Debates of June 3rd, 2019

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

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

Mr. Speaker, because of that motion, I have to cut my speech down by 10 minutes and share my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, which I do with great pleasure. I will highlight some of what I originally intended to talk about.

Today is a particularly important day and I truly am glad we came to an agreement to move this forward.

Having been at the ceremony for the murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and knowing how much the child welfare system played a role in some very tragic outcomes for many of the people we have heard about today, to pass this child welfare legislation on to the Senate is absolutely significant and very appropriate. It also shows significant good will in the House.

We have always expressed concern about how late in the day we received the legislation. The Senate has only about two and a half weeks. However, on the House side, there is a recognition and good will to get the legislation passed.

When we think about the murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and the child welfare legislation, many cases come to people's minds. However, the tragedy of Tina Fontaine stands out in all our minds. Her body was found in the river on October 17, 2014, wrapped in a duvet. No one was ever convicted. The authorities had someone whom they questioned, but no one has ever been convicted.

Tina Fontaine represents so many things that have gone wrong, that have been wrong for too many years and that we all need to work together to address: colonialism, intergenerational trauma, the sixties scoop and the residential schools.

In honour of Tina's memory and the significance of the day, I want to share a few details from the report that was done on Tina Fontaine. This is a bit of the executive summary and some other parts of the report. It says:

Tina Fontaine might always be known for the tragic way in which she died, but it is her life that is an important story worth knowing. It was on August 17, 2014, when most people would learn her name, but Tina's story began long before that day. It began even before Tina was born on New Year's Day in 1999. To know Tina's story, to really understand how she came to symbolize a churning anger of a nation enraged, each of us can look as far back as the arrival of European settlers, and as close to home as the depth of our own involvement or indifference in the lives and experiences of indigenous youth.

It is a certain challenge to conduct a child death investigation. To gather files and evidence, to sort through boxes of information, to speak with an ever-growing list of people who knew the child, and then to create an accurate and thoughtful story about the life of that child. This is a process of honouring legacy and uncovering truths. To understand the complexities of any child and to truly understand their life within the broader context of a family...

It goes on to say:

Tina's story was her own, and yet, it mirrors the stories of many others. The losses she experienced, the fracturing of her family, the inability to access necessary support, the promises of services that were never delivered, these are the echoes of so many other children and their families. These barriers that are experienced much more often and pervasively by Indigenous families is the story of Tina and the one that we have the opportunity to change.

One of the things the report talks about is the areas on which we need to reflect:

What were Tina's needs and those of her family?

What interventions and supports were offered and when?

What is the family perspective on the services they received?

What needs to be improved?

What do the experts say needs to happen?

What do the Elders say we need to remember?

What do youth say they need to feel supported? And,

How can tragedies like Tina's death be prevented in the future?

This morning, the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls released its report, which is 1,200 pages with 231 recommendations. I do not think anyone has had the opportunity to really digest that report and the different recommendations. As I read through them, certainly there are some that jump out right away and make a lot of sense, around policing and our processes around protocols. Then there are other recommendations that one questions and wonders how they will work.

However, it is incumbent upon us all to have a look at that report, look at the recommendations and consider what we need to do. The recommendations are for all levels of government. It is federal, provincial and municipal, but also indigenous levels of government, as well as indigenous and non-indigenous communities. There is a role for everyone to play.

I will go back to the report:

While I know that the child and family services (CFS) system has long been blamed for Tina’s death, this is short-sighted and serves only to reinforce the existing structures and beliefs. In fact, Tina did not spend much time inside the CFS system.... While she was in care for a few short periods when she was very young, Tina had a family who were a significant protective force—especially her grandma and grandpa—who loved her and raised her from the time she was five years old....

It is a long story, but it is a very compelling and important one to read. Some relatives of Tina's decided that they had to do something, and I understand the Bear Clan evolved from the legacy of Tina. Her uncle was part of getting that initiative going. There are hundreds of people who volunteer and travel the streets, and they are really making a difference in that community. Out of a tragedy, there is a reflection, changes in the community and the inquiry.

