Debates of May 3rd, 2019

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

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the concern with the bill is that the funding is simply not following. We have a budget implementation act that does not walk the talk of what we see in the bill. The bill may have some broad principles, but it is a question of funding and resources. Funding and resources can make a big difference. I would ask the member for his thoughts on the matter.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in past legislation that I was involved in, that was a huge concern. There were large gaps in appointing the amounts of money and how it could be rolled out. If the Liberals really want to make it work, they should know that some of those details were missing because this legislation was so rushed. When parliamentarians are at committee, it is important that they discuss the funding mechanism in order to see how it works and whether it will work. Missing those details in rushed legislation is problematic.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak on a historic piece of legislation, Bill C-92, an act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

It is also an honour to welcome over 30 students from Mr. Dingwall's grade 12 politics class at Humberside Collegiate Institute in my riding. They are here to study xenophobia and refugees, but the concerns and the aims of that study have a link to this legislation. The link is that their study and this legislation both identify key areas of inclusion, of the promotion of diversity, and of the remediation of historical injustices.

Let us talk about Bill C-92.

Bill C-92 seeks to do two very important things. First, it would affirm the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services. Second, it sets out several principles, including the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality, that would be applicable on a national level to the provision of child and family services to indigenous children.

Let us start with my past role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage in 2017. At that point, I had the privilege of engaging with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and elders, and subsequently assisting in the co-development of a different bill, Bill C-91, which aims to promote and preserve indigenous languages in Canada. I am very pleased to see that this bill, a companion bill, seeks to enshrine the importance of culture and language when it comes to determining what is in the best interests of the child.

When indigenous children are navigating our child and family services system, their culture and language must be taken into account and must be protected.

Indigenous leaders across this country have called on successive governments to make changes to address the overrepresentation of first nations, Inuit and Métis children in the child and family services system. They have been doing that important advocacy work on this file for over a decade and have highlighted the important voices of indigenous children from across the country to shed light on the shortcomings of our current child and family services systems.

It is undeniable that the levels of indigenous children in care have reached the point of what has been described as a humanitarian crisis. Indigenous children under 15 make up 7.7% of the Canadian population, but they account for 52.2% of children in foster care in private homes. That is a staggering statistic—7.7% of the population, yet 52.2% of the children in foster care. Incredibly, we know that there are more indigenous children who have been removed from their homes and placed in the child welfare system, right now in 2019, than there were at the height of the residential school system, which is such a shameful legacy in Canadian history.

We also know that often indigenous children are separated from their families and communities, which deprives them of their language, their culture, and their connection to their people. That is absolutely and categorically unacceptable. It is vital that we address the root causes that have led to this humanitarian crisis, including such things as poverty, intergenerational trauma, and culturally biased child welfare policies and practices. That is what Bill C-92 will address.

Our current child and family welfare system is failing indigenous peoples and has been failing them for some time. It is for this reason that our government is taking steps today with Bill C-92 to redress the situation.

Our goal as a government has always been to support legislation that respects the principle of self-determination of indigenous people and legislation that advances what we would call meaningful reconciliation. These two objectives were the basis for our actions taken while crafting this legislation.

Recognizing the urgency of addressing these issues, the Minister of Indigenous Services at the time hosted an emergency meeting on indigenous child and family services in January 2018. During that meeting, our government had the opportunity to hear from experts, advocates, indigenous partners, and provincial and territorial people, but most importantly from youth, such as the youth who are here today from my riding, but especially youth from right around the country who had a lived experience of navigating the child and family services system. It is of the utmost importance to continue to elevate the voices of those with first-hand experience so that we can learn from their experiences and make the legislative changes that address the problems individuals face when accessing our child and family services system.

Following that emergency meeting back in January of 2018, 65 sessions were held during the summer and fall of 2018 to engage with people around the country, whether in Toronto or Winnipeg, from coast to coast to coast.

That engagement, which was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, engaged 2,000 individuals in different sessions, including representatives of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, as well as treaty nations, self-governing first nations, provinces and territories.

In January of 2019, further in-person engagement sessions with indigenous partners and provincial and territorial representatives were conducted to consult on the proposed content of Bill C-92.

