Debates of June 3rd, 2019

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

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest concerns that the committee heard was the issue of jurisdiction, with the much-needed resources to make sure that jurisdiction is implemented fully. We have repeatedly heard about the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in this place, and the fact that it has sent seven non-compliance orders to the government. There were a lot of witnesses at committee who expressed repeatedly that without the comprehensive resources to do this work, the work cannot be done in a fulsome way.

Now there is another jurisdictional issue. If the provinces are not part of this, and they partly fund care right now, will the federal government take that over and make sure that resources are there for those committees?

I represent over 20 indigenous communities. I grew up in an indigenous community, lived many years of my life in indigenous communities and watched children taken. I have also been a foster parent on reserve, keeping children in the communities so they would be connected to their families and culture. The challenges are real, and the finances need to be there. There was a small component added in an amendment, but it does not quite reach the responsibility and accountability that I would like to see in this legislation.

I would like to hear from the minister on how the government is going to make sure that the resources are there to do this meaningfully, with a history that includes non-compliance orders from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time, once again, to thank the committee for its very thoughtful work on this matter.

Most certainly, we heard them and we did make amendments, particularly, as the member mentioned, on the issue of funding. We gave assurances to all parties to make sure they knew that wording around sustainable funding and the needs-based approach were included. Most certainly, this government has proven, in its actions and with the sum total of the amounts it has considered for child and family services, that we are committed. However, we understand the need for an amendment to give assurance to all parties involved and invested that we heard them and that we understand the need for a sustainable needs-based approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude to the minister for doing an outstanding job in bringing forward this legislation. I say that with all sincerity because of the area I represent. In fact, just prior to leaving the Manitoba legislature, it was declared in the province that there was a child care crisis. I know the minister is very much aware that there are over 10,000 in foster care, a vast majority of them of indigenous background. There has been a desperate need to see something take place.

I wonder if the minister could provide his thoughts as to how important it was that we bring forward legislation. We owe it to the children. This has been going on for far too long. It at least provides a sense of hope going forward that they finally have a national government that is prepared to address this very complicated and critically important issue.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words.

Today was a weighty day for anyone who was present for the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the presentation made to the Government of Canada. This is an essential part of what will be our very fulsome response to that report.

I grew up in the north, next to indigenous communities. There is a principle for anyone who grows up in a small town. The people in those towns usually know what is best for those towns. When this is extrapolated to a much more substantive and real level, indigenous peoples have had this right. They have always had this right, and now we are recognizing and affirming it. We are making it a reality and allowing them the opportunity to come up with effective, local, grassroots solutions to those problems. We know that they will be more effective. They have to be more effective.

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

Mr. Speaker, there remains a challenge with the government's commitment. It has committed to the UN Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples and articulated support for the concept of free, prior and informed consent. The grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs essentially stated that he did not like this bill. He did not want it to go forward, and he objected to it.

Article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples talks about the concept of free, prior and informed consent. How does the minister align those concepts when he has heard very clearly from a leader representing a large group of indigenous first nations in Manitoba that he does not support the legislation going forward?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would answer the question quite frankly by saying, sometimes with difficulty. I made a point of speaking to the chiefs of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs directly. This was codeveloped legislation, which is something that indigenous groups have been requesting for some time. We developed this side by side with, among others, the Assembly of First Nations, but also the ITK and the Métis. In doing so, we came to some very real conclusions.

One of them was that we had to ensure that solutions and local laws that were engineered by first nations would receive the protection under federal law that they deserved. I know that particularly the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs was worried about some very good legislation that it passed locally itself, which is the bringing our children home act. What I emphasized is that all the solutions they are talking about with BOCHA, as we call it, can not only be taken in with this legislation, but protected by this legislation. In other words, this legislation would allow the AMC and bands within it to come up with very local solutions, very grassroots-based solutions, that will then receive federal protection.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure tonight to speak to Bill C-92.

Before I get into it, I would like to say a few comments about this morning when I attended, along with our shadow minister, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report release.

I think we all agree in the House that it is a national tragedy. I was reminded of that this morning when I struck up a conversation with the woman seated next to me. I did not know her, but when we sat down, I noticed that she was holding a 5” x 7” picture of a young girl. I was inquisitive and asked her if she would share her story with me.

The woman was an auntie from Six Nations, and she immediately filled me in on the story. The picture she was holding was of 14-year-old Patricia “Trish” Carpenter from Alderville First Nation. It was 27 years ago, in 1992, when Ms. Carpenter's body was found at a construction site by Yonge Street in Toronto face down. Going further, I found out that Trish Carpenter was a mother of a two-month-old baby boy. The coroner's investigation said that she died of asphyxiation. An inquest later concluded that Trish's death was indeed suspicious.

