Debates of Feb. 18th, 2020

Relations with Indigenous Peoples

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot to say about my colleague's speech.

I would like to start by saying that we completely agree with him on some things. The government is making things up as it goes along. It let the situation get worse and has shown some pathetic crisis management. I think we can all agree on that.

I wish I could have spoken earlier, but I did not have the opportunity to do so. Perhaps I can ask you the question. One of your colleagues said earlier that the protestors had a secret agenda to destroy the economy. It was some kind of conspiracy theory. That member's only solution was to go in and chase them out with bats. The member did nevertheless acknowledge that some kind of dialogue was necessary.

How can you establish a dialogue with people that you are chasing out with bats? How can you then expect to do something constructive and be able to talk? I find it hard—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I remind hon. members that they must address the Chair, and I would ask them to refrain from using certain sacred words that may not be in this context.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know which of my colleagues made that comment.

We obviously do not want to see force being used. However, we must be firm and clear, and we must have objectives. We must ask them to leave and promise to listen to them. We cannot simply wait it out.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, during my colleague's speech, I received a message on my Facebook page that reads as follows: “Hey Luc, because of the crisis with the rail blockades, our livestock will soon be going hungry. Anything you can do to shake things up and move things along would be appreciated, because the viability of our businesses is on the line. Thank you.”

That is the reality. In our ridings across Canada, people are going to suffer because of this crisis. I think that it is time for the government to take responsibility and act. That is the message that my colleague has been trying to get across for a while now.

Does my colleague agree that it is time to move things along?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, this needs to be resolved, just like any other conflict. We saw other conflicts before the holidays, particularly with Canadian National. That caused problems and there was talk of passing back-to-work legislation. When there is a labour dispute at Canada Post, we talk about back-to-work legislation.

In the situation we are discussing today, no one seems to have a solution. All we are asking for is a stronger tone.

Getting back to the Bloc Québécois's question, I want to say that there are non-indigenous individuals in the groups currently manning the blockades. Some of these individuals are even activists from the United States. We cannot allow to let the situation to deteriorate further.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

I am not proud of this, but in some ways, the people of La Prairie were the pioneers of the sad situation were are currently experiencing. As of last Monday, over 3,000 people in my part of the country were denied access to public transportation because of a blockade set up by about a dozen individuals in Kahnawake. We are not sure of the exact number. We were therefore the first to suffer the consequences of the crisis and my riding was truly a microcosm of what is currently happening across Quebec.

Since I am somewhat responsible for the well-being of my constituents, I tried to improve the situation and even solve the problem. One can always hope. I asked the question this morning and the discussion was going in that direction this afternoon: I looked for the government member responsible for taking care of the situation. I looked for the person responsible for resolving the crisis, but that was no easy feat.

I told myself that there must be a conflict since the band chief indicated that it was not the band council that told the protestors to set up the blockade but that he would not get the peacekeepers to intervene to prevent them from doing so.

That is when I understood that this was a communication problem, unless it was simply a problem between various indigenous people on the reserve. Then I thought it was a problem related to the management of relations with indigenous peoples, and since we have two ministers looking after the issue, I would have a good chance of getting one of them to help me.

I first tried to call the office of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. I never heard back. It felt a little like calling a hospital, where no one answers. I left messages, but I never heard back.

Then, I thought I should try the second minister, and so I called the Minister of Indigenous Services. I was sure he would answer, but I was wrong. Later that day, after writing to him, we received an email informing us that it was the Minister of Transport who was looking after this file. That is when I started to worry.

We reached out to the Minister of Transport who told us that CN had obtained an injunction against the protesters blocking its rail lines. Then, all communication stopped.

First of all, CP serves my riding; not CN. That information was not helpful. Second of all, not long after, I heard the minister on TV saying that it was not the federal government's problem, that it was a provincial problem and that it was up to them to maintain order.

I was very worried. When I see my Conservative colleagues shaking their fists and acting like G.I. Joe, I get worried. Why? I get worried because someone acted like G.I. Joe in my riding back in 1990 and it did not go well. Thirty years later we are still seeing the consequences. Scars have remained.

As a result, when I saw this situation taking place last week, I thought that we would have to negotiate; find someone who will negotiate. I see you looking at me, Madam Speaker, wondering who was the lucky elected official or leader who helped me.

That is a good question, because neither of the two ministers helped me. I thought one of them might even be an urban legend. Surely she did not exist, since I never saw her anywhere and she never responded to me.