What is critical is what we learned in those consultations. We learned that Canadians care about reforming child and family services in a way that better meets the needs of indigenous peoples. It is clear that Canadians are shocked by the statistics with which I started my discussion and my contribution to this debate. This is an issue that has been raised by many of my colleagues in the House. It is certainly an issue that my constituents in Parkdale—High Park feel strongly about.

Whether they are students at Humberside Collegiate or at any of the other secondary institutions in the riding, whether they are younger people or older people, constituents of all backgrounds have told me, “I am not an indigenous person, but I know we need to remedy a historical injustice. To do right by the colonial and racist legacy of the residential school system and the policies and practices put in place by successive governments for 152 years, we have to implement legislation to remedy those wrongs.” Bill C-91, coupled with Bill C-92, does exactly that.

People have spoken to me about ensuring that we have culturally appropriate child and family services to protect the vibrancy of cultures. I have often told them it is important for people such as me or random constituents to engage with and learn more about and understand indigenous history, knowledge and culture. It is even more important to restore that knowledge and understanding to indigenous communities without doing it in a paternalistic way, as in past practices, but by co-developing solutions with indigenous people and empowering them to implement the solutions they feel are appropriate for their communities. That is what the bill will do.

Let me explain that indigenous children are being removed from their homes and communities in greater numbers than they were at the height of the residential school system. We have had conversations regarding the next steps our government must take to protect indigenous children, and as a result we are affirming the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples over child and family services.

Bill C-92 does not provide a one-size-fits-all model. Rather, it would allow indigenous people to exercise partial or full jurisdiction over child and family services at a pace that promotes the well-being of their communities. The bill would allow indigenous groups to exercise their inherent and rightful jurisdiction over child and family services, which will result in their laws prevailing over federal laws and laws of the provinces and territories, in the case of a dispute between the two. This is a very important point, because it gives meaning to this notion of self-determination and self-governance.

The legislation also sets out a robust mechanism whereby indigenous groups would enter into tripartite coordination agreements with the federal government and the provincial government of each province in which the indigenous group is located to work together for up to 12 months to reach a tripartite agreement. Along with affirming jurisdiction, the bill also sets out principles such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality around the provision of child and family services to indigenous children, applicable at the national level.

Let me pause here to say that this is something we are working hard to implement across government. The analogy I would draw to this “best interests” provision is to a different bill that I have been privileged to work on as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Bill C-78. It is a family law reform bill that again entrenches the best interests of the child, but importantly, it echoes the language we find in Bill C-92, language that talks about the spiritual, cultural and linguistic continuity for indigenous children remaining with indigenous family settings. That is critical to Bill C-78, and also critical to Bill C-92.

With regard to decisions as to what is in the best interests of the children, Bill C-92 elaborates several factors that need to be taken into account. They are the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety; the child's security and well-being; the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing; and the maintenance of an ongoing, positive relationship with the family, community and indigenous group to which they belong.

Let me restate that, because it is so critical and gets to the heart of what the bill is about: When there is a child welfare situation that involves removing a child from their original home to a foster care type of setting, we need to think about what is in that child's best interests.

How we evaluate that is by thinking about continuity in the child's ongoing positive relationship with his or her family and with his or her indigenous group. That is the key in what we are talking about here. That creates stability for the children through the connection for the children to their language and, importantly, to their territory. By emphasizing these factors, the legislation would ensure that child and family services take into account cultural context when making decisions as to what is in the best interest of first nations, Inuit and Métis kids. The goal is to decrease the number of indigenous children who are separated from their families and their communities.

Additionally, when decisions are being made about what is in the best interests of children, this bill would prioritize a shift from apprehension to prevention, thereby promoting preventive care that supports the entire family.

What does this mean?

We know, unfortunately, that too often child welfare advocates will arrive at a situation and say that a child needs to be removed from a family setting because of the conditions in which the family lives. The solution is not then to remove more children; the solution is to repair and correct the conditions in which indigenous people live. That has to be the solution. It bears common sense scrutiny. It bears logical scrutiny.

It also is completely consistent with an approach toward reconciliation whereby we accept and acknowledge historical racism and the legacy of colonialism and move forward together with indigenous peoples to correct that legacy. That is what this bill is doing by targeting this specific issue.

How does it do it?

