Debates of Feb. 18th, 2020

Relations with Indigenous Peoples

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Independent, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to applaud the government for ensuring that there will be an introduction of UNDRIP legislation to bring the United Nations declaration into Canadian law.

Beyond that necessary first step, will the government commit to changing its laws, policies and operational practices to ensure that indigenous peoples in this country can be self-determining, including self-governing, at their own pace and based on their own priorities? Can the government ensure that it will go beyond the UNDRIP legislation, and actually change laws and policies?

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

Madam Speaker, the member's leadership in this has been extraordinarily important. As we have seen with the signing of the B.C. policy, it is very clear that Canada has gone beyond what was expected. We were able to articulate with the Government of British Columbia and at the B.C. summit of indigenous leaderships that there is a way forward that can be a model for the rest of the country. All ministers in this House believe we have to go beyond what is the base and make sure that we get the obstacles to self-government and self-determination out of the way.

[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, I would ask the minister to provide further comment on the importance of working with others. She made reference to Nathan Cullen, the provincial government and different stakeholders, and that high sense of co-operation and wanting to make sure we get this right.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been overwhelmed today and over this past week by the offers of help coming from all across the nation, all different parties and all different nations. People want to see us get through this in a peaceful way. We know this is the time, as we do not want to see this country in chaos, for us to all really redouble our efforts to figure out how we can do this in a peaceful way and to call upon all of the best ideas to come forward to make that happen.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

I want to acknowledge that the Speaker allowed this emergency debate tonight. It is an issue of critical importance across the country. To be frank, it did not have to be this way. The signs have been there for many months, that we have a challenge in British Columbia, with regard to the Coastal GasLink pipeline. The government ignored it. It is responsible for the crisis that we see today, because the Liberals did not proactively deal with this issue.

What is happening across the country? I think all of us in the House appreciate that demonstrations are a part of our rights as citizens of this country. Although there are times when there are blockages of traffic or whatever, we tolerate it because it is important. There is a line that gets crossed and that is of course when we have blockades of critical infrastructure, which are clearly illegal.

What are the impacts? No one has talked much about the impact of these actions from coast to coast to coast. What is happening because of these illegal blockades? I am not talking about peaceful demonstrations to which every Canadian has a right. I am talking about a blockade of our rail lines and other actions.

There is quickly becoming a shortage of groceries and baby formula in some stores, as the products cannot move across the country. Many homes rely on propane for heat, and propane travels by rail. The lack of propane is not only impacting people's homes, but it is also impacting senior care facilities and farmers.

We have a forestry crisis in British Columbia. The industry is on its knees. Now product is not getting from the forests to the mills and on to the customers. An already hurting industry is being doubly stabbed.

Right now there are 66 large shipping vessels sitting, stalled in the waters of British Columbia. That is at a cost of $425 million a day, which is not insignificant. Water systems will not have the chlorine they need.

Just today, the Premier of British Columbia's house was blockaded to prevent him from getting to the legislature. Journalists had to scale the walls to get into the B.C. legislature so they could report on the speech from the throne.

Clearly, as the transport minister acknowledged today, we have dangerous acts involving destruction of our rail lines. I understand that signal lights have been vandalized and there has been significant damage to vehicles and bridges. This is not an insignificant issue.

When I listened to the Prime Minister earlier today, I heard a very peripheral acknowledgement of what was happening out there. It is so serious, and it is something I have never seen in all my time.

Thirty Canadian organizations, from the Chamber of Commerce to the aluminum and mining industries released a joint statement. It stated:

...these illegal blockades inflict serious damage on the economy, leaving countless middle-class jobs at risk, many of them in industries that must get their goods, parts, and ingredients to and from market by rail. In addition to disrupting domestic and global supply chains, the blockades undermine Canada’s reputation as a dependable partner in international trade. They also threaten public safety by preventing the distribution of essential products like chlorine for water treatment and propane for heating homes...

I will share my understanding of this project.

There was a very lengthy process for approval. It is an approximately 670-kilometre pipeline that delivers gas from the Dawson Creek area to a facility near Kitimat, B.C. for export. It is seen as something that has an opportunity not only for economic benefit for Canada, but for supporting a decrease in global emissions.

