Bill S-3 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général)

This enactment amends the Indian Act to provide new entitlements to registration in the Indian Register in response to the decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général) that was rendered by the Superior Court of Quebec on August 3, 2015, and to provide that the persons who become so entitled also have the right to have their name entered in a Band List maintained by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This enactment requires the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to initiate consultations on issues related to registration and band membership and to conduct reviews on sex-based inequities under the Indian Act, and to report to Parliament on those activities.

Presence in Gallery

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

There have been talks among the parties, and I am very hopeful that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That in light of the decision made by the United Nations Human Rights Committee on January 11, 2019, which ruled that the ongoing sex-based hierarchies in the registration provisions of the Indian Act violate Canada's international human rights obligations, this House calls upon the federal government to bring into force the remaining provisions of Bill S-3, an act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux v. Canada, which would remedy the discrimination no later than June 21, 2019.

Indigenous Languages Act

[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 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.

Indigenous Affairs

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with first nations women's groups and first nations women across Canada to once again call on the government to end gender discrimination in the Indian Act.

For decades, the Government of Canada has been causing undue harm to first nations women by removing or denying their status simply because they are not first nations men. This past January, the United Nations Human Rights Committee said that Canada is still discriminating against first nations women and their descendants by denying first nations women the same entitlements under the Indian Act as first nations men. This discrimination causes women to be disconnected from their communities, breaks up families and causes greater disparity in the rights and benefits accorded to first nations women and men.

It is beyond the time for the government to act on the calls from first nations women and the organizations they represent. I call on the government to act immediately on Bill S-3 and do everything within its power to end the discrimination against first nations women in Canada.

Bill C-92—Time Allocation Motion

[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?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that in their haste to move it through the system, they make sure that we have the opportunity to do our due diligence. As I indicated, with Bill S-3, we were reassured that it was going to fix the court-imposed decision. It was going to fix the issue that had been identified. However, it took only the first two or three witnesses before we saw that this would not fix the problem.

Again, we have an important piece of legislation in terms of what it needs to accomplish and what we should try to accomplish. Have they actually accomplished it? We will need to see.

Child and family services in the area we represent in terms of shared territory is a group that is doing a really good job, both on and off reserve. They have a partnership. They have been moving along. I see this legislation perhaps giving them the next nudge in terms of what they are doing and where they are going. However, we need to hear not just from chiefs and national organizations but from people on the ground who are delivering services to make sure that the bill would do what we want it to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we have heard the government proclaim in the past that it consulted properly, it has turned out to be an absolute mess. I look at Bill S-3 as an example. We can also look at the Trans Mountain pipeline. In this case, the Liberal government claimed that it would do a better job than the Conservatives had done and that it was going to do that job properly, and what happened? There was a court decision, and the Liberal government absolutely blew it.

Again, I will wait to hear what is said by the many groups at committee as they bring their expertise to the table and tell us what was done properly and what was done improperly. Forgive me if I do not have full confidence that the Liberals have actually done what they said they would do. It is because I have looked at their history in this Parliament in terms of their government's legislative and consultative process.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a bit of a challenge to do 16 minutes and then four minutes. I think it would be best to use my last four minutes to do a bit of a summary in terms of what my comments were prior to question period.

First of all, I think we in this House all need to recognize the tragedy of too many children in care, the disproportionate number of indigenous children in care, and how government policies of the past have impacted what is happening today.

We have also talked about how there has been a bit of an evolution, hopefully in a positive way, not just in what the government has done but also in what our former Conservative government had done previously in terms of more partnership and an increased focus on prevention. That said, we still have a way to go.

We perceive that the legislation, if it has been crafted correctly, can put an end to some of the blurriness around jurisdictions, because that has been a challenge for as long as I can remember, especially on reserves. Putting an end to that, and being very clear about it, and affirming indigenous rights in that area are important.

As well, focusing on prevention is important. Many of us, especially those of us with a health care background, know that prevention is absolutely key.

That takes us to the actual crafting of the legislation. There are some elements that are strong. However, there is a very important question that we need to make sure we have an answer for.

In terms of indigenous communities on reserve, I think the clarity is good. Also, how indigenous communities will be providing services to their members where they have gone down jurisdiction and off reserve is very good.

However, I am not a legal expert. The government always talks about having to make sure we are complying with the Constitution and aligning with the Constitution. When the province is providing services off reserve, we need to be very clearly staying within the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government.

