Debates of Oct. 27th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Care for First Nations Children

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election campaign, there were many things said in the to and fro that took place. The NDP looked at how to manage this situation and felt that it could be done responsibly and without creating a deficit.

Certainly, when the Liberals have gone three times higher on the credit card they asked the Canadian people for, and that is where they have gone, they should have been able to find $155 million to help out our Canadian children.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the motion on the floor today is asking the government to conform to the ruling of the tribunal, which we are already doing. It asks us to accept Jordan's principle and to fund it appropriately, which we are already doing. It also asks us to fund it based on the numbers the NDP sees as fit, not on what the court ruling says. The court ruling says it should be funded based on need.

I would like to ask the Conservatives what their view is on that.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have faith in the work by the Conservative Party on this particular position. I have faith in the work done by the NDP in bringing this very important issue forward. It is important for us to realize that it is time something is done about this.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and humbled to serve as a committee member for the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. When the government committed to reconciliation and the Prime Minister vowed to enact the 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation report, it was clear the committee would be working on pressing issues.

The committee began with an introduction to indigenous issues. During the meetings, we heard how the residential school system affected indigenous families and their culture. Although residential schools are often thought of as being an issue of the past, the lasting effects are still a major hurdle that continues to plague indigenous people. Many of the witnesses who appeared before the committee had gone to residential schools or have family members who attended.

Residential schools were designed to break their culture. From their mother tongue to their spiritual beliefs, indigenous people had to give up who they were, but the greatest trauma was caused by forcefully being removed from their families.

When the children returned, they went back to families and a culture of which they were no longer a part. Often indigenous people had no way to cope with the trauma. They began to develop mental health issues because there was no belief that things would get better. Many of the survivors turned to drugs and alcohol to deal with their pain. Without being healthy, they could not hold jobs and often fell into poverty.

It was shocking to hear that the suicide rate in indigenous communities across the country ran up to 11 times higher than the non-indigenous rate. They may have survived the residential schools, but by not having the resources in place to deal with their trauma, the cycle often continues.

Indigenous communities still experience the trauma of losing their children daily in our country. First nations, child, and family services take children from their parents everyday due to neglect. Unfortunately, these children find themselves removed from their families, culture, and communities when they are placed in provincial custody in the south.

Right now, according to experts, it is not uncommon for 6% of children on reserves to be in state care. In some communities, the numbers can double. This is totally unacceptable.

In 2005, many Canadians across the country were exposed to how broken the system was with the passing of Jordan River Anderson. Jordan was born with a rare muscular disorder. Due to his disorder, Jordan spent the first two years of his life in a hospital away from his family. When doctors determined that he was ready to go home, he could not. There was an issue with Health Canada and First Nations Child and Family Services. While on the reserve, the health care of indigenous people is provided by Health Canada and is paid for by the federal government.

Jordan was in a medical foster home because the treatment he needed was only available in Winnipeg, 800 kilometres away from his home. Medical foster homes fall under the care of First Nations Child and Family Services, which is funded by the provinces. Jordan needed medical treatments at home, but the federal and provincial governments could not agree on who would be responsible to fund his home care. Instead of going home, Jordan was forced to wait.

Two years later, Jordan died at the age of five, alone in Winnipeg. Jordan never had the opportunity to live with his loving family. He never had a real home. As a father, I find this story painful to tell. I cannot imagine having a child who did not receive care because neither level of government wanted to take responsibility. While some find Jordan's story shocking, first nation Canadians from across the country know this story is still a common one.

No child should ever be put in Jordan's situation. That is why Jordan's principle was developed. We must take a common sense approach to services. Child welfare should come first. An indigenous child should never receive services that are less than their non-indigenous peers because of provincial and federal funding disputes.

Members of Parliament on both sides of the House showed that they agreed with this sentiment in 2007 when they unanimously voted in favour of private member's motion, Motion No. 296, stating that “the government should immediately adopt a child first principle, based on Jordan's Principle, to resolve jurisdictional disputes involving the care of First Nations children”.