The national inquiry report stated that indigenous persons, especially first nations, Inuit and Métis women, are overrepresented as victims of this violence. The tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women is one that the Liberal government has failed to adequately address over its three and half years in office. As with that important issue, the Liberals have left the introduction of this important bill, the indigenous child welfare legislation, to the very last minute, which brings me to the topic tonight of Bill C-92.

I started talking about missing and murdered indigenous women and girls because it is directly related to the legislation before us. Many of the victims were part of the failed welfare system, maybe even the woman I was talking to this morning during the release of the report. However, Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, is a bill that would bring forth important national principles applicable to the provision of child and family services in relation to indigenous children. These principles in relation to the administration of child and family services with respect to indigenous children are in the best interest of the child, would have cultural continuity and certainly substantive equality in this country. These principles are very important. They are pieces of our country's long road towards reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

However, as important as these principles in the bill are, I should point out that the current Liberal government has introduced the bill at such a late stage in the parliamentary agenda that Parliament will barely have any time to study it at any length at all. We have seen that in committee. It was all crammed, and we had a couple of weeks at the very most to talk about this crucial bill.

We want to make sure that the principles described in the bill are actually reflected in practice, but that task is made more difficult when important bills such as this one, Bill C-92, are tabled so late in the parliamentary calendar with no excuse at all.

The history of the Canadian government's treatment of indigenous child welfare, we all know, is dark and tragic. Through the use of its residential schools, the Canadian government separated generation after generation of indigenous children from their families, their communities, their culture and their way of life. During the sixties scoop, countless numbers of indigenous children were taken away from their families of birth and placed into non-indigenous homes, where they were simply cut off from their cultural background and their ties to their communities. I know several people in Saskatchewan that this happened to. These are just some of the tragedies that have been inflicted on indigenous children in this country.

As Canada moves forward on a path toward reconciliation, it must do so in a way that represents and respects the rights of indigenous peoples and respects their unique cultural heritage. We support the principles that this bill seeks out in relation to the administration of child and family services with respect to indigenous children. As my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo has pointed out many times in this House, in moving forward with the principles of this bill, we are not denying the hard work of social workers, nor are we not acknowledging the families that have adopted children in the past; we are simply pressing on to do better when it comes to this very important issue.

However, in committee, the Minister of Indigenous Services referred to child welfare workers as being participants in “abduction”. Yes, he said that in committee. This kind of language is both inflammatory and very unhelpful. It divides us rather than bringing us together. In this respect, the minister owes the social welfare agencies, including those run by first nations, an apology. Insulting and inflammatory language has no place in any discussions of this important principle that we are putting forth here tonight.

The first of the principles laid out in this bill is the best interest of the child. That is first and foremost. This principle dictates that among other factors, an indigenous child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage must be considered in the context of decision-making by child and family services. This principle is crucially important, as child and family services around this country are moving toward a focus on preventive care in order to keep indigenous children in their communities where they can maintain their valuable cultural ties.

According to Indigenous Services Canada, 52.2% of children aged 14 and under who are living under foster care in private homes are indigenous. This statistic shows that indigenous children are extremely overrepresented in child and family services systems across Canada, especially considering that indigenous children make up only 7.7% of the general population of children 14 years of age and under in this country. It is clear that more work needs to be done so that indigenous children can stay in their communities and build everlasting relationships with the members of their community. This bill highlights the need for the administration of child and family services to have a focus on preventive care so that fewer indigenous children end up in foster homes and away from their culture and their community.

Our former Conservative government also recognized the need to focus on preventive care when it came to the provision of child and family services for indigenous children. Among the different concrete steps that we took to develop a prevention-based orientation was the creation of the enhanced prevention-focused approach, better known as EPFA. The start of it was in 2007. This was a reform of the funding model that had been formerly used by the first nations child and family services program.

It took effect immediately in Alberta. Then a year later Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia adopted it. It was subsequently adopted in Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba.

Funding was specifically redirected towards a prevention-based approach in order to keep indigenous children in their communities and to support the self-sufficiency of these communities in a culturally appropriate manner.

The prevention-oriented focus that was put in place by our former Conservative government refocused child welfare services to a family-centred practice with children-centred outcomes. This approach delivered real and positive results towards turning back the trend of increasingly larger numbers of indigenous children being placed in foster care in this country.