In terms of Bill C-92, we had very interesting testimony from many leaders. The most compelling testimony was from the youth in care. There were three youth who came to us and shared their experiences. They talked about who they were, what they were and what the challenges were in terms of the system: how it either helped them or, in too many cases, let them down. We all owe them a great gratitude for their ability to come and share their stories so that when we looked at Bill C-92, we did not look at it as a lot of words on a piece of paper; we looked at it and reflected on their stories and how that legislation needed to change their stories.

One thing that is not in the legislation, and perhaps there needs to be better discussion about it sometime, is the whole issue of youth aging out of care. I do not know how many parents would send their children at 18 or 19 years of age out the door, wish them the best of luck and say that they have done what they needed to do. There was discussion that we would not do that to our own children. The province, the first nation community or the federal government is the parent of a child in care, and we need to think about how we can support them better. These days, someone who is 18 or 19 years old truly is not ready.

On that note, I give a big shout-out to Kamloops and the White Buffalo society. It has a home for youth aging out of care. They are bringing elders who need affordable housing into their structure, and they are going to have youth aging out of care. It is a really positive cultural experience.

My final shout-out is that Bill C-92 is a step. It is not a perfect step, and we have many other things we need to think about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her commitment and contributions at committee on this very difficult and important issue.

This really is a bill about jurisdiction. For the longest time, since the beginning of Canada, indigenous child welfare was under federal jurisdiction. Provinces have been involved for a long time, and many people respect provincial jurisdiction. The nub of the issue is really the inherent jurisdiction of indigenous nations to make their own laws and take care of their own children.

I wonder if the member would offer her comments on just that, the inherent jurisdiction of indigenous nations to make their own laws.

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

Mr. Speaker, through the committee process, we absolutely supported the inherent rights of children and the way the language was worded in the legislation. Where we expressed some concern and thought it might get a little complicated was where a first nation community or nation had not drawn down responsibility and perhaps had a child living off reserve who remained under provincial jurisdiction.

There will be some challenges. I have stated a few times that I wish the provinces had been a bit more engaged so we could have worked out those hurdles ahead of time and would not have to deal with them after the fact, which I am sure we are going to have to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for her hard work on the file.

She mentioned that this is not a perfect step. If there was one item the member would recommend to the government in addition to this legislation, what would it be?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is part of the answer to the last question. There should have been a more thoughtful conversation with the provinces, especially the territories. For example, the territorial Government of Nunavut had some particular concerns. That work is still going to have to happen. I know that the bill is not perfect, but it must move forward, and it is an important step.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and all members in this place for speeding up the passage of Bill C-92. I would have had a chance to make a speech tonight, and I stopped myself, because it is more important that we get this bill through.

I have some of the same misgivings as my friend. I put forward 28 amendments in clause by clause in an attempt to take up some of the recommendations of Dr. Cindy Blackstock and the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society, the Carrier Sekani Family Services and others who testified at committee, but it is important that we pass it.

I was present this morning for the very moving presentation of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Tina Fontaine's grandmother was there. I am sure that my friend from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo recalls that Perry Bellegarde, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said that she could feel that her granddaughter's spirit was with us. One of the key recommendations from the inquiry is that safe shelter for indigenous young people must be available 24 hours a day, because Tina sought help, and the doors were closed.

I know it is a 1,200-page report. We cannot have read all of it. I know I have not, but I hope everyone in this place, in Tina's memory, will commit at least that no first nation child, no child in this country, should go without protection, regardless of the time of night.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spoke at the end of my speech about the pride I had in terms of the new facility that is going to house youth and elders together. It also speaks to communities making decisions and community capacity. Sometimes the government provides resources, but the solutions truly are at the community level.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to speak to this bill because I believe that the health and well-being of indigenous children is one of the most important issues before us as federally elected representatives. We are responsible for them and, sadly, we have made too many mistakes that affect them. As elected representatives, it is our duty to fix those mistakes. That is why this bill was crafted following court rulings stating that indigenous children were victims of a discriminatory funding system and identifying our obligation to remedy that. It took five court rulings for a bill to be introduced.

It would have been really nice if the committee had agreed to amendments to the bill, regardless of who proposed them. I believe that all the committee members sincerely wanted to improve the lives of indigenous children, but I think many more amendments would have been agreed to if the members truly wanted to set aside partisanship in order to improve the lives of these children, even though this parliamentary session is almost over. I am sad that the vast majority of the amendments put forward in committee were rejected.