The vote may have been been unanimous, but the problem did not end with the adoption of Motion No. 296. When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released its report, the third call to action was, “We call upon all levels of government to fully implement Jordan's principle”. On the indigenous and northern affairs committee, we heard Jordan's principle mentioned constantly. There are still first nations children who do not have the same access to services and opportunities as every Canadian child. The stories are just as heartbreaking as Jordan's.

The Liberal Party made a variety of large commitments to the indigenous people of our country. The Liberals have promised a new nation-to-nation relationship with our indigenous people. They also call for record funding to indigenous programs, and the implementation of the TRC call to action. They also called for the implementation of the call to action on Jordan's principle.

We already know the Liberal government has a questionable track record on its promises. Its first budget exposed what many Canadians already knew, that the Liberal Party was the party that would tell us what we wanted to hear, but not necessarily what it would do.

Just as expected, budget 2016 failed to deliver on several large commitments to indigenous Canadians. The record funding that had been promised was often less than what the previous Conservative government had committed to.

While the Liberals promised to implement the Jordan principle, budget 2016 only included $71 million for child welfare. This was far short of the $108.1 million that the former Conservative government, in 2012, said was the shortfall.

The Liberals claim that their promises of $634.8 million over five years will make things right. Over half of that is budgeted after the next election, which can only be described as a plan to deflect criticism.

While the Liberal government can break most of its promises without consequences, Jordan's principle is a matter of human right. The principle was brought before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by the Assembly of First Nations and Blackstock, the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. The tribunal ruled the government was not respecting the rights of indigenous Canadians.

In July, the Liberal government submitted a compliance report to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in which it committed to investing up to $382 million. The Liberals also claimed they were compliant.

The stakeholders were skeptical. Blackstock's lawyers said the government's response was vague. He was right. The government presented figures with no plan or timeline.

The tribunal agreed with Blackstock. The government was not in compliance. The tribunal found that the government had a narrow interpretation of what medical needs needed to be covered, only focusing on acute and complex medical situations. The government had adopted a policy that only applied to indigenous people on reserve.

This was not the government attempting to live up to its commitments to first nations. This was the Liberal government attempting to do the bare minimum. We cannot do the bare minimum when the welfare of children is on the line.

We cannot keep going back and forth in court. We need to more forward on this issue.

When my colleague, the member of Parliament for Timmins—James Bay presented his motion, he put forward an opportunity to end the stories we have heard too often in the media and first hand at committee. He has also put forward a motion that all sides of the House can agree on, not because the tribunal is involved but because it is the right thing to do.

The New Democrats support the motion. Many of my Conservative colleagues and I support the motion. Now it is up to the Liberals to make a decision. Hopefully it is for the children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the work my colleague does on our committee. Today we have seen a government that seems to believe the compliance order of the tribunal does not apply to it. The Liberals have ridiculed the shortfall numbers, saying they were made up, or pulled out of thin air or, as I think the minister said, cooked up in a back room. These numbers have been put forward by Cindy Blackstock to the tribunal and they have gone unanswered.

I want to ask my colleague about his concerns on the residential schools. He has heard the intimate connection between the suicide crisis and the residential schools. He has brought forward a motion to committee to study the implementation of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation commission. The first four recommendations are about the overhaul of the child welfare system and the implementation of Jordan's principle.

The New Democrats support the view that we should be looking to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the implementation, as my colleague does. I am concerned the Liberals are walking away on those commitments.

I want to ask my hon. colleague if he is concerned about any efforts that would happen at our committee if we did not take the time to find out whether the government is actually serious about implementing the promises of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We know the Prime Minister said that would be his priority.

It will come before committee. We have not voted yet. Does my colleague have any concerns that the Liberals are against reviewing something as simple and straightforward as whether Canada is in compliance with the recommendations in the call to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report?

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am definitely concerned. Many witnesses have spoken and they are concerned that all the TRC recommendations have to be implemented. There is a feeling that this study would be pushed aside, and I share that with my colleagues from the Conservative side and the NDP side.