During the length of our former Conservative government, the percentage of first nations children on reserve placed in foster care decreased from 89.67% in the first year, which was 2006-2007, to 76.08% in the year 2014-2015. I think we could all agree we would like it to be zero, but this was a major reduction of over 13%, according to stats gathered by the first nations child and family services program. Over that same time period, the percentages of first nations children placed in kinship care increased from no recorded amount to 17.83% in 2014-2015.

Our former Conservative government also increased first nations child and family services national expenditures by about 50%. These results represent concrete progress achieved by our former Conservative government towards improving child and family services for indigenous children, both in quality of service and, maybe most importantly, the prevention-based outcomes.

Another key aspect of this bill is that it would affirm the rights and jurisdiction of indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services. It would allow indigenous governing bodies to pass their own laws, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in relation to child and family services, and these laws would have the same force as the federal law. On this issue, however, there are still some outstanding questions that need to be answered.

One such question regards situations in which more than one indigenous governing body claims jurisdiction over a particular child. Today there are many indigenous children who identify as being part of multiple indigenous backgrounds. It is not hard to imagine a child who may have a first nations father and a Métis mother, or vice versa. In these kinds of situations, it is conceivable that two different indigenous governing bodies may each claim full jurisdiction over the provision of child and family services in relation to that child.

While the bill addresses jurisdictional disputes between a province and an indigenous governing body, it does not properly address jurisdictional disputes that may arise between indigenous governing bodies that both have equally strong ties and connections to the indigenous child in question.

This jurisdictional question is one of the concerns that was directly raised in committee while we were studying Bill C-92. One of the committee's witnesses was Raven McCallum, a well-spoken young person who is a youth adviser on the British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development Youth Advisory Council. She is of British and Haida descent on her mother's side, and of Métis descent on her father's side. In her testimony, while talking about Bill C-92, she stated:

I do not see any reference about how to approach situations when a child belongs to more than one nation.

She goes on to say:

I think it's something that is important to acknowledge. We need to know all aspects of our identity.

Time and time again, we heard in committee that indigenous identity is complex and multi-layered. However, this bill still has not adequately addressed these complexities as they relate to jurisdictional issues in the provision of child and family services for indigenous children.

We also want to make sure that this bill would not negatively impact the existing self-government agreements that exist between indigenous governing bodies and the provincial and federal levels of government in relation to child and family services. These kinds of agreements include the three which were recently concluded this past March in my province of Saskatchewan between the provincial government and the Saskatoon Tribal Council.

One of these agreements was a delegation agreement which re-established the Saskatoon Tribal Council's child and family services agency, which will provide services to the on-reserve communities covered by this governing body. Another agreement is the reconciliation partnership agreement, which strives to ensure that indigenous children maintain connections to their culture and communities. These sorts of agreements further the important principle of cultural continuity, which recognizes that one of the crucial interests of indigenous children is to live and grow within their unique cultural and linguistic communities.

As Saskatoon Tribal Council Chief Mark Arcand noted about the agreements in committee, “all of this work is about prevention”. In committee, he stressed the importance of the work once again, stating, “Our opinion is we have to build partnerships and relationships, as we've done with the federal and provincial governments. To us, it's meaningful because it's building bridges. We have to work together.”

As we move forward in our consideration of Bill C-92, we need to study how this bill will impact agreement such as these, in order to be sure we are upholding the principles which are stated within the bill itself.

Delegation agreements, such as those made between the Province of Saskatchewan and the Saskatoon Tribal Council are incredibly important. They are about returning the jurisdiction of care for the indigenous child to the indigenous communities themselves, so that these children are no longer cut off and separated from their culture and heritage.

Cultural continuity is one of the key principles of this bill. It is clear from the testimony of many witnesses that agreements made between the provinces and indigenous governing bodies often play a large role toward ensuring that child and family services are provided in a way that ensures indigenous children maintain strong relationships to their culture and community.

Another issue that arose in committee was the discovery that some major stakeholders who would be immediately impacted by this legislation were not consulted. When Grand Chief Arlen Dumas of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs came to testify at our committee, he said that his governing body was not consulted at all. The AMC had already crafted its own legislation with respect to child and family services, which was uniquely tailored to the experiences of that governing body's work in the province of Manitoba.

Given that all the groundwork had already been laid, the grand chief told us that Bill C-92 was thrust upon the AMC. He said, “It was quite a surprise when Bill C-92 was presented to us. It was almost [like] a slap in the face, because we had invested so much of our time in bringing forward a solution that everybody could build upon.”

How could the Liberal government introduce a bill that brings such dramatic changes to indigenous child welfare without consulting one of the largest indigenous governing bodies in a province with one of the highest numbers of indigenous children in foster care?

