Debates of April 11th, 2019

Bill C-92—Time Allocation Motion

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. I remind members, who I do not think seem to be aware of this, that members are not permitted to cross between the member speaking and the Chair. Members should try to avoid that. It is in the Standing Orders. I know all members have read the Standing Orders very carefully. Every night, for example, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot does. All members should do that. It is good reading and helps one to go to sleep, I am sure.

The hon. government House leader.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I have been trying to read it every night, Mr. Speaker. However, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

In the normal course, these 30-minute question periods are given preference to opposition members posing questions to the ministry. I would ask all members wishing to participate in this 30-minute question period to please rise. That will give some indication as to how we will accord the time. I would also ask hon. members as well as the minister responding to keep their interventions to approximately one minute, and that should allow members interested to participate.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a very appropriate quote, “Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on mine.” Perhaps we should say that the government's lack of planning should not constitute time allocation every time it is in a rush.

Whether it was Bill S-3, which had major flaws, or the indigenous children's language bill, for which the government had to table drop 20 amendments at clause-by-clause, Bill C-92 is another bill that will not get proper debate. The government is rushing it through the system because it just could not get it done.

Why is the government not willing to provide the appropriate time for us to identify what I am sure will be significant and major flaws in this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her ongoing support for what we are trying to achieve in this bill. It is important that we get the bill to committee so we can hear from the people affected by it, the people who have been fighting for a very long time to achieve jurisdiction over their children.

It is interesting that this morning I received this from Kukpi7 Christian of the Secwepemc band, “Vote yes to Bill C-92. “Vote no to delegation. Vote yes to jurisdiction.” “Reconciliation means recognition of jurisdiction and laws for First Nations children and families.” It is very important we get this bill to committee so we can hear from the people affected.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue for me personally. In Winnipeg North, a huge number of children are in foster care. In the province of Manitoba, as the minister is aware, 11,000-plus children are in foster care. A vast majority of those, somewhere around 90%, are of indigenous background.

We have been waiting for this legislation for many years. It is encouraging to see. Part of the frustration I have is this. We had the opportunity to debate the bill one day, but the Conservative opposition brought in a concurrence motion on something that had sat on the shelves for years. My fear is that the Conservative opposition does not want to see the bill go to committee. We need to move forward in this fashion to ensure we look out for these children. Could the minister provide her thoughts on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that, unfortunately, we have seen delay tactics in the House. This is about us getting the bill to committee so we can hear from the people. If we need to make amendments, if we need to make te bill as good as it can be, that is where we will find the kind of changes we are willing to make that are in the best interests of the children. We were very pleased yesterday morning to see the prestudy the Senate is doing in preparing itself to receive the bill.

The children have been waiting too long. Over 50% of the children in care right now are indigenous. This is unacceptable. For us to delay and have one more child taken into care because the bill did not go through is unacceptable. We ask that the House to expedite its passage into law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that we need to do more to protect children. What I find really sad is that the government has said that reconciliation and protecting children is very important, yet it waited three and a half years to table a bill. Then it uses legislative measures to limit debate.

This is the 62nd time the government has moved time allocation on a bill. It is really worrisome. We know that in the past, when time allocation was used, members of Parliament did not have enough time to adequately study the bills and move amendments at committee. Therefore, it is important that we all take the time to ensure we get this bill right. It is very concerning that the government is once again using time allocation on such an important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member's comments, but I also think she knows the real work happens at committee. It will be at committee where we will hear from the people who would be affected by this bill. That is why it is important we get it to committee as soon as possible.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the tone the government is taking in moving time allocation. The Prime Minister continually says that no relationship is more important to him and his government than with first nations. There is nothing like a bill numbered 92 to demonstrate the importance of that relationship.

I have been contacted numerous times by my constituents of the first nations at Maskwacis. They have said that this bill would do nothing but benefit the provincial agencies and would maintain the status quo when it comes to services, thereby not having any trickle-down benefit effects for the people for whom the government claims the bill is intended to help.

Why has it taken so long for a government that has these priorities with aboriginal or indigenous Canadians to get the legislation to the House? The government is three and three-quarters of the way through its four-year term. Where indigenous people just not donating enough?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the cynicism and comments that were nothing about children. This bill is about children and getting the proper information out. We need to get it to committee and hear from first nations, Inuit and Métis, the mothers and grandmothers who are now living the nightmare of having their children and grandchildren taken from them. This is about us getting it right and it is exactly the opposite of what the member said.

