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.

Indian Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I do remember that in 2019 there was a bill called Bill S-3, which I thought was the government's answer to all of these problems. Is Bill C-38 not an admission on behalf of the government that it did not get Bill S-3 right?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, kwe kwe, ullukkut, tansi, hello and bonjour. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I am thankful for the opportunity to say a few words today as we debate important amendments to the Indian Act, a relic of our colonial history that needs change.

I would like to begin by providing a historical overview to show why these amendments are so important and why we could not be proposing them today without first taking time to listen to and learn from first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations.

Before European contact, first nations had their own, long-established methods for determining citizenship. While methods varied between nations, the issues of kinship and community ties were at the heart of these processes. Colonial administrations, and then successive Canadian governments, introduced a progression of statutes that drastically changed the meaning and the nature of citizenship within first nations. The goal of these statutes was assimilation, and through the Indian Act, the process of enfranchisement was introduced.

Through enfranchisement, first nations members lost entitlement to registration and membership in their home communities if they wanted to vote in Canadian elections, own land, serve in the Canadian military, marry a non-first nations person or deny compulsory residential school attendance for their children. This legal process not only extinguished individual rights to registration under the Indian Act but also eliminated the right to access a range of rights and benefits, including the ability to vote in their nations' elections.

Individuals, including men, their wives and minor children, could be enfranchised involuntarily or by application. As I alluded to earlier, many parents sought enfranchisement simply as a means to protect their children from forced attendance at residential schools. Some were involuntarily enfranchised when they earned a degree; became a doctor, lawyer or professional; or resided outside of Canada for more than five years without permission.

The implication of enfranchisement in these circumstances was that first nations heritage and culture was somehow incompatible with notions of modernity and professional achievement.

The evolution of the Indian Act had particular consequences for first nations women. By 1869, the definition of “Indian” was no longer based on first nations' kinship and community but instead on the predominance of male lineage and their community connection. Under the Indian Act, a woman who married an Indian man was automatically transferred from her father's nation to her husband's community. Women who married non-lndian men lost their status and any associated benefits completely.

The result of these policies has been devastating. The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls explains how the policy played a role in limiting women's social and economic independence. We know from the national inquiry that social and economic marginalization was among the root causes of the unspeakable violence that indigenous women and girls endure in this country.

There have been attempts over the years to do better, but these have fallen short. Amendments to the Indian Act in 1951 attempted to remove some of the offensive political, cultural and religious restrictions, but they also gave the provinces jurisdiction over indigenous child welfare. This paved the way for the sixties scoop, a painful process where first nations children were removed from their families and communities instead of being provided with resources and supports.

In 1985, the process of enfranchisement was eliminated from the Indian Act. Individuals who had been enfranchised by application had their entitlement restored, but they still could not pass on entitlement to their grandchildren.

This is why it is so crucial for any amendments to be made in coordination with those who are most affected by them. Today we are on a path toward reconciliation. We are trying to listen, learn and do better. Policy development must reflect the recommendations and perspectives of first nations peoples and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations.

For example, through the collaborative process on Indian registration, band membership and first nation citizenship, first nations partners guided the development of Bill S-3, which received royal assent in 2017, came into force in 2019 and eliminated known sex-based inequities in the registration provisions of the Indian Act. Today, because of these changes, matrilineal and patrilineal lines of ancestry are treated equally in entitlement to registration, all the way back to 1867.

Despite the successful removal of sex-based inequities in registration, the Government of Canada and first nations agree that there are still legacy issues that impact women and issues in registration and membership which remain, and these need to be addressed.

In March, the Minister of Indigenous Services reaffirmed the federal government's commitment to addressing enfranchisement-related inequities in the Indian Act as soon as possible. We have been working with first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations to craft these amendments. We are grateful for their advice and guidance, and we recognize how difficult it can be to share their stories over and over again in a struggle for change that spans decades.

The amendments in the bill before us today are the result of discussions with impacted first nations individuals, first nations representatives, Indian registration administrators and national indigenous organizations, including the Assembly of First Nations, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Native Women's Association of Canada, Métis Nation of Canada and the Manitoba Métis Federation. Some provided formal written feedback on the draft of the legislation, while others participated in conversations about the need for and direction of the amendments.

I will now provide a brief overview of what the amendments include. The amendments being proposed will address discrimination caused by a family history of enfranchisement. They will also address individual deregistration, natal band membership and some of the outdated and offensive language in the Indian Act.

They will ensure that first nation individuals with a family history of enfranchisement will be treated equally to those without. The amendments will also allow those individuals who want to remove their names from the Indian register the opportunity to do so. We know this is important for members of Métis groups or American tribes who wish to pursue this option based on the membership requirements of their respective groups.

We note that those who are deregistered will still legally retain their entitlement to be registered under the Indian Act in the future and subsequently transmit entitlement to their descendants. The proposed amendments would also create a legal mechanism that would ensure that women who lost the right to membership in their natal first nations, prior to changes made in 1985, have the right to apply to have that membership restored.

Last, we know the Indian Act includes all manner of outdated and offensive language. Today's amendments will focus on the term “mentally incompetent Indians”, which would be replaced with the more respectful “dependent person.”

We recognize that there is much more work to be done to address the colonial legacies in legislation. Starting early in 2023, we will begin engagement on the additional inequities that still remain in registration, including the second generation cut-off. We will plan to introduce additional amendments once we have engaged broadly.

We are committed to working hand in hand with first nations to accomplish this. We are striving to make changes based on recognition and respect for the right to self-determination. It is a learning process. We are learning how to listen and also how to act with humility.

I reiterate my thanks to the first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations who have devoted their time and energy to this process of change, and to the many individuals that work hard every day to make things better in this country. Their resilience and patience paves the way for a brighter future, and I offer my deepest gratitude to them.

It is my hope that this historical context and overview provides members of Parliament with a sense of why these amendments are needed. I hope all members will join me in supporting this important bill and in continuing to work towards true reconciliation.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I was two minutes into speaking to Bill C-38 when my time ended on October 20, 2023. I am delighted to carry on today and will begin by reflecting first on what I said five months ago as I preface my further comments.

I really did appreciate hearing the debate in the House that day. Once again it was apparent that we gain far more from listening to those impacted and finding common ground to bring about positive change where needed. There was true concern about the circumstances that indigenous peoples find themselves in as a result of hardships they have faced through abuse and the intergenerational impact of those abuses from the past. Part of the challenge, I believe, is that while indigenous communities are many and have much in common, they also come from different life experiences themselves, and the same realization exists within all people groups throughout the world and those that call Canada home.

Although the long-awaited piece of legislation before us would provide strides toward reconciliation and the reversal of discrimination and inequalities within the Indian Act, it is only a milestone in a long journey of self-determination for first nations across Canada.

First of all I will deal with a reprimand I received in this place from other members who chided me for saying “our” first nations and “our” indigenous peoples, implying that I was suggesting ownership as a statement of colonialism. It might be some people’s choice to define the use of the word “our” as a weapon used by some in an effort to further hurt and create division, but in my case, nothing could be farther from the truth. Divisive rhetoric causes wounds. In my conversation, the word “our” is recognition of the desire of our indigenous people to be shareholders, not stakeholders.

In the riding of Yorkton—Melville, diversity is not our strength; unity in the midst of our diversity is our strength. In just the past few weeks, I have participated in and enjoyed two Unity in the Community events hosted by the Métis Nation Saskatchewan and the local communities of Porcupine Plain and Hudson Bay, where Métis, first nation, Filipino, Ukrainian, Norwegian, Portuguese, African, and some I think I am forgetting, many different cultures, came together from those communities and packed the building for an entire day of great food, displays, history, clothing, dancing and singing that intentionally celebrated everyone who calls those communities and the surrounding area home. The relationship-building and reconciliation are intentional there.

Another example is the efforts of the Yorkton Tribal Council as an association of six first nations and the City of Yorkton, which are working together to invest in common goals. Then there is the coming together of the Cote First Nation with the Good Spirit School Division, Kamsack School and Isabella and her family, to model grace in reconciliation through the creation of Ribbon Skirt Day. These are fruitful changes that we create.

As we keep these moments in mind, here is a truncated history lesson about the timeline of 45 years of incremental changes that have gone by since the Indian Act was created and implemented in 1876. In 1982, the Canadian Constitution was patriated, and section 35 of the Constitution recognized and affirmed the aboriginal title and treaty rights. Section 37 of the Constitution was amended, obligating the federal and provincial governments to consult with indigenous peoples on outstanding issues, creating the duty to consult.

In 1985, Bill C-31's amendment to the Indian Act passed, and it addressed gender-based discrimination pertaining to status women who married a non-status man and involuntarily enfranchised and created categories of status Indian registration under subsections 6(1) and 6(2). Then in 2010, Bill C-3's amendments to the Indian Act addressed gender discrimination in section 6 of the act in response to McIvor v. Canada. Subsection 6(2) was amended, allowing women who regained status to pass down status to their grandchildren.

In 2017, Bill S-3, an amendment to the Indian Act, addressed further gender-based discrimination in the act. The lineage eligible for registration from a status woman who was enfranchised by marrying a non-Indian man was reinstated in 1985, but it is still shorter than the lineage of a status male who married a non-Indian woman. In 2019, continuation of the coming-into-force of Bill S-3 addressed the removal of the 1951 cut-off, where in order for an individual to pass down status, they must have had a child or adopted a child on or after September 4, 1951, and have a mother who lost entitlement due to a marriage to a non-Indian man.

I hope I am not losing my colleagues.

In 2020, the final report to Parliament on the review of Bill S-3 acknowledged residual inequities, including the impacts of a family history of enfranchisement or entitlement registration. Enter 2023 and the introduction of Bill C-38, which responds to a 2021 case where 16 individual plaintiffs launched a constitutional challenge seeking to end inequities and exclusion faced by families that were enfranchised under earlier versions of the Indian Act. An agreement was reached to put the litigation on hold while working to pursue the legislative solution.

Bill C-38 would amend four key issues in the Act. First, individuals with a family history of enfranchisement would be entitled to registration under the Indian Act and could pass on entitlement to descendants with the same degree as those without family history of enfranchisement. Second, individuals would be allowed to deregister from the Indian register if they chose to do so, via an application for removal, without the repercussions of enfranchisement. Third, an addition would be made to Section 11 of the Indian Act that would allow married women to return to their natal band if they obtained status and were registered to their spouse’s band before April 17, 1985, addressing natal band reaffiliation. Finally, outdated and offensive language when referring to “dependent persons” would be addressed and changed.

The amendment, with four parts, is estimated to provide eligibility for registration for approximately 3,500 individuals. The individuals who are eligible and choose to apply for registration would have access to the rights and benefits of registrants under the Indian Act. Unlike with enfranchisement, first nations individuals would have more control over their own identity and ultimately determine themselves which services and benefits they would like to access based on the group they wish to identify with. Once an individual has chosen to deregister, they would no longer have access to any programs, services, settlements and/or benefits associated with the Indian Act. That would be their choice.

While this amendment would be a positive stride towards reconciliation and the reversal of discrimination and inequalities within the Indian Act, it would be, as I said, but a milestone in a journey of self-determination for first nations across Canada. On October 20, 2023, I said that indigenous individuals who want to see a good future for themselves and their families do not want to be stakeholders in Canada; they want to be shareholders. I ended on that day, October 20, 2023, by saying that I look forward to that day with them. I had a lot of good response to that comment.

At that time, I had no idea that three and a half months later, an announcement would be made that provides a clear map to a better future laid out by first nations for first nations, for reconciliation, forgiveness and healing, and for our shared nation of Canada. On February 8, the hon. leader of Canada’s common-sense Conservatives committed to enabling first nations to take back control of their resource revenues from big-government gatekeepers in Ottawa. For hundreds of years, first nations have suffered under a broken system that takes power away from their communities and gives it to Ottawa. The Indian Act hands over all reserve land and money to the federal government. This means that first nations have to go through Ottawa to ask for their tax revenues collected from resource projects on their land.

This outdated system puts power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists, not first nations. The direct result of this “Ottawa knows best” approach has been poverty, substandard infrastructure and housing, unsafe drinking water, and despair. Conservatives have listened to first nations, and we have announced support for an optional first nations resource charge that enables first nations to take back control of their resources and money. This is a first nations-led solution to a made-in-Ottawa problem.

