problems individuals face when accessing our child and family services system.

Following that emergency meeting back in January of 2018, 65 sessions were held during the summer and fall of 2018 to engage with people around the country, whether in Toronto or Winnipeg, from coast to coast to coast.

That engagement, which was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, engaged 2,000 individuals in different sessions, including representatives of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, as well as treaty nations, self-governing first nations, provinces and territories.

In January of 2019, further in-person engagement sessions with indigenous partners and provincial and territorial representatives were conducted to consult on the proposed content of Bill C-92.

What is critical is what we learned in those consultations. We learned that Canadians care about reforming child and family services in a way that better meets the needs of indigenous peoples. It is clear that Canadians are shocked by the statistics with which I started my discussion and my contribution to this debate. This is an issue that has been raised by many of my colleagues in the House. It is certainly an issue that my constituents in Parkdale—High Park feel strongly about.

Whether they are students at Humberside Collegiate or at any of the other secondary institutions in the riding, whether they are younger people or older people, constituents of all backgrounds have told me, “I am not an indigenous person, but I know we need to remedy a historical injustice. To do right by the colonial and racist legacy of the residential school system and the policies and practices put in place by successive governments for 152 years, we have to implement legislation to remedy those wrongs.” Bill C-91, coupled with Bill C-92, does exactly that.

People have spoken to me about ensuring that we have culturally appropriate child and family services to protect the vibrancy of cultures. I have often told them it is important for people such as me or random constituents to engage with and learn more about and understand indigenous history, knowledge and culture. It is even more important to restore that knowledge and understanding to indigenous communities without doing it in a paternalistic way, as in past practices, but by co-developing solutions with indigenous people and empowering them to implement the solutions they feel are appropriate for their communities. That is what the bill will do.

Let me explain that indigenous children are being removed from their homes and communities in greater numbers than they were at the height of the residential school system. We have had conversations regarding the next steps our government must take to protect indigenous children, and as a result we are affirming the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples over child and family services.

Bill C-92 does not provide a one-size-fits-all model. Rather, it would allow indigenous people to exercise partial or full jurisdiction over child and family services at a pace that promotes the well-being of their communities. The bill would allow indigenous groups to exercise their inherent and rightful jurisdiction over child and family services, which will result in their laws prevailing over federal laws and laws of the provinces and territories, in the case of a dispute between the two. This is a very important point, because it gives meaning to this notion of self-determination and self-governance.

The legislation also sets out a robust mechanism whereby indigenous groups would enter into tripartite coordination agreements with the federal government and the provincial government of each province in which the indigenous group is located to work together for up to 12 months to reach a tripartite agreement. Along with affirming jurisdiction, the bill also sets out principles such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality around the provision of child and family services to indigenous children, applicable at the national level.

Let me pause here to say that this is something we are working hard to implement across government. The analogy I would draw to this “best interests” provision is to a different bill that I have been privileged to work on as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Bill C-78. It is a family law reform bill that again entrenches the best interests of the child, but importantly, it echoes the language we find in Bill C-92, language that talks about the spiritual, cultural and linguistic continuity for indigenous children remaining with indigenous family settings. That is critical to Bill C-78, and also critical to Bill C-92.

With regard to decisions as to what is in the best interests of the children, Bill C-92 elaborates several factors that need to be taken into account. They are the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety; the child's security and well-being; the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing; and the maintenance of an ongoing, positive relationship with the family, community and indigenous group to which they belong.

Let me restate that, because it is so critical and gets to the heart of what the bill is about: When there is a child welfare situation that involves removing a child from their original home to a foster care type of setting, we need to think about what is in that child's best interests.

How we evaluate that is by thinking about continuity in the child's ongoing positive relationship with his or her family and with his or her indigenous group. That is the key in what we are talking about here. That creates stability for the children through the connection for the children to their language and, importantly, to their territory. By emphasizing these factors, the legislation would ensure that child and family services take into account cultural context when making decisions as to what is in the best interest of first nations, Inuit and Métis kids. The goal is to decrease the number of indigenous children who are separated from their families and their communities.

Additionally, when decisions are being made about what is in the best interests of children, this bill would prioritize a shift from apprehension to prevention, thereby promoting preventive care that supports the entire family.

What does this mean?

We know, unfortunately, that too often child welfare advocates will arrive at a situation and say that a child needs to be removed from a family setting because of the conditions in which the family lives. The solution is not then to remove more children; the solution is to repair and correct the conditions in which indigenous people live. That has to be the solution. It bears common sense scrutiny. It bears logical scrutiny.

It also is completely consistent with an approach toward reconciliation whereby we accept and acknowledge historical racism and the legacy of colonialism and move forward together with indigenous peoples to correct that legacy. That is what this bill is doing by targeting this specific issue.

How does it do it?

The bill says that a child should not be apprehended solely on the basis of his or her socio-economic conditions. Instead, it calls upon governments to work with families to find solutions that uplift all family members and keep the child in that home. Moreover, if apprehension and placement are deemed necessary to ensure the best interests of the child, then Bill C-92 delineates an order of priority to be respected when placing that child, and this order is important.

If apprehension needs to occur, this is the classification, and it is a prioritized list: first, keeping the child with one of the child's parents; second, keeping the child with another member of the child's family who is an adult; third, keeping the child with an adult who belongs to the same indigenous group, community or people; fourth, keeping the child with an adult who belongs to an indigenous group, community or people other than the one to which the child belongs.

That is an important prioritization, because it emphasizes exactly what we are trying to do: We are not trying to create further rupture between indigenous people and their culture and communities, but trying to restore and enhance that connection. This order of priority emphasizes family members first, and subsequently adults belonging to the same indigenous group, community or people.

By formalizing in law the need to keep indigenous children with indigenous communities, Bill C-92 takes a huge step forward in protecting cultural continuity by taking into account the things that I have been mentioning when determining what is in the best interests of the child: language, culture, connection with family.

To give a mundane example, if a child who speaks Cree lives on a reserve in rural Manitoba and if a removal is required, the services do not remove that child all the way to Winnipeg. First, they make every effort not to remove the child. If a removal needs to occur, they keep the child on the same territory with the same community, with people who will continue to speak Cree to the child so that the child can maintain that connection to their people. It is that straightforward.

The importance of cultural continuity is further enshrined in this legislation by establishing an ongoing obligation to reassess the possibility for an indigenous foster child to reside with one of the child's parents or an adult member of his or her family.

That is the kind of legislation that people in Canada want, including those in my riding and including the very patient people who have been sitting here from Humberside Collegiate Institute.

What they have said to me over and over again, and what I have heard in my riding and right around the country when I was working in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, is that indigenous reconciliation is the responsibility for all of us. It is not simply the responsibility of indigenous communities or the government vis-à-vis indigenous communities; it is the collective responsibility of the 36 million people who inhabit this country to move on that path together.

Bill C-92 is a milestone piece of legislation that would have significant impacts on the lives of indigenous youth, their families and their communities. It is an important step in advancing meaningful reconciliation and in implementing the vital recommendations made by the TRC. I want to thank the indigenous leaders across Canada who have advocated on this issue for years, as well as the current minister and the previous minister, the member for Markham—Stouffville, for their invaluable contributions, without which this legislation would not have been possible.

We are committed to working collaboratively with all levels of government and all relevant stakeholders to continue to advance the well-being of indigenous peoples, but as I said during the course of my remarks, we will not do this in a paternalistic or colonial way, but in a manner that empowers indigenous peoples and allows them to make decisions for their communities and for themselves.

Bill C-92 is an important first step in that direction, and I strongly urge every member in the House to support it.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, having had experience in the administration and education systems as a mayor, I know that consultation is of critical importance. While sitting on the heritage committee, though, what I heard on a couple of pieces of significant legislation that preceded Bill C-92 was that while we were told there had been extensive consultation, when it came right down to it, there had been very little. I have not been on the committee dealing with Bill C-92, but I suggest that this continues to happen. It does not work unless it is done.

Again, what I would suggest to those really interested in reconciliation with indigenous youth, for example, is that they find a way to bring the play New Blood, acted by Siksika reserve indigenous youth, to their communities and Ottawa. They would see how consultation has worked, and those indigenous youth would provide an opportunity for members to see how they have changed and how it works for them.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the development Bill C-91, the constitutional lawyers we heard from said that the legislation was not written for that to occur, as there were problems with jurisdiction. That was one of the problems of Bill C-91. In Bill C-92, I hope the legislation is written to actually do that, because in the case of Bill C-91, constitutional lawyers said that because of the way it was written, there was a problem as to who holds authority.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

As part of that, I need to refer to an interesting production that I was able to attend a few weeks ago, the New Blood dance show. New Blood is a story of reconciliation, and it was a phenomenal presentation. This widely acclaimed production blends Blackfoot music and contemporary music by Peter Gabriel to create an amazing piece of theatre celebrating Blackfoot history and traditions.

For all those who might be interested in seeing it, it is a high school group that is connected closely with Siksika. There are a lot of students in it. It was first performed in 2014, and it is performed annually, with new students as participants. It has been viewed in many places in southern Alberta and in some in British Columbia. It is based on a chief's life, going through reconciliation and becoming a chief of his people, and the ultimate goal of the teacher who developed this production was to hopefully bring it to Ottawa so that more people could see it.

I think it is fantastic, and hopefully Heritage Canada understands how important this type of production is, as it is done by indigenous youth in our country.

The legislation that we have in front of us comes on the heels of Bill C-91, which was sent back to the House from the heritage committee.

I was fundamentally supportive of Bill C-91's objectives. Its objectives were important to constituents in my riding.

Siksika Nation, which is located in Bow River, has already taken steps to offer an immersion program in the Blackfoot language for the first time this September. The program will be offered to kindergarten and grade 1 students to start. This is an incredible step in ensuring their language and culture are strengthened through future generations. The students need to be there. I hope this program is a great success.

However, even though I fundamentally supported Bill C-91, the way the government rushed through the legislation was unacceptable. As with Bill C-92, the government introduced Bill C-91 late in its mandate. This has left the government scrambling to force the legislation's passage. In fact, as we were in committee, about 15 minutes before we were scheduled to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-91, we received over 20 new Liberal amendments to that piece of legislation.

Previously, when we were discussing the bill and hearing witnesses, I had pointed out some of the constitutional challenges that I felt Bill C-91 would have. Then we had constitutional lawyers appear before the committee as witnesses, and they pointed out the same problems. They believed that this legislation would not stand in court the way it was written.

Some amendments were made and maybe that will fix the legislation, but that is the problem with both Bill C-91 and Bill C-92. They were written too hurriedly and too late. Constitutional lawyers did not have an opportunity to deal with the amendments to make this legislation better or more correct so that it does not end up in litigation for years in court.

This pattern should not be repeated with Bill C-92, but I understand that the committee is conducting a pre-study and going through the same process. It was a piece of legislation that was rushed too quickly.

I understand that Bill C-92 seeks to affirm the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services by establishing national principles, such as best interests of the child, cultural continuity, and substantive equality to guide the interpretation and administration of the bill.

These principles are intended to guide indigenous communities on the delivery of child and family services. If the legislation meets its objectives, it would keep extended families together and in their communities, which is a critical part of the goals, but I do not know if the legislation is going to achieve that. I do not think anyone would be opposed to that goal.

Consistent with the 2008 residential school apology delivered by Prime Minister Harper, Conservatives believe steps must be taken to reduce the number of indigenous children in care. Amends need to be made for residential schools and the sixties scoop.

My mother, for example, was one of the first teachers after the transition out of residential schools to teach in what it was called a day head start program for four- and five-year-olds for indigenous children on the Blood reserve. It was the first transition for students of that age to be at home and not in a residential school.

Ultimately, this legislation can reduce the number of indigenous children in care. It is well designed, but what did we see on Bill C-91? On Bill C-91 we heard from many witnesses that they had not been consulted or that their advice was unheeded. First of all, we heard on Bill C-91 that there had been extensive consultation. Then witnesses talked about six months. Then it got down to the fact that it was actually only for three months that there was an attempt at consultations, and then we heard that it was only weeks, so it is a challenge for us to know what really happened when we hear that extensive consultations have been done.

Given that Bill C-92 aims to give indigenous communities more jurisdiction over their foster care program, I would hope that the government will actually listen to the witnesses that are coming to committee. Otherwise, this is just one more example of colonialism by the government, which the government claims it is trying to avoid.

On Bill C-91 there were a lot of witnesses with a variety of opinions that did not match the legislation. They needed more consultation. As well, when I was at committee, we once again had a tremendous variety of witnesses with different opinions on National Indigenous Peoples Day, and again it was the government making the decision with its legislation.

I understand that the first nations, Inuit and Métis continue to be overrepresented in Canada's foster care system, According to the 2016 census data from Stats Canada, there are almost 15,000 foster children in private homes under the age of 15 who are indigenous, which is 52% of foster children in Canada. Obviously, the current system is not working well for indigenous youth.

I respect the fact that the government is taking measures it believes will address the situation, even though the government waited until the very last minute to introduce this legislation. Bill C-92 emphasizes a need to focus on prevention, rather than on apprehension. When apprehension has been deemed in a child's best interest, the legislation provides an order of preference for the placement of an indigenous child with a family member or a member of their community and stresses that siblings should be kept together when it is in their best interests. That seems like a good approach, but will it work?

While I have only recently reviewed the legislation, I look forward to learning more about the government's intentions to execute this plan. That is where we will find out if it works. Just as there were flaws in Bill C-91, I trust that the committee is receiving valuable testimony from witnesses on how to fix the potential flaws in the bill and how to make it better.

I do have a particular concern about coordination of this legislation with the provinces and territories. I understand that on the day the bill was tabled, Saskatchewan's Minister of Social Services, Paul Merriman, told APTN that the federal government chose not to collaborate with the provinces and territories to develop this legislation. In the development of Bill C-91, what we heard from people from the grassroots in the education systems in indigenous communities was that there was no consultation with them, and again the provinces are saying that there was no consultation with them. This is a problem.

Jurisdiction over this file may get complicated. I hope this issue will be addressed at committee. Bill C-92 will be a better piece of legislation if the committee actually addresses some of the problems, just like in Bill C-91. The last thing we want to do is spend this time on legislation and then have it end up in the courts under appeal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

I rise to speak to Bill C-92, which, if passed, would be a significant step forward in the process of reconciliation and in the renewal of the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples.

Bill C-92 sets out the legislative framework and the principles needed to guide work among first nations, Inuit and Métis nations, provincial and territorial partners, and the Government of Canada to achieve truly meaningful reform in child and family services.

The bill before us follows wide-ranging and intensive engagement with indigenous partners, provincial and territorial representatives, youth, in particular youth who have lived experience in the child and family welfare system, and experts and advocates.

In January 2018, our government held an emergency national meeting on indigenous child and family services to collaborate on finding solutions to keep families together. In the report on the emergency meeting, the overarching theme that emerged was summarized as follows: “It is clear that the time is now to work towards transferring jurisdictional control from the federal government to First Nations, the Inuit and the Métis Nation through legislation”.

The minutes go on to say:

Legislative reforms are needed that respect and promote the rights of Indigenous peoples to lead the systems, developing standards and practices that reflect Indigenous laws and cultural practices, where the First Nations, Inuit and the Métis Nation have the right to look after their children and children and youth have rights to be raised in language and culture.

Legislative reforms are needed that respect and promote the rights of Indigenous peoples to lead the systems, developing standards and practices that reflect Indigenous laws and cultural practices.

At the end of the emergency meeting, the Government of Canada made six commitments to address the overrepresentation of indigenous children and youth in care in Canada.

First, it will continue to fully implement the orders from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, including Jordan's principle, and reform first nations child and family services, including by moving to a flexible funding model.

Second, it will work with partners to shift the focus of programming to culturally appropriate prevention, early intervention and family reunification.

Third, it will also work with our partners to support communities in drawing down jurisdiction in child and family services, including exploring co-developed federal legislation.

Fourth, it will participate in and accelerate the work at tripartite and technical tables that are in place across the country in supporting reform.

Fifth, it will support Inuit and Métis leadership in their work to advance meaningful, culturally appropriate reform of child and family services.

Sixth, it will create a data strategy with the provinces, territories and indigenous partners to increase interjurisdictional data collection, sharing and reporting to better understand the rates and reasons for apprehension.

Similar calls for legislation have come from call to action 4 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as well as the National Advisory Committee on First Nations Child and Family Services and were reflected in the Assembly of First Nations' resolutions of May and December 2018, to name a few.

Throughout the summer and fall of that year, this government actively engaged with national, regional and community organizations and with individuals, nearly 2,000 across 65 meetings, to co-develop a legislative approach that has brought us to this point.

As a result of this intensive engagement process, on November 30, 2018, the former minister of Indigenous Services stood together with national indigenous leaders to announce that the Government of Canada would introduce co-developed federal legislation on indigenous child and family services.

I am heartened to share the words of Senator Murray Sinclair, former chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, who called these engagements “a model for implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions Call-to-Actions in a meaningful and direct way.”

This is engagement that will continue as the legislation is implemented and afterward through the exploration of a national transition governance structure, with a distinctions-based underpinning, that would have representation from indigenous partners, provinces and territories.

The group could, for example, identify tools and processes to help increase the capacity of communities as they make progress toward assuming responsibility for child and family services. Such a committee could also assess gaps and recommend mechanisms, as needed, to assist with implementation, in the spirit of partnership and in the spirit of co-operation. In addition, Bill C-92 would provide a review of the legislation every five years, in collaboration with Métis, Inuit and first nation partners.

The bill is entirely consistent with our government's commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and our commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The bill has two objectives. First is to affirm the inherent right of indigenous peoples to self-determination in relation to child and family services. The bill is formed on that foundation and would provide flexible pathways for indigenous groups across Canada to determine a way forward that would best meet the needs of their children, families and communities. Second, the bill would set out guiding principles that would guide the provision of child and family services to indigenous children in nearly every region and every jurisdiction throughout this great country.

These principles are national in scope. They are a base standard to ensure that all services for first nation, Inuit and Métis children are provided in a manner that takes into account the individual child's needs, including the need to be raised with a strong connection to the child's family, culture, language and community.

These principles are the following: the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality. Setting these standards is in line with TRC call to action 4, which calls for the establishment of national standards, and with what we heard from partners and community members during the extensive engagement process across Canada. To be clear, these are minimum base standards that can be built upon and adapted by communities to meet their unique cultures as well as their unique traditions.