I am running out of time. In general, we support the principles laid out in this bill, and we want this bill to progress. However, the Liberals have put this piece of legislation at the back of their list of priorities. As a result, the Liberal government has left us with hardly any time to peel back the onion and have a great conversation about this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his fine work at committee.

This legislation was codeveloped, and I am very proud that the minister and his staff went to those on the ground, from coast to coast to coast, and consulted before the bill was written. Over 2,000 people were consulted. They were not only chiefs, but people working in the child welfare area. Over 65 meetings were held across the country to make sure we had this right. In fact, Senator Murray Sinclair called the bill a model for codeveloping bills into the future.

Could the hon. member speak to the importance of consultation before this sort of legislation is introduced? How did consulting at the front end perhaps save us some time at the back end?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital has been a great contributor to the indigenous affairs committee.

Recently, maybe 10 days ago, I spoke at the FSIN spring assembly in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan. There are 74 bands there, and not all of them agree with Bill C-92.

As I have talked about, consultation with Manitoba was not done, and the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario both have issues with the bill. However, I guess one cannot get everything right, and we have to move forward.

We heard some great testimony from the Peter Ballantyne Child and Family Services when they came to committee. It was all about children. We want to make things better for everyone's family situation. I talked about this in my passionate speech. It is most important that these kids stay connected to their communities for good.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his passion on this file.

As 55% of those in foster care are indigenous, it is the bill's intent to return the governance of family services to indigenous people. However, I noted that there was no funding associated with this in the bill.

Were there conversations about what kind of structures would be put in place in order for that governance to transfer?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the most talked about subject in our committee was funding, and there was nothing in the bill that brought it forward. It is great to have grandiose ideas in how to improve a situation which I think we all agree needs to be improved, but capacity is the biggest issue here.

Some in this country are ready right now to move forth and be leaders in indigenous family services. Others are five years or 15 years away. With the bill, we would have a discrepancy, as some bands are ready to take a lead role today, and others could be as much as a decade or two behind, which is unfortunate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate working with the member at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

One thing that concerned me a lot during this process was the reality that some communities are very rural and remote. Multiple witnesses from those types of indigenous communities talked about the challenges of having no housing, where children are going to stay if they are put into care and of making sure that children are not so far away that they cannot be connected to those communities.

The legislation before us speaks to the particular issue of indigenous children in care. However, what ensures that is delivered appropriately is adequate housing, drinking water and resources at a community level.

Could the member talk about the challenges that those communities will face, and make suggestions regarding what the government should look at moving forward?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for North Island—Powell River for her contribution to our committee.

Remote areas have a major concern. There are very few opportunities for foster homes in northern Canada. We are taking a child out of that area, out of the territories and putting them in southern Canada where they really do not fit.

That is one of the issues that the government is going to have to look at, because we want these children in welfare situations to be connected with their communities. For some of these areas, especially in the far north, there are little or no opportunities for foster homes.

It is part and parcel with housing, but also with indigenous, Inuit and Métis in remote areas. I certainly agree with the member that we have a huge concern in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know the history surrounding the child welfare system. It is related to the residential school era. Before we would take children in order to assimilate them into the majority culture. We moved into the sixties scoop where there were a lot of adoptions. There were good examples. People were trying to build relationships and build love in families and tried to look after children.

However, we moved into this foster era with our children. In Manitoba, there are 11,000 kids in care, and 90% are first nations. I think the Canadian state, including the provinces and the federal government, have completely failed these families and children.

The bill is very interesting. On one side, it has the child at the centre, but it also has issues of jurisdiction, which are two components that come together.

I would like to point out to the hon. member that governments can never legislate love. Love can never be legislated by any law in Parliament. That is what should be at the centre of our action for these children. We want to produce children who are fully contributing members, who reach their full potential and are able to be successful in life. In order to do that, as human beings, they need good loving relationships.

If the Canadian state has failed so much, if we have failed collectively as a society, then it is time to let indigenous peoples make those choices. It is time to let them make decisions for themselves, to give them the opportunity of making mistakes, but also to have the chance for success of enabling their children to experience love and to be fully contributing members of our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, love is the big word in the best interests of the child. It is not in the best interests of the child to remove that child from one area of the country to another area. We have seen it with residential schools and the sixties scoop.

I recently saw the movie, The Grizzlies. It talked about the Inuit situation up north, where people have no hope, no love. It is a fabulous documentary, which was released in this country about five weeks ago. It talks about suicide. It talks about hope and love. When we reach out to communities, it is surprising what we get. I hope Bill C-92 addresses that, because we have seen in the past that we have failed. I hope the indigenous, Inuit and Métis take the ball and run with this, as they know what is best for their communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two things that are happening. One was the final report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls this morning. We are also talking about some very important child welfare legislation.