First nations and the First Nations Tax Commission developed the plan. They brought it to Conservatives, and we accepted. This new optional model will simplify negotiations between resource companies and first nations. The FNRC will not preclude any community from continuing to use other existing arrangements, such as impact benefit agreements. The Conservative leader, in his conversation with them, said, “The First Nations Resource Charge cedes federal tax room so communities will no longer need to send all their revenues to Ottawa and then ask for it back. It will also make resource projects more attractive to First Nations so they are more likely to go ahead.” Then he said—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, before the Indian Act, first nations, Métis and Inuit thrived and passed on intergenerational love from generation to generation. The Indian Act is an attempt to erase indigenous peoples from the lands we now call Canada.

Bill C-38 is about status. It could have been about addressing discrimination to the fullest extent. I struggle to support Bill C-38, an act to amend the Indian Act. I am conflicted and disappointed to witness yet another form of incremental change proposed by the Liberal government.

As the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group have clearly stated, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says indigenous peoples have “the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture”. This bill does not meet this minimum standard. For decades, first nations have fought for their rights to be upheld. If Bill C-38 is passed as it is, discrimination against first nations women and their families will continue.

There are two reasons I support getting this bill to committee. Number one, while experts say it does not go far enough, this bill is needed, and number two, the failings of this bill to respect the rights of indigenous peoples will show, through public discourse at committee stage, that amendments are necessary.

Bill C-38 was tabled because of a court case, Nicholas v. Canada. It is not because the government is taking a proactive, co-operative approach to reconciliation. Introducing this bill is the minimum requirement set out in that case. After years of discrimination caused by enfranchisement in the Indian Act, 16 courageous plaintiffs sued the Canadian government in June 2021. They agreed to pause proceedings on the condition that legislation be introduced to address this inequity.

The Liberals' commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples is abysmal. If their commitment was real, Bill C-38 would be fulsome. It would have addressed all discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act. Incremental changes are not sufficient to ensure the advancement of indigenous peoples' rights.

I acknowledge that the Indian Act must be abolished. It is a complicated assimilative tool going back generations. The Liberal government has shown that it is not ready to abolish the act. Bill C-38, like previous court cases, makes amendments that are narrow in scope. Future court cases will be imminent if amendments are not made to this bill. Discrimination will be allowed to continue without the ability to seek reparations.

The Liberal government has shown that it is not ready to undertake the full-scale reconciliation needed to adhere to international law as the governing party. The following background will be the tip of an iceberg. All parliamentarians must commit to learning more about the Indian Act and how it continues to implement the genocide of indigenous peoples.

The Indian Act was established in 1867. John A. Macdonald understood the strength of first nations, Inuit and Métis as a threat to his causes. He had to find a way to weaken them. The Indian Act was the tool to continue the process of genocide against the first peoples who thrived on the lands we now call Canada. The Indian Act is a long-ago piece of legislation that was introduced in 1867. The act remains today.

Since its inception, the Indian Act has continued to deny equality for first nations. The Indian Act allows discrimination without justification. The Indian Act denies women status and therefore rights by gaining status. The Indian Act introduced residential schools, created reserves and imposed a band council system. The Indian Act also tells first nations who can have status and who cannot.

Before the creation of bands by this act, indigenous peoples had their own forms of governance. I am thankful for the strength of those who maintained their governance. I am thankful to Inuit elders. I am thankful to hereditary chiefs. I am thankful to the Wet'suwet'en. I am thankful to the Saysewahum family and the many others who keep indigenous legal orders alive.

The Canadian government has known about sex-based inequities in the Indian Act for decades. Bill C-31 in 1985, Bill C-3 in 2011 and Bill S-3 in 2017 have attempted to eliminate sex-based inequities. None of these bills worked to the fullest extent; what they did was complicate indigenous identity for some and not for others.

The Indian Act continues to divide indigenous peoples against each other. With each amendment, the Indian Act becomes more complex and confusing to navigate for indigenous peoples. Indeed, I am told by many how confusing it is to know if they have status, how to get status and if their children will be able to get it. They ask, “What are the implications of being removed?”

It is a shame that in 2020, the Minister of Indigenous Services tabled one of three reports after Bill S-3 to amend the Indian Act was passed. The final report made recommendations that are not being addressed in Bill C-38 by the Minister of Indigenous Services today.

As of 2020, there were over 12,000 applications for status still needing review. The special Bill S-3 processing units created in 2016, as of February 2023, have 1,770 files in progress and 3,990 files in the queue. The bill before us would do nothing to address this backlog. First nations are waiting up to 18 months for a decision by Indigenous Services Canada. This is unacceptable.

Bill C-38 would address enfranchisement, deregistration, loss of natal band membership and certain offensive language. These are long-awaited amendments that indigenous peoples have demanded for decades.

Enfranchisement is a particular genocidal policy and a clear example of Canada's attempts to assimilate indigenous peoples. Enfranchisement was either voluntary or involuntary. Women were enfranchised when they married a non-indigenous man between the years of 1869 and 1985. Other examples of enfranchisement included going to university, becoming a doctor or lawyer, working as a minister, seeking to vote and if one sought freedom from residential schools. Amendments introduced in 1985 attempted to remove enfranchisement. Obviously this did not work.

Bill C-38 would still discriminate against women and children who were involuntarily enfranchised. Descendants are unable to transmit entitlement to registration to the same extent as families that were never enfranchised. Those who were enfranchised as a band or collective have no entitlement to register under the Indian Act today.

I will now turn to deregistration, which provides for removing status from membership. There can be any number of reasons to deregister. These provisions would keep the safety of not impacting the children of those who may have deregistered.

The third component of Bill C-38 is on natal band membership. Bill C-38 would provide a legal mechanism to re-affiliate women to their natal bands. This amendment would serve to allow for membership to be reinstated on a band list based on specific conditions. It would address reinstatement of membership for a group of individuals who were originally prevented from being reinstated based on oversight.

Finally, the bill would amend outdated language, which is a small but important step. The offensive language regarding first nations peoples who require dependency on others would be amended. The offending definition of “mentally incompetent Indian” would be replaced with “dependent person”.

Bill C-38 would address these cases, and it is estimated it would impact around 4,000 people. Many more would remain discriminated against.

The Liberals had a chance to remove discrimination from the Indian Act once and for all. Bill C-15, on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, became law in Canada. The Liberals had a chance to introduce that bill so that it would be in alignment with international law. Instead, they are introducing more piecemeal legislation. The past court challenges, Descheneaux v. Canada, McIvor v. Canada, and Matson v. Canada, make it clear. The Senate committee on aboriginal peoples makes it clear. The Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group makes it clear. So many more make it clear. The Liberal government's pattern of reluctant piecemeal changes in response to litigation is unjust.

There is no justification for Canada to ignore, and indeed infringe on, indigenous people's rights. Parliaments would debate again after the passage of Bill C-38 why it is not okay to keep disrespecting indigenous peoples and infringing on their rights.

Two other major issues not addressed are the second-generation cut-off and the ability to seek reparations. The second-generation cut-off in section 6(2) is not addressed in Bill C-38. This is shocking, given how much attention has been paid to this section in past works. In its Bill S-3 review, the ministry of Indigenous Services Canada reported on it. The Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group in its works reported on it. The Senate committee on indigenous peoples reported on it. They all recommended to remove provisions related to the second-generation cut-off.

If bands reject second-generation cut-off, it is because they are not being properly resourced by Indigenous Services Canada to meet the needs of their increasing membership.

Section 6(2) is sexist, and it is problematic. Who a child's mother is, is usually readily apparent. Who the father is, is not always apparent. Whether the father acknowledges his paternity, and this can be counted as the second-status parent for purposes of eligibility for status, is essentially his decision. The two-parent rule continues Canada's program of forced assimilation. Maintenance of the two-parent rule would fulfill the genocidal intention of the Indian Act, getting rid of “the Indian problem”.

Until this rule is amended, hundreds of thousands of indigenous people, mostly women and their descendants, will be discriminated against.

First nations children were robbed of their mothers. First nations children continue to be robbed of their mothers. The current child welfare system continues to separate indigenous peoples from each other. The Liberals say they will consult on second-generation cut-off. Consultation should not be necessary. Discrimination is discrimination. No amount of consultation will result in the justification of it. The government must interpret the rule of law as adhering to international human rights laws and the charter.

We are told by the Liberals that the public portion of this consultation will not begin until 2024. It will be much longer before legislation is drafted and presented before the House again. This tactic to delay is a denial of the rights of indigenous peoples. We should not have to wait for discriminatory provisions to be removed. There is no justification for discrimination to be allowed to continue.

Another form of oppression is preventing indigenous peoples from seeking reparations. Bill C-38 includes specific clauses that will not allow victims of these policies to seek reparation for the discrimination they have experienced. First nations women and children will continue to be harmed, yet they will not be able to seek reparations, even if discrimination is found.

In past bills, there were related provisions legislating that governments are not liable for harms done under the act. Persons are prevented from seeking claims against the government for discrimination caused by the implementation of the Indian Act.

These injustices remain in Bill C-38. According to human rights laws, Canadians are allowed to seek reparations. Why can first nations not do so?

Bill C-38 is a flawed proposal. While it addresses some injustices in the Indian Act, discrimination against first nations would continue. Bill C-38 continues the Liberal incremental approach to reconciliation.

The Liberals' interpretation of Nicholas v. Canada is about status. Bill C-38 must not just be about status; it must be about addressing discrimination and violations of basic human rights. It must be about reconciliation.

I ask this again: Why is it that when Canadians experience human rights violations, they are allowed to seek reparations, when first nations are not?

I hope that Bill C-38 can be salvaged. I hope that, at committee, we hear from experts explaining why improvements must be sought to ensure that first nations' rights are on par with Canadian human rights.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑38, an act to amend the Indian Act, which corrects serious mistakes committed in the past regarding the status of many first nations members.

Today, I speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, but also as a member of the Huron‑Wendat Nation. First, let me say one thing: The Indian Act is a colonial law that introduced a system of domination and ghettoization. Its very name is just as racist as the N-word can be. I cringe whenever I see the word “Indian” on my status card. Cosmetic or vocabulary changes do nothing to fix the fact that this is a law on ghettos. This law was put in place by a conqueror in order to park people on reserves. It is a throwback to British colonialism and a culture that became woven into English Canadian colonialism. The Indian Act must be abolished and replaced by a new, respectful regime founded on a dialogue between nations. International relations begin at home.

Be that as it may, although it merely amends the scandalous Indian Act, the bill before us today remains incredibly relevant. The spirit of Bill C‑38 stands as a sentinel against the injustices perpetrated by the Indian Act, which continues to cast long shadows, even into present-day Canada. It courageously tackles the evils that continue to impede deregistration, enfranchisement and reaffiliation with the natal band, despite multiple attempts at amendment. This noble bill embodies a common quest and a never-ending conversation with the indigenous nations that stretch across our vast land. No fewer than 50 virtual sessions, held from August to December 2022, enabled first nations, indigenous organizations and all those concerned to engage in dialogue and express themselves.

The government anticipates that close to 3,500 individuals will be granted the right to registration as a result of these legislative amendments, thus opening a door towards the righting of many historical wrongs. This bill, like a small breath of fresh air, offers thousands of Canadians of indigenous lineage the chance to reconnect with their cultural heritage. It gives them access to the rights rooted in Indian status in Canada, but goes far beyond that, by allowing them to fully reclaim their identity.

It is worth recalling that prior to 1985, enfranchisement was a sinister assimilation policy under the Indian Act. Under this vile legislation, first nations individuals lost their entitlement to registration as well as membership in their home communities. Enfranchisement could be voluntary, but the government could also impose enfranchisement on individuals, either by virtue of their profession or because they had been residing outside of Canada for five years. When men were enfranchised, their wives and children were automatically enfranchised. This led to entire families and their descendants losing entitlement to registration, membership in their communities, and any associated benefits under the Indian Act.

In 1985, Bill C‑31 created new categories under section 6 of the act for determining eligibility for registration, which restored access to registration for a large number of people and their first-generation descendants. As part of these changes, the emancipation process was eliminated from the act, and people who had already been voluntarily or involuntarily emancipated could request that their registration be restored. Although the provisions of the Indian Act regarding registration and membership were amended in 2011 through Bill C‑3 on gender equity in Indian registration and in 2017 through the passage of Bill S‑3, An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général), these legislative reforms focused mainly on eliminating gender inequities in the registration process.