Participants also agreed that the proposed legislation should emphasize the importance of keeping indigenous families together through the implementation of prevention services and early intervention, measures that promote family preservation and reunification.

The legislation would propose an order of preference for placement: first, the family; then the extended family, other members of the community and other indigenous families; then a non-indigenous adult. The placement order is intended to ensure that children remain connected to their culture and their community and that they preserve their attachment and emotional ties to the family.

The bill would establish the importance of preventive care over apprehension. This legislation would give priority to child and family services that promote preventive care, including prenatal services, over the provision of services that promote the removal of a child at the time of birth.

Focusing on preventive care would help promote bonding between mothers and newborns and family unification and attachment and would prevent the removal of newborns. These principles, child-centred and family-centred, were referenced repeatedly throughout the engagement sessions, as was the critical importance of prevention programs.

It is clear that services provided to indigenous children and families should respect and respond in a way that is tailored to their needs and unique cultural experiences. Considerable emphasis was placed on the importance of culture and maintaining the health and well-being of children and families, including through community support networks and the involvement of elders.

It was also clear from the engagement process that federal legislation must respect the inherent right of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples to self-determination.

This legislation starts at the point of affirming the inherent right of indigenous peoples to oversee child and family services and sets out flexible pathways for indigenous groups to create their own laws that best meet the needs of their children and their communities. Indeed, if an indigenous group chose to establish its own laws through this mechanism, the legislation makes it clear that in the case of a conflict between indigenous law and a provincial or a federal law, the indigenous law would prevail. For added clarity, the bill would not prevail over any existing treaties, self-government agreements or other agreements that already address indigenous child and family services, though communities could choose to adopt it in these situations.

Partners emphasized that the concept of one-size-fits-all is entirely inappropriate in this situation. Any federal legislation on child and family services must recognize that the needs, desires and priorities of indigenous communities in child and family services vary from one community to another and from one province to another and can evolve and change over time. As a result, there was broad consensus that federal, provincial and territorial mechanisms to support indigenous child and family services should have the flexibility needed to address a range of circumstances and variables.

Importantly, the bill also states that an indigenous child would not be apprehended on the basis of socio-economic conditions alone. This is something we heard loud and clear from partners during the consultation process. Indeed, the principle of substantive equality, the third of the guiding principles, is critical to ensuring that the focus of all providers remains on achieving equitable outcomes and equal opportunities for indigenous children and their families.

Substantive equality is the underpinning of other important initiatives, such as Jordan's principle, which ensures that first nations children across Canada can access the services, products and supports they need when they need them. Since 2016, our government has committed $680 million to support requests through Jordan's principle, which has helped provide first nations youth with a wide range of services to meet their health, social and educational needs.

The positive impact is undeniable. As of January 31 of this year, more than 214,000 requests for services and supports have been approved for first nations children under Jordan's principle. Our government is committed to ensuring that this important work continues. I had the pleasure of being with the minister last week in Winnipeg, with several other MPs, where he announced $1.2 billion for Jordan's principle going forward.

We are all aware that indigenous peoples have been treated atrociously. We are all familiar with the horror of residential schools and the 60s scoop.

Even so, first nations, Inuit and Métis children are still being taken away from their families, their communities, their language and their culture at an alarming and unjustifiable rate. More than half of the foster children in Canada are indigenous. There are many factors involved, of course, but there is no doubt that the system is failing indigenous children, indigenous families and indigenous communities.

We are all aware of the appalling treatment of indigenous peoples, exemplified by the horror of residential schools and by the tragedy of the sixties scoop. Over the course of the last three years, significant investments have been made to begin addressing these issues. Our government has nearly doubled the annual funding for indigenous child and family services since we took office, bringing it to more than $1.1 billion annually.

Through budget 2016, we provided $635 million over five years as a first step in addressing funding gaps in first nations child and family services. These funds have been used to support agency service providers, including enhanced funding for smaller agencies. It has supported the rollout of prevention-focused funding models across the country and more front-line service providers.

These funds are already at work. For example, last August, we announced that the Huu-ay-aht First Nation in British Columbia would receive $4.2 million, close to $850,000 a year for five years, to support new child and family services initiatives. Some 20% of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation children were in a form of government care, a situation that led the community leadership to declare a public health emergency and undertake a major study to identify solutions. With funding from Canada and other partners, the Huu-ay-aht First Nation is now implementing the 30 recommendations of this study, entitled “Safe, Healthy and Connected, Bringing Huu-ay-aht Children Home”.

Existing pregnancy support and parenting education programs are being expanded. Family and protection support workers are being hired. New opportunities for youth engagement and cultural awareness are being developed. In February 2018, we also changed policies to fund the actual costs of indigenous-led CFS agencies, meaning that they can focus on prevention and services to better support families and reduce the number of children in care.

In budget 2018, the government committed a further $1.4 billion in new funding over six years to address the funding pressures facing first nations CFS agencies. This includes funding to increase prevention resources for communities so that children are safe and families can stay together. As part of the ongoing efforts toward program reform, a total of $105 million of funding in the current year has been allocated to the community well-being and jurisdiction initiative. This new funding stream focuses on supporting first nations communities to undertake prevention activities to help families at risk stay together in communities whenever possible and, at the same time, allow communities to exercise their rightful jurisdiction over child and family services.

Funding and innovation can only go so far when dealing with a broken and failing system. It is failing generations of indigenous children and it must be reformed. The existing indigenous child and family services system has led to what has rightly been described as a humanitarian crisis. This bill represents a critical step in addressing that crisis, and I urge all members to join me in supporting it.

The House resumed from March 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will resume debate at third reading of Bill C-82, an act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting.

Tomorrow we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

Next Monday we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis.

I hope I will have more to tell you tomorrow.

Indigenous Languages Act

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are also looking forward to having the former minister of health back in this House in October 2019. She is our nominated candidate for Nunavut, and we cannot wait to have her back on this side helping the Conservative vision in this country. She certainly has done a lot for the people of Nunavut and Canada on speech, on tradition and on indigenous languages. We cannot wait to have the former minister back again with us.

Let us not forget that, under our previous government in 2007, right here in the old place, Stephen Harper was the one who took the lead on truth and reconciliation. It started there in 2007, so Conservatives have been on board all along.

It is funny that the current government waited until February 5 of this year to table this bill. We are weeks away from adjourning here. Bill C-91 should have been brought to the House two and a half or maybe even three years earlier. The Liberals have done so much for the people that we are here now rushing Bill C-91 and Bill C-92 through the House, because they have done little or nothing in the last two and a half to three years.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand and speak to Bill C-91, the indigenous languages act, at third reading.

It is important for people who might be watching to note that we just had a vote at report stage, and there was unanimous support in this House to move this bill forward. That in itself speaks to how important this particular bill is.

Having said that we see it is important to move the bill forward, the expression “The pursuit of perfection often impedes improvement” is very appropriate. This is by no means a perfect bill. There are many things that will still be looked at in more detail in the Senate. I certainly perceive that we will be seeing more amendments coming forward. It was seen as a really important step. It was seen as something that we should all support, at least as a movement in the right direction. It is an improvement, for sure, but does it get us where we need to go? Absolutely not.

I was just talking to my colleague, who was at a dinner last night with the ambassador for New Zealand. There was a delegation here from New Zealand. I understand there was some drumming and a welcome in Cree at this particular dinner. What was more interesting was when he described to me how the entire delegation that came, MPs from all parties, spent over a minute or so talking in Maori. All the people in that delegation had some grasp of the indigenous language of that country.

I thought that was a very interesting story. I know we have a few indigenous language speakers in this Parliament, but we are a significantly long way from anything that resembles what my colleague described. Obviously, with its many languages and their many dialects, Canada is in a very different position.

This bill is important. Many witnesses came to the heritage committee and shared how vital the protection and revitalization of languages was for them. As they spoke, they shared research in terms of the importance of language; they shared lived experiences, and they shared suggestions for how we could make this bill better. I would like to thank them all for taking that time to come to committee to share their thoughts about this bill. We know that some of the suggestions were taken into account. At this time, others would be difficult. This needs to be an evolving process; it needs to be a bit of a living tree, and it is certainly a framework.

To go back a little, in the debate at second reading I shared a personal story. I would like to share another story in terms of what I witnessed back in the 1980s: elders who were very fluent in their language at that time, and how destructive some of the government policies had been, not only in terms of the residential schools and the loss of language.

I can remember visiting an elder who was very fluent in her language and being told that I was not supposed to visit this elder because she was no longer one of them. She had married a white person who had passed away. I thought that was strange, because she was of the community; she spoke the language and she was emblematic of the culture of the community. However, the government had decided she was no longer a status Indian, because she had married a white person who had since passed away. She could not ever retrieve that status.

It was a really unusual circumstance. That was one of the first times I saw the impact of government policies. As a nurse I was not supposed to visit an elder, because at the time I was called “the Indian nurse” and in the communities I was allowed to be responsible only for people who were status Indians. We all ignored those rules, and those rules certainly made no sense.

If we look at all the elders at the time and their fluency in speaking and we compare them with the children who had returned home from the residential schools, who at that time were in their fifties and sixties, we would see that very few of them could converse well with their parents with the language skills they had, and many of the elders were very limited in their English. Imagine how difficult that was for the communities.

To look back, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was part of the 2007 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, which recognized that the school system had a profound, lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language. At that time, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper and the previous Conservative government acknowledged these harms and delivered a formal apology in the House of Commons to the former students and their families and communities for Canada's role in the operation of these schools.

Again, this was a time when Parliament came together. We were government and we delivered the apology, but I remember NDP members were instrumental in that and I also know that the Liberals welcomed that particular day.

At the time, he said:

The Government of Canada built an educational system in which very young children were often forcibly removed from their homes and often taken far away from their communities.

Many were inadequately fed, clothed and housed. All were deprived of the care and nurturing of their parents, grandparents and communities.

First nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools.

Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools, and others never returned home.

The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian residential schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language.

As we all know, the commission did its work across this country and delivered its calls to action. Calls to action Nos. 13, 14 and 15 specifically looked at the issue of language, and that is part of the reason we are seeing unanimous consensus in the House to move forward with this bill.

This is an important bill. We have said it is not perfect. I am going to talk about some of the challenges and concerns that I continue to have about the technical pieces of the bill, as opposed to the more aspirational component.

My number one concern is about something I have never seen before in all my time as a parliamentarian. Committees hear from witnesses, who make suggestions. Then we have the opportunity propose amendments to the legislation to improve it or to fix errors. Amendments typically are introduced in time for all members of the committee to reflect on them and make decisions about whether these amendments make sense, where they are supportable, or whether they might have other implications.

We went through that process. Many amendments were submitted. They were submitted from independent members as well, and there was a good opportunity to reflect on what those amendments would mean in the context of the whole bill. Then there was clause-by-clause consideration, when we looked at the clauses as they existed and the amendments that were proposed.

The current government table-dropped 23 amendments. In all of my time as a parliamentarian, in considering many bills in clause-by-clause study, I have seen independents table-drop amendments and other parties have table-dropped amendments, but I have never, ever seen a government having to drop 23 amendments to its own bill with no time for consideration. Essentially, we had to make a decision on the spot, on the fly, in terms of the ramifications of these amendments.

That is what I consider to be an incredibly sloppy practice, and it is a serious concern. As the Senate looks at this amended bill, I am hoping that it will be able to catch any challenges that were left there as a result.

The other thing that is particularly interesting about the bill is something that Canadians might not be as aware of. There are two bills before this Parliament that are in some ways partner bills. One is the bill we are talking about today, and the other is Bill C-92, which is the indigenous child welfare legislation. In both these bills—and for the first time ever, as was confirmed by Ms. Laurie Sargent from the Department of Justice—Parliament has decided to speak to the recognition of section 35 rights in legislation, as opposed to going through a court system.

As Conservatives, we have often said that we should be the ones legislating and the courts should be interpreting. To some degree it is very appropriate that in consultation and collaboration with indigenous peoples in this country, we try to do some work in relation to section 35 rights.

The unanswered question is still about our Constitution, which is absolutely a work that includes our provinces and territories. For the federal government to be addressing section 35 in a language bill makes sense, because it is not going to impose on the provinces; however, in Bill C-92, the child welfare bill, the government is again defining some section 35 rights but is also going to be asserting to the provinces some paramountcy. It has been unwilling, so far, to talk to the provinces about that. When we are talking about putting some definition to some issues in the Constitution, not having conversations with the provinces is going to lead the government to some real challenges, particularly in the next piece of legislation we are going to be debating. I am very concerned that the government has taken such an approach.

I do not think I have ever seen things so bad in my time as a parliamentarian in terms of provincial-federal relationships. Things seem to have broken down, and I hope we can retrieve the situation. To propose legislation on which conversations have not even been had with the provinces is a challenge we need to deal with.

As I was going back in my notes, I noticed another interesting thing. This bill was originally tabled on February 5. At that time, the Minister of Heritage gave his speech, and I congratulated him on his speech and on this particular piece of legislation. However, February 5 was a very interesting date: it was the day a Globe and Mail article gave the first inkling of the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

I can remember the article had just come out, and I asked the minister a question about that, of course, and for the next two months we never did get satisfactory answers to any of those questions. What we learned in that particular article and in the two months that came afterward was that the government speaks many fine words about its commitment to indigenous relations and reconciliation, but that far too often its actions fall far short of what is expected.

I know that the former attorney general of Canada, who is now sitting as an independent, feels particularly concerned about what the government is doing and where it is going in terms of its commitments and in terms of the indigenous file.

We also saw how willing they were to throw a female who was the first indigenous attorney general in Canada under the bus. How quickly they did that, just two months later, to someone who was well recognized and well respected. We need to call them out on that particular piece.

Bill S-3, a bill about gender equity, is another piece of legislation that was tabled in the House that is related to this file. We had department officials come to our meetings. It sounded as though they had responded to the court decision in a reasonable fashion, yet the first witnesses and then other witnesses were able to point out serious flaws in the bill that the department officials had not noted. The minister had said everything was fine and that the government was taking care of the court decision, but the bill was so bad that they had to pull it and go back to the starting point. Then they had to pass a flawed bill, and we have been hearing recently that there are still concerns that the issues around gender equity have not been resolved.

Those are my particular concerns over the legislation that the current government has tabled. We have Bill S-3, which was flawed and had be to be pulled back. We have Bill C-91, which required 22 amendments to be table-dropped. In the case of Bill C-92, there are only six weeks left in this Parliament. The Liberals made significant commitments that they have not been able to meet, so they are in a rush, and particularly with Bill C-92, the child welfare legislation, they are trying to rush things through.

When I started my speech, I talked about things not being perfect but moving in a good direction. However, there might come a time when, in the Liberals' rush to get things done, things will be so flawed that they will just have to backtrack, as with some of their other bills. Unfortunately, we will have to see if they can get through it in time.

In conclusion, it is heartening to see unanimous consent in this House. It is heartening to see the work that has been done, although it is only a step. I am optimistic that there will be new technologies. One of the witnesses talked about how artificial intelligence can help with some language preservation.

We need to work soon and we need to work hard, so we are very happy to support this bill in terms of moving it to the next step.

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

I appreciate that, because that twigged a concern. With the indigenous languages bill, for Parliament, in consultation and collaboration with indigenous peoples, to recognize section 35 rights, rather than court systems, that is perfectly appropriate. Language was also cleaner in terms of not having those provincial issues. What we did with Bill C-91, although unique and unusual, is a little different from what's happening with Bill C-92.

For example, from my interpretation of Bill C-92, if in the riding I represent there is an indigenous organization providing services on and off reserve and that is well agreed to, when those agreements are made, that makes sense. However, in the absence of those agreements, you could potentially have, off reserve, someone who is defined under the Daniels decision with no particular group who has taken on the authority under this act.

Therefore, what we are doing is imposing this legislation on the provinces, when they're taking care of off-reserve indigenous children, without any conversation. As I understand it, that is your particular area of concern, the constitutionality of doing that.

[Prof. Hadley Friedland]

There are similarities.

A few of the things that have been brought here recognizing that inherent jurisdiction are similar to the Indian Child Welfare Act. The placement priority in this act is similar to the Indian Child Welfare Act. They also have a placement priority. I do think there is stronger language in the Indian Child Welfare Act in the U.S. that is missing in Bill C-92. For example, they have a reasonable and active effort section saying that active efforts need to be taken before removing a child or not placing with family. That's an example where Bill C-92 isn't as strong.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

Many parallels can be drawn between Bill C-92 and the Indian Child Welfare Act passed in the U.S. in 1978. According to Terri Libesman, the author of Decolinising Indigenous Child Welfare: Comparative Perspectives, the American law has made great strides by including indigenous peoples in child welfare decision-making and has served as a model for representatives of indigenous children's groups around the world.

Could you talk about the similarities between Bill C-92 and the U.S. approach?

[Professor Naiomi Metallic, Chancellor's Chair in Aboriginal Law and Policy and Assistant Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, As an Individual]

Good morning.

You know that we are two of the authors of the Yellowhead report card on Bill C-92. I believe you've been provided with that report, and you know that in our report we found significant problems. That said, we do believe that the legislation has good spirit and intent behind it, but there are some key improvements that we believe must be made in order for it to be effective.

We're going to split our time. What I'm going to focus on is why we believe it is so important for the bill to address funding and accountability. This is intertwined with jurisdiction because, really, if there is no funding and accountability built into this act, what this bill will do is merely provide indigenous people with the jurisdiction to legislate over their own poverty.

I've seen the blackline version that Cindy Blackstock has been circulating, and I believe members of this committee have a copy of that. I do believe that what is proposed in the suggested amendments on funding and accountability are workable solutions.

We really believe that this bill is an opportunity to make a difference in such an important area. It has been said by many, including the TRC and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, that the child welfare system is today's modern incarnation of the residential school system. You as lawmakers have a really historic opportunity before you to do something, perhaps, that previous parliamentarians didn't do or couldn't do. I urge you to do this right, because if you don't and you produce something that is just a hollow gesture, then that's not sufficient for indigenous children.

A lot of my writing as an academic has been on how child welfare is a very problematic area in terms of how it is structured with respect to first nations issues. It suffers from major systemic problems and structural design problems. I have a very long paper on it if you want to read it, but just to give you the high points of it, it's a system that has been in place for almost 70 years. A key feature of it is jurisdictional neglect, meaning that neither the federal government nor the provincial governments have ever really wanted primary jurisdiction in this area. Both argue that the other is accountable to provide services in this area, and indigenous issues and first nations issues become a jurisdictional hot potato. This leaves indigenous kids in a vacuum and creates risks and uncertainty, and that's in nobody's interest.