I do find it interesting that the Liberals used to criticize us regularly if they felt we were not compliant with the Constitution, not compliant with the Charter. The Liberals accused us of having a top-down approach.

However, I would suggest that the answers that the minister gave to me regarding the response of the provinces were a bit of a concern. I am not sure that we do not have a constitutional issue that we might need to remedy within this legislation.

I look forward to questions and answers. The bottom line is that there are some really good principles here, but the government has a very poor record in terms of turning principles into legislation. I only need to look at Bill S-3, which was a terrible mess. I only need to look at the indigenous languages bill, for which the government tabled 30 corrections, which is unheard of, late at the clause-by-clause stage. As a result, I am not totally confident that the government has been able to craft this legislation in a good way, but we will be giving it all due diligence because the principles are very important.

[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 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the government speaks about principles, they are often very sound, but when it has translated principles into legislation, there has been huge challenges. Bill S-3, the gender equity bill, had so many mistakes and flaws that it was basically a disaster. I can look at the indigenous language act. The government is tabling 30 amendments as we head into clause-by-clause, and that is unheard of. We have important principles, but already we are hearing significant concerns from people who will be impacted by the bill.

Would the minister consider not only tabling the charter and constitutional compliance statement that is part of any legislative process, but also commit today that the Liberals will be open to appropriate amendments as we move forward?

Indigenous Languages Act

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in the House and speak for the first time in our new chamber. It is an honour to get up and speak to such an important bill, one that will probably have historic meaning as we go through it.

I do not totally support the bill the way it is written. I have concerns with some of the language. However, I very much appreciate the need to bring it before the heritage committee and study it as soon as possible. Indigenous languages are so important to our first nations people. They must be recognized, respected, revitalized and retained. With over 70 dialects, this makes this portion of the bill so important.

I am speaking to this bill today because I feel so strongly about the need to protect our heritages. This bill would create an independent commissioner for indigenous rights, confirm the government's belief that indigenous language is part of section 35 of the charter, and allow the translation of federal services into indigenous languages. What a wonderful thing it is. It has been too long.

Over two years ago, the Liberals promised an indigenous language act. With just 60 days left in this parliamentary session, it is quite unlikely this legislation will become law before the upcoming fall election, unless we all work together in earnest. This is another failed promise by the Liberal government.

This is just another portion of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's findings that the government failed. The Liberals promised much, but failed to deliver. They promised language legislation in December 2016, and we are still not there. They promised child welfare legislation by the end of January. Where is it? It would be difficult for any of the Liberals' indigenous-related legislation priorities to receive royal assent before the next election.

They have botched consultation. There are legislative flaws in Bill S-3, and they have botched consultation on the Trans Mountain expansion project. They cancelled the Enbridge northern gateway project without consulting the bands who had equity agreements. They brought in the tanker ban without consulting the pro-energy first nations groups on the west coast.

The missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry is stuck in bureaucratic red tape. They extended its time, commissioners resigned, and nearly 30 staffers left or quit. There have been three non-compliance orders regarding Human Rights Tribunal rulings on first nations child welfare since the Liberals have been in government. One of the most important issues is studying the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.

That is as far as I am going with my partisan attack against the government. Right now, I want to focus on the tradition and heritage of the aboriginal people.

I was fortunate through my working career to spend my service in aboriginal policing. I got to understand and appreciate the differences in the different groups, such as the Shuswap nations, the Dakelh nations, the Nuu-chah-nulth first nations, the Dene, the Cree and the Slavey. I made many friends over the years and spent a lot of my off time, when I was not working as a police officer, socializing with my aboriginal friends and associates.

My wife Nancy and I loved going to aboriginal gatherings such as at Taylor on the Peace River, the Petitot River gathering in the Northwest Territories and the Paul First Nation in my riding of Yellowhead. In these surroundings, we really get to know and understand the importance of the heritage of our aboriginal people.

I remember when I used to travel Highway 77 from north of Fort Nelson, B.C. into the Northwest Territories, back in the 1980s. It was part of my patrol area. I was the commander of the Fort Nelson detachment at the time. I used to go over there quite often.

I used to stop at what we called traditional native camps along the highway, where the Dene people of the Liard River band would move from their homes on the reserve and move their families onto the land. They would set up temporary shelters and live in their old traditional ways. It was their way of teaching the young ones how it was and how important their heritage was.