Looking forward, if we want to make real change, we have to push forward on the TRC recommendations, and we have to get the grassroots feelings from the communities as witnesses. Moving forward, hopefully I do not see the Liberals shutting our study down. There is always hope.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things my colleague raised was about the government not coming forward with enough money, in his opinion. We took very seriously the ruling of the tribunal. In fact, we know the system is broken and that it has to be reformed as it relates to child services on reserve. That is why we moved immediately to invest urgent funding, $71 million this year.

The amount called for today in the opposition motion is arbitrary. It is not rooted in a real assessment of need. The tribunal said that the government should invest based on need. Does the member think governments should invest based on the need for financial support for children in first nations, or just based on a number that the NDP would like to put in a motion?

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with need, has to come money. They cannot have both. The Liberals have set aside $634.6 million worth of child welfare funding, and most of it will not be seen until after the next federal election. Are the Liberals trying to justify their negligence by saying that of that $634.6 million, they cannot find the money to fund this potential life-saving initiative?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House to speak to the opposition day motion put forward by our party. I want to acknowledge the important work of my colleague, the member of Parliament for Timmins—James Bay.

This opposition day motion is very important to the people I represent in my home of northern Manitoba. I want to share the language of this motion so that people at home and those who are tuning in know exactly what we are putting forward here today. It reads:

That the House call on the government to comply with the historic ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordering the end of discrimination against First Nations children, including by:

(a) immediately investing an additional $155 million in new funding for the delivery of child welfare that has been identified as the shortfall this year alone, and establishing a funding plan for future years that will end the systemic shortfalls in First Nations child welfare;

(b) implementing the full definition of Jordan's Principle as outlined in a resolution passed by the House on December 12, 2007;

(c) fully complying with all orders made by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and committing to stop fighting Indigenous families in court who are seeking access to services covered by the federal government; and

(d) making public all pertinent documents related to the overhaul of child welfare and the implementation of Jordan's Principle.

Before I go on, I would like to indicate that I will splitting my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

The opposition day motion I just read is extremely fundamental. We are talking about addressing the systemic underfunding of first nations child welfare. We are talking about implementation of a decision on the historic matter of Jordan's principle, which we all supported in 2007, nine years ago. It is about complying with the orders of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. It is about stopping the fight against indigenous families who are seeking justice. This motion is fundamental to the work we should be doing as parliamentarians.

However, it is also deeply troubling that one year after a new government was elected, a government that made all sorts of commitments to first nation people, that we have had to put such a motion forward because the government has been failing first nation people so deeply in our country. I want to spend a moment reflecting on how disturbing it is that we have to stand once again in the House to call on federal leadership when it comes to Jordan's principle.

Jordan's principle was named after a little guy from my constituency, Jordan Anderson, from Norway House Cree Nation. Jordan's experience of being shuffled back and forth between the provincial and federal system is, sadly, the inspiration behind Jordan's principle.

Jordan, because of the illness he faced and the way in which the federal government and the provincial government dealt with him, was not able to be at home with his family. Sadly, because of the chronic underfunding by the federal government of first nations, and first nations youth in particular, Jordan could not even spend the last days of his life at home with the people he loved.

Jordan's family and the leaders of his community, like Mike Muswagon and many others, fought for justice for Jordan, but they went beyond that. They said that no first nation child deserved to live through what Jordan had experienced, and that a first nation child, no matter where they are from, ought to have the same access to health care, safe housing, and services if they have disabilities, and the same kind of dignity, as any other child in Canada.

Nine years ago, parliamentarians stood in support of Jordan's principle, and I, like my other colleagues, want to acknowledge the hard work of Jean Crowder, a member of Parliament that I had the privilege of working with, who put forward Jordan's principle in the House. It is absurd that so many years later, despite the promises by the government across the way and its hollow commitments to first nations people, we have to once again ask it to fulfill its commitment to Jordan's principle.