I am a nice guy who likes good relations. The ministers responsible for indigenous affairs can see that the first problem to arise in Quebec was in Kahnawake. As a member of Parliament, I was expecting one of the ministers to ask in which riding this was taking place. It was all taking place in La Prairie. Perhaps I should give them a call, tell them not to panic, that we are there, and so on.

That is what I hoped for, but it is not at all what happened. The opposite happened. I turned to the Minister of Transport. I was disappointed. This crisis management is a string of disappointments.

I find it problematic to see the Prime Minister in Africa trying to get seats on the Security Council when security in his own country is not going well. It is also problematic when the Deputy Prime Minister is nowhere to be found.

Six days later, my constituents were forced to take a bus. I called the company Exo, which is really helping my constituents by providing them with bus transportation. The people at Exo told me that they were emergency measures. In other words, the service was limited, it would not last and we would no longer have the nice buses. Drivers from Abitibi and Trois-Rivières who came to help out would stop coming. The situation was dire.

Today, I realize that we have lost eight or nine days. The people in my riding are feeling the effects of eight days of this government's inaction. Nothing has happened. It has not even taken a step in the right direction.

These people are suffering the consequences of the Prime Minister's inaction, empty words and lip service. In 2015, he was talking about reconciliation with the first nations people. Today, I heard him announce that there would be a ministerial statement. I thought we were going to learn something. No such luck. He read the text he read during the 2015 election. What kind of progress was achieved between 2015 and 2019? The answer to that is obvious to Dalida fans: “words, words, words”. He did not make any progress. Nothing happened. This crisis was wholly concocted. Later, in 10, 15, 20 or 30 years, when crisis management is being taught, the Liberal government's masterpiece from last week will likely be held up as an example. It will be said that this was the most epic failure of crisis management. People will wonder if this is possible. Indeed, it is.

The crisis reared its head in 2010. In 2010, some people had erected cabins in retaliation for approval of Coastal GasLink. In 2019, the first arrests were made. In December, the RCMP decided to send in Chuck Norris-style snipers. They sent in snipers. That may seem funny, but it is not funny to my constituents who are waiting for the bus. They came up with this idea. This government thought it would be a good idea to send in snipers. It is unbelievable. We cannot remain silent on that.

This crisis unfolded following the repeated and constant inaction of this government. In today's ministerial statement, it was more of the same lip service. Was there a hint of potential management? No. All we have is a statement that was made on Friday by the Minister of Transport, who told us the situation was serious and there were many consequences to the crisis. Okay, but what are they doing? Who is going to manage this crisis? Who is going to take care of it? We are still waiting.

The Bloc Québécois has been saying all week that we need a crisis committee and a mediator and that we should have been back in the House yesterday to fast-track progress toward the outcome everyone wants, which is a resolution. That is what everyone here wants.

This government needs to wake up and deal with the situation. People in my riding are waiting, and they are starting to get fed up.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very passionate speech. My riding is next to his, and my constituents could not take the train from Candiac to Montreal either. I am grateful for their patience as this situation unfolds.

I remember having protesters outside my office a few months ago, and I took the opportunity to chat with them. One way an MP can be a collaborative parliamentarian is by relaying people's messages to the government.

I have a question for my colleague. The people of Kahnawake are his constituents. Has he taken the opportunity to go talk to them?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

Yes, last week, I contacted the office of Joseph Norton, the grand chief of the Kahnawake band council, but we were unable to meet because of scheduling difficulties. I am still waiting for his call.

Since they know a little bit about how this works, these people often prefer to talk to the minister or the Prime Minister. I am sure the member will agree with me. I tried anyway, and I hope he will call me back.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Speaker for allowing this important debate to take place tonight.

I want to thank my colleague for sharing his experience in his community and what it looks like when a militarized situation is brought toward a conflict that deserves a peaceful solution.

We know that when we have conflict in our communities, whether it be in Canada or around the world, militarization has not usually brought people solutions. We have to bring down the temperature. To do that, a legitimate call to action would be for the RCMP to leave right now.

The call to action is that the Prime Minister go there, sit at the table and meaningfully negotiate. That means coming to the table with a commitment to negotiate.

The member has seen first-hand what this has done in his community, the pain and suffering. I am sure this experience is triggering to a lot of people in his community. We should learn from that.

Chief Woos, the heredity chief of the Wet'suwet'en, was just on the news. He said, “We're not going to talk with a gun pointed at our heads.”