Probably the only time they would speak English while they stayed there for the full summer was when I arrived. I have a grasp of the languages but not enough to have a good conversation. They would tell me why they were there. It was so good to see those young children learning about their history, learning how to live off the land and keeping their heritage alive. They focused on speaking their native tongues. It was so good to hear these kids speaking that way. They would not speak English when I was there, unless they were talking to me directly.

I am of Ukrainian descent. Both my grandfathers came over from Ukraine in the late 1800s. They settled as farmers in northeastern Alberta. Both raised large families, who in turn raised families of their own. I am a third-generation descendant. When they came here, one of my grandfathers could speak English, and the other could only speak Ukrainian. Both of my grandmothers could only speak Ukrainian.

Over the years they learned how to speak English. My parents' generation, the second generation, grew up speaking more and more English in school. In fact, like in the residential schools, they were forbidden to speak Ukrainian while in school. They were punished. They would get the yardstick or maybe the strap. They were encouraged to learn the English language. Sadly, our language slowly got lost as people began to speak more English. This is what we are talking about today in Bill C-91, the loss of indigenous languages.

We have 11 major dialogues in 70-some different forms. That is why this legislation is so important. It is important that we work together to get it passed. We do not have much time. We need to protect those languages, because the people who know how to speak them are getting older. As someone said earlier, the live dictionaries are getting older.

I wish I could speak my native tongue, because like so many people I want to go back and research my heritage. I want to go back to the Ukraine to see where my grandfathers came from, in order to get a better understanding of why I am here today.

I mentioned I spent a lot of time during my working life meeting some very special aboriginal people. We have become friends and acquaintances.

We only have 60 days left, and that is not enough time for me to sit here and tell members about the great aboriginal people I have met over the years, the interesting stories I have about them, and the things they have done that I would like to tell the House about. We just do not have enough time, and 60 days would not be enough. However, I am going to talk about two of them, one of whom I have known for many years, and the other who I just met yesterday.

The first one is a constituent of mine. He was a friend of mine for many years before he was ever a constituent. His name is Harry Rusk. I first met him in the Fort Nelson area of British Columbia during the late 1980s.

Harry was born in 1937 in a little hamlet called Kahntah, a Slavey first nations community located in the northeast corner of British Columbia. Many of us have spoken about having remote Indian communities in our ridings, and this one is remote. Even to this day, there are no roads or railroad tracks into this community. One can fly in or take a canoe or boat and go up the Kahntah River. It is about an hour by air from the community of Fort Nelson. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, as our country progressed, an oil company doing exploration put in an airstrip about two miles from the Kahntah reserve. Therefore, we can be flown in now.

Unlike a lot of people we have talked about many times in this chamber who went to residential schools, Harry was not that unlucky, but he was not lucky either. He contracted tuberculosis in this remote little community that lay in the northeast corner of British Columbia. As a young man, he was sent to the Camsell Hospital in Edmonton for treatment. He probably thought that he would never return, because in those days tuberculosis was a very deadly disease, especially for our aboriginal people.

Harry stayed there from 1949 to 1953, and miraculously recovered. However, he watched his brother, mother and father succumb to the disease. The whole family was wiped out, except for Harry.

While at the Camsell Hospital in 1952, something happened to Harry. Harry met Hank Snow, a country and western singer. Hank had come to Edmonton to perform, and someone asked if he would come over and talk to some of the kids and people at the Camsell Hospital. Hank agreed. There were a lot of kids there, about 300, I understand, but Harry was one of the lucky ones and Hank came over and talked to him. They took a liking to each other. As Harry says today, Hank inspired him with some simple words. He said, “Always look up,” referring to God and getting religion.

This changed Harry's life. He began to play guitar while in the hospital, and after leaving, as a young man, he joined the Canadian Armed Forces. As he was in the armed forces, he was eventually transferred to Vancouver. While there, he formed several bands and continued to play and learn his music. He had a love for gospel music and the old songs, and eventually went on to play for many years in the Grand Ole Opry. He is in the Country Music Hall of Fame. He received many awards over the years and became an ordained minister, which he is today.

Why am I talking about Harry? In the late 1980s, when I met Harry, I used to do a little moonlighting and flew for a small bush pilot operation. Harry asked me to fly him into Kahntah, which I did. He wanted to visit his roots.

As we went to the Kahntah village, which is very small, with only two or three buildings, Harry spoke to me about how important his heritage was to him. He spoke of the importance of his father, Edward, and his mother, Mary. He wanted to know where he came from and what it was all about. He spoke of the importance of the language he was losing and how he wanted to keep it alive.