We know 20 elected chiefs have supported the project. I understand a number of hereditary chiefs have also supported it. This process included a number of communities, and the elected councils took the project to referendum for approval. This is not just the elected chiefs saying, yes. In many communities, there was a referendum process.

Clearly, a group of hereditary chiefs are opposed. However, another significant point is that some of those chiefs actually ran for elected council and did not win their seats.

There was a rally in Prince George, and I listened to Wet'suwet'en speaker after speaker talk about the importance of this project to their community, from Crystal Smith to elder Elsie Tiljoe.

It was estimated, through an internal process, by hereditary chief Theresa Tait-Day that 85% of the Wet’suwet’en people in her community supported this project.

Again, clearly there has been trouble brewing for months, but the government has allowed it to grow into a full-blown crisis.

We now have groups like Extinction Rebellion, Climate Justice, among others, who play the key role in the protest. They have been described by many, including some of the Wet’suwet’en people, as outsiders exploiting a division within the first nations community in the hope of creating chaos. For many, I think this is a dress rehearsal for the Trans Mountain pipeline and any future energy project. Their goal is not to deal with the challenging governance issues of first nations communities, but it is to shut down energy infrastructure across the country.

Current MLA Ellis Ross, formerly a band council member who participated in the benefit agreement negotiation, said, “Originally it was indian act that oppressed us and we beat it. Now the NGOs and even Native organizations oppress us. In the middle of all this posturing and politics, average aboriginals remain in place with their social issues.”

Wet'suwet'en nation member Vernon Mitchel said, regarding some of the opposition, “They don’t even know squat about our territory and meanwhile they’re putting on roadblocks...they’re hurting my people and my kids.”

To date, the government response has been to ignore and deflect, saying it is British Columbia's problem. Today, the speech by the Prime Minister was particularly disappointing. It was words, but it did not relay an action plan. Today Premier Moe called for a conference call with all the premiers, because he saw a lack of action and a lack of leadership.

In spite of the talk by the Prime Minister with respect to hearing different viewpoints, that different viewpoints are important, clearly there is only one viewpoint that matters, and that is his own perspective. He leaves many important people out of the conversation.

We have a crisis. We have a lack of leadership. The current government has allowed something to fester. It has not paid attention to it and it has grown into a crisis in the country. It lays at the feet of the government.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the member.

First, I wonder if she could address the consultation process with the hereditary chiefs who are not in favour of the pipeline.

Second, the member very clearly outlined the problem of the blockades, etc., but she did not suggest a solution. Neither did the leader of the official opposition this afternoon. He said that something had to be done quickly, but neither the member nor her leader said exactly what should be done. Maybe the member could suggest what should be done.

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

Madam Speaker, I outlined in my speech all the indicators with respect to the elected band councils, the referendum processes, the statements by so many of the members and the survey that indicated 85% support for the project. From what we have heard, and we are not in the community, this project has broad community support.

Certainly things have happened in the House. I do not agree with every piece of legislation that is passed, but I have to respect the will of the House. In terms of elections, we have to respect the will of the people.

Our side is saying that we respect the decision that was made by the communities, by the people.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a bit much to take when I hear the Conservative members. On the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, former Prime Minister Harper actually said that it was an Indian issue. This is how the Conservative treat indigenous people. On this issue, they have perpetuated the situation which we are in today.

There is no question that the Liberals did not act, and they should have long ago. They have not made good on their promise on the new nation-to-nation relationship. However, the Conservatives have perpetuated this in their tenure as well.

On the question around the rule of law, do Conservative members not recognize section 35 of the Constitution that enshrines the rights of indigenous people, and also the Supreme Court decision with respect to Delgamuukw?

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

Madam Speaker, absolutely we respect section 35. However, what is very ironic is the member for Vancouver East sat in the B.C. legislature. She is part of the party that is supporting this pipeline. It is absolutely strange, absolutely ironic to hear the way she is arguing in the House today, knowing the position her party is taking in her province of British Columbia, which supports this project and wants to see it go through. The current premier is of the same mind.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am curious about where the member has come up with those numbers. I have gone up north and have met with the heredity chiefs. I have spent some time in the community talking to the people.

Doing a quick search, I found that of the 300 members of the the Nak'azdli Whut'en First Nation, one of the Wet'suwet'en bands, 70% of the band voted no. The council voted 4:3 in favour of the project. The Witset band, the largest of the Wet'suwet'en group, which has a population of 5,000 members of which 2,000 are in the Witset band, 83% in a survey opposed this project.