The bill says that a child should not be apprehended solely on the basis of his or her socio-economic conditions. Instead, it calls upon governments to work with families to find solutions that uplift all family members and keep the child in that home. Moreover, if apprehension and placement are deemed necessary to ensure the best interests of the child, then Bill C-92 delineates an order of priority to be respected when placing that child, and this order is important.

If apprehension needs to occur, this is the classification, and it is a prioritized list: first, keeping the child with one of the child's parents; second, keeping the child with another member of the child's family who is an adult; third, keeping the child with an adult who belongs to the same indigenous group, community or people; fourth, keeping the child with an adult who belongs to an indigenous group, community or people other than the one to which the child belongs.

That is an important prioritization, because it emphasizes exactly what we are trying to do: We are not trying to create further rupture between indigenous people and their culture and communities, but trying to restore and enhance that connection. This order of priority emphasizes family members first, and subsequently adults belonging to the same indigenous group, community or people.

By formalizing in law the need to keep indigenous children with indigenous communities, Bill C-92 takes a huge step forward in protecting cultural continuity by taking into account the things that I have been mentioning when determining what is in the best interests of the child: language, culture, connection with family.

To give a mundane example, if a child who speaks Cree lives on a reserve in rural Manitoba and if a removal is required, the services do not remove that child all the way to Winnipeg. First, they make every effort not to remove the child. If a removal needs to occur, they keep the child on the same territory with the same community, with people who will continue to speak Cree to the child so that the child can maintain that connection to their people. It is that straightforward.

The importance of cultural continuity is further enshrined in this legislation by establishing an ongoing obligation to reassess the possibility for an indigenous foster child to reside with one of the child's parents or an adult member of his or her family.

That is the kind of legislation that people in Canada want, including those in my riding and including the very patient people who have been sitting here from Humberside Collegiate Institute.

What they have said to me over and over again, and what I have heard in my riding and right around the country when I was working in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, is that indigenous reconciliation is the responsibility for all of us. It is not simply the responsibility of indigenous communities or the government vis-à-vis indigenous communities; it is the collective responsibility of the 36 million people who inhabit this country to move on that path together.

Bill C-92 is a milestone piece of legislation that would have significant impacts on the lives of indigenous youth, their families and their communities. It is an important step in advancing meaningful reconciliation and in implementing the vital recommendations made by the TRC. I want to thank the indigenous leaders across Canada who have advocated on this issue for years, as well as the current minister and the previous minister, the member for Markham—Stouffville, for their invaluable contributions, without which this legislation would not have been possible.

We are committed to working collaboratively with all levels of government and all relevant stakeholders to continue to advance the well-being of indigenous peoples, but as I said during the course of my remarks, we will not do this in a paternalistic or colonial way, but in a manner that empowers indigenous peoples and allows them to make decisions for their communities and for themselves.

Bill C-92 is an important first step in that direction, and I strongly urge every member in the House to support it.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of great points are being brought up today. I believe there is a strong sincerity among members in the House to improve the lives of our first nations people.

I am looking at the departmental plan for indigenous services, which was tabled in the House very recently. It was signed off by the Minister of Indigenous Services and lays out departmental plans and priorities.

The percentage of first nations children on reserve in care is listed in it, but the Liberals' goal in this area is not going to be decided for two more years. I am not talking about what they will achieve; they will not even set a target for two more years.

The report also notes the percentage of first nations children with access to proper secondary education. Again, there are no targets here.

The bill before us needs to be passed, but why is the Department of Indigenous Services presenting a departmental plan, which is supposed to lay out its priorities, without setting any targets? How are we going to hold bureaucrats, the department and the government accountable, when the department presents a plan, signed off by the minister, with targets that will not even be decided until years down the road?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have specific details about the departmental targets. However, one of our simple targets is to reduce the numbers I mentioned at the outset of my speech. As I said, indigenous children represent 7% of the population but 52% of those in care, and we are trying to bring down that 52% number.

I will also reiterate that we have made extensive investments. First, we created a separate Department of Indigenous Services, which was a recommendation made by RCAP 20 years ago. Second, we have funded the Department of Indigenous Services to the tune of multiple billions of dollars so that it can deliver the services that indigenous people need, including those related to the lifting of boil water advisories.

With respect to secondary education, I will emphasize that we are working collaboratively with provinces, which have the jurisdiction to deliver secondary school education. For example, in the province of Ontario, there is the Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement, which allows 17 communities in Ontario to deliver education directly to indigenous youth. The results of that kind of education model have vastly exceeded the “settler” results with respect to graduation rates.