I have the honour of representing 41 first nations in my constituency. Day in and day out in my constituency, I see the incredible energy that so many young people in first nations and Métis communities have across our north. However, over the last number of years, I have also seen the incredible challenges and massive barriers they have faced, particularly on reserve. We can trace all of those barriers to the inherent neglect we have seen from the federal government, to the decades of underfunding of first nations health care, housing, education, infrastructure and, more broadly, services. We can also trace it back to the colonial mentality in which Liberal and Conservative governments have imposed patriarchal views on first nations people, seeking assimilation, practising genocidal acts, and ensuring that first nation people do not live the lives that so many other Canadians live in terms of dignity.

Yesterday I was honoured to host a one-of-a-kind forum on Parliament Hill. It focused on the rise of precarious work in the millennial generation. We heard loud and clear from indigenous speakers about the particular barriers that indigenous youth face in our country. That is perhaps most emblematic in the experiences of children and young people who have grown up in the system of child and family services, the child welfare system, young people who have often been left to their own devices, who have faced incredible abuse, and who we know will be living with the impacts of that kind of neglect for years and even generations to come.

One of the most powerful speakers yesterday was Tasha Spillett, a Nehiyaw woman from Winnipeg, whose roots are in our north. She talked about the dangers of being, as she called it, “young and brown” in Canada. She talked about the impacts of colonization and the marginalization of indigenous youth in our country. In her speech, she connected these broader issues to a very real example of the way in which indigenous youth in our country are facing abuse. She chose to focus on perhaps one of the most powerful examples of the way in which indigenous lives are shown by some to not matter in our country, that being the case of Colten Boushie, a young man who was killed in August of this very year. He was a 22-year old Cree man from Red Pheasant Cree Nation who was shot and killed by a white farmer after approaching a farmhouse in Saskatchewan.

Tasha talked about the need for justice for Colten, as have others, such as Erica Violet Lee, an incredible writer who is also based in Saskatchewan. In one of the articles Erica wrote, she talked about the importance of asking why indigenous values, and particularly the lives of indigenous youth, are devalued in our country.

She asked:

What is it like to live with a fear of Native people so intense that a second thought is not spared on loading your rifle and shooting a young Cree man dead who simply dared to cross your fence-line?

She continued:

Despite the foreign weight that bears on our bodies, Native folks are just like you

—meaning non-indigenous people—

at least in some ways.

She went on to say:

We take naps in the August heat, we go for long drives to the river, we swim, we fall in love. The difference is that we do all these things in a county that long ago decided Native freedom, Native love and Native life are, more than anything else, a threat. A threat to westward expansion, to Canadian civilization, to private property, to your farm tractor. Take your pick.

She went on to say:

In the few remaining warm days of this year, Native people will continue doing what we have always done, since time immemorial, in our prairie homelands

—meaning surviving, thriving, and resisting.

My concluding message to the government is that if we are going to make it clear to indigenous youth that their lives matter, supporting and fulfilling this motion is one important step in doing that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, National Defence; the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Status of Women.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her heartfelt comments and commitment to an issue that is not going to be undone with $155 million. The 150 years of failed Confederation combined with 500 years of failed contact have left us a massive problem that needs to be undone immediately.

The NDP has identified a fixed dollar amount, not $154 million, not $156 million, not $200 million, but $155 million, a very specific dollar amount. As we look at 623 distinct aboriginal communities across 10 provinces and three territories, combined with the responsibilities of municipal and provincial governments, how much will her province get out of the $155 million and, in particular, what will the precise share be for the community that she identified out of the $155 million, since the NDP has come up with such a precise formula down to the child?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member across that the number identified here is the number that has been put forward by a renowned human rights activist and indigenous advocate, Cindy Blackstock. So if the member is prepared to go back to his riding and talk about his need to oppose Cindy Blackstock and the measures she has put forth, that is something he is going to grapple with.

What really strikes me here is the way in which the Liberals are flailing to come up with excuses to say no to this motion. The motion is fundamental. We are talking about stopping the fight against indigenous families. We are talking about the implementation of Jordan's principle. We are talking about addressing the chronic underfunding of child welfare. These are all the bullet points that the Liberals want to say no to.