My colleague alluded to it in his speech, but in many ways they are very intertwined, because those who end up in care are often some of the victims, the murdered and missing. I wonder if the member could talk more about that connection.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that we are bringing Bill C-92 to the House tonight after what we experienced this morning with the report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. It was a tough day in Gatineau as we heard the stories from the commission.

The issues are intertwined. I talked to a lady who, 27 years later, is still dealing with this. How we deal with child welfare going forward in this country, with 37 million of us today, is so important. It is so important to get this right, and we all want to see it go correctly. It is in the best interests of the child, and that is what we are here to deal with.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak to Bill C-92, which deals with the important issue, especially to my riding of North Island—Powell River, of indigenous children in care.

I want to take a moment to thank all the local indigenous communities and organizations that represent first nations, Inuit and Métis groups and communities in my riding for the hard work they do every day for the children they represent.

In indigenous communities, children are sacred. I think of some of the communities I represent. I think of the elder, Elsie Paul. She talked to me about how children were seen as a gift from the Creator, that they were given to the community to raise and when that child was taken, what that meant to the community.

I think about Alberta Billy, elder in another indigenous community that I represent. He talked to me about the impact of colonization and residential schools on the community. He told me to imagine my community right now. He said remove every child from the age of four to 16 from the community and see how the community would react and respond. I think of those elders who have watched their communities struggle through the challenges of colonization, residential school, the sixties scoop and many more and how hard that has been on them.

We also need to look at the numbers, and I have some of them today.

One hundred and twelve years ago Dr. Bryce, a medical health officer, linked federal health funding inequities to preventable deaths of first nations children.

Seventy-three years ago child welfare experts called for increasing family support to reduce the number of first nations children in state care. This speaks to something important and something we still have not done, which is prevention and support for those communities.

Thirty-eight years ago experts called on then INAC to resolve jurisdictional disputes resulting in service denials to first nations children.

Twelve years ago the Assembly of First Nations and Caring Society filed the human rights case against Canada.

Two Auditor General reports confirmed child welfare funding inequity since 2008.

There are 165,000-plus first nations children affected by Canada's discriminatory services.

Twenty-five million is the approximate number of nights that first nations children spent in foster care since 2007.

These numbers are startling and they tell us a story about which all of us should be concerned.

Since 2016, seven Human Rights Tribunal orders have required in Canada to cease its discrimination. How many of these Canadian Human Rights Tribunal orders has Canada fully complied with? Zero.

Whenever we stand in this place and speak about indigenous children, we must always remember and acknowledge Jordan River Anderson, a Cree child from Norway House Cree Nation. He died in Manitoba in 2005 at the age of five after the Manitoba and federal governments spent years fighting over who would pay for his home care. This speaks to the very core of this issue. It is about valuing indigenous children and the communities that love them. This young boy died as a result of discussions between two levels of government on who would fork over the money.

Nobody wants to know that this is the truth of how their children will treated, so I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that precious, sacred child, a gift from the Creator who should have been supported and looked after by the whole community, which also includes the country of Canada, and the family that worked so hard to support him and had to meet that terrible end. We cannot forget.

Today, there are three times as many indigenous children in government care as during the peak of the time of residential schools. The conditions and outcomes for kids in care today are often tragic and many experts say that the modern fallout of the child and family services program will now be called “the millennium scoop”. That is devastating. It shows that the history of the country is repeating itself, and this is unacceptable.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the many indigenous artists out there who have spoken, be it through art, poetry or music. We cannot begin to recognize what this has done to the indigenous culture of the Métis, the first nations and Inuit people across the country.

I would like to take this opportunity to share some quotes from members of the Haisla Nation.

One is, “I can't remember my name.”

Another is:

500 years my people have been humble

500 years we have dealt with the struggle

500 more years for all of my youngins

For 500 years we have been drumming and drumming.

We are in this important place, where important decisions are made that will have long-term impacts on people. It is too bad the government waited so long to introduce the bill. Now we are rushing it through.

That is hard for me. I take this really seriously. I have spoken about this in the House and in committee, in my role as vice-chair, about being a foster parent on a reserve, about the hard work we did in the community to try to keep the children at home, connected to their culture. I think of my husband who has taken foster children, young men, out to the river when their voices are changing. We want to keep them connected to the tradition that when they have that change of age, they do the hard work, go out and get the support of the community to do the sacred baths.