However, other injustices rooted in the grim past of emancipation are insidiously persistent. The descendants of those who were at one time subject to emancipation are still unable to pass on their right to registration in the same way as those who were not affected by this measure. Similarly, those who were subject to emancipation as a member of a band or community continue to be excluded from registration today.

The introduction of Bill C-38 offers the promise of better days ahead. After it is passed, many people will be in a different registration category and others will be newly eligible for registration. What is more, if the problems of individual and collective enfranchisement are resolved, nearly 3,500 people will be given the invaluable access to registration.

Right now, the Indian Act does not provide for the possibility of voluntary deregistration at the specific request of the interested parties. However, thanks to the proposed amendments, it will be possible for a person to have their name removed from the Indian register for various reasons, such as wanting to join indigenous tribes in the U.S. that do not allow those registered under the Indian Act to enrol; wanting to identify as Métis; deciding to no longer be recognized on the federal Indian register; or withdrawing consent to be registered as an adult, for those whose parents registered them as children.

Mercifully, Bill C‑38 will guarantee that, when a person has their name removed from the register, they will still legally retain their entitlement to be registered under the Indian Act, the right to be registered again in the future, and the right to transmit this precious birthright to their descendants.

For some individuals, deregistration is vital because it is a matter of having control over their own identity. For others, it is a barrier to gaining membership in other indigenous groups, like Métis, if they have mixed ancestry. This has long hindered many people from accessing important services and benefits they should be entitled to through a group they wish to identify with.

For example, Métis lose their right to Métis membership if they are registered under the Indian Act. Bill C‑38 will provide individuals with the right and ability to have their names removed from the Indian register. Once deregistered, the individual will not have the right to access any programs, services, settlements or benefits associated with Indian Act registration. Even if the individual later seeks to be re-registered, that individual will have no retroactive claim to any such benefits for the period in which they were deregistered. However, any individual who opts to deregister will retain their entitlement to registration under the Indian Act, including the ability to regain their status in the future.

When a woman who is registered under the Indian Act is a member of the band that she was born into, in other words, either the mother's or father's band, this is referred to as being a member of her natal band. If passed, Bill C‑38 would recognize the acquired rights of all first nations to membership with their natal band. This bill would provide a legal framework to re-affiliate women and their descendants to their natal bands who were automatically moved to their husbands' band list upon marriage. Bill C‑38 provides a valuable opportunity to re-establish important cultural and community connections for first nations women and their families.

Since this bill is intended as a response to historical wrongs perpetrated by Ottawa and its racist, sexist legislation that discriminates against indigenous people, it is imperative to remain vigilant to ensure that this bill does not itself become an indirect instrument of assimilation and cultural erasure of indigenous people by allowing overly broad access to their recognized Indian status for those unfamiliar with indigenous cultures.

Luckily, the limited yet still significant scope of individuals who will now be eligible does not seem to pose a threat of diluting indigenous identity, as once provided for in the Indian Act, along with ethnocide. The indigenous groups that the Bloc Québécois consulted did not seem consider that an imminent risk. However, we will remain watchful.

It is imperative that this bill be considered in its entirety, with careful attention paid to its consequences and impacts, to ensure that it truly rectifies past wrongs while respecting the rights and identity of indigenous peoples.

From the 19th century on, women and their descendants have been the victims of blatant gender discrimination when it comes to registration and band membership.

In 1869, with the passage of the Gradual Enfranchisement Act, the definition of “Indian” was no longer based on first nations kinship and community ties. The act was deliberately designed to remove families headed by a non-Indian man from first nations communities by building on the predominance of men over women and children. The 1869 law also included a provision concerning interracial marriages. Known as the “marrying out rule”, it was retained in the first Indian Act of 1876. This rule removed entitlement to registration from Indian women who married non-Indian men, while granting entitlement to non-Indian women who married Indian men. In addition, children of entitled men who married non-Indian women became entitled under the Indian Act, while children of women who “married out” were no longer entitled. This is clearly a flagrant inequality.

In 1951, important amendments were made to registration, namely, the creation of a centralized Indian register. Later, other amendments further reinforced the discrimination against women and their descendants, especially the double mother rule. Gender discrimination in the Indian Act was challenged under national and international human rights legislation, which brought to light the fact that women were excluded from first nations communities and were being deprived of the ability to retain their indigenous identity in the eyes of Canadian law.

For decades, indigenous women fought for their rights in court, challenging the patriarchal provisions of the Indian Act. In the 1960s and 1970s, women like Jeanette Lavell from the Wikwemikong nation, Yvonne Bedard from the Six Nations of the Grand River, elder and advocate Mary Two‑Axe Earley from the Kanien'kehà:ka nation, and Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas from the Malecite nation took legal action to fight the Indian Act's discrimination against women and their descendants. These courageous women paved the way to reform and justice and thus helped to advance the cause of indigenous women's rights and to fight the systemic injustice that has long marked the history of the Indian Act.

The chief commissioner of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Marion Buller, said the following after tabling the more than 2000-page report:

Despite their different circumstances and backgrounds, all of the missing and murdered are connected by economic, social and political marginalization, racism, and misogyny woven into the fabric of Canadian society.

As much as indigenous communities need to rebuild, Quebeckers and Canadians need to become aware of the collective trauma experienced by these communities, understand it, and ensure that nothing this disgraceful ever happens again. Quebec Native Women had this to say:

[In the case of many of the missing or murdered women] [o]ne might claim that the person responsible for [their] death is the one who gave [them] the beating that led to [their] passing. In fact, this interpretation was favored by former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he insisted on the criminal, as opposed to sociological, nature of the murders of Indigenous women in the country (La Presse Canadienne, 2014)...Beyond the single act of violence perpetrated by one person against another, it is the accumulation of each of the above-mentioned acts of violence that led to [their] death.

According to Viviane Michel, a former president of Quebec Native Women, it is essential that indigenous women, families and communities have the opportunity to be heard as part of any inquiry. She also said that understanding the deep roots underlying the systemic discrimination faced by indigenous women is crucial to ensuring their dignity and safety.

In listening to the testimony of indigenous women, Quebec Native Women counted four types of violence.

The first type of violence is structural violence. This all-encompassing form of violence refers to the systemic effects of policies of erasure and assimilation since at least the middle of the 19th century. The Indian Act is the quintessential example of a system that governs all areas of the lives of first nations people, including political, economic, social, legal and cultural.

The second type of violence is institutional violence. This second form of violence, which necessarily flows from the first, has more to do with the repercussions associated with specific institutional regimes, whether in education, health or public safety. The residential school system is a prime example. Not only did this violence manifest itself in the lives of residential school survivors, but its consequences have spanned generations and have permanently altered the life trajectories of thousands of children by insinuating themselves into every aspect of their existence.

The third type of violence is family violence. This expression is frequently used in an indigenous context to emphasize the fact that violence affects not only couples, but also the children and potentially other people connected to the family.

The fourth and final type of violence is personal violence, which includes instances of physical violence, psychological manipulation and financial control, to name but a few. It involves individuals.

In their descriptions of the encounters, the families and survivors who spoke to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls all linked their experiences to colonialism, in its historical or modern form, through one or other of four main factors: historical, multigenerational or intergenerational trauma; social and economic marginalization; maintaining the status quo and institutional lack of will; ignoring the agency and expertise of indigenous women and girls.

The trauma of Canada's indigenous people is both individual and collective. Expert witness Amy Bombay's testimony at the child and family welfare hearing highlighted the importance of the concept of historical trauma to speak to what she called the cumulative emotional and psychological wounding that happens over the lifespan and across generations, emanating from massive group trauma experiences.

It is the response to this trauma that perpetuates this colonialist legacy, which has become embedded in all of Canada's indigenous cultures through no fault of their own. This response, which can take the form of various social problems, is always aimed at surviving this trauma. Throughout history, the Canadian government and the clergy planned the collective trauma with the ultimate goal of driving all indigenous communities to extinction. Those communities have since been left to deal with the consequences alone. One day, Canada will have to confront this reality.

We have a duty to remember precisely because the past determines our present and future. However, this duty to remember only makes sense in this case if we learn from the past. If we, like the Prime Minister of Canada, get used to shedding crocodile tears and settling for continuing under the Indian Act, then our collective duty to remember will be in vain. We need to build a new system, ideally an independent republic of Quebec, based on a new, respectful dialogue with all nations. That is what the Bloc Québécois is advocating for.

Tiawenhk.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand up to speak on behalf of the people who I serve, but one of the things that we do not do in this place is recognize the people who serve us behind the scenes. I want to take a minute today to acknowledge my team, who work tirelessly, without recognition often, to serve not only the people in the House, members of Parliament like myself, but also the people who we represent, in my case specifically those from northern Saskatchewan. I want to take a minute to recognize Linnae and Emalie, who work with me here in Ottawa, and Dion, Hunter and Cindy, who are back in the riding. I want to make sure they know that they are appreciated for the work they do in serving the people that we get to serve.

With those comments out of the way, let us talk about Bill C-38 for a few minutes. I appreciate the opportunity that my colleague has presented to me to speak on this very important bill.

Bill C-38 is an act that amends the Indian Act to address four separate matters, which we have already heard about from the members who spoke already, but I am going to hit on these just for a few minutes.

First, it addresses the gendered inequity issues that were a result of enfranchisement. I am going to speak a little bit more about that in a few minutes. We have already heard as well that it addresses the issue of natal band reaffiliation. If passed, this legislation would allow women to affiliate with their natal band, or the band they came from before having been forced to change to their husband's band if they were married before 1985.

We have heard about the opportunity through application to deregister from the Indian registry. There is a number of reasons why people might want to do that. I am not going to get into the details of that. Finally, we have heard the conversation already today around replacing offensive and outdated language so that no individual under the act is referred to using any kind of discriminatory or offensive language. That, I think we would say, is a very good thing.

As has been mentioned as well, Bill C-38 is the continuation of a series of fixes, fixes that began in 1985 under then prime minister Brian Mulroney, some fixes that carried on in 2011 under then Prime Minister Harper, and finally, Bill S-3, which took from 2017 to 2019 through the Senate bill to make some progress on this.

Each of these pieces of legislation addressed various matters of gender-based discrimination in the act. While it is important to note that we support amendments to ensure that no federal legislation, including the Indian Act, has any discriminatory components to it, we must recognize that these amendments are just that, changes to existing legislation that supports the maintenance of the status quo, a status quo that perpetuates control over first nations people across our country. We cannot simply reverse the damage that these outdated laws have had, but what we can do is to move forward in support of first nations people on their journey to self-determination. Conservatives seek to ensure that we are making positive strides towards truth and reconciliation, and we know how important it is to hold open and honest discussions in doing so.

Since I only have 10 minutes here, I want to spend some time talking about enfranchisement. We have done a bit of that already, but I want to flesh it out a little bit as well.

For those who may not be familiar with the term, enfranchisement was a policy prior to 1985 that terminated an individual's right to be considered as a first nations person or have status under the Indian Act. As the parliamentary secretary, my colleague from Kenora, already identified, this could be done voluntarily or it could be done involuntarily. When we think of involuntary registration, as mentioned, it could be because they received a university degree, joined the medical or legal professions, married a non-Indian man or became a priest or a minister.

We have heard as well that there were a number of reasons for voluntary enfranchisement, although we use the term “voluntary” in this case when it does not seem like it was really of their own free will. Rather, other factors forced it upon them. Some, as already identified, gave up their status for the sole purpose of preventing their children from having to attend residential schools. World War II veterans voluntarily enfranchised to obtain the same essential benefits that other non-status veterans were provided. Some did so just to have the right to vote.

If we look at those examples of voluntary enfranchisement, it does not really seem like it was a matter of personal choice but maybe more a sacrifice of rights, or something that they were forced into, to protect members of their family or others.

Bill C-38 seeks to address some remaining gender-based inequities that were a result of this unequal reinstatement of status in 1985. In short, women who were enfranchised and later reinstated were placed in a different category than men in the same circumstances. Because of this, first nations women could not pass down status or rights to the same number of generations as first nations men could. This is something that this bill addresses. It has a ripple effect because it affects the descendants of these people as well.