Then we talk about the jobs. CGL admits there are only two dozen jobs for Wet'suwet'en people in this project. A lot of numbers are being thrown around. I am curious to know where the Conservatives are getting these numbers.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been at a number of forums where we have had presentations on some of the work that has been done. There clearly are some local issues that need to be dealt with and the the current government has ignored the signals.

Everything I have read, everything I have seen and heard from the elders and heredity chiefs show significant support.

We know the Greens, regardless of the project, will not support a project and they will find anything to not support it with respect to the numbers that represent their interests.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to support the Wet'suwet'en people. Over the past weeks, news organizations from coast to coast have mobilized to every blockade and every protest, vying for sound bites and clips to share on the morning news and on their social media. Who has been forgotten in all of this? It seems to me it is the people of Wet'suwet'en nation.

Politicians across Canada and in this House have taken it upon themselves to speak on behalf of the people. I do not want to even pretend to speak on behalf of these people, because I think that would be foolish for me to claim to do so. It would lack credibility and integrity. Let me be clear, however. We are at a very important point in our history, and I intend to be on the side of the Wet'suwet'en people tonight, who have the right to self-determination and to control their own destiny.

The elected leadership of all 20 first nations whose territory runs along the pathway of Coastal GasLink, eight hereditary chiefs and over 80% of the people are in favour of getting this pipeline built. I was the mayor of the city of Meadow Lake for eight years and I know just how difficult it is to get 80% support for a project. It is nearly impossible. That is why I appreciate the hard work that the elected chiefs have put in to negotiate an extremely successful deal with Coastal LNG on behalf of their people.

There is over $1 billion in commitments to indigenous workers and to indigenous-owned firms because of this project. These dollars could be used for important investments in these communities such as housing, mental health, education, recreation and many other things. However, it is not just about the dollars being invested in these communities; it is about the creation of well-payed, sustainable jobs.

I represent a riding that has a population that is over 70% indigenous. During the election campaign and in the months since, I have had many opportunities to talk to people about my vision for northern Saskatchewan, to talk to people about the opportunity to have well-paying, sustainable jobs. It is a very similar theme to what we talk about tonight when we consider this project.

The benefits I have spoken about over and over again are threefold. First, there is an obvious economic benefit that comes with having a good job and being able to take care of oneself and one's family. Second, there is an innate need in each of us to be fulfilled, to feel valued and to have a sense of self-worth. There is nothing greater than the feeling one experiences after coming home, having put in an honest day's work. Third, the most important benefit that I have been talking about over the last several months is the hope that comes from the opportunity of having a good job.

Youth suicide in northern remote communities is very real, and it is a heartbreaking crisis. I have spoken many times about how the suicide crisis in northern Saskatchewan is due to a lack of hope. When young people can look up to those they respect and admire, such as their parents, their uncles, their brothers and sisters, or maybe their older cousins, and see them succeed by being part of the industry in northern Saskatchewan, they have hope. They have hope for a better future and they no longer have to consider suicide. I realize that a good job does not solve every problem, but it sure is a good start and it goes a long way.

The question becomes how we create these jobs. I have spoken consistently about creating partnerships between indigenous communities and private industry. These partnerships create opportunity for people in remote northern communities to fully participate in the economic well-being of Canada as a whole. This project is a perfect example of that model at work.

We simply cannot allow a minority of protestors to stand in the way of the will of the Wet'suwet'en nation. These protestors have taken extraordinary measures to hold Canada hostage, compromising the safety of our rail infrastructure, blocking and intimidating people attempting to go to work and in some cases physically assaulting elected members of a provincial legislature.

These blockades have had real effects on my constituents. I have heard from farmers in my riding that many are being told they will not be able to deliver the grain they have contracted for February and March. Canada's reputation as a stable supplier is at risk. Our farmers are risking losing global customers, and they will find other suppliers.

These are people's livelihoods we are talking about. It is how they feed their families. It is what heats their homes. These blockades have to end. If we allow a small minority to succeed in blocking this project, I am concerned that it will be impossible for future projects to ever see the light of day.

Canada's courts have been very clear. The standard for meeting the fiduciary duties for consultation and accommodation are very high. These thresholds have been met by the Coastal LNG project and they ought to be respected.

