Debates of May 3rd, 2019

The House resumed from March 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

I rise to speak to Bill C-92, which, if passed, would be a significant step forward in the process of reconciliation and in the renewal of the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples.

Bill C-92 sets out the legislative framework and the principles needed to guide work among first nations, Inuit and Métis nations, provincial and territorial partners, and the Government of Canada to achieve truly meaningful reform in child and family services.

The bill before us follows wide-ranging and intensive engagement with indigenous partners, provincial and territorial representatives, youth, in particular youth who have lived experience in the child and family welfare system, and experts and advocates.

In January 2018, our government held an emergency national meeting on indigenous child and family services to collaborate on finding solutions to keep families together. In the report on the emergency meeting, the overarching theme that emerged was summarized as follows: “It is clear that the time is now to work towards transferring jurisdictional control from the federal government to First Nations, the Inuit and the Métis Nation through legislation”.

The minutes go on to say:

Legislative reforms are needed that respect and promote the rights of Indigenous peoples to lead the systems, developing standards and practices that reflect Indigenous laws and cultural practices, where the First Nations, Inuit and the Métis Nation have the right to look after their children and children and youth have rights to be raised in language and culture.

Legislative reforms are needed that respect and promote the rights of Indigenous peoples to lead the systems, developing standards and practices that reflect Indigenous laws and cultural practices.

At the end of the emergency meeting, the Government of Canada made six commitments to address the overrepresentation of indigenous children and youth in care in Canada.

First, it will continue to fully implement the orders from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, including Jordan's principle, and reform first nations child and family services, including by moving to a flexible funding model.

Second, it will work with partners to shift the focus of programming to culturally appropriate prevention, early intervention and family reunification.

Third, it will also work with our partners to support communities in drawing down jurisdiction in child and family services, including exploring co-developed federal legislation.

Fourth, it will participate in and accelerate the work at tripartite and technical tables that are in place across the country in supporting reform.

Fifth, it will support Inuit and Métis leadership in their work to advance meaningful, culturally appropriate reform of child and family services.

Sixth, it will create a data strategy with the provinces, territories and indigenous partners to increase interjurisdictional data collection, sharing and reporting to better understand the rates and reasons for apprehension.

Similar calls for legislation have come from call to action 4 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as well as the National Advisory Committee on First Nations Child and Family Services and were reflected in the Assembly of First Nations' resolutions of May and December 2018, to name a few.

Throughout the summer and fall of that year, this government actively engaged with national, regional and community organizations and with individuals, nearly 2,000 across 65 meetings, to co-develop a legislative approach that has brought us to this point.

As a result of this intensive engagement process, on November 30, 2018, the former minister of Indigenous Services stood together with national indigenous leaders to announce that the Government of Canada would introduce co-developed federal legislation on indigenous child and family services.

I am heartened to share the words of Senator Murray Sinclair, former chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, who called these engagements “a model for implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions Call-to-Actions in a meaningful and direct way.”

This is engagement that will continue as the legislation is implemented and afterward through the exploration of a national transition governance structure, with a distinctions-based underpinning, that would have representation from indigenous partners, provinces and territories.

The group could, for example, identify tools and processes to help increase the capacity of communities as they make progress toward assuming responsibility for child and family services. Such a committee could also assess gaps and recommend mechanisms, as needed, to assist with implementation, in the spirit of partnership and in the spirit of co-operation. In addition, Bill C-92 would provide a review of the legislation every five years, in collaboration with Métis, Inuit and first nation partners.

The bill is entirely consistent with our government's commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and our commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The bill has two objectives. First is to affirm the inherent right of indigenous peoples to self-determination in relation to child and family services. The bill is formed on that foundation and would provide flexible pathways for indigenous groups across Canada to determine a way forward that would best meet the needs of their children, families and communities. Second, the bill would set out guiding principles that would guide the provision of child and family services to indigenous children in nearly every region and every jurisdiction throughout this great country.