It has been very clear that the communities want the money to go to kids and families to prevent them being removed from their communities, not for lawyers, agencies and non-indigenous foster families to apprehend children. This is about the best interests of the child. We know that when children are raised with a secure personal cultural identity that is their self-esteem and resilience, there are better outcomes in health, education and economic outcomes. This is about us stopping this tragedy of the millennial scoop and keeping children in their communities. That is why we need to get the bill to committee so we can get the best bill possible.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here since the House began and we were supposed to be debating the budget. We have spent two hours wasting time instead of allowing members to debate matters. I find it, frankly, appalling that the minister is making the suggestion that it is irrelevant for the elected representatives of the people to share what those who elected us are telling us they would like to see in the bill and that the only important one is at committee. We know what happens at committee. The majority Liberals decide who is appropriate to bring in and then what to recommend.

If the government is so committed to assisting indigenous communities to better look after their children, and surely we all agree with that, why has it been ignoring the directives of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for three years and getting complaint after complaint, contempt after contempt ruled against it? The bill is missing one major thing, which is that it commits no money. That is the main concern that indigenous communities are raising. I do not see any money in the budget, which we would like to be debating, to go to these communities.

I am deeply troubled that we have to waste half an hour debating whether we should be allowed to speak and then wasting another half hour waiting to vote when we could be debating important bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's frustration, but I also think she understands that a series of concurrence motions and a budget filibuster are in the way of us actually doing work in the House, to get on with the bills we need passed. I would encourage her to speak to her colleagues to ensure we debate the kinds of things that really matter to Canadians.

We want to move forward with this. We need to get this bill to committee so we can make it as good as it can be. The member would understand that the Canada Health Act did not have a budget assigned to it. This is a matter of us sorting out the implementation and ensuring the money goes toward the best interest of the child.

As we are hearing from coast to coast to coast, the kind of money that is now going to lawyers, agencies and non-indigenous foster families needs to be in community to prevent children from having to leave their community. These children should be left in their homes and have healthy aunties or grandparents to look after them. Children who have already gone into care need to be brought home. That is what I hear from communities and that is what we will hear at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I first rose in the House for my maiden speech, I discussed child and family services and the absolute crisis we face in Manitoba, with over 11,000 kids in care. I am thankful that the government, after a year and a half, started taking action and consulting with indigenous people and indigenous organizations, looking for consensus.

From what I understand, the bill is historic in that an awful lot of time was spent negotiating, discussing and working together to try to come up with a piece of legislation that had consensus, not only on the government side and in the Department of Justice but also from indigenous peoples.

While it may not be perfect, it is time for it to go to committee. I remember having the debate about the Champlain Bridge in Montreal. It was a Conservative motion, which was dilatory, on a report, and it wasted a lot of time on that day when we should have been discussing this bill. I had looked forward to the opportunity. However, now I look forward to the opportunity of actually getting it to committee so I can actually put forward some additional amendments to make the bill even better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his ongoing advocacy and for dealing straight up with the crisis in his city and in his province. It is heartbreaking to hear advocates like Cora Morgan explain what happens with the birth alerts. How do we get the jurisdiction into communities so that the grandmothers and community leaders can develop a program that will be in the best interests of the children?

As the member knows, from our earliest days in government, we were trying to address this. We knew that just money would not fix this. It had to be both money and genuine reform.

In terms of the consultations, in terms of the work of the minister's special representative, in terms of the emergency summit the member for Markham—Stouffville hosted last January to now actually co-developing a bill with an advisory panel, this has been a remarkable journey for a historic piece of legislation, and we thank the member for his support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recall that just before Christmas, the former Indigenous Services minister, along with the current minister, had a grandiose news conference, with all three parties, in the old House of Commons. That was before Christmas. Here we are three or four months later, and the government is finally doing what it should have done months ago.

The bill is flawed. We need to talk about it here in the House of Commons. It is flawed because of a lack of consultation. It is flawed because of hurried consultation, especially in my province. I have heard loud and clear from the FSIN. It was forced to make recommendations within a two-week period. Here we are now with time allocation.