The system has also allowed underfunding to continue knowingly for over a decade by Department of Indigenous Affairs officials, while at the same time going unnoticed by parliamentarians and Canadian society more broadly. The system as it's currently structured really doesn't provide oversight and accountability, and we desperately need it. The way the system has been structured also creates a terrible power imbalance, where first nations have really very little means to challenge the system and to hold officials accountable.

But for Cindy Blackstock and the AFN bringing their case forward, we wouldn't be here. It's so important to remember that case. The case is a real watershed for a couple of major reasons. First, it not only found that indigenous services are underfunded but also that indigenous people are entitled to funding and services that meet their needs and circumstances, just like all other Canadians. The decision is also very clear that it is the responsibility of the federal government under 91(24) to provide these services and funding.

With that said, I am a proponent of the federal government legislating in this area, but it cannot just be about recognizing jurisdiction alone. That is a necessary part, but it is not sufficient on its own. The law also needs to put in funding mechanisms and accountability measures. Funding should not be made contingent upon first nations and other indigenous groups reaching an agreement with provincial governments. Really, the buck should stop with the federal government. If the federal government feels that the provinces should be kicking in some money as well on this, then leave that to the feds and the provinces to negotiate.

Do not put it on the backs of indigenous people, who have historically faced some massive power imbalances, to have to try to negotiate it themselves. It's not going to work and we're just going to be left legislating our own poverty. That sort of approach, leaving it to the feds and provinces to work out if they want to share money, is consistent with Jordan's principle.

I'm running short on time. I echo the sentiment that there needs to be an independent decision-making body with the ability to make binding decisions on accountability. The proposal I've seen is to allow the Canadian Human Rights Commission to be the body to do that as a last resort. I believe that makes a lot of sense, although I encourage dispute resolution mechanisms built within the system.

Finally, I believe that consistent with call to action 2, there needs to be mandatory data collection as part of the accountability measures built into this bill.

Thank you.

[Melanie Omeniho, President, Women of the Métis Nation / Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak]

Thank you.

Good morning, everybody.

My name is Melanie Omeniho and I am the President of Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak, Women of the Métis Nation.

I want to identify, before we get going, that Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak is not the French version of Women of the Métis Nation. It actually is a Michif name that was given to us by our elders, and it means “the Métis women who own themselves”.

LFMO is the recognized voice of the Métis women across the Métis homeland. We operate in a democratic, transparent and fiscally accountable manner. We work to try to influence public policy and decision-making related to concerns and aspirations of Métis women at all levels of indigenous and Canadian government.

In terms of LFMO's views on Bill C-92, we are looking at it as a step-forward draft at best. It falls short of accomplishing its goals to shift child and family services from a system of apprehension to a system built around preventative and family-supportive care. This is another example of a pan-indigenous approach to system change that does not acknowledge the distinctions among first nations, Métis and Inuit people. It does not acknowledge the unique distinctions of each of the indigenous peoples of Canada, and that a one-size-fits-all approach has been a failure in the past. It is important to acknowledge the impacts that colonization has had from a distinct perspective. This bill also misses the mark in transferring full and complete jurisdiction of child and family services.

Although highlighted in the principle of “substantive equality”, paragraph 9(3)(b) reads:

(b) a child must be able to exercise his or her rights under this Act, including the right to have his or her views and preferences considered in decisions that affect him or her, and he or she must be able to do so without discrimination, including discrimination based on sex or gender identity or expression;

We find this paragraph is contradictory from a gendered lens, as the entire document incorporates a very gendered use of the terms “he” and “she” or “him” and “her”, instead of “they” and “them”. LFMO recommends that the language be amended to reflect the principles of these issues, so that it is a gender-friendly document.

LFMO believes that the principle of the “best interests of the child”, must be defined. It is not specific enough to counteract the impact of the dominant culture on indigenous children and families. Subclause 9(1) is set out and prioritizes the “best interests of the child”. This principle, as defined, could lead to further marginalization and does not protect children and families who are in poorer socio-economic situations.

It is known that the poverty experienced is a result of colonization. We have seen that using western concepts of well-being when considering indigenous children causes increased involvement with child and family services and leads to apprehension of indigenous children.

LFMO recommends that the principle be clearly defined as to what “best interests” mean, and that the three principles defined are given equal weighting.

It's been for far too long that fostering a child has not been motivated by altruistic goals. To some, this is a paycheque. Our children are not an object of commerce in the child and family services economy, and every effort should be exhausted to ensure that care providers are assessed to ensure that this is not the primary motivation.

Where this is of specific note is in clause 13, where representations and party status are granted to care providers. As care providers are paid for their work with the child, it is counterproductive and harmful to the child that these entities are given standing in consideration of the well-being of the child. LFMO recommends that care providers are excluded from representations and standing to ensure that the child's interests are primary and not the socio-economic gain of a care provider.

LFMO recommends that the dispute resolution mechanism be defined in the event that provinces and an indigenous governing body cannot enter into coordination agreements. Without further definition, the dispute resolution process will most likely align with the federal or provincial government approaches rather than an indigenous model of dispute resolution. Mechanisms must be in place to provide for binding decisions.

The main concern of Bill C-92, from Métis women's perspective, is that it is presented without a definition of funding pathways to ensure full participation by indigenous nations. With no predictable funding, the principle of “substantive equality”, as defined in the act, is a moot point. We cannot fully participate unless we are fully resourced to do so. This will impede our involvement with indigenous children and youth from when they enter to when they exit the child welfare system.

Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak offers the following recommendations to be included in Bill C-92: that a distinctions-based approach be applied to the act; that prevention and early intervention be the model of care, rather than apprehension; that the Métis Nation and Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak be provided with predictable funding to ensure that adequate infrastructure is in place to respond to the needs of our Métis children; that Métis children in care are identified as Métis, not as “other Indigenous”; that resources be allotted to ensure full wraparound services for Métis children; that the age of youth in care be extended to 21 years old, so that our children do not fall into other systems, such as the justice system; and that Métis data collection and research models be resourced to ensure that funding reflects the magnitude of the number of children in care.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Good morning, everyone. We are at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs of Canada, and we are studying Bill C-92. We have the privilege of having video conference participation as well as in-house representatives of various groups and individuals.

Before we start, we always recognize that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people here, in a hope that all Canadians will start to consider where they're from, what the history of the region is and to participate actively in reconciliation.

Let's get started. The way the process works is that every presenter—and sometimes you split your time—will get up to 10 minutes. I'll give you signals as you get close to that, and after all presentations are done, which will be in 30 minutes, we go through questions from members of the committee.

All right, not to take any time away from you, we will begin with the Women of the Métis Nation, Melanie Omeniho.

Melanie, it's your turn to start.

[Jennifer Cox]

No. Bill C-92 would conceivably give you the ability to set up that structure for yourself, which would include the courts, but there is going to be a gap between what we have now and what we have whenever you can get the resources and get your laws and other things in place. We have to look at that interim period of time. I make reference to some level of court being identified in the legislation to work with Bill C-92 because there is going to be a gap. Some communities are not going to be able to come forward and get their laws in place as fast as other communities. Some you're going to see do it really quickly, because they already have them, pretty much. They're just waiting for the recognition.

I don't see anything in Bill C-92 that will prohibit.

[Jennifer Cox]

I think we need to look at—and this is also something that we've attached for your information once you get the translated version—the notices that were developed.

The co-development meant we actually sat down and looked at draft forms. We all worked together and asked questions and had the ability to include what we wanted in this, especially the form that comes back from the band and what is in that form, because we wanted to generate support from the community and we wanted to ask the right questions in the form so that the community knew the court wants to know about this and the court wants to know about that, and what it can offer. That's an opportunity for co-drafting because we looked at the documents beforehand and we all had an opportunity to collaboratively determine what we wanted in them.

When it came to Bill C-92, we were given it a week before. We're all working off the corners of our desks because this is not something I can pay attention to within the scope of everything else I'm doing all the time. It's burning the midnight oil looking at Bill C-92. That's not an opportunity to really give the proper input, and we could have made some suggestions, as we have now been able to do, that maybe would have been helpful.

It would be good to even give us a month or two to actually look at a draft bill and then have some input and make some suggestions, because maybe we do have some good ideas and we could come to some sort of consensus or at least have the opportunity to feel we've been heard and not been rushed. It's just not.... Nothing's perfect. We're all under a lot of pressure, but to have the opportunity to sit down, look at something and have some opportunity to provide some input, that would be all we would have been asking for. That would have been more like co-drafting.

[Jennifer Cox]

They called it a “consultation draft”. It doesn't necessarily reflect exactly what's in Bill C-92 now. There were some changes that were made in that week, but there are also things that were added to it that we had never seen before. One of them is paragraph 10(3)(g), the family violence provision, which was not mentioned at all in the draft consultation bill.

[Jennifer Cox]

With respect to subclause 10(3), we've asked just to add a little more wiggle room into the beginning section. Where it starts:

To determine the best interests of an Indigenous child, all factors related to the circumstances of the child

We say it should continue with “shall first be determined by the inherent Indigenous legal and community standards”. This is where I say give some room for the communities to immediately allow recognition of their standards in the best interests section.

With respect to the substantive equality and cultural continuity, those are good principles but they're not in the best interests section. They should be cross-referenced in the best interests section because best interests are given some paramountcy here, some significance within Bill C-92. Because cultural continuity and substantive equality are good principles, they should be in the more substantive piece, which is the best interests section.

Finally, my other concern that I mentioned was the family violence piece, because it's in the wrong place. I don't know what else to say other than, when we do child protection files and when we look at child protection files, we look at the reasons children should be removed from the care of their parents. Family violence is usually one of those reasons. It's not a best interest issue. It's more a reason for protection concerns. Those provisions are in the legislation across Canada. We don't need to add anything more on that factor.

I think it goes without saying that we would see that children should live without boil-water advisories, without family violence, without some of these protection factors, so it's just not in the right place.

[Jennifer Cox]

It was, basically, the best we could do in the short timelines we had. We were dealing with everybody, bringing everybody together, and sharing information. Everybody put forward their positions on what they felt the drafting instructions should be for Bill C-92, and once the consultation bill was provided, we were given approximately a week. It was given to us before it was tabled, and we had approximately a week to look at it.

It was the best we could do. We had a very short period of time. It was, I suppose, fairly effective given the short amount of time we had.

[Duane Smith, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. I apologize to the others here for crashing their presentation, but I thank you for the opportunity first of all.

I will try to be as brief as I can. Some of my opening comments I sent to you a few weeks ago. I didn't realize it was the same committee that I would be speaking to on different matters.

As the chair has noted, my name is Duane Smith. My English name anyway is Duane Smith. I am the chair and CEO of Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, which represents the very far northwest of Canada bordering Alaska. The area I represent is just under one million square kilometres, two-thirds of that being a water body.

I will cut to the chase on some matters so I can spend some time on some points. As you're aware already, we signed an agreement—when I say we, I mean Canada and us—for us to implement the arrangements we had under the agreement together, which is called the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, back in 1984. It's the second-oldest modern-day treaty we have within Canada.

As I've said and I will reiterate again, the IFA belongs not only to the Inuvialuit but to Canada as well. That's partly why I'm pleased to be sitting before you today, because we have to work together with Canada on issues such as the one I'm here to talk about, on how we can improve and implement our obligations under that treaty.

The ISR itself has six communities. I will skip over parts of it. I do apologize to the interpreters since I'm cutting and pasting because I have been injected into this section here. We do have roughly 6,300 or 6,400 Inuvialuit scattered across the country, mostly within our region.

Before I get into the part about supporting Inuvialuit children, I will mention that I was sitting in the back listening to the Mi'kmaw presentation. I can't state enough my support for the comments and the recommendations they have made to date, because I've heard similar recommendations from other parties including other Inuit organizations.

I would like to turn to some of the things we have been doing to try to support our children, youth and families in the ISR, as it's referred to, or the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. One of the three principal objectives of the IFA is to preserve Inuvialuit cultural identity and values within a changing northern society. Healthy families and communities in which children and youth feel included and supported are essential to the preservation of cultural identity and values.

As most of you may know, since 2014 the Auditor General of Canada has identified serious deficiencies in the delivery of child and family services in the Northwest Territories and in the structures intended to support this delivery. These findings disproportionately impact indigenous children in the territory as over 90% of the children in care are indigenous. At that time, the Auditor General also said that this government could not even identify where some of these children were located.

Then last year, in 2018, the Auditor General did another report. The basic findings were that it was actually getting worse. I don't know how it could possibly get too much worse than having the government not even able to identify where some of these kids were being kept in custody, but now it's getting worse.

IRC has been doing what we can to manage these deficiencies so that our kids do not fall through the cracks.

One example of that is that we provide what we call student and family support workers. The SFSWs were identified as a need in order for schools to connect with families and communities, and I made it a priority when I was first elected in 2016. We use the funds we receive to maintain one staff person for each community. These individuals work out of the schools and provide assistance to students and families of students to ensure that Inuvialuit kids are getting to school and are supported through their school years.

In another example, since I became chair, we have been trying to work with territorial and provincial governments to ensure that children who become government wards or who are adopted into non-Inuvialuit families get a chance to register and ultimately enrol with us. In some cases, Inuvialuit children are removed from their families and sent to places from where it is very difficult and expensive to return to the ISR.

Once we find the child in the system, we try to reach out and provide materials about our three Inuvialuktun dialects, the history of the region and traditional activities. When our records show that a child is about to turn 18, we ensure they have the forms they need to apply to the Inuvialuit Trust. Our staff remains on hand to offer any guardian who wants to know more about the IRC, the ISR and our Inuvialuit communities.

I'll digress again for a moment here just so you understand the government system where a child who turns 18 is put into a hotel for a period of time and then left on their own after that to look after themselves without being given the basic skills to do so. We do have a problem here.

Before Minister Philpott's emergency meeting and the attention that the development of Bill C-92 brought to the issues facing indigenous children, youth and families, it was very difficult to get traction with some provincial and territorial governments. While individual staff members were well meaning, the framework for involving Inuvialuit organizations and sharing information was weak.

Bill C-92 is not perfect, but it is an important step. In our case, we hope that it will provide guidance to the Government of the Northwest Territories as it sorts through the many increasing deficiencies that the Auditor General has identified.

In terms of comments on the bill, I'll turn now to a couple of key elements.

As noted earlier, the transmission of our culture and language, as well as knowledge of and appreciation for our region, are key to preserving Inuvialuit cultural identity and values within a changing northern society. The principles under clause 9 of the bill give appropriate weight to these things. In particular, we see paragraph 9(3)(d), which acknowledges a role for indigenous organizations, as essential.

Clause 12 of the bill, which requires the service provider to provide notice of a measure to the child's parent and the care provider, as well as to the indigenous governing body that acts on behalf of the indigenous group, will greatly benefit the work that we are trying to do on behalf of Inuvialuit children wherever they are.

With this clause, I would note that the implementing regulations are going to be important. My staff tells me that an obstacle in getting information to indigenous organizations is the intake procedures of the responsible jurisdiction. In some provinces, Inuit did not even have a check box that the social worker could mark. All kids are simply “first nation”, so we have a branding problem here. The categorization of indigenous children within the various databases will have to be done on a more granular basis. This is the only way that social workers will be able to connect the child with the relevant indigenous organization so that notice can be provided.

Clause 16 of the bill addresses the priorities considered in the placement of children. Because of our remote location within Canada and the difficulty children have in visiting their home community once removed, Inuvialuit would like to see some priority placed on geographic proximity of the placements. If this is not possible, we would like to see some provision for maintaining the connection between the child and the home community or region.

As a final comment, as we are working through some challenges in our self-government negotiations, we note the importance of the coordination agreement provisions under clause 20 of the bill. These provisions would allow the IRC to request a coordination agreement with government in relation to the exercise of the legislative authority on, first, the provision of emergency services to ensure the safety, security and well-being of indigenous children; second, support measures to enable indigenous children to exercise their rights effectively; third, fiscal arrangements related to the effective exercise of the legislative authority; and, last, any other coordination measure related to the effective exercise of the legislative authority.

The ability to exercise our traditional governance over child and family services, as it is called in this modern age, is key to ensuring our children have a sense of identity and belonging.

In conclusion, we look forward to working with the federal government on the development of the regulations that will help implement this act when it comes into force.

Thanks for your attention and interest. I am happy to take questions.

Nakurmiik.

[Jennifer Cox, Barrister and Solicitor and Project Lead, Enhanced Child Family Initiative, Kwilmu'kw Maw-klusuaqn]

My name is Jennifer Cox. I am a Mi'kmaw lawyer. I've been working in the province of Nova Scotia, although I worked for a number of years in the province of Saskatchewan as well. It will be 24 years this June that I first started practising law.

I've done a lot of work in the area of child welfare. In fact, Mr. Morris and I would be on the opposite side of the child welfare file. Part of what we want to share with you today is not only our comments on Bill C-92 but also our experiences in that relationship building. You wouldn't normally see lawyers who are on the opposite side of a case working together, but we have formed those relationships and have been able to make some of the changes we now see in Nova Scotia based on those relationships.

My submissions to the committee are with respect to the substantive provisions of Bill C-92. We did prepare a brief and submit it. Unfortunately, it hasn't been translated, so you don't have it before you.

As the chief indicated, the instructions I have are that we are supportive of Bill C-92, but there are some suggestions for change. Based on our experience in Nova Scotia with the legislative changes there, we're not unaware of the fact that these things happen very quickly, with very little opportunity to participate in the process. To some degree, I think, the committee needs to take that into consideration when you're looking at the motivations behind the government bringing this forward in such a short window. It's definitely difficult for us to participate with not a lot of time, but at the same time, it is not atypical of government to bring it forward and try to push it through.

In Nova Scotia, when we dealt with the changes in the legislation, it was very quick. We had a couple of months. We did the best we could. We came forward with some suggestions. Some of those suggestions led to some really positive changes, which my friend Mr. Morris will talk about in terms of the level of kids in care, with things going down and much more positive outcomes for families.

It's because of the relationships. Because we have one agency in the province, we have a good relationship with the Province of Nova Scotia. We have the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs and obviously a good champion with Chief Prosper. There are a lot of pieces to the success story we have in Nova Scotia. It isn't just based on legislation.