Those are the priorities the government is working on.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has opened its wallet anytime a corporate CEO shows up. Loblaws was given $12 million. Kinder Morgan was given $4.5 billion, which is $1 billion more than the government should have paid for the old pipeline. There was $14 billion in corporate tax cuts for CEOs from Bay Street just last November.

Here before us is a bill with great words, but it does not have the action and the funding that is required. As members know, some noted indigenous scholars have given the Bill an F in a report by the Yellowhead Institute. It notes, “While Canada is presenting Indigenous jurisdiction as the main selling feature of this Bill, without adequate funding, this will simply be jurisdiction to legislate over our own poverty.” The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has said, “It does not meet the...need in addressing the humanitarian child welfare crisis in Manitoba.”

This is because the government does not walk the talk.

With respect to the most recent budget, even though the minimum amount of money required to address the crisis taking place in child welfare across the country is $3 billion, the government gave less than half of what needed to be allocated.

That is really the issue here. Yes, it is a good bill, but the funding has not come with it. The government has not walked the talk, and that is why so many indigenous communities are criticizing the government's hypocrisy. The government is the height of cynicism in presenting good legislation but not backing it up with the required funding. It provided less than half of the minimum needed. The government was not even willing to give the minimum.

Are the Liberals not ashamed that they were not willing to walk the talk that is required to make the bill's aims a reality?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite disappointed that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby is seeking to make partisan gain out of something that should be supported unanimously in the House. However, I will address his comments, because funding is an important part.

With legislation, we create a framework for transferring jurisdiction. As I indicated in my opening speech, the legislation would empower first nations communities around the country, including Inuit and Métis communities, to structure agreements with provincial and territorial partners that have key responsibility over the child welfare system. This is a matter of the constitutional division of powers, which the member, as an experienced member, should know.

I reject out of hand the notion that we are not walking the walk. I recollect the first budget we tabled. Perry Bellegarde was in the gallery. He gave a standing ovation to that budget which tabled $8.6 billion for indigenous communities across the country.

I also readily defend our most recent budget, which the member highlighted. It allocated money on a distinctions basis for education for Inuit, Métis and first nations kids. It has also allocated money for indigenous languages and $700 million to expedite the path we are on to lift all boil water advisories across the country by March of 2021. That funding commitment meets our policy commitments. The characterization by the member opposite is simply false.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would put into law what indigenous nations have been asking for generations, which is the ability to do what is right by their communities, children and families. The crux of it is the affirmation of inherent jurisdiction of their territories and nations.

Could the hon. member speak about the importance of affirmation of inherent jurisdiction?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his work as parliamentary secretary and for his leadership with the Métis community. The notion of inherent jurisdiction is fundamental. It is fundamental toward a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples, which informs everything we are attempting to do as a government. It is also fundamental to something that an NDP member raised in the House and we rightfully supported it, which is UNDRIP. I believe it was Bill C-262 on inherent jurisdiction, governance and control over the services delivered to indigenous people.

To round out the position that was raised in the previous part of this debate, an additional reason funding allocations have not been prematurely allocated in the legislation is simply because we need to ensure we are listening to indigenous communities on a community-by-community basis as to what their needs are. To presuppose at this stage that we now have some sort of crystal ball we can look into to verify exactly which community needs what level of funding would put the cart before the horse and not empower indigenous communities to make that determination for themselves.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are pre-studying this legislation at committee. Numerous witnesses have made it very clear that they do not feel they were part of a co-development process. They may have been included in some discussions, but a lot of those were done very last minute and quickly.

The top three issues we hear from folks in committee are around jurisdiction, accountability and funding. All witnesses, which I happen to agree with, have been very clear that this is not a question around funding of a dollar amount. It is about ensuring that within the legislation there are actual principles of what that funding will look like. This is key. Witnesses are saying that if this is not part of the legislation, it will be considered hollow legislation.

I hope and believe that we in the House care about indigenous children and we do not want this to be hollow legislation.