We had a prime minister who committed to the 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We are still waiting. We had ministers who talk about the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, but who conveniently leave out the word “implementation”. We have a prime minister and a government that use rhetoric to make themselves look better when it comes to indigenous people's issues. So if they want to actually match their talk with action, supporting the motion is the way to go. Indigenous people will see right through their opposition to the motion as a betrayal of the government's commitments to them in the election campaign.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding the difficulty that my hon. Liberal colleagues have in supporting a motion that is clearly drafted and absolutely unassailable. It calls on the House to have the government comply with the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to end the discrimination. It asks the government to immediately invest an additional $155 million in new funding for the delivery of child welfare. That has been identified as the shortfall this year alone by Cindy Blackstock. It asks the House to implement the full definition of Jordan's principle as passed by a resolution of the House; to comply with all orders of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal; and to make public all pertinent documents relating to the overhaul of child welfare.

My question for my hon. colleague is quite simple. What possibly could any member of the House have difficulty with if they truly believe in ending systemic discrimination and helping first nations children in this country?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that important question. He is absolutely right. What possible logical reason could they have to say no to ending systemic discrimination against first nations youth?

The one reason I could see is to be right in line with previous Liberal governments when it comes to first nations people. It was under Liberal rule that we saw the chronic underfunding of first nations overall. In the nineties, the Liberals brought in the 2% cap. They told first nations they had to share the so-called burden for the government's cutbacks, when in fact first nations people have borne the burden for centuries when it comes to Canadian government.

Basically, what we are talking about here is a Liberal government that has talked a big talk when it comes to working with indigenous peoples in Canada, yet it is not willing to shore it up with action. It is not willing to address the underfunding of first nations. It is coming up with some pretty half-baked excuses as to why it cannot do that. It is willing to go up against incredible advocates, like Cindy Blackstock.

Indigenous youth and indigenous communities are seeing through this kind of rhetoric. They expect leadership. They expect the Liberal government to support our NDP motion to end the systemic discrimination in first nations child welfare.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from the other side of the bay for bringing the motion forward. I am honoured to be his colleague and am very grateful that he brought the motion forward.

On January 26, 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found the Government of Canada was racially discriminating against 163,000 first nations children. This is not something that happened in the past. This is happening today, in 2016. In fact, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered the government to resolve the problem at the “first reasonable occasion”, according to its own words. That first reasonable opportunity was on March 22 when the government presented its budget, and resolution did not happen.

I would like to share with the House something that Cindy Blackstock taught me. There are several things that have always been true about the government's relationship with indigenous children. The government has always known about the wrongs at the time they were perpetuated, the degree of harm at the time they were perpetrated, and has always known of solutions to fix the problems, but chose not to do it.

Canada's first public health officer, Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce, found that 24% of children who went to residential schools were dying every year and if those children were followed over three years, that number increased to 47%. Dr. Bryce said that the health science at that time knew exactly what to do to save many of those children. The government at the time said it was too expensive and retaliated against the doctor for speaking out in defence of indigenous kids.

Deliberate inaction on the part of government to prevent the deaths of children amounts to manslaughter. Those are not my words. Those are the words of a respected lawyer who examined Dr. Bryce's report in the 1920s. There are key elements to Dr. Bryce's story that are instructive in the case of the 163,000 kids today. First, the government knows about the preventable deaths of children. Second, they have the solutions to fix it. Third, they have chosen not to obey the order of the tribunal to prevent further harm, and in fact retaliates against and resists those who demand better. Fourth, it can get away with it if members of Parliament allow it. We cannot make the same mistake twice.

The findings of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are so contrary to the ideals that Canadians adhere to and identify with. Racial discrimination is not tolerated in Canada in 2016. It is easier to tell ourselves that we have accomplished the Canadian ideal than to face and remedy the inequalities that the Government of Canada continues to perpetrate. It is much easier to think that the residential schools are a tragedy of the past. However, through its policies and programs, the government continues to actively racially discriminate against hundreds of thousands of children, little kids, in this country.