These principles are national in scope. They are a base standard to ensure that all services for first nation, Inuit and Métis children are provided in a manner that takes into account the individual child's needs, including the need to be raised with a strong connection to the child's family, culture, language and community.

These principles are the following: the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality. Setting these standards is in line with TRC call to action 4, which calls for the establishment of national standards, and with what we heard from partners and community members during the extensive engagement process across Canada. To be clear, these are minimum base standards that can be built upon and adapted by communities to meet their unique cultures as well as their unique traditions.

Participants also agreed that the proposed legislation should emphasize the importance of keeping indigenous families together through the implementation of prevention services and early intervention, measures that promote family preservation and reunification.

The legislation would propose an order of preference for placement: first, the family; then the extended family, other members of the community and other indigenous families; then a non-indigenous adult. The placement order is intended to ensure that children remain connected to their culture and their community and that they preserve their attachment and emotional ties to the family.

The bill would establish the importance of preventive care over apprehension. This legislation would give priority to child and family services that promote preventive care, including prenatal services, over the provision of services that promote the removal of a child at the time of birth.

Focusing on preventive care would help promote bonding between mothers and newborns and family unification and attachment and would prevent the removal of newborns. These principles, child-centred and family-centred, were referenced repeatedly throughout the engagement sessions, as was the critical importance of prevention programs.

It is clear that services provided to indigenous children and families should respect and respond in a way that is tailored to their needs and unique cultural experiences. Considerable emphasis was placed on the importance of culture and maintaining the health and well-being of children and families, including through community support networks and the involvement of elders.

It was also clear from the engagement process that federal legislation must respect the inherent right of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples to self-determination.

This legislation starts at the point of affirming the inherent right of indigenous peoples to oversee child and family services and sets out flexible pathways for indigenous groups to create their own laws that best meet the needs of their children and their communities. Indeed, if an indigenous group chose to establish its own laws through this mechanism, the legislation makes it clear that in the case of a conflict between indigenous law and a provincial or a federal law, the indigenous law would prevail. For added clarity, the bill would not prevail over any existing treaties, self-government agreements or other agreements that already address indigenous child and family services, though communities could choose to adopt it in these situations.

Partners emphasized that the concept of one-size-fits-all is entirely inappropriate in this situation. Any federal legislation on child and family services must recognize that the needs, desires and priorities of indigenous communities in child and family services vary from one community to another and from one province to another and can evolve and change over time. As a result, there was broad consensus that federal, provincial and territorial mechanisms to support indigenous child and family services should have the flexibility needed to address a range of circumstances and variables.

Importantly, the bill also states that an indigenous child would not be apprehended on the basis of socio-economic conditions alone. This is something we heard loud and clear from partners during the consultation process. Indeed, the principle of substantive equality, the third of the guiding principles, is critical to ensuring that the focus of all providers remains on achieving equitable outcomes and equal opportunities for indigenous children and their families.

Substantive equality is the underpinning of other important initiatives, such as Jordan's principle, which ensures that first nations children across Canada can access the services, products and supports they need when they need them. Since 2016, our government has committed $680 million to support requests through Jordan's principle, which has helped provide first nations youth with a wide range of services to meet their health, social and educational needs.

The positive impact is undeniable. As of January 31 of this year, more than 214,000 requests for services and supports have been approved for first nations children under Jordan's principle. Our government is committed to ensuring that this important work continues. I had the pleasure of being with the minister last week in Winnipeg, with several other MPs, where he announced $1.2 billion for Jordan's principle going forward.

We are all aware that indigenous peoples have been treated atrociously. We are all familiar with the horror of residential schools and the 60s scoop.

Even so, first nations, Inuit and Métis children are still being taken away from their families, their communities, their language and their culture at an alarming and unjustifiable rate. More than half of the foster children in Canada are indigenous. There are many factors involved, of course, but there is no doubt that the system is failing indigenous children, indigenous families and indigenous communities.

