Bill C-15 (Historical)

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

This enactment provides that the Government of Canada must take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and must prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration.

Amendments to Bill C-318 at Committee Stage

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to intervene on a point of order raised by the member for Winnipeg North this morning respecting Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, adoptive and intended parents.

My colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, mentioned the committee process, where I tabled crucial amendments to this legislation that would bring the bill into compliance with Canadian law, specifically with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Let me remind the government that it is the government that passed Bill C-15, which affirms that all legislation going forward has to be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Not including these important amendments means that the legislation now is not compliant with articles 19, 21 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The member of Parliament for Winnipeg North talked about the amendments being out of scope, but even the sponsor of the bill said that the amendments were absolutely within the scope of what Bill C-318 was trying to do.

My colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, also pointed out the need for a royal recommendation for these amendments. I would like to encourage him to reconsider this, considering he has the highest number of kids in care in an urban area in the whole country, 90% who are indigenous.

What my colleague failed to mention is that the Liberal government has the power to allow the amendments to proceed by giving notice of a royal recommendation for Bill C-318. In fact, Bosc and Gagnon, at page 839, states the following:

...since Standing Order 79 was changed in 1994, private Members’ bills involving the spending of public money have been allowed to proceed through the legislative process on the assumption that a royal recommendation will be submitted by a Minister of the Crown before the bill is to be read a third time and passed

The only ones who can act right now are the Liberals. On their watch, they are not upholding Canadian law, which includes Bill C-15. We are meeting about the red dress right now, about murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. The child welfare system is called the pipeline for becoming murdered and missing. The government's failure is not addressing the 90% of kids in care.

It is only the Liberals who can save the lives of indigenous children who are being dropped off at shelters, separated from their families and communities. I am asking them to table a royal recommendation to do the right thing to ensure that Bill C-318 can go to a vote at third reading with the amendments adopted by committee. Although they have mentioned they are putting forth Bill C-59, a similar bill, once again it is not consistent with upholding Canadian law and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is in the hands of the Liberals. Lives are in their hands. They need to put forward a royal recommendation. This is a life and death matter. They have to stop playing with indigenous lives and do what is needed now.

Indigenous Affairs

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the legacy of Canadian policies designed to kill the Indian in the child still impacts our families. There are more indigenous kids in child welfare today than there were at the height of residential schools. In Manitoba, over 90% are indigenous. That is why I was proud, along with my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam and the NDP, to amend Bill C-318 to provide EI benefits for kinship and customary care. I was concerned that the Liberal members abstained from voting but not surprised, considering they voted against our amendment to affirm the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous parents in the national child care legislation.

If the current government is not ready to give our kids back, then its words of reconciliation are empty. The government must uphold Bill C-15, which mandates the government to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you. We want to amend for exactly the same reason. It's to be consistent with Bill C-15. This is the amendment:

For greater certainty, in this Part, a reference to the placement of one or more children with a self-employed person for the purpose of adoption includes a situation in which one or more Indigenous children are placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the Indigenous group, community or people to which they belong, with a self-employed person, other than their parent, for the purpose of giving the self-employed person primary responsibility for providing their day-to-day care.

It's for the same reasons I put forward before: to be consistent with Bill C-15 and the articles in UNDRIP that I outlined.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much for your feedback. I have a couple of things.

This is not a choice: When Bill C-15 became law, there was a legal obligation for MPs to make sure that things were consistent with Bill C-15, so I don't think we're doing anybody any favours by not upholding the rule of law today, full stop.

On the matter of customary and kinship care, the government is saying it still needs to consult when there is ample evidence. The Liberal government has said they support the national inquiry on issues around the child welfare system, and indigenous leadership across the country has been very clear that we need control over our own child welfare systems, which includes having customary and kinship care as a main form of keeping our kids within our communities. We know, certainly in my community, that kids are aging out of care and being dropped off at the Salvation Army. One has only to look at the impacts of the sixties scoop, when kids were taken out of their families and communities and shipped off to other places, to see what that looks like in our communities today, and I'll tell you what it looks like: It looks like a whole lot of people—thousands of people—living with complex mental health issues and trauma after being adopted out and having to live in families where they suffered the most outrageous abuse, something that this government hasn't even looked at yet.

This is an opportunity for the Liberal government and all parties to unanimously support the human rights of indigenous kids in this country, and once again I'm in a committee where that is not happening.

Child welfare is a pipeline to the justice system. Child welfare is a pipeline to become murdered or missing—murdered or missing men and boys and murdered or missing indigenous women and girls.