I'll get into the substantive provisions of the legislation that we see needing to be looked at. Too, I think it's important for the committee to note that we don't see this as co-drafted. Bill C-92 was not something on which we had anything other than one opportunity. There was an engagement session in October of 2018, but we don't see this as co-drafting. As I already indicated, I also do not see legislation as being the only agent of change. There will have to be the relationships, the funding, the infrastructure, the transition and all of these other things.

We're asking that funding provisions be added to the preamble. I think the word “need” needs to be substituted for “call”. Again, all of these substantive provisions will be provided to you so that you can look at the written text. We're asking that the provisions from the preamble be brought into clause 18 as well. Those are the jurisdiction provisions. We're not asking for changes in wording, other than inserting the word “need”; we're using the preamble language that the Government of Canada has already put forward.

We're asking that paragraph 20(2)(c) also include provisions with respect to funding principles—not formulas, just principles. If those funding principles are not included in the legislation, it makes it very difficult for us to negotiate those coordination agreements.

We're asking that in subclause 18(1), the United Nations declaration on indigenous peoples also be included as a recognition tool. So this subclause would mention not only section 35 of the Constitution Act but also the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We're asking that Jordan’s principle be specifically mentioned in paragraph 9(3)(e).

We have some suggestions on the best interests of the child in subclause 10(3) that will allow some space for the inherent indigenous legal and community standards. That's a fairly important piece of the bill. I think it's really important to give indigenous communities some space to allow for their own community standards and traditions to be interpreted while their own legislation is being drafted.

A lot of these provisions won't be applied if they have their own legislation, but in the meantime, there's going to be a transition period and there should be some opportunity to allow for those inherent legal and community standards to come into play.

Paragraph 10(3)(g) we have concerns about. I think, quite frankly, it's in the wrong place. Normally in provincial legislation you see family violence as a reason to remove children, not in a “best interests” section. We are recommending that it be deleted because it may very well confuse people.

The definition of “care provider” unfortunately appears to include allowing foster parents to have standing in a legal proceeding. That's not normally what we see. In fact, provinces and territories in Canada, except Manitoba, do not permit foster parents to have standing in a legal proceeding. There are lots of problems and delays caused by that. Those are our concerns with the definition, and we have provided you with specific wording to amend that.

[Chief Paul J. Prosper]

Sure. Thank you.

Honourable committee members, good afternoon. Kwe natuptut. We're honoured to be here on the traditional lands of the Algonquin people.

My name is Paul Prosper. I am chief of Paqtnkek Mi'kmaw Nation. I am here on behalf of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs, which exists as an institution of governance for all 13 Mi'kmaw bands in Nova Scotia. On behalf of the assembly, I have also held the justice portfolio, during which time I have worked on a number of child welfare-related issues.

The Mi'kmaw traditional territory is called Mi'kma'ki, which encapsulates roughly five of the Atlantic provinces. We have a long, rich history. We have a creation story and numerous legends. Our traditional governance structure is the Sante’ Mawio’mi, the Mi’kmaq Grand Council. As Mi'kmaq, we have outstanding and existing aboriginal and treaty rights. They have been recognized by the highest courts in this country. Throughout our long, rich history, which stems from the treaty periods to scalping proclamations to pre- and post-Confederation legislation, including the Indian Act, through to residential schools and to subsequent policies of the federal government through such things as centralization, we are still here. We still thrive within Mi'kma'ki, at times despite the failed good intentions of the federal government.

Before the arrival of Europeans, we existed as independent nations governed by our own customs, values and traditions. We operated through kisult or Niskam, our Creator, who provided us with how to live through original instructions as human beings. We have an inherent right to self-government. This is independent of any legislative enactment. This is also embedded within the constitutional framework of this country through section 35.

With respect to Bill C-92, the assembly supports the provisions within this bill that recognize the inherent right to self-government. However, we'd like to underscore some fundamental changes that are needed. These are most predominantly funding and transition-related issues, which my counterparts will get into further.

I'll share a bit about our experience within Nova Scotia. Back in 2014, the Province of Nova Scotia reviewed their Children and Family Services Act. There was a major overhaul of that act. We played an important role within that process with the provincial government. This led to roughly 25 amendments to the Children and Family Services Act that dealt with Mi'kmaw people in Nova Scotia. The act previously had no mention of Mi'kmaw people. We developed an interim approach and a long-term approach. The interim approach was to gain some recognition through the provincial act. The long-term approach was for a Mi'kmaw law over Mi'kmaw children, certainly consistent with this bill.

Through those amendments that we achieved in 2017, we have had positive outcomes. For example, there are fewer foster care placements and more within the area of customary care. We have recognized family group conferencing, which exists as a preventative measure through Mi'kmaw traditions, allowing us to take into account an existing situation before it gets to the point of no return. Saying this, however, we are cognizant of the fact that we certainly don't want this federal bill to interfere with the substantive gains we have made provincially.

With respect to my experience, I would just make a note about connection and the role of community. As leaders and chiefs, we often get tired of watching children, families and communities get torn apart by a system that doesn't work.

Certainly in my role, we recognize the need to have basic building blocks, including identity, culture, language and traditions, related to the spirit and well-being of our peoples and of nations. There's a need for connecting and belonging, which is a basic right for community members to live in health and in safe environments. We recognize that the solutions to the problems we have with child welfare must come from within. To resolve these issues they must come from our respective communities.

A certain environment has to exist, because we all know too well that at times provincial laws and policies don't reflect the realities within our communities. We recognize that self-government can provide a mechanism that offers traditional and practical ways to care for children and families, and certainly there are a number of examples in that regard.

As a quick note on funding and transition, we recognize that legislation in and of itself does not really create the change that is needed. There have to be additional approaches involving education, capacity building, governance, infrastructure, stable funding and building relationships within an overall strategic justice initiative.

With that, I'd like to conclude and offer comments from my colleagues here.

Thank you.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock, Executive Director, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada]

Thank you, committee members. I as well offer my recognition of the unceded territories of the Algonquin peoples.

I'd also like to begin by recognizing Jordan River Anderson, who will be honoured on what we call Bear Witness Day on May 10. I hope that all parliamentarians will join us in honouring that very special boy who left a legacy that is now beginning to be experienced by many children across Canada.

I am not a rights holder and therefore will not be offering one way or the other to support or not support this bill, but I am a social worker. I'm a licensed social worker and I've been doing social work for over 30 years. I've worked at the child and family caring society, which is a national first nations organization that seeks to provide the best expert advice and, in the case of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the resources necessary for first nations to be able to care for their children in the ways they choose.

I want to begin by focusing on two elements. One is the funding element that's not in this bill. I want to argue that it is a false dichotomy to split jurisdiction and funding, and that it is a huge mistake to split them. I'm not going to ask parliamentarians to put a number in this bill, but I am going to encourage you to enshrine in the bill the funding principles that have been found by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as a requirement for funding.

The second thing I want to talk about is practice. I want to encourage members to relook at some of the issues on practice, including the word “apprehension”. It really is a dated word. It is not in the B.C. legislation. It's not in the Ontario legislation. It's not in the Nova Scotia legislation. It's certainly not used by those of us who have been practising in this field for many years.

Before I get into that, I'm going to address a couple of the points from the federal government. The minister was asked about the Spirit Bear plan that would address all inequalities in all public services for first nations children, youth and families, and he noted that he does not listen to associations or does not consult with associations. While I respect that position, I just want to correct for the record that all the chiefs at the Assembly of First Nations adopted the Spirit Bear plan in December 2017. The resolution number is 92. This is something that is supported by the rights holders as an important effort to be able to equalize the ability of families to access services.

I also want to talk briefly about post-majority care. Post-majority care is not an elective activity. It is a statutory requirement of child welfare systems, and I would say that it's a moral responsibility too. Children who have grown up in child welfare care need that bridging into young adulthood, with supports for post-secondary education, training and mental health services. I have been blessed and honoured to work with first nations for about 25 years directly, and I've never heard a first nation say that post-majority services should not happen. I heard the minister and the officials talk about the engagement they've had, so I'm surprised that there's still some question of whether post-majority services should be included. I support the youth in care network in saying that they should be included.

I want to move on to my main presentation now.

In paragraph 212 of the landmark Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision that found Canada to be funding child welfare inequitably and Canada's failure to implement Jordan's principle to be discriminatory, they referenced a statement made by then deputy minister Michael Wernick, who at the time was the deputy minister for INAC, in 2012. He was speaking to an Auditor General's report that found the inequality in first nations child welfare. He said something that I think is directly relevant to the funding question. I'm just going to read that short paragraph. He said that “One of the really important parts of the Auditor General's report is that it shows there are four missing conditions.” In a previous paragraph, he listed those: “legislative base, service levels, outcomes the government's trying to achieve” and “the funding mechanism”. To continue with the quote:

You could pick any one of them, such as legislation without funding, or funding without legislation, and so on. They would have some results, but they would probably, in our view, be temporary. If you want enduring, structural changes, it's the combination of these tools.

He added:

With all due respect, if Parliament wants better results, it has to provide better tools.

Michael Wernick himself, who was Clerk of the Privy Council for this government until recently, was tying together the issue of funding and legislation. One is the authority to act on your own self-governing interests for your children. The other enables that interest to be real for children.

I feel that Bill C-92, unamended, as it's presented, places first nations in a Faustian bargain, where either we take a flawed bill without funding and maybe the hope of funding, or risk the window of opportunity closing and perhaps being nailed shut. The inherent rights of first nations and the safety and well-being of first nations children, youth and their families ought never to be placed in this position. Proper observance of UNDRIP and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires more of the federal government. I think we can all agree that what we want to achieve here is the best for first nations, Métis and Inuit children, and that mediocre is one of the vestiges of colonialism.

I'm not going to spend much on jurisdiction because I know you're going to be calling the Yellowhead Institute, and they've done a good analysis, with five leading law professors on that. I would simply say that the caring society adopts those positions. We are of course in support of first nations jurisdiction in child welfare, but we do have some concerns about the wording of the bill in that regard.

I'm going to move now to funding. As drafted, the bill simply recognizes a call for funding. That's it. It then says in the collaboration section that first nations should sit down with the federal government and the provinces to negotiate a funding agreement within one year. If that agreement is unable to be reached, the first nations law becomes law. The problem is that you will not be able to enact that law without money.

Along with the Assembly of First Nations, I have spent the last 12 years litigating against Canada in trying to get equitable funding for child welfare. We were at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal last week. We're going to be at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal next week. What we're trying to do is get equitable funding for child welfare. We now have the strength of seven—perhaps even eight—legal orders against the Canadian government to try to get equitable funding for first nations child welfare.

There's little track record there to say that we can hope these negotiations will be speedy and will result in the same kinds of equitable gains that the tribunal has set out. What we would like to see is that Canada put in the binding sections of the act, not just the preamble, the key principles that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has set out as funding requirements.

The first one is substantive equality. The tribunal has made clear that it's not enough, Canada, to fund first nations children on a dollar-to-dollar basis with non-indigenous children, because the hardships of the long-standing inequalities in child welfare funding have created a higher need, along with the multi-generational harms of first nations kids. You need to provide those kids with more money to get the same opportunity.

The second one is the needs of the children and families themselves in different communities. You know well, as you come from different constituencies, that different first nations children in different communities will have unique needs. It should be based on that, on the best interests of the child, not from a colonial point of view, but in adopting the general comment by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child for the rights of indigenous children. That provides a good framework for interpreting best interests through an indigenous lens, taking full account of the child's cultural and linguistic needs and taking full account of the unique context of the community. Those are basic principles that should be enshrined in Bill C-92.

I'd also ask members to seriously consider integrating something along with the Spirit Bear plan. Absent the Spirit Bear plan, I think it's going to moot some of the most significant sections of this legislation. Here's why.

This bill includes a section on socio-economic circumstances. It says that you cannot remove any child because of poverty, but the problem is that you can't remove a child for poverty today in Canada. It's in none of the child welfare legislation. Poverty isn't a reason for child removal; it is an undercurrent for child removal. In the United States, in 21 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, they do recognize the role of poverty in child welfare. They have statutory language that addresses it, but they go further. It's not enough to say that poverty is an undercurrent in child welfare. They impose positive obligations on the state to remediate that poverty.

If you implement Bill C-92 but continue to allow the first nations housing crisis to languish and continue to allow underfunding of early childhood programs and of addictions programs, some first nations will be able to make some progress but not the type of progress that is really necessary to be able to enhance and make sure that children are thriving in their environments.

The other section that is important is the prenatal section. I know that was of interest to member McLeod specifically. We absolutely support the importance of prenatal care, but we need to make sure that is universally available to all family members. That's one of the critical pieces.

[National Chief Robert Bertrand, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good morning, committee members, representatives and guests.

I am National Chief Robert Bertrand of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. With me is Mr. Jim Devoe, the CEO of the congress. Before that, he was a worker in the child welfare system for, from what I'm told, about 15 years. That's why he's sitting beside me.

I am pleased to be with you today and wish to acknowledge that we are on the traditional unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin peoples and their descendants.

Thank you for the invitation to appear and present on Bill C-92, an act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. At CAP, we have grave concerns in regard to this legislation as it fails to meet the specific needs of off-reserve and urban indigenous peoples and further marginalizes our constituency.

First of all, I would like to tell you a bit about the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or as we call it, CAP. We are a national indigenous representative organization. For over 48 years, CAP has been advocating for the rights and needs of the off-reserve status and non-status Indians and Métis peoples across Canada, and the Inuit of Southern Labrador.

Our vision is that all indigenous peoples in Canada should experience the highest quality of life through the rebuilding of nations. All indigenous citizens have the right to be treated with respect, dignity, integrity and equality. We must keep this vision paramount for our indigenous children and youth.

Today, as mentioned on numerous occasions, over 70% of indigenous people in this country live off-reserve in urban, rural and remote areas. We know this is in large part due to the breakdown of indigenous families through residential schools, child welfare interventions, incarceration and other forms of institutionalization.

The impetus for this legislation came in part from first nations communities and the tireless advocacy of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. By expanding the purview of this legislation to include off-reserve first nations, Métis and Inuit, it seeks to address the needs of peoples who are constituents of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

I would now like to outline CAP’s position on Bill C-92.

Overall, we know the child welfare system in Canada is broken, and this legislation risks replicating some of these failures. We fear the child welfare system, in its current form, will be forced on indigenous communities and expect a different result. We need to rebuild the way in which we deliver child welfare programs and services prior to the downloading of responsibility. This transfer should not be the end of the state's responsibility to our children, families and communities.

We support our people’s ability to govern their own child welfare systems and want to ensure they are supported to address the challenges that come with this. This legislation should not be a way to transfer the burden of intergenerational colonialism back onto indigenous communities. Without proper funding and an awareness of the political, economic and social context, this legislation cannot permit full indigenous control.

Here are CAP’s specific concerns in regard to the proposed legislation:

Subclause 9(1) and clause 10 refer to the concept of the “best interests of the child”. This concept is deeply rooted in the colonial system and reflects a non-indigenous understanding of community, family and the place of an individual in society.

We see an inherent tension between the rights of the child as an individual as defined by the state and the collective rights of indigenous peoples. A child is part of an ancestral lineage, with complex relations, and is the future of the community. We believe that legislation should allow indigenous communities to determine the definition and limits of the best interests of the child.

Clarification is needed of the government's definition of an indigenous governing body. It is currently defined as a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of an indigenous group, community or people who hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. We request clarification as to whether urban indigenous organizations and service providers are considered governing bodies. Who invests these organizations with authority, and who will provide services for all indigenous people in urban settings?

Under clause 15, the legislation addresses socio-economic considerations. Children are at risk most often because of colonial policies, systemic discrimination, and intergenerational trauma. Every effort must be made by all levels of government to ensure that communities and families are supported in ensuring the well-being of children prior to such interventions as the apprehension of children.

This legislation should not force the consequences of colonialism upon indigenous child welfare providers. The government must be required to redress the root causes of the degradation of indigenous communities and child vulnerability before child welfare services are even considered. Legislation should require the government to provide diversionary services for communities and families.

Subclause 18(1) of the bill establishes the potential for indigenous governing bodies to have an opportunity to work with provinces to take over jurisdiction. It is not clear what the implications are for the non-status, off-reserve people and Métis with origins across Canada. For example, for a Métis child living in the Ottawa area, what are the implications if the child and their family are not registered members of the MNC and belong to an urban indigenous community? Will they be afforded adequate, appropriate and culturally responsive child and family services?

It is also unclear whether jurisdictional challenges will be created between provincial-territorial service providers and indigenous governing bodies for non-affiliated families, and how these will be addressed. Clear procedural requirements for the referral of off-reserve, non-status first nations, Métis and Inuit children and families to appropriate indigenous child welfare agencies should be outlined in this legislation.

Lastly, there are no clear obligations for dedicated funding to meet current gaps for off-reserve, non-status, and Métis populations in the bill. A number of funding concerns must be directly addressed with the legislation, such as commitments for indigenous organizations to develop child welfare legislation, expertise and resources; for kinship care arrangements, including comprehensive support beyond monthly allowances; for off-reserve resources for first nations, Métis and Inuit child and family service providers who are in the process of developing resources within their community; and for first nations, Métis and Inuit child and family service providers to provide continuous care and services to children and families who relocate and to maintain continuity of care through supported arrangements with other child and family service providers.

We cannot underestimate the degree to which the child welfare system has negatively impacted CAP's constituency.

In closing, I would like to inform you that CAP and our 10 affiliates were not included in the co-development process of this bill. CAP's exclusion from this process is a critical oversight, because the legislation appears to seek to address the needs of the people who are our constituents: off-reserve first nations, Métis and Inuit.

I am happy to answer any questions you have at this time.

Meegwetch. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you for your patience. We're sorry we had to be away and didn't start in a timely manner, but we're anxious to get going now.

Once again, we're on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. We are studying Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, which of course is critically important to all Canadians.

Before us, we have Chief Robert Bertrand representing the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, and Cindy Blackstock for the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada.

My note says that Robert will start first, but if you've changed it, that would be fine with me.

Excuse me; we'll have a shorter time limit, so....

Ms. McLeod.

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

Four minutes—this is good. Thank you very much for being concise.

I was just wondering how this bill, Bill C-92, would implement or reach some concordance or agreement with UNDRIP, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its implementation. Is that reflected in this bill?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Let's get together again. The officials are remaining with us and now we can dive right into the bill. Let's continue exploring Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

I will restart the round. Are you expecting to do another presentation, or will it all be questions?