We are all aware of the appalling treatment of indigenous peoples, exemplified by the horror of residential schools and by the tragedy of the sixties scoop. Over the course of the last three years, significant investments have been made to begin addressing these issues. Our government has nearly doubled the annual funding for indigenous child and family services since we took office, bringing it to more than $1.1 billion annually.

Through budget 2016, we provided $635 million over five years as a first step in addressing funding gaps in first nations child and family services. These funds have been used to support agency service providers, including enhanced funding for smaller agencies. It has supported the rollout of prevention-focused funding models across the country and more front-line service providers.

These funds are already at work. For example, last August, we announced that the Huu-ay-aht First Nation in British Columbia would receive $4.2 million, close to $850,000 a year for five years, to support new child and family services initiatives. Some 20% of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation children were in a form of government care, a situation that led the community leadership to declare a public health emergency and undertake a major study to identify solutions. With funding from Canada and other partners, the Huu-ay-aht First Nation is now implementing the 30 recommendations of this study, entitled “Safe, Healthy and Connected, Bringing Huu-ay-aht Children Home”.

Existing pregnancy support and parenting education programs are being expanded. Family and protection support workers are being hired. New opportunities for youth engagement and cultural awareness are being developed. In February 2018, we also changed policies to fund the actual costs of indigenous-led CFS agencies, meaning that they can focus on prevention and services to better support families and reduce the number of children in care.

In budget 2018, the government committed a further $1.4 billion in new funding over six years to address the funding pressures facing first nations CFS agencies. This includes funding to increase prevention resources for communities so that children are safe and families can stay together. As part of the ongoing efforts toward program reform, a total of $105 million of funding in the current year has been allocated to the community well-being and jurisdiction initiative. This new funding stream focuses on supporting first nations communities to undertake prevention activities to help families at risk stay together in communities whenever possible and, at the same time, allow communities to exercise their rightful jurisdiction over child and family services.

Funding and innovation can only go so far when dealing with a broken and failing system. It is failing generations of indigenous children and it must be reformed. The existing indigenous child and family services system has led to what has rightly been described as a humanitarian crisis. This bill represents a critical step in addressing that crisis, and I urge all members to join me in supporting it.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to what the hon. member on the government side has listed with regard to the achievements of the indigenous communities and the programs.

The question is very obvious, from Canadians and from indigenous communities. Despite all these achievements, we still hear lots of complaints and dissatisfaction from the same communities over the government's performance. Can the hon. member explain how those two results match: what he is saying and what we are hearing from the public?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I am very proud of the consultation process we had with indigenous communities across Canada. There were over 65 individual meetings across Canada, and well over 2,000 people participated. I am proud to say that we have the support of the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council, as well as ITK. However, diversity in indigenous communities is sometimes underestimated. We are committed. We know there are concerns out there. We have started a pre-study at the indigenous and northern affairs committee. I note that the Senate has also started a pre-study.

We are going to use the committee phase the way it should be used: to listen to people's concerns and support. When it is applicable and when it makes sense, the committee is open to amendments. We are committed to the co-development process, not only to this point but beyond, at committee and working with other levels of government and certainly the different nations, whether it is Métis, first nations or Inuit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share the time with the member in committee listening to testimony on this particular piece of legislation and the pre-study that is occurring right now.

One major concern that has come forward is the fact that the funding is not mentioned in a wholesome way within the legislation directly. There have been several recommendations about how to do that, but the strongest recommendation is really about making sure that the language is in the legislation, not in the preamble but in the legislation.

Cindy Blackstock, the amazing woman who has done so much work on this, not only in her own organization but consulting and working with organizations and communities across Canada, has suggested that we make sure that the language in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision around equality of funding is included in the legislation. It is not about a number figure; it is about the principles that need to be in the legislation to make sure that indigenous children in this country are finally funded at the same level as all other Canadian children.

I would like the member to speak to that important piece, because if that is not done, then we will not see what we all want to see in the House, which is all Canadian children treated exactly the same and given a chance at a hopeful, bright future.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her commitment to this bill and her positive contributions at committee toward making this a better bill.