I would like to encourage members of the House to talk to people and hear their stories. We have heard a couple already today, but they should talk to the people who have been affected by enfranchisement. I have heard many of these, and I am going to quickly share one story.

My team and I met with a Professor Karl Hele, a member of Garden River First Nation and a professor in Canadian indigenous studies. His personal experience with enfranchisement is not unfamiliar to many others. His mother and many other women in their community were targeted and coerced by an Indian agent to voluntarily enfranchise. This resulted in an unfair exclusion of their rights and those of her descendants.

To access his child's rights, Professor Hele had no other choice but to pursue legal action, which came at a hefty cost, both in time and resources, which is an option that many people do not have. This case highlights how the Indian Act gatekeepers have historically been, and continue to be, much of the problem.

It is little wonder that first nations people in Canada feel there is an Ottawa-led system, which feels broken. We need to fix it. I believe we need to acknowledge, despite amending the act, there still needs to be a change in how first nations issues are approached. This means acknowledging the failure in the cumbersome bureaucracy that is meant to support first nations, but instead often creates significant barriers.

The population of my riding is over 70% indigenous, and my team deals with the endless frustrations of individuals trying to either access their right to status, respond to other requests of maybe a financial nature or even access appropriate health services. Our office has been dealing with one individual who has been denied status time and time again. However, the bigger issue is not the denial of status, but that this individual has been given a variety of excuses for the denial, which contrast with their family story, and where other members of the family have been granted status under the same circumstances.

It seems as though this case has been passed around the department without a care or concern for the provision of an honest answer. That is unacceptable. In one of the calls with my office, this gentleman finally expressed his frustration and disappointment, and that he is going to give up because he believes he is going to die before this ever gets resolved. That is a very sad story.

What this story tells us is that we cannot accept simple amendments to the Indian Act as a means to an end. We can reshape the tool as many times as we like, but if we do not fix the mechanism, there will never be a fix for the problem.

Our Conservative team is determined to address this problem. In fact, we are proposing steps to do that. My friend from Kenora has already addressed one of those, in relation to our leader proposing the first nations resource charge and our plan for that.

The goal of the federal government should be to work with indigenous leadership to put the control of their communities back into their hands. While the hope for Bill C-38 is to address this to some degree and to respond to a constitutional challenge on enfranchisement, it is merely a small step in the long journey to self-determination.

We have a lot of work to do, and as Canada moves forward on eliminating the Indian Act, the “Ottawa knows best” mentality has got to go.

It is imperative that we recognize the rights and freedoms of first nations people across our country. They know what is good for them. They know what needs to be done. They have already taken many of the steps necessary by investing in projects and businesses, and creating prosperity and employment. They are focused on increasing capacity, and they are generating opportunities that will pay dividends for generations to come.

It is important that the government no longer stands in their way, and that we ensure that first nations are the decision-makers controlling their own destiny. We recognize that this is the only way forward, and although it will have its challenges, Conservatives are not afraid of a challenge.

In closing, let me simply say, under the leadership of a Conservative government, I would be very hopeful for the future of our first nations people across this country. I am personally very eager to see meaningful change.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, kwe kwe. Ullukkut. Tansi.

I am honoured to be speaking today in Canada's Parliament, situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinabe Algonquin people, on an incredibly important bill on behalf of the hon. Minister of Indigenous Services Canada, as her parliamentary secretary.

I represent the people of Fredericton, an unceded Wolastoqiyik territory, the people of the beautiful and bountiful river, as well as my family, my husband and my two children, who are also Wolastoqiyik and status Indians under the Indian Act.

For over a century, Canada passed laws and introduced policy with the express goal of expropriating land using tools that ripped apart families and attempted to destroy culture, language, tradition and identity. The Indian Act essentially reduced first nations identity to status and then used this status to strip away access to what most would consider the bare necessities. Sex-based and other forms of discrimination were used to segregate and assimilate, with the ultimate goal of removing indigenous identity or ending the “Indian problem”.

Today, I am speaking directly to the descendants and elders of those wronged. Despite these repeated and oppressive measures, they persisted. They were resilient. They retained their culture and language. Identity is not a status the government gives, but a way of life and a feeling of love and belonging. It is a way of seeing the world.

It is thus fitting that we rise today to discuss an incredibly important bill that would advance reconciliation and do what is necessary to fix some of what was broken right here in this place through previous pieces of legislation. I am incredibly honoured to have the opportunity to be a part of this process.

To peel back the layers of our colonial history to right the wrongs is exactly why I ran for federal politics. I ran for my kids and their home community of Welamukotuk, a good place to fish. I ran for my students: for Justice, whom I wish Justice a happy birthday, and for Desiree, Brianna, Kitarra, Chrystal, Amber, Bailey and so many more. I ran for my former boss, Bob Atwin, at First Nation Education Initiative. I ran for Billy at Sitansisk and for all Wabanaki nations. Sometimes this place feels very far away from home, but I feel them with me today in this chamber.

We have heard from our partners and we have heard from Canadians. Identity is something that one cannot give or take, but something inherently ours. We are putting the power to determine this identity back in the hands of those who should have always had the power over it. The bill before us today would make important progress by addressing several major inequities in the Indian Act and by responding to long-standing concerns raised directly by first nations about the registration and band membership provisions of the act.

More specifically, this bill proposes to address four key issues. First, it would address the legacy impacts of enfranchisement and help more first nations regain their status. Second, it would return autonomy to registered first nations by allowing them to take their names off the Indian register. Third, it would recognize the rights of all first nations individuals to their natal band membership, ensuring women can maintain critical connections to their home communities. Finally, it would eliminate stigmatizing language about first nations persons with disabilities that is currently part of the Indian Act. If passed, this bill would help return agency to the first nations families that lost their status in this colonial process called enfranchisement.

The minister promised to address these long-standing issues and in December 2022, she introduced this bill and followed through on that promise. The legislators of the past put these harmful policies in place, setting in motion the pain that so many families still feel today, but we are the legislators of a new time, one that reflects an honesty of history and a true commitment to a Canada that lives up to the promises and commitments our predecessors made in treaties and other agreements. Reconciliation is a process. It requires a deep collective commitment to the truth and to action.

Although the Indian Act itself is an inherent problem and partners across this land agree it is a tool of colonialism, many indigenous peoples, leaders and nations see that those approaches to ending this tool of oppression requires steady, honest transfer of control over the delivery of programs and services back to first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. This proposed legislation is a step in the right direction. It addresses the most foundational element of reconciliation, and that is self-determination.

The people at home might be asking why we are proposing these changes at all, why we cannot just get rid of the Indian Act with its discriminatory title altogether. The Indian Act is archaic, it is paternalistic, it is rooted in racism and Canada must continue to work toward its end. This work is, in fact, a major part of the mandate for the Minister of Indigenous Services.

The last number of years, we have engaged extensively with first nations on the best ways to move away from the Indian Act and protect the rights of people at the same time. We have made significant progress in developing successful alternatives to the Indian Act for first nations in relation to land management. We will continue to work with partners to transfer control and stand up self-determined policies and programs.

In the meantime, thousands of first nations people continue to face discrimination under the Indian Act. The amendments we are proposing in this bill reflect policy first nations have been calling for the federal government to adopt for many years. Past amendments have not addressed these wrongs.

In 2012, through a formal exploratory process, options for reform were studied with first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations. The study concluded Canada should work with first nations to proactively address the issues with registration and membership under the Indian Act.

In 2018 and 2019, the same themes arose during discussions with more representatives from 200 first nations, who told us that Canada must address these issues and fix inequities in registration and citizenship. What is more, first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations have told us that addressing the existing issues with the Indian Act must happen before communities can regain full control and jurisdiction over membership, registration and citizenship. In other words, partners told us that passing this bill is a necessary step on our path toward restoring full control of membership and community function to indigenous peoples.

This legislation is not proposed unilaterally by the federal government. The solutions proposed in this legislation represent amendments to the act that indigenous peoples have told us are necessary to move past the act and reclaim their sovereignty from colonial systems.

The first, and most significant, amendment we are proposing to this bill addresses the discrimination caused by a family history of enfranchisement. Members will recall enfranchisement was a policy used with the expressed purpose to eradicate indigenous culture and assimilate first nations people.

Just a few examples will give all Canadians a better idea of how enfranchisement was used to segregate and tear first nations families apart. First nations members lost entitlement to registration and membership in their home communities if they wanted to vote in Canadian elections, own land, serve in the Canadian military, marry a non first nations person or keep their children out of residential schools. This last mention should highlight for all just how painful this legacy has been for some.

For some, enfranchisement was involuntary and happened when first nations achieved professional status like becoming a doctor or a lawyer. For others, it was voluntary, by application, severing talented professionals from their heritage. I use the word “voluntary” reluctantly as this was not a real choice. Imagine having to choose between keeping one's connection to one's community and protecting one's children from residential institutions. It is an impossible decision, but it is one the Government of Canada forced many first nations parents to make.

With these false choices, it is no wonder so many people forfeited their status. I have heard many stories from parents who gave up their status without a second thought to spare their children from the same unthinkable traumas and abuse they faced at residential institutions.

With her permission, I can share the story of Kathryn Fournier, who is here with us today, the stories of her grandfather, Maurice Sanderson, a residential school survivor from Pinaymootang First Nation in Manitoba.

Because of provisions in the Indian Act, he was not able to vote or own property unless he enfranchised, meaning he had to give up his right to Indian Act status. In 1922, Maurice made what Kathryn describes as a “strange and difficult choice”. He applied to enfranchise in order to have the same basic rights as other Canadian citizens. As a result, his wife and children were automatically enfranchised as well. Kathryn put it this way, “He made a very difficult choice that shouldn't have been imposed on him in the first place.”

Kathryn's grandfather's and grandmother's assimilation under the policy of enfranchisement may have provided them with some of the rights of Canadian citizenship, but today, generations later, the ripple effects of that policy continue to have negative impacts. The way historic policy erased connection to ancestry and culture continues to be felt. The process of enfranchisement was a deliberate effort by the federal government to colonize and to decrease the numbers of indigenous people who had rights.

Following a pattern of coercion and deception, this proposed legislation continues on Canada's journey to address and amend those decisions of the past that have hurt so many families. Over the last few decades, the government has been trying to reverse these policies by restoring status to first nations who lost it.

In 1985, the government acknowledged enfranchisement was a discriminatory policy, and it was removed from the Indian Act with the introduction of Bill C-31, an act to amend the Indian Act. At this point, people who had been enfranchised could reclaim their status.

The inequity we seek to remedy today is the inability for those with a family history of enfranchisement to transmit status to descendants in the same way that those without an history of enfranchisement are able to.

I ask the hon. members here today: should the family members and descendants of these people continue to be penalized? It is clear that enfranchisement is discriminatory and we need to eliminate all of its residual impacts. To do so, it is proposed that section 6(1)(d) and 6(1)(e) of the Indian Act be repealed.

Individuals currently registered under these categories will have their registration category amended to a 6(1)(a.1) if they were the individual who was enfranchised and (a.3) if they were the child or descendant of the individual who was enfranchised.

The amendment on enfranchisement addresses the concerns brought forward by the Nicholas civil action lawsuit and it will fulfill the recommendations on this issue heard during previous broad engagements. I am proud to acknowledge that Ms. Mary Sandra Lovelace Nicholas is Wolastoqiyik from Tobique (Neqotkuk) First Nation. We are grateful for her courage and trail-blazing as a fellow New Brunswicker.

The second inequity addressed by Bill C-38 concerns the ability for individuals to remove their names from the Indian register. The Indian register is the official record of people registered under the Indian Act in Canada. It is maintained and managed by the Indian registrar, part of Indigenous Services Canada, and exists to determine who is registered under the act and entitled to programs and funding across federal and provincial governments, for example, on-reserve housing, non-insured health benefits, education or tax exemptions.

However, there is a major gap in the authorities of the registrar. While they can add names to the Indian register, they have no formal legal authority to remove the names of registered individuals even when the individuals request deregistration. This is an issue that first nations have called on Canada to address and today, with this, we are doing just that.