Today I have heard many excuses from the other side. I heard the government speak about the current funding levels of their programs, but none of the government members had the courage to stand and acknowledge that the discrimination still has not been remedied. It is continuing the policies of the past. It knows it is perpetrating harm and has chosen not to fix the problem. I will not sit quietly and allow the government to discriminate against little boys and girls in this country anymore.

The government said that the problem cannot be fixed overnight. It has said repeatedly that it cannot fix this problem overnight, that it will take time and consultation, and that it has made a good first step. Why is it that in 2016 indigenous kids are being asked to be grateful for a government that is only willing to take one baby step?

In the brave work of the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada, one little girl defined racial discrimination as “when the government doesn’t think you’re worth the money”. If that is how children feel today, in this country, do we really have to ask ourselves why we have a suicide crisis in so many communities in Canada? Children as young as 10 do not feel as though their lives are worth the same as those in other municipalities.

For those of us who have children, for those of us who have grandchildren, and who care for children in our lives, imagine if we were told that our children were not worth the money. What part of that statement is acceptable? If it is acceptable, then what is it that we can do, today, to make substantial and meaningful changes to improve the quality of life for first nation kids in this country?

The work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not over. Senator Murray Sinclair explained that it has taken 150 years to get us in the mess we are in today, and that it may take 150 years to fix it. However, that was not an invitation to do nothing. That was not an invitation to not take major steps today as we approach 150 years of this country.

The government must, as quickly as possible, ensure that there will never again be another generation of indigenous children who have to recover from their childhoods and that there will never again be another generation of non-indigenous children who have to say, “I'm sorry”.

I have often said that Canada is a country of unfulfilled promise.

How do we explain that such a rich country and a G7 member is still unable to improve the lot of first nations, the lot of the first peoples of this land, and especially the lot of indigenous women and girls, as well as that of the most vulnerable and marginalized children in the country?

To date, not one but two orders have been ignored by this government.

Why does the opposition have to move a motion to ensure compliance with these two orders? That makes no sense for a democracy such as ours.

When we reach the point that a tribunal's rulings are not followed, even though there is an order to comply, we wonder what will happen to the other promises made by this government to Canada's first nations.

I invite all members of the House to vote in favour of the motion because it is the only right thing to do in this country today.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in the House with my colleague across the way. His commitment to this matter is profoundly respected.

What we are grappling with here is this notion that the $155 million voted on today will solve anything specific tomorrow. The question I ask is very specific. How much of this $155 million will be assigned to the children in the riding of the member opposite? Because what we are grappling with is a government that has a government-to-government relationship with hundreds of communities and nations across this country, through treaties and legal agreements, as a mechanism to turn that $155 million into a real impact in real children's lives.

What we are concerned about, as a government, is that, yes, we can identify $155 million, which I do not think will solve 500 years of racism in any way, shape, or form, in and of itself. However, how do we split that up in an equitable, just way that honours treaties and recognizes aboriginal title to the money that the New Democrats seek to make available?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Toronto for that question.

First, none of this $155 million would go to my riding because it is largely covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and we have our own arrangements in that part of the country.

Second, the government has had this figure for a long time. Cindy Blackstock has submitted documents to at least demonstrate where this money is particularly needed, and that was the figure that was presented to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Liberals knew about it, so it is way higher than what they are proposing in their budget and what they are proposing after the next election, if they remain there. I do not think that is going to happen. I am pretty sure.

Third, one of the things we need to realize in this discussion is that the amount is identified for this year alone, I believe. There is a lot of work to be done. I agree that we cannot fix 500 years of discrimination. That is going to take a while. However, that is not an invitation that was given by Senator Sinclair. That was not an invitation not to do anything at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have such enormous respect for my colleague, and he knows what institutional attempts to destroy families mean; he has lived it.

What we are talking about today is a compliance order by the Human Rights Tribunal, and we hear the Liberals making things up in the House, claiming that these numbers came out of thin air when the government has had the numbers for eight months and has offered no counter-numbers. For the minister to stand in this House and say these numbers were pulled out of thin air, to me is a slap in the face to the work of Cindy Blackstock and all the people on the ground who did this work and brought forward these numbers.