Here we are rushing and trying to get it done. Indigenous children need action. However, in the rushing process, I am a little afraid that we will not get it right. We will get it done, but we will not get it right. Indigenous children deserve much better.

Earlier I mentioned the two Auditor General's reports on the failure of the Canadian governments on first nations children in care. In 2008, the Auditor General report found that since 1990, when the child and family service program was created, INAC had given money “to First Nations, their child welfare agencies, and provinces to cover the operating costs of child welfare services on reserves and the costs related to children brought into care.”

The Auditor General also concluded that as of 2008:

The funding INAC provides...is not based on the actual cost of delivering those services. It is based on a funding formula that the Department applies nationwide. The formula dates from 1988. It has not been changed to reflect variations in legislation and in child welfare services from province to province, or the actual number of children in care.

This really speaks to a systemic issue. It speaks to the reality that indigenous children have been left behind and not valued. Not only have they been left behind, but the value and the preventative support that families and communities desperately need are not a priority.

This country knows its history. We know the colonial history. We know the devaluation of indigenous members of the country. We know the history of trying to destroy, in multiple ways, those communities. If we break it, we have to pay for it.

One of the things that concerns me greatly about the legislation is that the principles for funding are not in it. There is a small mention about funding, but it is nothing that will be strong enough. This is framework legislation. It is supposed to create something that is strong enough to hold that legislation indigenous communities bring forward. If the resources are not there, this will be another failure. Another Auditor General's report will tells us that this still has not been addressed.

In 2011, again, the Auditor General reported that:

Despite the federal government’s many efforts to implement our recommendations and improve its First Nations programs, we have seen a lack of progress in improving the lives and well-being of people living on reserves. Services available on reserves are often not comparable to those provided off reserves by provinces and municipalities. Conditions on reserves have remained poor. Change is needed if First Nations are to experience more meaningful outcomes from the services they receive.

Years have gone by. We are now sitting in a Parliament after a Human Rights Tribunal decision was made in 2016. The government of the day received seven non-compliance orders. We are here tonight talking about this legislation. I am concerned, because the proof is in the action, and I do not see that action. What I am most concerned about is the resources required to deal with this systemic issue, to realize that the racism and discrimination is built right into the system. To pull that out takes a lot of work and a lot of resources. If we want to make a difference for indigenous communities, if we want to honour first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, we have to see those resources finally there.

The Human Rights Tribunal in Canada concluded that the then INAC's delivery of services and funding of services was inferior to comparable provincial services and discriminatory on the basis of race. It ordered the government to make up the funding gap and implement Jordan's Principle. As of June 2017, the government has spent $707,000 fighting against this decision, and that is really sad.

When we look at Bill C-92, it is like history is repeating itself. I will support the legislation. I will trust that indigenous communities across the country will do their hard work.

I want to recognize as well that indigenous communities, like the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, have been very clear that they do not support the legislation. I have asked the committee to recognize that and ensure that indigenous communities have the right to opt out, but that they still would get the resources they desperately need to make a difference. However, that is still not addressed in the legislation and it needs to be. It is time for substantive change. It is good to speak about it, but it is important that we act on it as well.

The bill would set national standards, but it has numerous question marks and gaps that are outstanding, including accountability, jurisdiction, data collection and reporting and, most critical, funding. The bill leaves funding to negotiations between Canada, indigenous groups and the provinces, meaning it could vary widely.

As the member for North Island—Powell River, I represent small indigenous communities. Often they are very remote and have a lot of challenges they specifically face. I do not know if the legislation before us will do it, but I will watch and continue to propose solutions. Those small communities have very big challenges and the capacity can be very hard for them to gather. We want to ensure those communities have a voice at the table. We want to ensure they have a process they can move forward with and have faith in. However, there is some concern that those resources will not be there.

A lot of people came to committee and talked about a lot of issues. The vast majority of the witnesses expressed concern. They wanted to see funding principles in the legislation. We were not successful in getting that amendment passed. Therefore, we will all be watching this very closely.

The government was given an opportunity to support funding provisions with which nearly every witness at committee agreed. What we saw were half measures. I am concerned about that and I will be watching for this. We will be talking to communities and ensuring they see the progress that the government has assured us will happen. We need to see that progress. Enough is enough.

These children deserve the right to be children. When they do not have the resources or the home they desperately need, their right to be a child is taken away.

Ms. Natasha Reimer, the founder of Foster Up, spoke to the committee. She said:

Yes. I think funding is a key component. Without adequate funding, services and resources, we are failing these children and youth in care. We leave them unsupported, and unable to thrive and reach their full potential. I think it's crucial that we have legislation ensuring that there is funding allocated for this and that these resources are given the utmost that we could possibly give, because these are children's lives we're talking about. They deserve an opportunity. They are kids, at the end of the day.