My colleague referenced Ellis Ross in her speech a few moments ago, and I want to do the same. Ellis Ross is the B.C. MLA for Skeena and a former councillor and subsequent chief councillor for the Haisla Nation. He served in that role for 14 years and had the following to say recently:

The heated debate over who holds authority over the territory of First Nations — be it hereditary chiefs or elected band leaders — may serve the interests of those seeking to disrupt construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline, but it does absolutely nothing for the well-being of an average Aboriginal living on reserve.

He went on to further say:

Allowing outsiders to undermine and dismiss years of careful consideration and consultation with elected chiefs who want nothing more than to secure a brighter future for their membership, is quite unacceptable....

I am not naive enough to not realize there are members of the Wet'suwet'en nation who are not in favour of this pipeline. Of note, four of the 12 hereditary chiefs, as well as approximately 15% of the people, would fit in that category.

I will always support the rights of those not in favour to protest peacefully, but as with any major decision, indigenous or non-indigenous, total consensus is often unachievable. That is why authentic relationships must be developed so we can have difficult conversations when the need arises.

Let me share from my own personal experience and journey in this regard. As I said earlier, 70% of my riding is indigenous. We grew up going to school together, playing sports together, and in general, living shoulder to shoulder.

Later in life when I became mayor, I had the privilege of working with and developing strong relationships with four chiefs from Flying Dust First Nation who served with me when I was mayor. We shared the challenges of water supply, policing, development activities, recreation and many other matters. It is my sincere belief that we were able to navigate these challenges because we invested in positive and authentic relationships prior to the issues being put on the table.

I truly appreciate the effort the Minister of Indigenous Services has made recently to have dialogue, but unfortunately, the Prime Minister has left him in the unenviable position of having to deal with this in a reactive manner rather than in the proactive manner it deserved. It is clear that these attempts to have dialogue suddenly in the wake of a crisis are too little and far too late.

The government seems to be focused on blaming the Harper government for all of its failures, but the Liberals have had four and a half years and all we hear is virtue signalling and lip service.

In my riding, during the campaign I consistently heard the terms “empty promises” and “unfulfilled commitments” from my indigenous friends. That has been made abundantly clear over the past few weeks, with the choices the Prime Minister has made to prioritize a seat on the United Nations Security Council instead of dealing with the crisis here in Canada. That is not leadership, and right now leadership is what this country needs.

We are asking for a common sense approach to this crisis, respect the rule of law, open authentic dialogue on reconciliation and to not allow the minority to overrule the majority.

As a former mayor of Meadow Lake, I know how important these development projects are to indigenous communities. It is a real and tangible path to economic freedom, self-government and true reconciliation. That is why I am standing today in solidarity with the elected councillors, hereditary chiefs and the people of the first nation.

The Prime Minister said in the House today that patience may be in short supply. It seems that the commitment to reconciliation is also in short supply. The Prime Minister did say something I agree with, which is that we all have a stake in this, that we need to find a solution and we need to find it very soon. I would only add that we should have started looking for a solution sooner.

Today in the National Post, Derek Burney wrote, “A minority government should not mean that we have no government.” In the spirit of collaboration then, I encourage everyone to take a deep breath, refocus our efforts, shut out the radical minority and take earnest steps toward authentic reconciliation.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the member's riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River very well because I have travelled from La Ronge to La Loche to Meadow Lake. I would like to pay tribute to Georgina Jolibois, who was an extraordinary member of Parliament and brought me in a number of times to work with people with disabilities throughout the riding, so I know the riding very well.

The member said at the outset of his speech that he did not expect to speak for the Wet'suwet'en, but then he attempted to do just that and denounced what he calls a minority. He understands, or should understand, that consultation means allowing a process to involve everybody in a community. As we heard very eloquently from the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley at the outset of this emergency debate this evening, a man who represents that riding, he said that within the community itself, there needs to be space so that the community can make its decisions in its own way.

My question for the member is very simple. He seems to be denouncing a process that should take place and should respect everybody. I would ask him to consider that perhaps in saying that, what he is doing is, in a sense, being derogatory toward an entire community. Will he accept—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the question so I can allow another one. The member was given a minute and a half and it should have been a minute.

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member visiting my riding and noting it with familiarity.