Given the Liberals' sudden concern that they have to consult and they are going to get an online portal, it is a question of priorities. Look at the Site C project. What the Minister of Justice said was a complete overriding of indigenous rights. The indigenous people asked the government to work with the communities on those permits, but the Liberals rubber-stamped those permits immediately because it was a priority for the Prime Minister. It was the same with the LNG project. When the chiefs came here to talk, the Liberals were already in Vancouver approving it. They did not set up a consultation process.

Why is it that the Liberals can take all the time in the world when we have children dying in my riding, dying in northwestern Ontario, dying and being denied basic services? That is what we are talking about. It is pennies for these children, but the Liberals can take all the time in the world to consult.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He is right. I have a lot of experience with governments that refuse to comply with tribunals' orders and violate the constitutional rights of first peoples. Not many MPs have lived in residential schools; I might be the only one, and I spent 10 years there. I know my story.

It is important to remember that, in this country, a tribunal's ruling means something. If the government needs constant reminders about the meaning of law and order, we have a bit of a problem. I have often heard members talk about the rule of law, but they do not really understand what that means. It means respecting our institutions, including the tribunals that are set up to deal with injustices perpetrated in this country properly, injustices such as those that indigenous peoples have endured for 150 years.

Federal governments, be they Liberal or Conservative, have been fighting indigenous peoples in court for 150 years. Each and every time, their approach is adversarial. Never has the federal government argued for the rights of indigenous people in court, not even once.

Next year, we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation. It might be time for a shift in attitude, because the current one is incompatible with reconciliation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to resume debate, I will let him know that it is a 20-minute speaking slot, but we will have to interrupt him in about nine minutes, at 5:15, that being the ordinary time for the business of supply to end. We will get going, just the same. He has nine minutes. How much of that he chooses to use for his speech and/or questions and comments will be up to him.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, without trying to make light of the serious situation, I will try to speak quickly and maybe I can do the 20 minutes in nine.

Members cannot sit in this House today and not think that this issue is the seminal issue in front of us as a generation of Canadians. In fact, I do not think I ever have. The testimony that comes directly from those members who are indigenous in this House—aboriginal, Métis, or Inuit—moves us to action as no other voice in this country should or could.

There are a few things we should recognize. It has become a new custom in the east, and I know from my time in Vancouver that it has been a much longer custom there, to acknowledge the territory we are on as we make remarks as politicians. It is not often done in the House because of time constraints, but in public speaking engagements, as we move from community to community, we now seek to find out where we stand as we speak and to acknowledge the traditional peoples who have put up with us in ways that are unimaginable to many.

We stand here on Algonquin territory today. We know that there are children of Algonquin families in this city who do not enjoy the rights that children enjoy who have come to this country from all over the world. This has to be fixed. The government is committed to changing that. However, it is a complex process. We have inherited 500 years of colonialism, racism, death, and tragedy, and the scars of those tragedies live on in the lives of far too many people in our communities.

I do not think there is a division across that emotion in this House as we speak of these issues. What we are seized with is to find the best way forward, and not to take baby steps or single steps but to march forward together for the first time in this country's history, toward a future that does not discriminate based on whether one is born on or off a reserve, with or without defined lineage because of technical or bureaucratic decisions.

We have to find a way to share this country in the spirit that has been taught to us and shown to us—and that we have ignored—by the first nations and the first peoples of the communities we all come from. That change has to happen. This government is committed to it.

Will there be debates about whether $154 million or $155 million, or the $200 million that was originally spoken of following the decision, is the right amount? Yes, there will be debates about the amount. There will be debates about the mechanism by which that money flows, and the relationships that are established nation to nation, and even in those areas where no nation-to-nation relationship has yet been established. Those negotiations must happen and will happen, and hopefully will bring us to that new future.

We have been talking about the ruling from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, a ruling that does not specify $155 million, which is why we wonder sometimes exactly how this dollar amount has been arrived at, and exactly how it will impact across this country, child by child, community by community, treaty by treaty, nation by nation. We are grappling with that.