There are a couple of things. Number one, it is important to understand that we are reforming the way child welfare is delivered across Canada in indigenous communities. That may mean that some nations will want to put a large emphasis on prevention and less on removal. Initially, the thought was that when we are revamping the system in partnership with indigenous communities, it would be premature to identify specific funding in the bill.

It is also important to note that since we were elected in 2015, we have doubled the funding for the indigenous child welfare system to $1.2 billion a year. That is significant. That fact alone demonstrates that we are serious.

I was at those committee meetings and heard the recommendations. I cannot foretell what the committee is going to make a recommendation on, but at this point the legislative process is unfolding as it should and that is going to be considered in the final recommendations of not only the committee in the House of Commons but the committee in the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the need for the legislation. My colleague and I are from the province of Manitoba, where I believe the need is the greatest. In Manitoba, there are well over 10,000 children in foster care. Based on a provincial population of 1.2 million or 1.3 million people, there are over 10,000 children in foster care and the vast majority of those children are of indigenous background. When we look at this legislation, we recognize that at the very least, it is providing hope, in that finally there is a government, whether at the provincial level or the federal level, that is recognizing the need to take action. When we talk about reconciliation, this is a very positive step forward with respect to that issue.

I would ask my colleague and friend to provide his thoughts on that.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is absolutely right. Every day in this country indigenous children are separated from their families and communities. That simply has to stop.

This is the start of a process. Nobody is saying that this is going to be the be-all and end-all to address the issue. We understand that; first nations understand that; Métis and Inuit communities understand that.

Indigenous children across Canada make up more than 50% of all children in care, while at the same time indigenous children make up 8% of the entire population of children across the country. That is not right. We need to change that. We know that the issue really comes down to the social determinants of health and well-being. That is why, over the last four years, our government has invested over $21 billion of new money, not only in child and family services, but in health, education and infrastructure services, to try to close the gap in indigenous communities on the basic determinants of health. This is the beginning of a process. This is not the end.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary.

This problem affects us all. We all care about the well-being of all Canadians. We all care about the well-being of first nations and their children.

What this bill seeks to do is ensure that, when these children face certain unfortunate difficulties, places will be available to them closer to home where they will receive better treatment.

The thing is, we all know there are jurisdictional issues involved. We certainly do not want this laudable goal to be undermined by procedural issues that would interfere with enacting this law, nor would we want administrative formalities to snuff out the objective.

I would therefore like my colleague to tell me what the government has done to ensure that this legislation can take effect without conflicting with provincial, federal or first nations jurisdiction.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

As members know, off-reserve child and family services have traditionally been a provincial responsibility. That is why we have been working with all provinces from coast to coast from the very beginning.

I personally attended a meeting with the former minister and the Manitoba minister responsible for children and families. That is important, and now their own minister is doing the same thing across Canada.

As I said earlier, this is the beginning of a process. An implementation committee will be created, which should include the provinces, territories and of course the Métis and Inuit nations. Technical discussions regarding responsibility will continue there.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Bow River, in Alberta. I look forward to hearing his remarks. His constituents include first nations representatives, as do mine, in fact. I will come back to that near the end of my speech.

I am pleased to speak at this stage of the bill.

This piece of legislation is quite important. As I said a few minutes ago, the meaning or spirit behind it is good. Everyone here supports the fact that we want the best for Canada and Canadians. We want the best for our first nations people, especially for first nations youth. Yes, there are some issues. Unfortunately, too many first nations young people experience family problems.

It is sad to see that, unfortunately, nearly 50% of first nations children from many communities do not live with their parents. They have been placed in foster families to protect them or “for their own good”, as my mother used to say to me when I was in trouble. She would tell me that what she was doing was for my own good. I did not necessarily agree, but of course, in the end, my mother always knew best.