That is what is so important about this bill: keeping the aboriginal language alive in Canada.

Yesterday I met Bill Adsit, an original member of the Tahltan Nation, who came from the northwest corner of B.C., the opposite side from where Harry came from. He was moved into a residential school at approximately the age of six, and never really had contact with his family after that. Bill spoke to a group of us yesterday about his harrowing experiences in the residential schools and his rebellious nature as a young man.

He turned his life around. I should say that before he changed his life around, he was put in jail on an outstanding warrant. While he was there, he did some soul-searching. He changed his life around. He joined the Canadian military and then went on to spend over 30 years working for the federal Government of Canada in many different government roles. He went on to get a university degree, and today Bill is part of the reconciliation team working on the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Bill's speech yesterday at the Château was very heartwarming, and he left us with a powerful message of determination to do well. He also spoke so deeply about his heritage.

The message I want to pass on to everyone here today is the determination to do well. We need to get this bill passed to save the aboriginal languages, and we need to pass it as soon as possible. This brings me back to the study.

We need to protect the languages of Canada's aboriginal people. As I travelled throughout most of British Columbia in my working career as a police officer, I visited first nations communities from one end of the province to the other. First nations reconciliation is not new, and respecting their traditions and retaining their language is not a new idea. They have been promoting, recognizing, respecting, revitalizing, and retaining their culture for years. They have been working. In the 70s, I remember different groups working to promote their culture in the neighbouring white communities, but in such a way as to make sure their youth understood the history of these great people.

Many years ago I was stationed in Gold River. The Malahat First Nation was in Gold River. I remember the first time I walked into the band office. There was a group of native ladies working there. They asked if I wanted to share in a birthday cake. I blurted out, without even thinking, “What colour is it? I only eat white cake.” I realized what I had said and I turned red. They looked at me with a little shock, and then they all started laughing. Over the years I was stationed there, I spent more and more time in that band office, getting to know those ladies and learning about the Malahat culture.

When I left that community some four years later, they invited me there for a party. During the party, they had a cake. The cake was covered in red icing, the inside was white, and on the top of it was a garlic sausage. We mixed our cultures. We learned cultures together over the years that I was stationed there.

In many communities across Canada, we have places called friendship centres, where the aboriginal people living in urban centres gather and encourage the community to come to visit with them and learn their ways and culture. It is so very important that we recognize that. If members have a friendship centre in their area, they should visit it. The work they do in the urban centres of Canada is amazing.

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

Madam Speaker, it is because of former prime minister Stephen Harper that we are here today celebrating. He was the one who made the apology in 2008. It is one of the most famous days in Canadian history. The Liberals had a chance before the Conservatives took over, and they did nothing. It was the Conservative government, led by former prime minister Stephen Harper, that started the ball rolling in 2008.

That was a bit of a history lesson. It was the Conservatives who started the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2008, and that is why we are here today.

Where are we on Bill S-3, gender inequity and most of all, the child welfare legislation? We are still waiting today for those three bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-91 today. I want to start with a very personal story. The reason is not directed to the indigenous peoples who have worked so hard to see the reality of this bill being presented in the House. It is for my colleagues who will be supporting the bill, but really do not understand why is it important as well as other people and for people who may be listening at home, thinking this sounds important, but really do not know what it is all about.

I am a shama. I learned that word when I was 25 years old. I had a degree under my belt and maybe two years of nursing experience when I went in search of adventure. My adventure took me to an indigenous community where I was hired as its nurse. I was one of the first nurses hired by the band, as opposed to the federal government. That in itself was very unique, because it was the first step in the devolution of services.

What was the experience of that 25-year-old, urban, white person who had a university education and lived in a big city, going to a community? It was quite a shock to be quite honest. As a nurse, the first week I was in that community, there were three suicides, and it was devastating. In this case, it was three young men who took their lives.

I would visit homes, perhaps very small homes that needed a lot of work, in which up to 16 people would live. They were very poor living conditions. I witnessed some of the abuse, some of the destructiveness of alcohol. That was my initial experience and impression. It was devastating to see what was happening in the community.