I think it is sad how many children in this country have a history of not being allowed to be children. We heard some of that testimony from children who had spent great portions of their childhood in care, and they talked about the challenges. They talked about how hard it was to go home, how they did not know who they were, how hard it was to figure out who to connect with and when to connect with them. We had witnesses who were from multiple nations who did not know which one to go to or who to go to first, or how.

When we look at the system, we can see how broken it is. We heard it from those witnesses who came and talked about their addiction issues. One person gave testimony about the challenges he faced and how hard he had to work to become a parent because he did not know how to be one. I think it is important that we in this place recognize that this falls on our shoulders, because decisions were made here. This decision has to be made and has to be made respectfully, because those children deserve it.

Naiomi Metallic from the Yellowhead Institute stated:

This [funding] is intertwined with jurisdiction because, really, if there is no funding and accountability built into this act, what this bill will do is merely provide indigenous people with the jurisdiction to legislate over their own poverty.

Another issue that came up was the number of children who are taken away from their community because the community does not have the resources, the basic necessities, to provide for their children, which should never happen. That does not mean we should leave children in substandard housing; it means this place has to take responsibility and look at how it can become an ally. This is still an issue. We still do not know where the indigenous plan is for housing. I think that is devastating in this day and age.

Another thing that really concerned me was the best interests of the child. That has been defined by court systems across Canada, both provincially and federally. In the community I married into, the Homalco First Nation, when I had my children with my husband, I was told the relationship between the parent and the child is deemed completely sacred and that nothing should ever interfere with that loving relationship. In that community, the historic practice was that aunties and uncles were in charge of disciplining the child, because they did not want that to interfere, ever, with the parents' ability to love that kid up. There are ways that certain things are done, and making sure that this is recognized is important.

I want to thank the national chief from the Assembly of First Nations, who stated:

...the best interests of the child sections should be amended to clarify that first nations governing bodies that pass laws prescribing the factors for determining the best interests of the children will add to the factors in the bill, creating recognition and support for our ways of caring for our children and families. This is important, because for some of our people we do not remove a child. We remove the person harming the child and keep the family intact. We believe that this is in the best interests of the child. Our laws must be affirmed and our practices supported to preserve family unity.

Therefore, we must understand in this place that indigenous communities do it differently. Quite frankly, I think we have a lot to learn from that. What concerns me is that this legislation is not clear enough to make sure that the definition is defined in those communities. It has been defined already in the court systems in this country, which could be a serious concern. I do not think that was addressed as clearly as it could be.

I know my time is ending, so I want to take this opportunity to recognize the first peoples of this place—the indigenous communities, the first nations, the Inuit and Métis—and say that it is with great sorrow that we are here today debating this. This should not be what is happening. The history of Canada is a shameful one.

As my granny said, we have to make it right, so I will support this bill and I look forward to continuing to work hard in the future to make it right.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is so important. There was discussion about the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. The bill they proposed presents an entirely different world view. Bill C-92 is going to allow a lot more leeway for that world view to shine forth. The bill from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs talks about ceremony. It is about the interconnected, holistic nature of the indigenous philosophy, which perhaps we will not find in federal legislation but which is extremely important in how indigenous peoples seriously view the world.

I hope, as the bill moves to its final stages through the Senate, that when the Governor General gives royal assent to the bill, ceremony plays an important role. I know that the bill that was developed by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs was developed in ceremony, through prayer and through the use of the pipe, with a great amount of spirituality and the use of the drums.

This might sound strange in this place with respect to how we deal with legislation here, but it was extremely important to the people of Manitoba and the people who developed that bill and the way they wanted to move forward. I hope the government will be able to find an additional accommodation at the royal assent stage to know that this bill is imbued with the spirit of all Canadians in coming together in the belief that our children really do matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I represent over 20 indigenous communities, with varying cultures and practices. It has been an honour for me to spend some time with those communities and learn. I think of Hilamas Henderson, who is an elder in the northern part of Vancouver Island. He always talks about the children, the care of the children and the importance of the children knowing where they come from and the history of where they come from.

I think about my husband. When we go to his territory, he can point out a mountain and say that this is where we harvested something, and that is where his family went. My children know that. They know where they come from, so they are not confused.

Ceremony is very important. Both my sons bathed in the river every day for a year when their voices changed. It changed who they are. They know who they are. They have become firm in themselves, because they challenged themselves and found themselves connected to the planet in the area where they come from. It would be beautiful in this place if we started to look at some of those rationales.