We understand that this is a troubling reality and that we need to ensure that first nations youth are treated properly. We also recognize that, in order to help children, whoever they may be or whatever nation or group they may be from, it is better to give them an environment they can relate to. That will make it much easier for them to get back on track and reach their full potential.

The problem is that children who are placed in foster families do not always get to stay in their own community, and that creates serious problems with healing.

The target is important, but we are very concerned with the fact that this issue is very touchy. Everybody would support the spirit of it, but the technical problems that could arise from that could hurt the spirit itself.

That is why we are so concerned. As the parliamentary secretary said earlier, we know that child welfare falls under provincial jurisdiction. We also know that first nations fall under federal jurisdiction. Naturally, this particular combination may lead to conflicts. There are provincial laws that may apply, but there also federal laws that pertain to first nations children.

We are not here to create problems. We are here to solve them. The bill is at second reading stage. The next step will, of course, be committee. We, on this side of the House, will do our part to ensure that no technical problems hurt the spirit of this bill, and I am sure all other members will do the same.

Since this pertains to children, jurisdictions and the fact that, unfortunately, jurisdictions sometimes collide, I feel compelled to mention the unspeakable tragedy that has shaken Quebec for the past two days. A seven-year-old girl suffered unimaginable abuse her whole life. This situation has gripped Quebec. Yesterday we were very pleased to see members of the National Assembly and people throughout Quebec come together to try to prevent such a tragedy from every happening again. My thoughts are with the loved ones of this poor victim.

We cannot look at this bill without being reminded of the fact that indigenous children are suffering through serious social problems that originate with the Canadian government and the residential school tragedy of nearly 100 years. For nearly 100 years, some 150 indigenous children were ripped from their families and placed without their consent in residential schools that had two primary objectives: to stamp out their indigenous knowledge and traditions and assimilate them into the new world, the world we are currently living in.

The scars from this tragedy are unfortunately still present today. This is why, in an extraordinary moment on June 11, 2008, right here in the House of Commons, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, the former prime minister of Canada, issued an official apology to the first nations on behalf of all Canadians for this tragedy. It was a magical moment, but it was, unfortunately, necessary because we had put far too many indigenous peoples through this.

I want to read two excerpts from the Government of Canada's apology to the first nations. Prime Minister Harper said:

The legacy of Indian Residential Schools has contributed to social problems that continue to exist in many communities today. It has taken extraordinary courage for the thousands of survivors that have come forward to speak publicly about the abuse they suffered. It is a testament to their resilience as individuals and to the strength of their cultures. Regrettably, many former students are not with us today and died never having received a full apology from the Government of Canada.

Today we are studying this bill because, as Prime Minister Harper expressed so well at the time, a message that was echoed by the country, parents raising their children today are suffering from the horrors they and their ancestors have been forced to endure over the past 100 years. I will share another quote from Prime Minister Harper:

We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions.... 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.

This is why we are studying a bill today to help the victims of a government approach that we strongly oppose today. We will keep a positive attitude in our study of this bill, while remaining serious, to ensure that no jurisdictional issues will affect or slow the momentum of this bill.

Earlier, I had the pleasure of saying that it will soon be four years since I was elected to the House of Commons, and it will soon be 11 years that I have served in politics at the provincial and federal level. I was the MLA for the indigenous community in Wendake, which I now represent federally. I am very proud to have represented them in the National Assembly and to be their MP here in the House of Commons. These people have lived in the Nionwentsïo for millennia, but over 320 years ago they settled permanently in Loretteville, not far from where I was born and raised.

This community is not very big and has a population of about 2,000. However it is extraordinarily positive and successful on an economic, social, historical and personal level. These people live peacefully with everyone. They are a model and an inspiration for all first nations on how people can get along. It is with great honour and pride that I represent them in the House; I have them in mind as we debate this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

When drafting a bill of this scope and significance, we know that consultations are very important. Before the bill was introduced, we held 65 meetings with indigenous groups, not just with the chiefs but with 2,000 community members as well. We have the backing of the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.