It did not take very long though before I had some great mentors. A drug and alcohol worker took me under his wing as did the youth probation officer. Also community health reps made sure I saw more than just the devastation. They made sure I was part of the feasts, where the communities would come together and enjoy food together. Every fall, there were the fishing camps, where they would fish and hang the salmon up to dry. There was the berry picking. Of course nothing was more special than the drumming, the dancing under the moonlight and stars and the jokes.

I saw two worlds: a community that was devastated and the beauty and richness the people were trying so hard to recreate in their community.

That community gave more to me with respect to knowledge and life experience than I could ever give to them as a young nurse with two years' experience. Maybe I was pretty good at vaccinating the babies and giving a little information, but truly that experience gave me a life education.

I want to talk about the elders. In 1980, the elders of that community had been born pre-residential school time. When I would visit the elders, I would witness the beautiful cedar bosquets and the giant gardens. I had an interpreter with me because many of the elders did not speak English. That was my opportunity to interact with the elders. What was really important about that experience was when their children would return home from residential schools and could not speak the language.

Imagine a mother whose children have been taken away to residential school, and when they come back, she cannot communicate with them anymore. For many elders, their knowledge of English was very limited and they lost the ability to talk to their children when they came home. The children had no interest, because when they were in the residential schools, they became ashamed of their language. Many were not able or did not want to relearn their language again because of their experiences in the residential school.

We saw the pain of grandparents who could not talk to their children or their grandchildren. We saw the pain in their eyes as they witnessed what had happened to their children, with some lost to alcohol and all sorts of other destructive areas. Therefore, it was an opportunity like none other to see what has happened and understand the actual destruction that occurred in these communities.

In the residential school apology from the previous prime minister, he talked about the residential schools being a place where languages, culture and practice were prohibited. He said, “The government now recognizes that the consequences...that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language”.

We acknowledged in 2008 that we were part of the destruction of these languages and cultures. Therefore, the government must be part of the solution in terms of helping to bring the languages back, and part of that is Bill C-91.

We absolutely support Bill C-91 in principle. We recognize that we are going to need to do our due diligence. Of course, our due diligence means examining whether the bill will accomplish what it sets out to accomplish, which is promoting the protection and revitalization of languages.

The example I have in terms of my nursing experience is that the percentage of these language speakers in the community is 3%. In the 1980s, it might have been significantly higher, but it is now down to 3%. However, people in this community do have a plan and are working very hard to get that back. Bill C-91 needs to support them in moving that work forward.

There are many different languages that we are talking about here, but we need recognize that it will be the communities who will drive how they renew and revitalize their languages. Certainly, when there is only 3% of the community speaking the native language, the strategy has to be very different from some of the more commonly spoken languages where there is a larger number of fluent speakers. Therefore, we need flexibility within the bill to recognize that different strategies will be needed for different languages. However, the goal is the same.

There are a number of components in Bill C-91. The rights would be affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act. Therefore, at committee, I think it would be good to have some constitutional lawyers to help us understand what that would actually mean. Also, we need to make sure that the office of the commissioner's powers and duties have been laid out. However, not only will we have to look at the powers and duties, but we will have to make sure that we monitor this office in the long term to make sure the bill would do what we have asked it to do. Therefore, the ability to research and monitor will be absolutely critical.

I have talked about the bill and about language, but I want to note Kukpi7 Ignace in the riding that I represent from the Skeetchestn Indian Band. I would note others as well, but he is from my riding so I want to give a special shout-out to Kukpi7 Ignace. He has made this his life's work. I run into him regularly, at times on an airplane because he is coming to Ottawa to do important work around language, and also in the riding. He is another teacher for me in terms of the importance of language and the importance of culture. I want to give him a special shout-out because I know for him today is important.

I came in today and wanted to talk completely about Bill C-91, but I have to say that I am terribly disturbed by the reports in The Globe and Mail today that speak to the government's veneer. The government has a veneer that this relationship is the most important relationship to them. I really appreciated my colleague's comment that, no, its most important relationship is with SNC-Lavalin. I thought of how appropriate that was, in terms of his comments. I think we need to be absolutely worried.

What we had was great pride in 2015. I mean we were, of course, disappointed to be on the opposition bench but I think we greeted the former attorney general of Canada and justice minister, the first indigenous woman, into her role and celebrated. We celebrated with Canada. We celebrated with British Columbia in terms of her taking on that very important role. We were all very curious because we saw a minister who negotiated the very difficult legislation about medical assistance in dying through the House. We saw her move a number of important initiatives. I would suggest if any minister needed a demotion it might have been the finance minister for not following through on his promises.