Could we see some of that language put into the legislation? We have had recommendations that the principles in the Human Rights Tribunal around funding be in it. Even some of the information about those principles in the preamble could be put in the legislation. We need to see that action taken. Unless there are actual principles, not dollars but principles, about funding in the legislation, it will become a hollow bill. It will be a deep shame to this Parliament if that happens.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, jurisdiction, accountability and funding are extremely important points. We look forward to the work of the committee in bringing forward suggestions and proposing amendments to the bill.

On jurisdiction specifically, when we say that in the event of a conflict between indigenous jurisdiction or authority and provincial or territorial authority that the indigenous authority will trump or be paramount, it establishes exactly the kind of jurisdiction that needs to be asserted here. That is an important aspect of the bill.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the second reading debate today on Bill C-92, indigenous child welfare.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Durham. Recognizing that we have about 22 minutes remaining in this afternoon's debate, I will keep my remarks relatively brief to allow the member for Durham to have some time to debate this important issue.

Today in Canada, it is an unfortunate reality that the number of first nations, Inuit and Métis children in care continues to be far higher than that of the general population. In fact, according to Statistics Canada, more than 14,000, nearly 15,000, indigenous foster children are in private homes under the age of 15. That represents over half of all foster children in Canada. This is a statistic that should be troubling to each of us in the House and all of us across Canada.

When children are taken away from their families, too often, especially in the indigenous context, the language, the culture and the tradition of that community can also be lost when the children are no longer in their homes or communities.

Bill C-92 focuses on children living both on reserve and off reserve. It seeks to affirm the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services and establish national principles, such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality, to guide the interpretation and administration of the bill.

I am hopeful the bill and its implementation lives up to those objectives. I hope all members of this House and those in future Parliaments hold all governments to account as we strive toward this implementation.

Unfortunately, for too long in Canadian history, we have failed indigenous communities in Canada. It is now incumbent on all of us to work together on the journey toward full and true reconciliation.

The purpose and principles outlined in clauses 8 and 9 of the bill aim to guide indigenous communities on the delivery of child and family services to keep families together and, ultimately, consistent with the call to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, reduce the number of indigenous children who live in care.

I draw the House's attention to “Canada's Residential Schools: The Legacy”, the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, volume 5, which was released in 2015. Chapter 1 is entitled “Child welfare: A system in crisis”. Unfortunately, it is not an easy read. In fact, at page 11, the report articulates the lasting negative legacy that the residential schools have left on indigenous Canadians and child poverty. The report reads:

Why are so many Aboriginal children taken into care? Poverty, family violence, sexual violence and substance abuse continue—conditions that are part of the sad legacy of residential schools—certainly play a role. The connection between residential schools and the present-day crisis of the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in the child welfare system was painfully obvious to many Survivors who shared their statements with the Commission. Kay Adams explained that “all these years of growing up in the dorm I didn't go home to my family. I wasn't taught how to love. I wasn't taught how to be a family. I knew none of that.”

That is a very troubling legacy and it is a legacy that all Canadians have to face and address.

While there may be some concerns with the bill, on principle, we must support it. On principle, we must all work together as parliamentarians to ensure we can reduce the number of children who are no longer with their families, no longer in their communities, no longer learning their language, no longer learning their culture and history. So often, the greatest teachers are those within the community. They are family members, neighbours, leadership within the community. When a family loses that, we lose so much.

Unfortunately, this is not ancient history; this is recent history. Indeed, further within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, it states:

Aboriginal children were placed in non-Aboriginal homes across Canada, in the United States, and even overseas, with no attempt to preserve their culture and identity. The mass adoptions continued between 1960 and 1990.

Within our lifetime, within the lifetime of members of the House, aboriginal and indigenous children were being removed from their families, removed from their communities, not given the option to learn of their culture in the place that was best able to pass that on.

I want to wrap up to allow my colleague some time to speak, but I do want to mention a couple of points from a local level.

Reconciliation really does necessitate the participation of all Canadians. I want to highlight a couple of the things that have been undertaken in my riding of Perth—Wellington. A number of blanket exercises have taken place to help inform people of the experiences that were undertaken within indigenous communities. Local churches have undertaken efforts to reach out in reconciliation with indigenous communities.

I would like to quote from a Stratford Beacon Herald article of November 2018 about the Anglican church:

Though one memorial service can’t erase the Anglican Church’s role in subjugating Indigenous populations throughout Canada, that’s not the point. The point of Friday’s service was to continue the conversation around Truth and Reconciliation and foster a broader base of understanding between the church and Indigenous peoples in Canada.