It is pretty clear that we cannot move forward unless the RCMP leaves and the government is ready to meaningfully negotiate in a peaceful way. The pathway forward has to be one where we are all at the table, without the RCMP being present, so the community can come forward with a peaceful proposal and we can walk forward together. However, it has to be led by the Wet'suwet'en. They are calling on the Prime Minister to be at the table. Does he support that call to action?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

From what I heard, it seems that Mr. Norton is setting down “his conditions” to resolve the situation in British Columbia. One of those conditions, which is also one of the proposed solutions, is to have the RCMP withdraw. Obviously there is a connection between the two and the member was right to mention it.

This is a situation where we need to sit down and negotiate. We need to work together to find solutions, but I repeat that someone needs to take charge. In negotiations, the parties need to pull in a single direction to move forward the right way and that means someone needs to take charge.

Unfortunately, this government and the Prime Minister are not taking the initiative. At some point, they will have to take charge because my constituents are waiting for someone to resolve the situation.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about the rail blockades, but what we are really talking about is a screw-up.

We are talking about a Liberal screw-up that is not only a Liberal screw-up, but also a Canadian screw-up. Right now, the government just does not want to get involved. I will get to the rail blockade situation in a bit.

For example, the government has taken a hands-off approach to letting rail companies regulate themselves. They pretty much get to decide which rules work for them. That leads to consequences such as accidents and explosions. Quebeckers remember the Lac-Mégantic tragedy like it happened yesterday, and I do not think they will forget it anytime soon.

The government has also taken a hands-off approach to rail traffic control centres. In 2012, which was not that long ago, there were five rail traffic control centres in Canada. Soon there will be just two: one for Canadian National, or CN, and one for Canadian Pacific, or CP. What happens if there is an accident? Nobody knows. Rail traffic will be shut down across the country. Nobody will be able to do anything about it, and we will end up in the same situation we are in now thanks to that hands-off policy.

The government also takes a hands-off approach to the Indian Act, a law rooted in colonialism and paternalism that Canada forced on indigenous peoples in 1876. This act essentially treated indigenous peoples like children who were then told what was good for them. This created a bitter and tense atmosphere. The act was implemented in 1867. This is 2020. There are quite a few years between 1876 and 2020. How can it have taken so long to consider the possibility that the act does not reflect reality?

The government has not made this clear. We have heard some complaints from the government. It half-heartedly says that it was not perfect. We know what the problem is. The problem is that damn Indian Act. This piece of legislation is catastrophic for indigenous peoples, and they have never accepted it.

In the long term, the current crisis is the result of the Indian Act. In the short term, the other problem is the Liberal government. This is why I am talking about the Canadian government as a whole and about the Liberal government. There is the long term and the short term.

Rail blockades have quietly popped up all over Canada. After the first few blockades, the government buried its head in the sand. They would not answer their phones and no one knew what was going on. They acted like nothing was wrong, like everything was fine. It boggles the mind.

There were news stories about the situation, including images of people blockading rail lines. On the government side, there was no response, no spokesperson, no sign, no light. That got people's attention. Rather than taking action, meeting with people or taking any initiative right away, the government let things go. Days passed and the blockades did not go away; rather, they multiplied. Suddenly, there was not just one blockade, there were two, three, four or five. I do not know how many there are, for I am not counting. In a situation like this, one can no longer continue to say there is no problem and simply look the other way, because the blockades are everywhere. Both CN and VIA Rail decided to halt all trains, but that has caused problems.

My colleague, the member for La Prairie, was just saying that he tried to contact the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Indigenous Services, but that they could not be reached. He did not hear from them. It was difficult to understand.

Also, the Deputy Prime Minister was nowhere to be found. There was no response or leadership from her. We do not know where she was during this crisis.

As for the Prime Minister, he was abroad. He was trying to win a seat on the UN Security Council, which is not a bad thing in and of itself. The problem is that when the house is on fire, they must deal with the problems instead of looking for gratification elsewhere. In my opinion, the government's management of the situation has been disastrous thus far.

The Minister of Transport was missing in action. We did not see him and we did not know where he was. The first time we saw him was at the meeting with the provincial first ministers. As there were cameras at the meeting, we were unable to say anything. What we finally learned was that the minister washed his hands of the situation and that the provinces were to find a solution.