However, I think there was great puzzlement when the former attorney general of Canada and minister of justice was moved to veterans affairs. She talked about truth to power and she also, in a speech of October 30, talked about how even though she was in one of the most powerful positions in this country, she still had a feeling of marginalization at the cabinet table. The Liberal government is responsible for that feeling that she had. What is happening when someone in a powerful position is getting pressured by the Prime Minister's Office to make decisions that are absolutely inappropriate for a justice minister to make?

Again, I am repeating from a very comprehensive article today. It is widely reported in The Globe and Mail that the business interests of the Prime Minister's friends at SNC-Lavalin were more important to him than the integrity of his justice minister doing the job that she was supposed to do. That is absolutely shameful and showing a pattern by the Liberal government in terms of neglect and marginalization.

That is one example there and I think we have other examples of what the government has done. The Prime Minister stood up. He promised rights and recognition legislation. I am not sure where it is.

Gender equity legislation was another promise by the Liberals. Bill S-3 was an absolute mess and it is still a mess. It did not do what it was supposed to do. We have not seen any fixes come back, although it passed. The government did the bare minimum and had consultations. However, it did not fix Bill S-3 in terms of any of the fixes that it needs.

What is happening to the child welfare legislation? It was the Prime Minister who said that child welfare legislation will be tabled in the House in January. It is February 7. There are 12 weeks left in the House and there is no child welfare legislation. I do not see any conceivable way the government will get the child welfare legislation done before the House rises.

What we have is, again, a bill that we absolutely support. We support the revitalization of languages and Bill C-91 moving forward. However, I think if we look at the government and its record, for all of its stated promises, it is abysmal. The Liberals should be ashamed. They should be ashamed of how they treat women. They should be ashamed in terms of the ethics and the immoral depths to which they have gone.

I would like to close by moving out of this negative frame. It was such a stunning revelation today. It is a very concerning revelation. It is a moral and ethical failure of the government, and there will be more heard and said on it.

However, I want to go back to the communities. I want to go back to the communities that have taught me so much. We are now in 2019 and we still have a long way to go. The bill might be a step in the right direction, but we need to move forward. We know that the revitalization of language and culture is integral to the success of people as humans. It will also be integral to the success of communities. Economic opportunities will be another critical piece in terms of working towards success in communities, because jobs are important.

We have one piece of the puzzle with the legislation. We will be supporting it at second reading. I do think the government needs to be very reflective about its overall record in all the other areas.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, gender equality is a fundamental human right.

Bill S-3 eliminates gender discrimination arising from the Indian Act. We have appointed Ms. Dumont-Smith as the minister's special representative. She will work with our partners on a plan to remove the 1951 cut-off date and make more extensive changes to the registration, membership and citizenship of—

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, often we say we are honoured to stand up in this House. However, today I am actually very disappointed to have to stand up in the House and talk to the amendments I have proposed, why I proposed these amendments, and how the current government has failed to live up to both its promises with respect to the 2015 election and its commitments regarding engagement with indigenous people before it puts proposed legislation on the table.

Members will recall that back in 2015 the government said there would be no omnibus legislation and that it would never table omnibus bills. It also said that if something was not in the budget it would not be in any budget implementation act. Those were commitments it made to Canadians across this country and it has repeated. However, what we have learned, like with its promises for a balanced budget and democratic reform, is that it is simply not following through on its promises. For some reason, it has managed to get away with people not calling it on that. However, I think it is time that Canadians realize that many of the things the government has said it is not following through on.

What has happened? We had the budget implementation act, Bill C-86, land on our tables and it was 802 pages. That is a significant size for a bill. I guess I should not have said, “land on our tables”, because the bills are not printed anymore and there are very few copies. However, it is really quite a massive implementation act.

We do not get a paper copy anymore. Therefore, as we try to look through and understand what is in this massive bill with the tools we are given, like we often do in this House, the government did not even bother to use a format in the budget implementation act that would link us to the sections we wanted to read. In the case that I am talking about, there were three particular areas that related to indigenous legislation, and I could not even get to read what was in the act in a reasonable manner. I had to scroll for minutes and minutes to get to where I needed to be. Therefore, not only do we not have a hard copy, but the government has made it virtually impossible to try and get to the sections of the bill that we need to get to without going through a very onerous process. Quite simply, it should be ashamed of itself because that is not acceptable.