This is a worthwhile goal for all of us to undertake, to foster a conversation and to work toward true reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, the nexus of the bill is that we will put into law what indigenous nations have been asking for generations, which is the ability to do what is right and what is proper with their children. The nexus is really the affirmation of indigenous jurisdiction for indigenous nations to make their own laws.

I know the member is a constitutional lawyer. Could he speak to the importance of inherent jurisdiction for indigenous nations?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the record. I am not a constitutional lawyer. I am a scholar. Political science is my background. However, it is a matter that I do take a great interest in with respect to policies and governing in a self-governance perspective.

We have had this debate for so many decades. The 1992 Charlottetown accord was before my time with respect to awareness of constitutional matters, but it did spark the conversation. In this matter, it is so important that we work with indigenous communities to ensure they have the authority, the ability, the jurisdiction and the opportunity to manage and work with child welfare services so the focus of the child is forefront in the jurisdiction.

Enabling and ensuring that indigenous communities have that jurisdiction is something we as parliamentarians and Canadians absolutely have to work toward to ensure the best interests of the children, that the protection of their language, culture and community is protected in the legislation we pass here to enable indigenous communities to undertake that jurisdiction.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges I have is the fact that a decision was made by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. I believe the current government has now been asked to comply seven times and has been served with non-compliance orders. That concerns me deeply.

As I mentioned earlier, we want to ensure this legislation is not hollow, that it has those key parts in it around accountability, Rather than a number for funding, there needs to be accountability that the resources are there and that they are equitable across all communities. That means indigenous children would finally receive the same amount of resources and, in some cases, more if the case warranted it.

Could the member speak to that issue?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for North Island—Powell River raises the important point of accountability in legislation such as this.

Legislation is a first step, but if there is no accountability to back it up, we really have not achieved what we set out to achieve. The member mentioned the concept of funding. Perhaps equality of funding may only be a starting point, and in some cases additional funding may be needed so that an indigenous community may receive slightly more than a non-indigenous community, given the circumstances, given the needs of that community, given the needs of a particular child.

We need to ensure that indigenous children are not left behind, that we have the resources to fund the important needs, particularly in this case in terms of child welfare services, but also to ensure that the opportunity is there for them to thrive and do well, to expand their culture, to expand their language so they can truly learn the culture of their ancestors.

Absolutely, there need to be accountability mechanisms within the bill and there need to be the resources to back it up, to ensure that we truly achieve the objectives that are set out in black and white print.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I go to the next speaker, I want to remind the hon. member for Durham that he will have about 10 minutes. Unfortunately, we will be running out of time and there will be no time for questions and answers, unless he finishes before his 10 minutes and whatever comes up before the end of the time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Durham.

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

Mr. Speaker, I probably will take the time. I am known for sometimes going on too long in the House. I am sure my Liberal friends think that. However, this is a very important issue to me, to the Conservative Party and, I am sure, to all members of Parliament in the chamber.

Indigenous youth welfare, Métis youth welfare is an area of collective failure of this Parliament since our earliest days, and there are a variety of reasons for that: cultural, historical and societal. Looking back at those failures means that we have to look forward to make sure that we fulfill the true opportunity that is Canada to all Canadians, particularly those in our first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, who have had ties to this country for far longer than all of us. That is why it is important to see that there is progress.

We support Bill C-92 going to committee, because we do think that reforms are needed in this area, and that was called for by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Child welfare was the first recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In fact, the future of improving the outcomes for members of these communities, reconciliation at its heart is going to be achieved by our young people. It is paramount for us to get this right.

Recommendation 1 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was to reduce the number of children in foster care, in government-supported care of some sort. That was the number one recommendation, and we know why. It was because of our failed history in that regard.

This was said so eloquently by former prime minister Harper in his apology for the generations-long program of residential schools in this country. In fact, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission grew out of the work by our previous government and prime minister Harper to apologize and to make sure that we learn and never repeat the mistakes of our past.

I am going to quote from the former prime minister's apology, from June 2008:

We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions, that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this. We now recognize that, in separating children from their families, we undermined the ability of many to adequately parent their own children and sowed the seeds for generations to follow, and we apologize for having done this.