Initially there was a blockade in British Columbia, but now they are everywhere. The entire rail system is blocked. This is not a matter of telling one little province to deal with its problems. Everyone is suffering. I think the government is totally out of touch with its management.

It is disappointing because it took just about a week before the government started to say that there may be a problem. What happened during that week? Nothing happened. There were blockades, people protested, goods stopped being shipped. The government did nothing. It let the situation fester. Obviously, when a situation is allowed to fester, everything around it gets soiled and the situation gets worse. The wound turns gangrenous and becomes harder to deal with. Obviously this has been mismanaged, and the other side needs to change course.

Faced with everyone's anger, the government finally had to consider that there might be a problem and it might have to start giving it some thought. Over the weekend, a few pitiful ministers attended meetings here and there, their heads hanging low. They felt they had no choice but to go talk to them, but they should have done that a week earlier. It is rather disappointing. In fact, it is quite disappointing because the result was actually not bad. One blockade was lifted, but elsewhere nothing moved and the blockades are still there.

Members will understand our disappointment. The government should have grabbed the bull by the horns and gone to see these people from the start. It should have taken these people into consideration, as they are protesting for good reason. They are not happy that a pipeline is being shoved down their throats. In Quebec, we would not be happy either if energy east were shoved down our throats. I think there would be major protests if that happened.

Plus, these people are not happy with how they are being treated under the Indian Act. They have every reason to complain. We need to listen to them and pay attention to the problem they are dealing with. We cannot not ignore them and look the other way when there is a problem, and we cannot leave businesses in the lurch. There is no comparison.

Here is the situation: CN sent 450 people home. They cannot work because the rail line is not operational. This might be just the beginning. That number could climb to 1,000, 2,000 or 6,000 people, because a lot of people work there. If people cannot work, CN is not going to pay them to sit at their desks and twiddle their thumbs. Things have to move.

Right now, CN is not moving. Soon, grocery stores will realize they cannot stock their shelves and will have to truck goods in. They will have to raise their prices because it is going to cost them 25% more.

Farmers, schools and hospitals are not getting propane, and people are very worried that we could soon end up with a propane shortage. Cities could run out of chlorine and be unable to treat their water. Drinking water is an important issue. If this continues, the port of Montreal will no longer be able to receive ships. That seems to have been the implication today. The port would be blocked.

I think about the businesses in my riding that are being hit hard. ArcelorMittal employs nearly 2,000 people back home. The company tells us that it will have to slow production at some point. The metals are no longer coming in, and the company cannot produce stock. Danone, which employs hundreds of people in my riding and supplies all of the yogourt in this country, is saying the same thing. The yogourt will not be good anymore, and they do not know what to do.

Today, faced with all these problems, we have a Prime Minister who said he would make a ministerial statement in the House of Commons, but who did not say anything. He simply repeated the same things, namely that there was a problem and that they are going to try to have a dialogue. There is no solution, no action plan. It is rather discouraging.

The Bloc Québécois proposed some solutions. We proposed creating a war room from the start. The government did not do that. It waited. Then we proposed a mediator. The government did nothing. It waited. We proposed recalling the House yesterday. The government did not want to. We are also proposing, at the very least, that work on the Coastal GasLink pipeline be suspended. That might be good for dialogue.

We would like the government to listen to our suggestions and put them into action. At the end of the day, it could also study the Indian Act properly and make it consistent with the requirements and needs of the first nations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is really interesting when we do the contrast. If we were to take the Conservative approach on this issue, I really and truly believe it would be damaging in the long run, and in the short run, for Canadians in all regions of the country.

It is really encouraging to hear that the Bloc and the New Democrats have a much better understanding of the situation. Earlier today, in a ministerial statement, we heard the Prime Minister talk about the importance of having patience on the issue.

The member spent a lot of time talking about Ottawa. Would he not agree that as a part of the bigger picture, we need to include provincial governments and stakeholders and when we talk about indigenous people, it is really important to look at the bigger picture before we jump to any quick resolution?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Chair, I took note of what the hon. member across the way said when he asked us to be patient. When we expected the government to take action for nearly a week before it finally admitted there was a problem, our patience wore thin. It has been nearly two weeks since the trains stopped running, and businesses are starting to lay off staff. Our patience is wearing even thinner. I think our patience has reached its limit.