What do we have in this particular bill? As I indicated, there were three sections, division 11, division 12 and division 19, that were specifically related to the indigenous changes.

I am going to focus on division 19, which enacts the addition of lands to reserves and reserve creation act. That was not in the budget of 2017. It was not in the budget of 2018. It was almost impossible to find, but is a significant change the government is proposing, and should be a stand-alone piece of legislation. I hope when people vote for the report stage amendments that the government will reintroduce it in the way it should have introduced it in the first place, as a stand-alone piece of legislation that will go to the indigenous affairs committee to review further.

The next thing that we spot is that it is in the budget implementation act, but it was not referred to the indigenous affairs committee. A motion was brought forward at the indigenous affairs committee saying that we should at least look at this so that we understand what the intentions are, what the government is trying to do, so that we could determine if there were any suggestions we needed to make through amendments. The Liberal majority on the committee voted that down. Therefore, division 19 has had virtually no scrutiny in Parliament. The second reading debate was cut so short that there was no time to even have a conversation about division 19.

One of the interesting things is this. The government has said there is no relationship more important to it than that with indigenous peoples in Canada. It has also committed to a consultation process before it introduces legislation. It committed to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which ensures that, when laws are going to impact indigenous peoples in this country, the government will have a robust consultation process before it introduces any legislation.

I will talk about what happened as the Senate was doing a pre-study on this particular division.

Susan Waters, the director general, lands and environmental management branch in INAC said, “The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee was part of our outreach and engagement. We work closely with them. We are working with them to address the issues that were identified in the arbitration.... The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee are very much aware; we have spoken with them personally, and we continue to speak with them about this proposal.”

Chris Henderson, the executive director of Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba, said:

We are concerned about this proposed legislation simply by the fact that nobody from the government ever asked us if we want the act, and also in terms of how will this act improve the land conversion process under the 1997 TLE framework agreement.... Now, with this proposed new ATR legislation, nobody from the Government of Canada ever came to us or our member First Nations to ask us, first, do you want this ATR legislation; and, second, what impacts will there be if we do propose legislation? We were never asked those questions. So out of nowhere, we have this new proposed ATR legislation before the House of Commons. At this point, it's somewhat premature to ask us if we want it because, again, we were never asked to begin with if it's something we asked for.

What we have in division 19 is a change, and it could be a significant change. However, we do not know how significant it is, because we have not had the opportunity to have it referred to committee to do our due diligence in terms of bringing witnesses forward. There is no question that the government has absolutely failed. I bet if I went across this country and asked chiefs if they knew about the new addition to reserve legislation that was hidden in the budget implementation act, they would be very puzzled and very concerned.

Really, how does that meet the government's commitment? It is another case of the government continuing to stand up and say the nice words but when it comes to doing the work, it just does not get it done. This is why it was such a mistake to put this into the budget implementation act.

We looked at Bill S-3, which was a stand-alone piece of proposed legislation. The government said not to worry, it had it all right, it was a response to a court case, we heard from the officials and it looked like it might be a reasonable path forward. What we found when it got to committee was that it was actually a mess. People who came to us in committee said that it was a problem and that it was a mess.

I hope the other two divisions are fine, but they have not had the scrutiny of divisions 11 and 12. There is the First Nations Land Management Act, which is very significant, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, which is again pretty significant, on organizations and operations. However, nothing has been done.

I think it would be important for the Liberals especially and all members of the House to say that we promised we would not do this, but we did it. We have some testimony over in the Senate, and it should lead us to be a little concerned about what we have done. We need to actually support the amendments proposed by the Conservatives and do some proper process in terms of making sure that we are going to move forward with a piece of legislation that is going to get the job done. Otherwise, again, it is another broken promise and another failure of the Liberals.

Bill C-86—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, in this budget implementation act there are three bills concerning important indigenous issues that should be separate and standalone bills.

First of all, when trying to go to the relevant areas of the document, there are no links. The document is so massive it takes 10 minutes to even get to one area of the bill. No hard copies were provided.

As well, we were shut down at committee when we wanted to look at the three standalone bills. After the mess the government made with Bill S-3, it is a travesty that the committee responsible for this area is not looking at these three pieces of legislation as standalone bills.

As the shadow minister, I will not even get a chance to speak in the House at second reading of this bill. This is absolutely shameful, and I would like the finance minister to stand up and justify how he can have three pieces of indigenous legislation not subject to proper scrutiny by the people best poised to scrutinize it.