If the member looks back on my comments and my speech, what I said very clearly is that Canada's courts have been very clear about the standard of fiduciary duty for consultation and accommodation, that they are extremely high and this process has gone on for more than five years. I also said that as a mayor, one can never expect to get 100% consensus on a decision and, ultimately, that is the value of a democratic institution. Members in the House more than anyone should appreciate the value of the democratic institution.

I also understand that the hereditary nations and the clan system maybe do not use the same system of democracy as we do, but there has been due course, the bar has been set very high and that bar has been passed over and over on this project.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has called on the Prime Minister to order the RCMP to act and the hon. member mentioned the rule of law in his speech. Is the Leader of the Opposition's call for an illegal order not a direct violation of the rule of law? Will the hon. member stand up, condemn his party's leader and support the rule of law?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have heard so many comments today and people referring to the rule of law.

There are farmers in my riding, people who rely on the railway and people who rely on the ports for their livelihoods, to feed their families, to look after their children and maybe aging parents. The number I heard in the media, which I cannot honestly back up with fact, is that there is over $10 million of lost revenue in the agriculture industry already. I read that for every day the rail system is not running, it is going to take four days to catch up. For the economy of Canada, getting these things running and dealing with the illegal blockades and protestors is paramount at this time.

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

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to address the recent and ongoing protest in relation to the Coastal GasLink pipeline project and Wet'suwet'en first nation. I thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for initiating this important emergency debate.

I want to cover a number of different issues in my speech this evening. First is the notion of protest and its importance in our democracy and under our constitution. The notion of lawful protest is critical. It is protected in multiple subsections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly subsections 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d).

What we understand as a protest is critical, as is the manner in which it unfolds. What do I mean by that? We have heard extensive discussions over the last 12 days about protesting in accordance with the law and the rule of law. This is critical and needs to always be respected in this country in order for the protest function to fulfill its important purpose.

I am speaking tonight because it is important that the people watching and participating in this debate understand that there is frustration out there. It is being experienced on many fronts. As the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park, I have heard about this frustration in my riding from my constituents, who have raised their voices with me in multiple contexts: via email, on the phone and in person. They have taken different sides on this issue. Some have raised their frustration with reconciliation and the commitment to climate change, asking what is going on in terms of those important precepts. Others have asked about their economic livelihood and the standstill happening in the Canadian economy.

There is frustration being experienced by so many people in this country right now. It is the reason we are here debating this into the wee hours of the evening and why the frustration needs to be validated and understood. People are frustrated and they deserve to be frustrated. It is important for all of us to understand this and work toward the common goal, which is a speedy resolution to this dispute.

The fundamental question is how we get there. We heard a lot about this today, both in tonight's debate and in the ministerial presentations and statements made earlier today.

When we talk about the resolution to this matter, we have a pretty strong juxtaposition presented to us. On the one hand, the notion of dialogue has been undertaken with mutual respect, dialogue that would work toward a meaningful and peaceful resolution. Who suggested that dialogue? We heard the Prime Minister, in his ministerial statement, talk about the need for dialogue and extending a hand.

Also of importance, we heard from National Chief Perry Bellegarde today, who echoed the need for peaceful, respectful dialogue. We have heard this from some of the leaders of the Mohawk First Nation as well, who have echoed the need for moving forward in a manner that facilitates discussion among the parties.

On the other hand, we have a stark contrast that was articulated earlier today by the opposition, which is escalation and potentially the use of force by law enforcement officials, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Let me say to you quite clearly, Madam Speaker, and to everyone who is watching at this late hour, that I find that approach very problematic. I am going to underscore several reasons why I believe that is problematic.

The first is that we do not instruct the police in this country on who to arrest or release. That is very important because the police in this country, indeed I would say the police in any functioning democracy, are not the private force of the political party in power. That is so fundamental that it should go without saying. In a democracy, the police work within a broader legislative framework or under the underpinnings of a statutory framework, but in their day-to-day functions, they operate independently.

Why do I say this and what basis do I have for this claim? I am going to point out a few authoritative sources, the first of which is the Supreme Court of Canada. It has outlined that the principle of police independence “underpins the rule of law” and is necessary for the “maintenance of public order and preservation of the peace”.