We want the government to suspend the pipeline project and start talking because it needs to show good faith to initiate the dialogue. I am sure that will work.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding there has been a long-standing court case with the Ahousaht over their right to catch and sell fish. These indigenous communities on the west coast of Vancouver Island that are Nuu-chah-nulth have been fighting to prove and establish their inherent right, which we know they already have, in the courts of this country. They won in the Supreme Court of Canada in 2009, and the Harper government appealed it. They won again, and then the current government appealed it.

The Liberal government and the Harper government spent $19 million just on government lawyers in fighting these indigenous people who live in a remote community. Many of them live on Flores Island and want the right to catch and sell the fish that are swimming right by their village. This is a community with 70% unemployment and much suicide. The cost of not taking action is killing people. This is what reconciliation looks like in this country. That is why people are rising across this country.

I hope the Prime Minister is listening to me somewhere. If he is listening, he needs to take this seriously. Reconciliation means meaningful negotiations. The judge in that court case said that the government was not even willing to negotiate and knowingly came empty-handed. It should be ashamed of itself.

I hope that this member will join me in calling on the government to get to the table with meaningful reconciliation.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Chair, I want to come back to a few things my colleague said. Generally speaking, I agree with him.

He said that first nations must go to court to assert their rights, and I think that is terrible. The Indian Act has existed since 1876, and that act does not respect who they are. We in the Bloc Québécois are not big fans of the Supreme Court. We believe that going to court is never the best solution. The best solution is for those in power to listen to and meet the needs of first nations. That is where we should begin, rather than threatening legal action, suing one another and communicating through the courts. That is not how problems get solved.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Chair, the member criticized my speech. He also blamed the government, and rightfully so. He described how critical the situation is, and we agree with him on that. At the end of his speech, however, he said that all he wanted was for the pipeline project to be cancelled.

How can the Bloc Québécois tell the Government of British Columbia to cancel a pipeline project that is supported by 20 band councils and agreed on by everyone, including the province?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois leader was a little more precise when he said that British Columbia might consider the idea of temporarily suspending work. I think that would be a good place to start in order to open the dialogue.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand here this evening on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

First I want to thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for calling for this important debate this evening.

It is important for us to be able to discuss the issues and possible solutions here in this place no matter what our party lines are.

Canadians are upset. As the Prime Minister expressed so eloquently this morning, Canadians expect us to work together to get through this together. Young people have tearfully expressed to me how upsetting it has been for them to see the images and hear from their friends of being arrested for standing for what they believe in. This happened a year ago and then again earlier this month.

As we heard in the heartfelt words of the Minister of Indigenous Services, we believe we have learned from the crisis at Oka, but also Ipperwash, Caledonia and Gustafsen Lake. Last year, we said that we never wanted to see again the images of police having to use force in an indigenous community in order to keep the peace.

Canada is counting on us to work together to create the space for respectful dialogue with the Wet'suwet'en peoples. We all want this dispute resolved in a peaceful manner. We want the Wet'suwet'en peoples to come together and resolve their differences of opinion.

We want absolute clarity and a shared understanding of the Wet'suwet'en laws.

We are inspired by the courageous Wet'suwet'en people who took the recognition of their rights to the Supreme Court of Canada in the Delgamuukw case in 1997. Since 2018, we have been able and proud to invest in their research on specific claim negotiations, negotiation preparedness, nation rebuilding and the recognition of rights tables, as well as their contributions to the B.C. Treaty Commission processes.

Two years ago, I was proud to sign an agreement with hereditary chiefs of the Office of the Wet'suwet'en on asserting their rights on child and family services. Since then, our government has passed Bill C-92 so that all first nations would be able to pass their own child well-being laws and no longer be subject to section 88 of the Indian Act, which gave provinces laws of general application for things other than where Canada was explicit about the rights of first nations on health and education.

Across Canada, over half of the Indian Act bands are now sitting down at tables to work on their priorities as they assert their jurisdiction. From education to fisheries to child and family services to policing or to their own court systems, we have made important strides forward in the hard work of, as Lee Crowchild describes it, deconstructing the effects of colonization.

In British Columbia, we have been inspired by the work of the B.C. Summit, as they have been able to articulate and sign with us and the B.C. government a new policy that will once and for all eliminate the concepts of extinguishment, cede and surrender for future treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.

We have together agreed that no longer would loans be necessary for first nations to fund their negotiations with Canada. We are also forgiving outstanding past loans, and in some cases paying back nations that had already repaid those loans.

We have worked with the already self-governing nations on a collaborative fiscal arrangement that will provide stable, predictable funding that will properly fund the running of their governments.