I myself wanted the chance to speak to this bill at second reading, but I chose not to do so because I did not want to unduly delay adoption at second reading, so the bill could be sent to committee. Now I am fortunate to be the last member to speak to this bill before it goes to the Senate. I really wanted to emphasize the importance of making quite a few of these amendments because children's well-being is at stake. We do not want to have to start all over again. This I humbly submit to the senators who will study the bill and who may choose to revisit some of the amendments.

When I leave Ottawa to head home, I drive north for at least six hours. Each time, I pass through Kitigan Zibi, a reserve just outside of Maniwaki. As an aside, Parliament is located on their ancestral land. Every time I make this drive, sometimes twice a week, I see the photos of Maisy Odjick and Shannon Alexander, two teen girls who have gone missing since 2008 and have not been heard from since. Community members are still worried about them.

This is why I am particularly pleased to speak today. We must recognize that many indigenous children have had some very difficult experiences. For example, some children were placed with foster families who do not understand their traditions or language. A huge proportion of these children are placed in foster care every day, and, unfortunately, not all of them are lucky enough to live with people who understand their culture and their identity.

Many of these children are placed with foster families who do not understand their realities, while others still are raised by parents who did not have the chance to be raised by their own parents, who were forced to send their children to a residential school. This generation must now raise teenagers without having learned from their own parents.

I believe that members of indigenous communities deserve our admiration, because they are doing the best they can to pass on all aspects of their culture to their children, to show them who they are and where they come from, even though they themselves were unable to learn these things from their own parents.

As an MP, I have had the opportunity to visit a number of schools in indigenous communities and to see young people learning the Algonquin language, using charts with Algonquin words written on them. Young people are starting to learn the basics of Algonquin. When I was a young adult, I shared an apartment with a young Algonquin girl who had never had the opportunity to learn the language. She had a workbook that her mother had found for her. She was 18 or 19 years old and had never had the chance to learn the language.

This generation is trying to catch up. To do so, they need to be involved with child services on a daily basis. Indigenous peoples have a very different way of raising children. Over time, working as a nurse, I realized that everything related to pregnancy is very different for them. Too often, we tend to judge based on our own perspectives.

In indigenous communities, it is not unusual for teenagers or 18-year-old girls to already have two or three children. That often does not make any sense to us, and we think it must be a problem situation. However, when we talk to those girls, we realize that they do not have the same view as we do of getting pregnant at 15 or 16 years old. If we continue to judge these sorts of situations from our own perspective, unfortunately, it could result in child placement services being called in, even though the girls see the situation completely differently.

Children are placed in care when there is a concern for their safety and their development is at risk. However, we are somewhat responsible for some of those risks, because no new housing has been built on reserves in 30 years and we are failing to provide clean drinking water and schools that are not falling apart. All we have to offer these children is mould-infested schools.

When children have absolutely nowhere to play and community infrastructure is in a pitiful state, child development may well be compromised. How much of this is the parents' responsibility? At what point should there be consequences? In fact, most of that responsibility falls to the system the children are forced into. It is up to us as elected officials to change the system and give power back to the communities, so that they can invest, build housing and make sure that pregnant teens can continue their education while also looking after their children. It is up to us to make sure that schools full of mould quickly become a thing of the past.

I was lucky enough to see a beautiful school built in my riding, in Long Point First Nation. It has made such a difference. Kids used to have to go to a mould-infested school that was eventually shut down by the school board. Since the school was located in the next town, the kids had to take a bus. That building was in really bad shape. Teenagers went to school in their own community, but they had to take classes in the gymnasium, where there were no windows, because there was mould everywhere else. The young people were self-harming. It was a disaster. It took years for them to finally get their school.

The design of this school is quite unique. It is well lit, a lot of wood was used, and it is in the shape of a hive. The children are put in a circle so that they can see each other and communicate with one another. We can see on their faces that these children are doing better. The community knew that the children needed a nice school that they could be proud of in order to be happy.

Today I am calling on the House to pass Bill C-92, for it to be referred to the Senate, but also that we not forget that the indigenous communities need to be allocated a significant amount of funding to ensure that the children are happy. It is the responsibility of elected members to ensure that indigenous communities can benefit from funding to fully develop and that children can stop being exposed to discrimination.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was years ago, when I was in opposition as a Liberal member, that I personally called for a public inquiry in regard to missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. It was very frustrating, as we seemed to be going against a wall.