Those were probably some of the most impassioned and important words said by Stephen Harper in Parliament.

The former prime minister and Speaker Milliken at the time erected a stained glass window recognizing the apology for residential schools in the Centre Block of Parliament, importantly placed over the members entrance. When I gave tours of the building to young people, friends from the military or whomever, I would point out the window and tell them that it was placed there so that members of Parliament, regardless of party, when they walk in, know that the decisions made in the chamber can impact people, families and children in a positive way or in an extremely negative way. I thought that the powerful statement of the truth and reconciliation stained glass window in Centre Block was a recognition that what we do, including the debate here today, is an important part of reconciliation.

What is key, and what I am going to speak about substantively in my concerns with the approach of the Liberal government to this bill, is that it seems to neglect the central role of the provinces.

In the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, a commission that grew out of the apology and the work done by Stephen Harper and our government, the second recommendation in the section on child welfare called for collaboration with the provinces and territories. That has not happened in the bill adequately, and that is a valid concern. I am so upset about this because it did not need to be this way.

The Prime Minister, to his credit, talked a lot about the need for reconciliation when he was running for Parliament and running to be the prime minister. In their platform, the Liberals said they would implement all of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations. He said that reconciliation would be central to his term as prime minister.

Then why are we getting the most substantive piece of legislation on healing that indigenous rift in the final few months of Parliament, along with a bill on indigenous languages? It did not come early on or after two years of consulting with the provinces, but in the final months. It was introduced in February of this year. That is unfortunate, because we need to get this right.

Child welfare services are almost entirely provided by the provinces and territories. The central learnings many of them have experienced mean that some provinces are further ahead. Therefore, while we have a section 91 and section 92 debate in Parliament about the paramountcy of the federal Parliament when it comes to decisions related to indigenous peoples and Métis, we have to recognize the fact that a range of things, such as education, health, child welfare and victim services, are delivered by the provinces. Therefore, this is where reconciliation requires collaboration and consultation, not just with the provinces and territories but with first nations leadership. That can be a challenge.

In the last government, we sometimes got it right. The number of children in care went down by about 12%. However, it is still vastly too high. There are 15,000 indigenous youth in care right now. Fortunately, changes made in the last government and in the current government are bringing that number down, but not fast enough.

One way we focused on it was making sure that child welfare or child care could at least happen through family relationships within the first nations community, so that the connection to language and culture could be tied and it would not be like the sixties scoop or our failures of the past, but recognizing that this has to be centrally done with first nations leadership and with the provinces and territories. That is my disappointment.

I have said positive words here. However, why are we debating this in the final months of Parliament? There has been no significant consultation. If we were debating it now because the provinces, territories and first nations were all on board, I would say that is great, because the people at those levels of government who care, who deliver the services, feel that this bill is going to fulfill the mandate. Right now, I do not think they do.

I want to embody this in one tragedy out of many, one tear in an ocean of tears, in the 151-plus years of our country. That is the tragic case of Tina Fontaine, a young woman from the Sagkeeng First Nation in Manitoba, who was tragically killed in 2014. She was brutally murdered. I would recommend to Canadians the report done by the Manitoba children's advocate, Daphne Penrose. I thank Ms. Penrose. As the children's advocate for Manitoba, she is doing important work, along with Cindy Blackstock and others. They have made recommendations. In fact, we failed Ms. Fontaine many times throughout her life. We have to learn from that. We collectively have to say that we need to do better.

Ms. Penrose's report regarding Ms. Fontaine was entitled “A Place Where It Feels Like Home”, because she did not have a home; she was in care. If we look at the report, we see that all of the central recommendations are provincial. The absentee and expulsion policies that led Ms. Fontaine out of the school system, where someone could have helped her, are provincial. Victims services, health, provincial justice and addiction support are all provincial. In some cases, the federal government is not delivering the services, and kudos to the many outstanding first nations that are looking at delivering these services on and off reserve.

I ask the government this. When this goes to committee, because we are supportive of that, let us get it right. Let us use the goodwill that is here to make sure that the provincial, territorial and first nations organizations delivering child welfare services, addiction services, victim services and education are part of the solution. That is our obligation to reconciliation. It is not just through the federal government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 11, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I believe it is carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 1:30 p.m. at this time so that we could begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 20 consideration of the motion.