For some, deregistration is a matter of having control over their own identity. For others, it is a barrier to gaining membership to other indigenous groups. This has prevented a number of people from accessing important services and benefits through a group they wish to identify with that they should be entitled to.

To fix this issue, this legislation will provide individuals with the right and ability to have their names removed from the Indian register.

That said, individuals who deregister will still be eligible to re-register and their decision to deregister will have no impact on their or their descendants' entitlement under the Indian Act.

This means that the children of deregistered individuals would still be entitled to status. It can only be done at the request of the individuals and protections will be made to ensure that it is not used with mal-intent.

In the spirit of reconciliation, the implementation of this amendment will be co-developed with indigenous partners, to ensure that the needs of all impacted groups are well served.

Bill C-38 also addresses a sex-based inequity related to band membership provisions. Bill S-3 received royal assent in 2017 and eliminated known sex-based inequities in the registration provisions of the Indian Act.

Because of the limited scope of that mandate, however, we were not able to address these sex-based inequities in band membership. This inequity arises from the fact that, until 1985, first nations women who married first nations men from a different nation were automatically transferred to their husband's band list.

While these women did not lose their entitlement to registration, they did lose connection to and membership in their natal band, along with any associated treaty rights, benefits, settlements and services. These women were automatically disconnected from their home communities even if they may have wanted to restore their social and cultural connection to their natal band.

The bill we are proposing today will amend the Indian Act to allow first nations women to seek re-affiliation and membership with their natal bands. This is significant. Supporting and empowering indigenous women is key to supporting indigenous communities, tradition, language and culture as a whole.

The final amendment in Bill C-38 addresses some outdated and offensive language that still remains in the Indian Act today. The act refers to “mentally incompetent Indian”. It is obvious that this term is outdated, offensive and stigmatizing.

Bill C-38 would replace this term with the updated term “dependent person”. This amendment is a logical step forward and would align the Indian Act with developments in capacity and guardianship law over the last 50 years.

In summary, amendments proposed in this legislation would fix four long-standing issues in registration and membership under the Indian Act relating to enfranchisement, individual deregistration, natal band membership and some outdated and offensive language in the Indian Act.

If all enfranchisement issues are addressed, approximately 3,500 people could be newly eligible for registration with these amendments.

These proposed changes represent significant and meaningful action to the affected people and their families. They also demonstrate to indigenous peoples a steady and forward movement by Canada to make amends to the many ways colonial laws and actions intentionally harmed them and their communities.

Even with these proposed changes, there is still much more work to do. Ahead of us, we have the work of undoing the racist policies reflected in the Indian Act, including those related to the second-generation cut-off.

We are engaging with partners so we can continue to explore how to move forward on this deeply personal issue. Indigenous identity must be determined by indigenous individuals, full stop. It is our responsibility to proactively right historic wrongs and make the changes asked of us by first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations. This bill would right some of those wrongs.

It is in this way, working together in good faith, that we would advance reconciliation and support a renewed relationship between Canada and first nations, one not marred by the paternalism and control of the Indian Act, but one based on rights, respect, co-operation and true partnership. Woliwon.

Citizenship Act

[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 co-developed 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.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for his ongoing advocacy on this. Gender equality is a fundamental human right, and Bill S-3 does eliminate the sex-based discrimination from the Indian Act.

With the ministerial special representative's consultations concluded and her report tabled, we now know what our partners need in a successful implementation plan. Work on that implementation plan is well under way, and I can confirm that we will be bringing these provisions into force within the current mandate. We are committed to working with our partners to remedy all remaining registration issues, but also to accelerate the progress to self-determination by which nations—

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

Mr. Speaker, I wear this beaded jacket that has the image of indigenous women so we may never forget that we all have a role in giving a voice to those who have been ignored for far too long.

In 2017, Bill S-3 was finally passed with a delay concerning the 1951 cut-off criteria. The government said it needed time to consult on an implementation plan. The minister's special representative has completed her consultations and report, which was just tabled in Parliament. Indigenous women and their descendants want to know. When will they finally have their human rights restored?

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly we have talked about the challenge of part 1 and part 2 being totally unconnected pieces of legislation, but I want to take it further. The government, in its budget implementation act, embedded massive changes and the separation of the department into Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, something it definitely promised it would never do. The government referred it to our committee, but the Liberal majority on the committee would not allow for witnesses and allowed for departmental officials only. It went back to the finance committee and we found out there were flaws in the bill that the government had to table amendments to. Who knows what is wrong with the budget implementation act.

We look at Bill S-3 and its sloppy drafting. When it came to us, the government said everything was great and that it would fix a legal problem. It turned out it was a total mess and it had to be taken back to the drawing board.

What is happening is that the Liberals are trying to force legislation through very rapidly at the end of a session, and who knows what flaws are embedded in this particular piece.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, gender equality is a fundamental human right, and Bill S-3 eliminates sex-based discrimination from the Indian Act.

Ministerial special representative Claudette Dumont-Smith and departmental officials have held over 200 engagement sessions with communities and have received over 100 consultation reports from our partners on Indian Act registration reform, including recommendations for an implementation plan to remove the 1951 cut-off. She is currently finalizing her report. We look forward to her final recommendations, and I will be reporting to Parliament within the next couple—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, provisions in Bill S-3 would eliminate the discrimination against first nations women and their descendants once and for all. All that is needed is for this self-proclaimed feminist Prime Minister to bring those provisions into force with an order in council. It has been 18 months since this bill passed, and there is still no action.

Will the Prime Minister get on with it and immediately enact recommendation 1.3 of the calls for justice so that the 270,000 first nations women and their descendants can finally be free of this sex-based discrimination?

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP sought to actually strike out every one of those provisions within Bill C-97 that undermine the refugee determination process. Witnesses at the committee were clear in saying that it was beyond fixing. That is what we did and the government failed to listen.

Back to Bill S-3, why has the Prime Minister, who claims that he is a feminist, not taken action to eliminate sex-based discrimination against indigenous people? It has been 18 months. All the government needs to do is to bring in an OIC to enact that, yet it has not done anything with respect to that. Where is the feminist Prime Minister who says that indigenous peoples and reconciliation is the number one priority? Where is the real action?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government appears set to ram through damaging changes to Canada's refugee determination system through the omnibus budget bill. Despite his self-proclaimed title of feminist, the Prime Minister has shown time and again that when push comes to shove, he will toss the ideals he claims to hold so dearly to the side for political gain.

Despite running on a promise to include gender-based analysis plus for all policies, we learned in February that fewer than half of government agencies and departments have a gender-based analysis plus plan. We certainly know that there was no gender-based analysis plus done on these changes hidden in the budget. If there had been, these provisions would not have been buried in Bill C-97. That is why 46 women's organizations from across Canada wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister to call out the fake feminism and identify the danger the changes will put already vulnerable women and girls fleeing gender-based violence in.

This is not the only time the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have, without hesitation, moved away from their self-professed titles and claims when politically convenient.

Bill S-3, an act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux v. Canada, received royal assent on December 12, 2017. Despite being in law nearly 18 months, the government has failed to bring into force all its provisions. This has allowed sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act to continue, and it is entirely unacceptable.

On May 15, the leader of the NDP and member for Burnaby South rose in the House to seek unanimous consent for a motion calling on the government to bring into force the remaining provisions in Bill S-3 to remedy this situation prior to June 21, 2019. It is absolutely astounding to me that it appeared that the government members in this place did not support that motion. Perhaps the politics of the day once again meant that those feminist ideals needed to be cast aside.

Yesterday Canada had a historic moment. The final report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls was made public and provided to the Prime Minister. This historic report lays out a path for transformative justice for indigenous women and girls to, as the title states, “Reclaim Power and Place”. Within the report are 231 calls for justice.

Call for justice 1.2 reads:

We call upon all governments, with the full participation of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, to immediately implement and fully comply with all relevant rights instruments, including but not limited to... [a]ll the recommendations of the 2015 UN CEDAW Inquiry Report and cooperation with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on all follow-up procedures.

That UN report recommends quite clearly the following: “To amend the Indian Act to eliminate discrimination against women”.

Bill S-3 has received royal assent, and the UN has called on Canada to do this work. The NDP has pressed the government to do this work, and now the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls report is calling on the government to do this work. Is it not time for the government to do what is right and eliminate sex-based discrimination against indigenous women once and for all?

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.

Status of Women

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, sex-based equity is a fundamental human right. The recent incorrect media reports containing inflated unstated paternity numbers have now been corrected.

Bill S-3 eliminated all sex-based discrimination from the Indian Act registration provisions, including enshrining additional procedural protections for unstated paternity. We recognize that there are a number of flaws within the Indian Act. That is why we have committed to work with indigenous peoples across this country to move forward beyond the Indian Act. We look forward to that path toward reconciliation with them over the years and decades to come.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-3, an act to amend the Indian Act, still contains gender-based discrimination.

The Superior Court of Quebec ordered Canada to address all exclusions based on gender, but Bill S-3 only removes certain obstacles. Gender inequality continues to exist today, in 2018.

As this is Gender Equality Week, can the Prime Minister confirm today that he will eliminate all inequalities in Bill S-3, an act to amend the Indian Act?

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the great honour of meeting modern-day pilgrims coming from the faith communities across Canada, young people, people well into their eighties who had been walking for days. Members of the Mennonite Church and young activists were expressing themselves through their church in a way that I had never seen before.

The cause they had taken up, in the spirit of the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, was to urge the government and Parliament to adopt Bill C-262, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was such a beautiful marrying of faith, activism, and commitment to improving the country, to indigenous reconciliation, and to our parliamentary process. To see protest signs with a bill number on them is not something we see every day. It was the bill that was advanced by my New Democrat colleague, the member of Parliament for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

I am so honoured to have been greeted by that final pilgrimage coming into Ottawa. I am also grateful to be at the service of the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith in Coast Salish territory, representing that riding at this time in Parliament, because this is a historic day.

My colleague said so powerfully in his opening statement this afternoon that there was no reconciliation in the absence of justice. He reminded us that UNDRIP had been reaffirmed eight times by the United Nations, by consensus. He reminded us that no state in the world opposed UNDRIP, and that even the Harper Conservatives in 2010 acceded to UNDRIP. Therefore, it is well past the time.

The framework for UNDRIP is the framework for reconciliation for Canada. It was used by Justice Sinclair in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as the framework for the report. In turn, Bill C-262 responds directly to the calls to action in the TRC report, specifically calls to action 43 and 44.

I am reminded of the words of my friend and colleague from Snuneymuxw, a former Snuneymuxw chief, Doug White III. Kwul’a’sul’tun is his Coast Salish name, his Hul'q'umin'um' name. He said:

...to those of us personally and intimately engaged in the struggle for justice for Indigenous peoples, one can sense that while the work remains fierce and intense, there is momentum building toward potential breakthroughs.

He further stated:

Canadians are far more aware of our history of colonialism, and the required work of reconciliation. I am hopeful that in 2018, Canadians will not succumb to voices that are intent on looking backward and maintaining what has been. The reality of what has been for Indigenous peoples is nothing to be preserved.

He urges specifically the endorsement of UNDRIP, and my colleague's bill, Bill C-262.

I asked this Parliament if we need this bill, given the government has acceded to the UN treaty. I say we do.

UNDRIP article 18 calls on governments to recognize that indigenous people have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, yet the government has approved the Kinder Morgan pipeline and its attendant oil tanker traffic running through the waters of the Salish Sea, through the riding I represent.

The hypocrisy of the government in saying that it believes that communities should control their own destiny, that it believes in the nation-to-nation relationship and then run roughshod over democracy and those promises tells us that we need the bill and we need to legislate a commitment to UNDRIP. Despite articles 21 and 22, which specifically point to the ending of violence against women and children and the particular role of indigenous women in our democracy, the government passed Bill S-3. It specifically chose to enshrine the continuation of discrimination against the rights of some indigenous women in the Indian Act over the urging and the voices of the six women, known as the Famous Six, who had fought for 40 years in the Supreme Court. We fully expected the government, given its feminist agenda and its commitment to a nation-to-nation relationship, to do better.

We do need this legislation. I am so honoured to serve with the member. The spirit he is offering to our country, especially given his own family's personal history with residential schools, is an extremely generous gift.