Could the member comment on the importance of holding consultations before introducing such an important bill?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am blown away by how well my colleague speaks both official languages. I am truly impressed.

The worst thing we could do would be to rush this kind of legislation. We are all well-intentioned, but we need to do things properly.

I am pleased to know that thousands of people were consulted about this and that various groups have had their say and support this bill. Being well-intentioned is all well and good, but, as we all know, especially those of us in the House of Commons, when we are debating and passing laws, unfortunately the devil is in the details. That is why we need to be thorough and do things by the book, and that work needs to be done by a parliamentary committee. I am sure everyone agrees with that approach.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize that there are some flaws in the bill, as I have heard from other members this morning. The government claims to have had many consultations, but it seems like there was not enough consultation, and that is why we have these flaws.

Could my hon. colleague highlight some of the flaws that will be critical toward having a good bill?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the main issue in that case is the fact that we do not and should not push too hard and too fast on this. It is important legislation, so we cannot let things go on and then ask what will happen. As I said earlier in French, the devil is in the details.

If the French version is an anglicism, I apologize for using that anglicism earlier.

The legislation is so important for first nations people. The first thing that all of us in the House of Commons should have in mind is to ensure we do it correctly.

Sometimes we have to consult and consult again to ensure, based on the argument tabled by the lawyers, we are on good ground, especially for first nations.

There are some technical fights between the federal jurisdiction and the provincial jurisdiction. There is a lot of difficulty in being able to address each and every issue with respect to the first nations file. We need to take our time to ensure to do it correctly.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is stunning to hear the difference in the Conservative Party of this Parliament versus the Conservative Party of the past. The Conservative government fought first nations child and family services and fought indigenous kids in court.

Why did the Conservative government never act to reform the first nations child and family services program, instead fight it in court for years?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour for me to remind each and every Canadian that the first time first nation leaders addressed members of the House of Commons was under former prime minister Stephen Harper. On June 11, 2008, prime minister Stephen Harper tabled a formal apology on behalf of all Canadians and let first nations leaders address the House of Commons.

I am very proud of what we have done.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

As part of that, I need to refer to an interesting production that I was able to attend a few weeks ago, the New Blood dance show. New Blood is a story of reconciliation, and it was a phenomenal presentation. This widely acclaimed production blends Blackfoot music and contemporary music by Peter Gabriel to create an amazing piece of theatre celebrating Blackfoot history and traditions.

For all those who might be interested in seeing it, it is a high school group that is connected closely with Siksika. There are a lot of students in it. It was first performed in 2014, and it is performed annually, with new students as participants. It has been viewed in many places in southern Alberta and in some in British Columbia. It is based on a chief's life, going through reconciliation and becoming a chief of his people, and the ultimate goal of the teacher who developed this production was to hopefully bring it to Ottawa so that more people could see it.

I think it is fantastic, and hopefully Heritage Canada understands how important this type of production is, as it is done by indigenous youth in our country.

The legislation that we have in front of us comes on the heels of Bill C-91, which was sent back to the House from the heritage committee.

I was fundamentally supportive of Bill C-91's objectives. Its objectives were important to constituents in my riding.

Siksika Nation, which is located in Bow River, has already taken steps to offer an immersion program in the Blackfoot language for the first time this September. The program will be offered to kindergarten and grade 1 students to start. This is an incredible step in ensuring their language and culture are strengthened through future generations. The students need to be there. I hope this program is a great success.

However, even though I fundamentally supported Bill C-91, the way the government rushed through the legislation was unacceptable. As with Bill C-92, the government introduced Bill C-91 late in its mandate. This has left the government scrambling to force the legislation's passage. In fact, as we were in committee, about 15 minutes before we were scheduled to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-91, we received over 20 new Liberal amendments to that piece of legislation.

Previously, when we were discussing the bill and hearing witnesses, I had pointed out some of the constitutional challenges that I felt Bill C-91 would have. Then we had constitutional lawyers appear before the committee as witnesses, and they pointed out the same problems. They believed that this legislation would not stand in court the way it was written.