One of the things that I really appreciate is that the Prime Minister has talked about reconciliation and how important it is to have a priority relationship with indigenous people. Today is a significant day, because we are going to pass historical legislation that will provide a great deal of hope for a lot of people.

The report of the public inquiry on the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls was released today. I see this as part of a commitment that the Prime Minister made to Canadians, and it speaks volumes in terms of how much we want that relationship to continue to grow. There are other initiatives, such as the calls for action and so forth.

Would the member opposite not agree that today is a significant day for all Canadians, with both the report from the public inquiry being released today and the passing of this legislation this evening?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the important thing is that there were a number of meaningful days for indigenous peoples over the past few years.

I acknowledge that all parties worked on improving the life of indigenous peoples, including some members who are no longer here. That being said, a number of files have been dragging on for years and it is important that we not try to take credit for this issue. We have to acknowledge that people from all over wanted to improve the living conditions of indigenous peoples, even though it is true that some could have moved more quickly.

The important thing is that there were several other meaningful days for indigenous peoples. We must not stop now. This is a long process and we must not stop working for indigenous peoples as long as they are being treated differently.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member worked very hard on this file and studied it. I know that she has some very cute and smart kids.

What, in her opinion, is the most important thing? I know we have a lot of work to do, but what does she think is the one thing that would improve our relationship with indigenous communities and the children who are our present and future leaders?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important things is communication.

In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, we have put a lot of effort into integrating the reserves. Some thought we would not be welcome at powwows. Today, powwows are promoted through the regional tourism association, and many people, including me, have chosen to attend. The members of the indigenous communities in my riding have a lot to share.

I was lucky enough to go to a powwow and be invited to a dance when I was pregnant. My daughter was introduced to the drums and the music before she was even born. Now every time Daphnée goes to a powwow and sees the dancing, she is enthralled. She gets to see the traditional garments that the men and women wear, and she loves the colours. To her, this tradition is part of the history of the land she is on. It is no longer something that belongs only to other people. Now it belongs to her, as a resident of the Abitibiwinni territory. She knows that it is part of her history too, not something that is completely separate.

I am grateful to the people of Pikogan and Abitibiwinni for sharing this with us all these years.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, Bill C-92, an act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, is deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Windsor West is not present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given. Accordingly, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

Health

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to rise in the House and revisit an issue that I brought forward during question period some months ago with regard to a national pharmacare plan.

During the course of that question, I brought up the case of Mr. Lorenzen in my riding, who has paid over $25,000 for prescription medication following a surgery he went through. I am sure if we canvass the House, we would find that most members could relate exactly the same kind of story. Constituents all across this great land are having to pay out of pocket for prescription medications that in some cases are very much life-saving and alter their quality of life.

I think that when we are talking about national pharmacare, it is very helpful for us to go back in time a little. I want to take a moment to go back to the year 1997. In 1997, the election platform document from the Liberal Party of Canada included the following:

Our current system provides full coverage for institutional care, including all drugs administered during a hospital stay. Once patients go home, however, they are not guaranteed public coverage for medically necessary drugs.

This situation is plainly inconsistent with the values upon which Canadian medicare is based. It is both unfair and illogical to guarantee access to medical diagnosis but not to the associated treatment. Neither does it make economic sense. Those who cannot afford to fill their prescriptions tend only to get sicker and require more costly treatment later from the public system. The Liberal government is committed to maintaining a universal health care system, in which Canadians are assured equal access to appropriate, quality care as needed.

The Liberal Party held majority governments in 1993, 1997 and 2000. In 2004 it was reduced to a minority status, and then, of course, after the Conservatives' 10 years, it was returned with a majority in the current term.

What that underlines is that the Liberals have had a majority government for 17 of the last 26 years, and it is only just now that we are getting to the study phase of a panel of experts to revisit this issue, when we know there are Canadians who are suffering in their quality of life across this country.

I believe I was given a flippant answer back in the day when I asked this question: The Liberals said that they do not write their plans on the back of a napkin.