It will all be questions. We're going to begin with the Liberal side for a seven-minute round. Who is taking the lead?

MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette is going to lead us off.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

We had some 65 different meetings and heard from some 2,000 people from right across the country about this, giving us an understanding of what exactly it will mean.

More often than not, it's met with disbelief. I spent quite a bit of time this week in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Their attitude toward the proposed legislation, Bill C-92, is mixed. It is fair to say—and I look at my colleague, Robert—that in Manitoba there seems to be a belief that we will not actually do this. Manitoba doesn't believe we will actually come forward with this legislation.

In British Columbia it's certainly been more forceful. It has helped us along. This is the legislation it has been waiting for. Many of the provinces have built up capacity on the ground where they were already looking at child and family services legislation within their communities, so they are anxious to have a national blanket that would protect them within federal law and that allow others to reach the same capacity as they have.

In other areas, where the provinces are more heavy-handed when it comes to youth and social services, such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan, there is greater trepidation about whether or not this is real and meaningful. We've spent most of our time assuring them that that is the case.

Manitoba, for instance, is introducing something called the bringing our children home act. We are encouraging legislation from the ground when it comes to child and family services. What we're pointing out to the provinces is that what we are proposing with Bill C-92 would work concurrently with what they want to develop on the ground. It is unique to their circumstances and fits nicely with what we want to do nationally.

Sometimes in dealing with a number of Cree women who are confronted with the idea of child and family services and taking them back to their communities, they have rightfully said, when they walked away, that they were walking away with more questions than they had had before. I saw that as a good sign. Those groups are about to develop their own child and family services based on the wants and needs and capabilities of their communities, and we are providing a shelter within the federal framework.

That is exciting, because it will be more effective. We have effectively doubled the amount of money for child and family services over the past two and a half years, somewhere up to $1.2 billion. It's a substantial amount of money, and it remains there. The difficulty is that 80% of the funding that we carry on through the provinces and through our agencies goes toward the “protective services”. That is an ironic term that basically refers to the security and everything that surrounds the abduction of a child. So 80% of the budget is about the abduction of the child and the associated costs, which are many.

There is a hope too that there will be more money freed up there, because the communities themselves.... We are hell-bent on making sure that we drastically reduce the number of children who are taken from their families and that, over time, we put an increased light on preventive care and prenatal care, so that we never again reach that position.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, Madame Chair and colleagues, for the invitation to appear before the committee today to speak to these important and necessary changes to child and family services for first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

Allow me to start by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today my team and I are joined together and will be glad to answer questions shortly.

Protecting and promoting the well-being of indigenous children and families should be the foremost priority of the federal government and governments across Canada. However, that has not always been the case.

Every day in Canada, indigenous children are separated from their families, communities, languages and cultures. Too many indigenous children end up in care away from their communities. These already vulnerable children are forcibly taken from their homes without their parents' consent and all too often are deprived of their culture and identity, as well as the community supports that ensure their long-term well-being.

I think we can all agree that the current system does not work for indigenous children and families and that we cannot perpetuate the status quo in a child and family services system that has been rightly called a humanitarian crisis. Something is seriously wrong when indigenous children represent only 7.7% of all children under age 15 and yet make up 52% of children in care in this country.

Paternalistic policies keep these children isolated from the people they love. Too many young lives have been severely damaged and, in some cases, tragically lost.

This is precisely why Bill C-92 takes an entirely different approach. We have before us a bill that represents a set of national priorities that the government and indigenous groups worked on together, principles that put the child first; that enshrine the importance of culture, community, family and the well-being of that child; and that uphold the dignity of the family and of the child in any dealings with the child and family services system.

Our vision is of a system where indigenous peoples are in charge of their own child and family services, something we recognize should have been the case a long time ago.

Bill C-92 will finally put into law what indigenous peoples across the country have been asking of governments for decades: that their inherent jurisdiction be recognized and affirmed.

Should Bill C-92 be adopted, indigenous communities could exercise partial or full jurisdiction over child and family services. Because a one-size-fits-all approach does not work, it would be up to indigenous peoples to tailor the system to match the needs of their communities, and we are committed to working with individual communities to make sure those services are tailored to meet their needs.

The bill flows from an intensive period of engagement with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders, communities and individuals, as well as the provinces and territories.

Since the emergency meeting convened by my predecessor in January 2018, there have been extensive meetings and consultations across the country in an effort to get this right. Even in the weeks preceding the introduction of this bill, we were incorporating the suggestions of indigenous groups and provincial and territorial partners.

For me, the truest sense of our efforts came from a statement by Senator Murray Sinclair that our approach “should serve as a model for implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Call-to-Actions in a meaningful and direct way.”

That doesn't mean the conversation starts there or stops there. There are no closed doors to our indigenous partners or the provinces and the territories. This bill and the children it aims to protect are only served if we collaborate and ensure their best interests.

Also, I am not suggesting that we've achieved perfection with this legislation. I am the first to admit there is still room for improvement, and I welcome this committee's input.

Bill C-92 is built on what indigenous peoples and child development experts have told us is required to protect children—to get them off to a good start in life. Under this act, indigenous child and family services will put the child first, consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This legislation sets out principles to ensure indigenous children and their families will be treated with dignity, and that their rights will be preserved. For instance, children could not be taken into care based on socio-economic conditions alone, as is often the case now. Instead of responding solely to crises, Bill C-92 prioritizes prevention. lt promotes things like prenatal care and support for parents. Both front-line workers and academics have told us that preventative care is the best predictor of child success and positive development. If circumstances dictate that interventions are needed, an indigenous child would only be apprehended when it is in the child's best interests, and priority would be given to placement with the child's own family or community, and with or near the child's siblings.

Under Bill C-92, when an indigenous group or community wishes to exercise their jurisdiction over child and family services and have their law prevail over federal, provincial and territorial laws, the Minister of lndigenous Services Canada and the government of each province and territory in which they are located will enter into three-way discussions around a coordination agreement. If an agreement is reached within 12 months following the request, the laws of the indigenous group or community would have force of law as federal law, and prevail over federal, provincial and territorial child and family services law. If no agreement is reached within 12 months, but reasonable efforts are made to do so, the indigenous law will also have force of law as federal law. ln practical terms this means that, should a government not act in good faith during the negotiation of a coordination agreement after 12 months of negotiations, indigenous child and family services law would have precedence over provincial law.

To promote a smooth transition and implementation of Bill C-92, Canada will explore the creation of distinctions-based transition governance structures. The co-developed governance structures would identify tools and processes to increase the capacity of communities as they assume responsibility over child and family services. We also know that funding needs to be part of the equation for this act to have maximum impact. We cannot presume that the funding models that have supported the current, broken system will be what indigenous groups want while exercising their jurisdiction. Those models and levels should be discussed and designed through the Bill C-92 coordination agreement process.

We pledge to work with partners to identify long-term needs and funding gaps. We are committed to strengthening the bill as it makes its way through Parliament. lt is essential that we work collaboratively and effectively to get this done. The necessity for this legislation goes well beyond partisan considerations—something I think we all understand and agree on. What matters is that at long last we are taking substantive action to overhaul the system, moving away from paternalistic policy failures of the past.

Bill C-92 is a concrete demonstration of our collective determination to forge a renewed relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples, one built on respect and the recognition and affirmation of rights. This proposed legislation is designed for a better future for indigenous children, for their families, and for the communities the bill promises to support and protect.

Ultimately, that is a better future for all of us, and for that, I hope I can count on your support.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to our committee, the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

Today we are begining our review of Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

Before we start, I want to let the committee and our guests know that we unfortunately have had an administrative glitch and therefore don't have the name tags prepared and the documents in front of us as we normally do. The mail bag, however, is to arrive very shortly, and things will go back to normal. For now I'm going to ask every member to clearly state their name and position, because we don't have these in front of us. I'd ask members to jot theirs down, because we won't have name tags for a while.

This committee plays an important role in Parliament's goal of reconciliation and understanding the truth. We recognize the lands we hold the meeting on not just as a formality, but ask Canadians to reflect on whose land it was before settlers came. How does Canadian history work, and why are we in a position now in which settlement occurred in some areas 400 years ago and yet we still have many issues to address? It's an important process for all Canadians, especially here in Ottawa, for those watching.

We are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. We thank them for what they've done for all of us.

Let us move on to our presentation. We're honoured to have Minister Seamus O'Regan, who will open our discussion. He'll present his remarks, and then we'll have an opportunity to delve into the bill by having a chance to ask him some questions.

Whenever you're ready, minister, perhaps you could introduce your team with you. We know who you are, but we'd like to know the others as well.

It's over to you.

An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, Youth and Families

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, a charter statement for Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

Bill C-92—Time Allocation Motion

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I recall that just before Christmas, the former Indigenous Services minister, along with the current minister, had a grandiose news conference, with all three parties, in the old House of Commons. That was before Christmas. Here we are three or four months later, and the government is finally doing what it should have done months ago.

The bill is flawed. We need to talk about it here in the House of Commons. It is flawed because of a lack of consultation. It is flawed because of hurried consultation, especially in my province. I have heard loud and clear from the FSIN. It was forced to make recommendations within a two-week period. Here we are now with time allocation.

I am very disappointed by the government's lack of foresight. Here we are on Bill C-92. We are weeks away from rising, and now we cannot even debate probably the most important bill in Indigenous Services.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a very appropriate quote, “Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on mine.” Perhaps we should say that the government's lack of planning should not constitute time allocation every time it is in a rush.

Whether it was Bill S-3, which had major flaws, or the indigenous children's language bill, for which the government had to table drop 20 amendments at clause-by-clause, Bill C-92 is another bill that will not get proper debate. The government is rushing it through the system because it just could not get it done.

Why is the government not willing to provide the appropriate time for us to identify what I am sure will be significant and major flaws in this legislation?

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to a broader issue. The government has consistently talked about what its priority bills are in terms of moving forward, but our time is getting very short.

The Liberals have accused the Conservatives of stalling on Bill C-91, the indigenous languages legislation, and on Bill C-92, the child welfare bill. They have said that it is absolutely critical that we move forward and get them done. They like to lay the blame for their lack of House management on the Conservatives.

We fully anticipated that we would be talking to the important child welfare legislation. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that his government seems to have priority legislation but does not seem to be able to get things through the House in a timely way. The government ends up cutting off debate on every single piece of legislation that comes along due to its poor House management. This is just another example.

I thought we would be talking about Bill C-92, but we are talking about a bill the government introduced six months ago and that has been on the floor for only a short time, and suddenly we have time allocation.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I very much apologize for this, Arlen. I enjoyed meeting you when we were in Manitoba, and you have been here before. Unfortunately, because of the timing of an upcoming bill, there's a motion that I wanted to move. I deeply apologize that I will be taking my time to do that.

As everyone knows, I have a motion that I put forward the other day. We are going to be distributing that motion right now. It is similar to what was passed the other day, except it takes into consideration some of the concerns that other members had about the motion.

In point number four, I will be changing “the committee hear from witnesses for four meetings, and that these meetings be extended” from 8:30 to 1:30. It said “at the discretion of the chair”, but I think it's important that we put in there for emphasis that it will be from 8:30 to 1:30, which would mean a total of 20 hours of witness testimony for Bill C-92 when it comes to committee.

To address some of the concerns the clerk expressed the other day, we've added to number 6—which read, that “the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill no later than Tuesday, May 28, 2019—the words “subject to the Bill being referred to the committee”. This will try to ensure once again that we're not trying to leapfrog the process and that the bill needs to be referred to committee before it can go through clause-by-clause.

Recognizing there could be further concerns around points six and seven, we could either add to them “subject to the bill being referred to the committee” or make them 5 a) and 5 b), depending upon what the legislative clerk feels is the best way to address that.

With that, I will look forward to any other questions that people might have about this.

Bill C-92—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-92, an act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-92, an act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise and speak on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay, particularly today, a historic day, when we are dealing with the need to reform the badly broken child welfare system and Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

I will say at the outset that we have waited a long time for this legislation. However, it has to be done right, because Canada has not earned the trust to have the right to make decisions about indigenous children. If we are going to move forward, we need to see a firm legislative commitment from the government that it will live up to its obligations, because we are talking about the lives of children.

I want to begin by mentioning some of these children who have died in the last two years. Tammy Keeash was taken from her home, where she was poor and indigenous, by a state that said it would keep her safe. She was found dead in the McIntyre Floodway in Thunder Bay. She was 14 years old. There was Chantel Fox; Kanina Sue Turtle; Jolynn Winter; Jenera Roundsky; Azraya Kokopenace; Courtney Scott, from Fort Albany; and Tina Fontaine.

I have met the Kokopenace family in Grassy Narrows. It is a family that has been poisoned by the corporate crimes in Grassy Narrows, where 80% of the children are suffering from contamination and poison. Little Azraya was taken from her family to be made safe, and she was found dead on the streets of Kenora.

Courtney Scott was taken from Fort Albany and died thousands of kilometres from home. I heard her younger sister speak. What she said of the treatment of indigenous children today, in 2019, in the child welfare system, will shock Canadians. They have to understand that what happened with the abuse in the residential schools is going on today.

Our nation has been very moved by the story of Chanie Wenjack. We all thought how amazing was this moment of Canada coming together to hear the story of that little boy trying to get home to Marten Falls. However, there are 165,000 children like Chanie Wenjack who are trying to find their way home.

If we do one thing in this Parliament, we are going to make sure that the legislation is done right. We are not going to do what has been done year in, year out, decade after decade, which is nice words, positive talk and all the oversight from the Auditor General, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and all the great committees that have looked into the abuse and neglect of indigenous children. Children are still dying to this day and are continuing to die.

We will begin by talking about Tina Fontaine. I urge my colleagues to read the report on how the system failed little Tina. She was taken from her home by the white state. People promised that they would keep her safe. They put her up in a hotel and left her on the streets of Manitoba. The Manitoba government does not even track the number of children they leave in hotels. In her final days, when she was listed as a missing person, she had contact with paramedics, police and child welfare services, and not one of them came to her aid, even though it was known that she was being preyed upon by a 62-year-old meth addict. When she tried to get help, she was told to ride her bike to a shelter.

It was the state's obligation to protect this child, and she was found murdered in the Red River. I always think of the powerful words of Sergeant O’Donovan, who found her body. He said that if it had been a litter of puppies, Canadians would be outraged. However, it was just another little indigenous girl.

This is what we here today to talk about fixing. There are many elements in this bill that I think are very reassuring in terms of the language of indigenous control of indigenous communities. The right of indigenous families and communities to decide the future of their own children has to be the beginning of the end of colonialism, because colonialism was constructed on the destruction of the Indian family.

However, unless we see the legislative elements that actually force the federal government to live up to its obligations, we will not be all that much further ahead, because Canada as a nation has used great and beautiful words for a long time and has failed indigenous children. It has simply not earned the right to be trusted on this.

This bill today comes to us after five non-compliance orders by a human rights tribunal that has forced the government into compliance with its legal obligations. The previous government spent nearly $6 million fighting Cindy Blackstock.

Michael Wernick, who is now retired, was the deputy minister who was involved in spying on Cindy Blackstock, because the government saw a woman who was speaking up for children as a threat to the Government of Canada.

It did not start today and it did not start with the current government or the previous government or the government before that. It goes all the way back to the decision that was made in the taking of the land and the breaking of the treaties. The fundamental principle was to take the Indian children away from their families and to destroy who they were as a people, which meets one of the key international tests of genocide.

Duncan Campbell Scott did not invent the residential school system, but he certainly perfected it. When he was faced with the appalling deaths of children in the residential schools from the chronic, systemic, deliberate underfunding by the federal government, he said:

It is readily acknowledged that Indian Children lose their natural resistance to illness by habituating so closely in the residential schools and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this does not justify a change in the policy of this department which is geared toward a final solution of our Indian problem.

The term “final solution” was a homemade Canadian concept, and it was based on the destruction of the Indian people.

Why do we have to talk about history? It is one thing I have learned as a white guy. People say, “Why are we always talking about what happened back then?” We cannot go into any indigenous community without knowing how we got here. If we do not know how we got here, we do not know how we are going to go forward. It was the residential schools.

By the 1950s, the federal government realized that residential schools had been an abject failure, not for the abuse, the torture and the rape of the children, and not for the horrific low results of education. The government decided that it was a failure because it failed in its fundamental job of assimilation, so it decided to use the child welfare system. There was nothing accidental about the sixties scoop. The sixties scoop was a deliberate federal policy to take children far way from their identity and to basically turn them into white children.

In the book on residential schools by John Milloy, he writes:

Fostering was seen as a most effective method of breaking through the welfare bottleneck and ultimately, in tandem with integration, of closing [the residential] schools.... It had...the added allure of financial reward.... Children in foster homes could “be cared for less expensively since the maintenance costs are on the average less than for residential school placement”....

This was always the principle. It was about the destruction of identity while saving the taxpayers money. That is the fundamental principle that has led to the chronic underfunding of indigenous schools. It is the principle that has led to so much suffering and suicide in my own region, where we have had over 600 suicide deaths, almost entirely of youth, since the 1980s.

Governments in and governments out make all kinds of promises, but nothing changes. This was the fundamental principle Cindy Blackstock started to fight over 12 years ago with the federal government, that there was not anything accidental about what was happening in the child welfare system; it was a deliberate federal government policy of chronic underfunding by up to 40%.

At a certain point in the 1970s and 1980s, the government began to talk about indigenous control of child welfare, but the indigenous people were only allowed to control a broken, underfunded system. It is ironic that one of the only times the department of Indian affairs will agree to spend more money on children is when they are being taken from their families. That has been the policy. The sixties scoop has been called the millennial scoop. It is the 2018 and the 2019 scoop. There are more children in the control of the state now than there were at the height of the residential schools. The policies are still there.

When I see Bill C-92 and I hear talk about how we are going to move towards indigenous control and the indigenous right to develop their own family structures that are protected, where children are put into safe and culturally appropriate environments, I feel that is a great moment. However, if we do not see the legal statutory obligation of the federal government to close the funding gap, it is just a carry-on.

The ruling that the federal government was found guilty of systemic human rights abuse against indigenous children, in 2016, was a landmark moment, and I was very proud when the Prime Minister said that the government would not fight that ruling, but he did fight that ruling.