Some amendments were made and maybe that will fix the legislation, but that is the problem with both Bill C-91 and Bill C-92. They were written too hurriedly and too late. Constitutional lawyers did not have an opportunity to deal with the amendments to make this legislation better or more correct so that it does not end up in litigation for years in court.

This pattern should not be repeated with Bill C-92, but I understand that the committee is conducting a pre-study and going through the same process. It was a piece of legislation that was rushed too quickly.

I understand that Bill C-92 seeks to affirm the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services by establishing national principles, such as best interests of the child, cultural continuity, and substantive equality to guide the interpretation and administration of the bill.

These principles are intended to guide indigenous communities on the delivery of child and family services. If the legislation meets its objectives, it would keep extended families together and in their communities, which is a critical part of the goals, but I do not know if the legislation is going to achieve that. I do not think anyone would be opposed to that goal.

Consistent with the 2008 residential school apology delivered by Prime Minister Harper, Conservatives believe steps must be taken to reduce the number of indigenous children in care. Amends need to be made for residential schools and the sixties scoop.

My mother, for example, was one of the first teachers after the transition out of residential schools to teach in what it was called a day head start program for four- and five-year-olds for indigenous children on the Blood reserve. It was the first transition for students of that age to be at home and not in a residential school.

Ultimately, this legislation can reduce the number of indigenous children in care. It is well designed, but what did we see on Bill C-91? On Bill C-91 we heard from many witnesses that they had not been consulted or that their advice was unheeded. First of all, we heard on Bill C-91 that there had been extensive consultation. Then witnesses talked about six months. Then it got down to the fact that it was actually only for three months that there was an attempt at consultations, and then we heard that it was only weeks, so it is a challenge for us to know what really happened when we hear that extensive consultations have been done.

Given that Bill C-92 aims to give indigenous communities more jurisdiction over their foster care program, I would hope that the government will actually listen to the witnesses that are coming to committee. Otherwise, this is just one more example of colonialism by the government, which the government claims it is trying to avoid.

On Bill C-91 there were a lot of witnesses with a variety of opinions that did not match the legislation. They needed more consultation. As well, when I was at committee, we once again had a tremendous variety of witnesses with different opinions on National Indigenous Peoples Day, and again it was the government making the decision with its legislation.

I understand that the first nations, Inuit and Métis continue to be overrepresented in Canada's foster care system, According to the 2016 census data from Stats Canada, there are almost 15,000 foster children in private homes under the age of 15 who are indigenous, which is 52% of foster children in Canada. Obviously, the current system is not working well for indigenous youth.

I respect the fact that the government is taking measures it believes will address the situation, even though the government waited until the very last minute to introduce this legislation. Bill C-92 emphasizes a need to focus on prevention, rather than on apprehension. When apprehension has been deemed in a child's best interest, the legislation provides an order of preference for the placement of an indigenous child with a family member or a member of their community and stresses that siblings should be kept together when it is in their best interests. That seems like a good approach, but will it work?

While I have only recently reviewed the legislation, I look forward to learning more about the government's intentions to execute this plan. That is where we will find out if it works. Just as there were flaws in Bill C-91, I trust that the committee is receiving valuable testimony from witnesses on how to fix the potential flaws in the bill and how to make it better.

I do have a particular concern about coordination of this legislation with the provinces and territories. I understand that on the day the bill was tabled, Saskatchewan's Minister of Social Services, Paul Merriman, told APTN that the federal government chose not to collaborate with the provinces and territories to develop this legislation. In the development of Bill C-91, what we heard from people from the grassroots in the education systems in indigenous communities was that there was no consultation with them, and again the provinces are saying that there was no consultation with them. This is a problem.