I think about the 'Namgis Nation and how it deals with conflicts. In the big house, they do let people out. They stay in that place, and the elders support them to work out those conflicts, and they leave together. I would love to see a place where we left together and talked to each other in a more honourable way. I look forward to that in this place one day.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, I have seven first nations, and one of them is Cowessess First Nation. Chief Cadmus Delorme was here last week. Cowessess First Nation has done tremendous work. They have built windmills that are producing megawatts to the SaskPower system. They have put in big solar panels as well.

In the past week, they have brought forward a youth transition home for 10 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 to allow these 10 girls to come back to the first nation to live and be cared for.

I am wondering if the member can tell us how she sees that Bill C-92 will be a benefit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the hard work that the community in the member's riding is doing to move forward. We do not hear those stories enough, to be quite honest. I think of the North Island Métis Association in my riding, a small but mighty group of people who just keep working hard to connect their Métis children to their traditions, which is really important work.

When I look at this legislation, I am hopeful. I am just cautious and I think most indigenous communities in this country are cautious, because there is a history that is not very positive.

I hope that this legislation will provide the supports. What is most important is that the resources be there to make sure that the processes can be carried out and that there is room for that innovation. The resources need to be there. It is great that the transition house is going up to bring 10 young women back home, but if the resources are not available to pay for basic housing needs, it is really hard to take the next step. This is what needs to be looked at.

I will come back to what I said in my speech. If we break it—and Canada did break it, and all of us in this place have to understand that—then we need to pay for it. I think about all of the different nations that I have spoken to and their traditions and how they used to do it and how they are working really hard to bring that back. They are facing monumental challenges because of the trauma that has been passed on, generation to generation to generation. That preventive resource needs to be there too.

It would be great to see children not leaving because we are supporting the nations and supporting the families to do a better job in parenting, because it is all there. It is all there. We just need to finally pay for what we broke.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I go to questions and comments, I want to make a comment. If any of you have a phone or an electronic gadget, just check it to make sure it is on mute. I do not know what it is today, but I have heard a few of them while I have been sitting here. I am not pointing fingers at anybody. It happens to the best of us. Just check it out and make sure it is on mute.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I stand in this place I think of the Lyackson, the Halalt, Penelakut, the Malahat, the Pacheedaht, Ditidaht and of course the Cowichan tribes and what a great honour it is for me to stand in this place and be their voice. I represent many communities on Vancouver Island. They are a bit further south than my colleague's communities, but they are going through the same kind of pain. It is well past time for us to address this issue.

I find that the memory of members of this place can be short sometimes and I am glad that my colleague raised the issue of Jordan's principle in the course of her speech. It was in 2007 that my former boss, Jean Crowder, who represented the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan at the time, brought forward Motion No. 296, which was passed unanimously by the House. That motion confirmed Jordan's principle.

The point I am trying to get across is that the House of Commons has already had opportunities in the past to voice its opinion on the issue. It is not as though these are new issues. I share my colleague's concerns that we are stuck in this place where we want to see the bill move forward, but we do have concerns that it may be rushed. Just looking at the timeline of the Liberal government reminds me that it is too bad that with three weeks left, we are just getting to this stage now.

I am wondering If my hon. colleague from North Island—Powell River could talk about how the House in the past has had lots of opportunities to address these issues, and not just in this Parliament. It is a shame that with children being our most precious resources and with all the power that we command in this place, again we seem to be asking first nations communities to wait a bit longer for what is certainly very overdue and long-deserved attention to the issues that matter most to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I know from the teachings of the family I married into is that when we name something, we are giving it power. We have Jordan's principle. This is not just a name to recognize this precious child; it is an obligation. When we name something like that, we are not only giving the name to recognize; we are also giving the name so that when people hear that name, they remember the obligation and the commitment. It is a way of witnessing, remembering and always bringing that back. I want to thank the people who have gone before who have worked so hard on this. It finally came with Jean Crowder's amazing work to bring that forward.

The history is a painful one, and we have to rebuild trust. I was listening to a podcast with Brené Brown, about how trust is built on the small things repetitively done, faithfully and honestly. I think about that. If we look at the history of this country, it has not been so. There has not been a government in this place yet where the commitments have been cumulative and they keep going and the action is taken now, not asking indigenous communities to wait.

I look forward to this legislation. I hope it brings the best, because that is what I want to see. I want to see the best for our children. They certainly are worth it. The concern is whether it will happen. Will the funding and resources be there? Will the court system understand that the “best interest of the child” definition is something that has been redefined, and will it actually use that when making decisions? These are the things we will be watching for, and these are the things that must happen for the trust to be built.