He fought that ruling to the tune of $1 million. He fought it through five non-compliance orders and each time the Human Rights Tribunal found that the federal government was choosing its own financial interests over the interests of children. In the third non-compliance order, the tribunal found “the definition of Jordan’s Principle adopted by Canada was a calculated, analyzed and informed policy choice based on financial impacts and potential risks rather than on the needs or the best interests of First Nations children, which Jordan’s Principle is meant to protect and should be the goal of Canada’s programming”.

In that third non-compliance order the tribunal found Canada culpable in the deaths of Jenna Roundsky, Chantel Fox and Jolynn Winter because it knew that these children in Wapekeka were at risk. There was a suicide cluster and the government opted not to help those children because it said the funding request came at an awkward time. The government insisted that the lives of those children had to fit within the priorities of the Department of Indian Affairs, not that the Department of Indian Affairs was obligated to those children.

The Human Rights Tribunal found the government culpable in the deaths of these children. These were beautiful young children and they were loved. The failure of the government to respond in Wapekeka kicked off a horrific suicide crisis and we are still picking up the pieces.

I was in Thunder Bay with my good friend Sol Mamakwa, where we met with the family of a young suicide victim. How do we talk to a family in a community that has lost so many children? That child was taken from her family by the policies of this state and the Liberal government because it will not fund high schools in her community, so she was living in a boarding house at age 14 in Thunder Bay.

These are the ongoing deaths and suffering and abuse that result from this underfunding.

The fourth Human Rights Tribunal ruling found Canada's continued reliance on the incremental approach to equality fosters the same discrimination that spurred the initial complaint.

When Parliament ordered the Liberal government to end the shortfall in child welfare of $158 million, the government said if it was forced to spend that money it would be like throwing confetti around. The government had been found guilty of systemic underfunding, but it felt that if it was forced to end the systemic underfunding it would be a waste of money. The Liberals tell us that incremental change is the path forward and that things take time.

I think of Dr. Martin Luther King's incredible statement from a Birmingham jail that asked how we tell people who have been denied rights for 100 and some years to wait and change will come one day. The change has to come today.

Quite simply, we have to start from the principle that Canada has not earned and Canada has never had the credibility or the right to be trusted with the lives of indigenous children.

If the government comes forward with a recognition of its culpability, a recognition of humility, a recognition that we begin the transformation of our fundamental relationship by saying that the future lies with the children, that the rights of the children will be protected, that the basic family units and the cultural units of indigenous communities will no longer be targeted and undermined and destroyed through the chronic systems of the broken child welfare system, the broken education system and the failed housing system and mould crisis, that the lives of children will become the most valuable thing that we cherish in this country, we will be the nation we were meant to be.

When I look at this legislation I see good language, but we need to have it written into law. Jordan's principle has to be written into law because it was the government's continued interpretation of Jordan's principle that was found discriminatory. The statutory obligations to equity have to be written into law because the government cannot be trusted.

When I hear the indigenous services minister say that the government will sign the agreements band by band, nation by nation, community by community, and to trust him, there is no reason to trust. I respect the new indigenous services minister but in my many years here I have seen good Indian affairs ministers, I have seen bad Indian affairs ministers, I have seen lazy Indian affairs ministers and I have seen racist Indian affairs ministers.

The only thing I ever saw change in those 15 years was the concerted, unrelenting legal pressure to force the department to live up to its obligations. Whether we have a good Indian affairs minister or a bad one or an indifferent one, it does not make a difference. These are the legislative responsibilities.

What is it that we want out of this? We want to have clearly written into law the obligations of the federal government to recognize the jurisdiction of indigenous nations and organizations, and we support that. We want it written into law that they will respect and clarify what the best interests of the child are so that it is not vague, so that we will have strong national standards for ensuring equitable treatment with equitable funding. Without equitable funding we cannot move forward.

We want accountability measures for Canada that hold the government to account. We can see what has happened in Manitoba with the Tina Fontaine ruling, where the Conservative government said that with the Tina Fontaine tragedy there were no lessons to be learned. It is a travesty when so many children are on the streets of Winnipeg because of the broken system in Manitoba. In Ontario, the Doug Ford government cancelled the child advocate's office, the one voice for the most marginalized children, speaking up for children who had been sexually or physically abused, children who had died in the system. If we do not have those mechanisms to protect children, the system will continue to destroy lives and we will continue to see the loss of children.

We want to work with the government. We want to do whatever it takes to move the legislation forward but we will not go along with just more words, not after the deaths of so many, not after the Human Rights Tribunal, not after the work of young Cree leaders like Shannen Koostachin, who called out the government for its systemic failure to support the children.

We have to put the lives and the rights of children as a top priority. I have to say that it is going to cost a lot of money to meet those 150 years of broken promises, but I can tell colleagues that there is not a single greater investment that can be made in this nation than in the lives of the indigenous children who are on the reserves, on the streets and in the communities across our country. This is a young generation who are not sitting back, a young generation who are not going to be told what to do, a young generation that understands that hope is made real when it is given the opportunity to make change.

That is when reconciliation will be made real. Without that commitment by the federal government we are just continuing the long broken pattern.

I call on my colleagues in the government. We will do whatever it takes on our side to move this legislation through. However, this legislation has to work in the interests of children because Canada has not earned the right to be trusted with the rights and the lives of indigenous children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am cautiously optimistic about the potential support from official opposition members for this legislation.

I am glad the member mentioned the co-development process. As the member perhaps mentioned in her speech, this bill has been in the works for approximately a year. There have been unprecedented consultations with the indigenous community. I believe there were upwards of 70 meetings with thousands of individuals who were consulted on the legislation. In fact, Senator Murray Sinclair, former chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, has said that the consultations that were done for Bill C-92 are a model for implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action in a meaningful and direct way.

That encourages me, as do the comments that were made. I am wondering if the member could comment on the importance of the consultation for this bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise in the debate on Bill C-92 today. I note there is concern that the the bill is arriving so late in this parliamentary agenda. There are only 10 weeks left. This was promised a number of months ago, and it finally was tabled just recently.

Having said that, we intend to be productive and proactive in supporting this, at least in principle, and seeing where we can go. Again, the government has a history of having important principles, but those principles have not always translated into legislation.

We all know the tragedy and the genesis for that, based in the residential school system, based in the sixties scoop, and it predates many of those issues. Again, I always like to reflect on my own experiences.

In the 1980s, as a nurse moving into a community, I was told that social and child welfare workers were not welcomed on reserve because they took their kids and so they could not come onto the reserve. In actual fact, the social workers of the provinces did not go onto the band lands at that time.

I look at where British Columbia, as an example, has come since that time, from a place where it was a very tense, taut relationship that could have ended in violence had people entered band lands. It ended up in a better place. Every province is a bit different in where people have ended up.

In the riding I represent in Kamloops, Secwépemc Child & Family Services now provides services both on and off reserve for its community members. For those people, this bill would be another step forward in the evolution of what the service is doing and how it is doing it. Certainly I want to congratulate the communities for coming such a long way from the 1980s to where we are in the 2000s. Things are not where they need to be, but they are certainly much better than they were.

I want to also make a contrast. We do not know the whole story, but many of us saw the video at Christmas time, showing the removal of a newborn baby from her mother and her family. Again, we do not know the back story, but we all looked to that and felt grief and wondered what had happened and what needed to be done to make it better.

The minister talked about the social workers and held them up with respect to working under the structures of the day, for which the government needs to be responsible. I also want to acknowledge adoptive parents across the country who opened up their hearts and their homes. Maybe they could not have a family of their own and they wanted one to love. They wanted to do the right thing. I want to hold them up because many families adopted children and many fostered children. In the community I represent, many of these families tried their best to ensure the children remained connected with their culture and kept the ties.

As we move forward, this is not about not respecting the work that social workers have done and not about not respecting the families that have adopted children. It is about knowing we can do better, that there are ways we can focus on prevention and do better for the children. Keeping them and supporting them connected to their culture and community is absolutely critical.

The Minister of Indigenous Services acknowledged the work of the former minister. In January 2018, an emergency meeting was held with Indigenous Services, the federal and provincial counterparts.

At that time, they all recognized that they needed to shift the programming focus to prevention, early intervention, supporting communities to draw down the jurisdiction and exploring the potential for co-developed child legislation, which is, of course, what we are here to talk about today.

Before I talk specifically about some of the technical details in the proposed legislation, I think it is important to reflect on the past government's record in this area. The Liberals like to portray themselves as the only people who have ever cared about this issue, the only group that has actually moved forward, recognizing that this is an important issue. It has been an evolution. I explained how it was in the 1980s. However, I will look at what the record was in terms of the evolution of the former government.

We signed a bilateral agreement with B.C. in 2012-13 to reimburse B.C. for the child welfare services that it provided to the 72 first nations. The funding streams were similar to what first nations and child and family services agencies received under directive 20-1, which goes way back. It provided a lot more flexibility with respect to the funding arrangement and the increased amount of funding that was available.

We also started what we called the enhanced prevention focused approach, which was launched in 2007 in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia; Quebec and P.E.I. in 2009; and Manitoba in 2019. This EPF approach was intended to provide a more flexible funding model and refocus child welfare to a family-centred practice with child-centred outcomes. It relied on a more intensive involvement of social workers to provide support before families reached a crisis. It was intended to reduce the need for placement of children, but where placement was necessary, it also explicitly favoured kinship and community placement over foster care and institutional care. It also started tracking meaningful performance indicators.

Members can see that we had taken some principles that had been evolving over time. Again, some provinces are certainly more advanced in working in partnership with their first nations communities and the federal government. However, we put it into legislation. Moving those principles into legislation and reaffirming the jurisdiction cleared up a whole lot of confusion that might have been there in the past.

Again, there was talk about the funding. The funding did change significantly over that time. Of course, it needed more enhancement, but there was a 50% increase in funding. However, more important is that there were some results. We saw the percentage of children who were placed in foster care decrease. I would find it very valuable to get from the minister the trend line to see if it is still heading in the right direction. The percentage of children in kinship care increased and, again, we saw some changes in the proper direction. My point is that we are talking about what has been too slow an evolution, but certainly, hopefully, an evolution in the appropriate direction.

What would the bill before us actually do? This is where I think there is going to be a lot scrutiny, not only in the House at second reading debate but, importantly, in committee where we get those experts to come and share with us what is good about the bill and where it has not been crafted in a way that would do the job.

The bill would affirm the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services, which has always been a very difficult grey area because the provinces have said that, under the Constitution, we need to be responsible and the federal government has been inconsistent in its role. Sometimes the government says it provides services on reserve but does not have responsibility off reserve, so it is very confusing. The bill needs to affirm the jurisdiction and to get rid of the confusion between the provinces and the federal government.

The bill sets out really important principles, such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality, which is applicable on a national level to the provision of child and family services in relation to indigenous children.

The key elements of the bill that we have talked about are that it would affirm the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples to make laws in relation to child and family services, along with the authority to administer and enforce these laws consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would commit to not interfering with existing rights in self-government agreements enacted by indigenous governing bodies regarding child and family services. That is an area we need to delve into. If relationships have already been established, we need to make sure it does not erode things that are working well and moving forward.

The area that Conservatives are concerned about is that it be binding on the provinces and territories. I do not think there are any challenges in terms of communities on reserve taking care of their memberships off reserve where they have drawn down services, but I hope the Liberal majority will allow constitutional experts and the provincial ministers to talk about the constitutionality of that particular issue. When a province provides services, is there agreement with all of the provinces in terms of the bill and is it constitutional to impose it on them when they have the jurisdiction for delivering services? I am not a legal expert, but it is a question I have about the bill and a legitimate question to ask. We need clarity. We need to make sure we are being consistent.

The bill includes a rule of precedence, which would stipulate that where indigenous governing bodies have made laws with respect to child and family services, they would have precedence over other laws relating to child and family services where conflicts arise. This is among the key elements.

Again, I am disappointed. I am disappointed that it has taken so long to table the bill. There is an agreement in the House that when a bill is tabled on a Thursday, my caucus gets to look at that bill on Wednesday so that all of my caucus members have the benefit of understanding what the bill looks like before it is debated in the House. That agreement is pretty fundamental to the proper functioning of the House and the Liberal government violated that agreement with this legislation. It was tabled on a Thursday and there has been no caucus meeting since. There was a commitment that we would discuss the bill after we had caucus meetings.

This is following a pattern. Because the Liberals have not been able to manage their House time, it does not constitute an emergency on our part and they should be respectful. If they want co-operation, they need to respect these basic elements and provide us an opportunity. For many years, members have respected the Wednesday rule and Liberals regularly violate it.

My other concern I talked about before. When Bill S-3 was introduced, it was great. The bill was a response to gender inequity in some legislation and the Liberals guaranteed us there would be technical briefings. In the House, they guaranteed they had fixed the problem. What happened? When we went into committee, we started to identify flaw after flaw after flaw.

The indigenous languages legislation was tabled in the House. The Liberals said it was co-developed and everything was great. We started to hear witnesses at committee, and there was flaw after flaw after flaw. There were 30 amendments, and I have said this a number of times today. It is unheard of for a government to have to make 30 fixes to its own legislation, and those 30 fixes were tabled late. It did not even meet the deadline. They have to table it in committee on the day we are heading into clause-by-clause. It is unheard of incompetence.

We support the principle. We want the legislation to move forward. We want to see things improve. However, we are a little leery of the ability and the competence of the government to get it right.

[Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.]

moved that Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to open second reading debate on Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. Before I go any further, it is important to recognize that we are gathered on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

My remarks today will focus on three key areas: first, how Bill C-92 aligns with this government's commitment to renewal of the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples; second, the importance of child welfare generally and the necessity of cultural protections in child welfare regimes; and third, how implementation of this bill would allow for greater protection of vulnerable children, youth and families while recognizing and affirming the inherent right of indigenous peoples to self-determination.

I cannot in good conscience stand in this House today without recognizing the important work done by the member for Markham—Stouffville. The member got us started on this road, and we cannot forget her accomplishments as Canada's first minister of indigenous services. We are very grateful for what she did during her time.

While we are providing credit where it is due, I must acknowledge the role of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations in bringing the bill forward. Her commitment to renewing the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples is clear and it is unflagging. It is my pleasure to stand and recognize her contributions to the co-development of this important legislation.

Earlier I mentioned how Bill C-92 aligns with the government's progress on renewing Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. Canadians are increasingly aware that indigenous issues are Canadian issues, that indigenous issues are critical to this country and that indigenous issues must be addressed. This government continues its strong commitment to these issues, because Canadians want it, because this country needs it and because, fundamentally, it is the right thing to do.

We have made historic investments to build and repair thousands of new and safe housing units in indigenous communities, like those I witnessed recently in Cat Lake. More importantly, we are delivering those investments through a new distinctions-based approach. There is no more one-size-fits-all approach that is supposed to work from southwestern B.C. to the far reaches of the Arctic to the tip of coastal Labrador. We have partnered with indigenous people to create a first nations-led housing strategy, the Inuit Nunangat housing strategy, and the Métis Nation's housing strategy.

All Canadians should have access to safe, clean drinking water. We are committed to delivering on that, and we are on track to be able to lift long-term drinking water advisories on public water systems on reserve by the end of March 2021, as planned.

We continue to invest in infrastructure in indigenous communities, including roads, schools, recreation centres and aerodromes, to name just a few. We are doing so because we realize that efficient infrastructure helps communities prosper. Thriving communities lead to activities, initiatives and growth that create economic development opportunities.

We know that the long shadow cast by decades of neglect will not be erased overnight. It will be difficult to reverse, but it is possible. It is essential that we take these steps now and in partnership, not with paternalism.

This government and this Prime Minister have committed, since the beginning, to a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. This bill is a wonderful example of this, and it is my hope, through this debate and with the support of members on all sides of this House, and in the other place, that with it ultimately passing, this bill could serve as an example of the type of work we need to continue doing.

Before getting into the minutiae of the bill before the House today, I think there may be some value in pulling back a little and speaking generally about child welfare and the emerging recognition of the importance of cultural stability being provided to children who are in care.

Interestingly enough, March is National Social Work Month in Canada. I say that because I think it is important for us to take a moment during this debate to acknowledge and appreciate the professional duties executed by social workers day in and day out right across this country. They are often placed in settings that most Canadians do not even know exist, and they are often forced to make difficult choices across stark options. They work within systems, and the decisions they make are often mandated by those systems. I want to be clear that when we talk about the need to address systemic faults, we do so without unduly criticizing those who work within those systems.

All that is to say that there is increasing acknowledgement in both the academic and operational worlds that current child welfare systems are failing indigenous youth.

Consider that less than 8% of this country's population is indigenous, but indigenous children make up 52% of children in care. That statistic is horrifying. That statistic is appalling. However, that is only part of the story. Far too frequently, non-indigenous social workers come into communities that are not theirs, apply an artificial standard without any context for the communities they are in, and take children away from their mothers, grandmothers and aunties. They take them away from their cousins and their classmates and bring them to another place where they are supposedly safe. They are safe, but alone; safe, but isolated from their culture; safe, but ultimately terrified. This happens because a child protection system built on a western and urban model has no place in indigenous communities.

Let us use my home province as an example. In Newfoundland and Labrador, once the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development has made the determination that a child is in need of protective intervention, it assesses the availability of placement options. It is a four-level continuum that starts with family-based placements, then moves to non-family-based foster homes, then eventually moves to staffed residential placements. The issue, of course, is that in small isolated communities like Nain or Natuashish, the availability of placement options is exceptionally limited. That holds true whether or not a small community is an indigenous community. The smaller the town, the fewer the options.

What ends up happening, of course, is that kids who need protective intervention generally have to move away from their towns and into larger areas. If children are taken away from their families and placed with strangers, that has an incredibly traumatic impact on them as children. If children are taken away from their families and placed in a town where no one looks like them or sounds like them and no one understands where they are from, well, members get the picture.

Existing systems too often place a priority on an urban definition of “safety” while ignoring the developmental necessity of culture, of community, of language and of a sense of belonging. No good comes from stripping away children from everything and everyone they know. Sometimes it may be necessary, but it should not be the standard course of action. Unless we change how we operate child welfare for indigenous communities, we will continue to cause serious harm to individuals and communities.

This is beyond unacceptable. This is a humanitarian crisis. We must act. With the proposed bill in place, we would have a path forward with which we could achieve the fundamental reform required.

Let me turn our attention to how implementation of this bill would allow for greater protection of vulnerable indigenous children, youth, and families while recognizing and affirming the inherent right of indigenous peoples to self-determination.