Jurisdiction over this file may get complicated. I hope this issue will be addressed at committee. Bill C-92 will be a better piece of legislation if the committee actually addresses some of the problems, just like in Bill C-91. The last thing we want to do is spend this time on legislation and then have it end up in the courts under appeal.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We seem to have a little bit of time. We have time for one question and then we will come back for more questions after.

The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I know that jurisdiction has been front and centre in some of the discussion on the other side.

I think it is important to involve provinces and territories, but does the hon. member agree that the ultimate jurisdictional issue is that the jurisdiction belongs inherently to indigenous nations?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the development Bill C-91, the constitutional lawyers we heard from said that the legislation was not written for that to occur, as there were problems with jurisdiction. That was one of the problems of Bill C-91. In Bill C-92, I hope the legislation is written to actually do that, because in the case of Bill C-91, constitutional lawyers said that because of the way it was written, there was a problem as to who holds authority.

Sinhalese Heritage Day

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to host the first very successful Sinhalese Heritage Day on Parliament Hill on April 27 with about 500 Sinhalese Canadians.

I would like to thank Edward Anura Ferdinand and his team at the Sri Lanka Canada Association of Ottawa for their dedication in organizing this.

I would also like to recognize the SLCAO Seniors Group, the Hilda Jayewardenaramaya temple of Ottawa, the Sri Lanka United National Association of Canada in Toronto, the Sinhalese Association of Canada, the Canada Sri Lanka Association of Toronto, the Sri Lanka Canada Association of the Atlantic Region, the Sri Lankan Association of Manitoba, the Sri Lanka Canada Association of Montreal and the Toronto Sri Lankan Student Alumni Alliance.

The event showed that while integrating into Canadian society, we do keep in touch with our heritage.

Robert Wagner Dowling

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to say farewell to Robert Wagner Dowling, who passed away at age 95, leaving behind his wife Olga and his two children, Lori and Robert.

Bob grew up on a farm in Ohaton, Alberta. He was an avid baseball player, an award-winning singer, an explorer, a Royal Canadian Air Force pilot during World War II, a pharmacist, a politician, and most of all, a husband and father.

His love for the mountains brought him to Jasper, where he served the community as a pharmacist and was an active volunteer in so many organizations. He was a member of the Legislation Assembly of Alberta, a cabinet minister, president of the Alberta Chamber of Commerce, a board member of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and a lifelong Legion supporter. He was just a great human being who gave his all to the community of Jasper, the province of Alberta and this great country.

Bob will be profoundly missed by his family and many friends and associates from coast to coast to coast.

Rest well, my friend.

Homelessness Among Veterans

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, homelessness in our veteran community is unacceptable in Canada. One homeless veteran is one too many.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and the well-being of the brave women and men who put their lives on the line for our nation is a top priority for me and our government. This is why I introduced a motion last year at the committee to study homelessness in our veteran community.

After working collaboratively with colleagues from all sides on this study, I am proud to share that this week our committee tabled our report, entitled “Moving Towards Ending Homelessness Among Veterans”. In our report, we submitted 10 concrete recommendations to address homelessness in our veteran community. Currently, there are 3,000 to 5,000 veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness in Canada. This is a problem that can be solved, and the time to act is now.

I want to thank all the witnesses who appeared before our committee and shared their personal and powerful stories. They were prepared to lay down their lives for our country, and we are prepared to fulfill our sacred obligation to them.

Freedom of the Press

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, happy World Press Freedom Day, a day we recommit ourselves to truly free and independent media.

While some of us in politics can relate to the sentiment from Napoleon that said “Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets”, we all must remain dedicated to that free expression.

However, around the world, the trend is troubling. The recent report from Reporters Without Borders shows that only a quarter of the world enjoys a truly free press. Far too many journalists continue to face persecution and even death when trying to expose the truth in repressive regimes.

Here in Canada, critical stories like the opioid crisis, the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the SNC-Lavalin debacle were all exposed by a professional and determined press corps.

As Albert Camus once said, “A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom the press will never be anything but bad.”

We thank our colleagues in the media for their diligence, dedication and passion.