That is the issue we are grappling with, not the principle or the spirit of the motion, not the intent of the motion, but the functionality of the motion. I was in the opposition in the previous Parliament, and it is easy for opposition members to say that is the right way and if the government does not follow it, they disagree with us. The reality is that we agree with the direction. What we are trying to figure out is how to get those dollars into the lives of families and children so that the outcomes are transformational, and the promise of truth and reconciliation is fulfilled in real time, in real ways.

I admit it. Any government that does not admit to struggling with this issue is not being honest. We are struggling with it. It is as if we have been placed into a boat that is leaking, and we start bailing, and we start crossing the river thinking that we can get there if we bail quickly enough. The reality is that repairing the boat before we cross the river, and carrying the bailer, is perhaps the best way to go. However, some, in a hurry, want to go while the boat is still leaking. The fear some might have is that the boat will not cross that river.

I think we heard, eloquently, from the previous speaker that failing to cross that river puts real people, children in particular, in jeopardy. That would weigh on everyone's conscience. If we put the $155 million on the table tomorrow and it did not change lives, where would we be? What accusations of failure would come our way? We grapple with that.

It is a fair point for the opposition to push us. We as a government have a responsibility to respond, and we are. Part of that response is the budget that was brought down. We have listened to the criticism that the budget is back-end loaded.

We know that our first nations communities, whether they are on or off reserve, in our major cities, or in our biggest provinces, or in our smallest communities, it is one of the fastest growing demographics in the country. The reason it is growing is because there are more children this year than last, and there will be more next year.

If the budget did not grow toward the fifth year of the announcement, we would be locking in spending as the number of children and the needs grew. How is that responsible? Therefore, to be criticized for foresight and to invest downstream when we know the waters downstream are going to get choppier, it should not be a criticism of the government; it is something for which we should be praised.

We were told that the 2% cap on the increase of transfers was wrong. That was why we removed it this year. It is gone, and the investments are beginning to grow. However, the significant challenge we are dealing with, and it is the question I asked of members opposite as they made their presentations, is when we say $155 million, how do we operationalize that, because it matters. We can announce a spending envelope, but if there is no mechanism to transport it to communities, it does not show up in the communities. We have to sit down with leadership from the Assembly of First Nations, and from other organizations, and figure out how it arrives as we improve the funding envelope. That is the issue we are struggling with, and that is the issue that is slowing down the process, unacceptably to some, of getting those dollars delivered.

I assure the House that the department, the minister, our government, every member on this side is committed to delivering those dollars in bigger numbers, as quickly as possible, into permanent changes that improve the lives of individuals.

What are we doing? There are investments right across the board in terms of our relationship and our treaty obligations with different nations, different communities, and different individuals. Also, in this calendar year, we received instruction from the Supreme Court about non-status Indians and our responsibility to the Métis nation. As we grapple with the changing environment in which we operate, we have to grapple with budget numbers that must change accordingly.

Have we stepped up on Jordan's principle? Yes. Have we invested more? Yes. Have we put more dollars into education, housing, social services and into our relationships? Absolutely. Has it all been solved in one day? Absolutely not.

What I have asked the members opposite and what I want them to answer is how this $155 million works. When we read the reports, and comments from the person they claim has said $155 million is the magic number, she has also said $200 million is the right number. Which is it, and why $155 million? It is the precision part of the motion that is causing us concern and stopping us from supporting it. Aside from that, we support the principle and the intent, and, quite frankly, the honour in which it is presented.

The party opposite is asking the right questions and moving, absolutely, the right motions. What we are trying to figure out is what it means for us as a government to have to administer and deliver this money, how we operationalize the instructions the members are trying to give us. On that point, we disagree. On that point, we need clarity. As a government, as a country in a nation-to-nation relationship, we have learned that if we do not move in agreement with first nations communities, it quite often causes much damage, even though the intent is good.

I will continue my remarks later.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

This being an opposition day, there will not be any further debate on the particular question.

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, November 1, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to canvas the House, I suspect you would find consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so we can start private members' hour.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.