We have an opportunity to uphold our legislative duties, to uphold the Constitution, which now includes Bill C-15, and the fact that we are using consultation as an excuse shows the normalization of violence against indigenous people in this country that has been perpetrated through systems and, I would say, at the very worst, through child welfare systems. This is why lead advocates for this bill called for the inclusion of customary and kinship care.

Abstaining is silence. It's saying, “I'm going to stay silent to violence against indigenous kids in this country.” It's time we get our kids back. Given the kind of violence that kids undergo in the child welfare system and the stories that you hear about the way the system has failed our kids—including for my own family and in the case of my mother, who grew up in child welfare—we have an obligation today to do what's right.

I am asking everyone at the table for the votes to show a true act of reconciliation. That's what I'm asking for in honour of the kids who have been lost in systems. I'm asking for your courage today to not abstain.

I'm going to leave it at that, but I wanted to share that, because that is how critical this amendment is. I'm glad that the Conservative folks around the table and the Bloc along with the NDP understand the critical nature of these amendments when we're talking about anything related to child welfare.

Thank you.

[Anamika Mona Nandy, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Yes, we did hear the brief description of Bill C-15 with regard to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That said, we are not here to speak to the content of that particular bill, so we would not be able to make a direct comparison.

I will say, though, that in terms of kinship and customary care, the issue is with regard to the temporary nature of those placements, and that's the focus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Gazan.

As chair I must rule on admissibility of amendments. My responsibility is to ensure that the procedure of the House of Commons that has been adopted by all parties is followed.

Before I give a ruling on the amendment moved by Ms. Gazan, I'm going to ask whichever official feels it is appropriate to speak briefly to the issue.

Does Bill C-318 infringe on Bill C-15? You heard the concern outlined by Ms. Gazan. Could you briefly address that before...?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

I feel it's like The Twilight Zone. I'm back here again having to justify why these amendments are relevant in terms of being able to amend the bill.

We'd like to change it to “For greater certainty, in this part, a reference to the placement of one or more children with a claimant for the purpose of adoption includes a situation in which one or more Indigenous children are placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions...to which they belong, with a claimant, other than their parent, for the purpose of giving the claimant primary responsibility for providing their day-to-day care.”

In the last Parliament we passed Bill C-15, which means that all legislation going forward has to be consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I'd like to read into the record the eighth paragraph the preambular paragraphs in Bill C-15 specifically, which states the following:

Whereas the implementation of the Declaration must include concrete measures to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence, racism and discrimination, including systemic racism and discrimination, against Indigenous peoples and Indigenous elders, youth, children, women, men, persons with disabilities and gender-diverse persons and two-spirit persons;

I'd also like to refer to preambular paragraph 18 of Bill C-15, which states:

Whereas the Declaration is affirmed as a source for the interpretation of Canadian law;

We knew that well before Bill C-15, so moving on, we see that section 5 of Bill C-15 speaks specifically to consistency. It reads:

The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.

I want to start out by first commending MP Falk for putting forward this bill and for working with stakeholders who pushed to get this bill forward. One of the areas stakeholders were concerned about was that kinship and customary care were not included, which is something that MP Falk and I had an opportunity to speak about before and which is something that is critical.

Before I refer to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I'll give you a couple of reasons that this bill is not only not consistent with Bill C-15 but that it also does not uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly articles 19, 21 and 22, which I'll read into the record.

Ninety per cent of all kids in care in Manitoba are indigenous. There are more kids in child welfare now than at the height of the residential schools. There is no secret about it. The fact that we're even debating whether this falls out of scope is disturbing to me, quite frankly, when we passed Bill C-15 in the last Parliament and when we know that almost all kids in care in this country—over 90%, certainly, in my province—are indigenous.

If you look at article 19 of the UN declaration—I'm going to read it into the record—you'll see that it states that “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions”—which includes child welfare institutions—“in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

Article 21 states that:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.

2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.

We know the child welfare system is a direct pipeline to murdered and missing indigenous women.

Article 22 reads:

Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this Declaration.

It's something that this bill, in its current iteration, does not do.

I want to commend other parties in the House that understood the importance of ensuring that Bill C-15 was compatible with the child care legislation.

Once again I'm here to talk about the very essence of reconciliation, which is giving our kids back. We need to have the decision-making power and the financial resources to be able to care for our kids in the way we choose to care for our kids, which is primarily through customary and kinship care arrangements.