However, I am just simply asking the Liberals to honour their commitment to address a problem that has existed in this country since we adopted universal medicare. This was always the unfinished business. It does not make sense that once someone is released from hospital, they are left on their own. They might be lucky to have their own care plan through their employer, but it does not make sense to let them loose like that without any kind of follow-up.

My question again to the parliamentary secretary who is handling this question tonight is this: When are they going to commit to finally implementing a fully public, national, universal and comprehensive pharmacare plan that covers every single Canadian?

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his commitment to defending and supporting his constituents and for raising this question in the House this evening.

I am pleased to be here today to participate in this important discussion on implementing national pharmacare.

Our government is committed to strengthening health care systems across the country and supporting the health of Canadians. We know Canadians are proud of their publicly funded health care system, which is based on need and not the ability to pay. We also recognize that almost a million Canadians give up food or heat to afford the prescription drugs they need. In other cases, they do not take prescribed drugs due to high prices.

That is why our government is taking steps to make prescription drugs more affordable and accessible, but we know that we can still do more.

In budget 2018 we announced the creation of the advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare. This council, chaired by Dr. Eric Hoskins, will work closely with experts and provincial, territorial and indigenous leaders. In addition to assessing the options and exploring national and international models, the council will deliver, in spring 2019, independent advice to government on how to best implement affordable national pharmacare for Canadians and their families, employers and governments.

Over the course of the summer and into the fall, the council has been engaged with a broad range of stakeholders and Canadians. Through its consultations, the advisory council received over 150 written submissions and over 15,000 responses to its online questionnaire. The council also heard from many Canadians through its online discussion forums, public community dialogue sessions and regional stakeholder round tables.

On March 6, 2019, the council delivered an interim report which provided an overview of what it had learned in the past eight months. The report also identified three initial recommendations for the implementation of national pharmacare. First is creating a national drug agency that would oversee national pharmacare. The proposed agency could bring together key functions of health technology assessments of prescription drugs to evaluate their effectiveness and value for money and negotiations. Second is developing a national formulary that would harmonize drug coverage across Canada. This evidence-based list of prescribed drugs would be accessible to all Canadians. Finally, the council recommended that the government invest in a robust and coordinated information technology system that would be the technological foundation for national pharmacare.

Guided by the council's initial recommendations outlined above, our government announced key investments as part of budget 2019 toward the implementation of national pharmacare, including the creation of a new Canadian drug agency, the development of a national formulary for prescription drugs and a national strategy for high-cost drugs for rare diseases.

Our government awaits the council's final report. In the meantime, we will continue moving forward with other important initiatives to make medication more affordable for all Canadians.

Our government is modernizing the way that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board works, through amendments to the patented medicines regulations. These changes will better protect Canadian consumers, governments and private insurers from excessive drug prices.

Our government remains committed to modernizing the way that patented drug prices are regulated. The feedback from—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this issue is quite personal for me. For seven years, I spent time as a constituency assistant. I was across the table from many members of my community who were making hard choices between paying the cost of prescription drugs and putting quality food on the table or paying rent. This is very personal to me.

The Liberals have had so much time to get something in. Again, it has to be said in this House that the first promise was made back in 1997 when the Liberals also had the command of a majority government.

There is one party in this House that has made a commitment to a universal, public, comprehensive national pharmacare system, and that is the NDP. I have not yet heard the Liberals make that promise. I am sure that this is going to be an election issue, as I know it is for many members of my community. Vancouver Island attracts a lot of retirees. It is a big issue there and in many parts of Canada.

I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary as to whether he is prepared, here, now, to make that promise for a comprehensive universal pharmacare plan.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to provide a full answer to my colleague. Unfortunately, I did not realize that I only had four minutes.

Let me tell my colleague about a few elements of our strategy. I think it is important. Canada's spending on prescription drugs is unsustainable. As I mentioned, Canadians pay among the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world. Many Canadians cannot afford the drugs they need and face real barriers to accessing them.

National pharmacare can help address this, and the Government of Canada is firmly committed to working with its partners to make improvements. As outlined here today, and as I said a few minutes ago, our government is taking clear action.

In conclusion, I simply want to say that a national pharmacare program cannot be implemented overnight. We will have to work closely with experts from all of the relevant areas, as well as with the provinces, territories and indigenous people.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to order adopted on Tuesday, May 28 and pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 9:19 p.m.)