I urge the House in its entirety to vote together in consensus to move our country forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-262 at third reading. Again, I want to acknowledge the tremendous effort of the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou in bringing forward the bill and the important discussion it has generated around the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

During second reading debate, we presented a number of very specific and practical concerns. Unfortunately, in spite of further analysis at committee and detailed testimony, I continue to have reservations about the implications of enacting Bill C-262. It needs to be said first and foremost that our not supporting the bill does not mean we do not recognize the UN declaration as an incredibly important document for Canada. We recognize that it is going to require an effort from whoever is in government to live up to the standards it has set for all of us. However, we do also need to ensure that our support or non-support for any individual piece of legislation is based on a reasonable examination of the potential implications of the bill

Lawyers from Cassels Brock noted:

UNDRIP is a blunt instrument, developed in an international setting, that is not reflective of Canada’s world-leading legal protections for Indigenous rights; Canada is the only nation with an established system for limiting unilateral state action against Indigenous peoples. By simply adopting UNDRIP in its entirety into the Canadian context, Bill C-262 misconstrues Canada’s existing and sophisticated Indigenous rights regime and, by adding new uncertainties, risks hindering the pursuit of reconciliation.

They went on to say:

While UNDRIP reflects critical elements of Indigenous rights through a lens of human rights, it was designed as a global benchmark and guide, rather than a specific legal instrument to be directly implemented as law. The fact that UNDRIP is a declaration and not a convention makes this clear. Conventions are binding agreements intended to be a reflection of international law and to be incorporated into national laws. Declarations, in contrast, are statements of generally agreed-upon standards which are not themselves legally binding.

Their concerns are not inconsistent with the comments by the justice minister in 2016, when she said:

Simplistic approaches such as adopting the United Nations declaration as being Canadian law are unworkable and, respectfully, a political distraction to undertaking the hard work actually required to implement it back home in communities.

Clearly, she has changed her mind, but has given no explanation how something that was previously unworkable and a distraction is suddenly workable. To be frank, when the Justice officials came before us at committee, they really did not offer any further clarity as to how those comments align with the current government position.

The following areas are some of the concerns that are unresolved and, unfortunately, time is only going to allow me to highlight a few.

As noted by one witness, there seem to be three main interpretations of what free, prior, and informed consent means. To be frank, this was consistent with other testimony at committee, because when we asked people what it means, we were given a number of different definitions. One of the ways they described it was that it is not enough to seek free, prior, and informed consent, but enough that you try without actually obtaining it. I might suggest that the Kinder Morgan is a good example of where the government tried to get free, prior, and informed consent, but did not obtain it and moved ahead anyway.

A second interpretation states that it is “really about the type of process required and that it's possible to move away from talking about consent as long as one has the right type of consensus-oriented process.” I guess that is the free, prior, and informed, but no consent, model.

Finally there are many, especially among the first nation communities, who feel it is grounding rights in something analogous to vetoes, or the right to say yes and the right to say no. That has been heard time and time again by many communities. Certainly, Pam Palmater expressed very clearly in what alternate universe does consent not mean the right to say yes, the right to say no, or potentially veto.

I would suggest that prior to moving forward with a piece of legislation like this, the government needs to make sure that it has an agreed upon interpretation of FPIC with indigenous people so that we do not have the confusion that is out there right now. Again, I can use the Kinder Morgan example, where there are many communities saying that they have not given free, prior, and informed consent, and that the government is going forward anyway and not being consistent with the declaration. Not having that understanding will lead to certain problems down the road.

It was indicated by the proponent of the bill that FPIC, and again we are looking at a multi-jurisdictional project going over much traditional territory, means free, prior, and informed consent from every community that would be impacted. That is absolutely going to be a challenge down the road.

Article 19 of UNDRIP speaks of the need for FPIC for all laws of general application. In a country such as Canada, how would it be feasible to consult and try to obtain consent from Métis, Inuit, and all first nations for essentially every bill tabled in Parliament? Clearly, almost every bill tabled in Parliament has an impact under article 19. I am concerned that this would lead to paralysis and an inability by government to move forward on its agenda and commitment.

Marie-Claude Landry, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, identified the very important question of who would have access to these rights if this legislation is passed. With the recent Daniels and Descheneaux decisions and the ongoing Bill S-3 consultations, the issue of indigenous identity is increasingly complex and must be resolved.

In addition, Dwight Newman, professor of law and Canada research chair in indigenous rights, identified a number of drafting concerns and internal inconsistencies that would create significant challenges if Bill C-262 were adopted. This leads me back to second reading debate and one of my original suggestions based on the point made by witnesses that this is a quasi-constitutional piece of legislation. Certainly, I think everyone in this House should agree that a quasi-constitutional piece of legislation deserves the scrutiny a government bill would generate, a government bill that we would get to question the minister about its nuances, and that we would have a much more robust opportunity to have debate and back-and-forth on, as opposed to a very constrained debate.

Accordingly, we not only have important unanswered questions, but also legitimate drafting concerns that were expressed during committee hearings. That said, I want to acknowledge that this bill is incredibly important. It is also symbolic, as we have heard tonight, and some have identified it as an absolutely essential component of reconciliation.

For others who have expressed concerns, they have attempted to engage in a nuanced and serious discussion, but have certainly been met with condemnation. The following are just a few examples. One witness suggested that any objections to voting for this bill were simply based on a colonialist attitude of the people who would not vote for it. A Liberal member said privately that if someone did not support this bill, they were just racist. I found that incredibly insulting.

A number of witnesses were unwilling to testify, feeling that any concerns expressed would simply be construed as being unsupportive of reconciliation. When debate is constrained, so is democracy. The debate among citizens and with political leaders is crucial to building consensus. I do not think we want this place to always be an echo chamber if we really have significant concerns about what a bill would do.

I want to note that in May 2016, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations stated at the UN that the government fully intended to adopt and work to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. However, as my question indicated earlier, I would suggest there are many examples of where the government has not actually stood up to that standard.

In conclusion, international declarations are important to guide legislation and policy, but must be interpreted in the context of a country's existing legal framework, as opposed to adapting laws to the blunt instrument of a generic declaration. The real work of reconciliation is going to happen, of course, in our communities where we live, work, and play. We do, I believe, have the will and the momentum.

Thus, in spite of the fact that we will not support Bill C-262, we do support and are committed to moving forward with reconciliation.

Indigenous Affairs

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people to answer this question again from my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

We are a strong feminist government, and we are proud to be such a strong feminist government. Not only that, we are the first government to ever accept and enter into full nation-to-nation co-operation with indigenous people in this country, and we are doing so totally on the premise of respect.

Our government is committed to ensuring equity for all women in Canada, and that includes ensuring sex-based equity for women with respect to registration under the Indian Act. Our government is pleased that Bill S-3, which finally eliminates all sex-based discrimination from registration provisions in the Indian Act, has now received royal assent and is law. That itself is a tremendous accomplishment, and I would expect the member opposite would be saying that the government is on the right track. More needs to be done, and that is why I am here this evening to tell her that more will be done.

This is a step toward reconciliation for first nations' women's rights, as well as for respect and equality in this country. Bill S-3 responded to the Descheneaux decision, but it went beyond the charter considerations that were addressed in the case. This included sex discrimination and circumstances prior to 1951. In fact, the bill remedies sex-based inequities dating back to 1869.

While the balance of Bill S-3 was brought into force immediately after royal assent, the clause that deals with the 1951 cut-off will be brought into force after the conclusion of co-designed consultations. That is the piece that the member opposite does not agree with. She does not believe that we should consult with indigenous people in this country on how that will happen. However, we will be tabling and updating a co-designed consultation process on the broad-based Indian Act registration and membership reform in Parliament next month. She will get to see how that process will be launched in June of this year.

The government has also made it very clear that consultations and partnership are essential prerequisites for any major changes that involve first nations in this country. That is what we call nation-to-nation working together. This approach is in keeping with our government's commitment to renewing our relationship with indigenous people, one based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. We will not throw that out the window simply because the member opposite cannot wait to do what is right.

In fact, our consultations are focused on identifying what measures and resources will be required to do this right, and working in partnership to develop a comprehensive implementation plan. It has nothing to do with consulting on gender equity.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, we are the first government in this country to recognize the very need to change the legislation that currently exists in Canada, which has been there for hundreds of years. We are restoring rights to indigenous women with respect to gender-based equality in this country, and that cannot be denied as it is clear in the legislation.

We are the first government in the history of this country to ever do so, and we have been committed to this process since the very beginning. We are determined to do this. We are determined to do it right, and with royal assent of Bill S-3, much of that process has already begun as I speak today.

We are also committed to changing the relationship that Canada has had with indigenous people in this country, and in changing that relationship we have agreed to do so in a respectful way to work together as partners. I would ask the member opposite to understand and accept that.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. Second, I would like to congratulate all of those women who were recognized last evening, and many other women across Canada who have fought, and continue to fight, hard for gender-based equity in our country, including those within the House of Commons.

I also want to reiterate that our government is absolutely committed to ensuring gender equity for all women in Canada. That includes ensuring sex-based equity for indigenous women regarding the Indian Act registration. The government is pleased that Bill S-3, which finally eliminates all sex-based discrimination from registration provisions in the Indian Act, has now received royal assent. This is a tremendous step forward in this country for reconciliation, for indigenous women's rights, and for respect and equity in Canada. This includes circumstances prior to 1951, and in fact, the bill remedies sex-based inequities dating back to 1869.

While the balance of Bill S-3 was brought into force immediately after royal assent, the clause dealing with the 1951 cut-off will be brought into force after the conclusion of the co-designed consultations. The government has made it clear that consultation and partnership are essential prerequisites for any major changes involving first nations. We have set that out from the beginning. This approach is in keeping with its commitment to a renewed, respectful relationship, a partnership based on the recognition of rights, and to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The effective removal of the 1951 cut-off will require extensive consultations with communities, affected individuals, and experts to ensure we get this right. The government is committed to ensuring that this measure is implemented in the right way, both in terms of first nations communities and individuals who will become entitled to registration. As Senator Sinclair noted in his speech and in other places regarding Bill S-3, while he is somewhat reluctant that he sees us delaying the implementation of the charter right, he can also see the need to do so because of that competing constitutional obligation to consult. He said that he was prepared to support the legislation because it enshrines the right, and we would ask that members of the House of Commons do the same.

Consultations will be focused on identifying additional measures and resources required to do this right, and on working in partnership to develop a comprehensive implementation plan. This is a responsible and prudent way to proceed as a government. We will ensure that the government implements these measures in a way that will eliminate or mitigate any unintended negative consequences for communities and individuals.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, Her Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief)—Chapter 23.

Bill S-211, An Act respecting National Sickle Cell Awareness Day—Chapter 24.

Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général)—Chapter 25.

Bill C-60, An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain Acts and provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect—Chapter 26.

Bill C-23, An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States—Chapter 27.

Bill C-277, An Act providing for the development of a framework on palliative care in Canada—Chapter 28.

Bill C-67, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018—Chapter 29.

Bill S-236, An Act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation—Chapter 30.

Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics Act—Chapter 31.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for bringing forward his private member's bill, Bill C-262. I note his important contribution to the discussion on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I would also like to share my profound respect for my colleague and acknowledge the important work he has done over many years that has significantly impacted indigenous policy in this country.

Before addressing the private member's bill, I would like to make a general observation. Section 35 of our Constitution and Canada's existing laws has in the past, and will in the future, ensure that indigenous rights are protected in Canada. We only need to reflect on a number of historical court decisions to understand how section 35 is shaping these rights. From the 1999 Marshall decision that confirmed the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet treaty right to catch and sell fish, to the 2014 Tsilhqot'in decision that granted aboriginal title to more than 1,700 sq kilometres of territory, a first in Canadian law, it is clear that our understanding of indigenous rights is constantly evolving. Just last week, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision regarding the Peel watershed, which upheld aboriginal land use rights protected in treaties.

It might be suggested that the gap or problem in Canada is not our legal framework, but our frequent failure to live up to the obligations and the honour of the crown.

The bill before us today seeks to implement the 46 articles in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as stated in the document, “a standard...to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect”. All parties in the House acknowledge the need for reconciliation, a better shared future, and the importance of the declaration. The 46 articles are essential guiding principles for that journey.