In terms of child care, which is outside of the scope of the bill, the last time I was at this committee all members, including one Liberal, voted in favour because they understood that the government has a legal obligation to ensure that all legislation going forward is consistent with the United Nations declaration. This bill needs to be amended so that it does just that, so I'd like to keep this amendment on the floor.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I asked because we passed legislation in the last parliament, Bill C-15, and all legislation going forward has to be consistent with the articles contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Does this bill do that? It's a legal obligation for us now. Does it do that?

[Solomon Sanderson, Consultant, Former Chief, As an Individual]

Okay.

What I did was I reviewed the Métis nation's self-government agreement with the feds and also the Métis nation's self-government act that recognizes self-government for Métis under federal jurisdiction and law, and the Métis capacity to make treaties and ratify treaties, and their citizenship status.

The first term for Métis, as we already heard, was half-breed. That's something that is not addressed, and they call that the code of silence. The Métis had to inherit their Indian status. When they inherited those inherent rights, they inherited the inherent sovereignty of the Indian nations, the inherent rights by sector, the inherent rights to education, health, economics, justice and so on, and the inherent right to the title of lands and resources. The inherent rights we have as Indian nations were granted to our nations by the Creator, and they're granted to our people by the Creator.

That's what the Métis have inherited from the Indian heritage they have, and they're guaranteed. Their reserves are recognized and confirmed and guaranteed with the national powers of treaty-making and the international treaties that we made. The Métis inherited Treaty No. 3 in Ontario, as you know. We are born with those rights and that status, and we inherit them from generation to generation.

Now, on the non-Indian side, they inherited the colonial benefits that the non-Indians have: the criteria for title to land and resources, for example, and, in Manitoba, the homesteads that the non-Indians occupied and improved. They met the criteria for having title to the land and resources, the Métis settlements and the Métis-occupied and -approved lands prior to treaty. That provided them the title to their lands and resources as you have under your colonial systems. This is one example of taking the best of what they inherited from both sides—the Indian and non-Indian sides. The act goes on to recognize their jurisdiction and laws. It also deals with the recognition that they have to have their own laws. That means there has to be a process in place to deal with the interface between jurisdiction and law within the Métis governments of the Métis nation and jurisdiction and law within the Métis laws, the first nation laws and the provincial and federal laws.

It also deals with the capacity to recognize citizenship. Subsection 35(2) now recognizes that the Métis are constitutionally distinct, and the portability of their rights has to be included in the Métis act. I'm talking about the portability of their inherent sovereignty, their inherent rights and treaties, treaty rights whether in community, regionally, nationally or internationally.

When you do that, keep in mind that nations make treaties; treaties do not make nations. Modern-day treaty-making creates governments. If you don't have a government in the first place, what are you doing signing a treaty? The treaties that are going to be made or that have been made by both parties need ratification and implementation under new specific and unique laws to give them legal effect.

There's a bigger picture that you need to be aware of, which most people are not aware of. The court decision in Manitoba said that the Crown is in a fiduciary relationship with the Métis as a distinct form of aboriginal peoples who cannot be ignored. It went on to say that the unfinished business of reconciliation of the Métis people in Canadian society is a matter of national and constitutional importance.

Ask yourself this: What is that all about? Here's what it's about, and most people don't know there's a bigger picture.

When we talk about the comprehensive legal and political framework governing Crown-Métis relationships, that framework is governed by what? It's the inherent sovereignty of the Métis nation, the assumed sovereignty of the Crown, the inherent rights and title by the Métis nation, the Crown treaty nations, the Métis treaty relations and the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Former Supreme Court judge Dickson called it their bill of rights that recognizes everything we're talking about.

Then we have the Constitution Act of 1982, with section 35 being a full box, and section 25 now applying the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Of course, when we look at that, there is UNDRIP, with Bill C-15 now having to implement United Nations declaration.

When we talk about the recognition of that framework, that broader-based framework, what does it recognize? It's that framework that governs by those instruments that I just highlighted, and it recognizes sovereign treaty relations, Crown-to-Métis relations, nation-to-nation government relations, government-to-government relations and inherent rights to treaty rights relations.

The format for implementation, then, or what that judgment is calling for, requires the implementation of that framework respecting political relations: the equality of government jurisdiction and law in courts. Métis—

Indian Act

[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 Tseeweyhum 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.

Employment Insurance Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start out by congratulating Adopt4Life, the Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada and the time to attach campaign for their tireless advocacy, which has led to Bill C-318 today.