I am very disappointed by the government's lack of foresight. Here we are on Bill C-92. We are weeks away from rising, and now we cannot even debate probably the most important bill in Indigenous Services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his concern, but again, I think the dilatory action really interfered with our getting this through.

It is very interesting that the member is speaking on behalf of the FSIN or other advocacy organizations and governments that need to come to committee. We signed an agreement with the FSIN on a pilot project for it to get to work on asserting jurisdiction over child and family.

Now it is important that we get this into law in the best possible way. That will only happen if we listen to the stakeholders, as the member articulated.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather unfortunate that this is the 62nd gag order imposed by the Liberal government.

Obviously, everyone cares about the well-being of children in indigenous communities, and we agree that action has to be taken. I do not understand why the government dragged its feet for three and a half years. I do not understand why this bill does not provide for the necessary funding.

I understand the minister when she says that we can examine this bill in committee, and all that I would ask her today is whether the government is prepared to accept the necessary amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to come up with the best bill possible. That is why our government intends to listen carefully to the testimony given in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House cares about the welfare of children, but the reality is that the current government has had four years to bring forward this legislation. It is clear that in this dying year, the Liberals' last kick at the can, they are now rushing. They probably just woke up and realized that their promise tracker shows that they have broken three-quarters of their promises. Is that not really the reason the Liberals are forcing and rushing this with time allocation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite does not really understand how things work if we are going to do things with a recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

This bill was co-developed with first nations, Inuit and Métis. This is a way forward that came out of the summit, where it became clear that we needed legislation and that it was not going to work with just different funding allocations. We needed to make sure that the provinces and territories understood that section 35 rights are not optional, that families and communities need the jurisdiction to be able to look after their children in the best possible way.

Therefore, it was hugely important after the summit last year, and moving to separate summits, like the one we held with the Métis, to move into co-developing. This would actually be historic, this kind of legislation, and in the best interests of the child, so that we can move forward in a good way, keeping children secure in their personal and cultural identity. It is about the rights and well-being of indigenous children and youth. It is about their right to be raised indigenous and the right of their communities to look after them in the way they see fit.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for all her work on this bill. It is signature legislation in Canada. It has been asked for by indigenous governments and indigenous communities for many years.

I can understand why the opposition would like to delay this even further, because for 10 years, the Conservatives had no action on this file and on delivering for indigenous children in this country. We are now doing that, and we are doing it after very careful, very thoughtful and very respectful consultation with indigenous groups and leadership. That is the means for this bill to continue with that relationship to get it right.

I want to commend the minister, and I want to support her in what she is asking today. I agree that the committee is the place to do a lot of this work that needs to be done. I would ask the minister to speak to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for all her hard work on this and for her understanding of what it takes to get this right and her understanding of how historic this is.

From residential schools to the sixties scoop to what we now, sadly, refer to as the millennial scoop, this has been a terrible outcome for first nations, Inuit and Métis in this country. We have to learn from our mistakes. We have to go forward in a way that actually respects the jurisdiction of first nations, Inuit and Métis to raise their children and to therefore see better health, education and economic outcomes as they go forward with a secure personal cultural identity.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister will have noted in my speech, one of only two speeches on this bill before there was time allocation, that I indicated that we support this bill in principle.

There is one area of concern. I would like to know if this bill has been assessed in terms of both charter and constitutional compliance. Is the minister willing to table those opinions?

The one concern I have heard expressed is that if first nations did not assume control of jurisdiction, this legislation would compel the provinces in an area that was constitutionally theirs. It is something that has been raised. It is an important question.

I support this bill, but we all need to know if this bill is constitutionally compliant and respectful of provincial jurisdiction if an indigenous community does not assume control of child welfare.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her support for this bill and for the intent and spirit of the bill.

I think it will be important, as we go forward, for people to understand that the issues raised at the summit came from a problem in the Indian Act. In section 88 of the Indian Act, it says “laws of general application”. That is, they are not articulated. This bill would now articulate that section 35 rights would include child and family services and jurisdiction over their children and youth. I think that is something that will be sorted out at committee, but it is a very important question.

This is a very exciting time. As we have the journey to self-determination, as first nations and indigenous governments write their own laws, including their child well-being laws, they will identify best practices and always be able to assert jurisdiction over their children.