I am entering into my former vocation as a lawyer here, but I will cite the Campbell and Shirose case, which is a 1999 decision of the Supreme Court, at paragraphs 29 and 33, directly from the Court's judgment, where it is stated:

While for certain purposes the Commissioner of the RCMP reports to the Solicitor General, the Commissioner is not to be considered a servant or agent of the government while engaged in a criminal investigation. The Commissioner is not subject to political direction.

That is from the Supreme Court of Canada.

There are further instances of this being articulated in other judicial fora or commissions of inquiry.

After the APEC summit was held, there was an inquiry into what transpired there. In that APEC inquiry, Justice Hughes stated five principles of police independence. One of the principles he articulated is that when the RCMP is performing law enforcement functions, it is entirely independent of the federal government and answerable only to the law and the courts.

The final instance I want to bring to the attention of the House is the Arar commission. We all know the infamous case of Maher Arar. We also know about Dennis O'Connor's inquiry into the circumstances that led to Maher Arar's rendition and torture in a foreign jurisdiction. At page 458 of the report, Justice O'Connor said:

The outer limits of police independence continue to evolve, but its core meaning is clear: the Government should not direct police investigations and law enforcement decisions in the sense of ordering the police to investigate, arrest or charge—or not to investigate, arrest or charge—any particular person. The rationale for the doctrine is the need to respect the rule of law.

Where are we situated here? We are situated in a context where multiple things are being suggested by multiple people not only in this chamber but around the country. Some would say it is time for politicians to lay down the law, so to speak, and instruct law enforcement officials to make arrests or use force in a given context, particularly with the Wet'suwet'en protesters. Others have said we should be instructing the police to do the opposite and remove themselves from the situation.

My position, and that of this government, is that it is not for the police to be directed to either arrest or withdraw. That is not the operational independence that is sacrosanct to the protection of the rule of law in a functioning democracy. We have to allow police officers to operate independently, as they do to this point. It is very critical.

I also want to emphasize in this debate what has harkened back to me. I am older than I appear and people tend to confuse me for my age, but I remember very clearly the Ipperwash situation in Ontario, my home province, in the mid-1990s, when the premier, then of the Conservative ilk, decided to issue a blunt direction. It is not really worth repeating, but it was something along the lines of, “Get the Indian out of the park.” There are a few more choice words in that quotation. That led to an entire inquiry into the role of elected leaders with respect to the supervision, enforcement and instruction of law enforcement officials. The Ipperwash Inquiry found, to the same extent of some of the inquiries I have mentioned, that this role is entirely inappropriate. It is inappropriate because it jeopardizes the foundation upon which this democracy, and indeed any democracy, operates. The police are not a private force under the employ of the political party in power.

I started with two options, dialogue versus direct action and enforcement, and on this side of the House we side with the option of dialogue. How is that dialogue proceeding? I will cite some of the instances members and hopefully those watching have already heard about this evening.

Dialogue has already commenced. We heard able argumentation presented by the Minister of Indigenous Services at the start of tonight's debate about the engagement he has already had with the Mohawk leaders. We have heard from the Minister of Transport, who has met with indigenous Canadians. We know that the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations has already had discussions on the telephone with individuals, including the hereditary chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en First Nation. We know that she is readily available to meet directly and in person with those hereditary chiefs to continue this critical dialogue.

Let us talk about those with whom we are having dialogue, because I think this is also one of the core issues that is germane to the debate this evening. We believe that all indigenous stakeholders, elected representatives and hereditary chiefs should be involved in this discussion and dialogue.

I am going to give members an anecdote from my somewhat still nascent parliamentary career, which is about five years old.

One of the privileges that I had in the last Parliament was to work on the indigenous language protection act. That was an incredibly difficult file at times but also an incredibly rewarding file. I am very proud to say that all parliamentarians supported the bill, which has now restored the vitality, promotion and protection of indigenous languages that were at various stages of risk in this country. That was a very illustrative exercise for me when I was working as parliamentary secretary on that bill, because I was leading some of the consultations around the country.

What I quickly learned in that situation was that there is a great amount of heterogeneity among indigenous communities, stakeholders, elders, teachers, students, etc., around this country. Whether we are dealing with first nations, Inuit or Métis people, there are a lot of different opinions, and that is as it should be. No one entity or no one group speaks for the entire group. There is as much diversity of opinion among indigenous stakeholders as there is among non-indigenous stakeholders. Again, it is simplistic in its analysis but the illustration was very clear to me.