I also congratulate my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster for putting this bill forward. It is an important first step in providing adoptive parents with the parental time they need to attach to adoptive children.

This is a critical first step in improving the outcomes for children being adopted, many of whom are over the age of 10 at the time of placement and have a history of trauma and loss. I, along with my NDP colleagues, support this change as we recognize that building relationships between children and adoptive families is vital for the success, not only of the child, but also for the adoptive family.

The first year that children are with their adoptive parents or caregivers is crucial for bonding and creating a foundation for strong relationships. The extension of this parental leave is crucial.

Unfortunately, one of the areas where this bill falls short is the recognition of kinship and customary care arrangements. This is strongly supported by Adopt4Life and Time to Attach campaign, which are also fighting for an additional 15-week leave for children who are receiving customary and kinship care.

The province of Manitoba defines “kinship care” as an arrangement in which the child is placed with extended family, such as a grandparent or someone with whom they have a significant relationship. Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions defines “customary care” as care through an individual's lifespan in which the community takes care of its own members according to its customs, traditions and norms.

Both kinship and customary care arrangements are common within indigenous nations as we struggle to reclaim our families and children. This is a serious omission in the bill that needs to be addressed, especially because, in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 90% of all children in care are indigenous. There are more children in the child welfare system today than at the height of the residential school system.

We know the harmful implications of separating children from their families and communities. One only has to look at the impacts of residential schools, where children were forcibly removed from their families and shipped off to residential schools, and at the sixties scoop, where indigenous children were removed from customary care structures and placed in non-indigenous foster homes, disconnecting them from their familial and community structures, to see the lasting damage that has caused.

In both instances, physical, sexual, emotional, psychological and spiritual abuse were rampant. This has resulted in lasting trauma and loss for individuals, families and communities. This was acknowledged in the 2015 report by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Moreover, the omission of customary and kinship care is contrary to our international obligations, including UNDRIP and Bill C-15, which is now a law in Canada. It is also in violation of article II of the UN convention on genocide.

I want to share a story about my mother. My mother, Marjorie Gazan, was a street kid and a child welfare survivor who ended up in the system after my grandmother abandoned her and her younger brother in a hotel room in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, when she was five years old.

My grandmother had to leave them to earn money. There were no supports for indigenous women in the 1930s. There were no human rights. There was no one to turn to, especially for indigenous single mothers, and my grandmother was not an exception.

Since my mother was the eldest child, my grandmother left her in charge of her younger brother with specific instructions. She said, “Here is a loaf of bread, peanut butter and jam. It needs to last five days.” I remember my mother telling me how she, along with my uncle, gleefully ate the loaf of bread and ran out of their food ration in only one day. Hungry, scared and alone, my mother decided to call the Children's Aid Society.

It is beyond most people's imagination, especially those who have been privileged with human rights, what a five-year-old girl would have to have endured to understand who to call and how to work with the bureaucratic child welfare system to relieve her and her brother's hunger. It was not that my grandmother did not love her, but she had grown up as a street kid, who later in life became a serious alcoholic to deal with the violent genocide she had experienced throughout her life. Dislocated from her family for reasons directly correlated to the Indian Act and other institutional and colonial disruptions, including residential schools, she did not have anyone or anywhere to turn to. In fact, under the former Indian Act, a “person” is defined as “any individual other than an Indian”. This made it impossible for my grandmother.

When my mother and uncle were apprehended into care, my late great auntie Stella Goodwill offered to take them into her house on Standing Buffalo reservation. However, this did not occur. As a result, my mother ended up being switched between 15 different placements between the ages of five and 18. It was not until I was 13 years old that my mother reconnected with her family and her community of Wood Mountain Lakota first nation. My mother had to endure a life alone in the world, and as a result, I was brought up almost completely devoid of extended family. I often envied my friends having big family dinners with their relatives. This was robbed from our family by the child welfare system and residential schools, as well as the intergenerational impacts of institutionalization, colonialism and systemic racism.

I sometimes wonder why I was brought to the House of Commons, an often racist, misogynistic, classist and neocolonial environment, where talk of reconciliation is cheap and the discomfort demonstrated when the residue of trauma caused by colonial violence rears its head is received with assumptions and judgments. Maybe that is why I am here, to tell these stories, to speak these truths so that they will forever be recorded in the Hansard, to fight for justice for families and communities, and to bring our children and women home.

Customary and kinship care is one way to achieve this. Although the NDP will be supporting this bill, it is my hope that extending the benefits to customary and kinship caregivers will be addressed at committee to truly reflect reconciliation.