This new funding arrangement will provide them with much more money than they would have received under the Indian Act.

The conditions are right to move the relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis to one based on the affirmation of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership as written in the mandate letters of all ministers of this government.

It has been so exciting to watch the creativity and innovation presented by the Ktunaxa and Sto:lo nations in their negotiations of modern treaties.

We were inspired to see the hereditary chiefs and the elected chief and council of the Heiltsuk nation work together to be able to sign an agreement with Canada on their path to self-government. Many nations have been successful when elected and hereditary chiefs have worked together, and I look forward to having these conversations with the Wet'suwet'en nation.

It is now time to build on the historic Delgamuukw decision. It is time to show that issues of rights and title can be solved in meaningful dialogue.

My job is to ensure that Canada finds out-of-court solutions and to fast-track negotiations and agreements that make real change possible.

After the Tsilhqot'in decision, we have been inspired by the hard work of the Tsilhqot'in national government to build its capacity as a government, to write its constitution and its laws, and establish its government.

I look forward to hopefully finding out-of-court processes to determine title, as we hope for Haida Gwaii. There are many parts of Canada where title is very difficult to determine. Many nations have occupied the land for varying generations. I will never forget that feeling on the Tsilhqot'in title land at the signing with the Prime Minister, looking around, the land surrounded by mountains, where the Tsilhqot'in people have lived for millennia. It seemed obvious that anyone who stood there would understand why they had won their case at the Supreme Court of Canada.

We are at a critical time in Canada. We need to deal effectively with the uncertainty. Canadians want to see indigenous rights honoured, and they are impatient for meaningful progress.

Canadians are counting on us to implement a set of rules and processes in which section 35 of our Constitution can be honourably implemented. We are often reminded that inherent rights did not start with section 35: They are indeed inherent rights, as well as treaty rights.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an important first step in getting there. We need to properly explain, as have many of the academics and so many of the courts, that free, prior and informed consent is not scary. Consent is not a veto. Bill C-69 means that indigenous peoples and indigenous knowledge will be mandatory at the very beginning of a proposal for any major project.

Section 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has really been described as a process for land use planning in which the rights of indigenous people are respected.

As we have learned from the experience in Nunavut, where the land claims have been settled, good projects receive a green light, bad projects a red light, and mediocre projects are sent back to the drawing board to improve their environmental stewardship or cultural protection or employment for the Inuit beneficiaries. Nunavummiut accept the decisions of this process wherein the federal, territorial, and Inuit rights holders have taken the decision together.

Canadians acknowledge that there has been a difference of opinion among the Wet'suwet'en peoples. We have heard often in the House that 20 elected chiefs and council agreed to the project in consultation with their people. Women leaders have expressed an opinion that the project can eliminate poverty or provide meaningful work for young men and reduce domestic violence and incarceration. Some have expressed that in an indigenous world view, providing an energy source that will reduce China's reliance on coal is good for Mother Earth.

However, it is only the Wet'suwet'en people that can decide. We are hoping the Wet'suwet'en people will be able to come together to take these decisions together, decisions that are in the best interests of their children and their children for generations to come.

We applaud the thousands of young Canadians fighting for climate justice.

We know that those young people need hope, that they want to see a real plan to deal with the climate emergency. We do believe that we have an effective plan in place, from clean tech to renewable energy, public transit, and protection of the land and the water.

We want the young people of Canada and all those who have been warning about climate change for decades to feel heard.

They need hope, and they need to feel involved in coming up with real solutions.

Tonight there is an emergency debate because our country is hurting. It is for indigenous peoples and all those who are being affected coast to coast to coast.

Yesterday I met in Victoria with British Columbia minister Scott Fraser, and this afternoon had a call with hereditary chiefs and conveyed that we are ready to meet with the hereditary leadership of Wet'suwet'en at a time and place of their choosing.

Together with the Prime Minister and the premier, we want to support the solutions going forward. We want to address their short- and long-term goals. We want to see the hope and hard work that resulted in the Delgamuukw decision of 1997, to be able to chart a new path with the Wet'suwet'en nation in which there is unity and prosperity and a long-term plan for protecting their law, and as Eugene Arcand says, LAW: land, air, water. We also want to see a thriving Wet'suwet'en nation with its own constitution and laws based on its traditional legal customs and practices.