First and foremost, Bill C-92 would help to ensure that indigenous child and family services would be based firmly on putting the child first, not on the convenience of the system; that they would be fully aligned with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's Calls to Action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; a that we would provide clear affirmation of the inherent right of first nations, Inuit and Métis to exercise their jurisdiction in relation to child and family services, enabling communities to not only administer prevention and protection programs and services that reflect their customs, practices and traditions but to also enact laws in this area if they decided to do so.

The proposed process would not be a one-size-fits-all approach. Indigenous peoples could exercise partial or full jurisdiction over child and family services at their own pace. This would enable indigenous people to tailor the exercise of their jurisdiction to their needs.

In this legislation, we are setting out principles applicable, on a national level, to the provision of child and family services in relation to indigenous children and families. These principles would help ensure that indigenous children and their families would be treated with dignity and that their rights would be preserved. Some of these principles, for example, would help to ensure that indigenous children were not taken into care based on socioeconomic conditions alone, as is happening right now. If children were apprehended, it would be in their best interest, and they would be placed with a family member or within the immediate community.

Rather than a system designed to respond to crises, we must enable a system focused on prevention. This legislation emphasizes the need for the system to shift from apprehension to prevention, with priority given to services that promote preventative care to support families. It gives priority to services like pre-natal care and support for parents. We know, academics know and front-line professionals know that preventative care is a leading indicator of child success and positive development.

The provisions in the bill respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families mark the beginning of a 180-degree turn, a turn away from a system that allowed residential schools to happen.

Bill C-92 also demonstrates the importance of a collaborative approach when looking at how legislation impacting indigenous peoples is developed. This legislation flows from an intensive period of engagement with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders, communities and individuals, including the provinces and territories. This engagement would continue in the development and implementation of a new child and family services system, which the bill would enable.

Indigenous families and communities are being torn apart. Indigenous children are being taken from their families and communities and deprived of their language and culture. Their rights as members of indigenous communities, as children and as human beings have been trampled on for too long.

This bill is in line with our government's commitment to a renewed relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples.

The bill recognizes the current systemic issues in child protection generally and reinforces the necessity of cultural protections in child welfare systems.

The bill would allow for greater promotion of vulnerable children, youth and families while recognizing and affirming the inherent right of indigenous peoples to self-determination.

Where capacity exists to build safe spaces for children and youth, where aunties, uncles, cousins and friends can come together in mutual support, and where communities want to end a cycle of child removal that creates lasting and widespread trauma, no children should be removed to spend their formative years in isolation, away from the supports they need to get the best start in life, away from the places where they belong. For children to go out and make their way in the world, they must know their place in the world. They must know where they are from. They must know where they belong. They must know who they are.

Time is of the essence. We must work collaboratively and effectively. We must maintain this momentum. We must see this through. An entire generation of indigenous children and youth are counting on us to get this right, and we cannot let them down.

There can be no greater measure of a society than how we treat our most vulnerable, how we treat our children. Today we can stand a little taller, because today we are moving to make it right. We are working to make it right.

I urge all members to join me in moving toward an end to this crisis with their support for Bill C-92.

Public Accounts

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I tried talking about the topic the Liberals wanted us to talk about early on, but there were five points of order. They did not want Canadians to hear the message we had regarding Bill C-92, apparently.

My hon. colleague across the way likes to scream and yell and perhaps Canadians will believe him a little more by doing that, but Canadians can see through this veil of the Liberals protesting far too much. They are not telling the truth and Canadians deserve the truth. All they need to do is to allow the former attorney general to speak.

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

Mr. Speaker, members on the other side of the House really need to give their heads a shake. Think about it. For the last two days, the Minister of Indigenous Services and Liberal members have wanted to talk about Bill C-92, but the opposition continues to frustrate the debate by filibustering, by putting forward motions like the one today to talk about the Champlain Bridge. That is today; yesterday it was something else. They do not want to debate substantive legislation.

On one hand, opposition members say the Liberal government always uses tools to prevent them from speaking and, on the other hand, they ask why the Liberals are not using those tools. They are challenging us to do something they do not want us—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for anybody watching this debate, I am sure it is not with great amusement.

The Liberals object to opposition members not talking about the Champlain Bridge, but they are definitely not talking about the Champlain Bridge when they stand to speak on this matter. They are talking about everything from Islamophobia to who knows what. The incredible thing is that the government has asserted its powers over and over again at committee and in this place to cut off debate. Liberals have the power to move a motion to adjourn the debate and go to the orders of the day. In this particular instance, they claim their priority is to talk about Bill C-92, yet they have sat there for how many hours now, choosing not to assert those powers for what they claim is a top priority: the rights and interests of indigenous children in Canada.

The big question I would put to my colleague is this. Why do the Liberals not want to talk about the Champlain Bridge and if they do not want to talk about the Champlain Bridge, why are they not asserting their powers in this instance instead of asserting their powers to shut down discussion about SNC-Lavalin at committee?

[Dan Vandal]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As parliamentary secretary to indigenous services, I note that we were here at 10 a.m. to discuss this important bill, Bill C-92, which is about indigenous child welfare. Those on the other side did not want to discuss it. They wanted to discuss the Champlain Bridge. Now the member opposite wants to talk about Bill C-92.

This is completely inappropriate. We should have been talking about Bill C-92 as of 10 a.m., but the Conservatives did not want to do this. The member opposite does not get the opportunity now to discuss Bill C-92, when we have not introduced it.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the final six minutes I have, I will tie this back to the debate. If only our colleagues across the way could just have trust that I am going to do that.

I want to bring up a comment that our colleague from Eglinton—Lawrence said in his intervention. He noted that today is a day when Canadians expect Liberals to deliver. Do Canadians not expect the Liberals to deliver every day? Sadly, we have not seen it. They want to change the channel.

I am going to bring the House back to the early days of the government, when it introduced its Motion No. 6 to try to change the Standing Orders and our procedures. At that time, a minister was found guilty of using a limousine as a preferred choice of transportation and billing the taxpayers for that. We also found out that the finance minister had a French villa and he was found guilty. The Prime Minister was the first prime minister in the history of our country to be found guilty of ethics violations. I also have to mention the clam scam, which involved a former fisheries minister. They were all found guilty.

Now I will get to where we are today. Why do we find it challenging to believe what the Liberals say they are going to do? It is because they have not done it.

I would like now to talk about Bill C-92, which is what our colleagues across the way want. My comments are relevant, as it has been entered into the debate a few times.

I want to remind Canadians that it was the former Conservative government that signed a bilateral agreement with B.C., my home province, in 2012-13 to reimburse B.C. for child welfare services provided to 72 first nations communities. In our record as a Conservative team, we actually took into account the child welfare challenges.

I also want to bring our colleagues across the way back to—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will come back to what I said earlier, which speaks to the core of both Bill C-92, for our colleagues across the way, as well as the motion that we have before us. It is about trust and the lack of trust that Canadians have with the Prime Minister and indeed his team.

We are at a crisis of confidence right now. I am fairly young, but I remember a show called “I Dream of Jeannie”. It is like the Liberals are trying to change the channel with a click and they are trying to change the narrative. Every time they try to do that it is because they don't want Canadians hearing the message that we have to say, because it is the truth.

Our colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands does not often stand up in defence of the official opposition, the Conservatives, but we heard that earlier today when she asked how we had arrived at where we are today. It is because of the heavy-handed efforts and tactics that the Liberals and the government have used on the justice committee by not allowing testimony. All they need to do is to let her speak. Let the former attorney general speak.

[Marco Mendicino]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of deviation by the member in terms of the subject matter she wants to question me about. First it was the concurrence report, then Bill C-92 and now the subject matter that is before the justice committee. Talk about being all over the map. This is another attempt to obstruct and disrupt, which is what we see from the Conservatives.

With regard to the work of the justice committee, it is operating independently. I am proud of the work that the Liberal members of Parliament have done on the committee. Indeed, they partnered in many meaningful ways with their Conservative and NDP colleagues with regard to the material witnesses who would be called. Canadians are better off knowing more about what occurred over the last number of months with regard to the SNC affair. That is a good thing. There is also the Ethics Commissioner's inquiry in which, again, witnesses will have every opportunity to provide evidence.

However, the Conservatives' efforts to deviate from the work of this government, which is singularly focused on Canadians, will not succeed, because we have the best team, the best ideas and the best leader. That is what Canadians can count on going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the New Democrats have finally followed the debate from yesterday and now have recognized the Conservatives' intent to prevent us from debating Bill C-92. I hope the NDP will be consistent in ensuring we can make progress on Bill C-92 and other important government legislation.

It has become clear that the Conservatives only desire is to be as disruptive as possible on all government initiatives because they do not want to talk about the good, progressive policy initiatives in legislation or even in a budget to be presented later today.

With the official opposition in its own wonderland, trying to ramp up some sort of rhetoric on an issue that is not relevant in the minds of Canadians, could my colleague provide his thoughts on why it is so important we as government continue to remain focused on Canadians?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that answer makes no sense. That is at least the third Liberal speech I have heard where they say they want to talk about another bill. Then why do they keep making speeches? Why do they not use the tools they have at their disposal starting at the next intervention to move on to consideration of Bill C-92 if it is so important?

I have a hard time believing that the Liberals truly want to talk about Bill C-92 when it took them so long to introduce it in the House of Commons. The Liberals are doing nothing right now to move on to consideration of Bill C-92.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. His interest in and passion for Bill C-92 are quite remarkable. He seems keen to debate it. It is great to see. We all want to address the well-being of indigenous children.

I have two questions for him. Why did it take three and a half years for his government to introduce this bill? Why not move on to government orders so that we can start discussing this seriously?

[Marco Mendicino]

Mr. Speaker, we actually tabled Bill C-92 yesterday.

It is the height of irony that during my remarks, when I began to talk about Bill C-92, that member across the way was admonishing me for raising Bill C-92 instead of talking about the concurrence report with regard to the procurement of a private developer on the Champlain Bridge, for which, the government of the day was heavily criticized by the Auditor General. Now the member is coming back to me, asking me why I did not speak more about Bill C-92. The member just interrupted me, and now wants me to return to the very matter which she wanted me to move on from.

Having said that, I am happy to talk about Bill C-92. This is historic legislation. It is historic because we co-developed it with indigenous peoples, because we reached out in good faith to organizations like the AFN and to local leaders, as well as local chiefs, to ensure that their voices were heard in the best interests of indigenous young children and youth, who are disproportionately overrepresented in our child and family services justice system. That is the work they need us to do, and we desperately want to do it.

I wish my hon. colleague would get her messages straight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what was a tangential reflection of what this debate is about. However, I noted the member talked about Bill C-92. Are the Liberals avoiding debating the bill because they are worried there are so many flaws in it, like in Bill C-91? It was unheard of that the government actually had to table over 30 amendments at clause by clause.

Are Liberals trying to avoid discussing Bill C-92 because they are worried they have again created legislation with so many flaws in it that they will be truly embarrassed when we have witnesses at committee pointing out all those important flaws in that legislation?

[Marco Mendicino]

Mr. Speaker, of course I know that the hon. colleague who just posed the question would have heard a number of remarks I made at the outset of my commentary today and would know that I would be returning to the report. I would dispute my colleague's contention of the opportunity lost today to discuss the other government business, which is indeed of great importance to Canadians, including Bill C-92 and including the budget, which we are all very keen to hear about. Even some of her colleagues, in earlier exchanges within the context of the concurrence debate, which has been put forward by the Conservatives, accepted that it is of great significance that we get to debating the budget.

Let me round out my comments with regard to Bill C-92 with something that the hon. colleague who just posed the question is familiar with.

I was speaking about the importance of enshrining as a principle the best interests of indigenous children in the child and family services system. This legislation would help do that. It would also ensure that we are living up to our commitments under UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I note that it was something that the hon. colleague who just posed the question voted against, as did all of her Conservative colleagues. That was indeed regrettable, because we must ensure that Canada is making the strides that are necessary to achieve meaningful reconciliation, including responding to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, which again the Conservatives have found it quite difficult to come to grips with. There was also their reticence under the last administration to call for an inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women and children.

Those are concrete examples of how the Conservatives have seemingly found it difficult to make it right with indigenous peoples.

Conversely, on this side of the House, we understand that in order to make the progress that is necessary to make it right with indigenous peoples, we have to embrace those very principles and those initiatives, which we are doing, including with Bill C-92.

We also would not be able to move forward, if the Conservatives were to have their druthers and their way, with the budget. I am not going to pre-empt the Minister of Finance; certainly we do look forward to hearing from him at some point today on the next concrete steps that we will take to ensure that Canada is on a strong economic footing. However, it is worth pointing out just how strong this government's record has been with regard to the economy.

In 2015 we asked Canadians to trust us with the stewardship of the economy so that we could ensure that Canadians could have every conceivable opportunity to achieve success. How did we start delivering? The very first thing is that we provided for a tax cut for approximately nine million middle-class Canadians, and by doing so we put more money in their pockets. How much more? Later this year, an average family of four will have approximately $2,000 more in their pockets, money that they can spend on school supplies, on camps, on recreation, on clothing, on all of life's necessities. That is as a result of both the middle-class tax cut and the Canada child benefit plan, which has put more disposable income into the households of nine out of 10 families, something that we should be very proud of.

We have also reduced taxes for small businesses. I know that the Conservatives like to brand themselves as the great captains of enterprise and like to pitch that they support small business, but this government actually walks the walk when it comes to important policy decisions. We were very happy to see that the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, came out as very supportive of reducing the small business tax rate to 9%, beginning on the first day of 2019.

We also have a serious plan when it comes to climate change. On the Conservative benches I can hear some of my friends chortling and heckling and I know it is all in good spirit and good humour, at least for the most part, but the reality is that within their own ranks they still have a hard time admitting that climate change is real, notwithstanding the fact that there is nearly unanimous evidence and science to back up that claim.

I think that explains why they are so reluctant to put forward any plan, let alone a serious one, that would do the kinds of concrete things that are required to protect the environment, while at the same time ensuring economic prosperity.

For our part, in addition to taking serious action to protect our marine habitat and our coastlines to the tune of nearly $2 billion, we have also introduced historic legislation that would ensure there would be environmental protections and assessments in place. That was again backed by evidence. We worked with scientists and experts in the area. I know the Conservatives do not seem to like to refer to or give any acknowledgement to scholars. That seems to be quite difficult for them.

However, we worked with scientists and experts because we knew that by listening to them and by respecting their work, we were in a far better position to introduce legislation that is principled, like Bill C-69, which will ensure that there are environmental processes and assessments in place.

We are also putting a price on pollution. Once more, I would point out that there is nearly unanimous consensus that this is a smart way to go to reduce the amount of pollution in our environment. We will not hear any of that coming from the Conservatives. That again is a demonstration of how difficult it is for them to move forward with protecting our environment and acknowledging that climate change is real.

On trade, we are the only G7 country to have a fair trade approach with every other G7 country. That is something to be quite pleased with. Our work in renegotiating NAFTA and our work in implementing CETA in Europe has all been to the good in enhancing and increasing consumer choice and expanding jobs.

On that point, and with respect to the budget, close to one million new jobs have been created since we took the reins of the government in 2015. That is far better than what Canadians were under the last Conservative government, which had the worst record for economic growth since the Great Depression. It is an ignominious record, which demonstrates how we are focused on actually producing results while they falter.

All of the examples I have put forward are a demonstration as to why the Conservatives do not want to talk about the budget and do not want to talk about Bill C-92. They do not want to talk about anything that reflects on the positive work. It is about obstructing and it is about obstructing the work of Canadians.

On the concurrence report, I know my Conservative colleagues are quite keen to talk about this matter today as opposed to what was the subject of debate and discussion at the parliamentary committee for transportation and, if I am not mistaken, already agreed to by the Conservatives, notwithstanding the fact that the Auditor General was very critical of the Conservative government's handling of the Champlain Bridge.

By way of background, the Champlain Bridge was less than 50 years old, but it had deteriorated very badly. At this point, I will quote from from the Auditor General's report. It stated:

Heavy investments were required to repair and maintain it. If a structural problem forced the bridge to close, the four other river crossings in the area could not accommodate the displaced traffic without significant congestion. Even partial closures for brief periods or load restrictions could significantly affect the flow of people and goods through the region, and also affect the economy.

With respect to the procurement, I want to read from section 4.5 of the report and I will move on from there to conclude my remarks. This is with regard to the Conservatives' handling of the procurement of a private partner to do the work that was necessary to improve the Champlain Bridge. It states, “The government”, and that is the Conservative government, “ signed a contract, dated 16 June 2015, with Signature on the Saint Lawrence Group” or SSL as it is referred to. It went on to say:

The private partner undertook to deliver the project for just under $4 billion, excluding the government’s project management and land acquisition costs...The contract called for the new bridge to be ready for use by 1 December 2018. It included a 42-month construction period and a 30-year operation and maintenance period.

It goes on to state:

To manage the project, an integrated team of officials was drawn from five federal organizations:

From 2011 to 2014, Transport Canada was responsible for planning for the replacement of the bridge.

Infrastructure Canada took over in 2014.

Public Services and Procurement was the federal contracting authority for the project.

What did the Auditor General conclude with regard to the Conservatives' handling of the project? The Auditor General found that the Government of Canada, the Conservative government of the day, was slow in making the decision to invest in the new bridge instead of maintaining the existing one. This finding matters because the delay in decision-making entailed avoidable expenditures of more than $500 million.

It is rather curious that the Conservatives seemingly now want to draw attention to the fact that they slow-played the procurement process as a means of slow-playing the budget that we want to deliver, which will ensure there are more jobs, more opportunities and more prosperity for Canadians. What irony. What a demonstration that Conservatives have not taken any of the lessons that were handed to them in 2015.

It is regrettable and it is disappointing. I do hope we can move on from the debate of this concurrence report, so we can get back to Bill C-92 and budget 2019. That is what Canadians want us to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a concurrence debate happening. It would appear that my hon. colleague has moved into the speech on Bill C-92 he wanted to give, but his colleagues did not move the motion to get him there. Therefore, I am wondering if we could stick to relevance in the debate.

[Marco Mendicino, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the opposition motion to concur in the report submitted by the Auditor General with respect to the Champlain Bridge, which is an important infrastructure project that dates back some years.

I wish I could say that I am pleased to do so. However, the timing of this Conservative motion is interesting and curious, given the government's business of the day, which includes important historic legislation with respect to indigenous youth and children as well as the Minister of Finance's budget for this fiscal year, 2019, which Canadians depend on us to put forward so that we can continue to deliver results.