I do have some unanswered questions regarding how this international document will transpose into a domestic framework. In my opinion, we need some clear answers before we can move forward on Bill C-262. Let me share some general and specific concerns that need to be addressed.

In the past, the Liberals have argued vehemently that any small changes to the Indian Act and the Labour Code must only be introduced as government legislation, where there is an opportunity for comprehensive reflection and not just a couple of hours of debate. I would suggest that the bill before us today has more far-reaching implications than the right to a secret ballot for union certification. For the Liberals to support an NDP private member's bill to implement UNDRIP and not put it forward as government-initiated legislation is unfathomable. The debate will not be afforded the due diligence that it requires and deserves. Even today, members might have noticed that we did not hear from the minister. We did not have an opportunity under private members' business to even question the minister. In my mind, that is a problem.

To get into more specifics, first and foremost was the statement by the Minister of Justice in 2016, and I quote, “Simplistic approaches such as adopting the United Nations declaration as being Canadian law are unworkable and, respectfully, a political distraction to undertaking the hard work actually required to implement it back home in communities.”

The justice minister, unlike many of us who will be speaking to the bill, has access to all sorts of comprehensive briefings and advice. The minister would not have made that comment lightly, so it is critical for her to explain why she made the comment at that time, and how she now reconciles that with her recent commitment to support the bill. I would note that because it is private member's bill, we are very unlikely to get a chance to ask her that question.

On Thursday of last week, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations was at committee. At that time, we had the opportunity to ask a number of questions, and I want to provide a brief summary of that testimony.

Article 19 suggests that the government ensure free, prior, and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative measures that may affect them. When the minister was asked if that would apply to laws of general application or only laws that exclusively impact indigenous people, she clearly indicated that there would be a broader application. That brings us to a question of what future laws of broader application in this country would require free, prior, and informed consent, and how will that be determined in a country as diverse as Canada. How will that consent be given?

The national organizations acknowledge they are not rights holders, they are not the authorized decision-makers, and their mandate is advocacy. The indigenous community has indicated that it has to do a lot of work in terms of nation rebuilding. Therefore, what government structure or consultation framework would be put in place to actually engage in these consultations? To what degree would this commitment around the laws of general application fetter the government's ability to move forward? I will give some recent examples.

We certainly know that with Bill S-3, the government is committed to engaging in a consultation process. Clearly, that is not a general application law, but the government is going to have consultations with bands across the country. I have no idea how the government members are going to determine when they have concurrence and how long they are going to have to spend in a process where there will be human rights competing in terms of consent, and at the very dichotomy of the many consultations they will have to have. In that case it is first nations, but we also have the Métis and the Inuit.

The marijuana law is another example of broader application that is clearly going to have an impact in indigenous communities. Under our current framework, the government only engaged in a general consultation process. Would that bill be subject to article 19, and if so what would it do to the government's timelines and how are the Liberals going to move forward? The answer to that question is unknown, but it is important.

Today, we have been debating in the House Bill C-58, which is the privacy law. Again, we have a number of indigenous communities whose representatives have said that they have grave concerns. They have referenced the UN declaration in terms of their right to have input, and free, prior, and informed consent, but we have no system or process in terms of how we are going to move that forward. That is important work that needs to be done.

Where a lot of people have focused, the laws of general application are something we need to pay particular attention to, but there is also the issue of free, prior, and informed consent as it relates to the development of the natural resources. The minister has suggested it was not a veto and the position was supported by National Chief Bellegarde. However, he noted on three occasions that free, prior, and informed consent means the right to say yes and the right to say no. A number of lawyers have said the whole discussion is really a bit of semantics and whether it is veto or consent it has the same effect. Again, it leads to a question in law. What is the difference between “free, prior, and informed consent” and “consult and accommodate”, which is what we have in law right now? Certainly there is no question that the declaration proposes that change in our law and we need to simply know what that is going to mean because it is important. From what I have seen, the legal opinions out there are as varied as they possibly could be. As members might imagine, it leaves confusion in the minds of not only the indigenous communities but Canadians in general. We have some work to do in terms of developing a common understanding before we commit to an implementation into our legal framework.

Article 29 talks about the right to territories, lands, and resources. In British Columbia alone, that is 100% of the province. What are going to be the practical implications for perhaps the tourism operators in the Chilcotin or the ranchers who have depended on crown land, as these decisions get made? We have not talked about impacted third parties and how, as we correct the injustices of the past, we should not create a new injustice.

In conclusion, as members can see from my 10 minutes of speaking, there are a lot of important unanswered questions. My first concern is the fact that the government has committed to implementing this as a private member's bill where we are going to be limited in the debate and our opportunity to create a shared understanding. The shared understanding of all these concepts is going to be critical in terms of moving forward into success in the future for all.

Indigenous Affairs

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill, Bill S-3amends the Indian Act to eliminate sex-based inequities in registration. Private member's billC-262 is an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Truth and reconciliation is under way. Parliament is working in service of our aspirations for a revitalized Senate, the contributions of individual members of Parliament, and listening and acting with the indigenous voices of Canada.

In my riding we too are acting in this spirit. On the Sunshine Coast, John and Nancy Denham led 30 shíshálh Nation and non-indigenous peoples in a dialogue circle. Our time together was respectful and intense. The West Vancouver Memorial Library hosted “Honouring Reconciliation: Hearing the Truth” to a full house, led by the Squamish Nation.

These are important experiences for Canadians and shíshálh and Squamish nations, as truth and reconciliation enables us to reach our full potential.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' Bill S-3 proposal does not end discrimination in the Indian Act, does not help all women, and should not be subject to consultation.

Indigenous women have been loud and clear. Discrimination should end for all indigenous women. Although Bill S-3 meets some of the court's order, it fails to bring justice for all indigenous women. Liberals promised that they would be better. They promised a real nation-to-nation relationship.

Does the minister concede that this bill fails to end gender discrimination for all indigenous women?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on Bill S-3, indigenous registration. Tomorrow, we will take up third reading debate on Bill C-63, the budget legislation.

On Monday, we will have the last opposition day in a supply cycle, meaning that we will also vote on supplementary estimates (B) and the respective appropriation bill at the end of the day.

Tuesday, we hope to complete third reading debate on Bill C-58, concerning access to information reforms.

Wednesday afternoon, we will call C-61, the first nations education legislation.

We will round off the week with Bill C-24, the Salaries Act, at report stage.

I would like to take a moment to sincerely thank all hon. members in this House for coming together on the apology of the LGBTQ2 Canadians this week.

Finally, discussions have taken place between the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, when the House begins debate on the second reading motion of Bill C-61, An Act to give effect to the Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, a Member of each recognized party, a Member of the Bloc Québécois and the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands may speak to the said motion for not more than 10 minutes, followed by 5 minutes for questions and comments, after which the Bill shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to working with parliamentarians, first nations, impacted individuals, and experts to ensure that all sex-based discrimination is eliminated from the Indian Act.

Bill S-3, as passed by the House of Commons, remedied all known sex-based discrimination with respect to registration since the Indian registry was created in 1951. We are now seeking to amend the bill to remedy sex-based inequities—

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agreed to the proposed changes to eliminate sex-based discrimination from the Indian Act, but they will do so only after holding consultations. Indigenous women have been clear from day one that sex-based discrimination should have been eliminated long ago.

Although Bill S-3 corrects some parts of the Indian Act as ordered by the court, does the minister acknowledge that the bill fails to eliminate all sex-based inequalities?

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate begun this morning on the Conservative Party's opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will have the second and last day of debate at third reading stage of Bill C-45 on cannabis.

Monday, we will resume debate on Bill C-59 concerning national security. We will then move on to the report stage of Bill C-63 on the budget.

We will continue with debate of Bill C-63 on Tuesday.

On Wednesday and Thursday, we shall take up debate on the Senate amendments relating to Bill S-3, the Indian Act, unless we can get it done sooner.

I should also note that we will have the LGBTQ2 apology next Tuesday, November 28, immediately following question period.

Indigenous Affairs

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he is a feminist whose most important relationship is with indigenous peoples, and yet he believes that the basic human rights of indigenous peoples, particularly indigenous women, are subject to consultation.

One hundred and fifty years of colonization has dismantled the family unit in indigenous communities and stripped women from their traditional roles. We saw the Liberals voting down an amendment to Bill S-3 that called for the full and final removal of sex discrimination from the Indian Act. As such, the government believes it has the right to decide who has status. It is unthinkable that, in 2017, basic human rights can be so easily dismissed.

Our laws need to be in harmony with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The basic human rights of indigenous peoples are not for negotiation. They are universal and must be treated as such.

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

Mr. Speaker, legal discrimination against women is unacceptable in 2017, unless apparently they are indigenous women, because colonial Ottawa still maintains the power to decide who has indigenous rights in this country and it has disenfranchised thousands of women. Now the courts have ordered a remedy, and what a sight. Our feminist Prime Minister is saying he needs more time to consult. Come on, governments have had 150 years of time to obstruct the rights of indigenous women. Time is up. Will the Prime Minister amend Bill S-3 and end sex discrimination against indigenous women once and for all, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring gender equity for all women in Canada. We are committed to ensuring adequate time for a meaningful debate of Bill S-3, particularly in the context of the new court deadline of December 22. Our government is committed to working with first nations communities, impacted individuals, experts, and parliamentarians to remove all sex discrimination from the registration provisions within the Indian Act.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the current government lobbies the Senate to pass Bill S-3, indigenous women and the Feminist Alliance for International Action are again calling on the Liberals to accept a Senate amendment to end all sex discrimination. This amendment, similar to one proposed by my NDP colleague but voted down by the Liberals on National Indigenous Peoples Day of all days, would fully remove sex discrimination from the Indian Act. Why would the feminist Prime Minister, whose most important relationship is with indigenous peoples, not remove all sex discrimination from the Indian Act?

(Bill S-3. On the Order: Government Orders:)

June 20, 2017--Third Reading of Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration)--the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

(Bill C-25. On the Order: Government Orders:)

June 20, 2017--Third Reading of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act--the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House:

(a) if Bill C-23, An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States, is concurred in at report stage later this day, when debate on the said Bill collapses at third reading, all questions necessary for the disposal of the Bill at that stage be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, the bells to call in the members shall ring for not more than 30 minutes;

(b) Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration), be deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(c) Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act, be deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(d) a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that the House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017, and other measures, because these amendments infringe upon the rights and privileges of the House;

(e) when the House adjourns today, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 18, 2017, provided that, for the purposes of any Standing Order, it shall be deemed to have been adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28 and be deemed to have sat on Thursday, June 22, and Friday, June 23, 2017; and

(f) when, at any time the House stands adjourned until and including Friday, June 23, 2017, a standing committee has ready a report, that report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House upon being deposited with the Clerk.

Indigenous Affairs

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith already knows, today we debated Bill S-3 in the House, which would make changes to the Indian Act with respect to sex-based discrimination. We are encouraging members to support those amendments, and we are hopeful that they will, as Bill S-3 goes through the House.

As well, the government, under the direction of the minister, has said it will enter into a phase-two process to review other gender imbalances and discriminatory clauses that exist within the Indian Act and to make those changes.

I also want to ensure the member this evening that the Government of Canada continues to support the commission on missing and murdered indigenous women to the extent possible within the law. We are committed to bringing an end to the cycle of violence against indigenous women and girls in Canada. We are not waiting for the recommendations of the inquiry to act; we are already—

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs in relation to Bill S-3, an act to amend the Indian Act in relation to the elimination of sex-based inequities in registration.

The committee has studied the bill and decided to report the bill back to the House, with amendments.

Criminal Code

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about respect for this place. The member says big words, but his actions do not demonstrate the same. It is unfortunate, because this week the member articulated such great words about our member and about being by-election buddies, something that our member would never do.

Today, just like every Thursday, the official opposition House leader asked me for the business for the rest of this week as well as next week. Perhaps the member would like to withdraw some of his comments. My answer, on the record, was that on Tuesday the House will debate Bill S-3, Indian registration, at report stage and third reading. To be in the House and mislead the Canadian public is a disgrace to democracy.

I encourage the member to perhaps correct the record, because his comments were not the truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Kitchener—Conestoga, a very thoughtful member of this chamber, for raising that.