Motion in Amendment

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C-35, the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act.

Let me take this opportunity to first of all thank all of the advocates, experts, parents, child care providers, workers, unions and others who took the time to make presentations or write submissions to the committee. Their passion and their knowledge about quality, affordable and accessible child care shone through and helped us make the bill better. There are too many people and organizations to name, but I am so grateful for their advocacy and guidance.

I am proud that we have emerged from the committee process with an improved piece of legislation. As a result of amendments put forward by the NDP, the bill includes stronger reporting requirements for greater accountability and transparency; more inclusive language that reflects the needs of children with disabilities and those from official language minority communities; recognition that the conditions of work affect the conditions of care; and an amendment to uphold the right of indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent on matters pertaining to their children. This acknowledgement is historic, and it is the first time since the passage of Bill C-15 that it has been enshrined in federal legislation.

This builds on other important provisions included in the original bill, including an explicit prioritization of non-profit and public child care for federal funding, something the NDP fought for and won. Witness after witness made it clear that the research overwhelmingly agrees that non-profit and public child care delivers the best outcomes and the highest quality of care for children.

I hope that after Bill C-35 becomes law, we no longer see federal money being used to expand for-profit child care in Canada, as we saw several months ago in Alberta with the federal government announcing support for 22,500 new for-profit spaces. Public money should be used to expand public and non-profit child care. Public monies need to be invested in public institutions. It is better for workers and it is better for children.

The NDP supports this bill, and I urge my colleagues from all parties to pass it unanimously to show our commitment to supporting children, families, workers and child care providers. This is an important step towards building a permanent national system of $10-a-day child care.

I want to focus my remarks today on a theme that emerged time and time again in committee: We have a child care workforce crisis in this country. Child care workers receive wages that are not livable and benefits that are not adequate. They often endure difficult working conditions. Unless we address these issues, we are putting the success of a national child care system at risk.

Who are these workers? Well, more than 98% of them are women; one-third are immigrants or non-permanent residents; and child care workers are more likely than workers in all other occupations to be racialized. They perform some of the most critical work in our society, providing education during the years most crucial to a child’s development, and yet they are treated as disposable.

The wage floor for early childhood educators in Ontario, for example, is just $19 an hour. It is just $19 an hour for providing essential work. Do members know the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Toronto? It is $2,500 a month. This is outrageous. We are asking people to take on the work of looking after and educating our kids, and then we are not paying them enough to provide for their own kids. It is no wonder that people who trained as early childhood educators are leaving the profession to take better-paying jobs in other fields, or that many people are discouraged from entering the profession in the first place. More than any other factor, this is why we have a shortage of child care spaces across the country.

I know that the fee reductions we have been seeing as a result of the bilateral agreements with the provinces are having a huge and positive impact for thousands of families. I want to acknowledge that; I want to acknowledge that it is making their lives more affordable, but far too many others are stuck on wait-lists and cannot access the benefits of more affordable child care.

We can build all of the new spaces we want, but that means little unless well-trained, well-paid workers are put in place to staff these new centres.

I have often heard the situation in the child care sector described as a worker shortage, but let us be clear: This is not, in fact, a worker shortage; it is a wage shortage. It is a respect shortage. It is a dignity shortage. This shortage of dignity and respect is contributing to the shortage of affordable spaces.

Last week the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a report showing that almost half of younger children, which means those not yet attending kindergarten, live in “child care deserts”, where there are more than three children for every licensed child care space. In Saskatchewan, the number is 92%, and in my own province of Manitoba, it is 76%.

One of the key recommendations the report offers to address this situation is to guarantee decent wages and benefits for child care workers. We need immediate federal investments to provinces and territories to improve the wage grids of their child care staff. We also need this government to put in place a workforce strategy that ensures livable wages, better benefits, retirement security, adequate working conditions, and education and training opportunities.

I want to address the argument I often hear from my colleagues, which is that this is provincial jurisdiction.

We are building a national child care system. Without federal leadership to address this workforce crisis and improve pay, benefits and working conditions, this system will not be sustainable. It is not just workers who suffer from poor compensation; their working conditions are kids’ learning conditions. They are directly tied to the quality of care

The federal government can and must use its spending powers to raise the bar for workers. The Liberals know that they can do this. In fact, in 2021, during the 2021 election, they promised a wage floor of $25 an hour for personal support workers, an area that is also within provincial jurisdiction. Why can they not make the same promise of livable wages for child care staff, who perform different but equally essential roles in society?