There has been a lot of commentary recently about how we do politics in this country and in the House. I think Canadians will judge the opposition, which says today that it is holding the government to account. I question Conservatives on that assertion, because it is really just the opposition doing more of the same.

This attempt to disguise as legitimate the debate about concurrence in a report—a report that was itself the subject of debate before the transportation committee some time ago—is actually just a naked and transparent effort to obstruct and disrupt the business of Canadians, the business of the government. Our government has been singularly focused on providing results with respect to the economy, trade, the environment, reconciliation, and criminal justice reform, all areas in which I believe we have made significant progress over the course of the last three and a half years. Along with my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I look forward with great enthusiasm to taking that record to the Canadian people this fall in the hope of earning the privilege to continue to govern on their behalf.

With respect to the concurrence report that the Conservatives have put back on the table, I begin by noting that it was a scathing indictment of the last Conservative government's handling and bungling of the award and procurement process to allow private developers to take the Champlain Bridge into the 21st century and beyond. There was a lethargy, a slowness, a lack of transparency in the way the Conservative government handled the procurement that cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. The Conservatives' mishandling of this infrastructure project continues to cost Canadians.

Liberals have put it back on track under the leadership of successive ministers of infrastructure. I have the honour of serving with our current Minister of Infrastructure, who is from Quebec. He feels very strongly about this project. He has gone to visit the workers, employees and hopefully one day the pensioners, who are ensuring that people in Quebec, and indeed all Canadians, can traverse this bridge knowing that they will be safe and secure and that they can get to and from their destinations over the course of the year, whether for work or with families, in a way that is fast and efficient. This is a result of the work on the government side.

I will speak at greater length about the concurrence report later in my remarks, but I want to begin by pointing out that the cost of the Conservatives' efforts to delay the government's business is very significant. Why?

We are in the course of debating Bill C-92, which, as I said earlier, is historic legislation that would help move forward the endeavour of reconciliation with indigenous peoples. It would ensure that we recognize their inherent right to self-government and self-determination on a matter that is so important and that disproportionately touches so many young indigenous children's lives. This has resulted from the barriers that have been erected within our system, consciously in the earliest days of this federation and less consciously and more systemically and subconsciously over time, but no less requiring significant action.

How will Bill C-92 allow us to move forward in a way that is positive and constructive?

Well, first it is important to point out that this is a piece of legislation that was co-developed with indigenous peoples, first nations organizations and stakeholders in a spirit of good faith and in a manner that would recognize the cardinal principle that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determine their own journey and path to success in this country. Without recognizing that, without understanding and appreciating that principle, all efforts will be undermined.

This legislation, then, was not simply the creation of a government that was insular and refused to reach out—quite the contrary. There were sincere efforts to co-develop and co-design this legislation, and this was a historic turning point for a matter that touches the lives of many indigenous children. To shed some light on the kinds of numbers we are talking about here, the overrepresentation of first nations, Inuit and Métis children in the child and family services system is not insignificant. That group represents 7.7% of the overall population in Canada but accounts for 52.2% of children in foster care in private homes.

That is a breathtaking number, a tragic number, and the objective of this legislation is to reduce that number as much as we possibly can.

How will we do so? It will be by ensuring that the best interests of indigenous children and youth are—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to talk about the budget. In fact, we wish that is what we could be talking about. Whether it is Bill C-92 or the budget, it is good stuff.

We can take a look at the Conservatives versus the Liberals on budget-related issues. We have made solid commitments to the Canada child benefit, lifting thousands of children out of poverty, and the guaranteed income supplement, lifting thousands of seniors out of poverty. We have invested in health care, in infrastructure, and we have invested and worked with provinces to develop a plan on CPP and on the price on pollution. These are all wonderful, progressive things.

I, like the member opposite, look forward to the budget, because I think we will see a continuation of the strengthening of Canada's middle class, those aspiring to be a part of it and those who are in need. These are really important issues for Canadians. I think we would both agree on that. There are issues such as the 900,000 jobs. Imagine all the taxes collected by those 900,000 new jobs.

Would the member not agree that the budget does matter?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I have noticed that his speeches are generally very detailed and well-researched. However, it is still important to point out that, generally speaking, the Conservative Party is known for its rather aggressive and somewhat crass approach. We cannot help but notice that the current approach taken by the Conservative Party is putting the Liberal Party in a very difficult position. Generally speaking, the Liberals signal left during elections and then turn right once they take office. We currently have a government that has done nothing about the things that it said were important priorities.

The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, my neighbour's colleague, talked about the indigenous languages act yesterday. A total of 23 new amendments to the bill were flippantly proposed during the clause-by-clause study. That is reckless. It is obvious the file is being mismanaged when we look at the differences between the bill and what was said, namely that indigenous languages are so important to the Liberals and that this is such an important issue for them. Bill C-92 is a perfect example of this.

I would like my colleague to explain why the Liberal government does not take control instead of blaming the Conservatives. The government has everything it needs to do that, so that we can talk about Bill C-92.

Our parliamentary secretary said that there are only 49 sitting days left. It is shameful that the government waited so long to study such an important bill.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I only spoke for 20 minutes, which is not a filibuster, at least not by my standards. I think the member knows that. We are discussing an important issue of public concern, which is infrastructure. I know the government is embarrassed to have discussions about its approach to infrastructure because it is failing so badly to deliver on the commitments it made.

With respect to Bill C-92, the member for Winnipeg North feels the urgency of the issue. It is an urgent issue to discuss, yet the government, in spite of this talk today about the urgency of the issue, failed to bring forward legislative proposals for three and a half years. The bill has been tabled before the House for a total of four sitting days, including today. The government's lack of action on this does not obviate the need for significant discussion around the bill. Some of that discussion needs to take place internally before the bill is debated. Members need a bit of an opportunity to review the bill, of course, as well as for the debate to come before the House. That is part of the appropriate process of due scrutiny.

If the member for Winnipeg North wanted to see the bill pass earlier, his government should have proposed the bill at an earlier stage. As well, on the issues he is talking about relating to reconciliation, the government had somebody in cabinet with an indigenous background and significant experience within indigenous politics and who I think would have been a voice around the cabinet table and reflected that experience. The sniping we have seen toward that former minister is indicative of where the government is actually sitting when it comes to the issue of reconciliation.

On the issue of the toll, when the government makes spending commitments way outside the framework of a balanced budget, unfortunately Canadians cannot have confidence that it will follow through. It has made so many promises that it has not followed through on. This government has out-of-control deficits and promises that there will not be a toll, yet it is nowhere near meeting its spending commitments. The government promised a balanced budget in this budget being presented today. We will see if there is a balanced budget later today. I somehow doubt it. Canadians have a lack of confidence in the government's commitments because it just does not have the discipline when it comes to spending to follow through.

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

Mr. Speaker, whether it is today or yesterday, the sad reality is that the Conservatives, as the official opposition, are filibustering and preventing Bill C-92 from being debated. Bill C-92 affects the lives of children. In Manitoba alone, there are over 11,000 kids in foster care, most of whom are of indigenous heritage. When one talks of reconciliation, Bill C-92 is a big part that reconciliation and provides hope in many different ways.

For the second day, the opposition has brought in another concurrence motion. There are over 500 motions and only another 49 sitting days. If it was up to the Conservatives, they would bring forward a motion every day. Their intent is to be destructive to the government and its agenda. It is as simple as that. Today Conservatives are even saying that we have other tools we should have used to force them to behave responsibly. Unfortunately, we will have to look at those because of the opposition.

Stephen Harper and the former government were going to put a toll on the Champlain Bridge. This government removed that toll, and the building of the bridge is going forward. Could the member explain why he felt the Harper government was correct in instituting a toll on that particular bridge?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today in the House and join this concurrence debate.

I know this issue was discussed yesterday, but since this is my first time rising since it happened, I do want to add my voice to those of many others who have expressed condolences for the victims of the terrible terrorist attack targeting the Muslim community in New Zealand, and express my solidarity with the victims and all those who are in some way affected by this event.

I also want to highlight growing concerns about the persecution and violence targeting Christians in Nigeria. This is something I have been hearing about from constituents and I know it is a concern for many members in the House as well.

I want to set the stage with respect to the context of the debate. There is some discussion back and forth about the procedure that brings us here.

The opposition has moved a concurrence motion with respect to a report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It is interesting to hear members of the government speak as if we just should not use the opportunity to bring forward concurrence motions that reflect important public policy issues, but instead we should only debate the things that the government puts on the agenda. This reflects a certain misunderstanding about the role of the opposition and what we are here to do. It is perfectly legitimate for the opposition to put forward motions with respect to committee reports and other issues that reflect public policy issues and reflect what we hear from our constituents. There is nothing illegitimate about the opposition doing its job in that way.

Members of the government would like to talk about aspects of their own legislative agenda, but they need to understand that this is not just about a government and an audience. This is about a government and an opposition. This is how the House of Commons is supposed to work.

We know the government would like to, and on multiple occasions has attempted to, reduce the powers and prerogatives of the opposition to indeed reduce us to a mere audience. However, this Conservative opposition has not and will not go quietly in that respect. It is important for us to assert the prerogatives of members, to assert the important role of the opposition and to use the tools that are available to us, yes, to raise, through concurrence and other measures, important public policy issues, but also to use these tools as a way of challenging the government to do better in other areas.

For instance, we have said that the former attorney general should be able to testify before the justice committee with all of the fetters off. She should be able to actually talk about why she resigned from cabinet and events that happened afterwards. Up until now, the Prime Minister and the government have not allowed that to happen. We have, in a number of ways through parliamentary procedures, highlighted the unwillingness of the government to allow that conversation to take place. Now we have members of the justice committee who are trying to shut down hearings into what happened involving the Prime Minister, the former attorney general and SNC-Lavalin. Therefore, we are very concerned about that.

We hear concerns from Canadians. They are looking for answers and want us as the opposition to use the tools that are available to us to seek answers, and certainly we are going to continue to do that. Therefore, we make no apologies for being an efficient and effective opposition; for standing up for what Canadians are saying; for raising issues around infrastructure, around the Champlain Bridge; and also for raising issues around corruption, dealing with the government. These are things we are going to continue to highlight, whether members of the government like it or not.

Parenthetically I will say that in some of the speeches and comments we have heard from members of the government, they have talked about Bill C-92, which is the legislation that apparently the Liberals were intending to bring forward today. I will draw to the attention of members the fact that Bill C-92 was tabled in the House the last Thursday before the break. Therefore, in terms of sitting days, it has been tabled here for about three days.

Canadians know that the government has been in place for approaching three and a half years. Certainly, these issues around child welfare and indigenous child welfare are important issues for discussion. The government could have moved forward with the discussion of this issue a long time ago. The Liberals could have put forward reforms that they thought appropriate much earlier in their mandate and we would have already discussed these changes and have moved forward with them. However, the government is waiting until the last possible minute to put these things forward and tabling it. Then right away the Liberals are saying that anyone who puts forward other motions and other issues for debate in the House is somehow obstructing this.

The Liberals have been way behind the eight ball in putting forward proposals in this area, and now it is someone else's fault. Their failure to take action, their failure to move the discussion forward earlier, is not something that should lead to the opposition losing its opportunity to raise other issues as well. Their lack of management of the House calendar and their own legislative agenda does not somehow create a requirement for the opposition, especially when all the Liberals would have had to do to facilitate greater co-operation in the House on matters of agenda and procedure was allow the former attorney general to speak at committee without the kind of restrictions the government is continuing to put on the former attorney general.

Canadians want and deserve to hear what she wants to say, and she wants to speak about those things as well. If the government would like to move forward, the first step is to listen to Canadians and let the former attorney general address all the issues around this sordid affair and then allow Canadians to make their own judgment.

I would like to address, in particular, the issues raised in the concurrence motion. This is report 4 of the Auditor General, which deals with the proposal to replace the Champlain Bridge in Montreal and the issue of extensions and late fees being paid by the government. It is another case of Canadians paying in the form of late fees for the mistakes of the government.

We see so many areas in which Canadians are paying more as a result of the mistakes of the government. We are seeing, as a result of that, attempts by the government to raise people's taxes. We know that those attempts to raise taxes are not the end of it from the government. Indeed, this out-of-control spending is the same thing we saw from the Kathleen Wynne Liberals in Ontario. When there is out-of-control spending, it leads to subsequent proposals from the same government for higher taxes.

We have a critical window of time to fix those failures, to get back on track in terms of spending, to address the deficit, to control the areas of failure that are costing Canadians and to thus prevent this kind of situation where taxes will have to go up.

Moving forward on the Champlain Bridge is an important project. It is a process that began with the previous Conservative government, but we have seen a failure to move this forward effectively by the current Liberal government. This is representative of a larger problem in terms of the infrastructure policies of the government. The government has failed to deliver on infrastructure in many different areas. The Liberals talk a lot about infrastructure. They have made a lot of promises about infrastructure, but they have failed to deliver.

Let us start from the beginning on the infrastructure file. The first minister of infrastructure, who is from a neighbouring riding in the Edmonton region, was very concerned about the infrastructure of his office. He was very concerned about developing the infrastructure where he and his political staff would be operating. Huge amounts of money were spent on renovations in his office, and this was widely discussed within his constituency and the surrounding area. I heard those discussions. When the priorities of the infrastructure minister should have been infrastructure Canadians use, such as roads, bridges and so on, so much in the way of public dollars went into renovating the infrastructure of his office instead.

We see repeatedly from the government announcements and reannouncements of the same projects, projects, in many cases, that were previously put in place, and a lot of the work done, under the previous government, yet we see a lack of action.

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister and eight of his ministers fanned out across the country to reannounce infrastructure announcements that had already been made, which provided more opportunities for photos and selfies. However, the Liberals, when it comes to infrastructure, as in so many other areas, are all talk and no action. They are not moving forward. We see that on all sorts of key infrastructure, including the Champlain Bridge.

I would add that while there is a failure to move forward on Canadian infrastructure, the government made a decision to make a big investment in something called the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the AIIB. The AIIB is headquartered in Beijing and really is a tool of China's foreign policy to build infrastructure throughout Asia. We have seen the way the Chinese government seeks to build infrastructure as a way of extending its political influence and control throughout the continent. There is the example of a port constructed in Sri Lanka. It has raised big concerns about Chinese control and influence as a result of the way this port project has proceeded.

There are many different cases through the so-called belt and road initiative, whereby the Chinese government seeks to extend its influence by spending money on these kinds of projects. One might understand why the Chinese government sees it as in its national interest to do so. However, what I do not understand and what constituents in my riding do not understand is why it is in Canada's interest to be spending Canadian taxpayer dollars on building infrastructure in Asia through a vehicle that is designed to advance the foreign policy objectives of the Government of the People's Republic of China. That does not make sense to me and my constituents, and I do not think it makes to taxpayers anywhere.

While putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is building a pipeline in Azerbaijan and projects outside the country, we have had a failure to move forward with vital infrastructure projects here in Canada.

I have raised the issue of the dissonance between the eagerness to invest in infrastructure overseas and the failure to invest in infrastructure here in Canada. The government's response is that this is about Canadian companies now having the opportunity to bid on these projects. The Liberals say that if they give money to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, this vehicle of China's Communist government's foreign policy, Canadian companies will be able to participate in these projects. That would be an interesting argument, if it were true.

When I was in Beijing last, I visited the headquarters of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to discuss its procurement policies. It said very clearly that it has an open staffing and open procurement policy. Therefore, any company from anywhere in the world, theoretically, has the same opportunity to bid on their projects, regardless of whether the country in which that company is headquartered is a member of the bank. That was the Liberal government's one argument for putting hundreds of millions of dollars into this foreign infrastructure bank: it would provide opportunities for Canadian companies to bid. However, Canadian companies already have those opportunities.

Canadian nationals already have the opportunity to work for the bank. In fact, when we went to Beijing, we met with a Canadian national who was working for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Therefore, the Liberals' only argument for hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money going to these projects falls through. It would not have been difficult to find that information.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be helpful for anyone watching this from home to understand the kinds of machinations that go on in this place. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre that it would be much better if we were debating Bill C-92, the indigenous child welfare legislation. At this point, it is inadequate and needs to get to committee.

Cindy Blackstock said, “the red flags are already flying, such as the pan-Indigenous approach, the lack of a clear funding base, a lack of attention to the child welfare needs among and between first nations, Métis and Inuit.”

However, we find ourselves here because of the refusal of the Liberals on the justice committee to allow the former attorney general to speak. That puts the opposition, in this case the official opposition, the Conservatives, in a mood that says they will do anything to monkey wrench what is going on in this place.

Although I do not like monkey wrenching in general, I have to admit there is nothing that makes sense about saying that those involved in the SNC-Lavalin question of inappropriate pressure brought on our former attorney general are allowed to speak twice if they happen to represent the view of “nothing go on here, move on”. We are denied the opportunity to put critical questions to the former attorney general.

In the context of a debate that should be on something else, the Conservatives have taken the chance they have through procedural machinations and monkey wrenching. In this case, my sympathies are with the official opposition because we should not have been denied that opportunity to hear from the former attorney general, as much as I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre that we should be discussing Bill C-92.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know members love to play games. I know there are all sorts of manoeuvres that can be made using the Standing Orders. Just yesterday, two motions were proposed by the Conservatives that delayed debate on Bill C-92.

We talk about relevance here, so I am going to talk about it. I do not believe the report has any mention of SNC-Lavalin, yet the member opposite raises this issue. What does that have to do with our debate?

I would like to point something out. Some believe that the justice department and its lawyers write legislation in stone and that it is so good that when it comes out of the justice department, no changes need to be made by parliamentarians. That is wrong. Parliament should have a role to play in making changes and debating those changes when they go to committee. Our role as a Parliament is to assert our power as parliamentarians to make changes in legislation.

Let us talk about the legislation on indigenous languages. Over 30 changes were made because people were willing to listen and make those changes, and that is great. Members should listen.

If this legislation, Bill C-92, requires more changes, we are willing to listen. I know some groups want to see some little differences and they want to see a little more power being given to indigenous groups. I know the Province of Manitoba has some concerns. However, these changes happen in committee and are made by the people who study this day in and day out and who are experts in this subject matter area. They have the best understanding, as they have been studying these issues for a number of years.

I trust the member opposite has a great expertise in this area and can bring great ideas to make those changes.

[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.

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

[Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)