As I said in my remarks, I mock the historical curiosities of duelling and witchcraft, but the Liberals have also been very selective with what else they have taken out. They are removing rarely used but specifically important sections with respect to the freedom of religion and clergypersons in the implementation of their faith, their job, and their role in the church. Why address that?

The member for Niagara Falls reminded us today that there was abuse and vandalism in a church in Ottawa, where charges were laid just today. The Liberals have also removed the action of intending to cause harm against Her Majesty, our head of state, the Queen, in the 65th year of her reign. We know that is rarely used, maybe never. Sometimes, the symbolism of what they are doing shows their motive, their lack of respect for religious freedom. They eliminated the ambassador for religious freedom in their first months as government. They are attacking provisions showing respect to clergy and to our head of state, while they are not even passing Bill S-3 in time, having to go to court begging for more time, yet they are dealing with witchcraft and duelling. It is a government that is lost and not respecting our democracy.

I am tired of the sunny ways. It is time for the Liberals to get serious and pay the respect to this place that is needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to follow my colleague's remarks on Bill C-51 and join the debate today. I am going to be expressing my concerns with respect to the bill. Once again, I cannot resist dwelling on the lack of priority to our public policy of the government, specifically justice policies. The lack of ambition in some areas is striking.

The Liberals' use of time allocation motions is equally striking, and we have before us a bill that is much ado about nothing in many ways. It is an omnibus bill on which they are using closure. They are time-allocating, ending debate, on a very large justice bill that contains one very important area that is critical for us to discuss in this Parliament. It is also critical for us as parliamentarians to discuss the elements contained in this specific part of the bill outside of this chamber in our communities, in consultations with victims groups, with law enforcement, and with students, and that is the zero tolerance toward sexual assault in our society. There are clear rules on consent and that consent cannot be given when someone is intoxicated, an approach that most of us think would be common sense but has been confirmed in this legislation, but it has already been confirmed by our common law and the outrage that occasionally happens when some judges have not followed that approach to our common law.

There are various provisions in Bill C-51 related to the important work on consent, on evidence in sexual assault trials. I would like to commend the MP for Sturgeon River—Parkland, our former interim leader of the Conservative Party, for her exceptional work on judicial training. I am highlighting that because it shows that, while the bill is well intentioned on this provision with respect to sexual assault consent and evidence at trial, our common law should actually take care of this. While it is good for Parliament to clearly weigh in and amend the code with respect to this, our judges are on the front lines and they should be approaching this with zero tolerance with respect to sexual assault cases in which the victim has been intoxicated, in some cases by the person who then perpetrated the attack.

All members here have no patience for that type of conduct in our society. I am certainly very proud that our government passed the Victims Bill of Rights and, for a time in Canada, put victims at the core of our justice system. That one part of this omnibus bill is important for us to talk about, even though the common law is addressing the issues that this bill purports to address.

The other aspects of this are unnecessary. With respect to the charter statement to be attached to all bills, there are already opinions given on the charter application, with respect to legislation, by justice lawyers as part of the legislative process. Other groups outside Parliament can weigh in with their thoughts with respect to the charter. However, there is no need for this sort of charter stamp to come with each bill, because Parliament is supreme. If the court determines down the road that there is a provision that needs clarification as a result of the charter, it is up to this Parliament then to provide that clarity.

As you know better than most, Mr. Speaker, because you are someone who is a champion of our parliamentary democracy, no Parliament is held to the laws of a previous Parliament. That provision with respect to charter opinions or the charter statements in the bill is unnecessary and is being done for political posturing.

Finally, the last part of this omnibus bill is the so-called removal or amending of no longer relevant Criminal Code provisions or seldom-used Criminal Code provisions. Some would call this a clean-up part of the omnibus bill. Is that so pressing that we are here using closure on debate to ram this through?

I am not sure when the last time was that there was a duel in Canada. I know there is two sword lengths separating the government from the opposition, but I do not suspect they are planning on us calling for a duel.

As for witchcraft, these are provisions that are historical curiosities. What is outrageous is that the government, and I am glad the government House leader is here, has passed 19 bills in its time in this Parliament. Nineteen have achieved royal assent, yet the government is hitting around the 30th time that it has limited debate in this chamber on such a low record.

I tried to highlight this in a previous speech last week. It is startling, the hypocrisy of the government. The government House leader who is mildly heckling me now, her deputy was the one who would feign outrage in the previous Parliament if time allocation was used or if omnibus legislation was used. In fact, the member for Winnipeg North, who has now joined in her heckling, called it “an assault on democracy”. That is how he referred to omnibus legislation.

The last week in the House, all I have seen is omnibus legislation, shepherded by the MP for Winnipeg North. The hypocrisy is stunning. The government House leader is using closure more times than the government has passed bills. The denominator is not matching up to show that the government is actually being productive. It is limiting parliamentary debate and really getting nothing done. It is startling.

I will remind my friend from Winnipeg North, because he is so verbose in this place, that he just gives me a wealth of information to draw on. When it comes to time allocation, what did he say? In November 2012, he said:

...never before have I ever experienced a government that is so persistent in using time allocation, a form of closure, using it as frequently as this particular Government House Leader does.

His government House leader is using it far more than the Conservative House leader did. I hope that at least behind closed doors he is expressing to her the same amount of outrage and indignation that we used to hear regularly in the last Parliament. Between the assaults on democracy and the limitation of debate, it is stunning that he can stand in this place and speak without a smile. It really is startling.

I will use the remainder of the time I have to show why this is hurting public policy development in Canada. We have an omnibus bill that is full of removing critical parts of our Criminal Code, like witchcraft, yet the government is not passing Bill S-3, in response to the Descheneaux decision of the Quebec Superior Court. The Liberal government's indigenous affairs minister did not even call Mr. Descheneaux to the Parliament to consult on the bill. It had until July 3 to pass legislation with respect to that court.

However, this government House leader puts froward omnibus bills full of witchcraft and other historical curiosities, a motion on Paris that was meaningless, and other motions, but it is not getting its own work done. If it wants to do an omnibus bill on justice, how about addressing the Jordan decision. Victims have seen accused murderers and accused sexual assault criminals being released as a result of judicial delays. That is the reform we need to see to justice. We have been asking, for a year and a half, for the minister to appoint judges. We have been pushing to get delays down.

The government is allowing accused criminals to be released because of its inaction, and its so-called justice omnibus bill is addressing duelling and witchcraft but not the Jordan decision. That speaks to the priorities of the Liberal government, a lot of talk on victims while it is not funding a registry for dangerous sexual offenders, while it is not addressing the Jordan decision. It talks about nation-to-nation dialogue with our first nations, yet does not even call Mr. Descheneaux to help pass important legislation.

I hope that, when we all go back to our ridings in the summer, the government House leader and her deputy reflect on the decline of our parliamentary democracy under their watch and that we come back in the fall to a full apology from them.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will debate Bill C-49, on transportation modernization, at second reading.

On Monday we will debate our changes to the Standing Orders. Following that debate, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-51.

Tuesday the House will debate Bill S-3, on Indian registration, at report stage and third reading.

Following that debate, we hope to make progress on the following bills: Bill S-2, the bill respecting motor vehicle recalls, at second reading; Bill C-17, respecting the environmental assessment process in Yukon, at second reading; Bill C-25, on encouraging gender parity on the boards of federally regulated organizations; Bill C-36, the bill to give Statistics Canada greater independence; Bill C-48, the bill to impose a moratorium on oil tankers off the B.C. coast; and Bill C-34, the bill to reinstate sensible conditions for public service employment.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very well that we are committed to ending sexual discrimination against indigenous women. He also knows that it is necessary to pass Bill S-3 in the House of Commons in order to ensure that thousands of people who are currently being denied their rights in Canada gain rights.

When members opposite were in government, they fought indigenous women on sexual discrimination for years in the courts. Our government is acting on it. We have withdrawn the appeal submitted by the former government and we are going to do the right thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, fighting discrimination is a priority for our government and ending sexual discrimination against indigenous women is a priority as well. We are tackling this on two fronts.

The first stage is Bill S-3. That bill will take an approach to reform registration, membership, and citizenship in partnership with indigenous people. The second step that we have adopted will be to immediately engage in formal consultations with indigenous groups and those impacted by discriminatory—

Canada Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, in June, typically we sit late to deal with very important legislation like budget implementation acts, and gender equity, which we have not talked about yet, Bill S-3, that has come from the Senate. Instead tonight, we are sitting here until midnight dealing with two problems that the Prime Minister created himself. We just finished debating one bill in terms of how he had to create equity among his ministers because he said he would have an equitable minister situation, but he actually did not.

We are now debating a bill about political fundraising that is a problem he created but he has not fixed with the bill. It is a bit of razzle-dazzle to say we are going to be more open and transparent, but the bottom line is that he is still going to have those cash-for-access fundraisers, and that is what the problem was.

I can say with certainty that former prime minister Stephen Harper never had cash-for-access fundraisers. If there were ever a time when ministers by mistake ended up at an event with stakeholders, they immediately left and paid back the money.

The Liberals have been shameful in their cash for access, and they have introduced the bill and are trying to bamboozle the public by saying they are doing a better job and are going to be open and transparent. They have not fixed the problem, and they should be ashamed.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate we began this morning on the NDP opposition day motion.

This evening, we will return to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Salaries Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Financial Administration Act. Following that, we will begin second reading of Bill C-50 on political financing.

Tomorrow will be dedicated to debating Bill C-44 on the budget.

As for next week, our hope is to make progress on a number of bills, including Bill C-6 concerning citizenship; Bill C-50 respecting political financing; Bill C-49, transportation modernization; and Bill S-3, amendments to the Indian Act.

Finally, next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday shall be allotted days.

As the member very well knows, I always look forward to working with all members. I look forward to continuing our conversation.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration); and Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservatives' opposition motion. This evening, we will proceed with Bill C-45, the cannabis act, at second reading.

Tomorrow morning, we will commence report stage of Bill C-44, the budget. In the afternoon, we will return to Bill C-45.

Our hope for Monday and Tuesday is to send Bill C-45 to committee, and also to deal with report stage of Bill C-44. Other bills for next week include the Senate amendments to Bill C-6, the Citizenship Act; and Bill S-3, provided the bill is passed by the Senate.

Should time permit, we would also like some debate on Bill C-49, transportation modernization; and Bill C-24, to amend the Salaries Act.

We have had a conversation among House leaders. I look forward to continuing those conversations, and I will do my best to report to this House the information that I have, and we will do our best to work well together so that all members can do the good work that we are sent here to do.

Indigenous Affairs

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, issues of registration, membership, and citizenship go to the heart of identity in community. Bill S-3 will correct known sex-based discrimination in Indian registration. We know that a real conversation needs to happen on these issues. That is why I have committed to launching a formal consultation on registration, membership, and citizenship early next year to deal with the other issues that are not in this bill. I look forward to hearing from communities from coast to coast to coast.

I am committed to finding a real reform forward, but right now 35,000 people can get their rights if this bill goes through, and—

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, today we are continuing with opposition day. Tomorrow the House will consider the report stage of Bill C-29, the second budget bill, and it will continue studying that bill Monday and Tuesday of next week.

For the remainder of the week, we plan to call the following bills: Bill S-4, the tax conventions legislation, and Bill S-3, the Indian tax amendment, provided we get these two bills from the Senate; Bill C-25, the business frameworks bill; and Bill C-30 concerning CETA. All these bills are at second reading.

It is my hope that parties will be able to negotiate on how to proceed in advancing these very important initiatives. Something I have committed to is working well with other parties, and I will continue to do that.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals talk a good game about the importance of nation-to-nation consultation, but they are failing.

Bill S-3 has been criticized by National Chief Bellegarde, the Native Women's Association, and the Quebec Native Women Inc. The litigant said that the first time he knew about the bill was when he was called to committee to testify. Further, the Indigenous Bar Association says it is riddled with technical flaws.

When will the minister end her paternalistic Ottawa-knows-best approach and consult with those who are directly affected?

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

Mr. Speaker, if empowering first nations is like Bill S-3, where they did not even bother to talk to the chief and defendant, that is a very poor example. Band members are having to take their leadership to court to get basic financial information.

On this side of the House, we are with people like Charmaine Stick, who the minister is forcing to go to court for this information. The Liberals should be ashamed. Why is the minister forcing Charmaine to go to court instead of showing some leadership and enforcing the law?