We want to thank Premier Horgan for his efforts to resolve this problem and Murray Rankin for the work that he has undertaken since April of last year to work with the elected chiefs and council as well as the hereditary chiefs on their rights and title. We want to thank Nathan Cullen for his efforts to try and de-escalate this situation.

I am very proud to work with the Province of British Columbia, and I think all in this House congratulate it on the passage of Bill 41, where in Canada the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is now legislated.

Our government is invested in and inspired by the work of Val Napoleon and John Borrows at the Indigenous Legal Lodge at the University of Victoria. They will be able to do the research on the laws of many nations so that they can create a governance structure and constitutions in keeping with those laws. It is important to understand the damage done by colonization and residential schools that has led to sometimes different interpretations of traditional legal practices and customs.

We think that, one day, Canada will be able to integrate indigenous law into Canada's legislative process, just as it did with common law and droit civil.

We are striving to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and to increase awareness of our shared history. We all need the indigenous leadership to know that we are serious. We are serious about rebuilding trust and working with respect, as the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Prime Minister have expressed today in such heartfelt ways.

We hope that the Wet'suwet'en will be able to express to those in solidarity with them that it is now time to stand down to create that space for a peaceful dialogue, and to let us get back to work towards a Wet'suwet'en nation with its own laws and governance that can work nation-to-nation with the Crown.

Although I returned to Ottawa for this debate tonight, I am hoping to be able to return to B.C. as soon as possible to continue that work.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, the minister spoke about some very important issues surrounding this debate, which is that the 20 councils of the Wet'suwet'en nation have approved this pipeline. The majority of people within these first nations communities have approved the pipeline. The majority of hereditary chiefs have approved the pipeline. They have done that because of the prosperity that it can create. It speaks to the very issue of autonomy. It speaks to the very issue of reconciliation.

Would the minister not agree that this is precisely what this country wants and desires: a path to move on to? Would the minister not also agree that the illegal blockades that are going on in this country and are damaging the economy of this country need to stop, and that the issues of the Wet'suwet'en people need to be acknowledged and moved forward?

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

Madam Speaker, again, it is a matter of us moving forward as a country, understanding that the custodians of the land and the stewardship of the land have been handed down by generations in traditional manners. It is really important, as we have been saying, that the nation will come to these decisions itself, but at the moment there are people who do see the Indian Act as a completely colonial structure that divided people, villagized them and put them away.

We are trying to now be at a time of nation rebuilding, so that nations can take a decision together and we can move forward as a country. It is important that we create that space to have those kinds of conversations and for us not to be judging how a nation takes decisions, knowing that some are very uncomfortable with the kinds of structures that were imposed by the Indian Act.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives talk about the rule of law, yet they fail to recognize that section 35 of our Constitution clearly recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples; they fail to recognize that in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, section 10 recognizes the issue of free, prior and informed consent; and they fail to recognize that with the Delgamuukw case the highest court of this land, the Supreme Court of Canada, also recognizes indigenous peoples and their rights.

If the Liberal government truly is committed to a new nation-to-nation relationship, will it bring these principles that are enshrined in section 35, in UNDRIP and in Delgamuukw to the table and begin the negotiations? To show a gesture of goodwill, will the Liberals be willing to call the RCMP to stand down, take the guns out of the land and allow for negotiations to take place in a peaceful manner?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member and her former colleague, Romeo Saganash, for the very important work that he provided in terms of our providing his Bill C-262 as a baseline as we go forward, as a floor, to be able to legislate the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples here in Canada, as an example for the world.

This is an important time where all of these things come together. It is important that Delgamuukw ascertained the rights of the people whom we have to move on in their search to have clarity on title. Those are conversations that we need to have together.

The member knows, as we have explained in this House many times, the Government of Canada cannot direct the RCMP. Our job is that we can explain, as we are in this House tonight and as your members have done, that the presence of the RCMP has been articulated as a problem for the hereditary chiefs and many of the members of that community. We have articulated that, and we want to work in any way to remove the obstacles, to be able to go forward as a country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the minister she is to address her questions and comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

Right now, negotiations are not progressing because the hereditary chiefs will not meet with the federal government as long as the RCMP is on site.

When will the Liberal government respond, and how will it remedy the situation?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question.

As I mentioned, it is very important to remember that the government does not have the authority to dictate the processes to the RCMP. It is very important to me to clearly express the problems of the citizens and the hereditary chiefs, and it is very important that we understand that it is not the role of parliamentarians to tell the police how to do their job.