We do not have to choose between $10-a-day child care and raising wages for child care workers. We can and must have both if we are going to have a successful national child care strategy. We can and must have both to ensure that kids get the best quality of care and that we are recruiting and retaining the workers we need to create more spaces so that parents can access affordable child care in the communities where they live.

I do not want this generation and the future generations of early childhood educators to have to make the same choice that I made: leaving a profession that I loved because I wanted to pay my bills. I want to live in a country where the work of early childhood educators is valued just as highly as the work of doctors, lawyers, engineers and all other professions.

The government cannot wash its hands of this responsibility. It has a leadership role to play in ensuring that every child care worker in Canada is treated with respect and dignity.

I ask this today of all of us in the House: Let us pass this bill. Let us ensure that the people who are at the heart of the national child care system that we are trying to build, without whose labour there would not be any system at all, are no longer an afterthought.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

On Monday, we heard from several of the leaders about how important optionality is for this bill and how, when moving forward with first nations.... A lot of the time, government had a “we know best” attitude in many decades past, and that has harmed the trust between first nations and the federal government. They spoke to why optionality is a very important part of this piece of legislation and the work that they're doing.

First, I wonder if you could speak to why optionality, or opting in, for band councils is an important part of advancing reconciliation.

The other part is this: How does this help us implement some of the principles surrounding UNDRIP in terms of what we promised in Bill C-15? What does this mean in relation to what we are trying to accomplish with UNDRIP and moving forward with this legislation?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much for that question.

Just so you know, there is an instrument that is used to determine FPIC. It's the UN expert mechanism, in fact.

What free, prior and informed consent means is free of coercion, prior to any decision being made and knowing what you're making a decision about. Unless you have those three things, you don't have consent. I know that we're talking about consultation processes with indigenous people. I don't know any parent in this country who would oppose having free, prior and informed consent about matters impacting their children. In fact, I would like you to find me one indigenous person, let alone political organization or political leadership, who would say, “No, we don't want to have rights. We don't want to have our self-determination respected over matters impacting our children.” I don't think any parent, in fact, would fight against their self-determination to make decisions about their own children. That is simply what my amendment is proposing.

As a country, we have also signed on to international law. Part of that international law is the UN expert mechanism. As well as free, prior and informed consent, this already informs part of our law. I'm not proposing something that's outside of Canadian law. It's affirmed, once again, through Bill C-15.

In the spirit of reconciliation, in the spirit of healing in this country, we need to see this in a bill and a legal framework. I'm talking as an indigenous person. We need to know that Canada understands, in 2023, that indigenous people, even though we have Canadian Human Rights Tribunal battles going on still in the courts, forced sterilization and birth alerts, and no access to school, have, at the very least, in the spirit of reconciliation, in spite of all the constant human rights violations, free, prior and informed consent—free of coercion, prior to any decisions being made about our kids and informed, knowing what the decision is—before any decision is made. That's precisely what this amendment is for.

Thank you.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to amend clause 6 by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 4 with the following:

programs and services that are culturally appropriate, that are led by Indigenous peoples and that respect the right of Indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent in matters relating to children.

In the last session, we passed Bill C-15. Section 5 of that act states:

The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.

This is the first occasion on which we can actually uphold the intent of that act and the legal obligations of that act.

It's my understanding that all members of Parliament have committed to reconciliation in this country, and at the very core of reconciliation is to give us back our rights of our children. That means that, in all matters respecting our children, indigenous people should have their free, prior and informed consent upheld.

Unfortunately, as we meet here today to discuss this bill, in real time that is not happening. I'll give you a couple of examples. At this moment in time, 2023, indigenous women continue to experience forced sterilization. That's an attack on our rights as mothers of our children. A second example is regarding reports of birth alerts, which still occur in this country—in real time.

I don't know where I would ever argue that any parent has the free, prior and informed consent over matters impacting their children. Unfortunately, for indigenous peoples in Canada, particularly mothers, that continues not to happen. I urge members of this committee, in an act of reconciliation, if we are to move forward in this country, we must first recognize the need to give indigenous people our children back.

I've had many good discussions with many of you around the room about the value of this bill, of this amendment, in terms of a real act of reconciliation in this country. I feel that we're ready for that. I certainly wouldn't debate any parental right to free, prior and informed consent, but unfortunately that's still not the case for indigenous people in this country.

I am looking forward to this moment, to working together to reconcile in this country in a real way.

I'll leave it there. Thank you.