What I learned with that exercise was that while there are a multiplicity of views out there on any issue that touches indigenous people in this country, what is important when we are dealing with indigenous issues and indigenous stakeholders is that none of those views should be ignored. That is critical when we are trying to give flesh to this idea of reconciliation and what reconciliation means.

It is fundamentally different and qualitatively different. I do not think anyone in this chamber would disagree. When we are trying to pursue an equitable issue with respect to immigrant groups or racialized groups or a religious minority, those are important objectives. When we are dealing with the history and legacy of 400 years of colonialism and racism and the legacy of the residential school system, it is qualitatively different. It is what we call sui generis in the legal context. It is qualitatively different because we cannot ignore any of the voices. That is fundamental and it needs to be clear.

I also want to add a further layer to this debate. A lot of the people who come into my office in Parkdale—Hyde Park or speak to me about this, or reach out by email or social media, talk about the indigenous cause being the vanguard of a broader cause, a respect for Mother Earth, a respect for Mother Nature, a respect for the land that is so bountiful. It is caught up with this issue, and rightfully so, about the pressing need for action on climate change.

I take no issue with that. I fundamentally believe that climate action is urgent. I fundamentally believe that when we declare an emergency on climate change in the House, we need to stand by that.

I return to the fact that folks in my riding and folks right around this country have always consistently approached this issue to me in terms of its broader gravity. They would tell me we have an emergency. They would say to me that it is not just an emergency in Canada, but that it is a global emergency. I would readily concur with them. That is absolutely right. We have a global problem so what we need is a global solution. What I say to them in the context of tonight's debate is to think about this project as part of that global problem and global solution.

What do I mean by that? We know and people who are viewing this tonight understand that this project was touted as the single largest private sector investment in Canadian history, $40 billion deep. Why is that? It is because this project has the ability to provide the cleanest liquefied natural gas facility on earth and to provide green energy to locations around the planet that are in need of greener sources of energy. What I mean by that is ensuring that the phase-out of coal in large Asian nations, particularly India and China, can be accelerated through this liquefied natural gas. What I urge people to consider is that jeopardizing this project will impede the ability of Canada to contribute a global solution to what is indeed a global problem. That is an important factor to consider in this context.

I would venture so far as to put it that this single factor is the reason why we had parties and governments of different political stripes, a provincial NDP government working in close collaboration with a federal Liberal government, working together, and why we had indigenous leaders lining up behind this original project, including all of the elected council representatives for the various first nations groups that are affected with respect to this project.

In total, was there an absolute consensus? Clearly there was not and there is not. That is why we are here today. The voices of the hereditary chiefs have been articulated, indicating that they are speaking out, and they are speaking out on behalf of their people on this very important substantive issue.

Those voices cannot be denied. Those voices are the ones that need to be listened to and the ones that need to be addressed if we are to give reconciliation some meaning. That is the meaningful dialogue and peaceful resolution that we are working toward in this context.

I would reiterate some aspects of what has been transpiring with respect to the RCMP, in the brief time that I have remaining. That law enforcement agency, I am glad to say, has been facilitating a different approach.

In this context, with respect to Wet'suwet'en, the RCMP are attempting to work with what we call a measured approach that is facilitating lawful, peaceful and safe protest in an environment that is safe for protesters and members of the public.

That is a departure from traditional enforcement-focused policing. It is a measured approach that places a premium on open communication and mitigation efforts where the use of arrest becomes just one of the many options that would be available to law enforcement. Indeed, the use of arrest is kept as a last resort.

It also encourages police to undertake proactive engagement. Having a measured approach calls for communication, mitigation and facilitation measures to ensure they maintain peace and to facilitate the resolution of public disorder and the restoration of peace.

It is also critical that the RCMP, which employs a measured approach, respects the lawful exercise of personal rights and freedoms, including the rights of peaceful assembly and association, which I outlined at the outset.

What I am saying in this context is that we have got the fundamental issue of protest. We have to balance that so that it is done in accordance with the rule of law. We have this issue about how we approach the protest: Do we encourage action and enforcement measures, including the use of force by the police at the direction of elected officials, or do we pursue dialogue?

I am very strongly in favour of the dialogue option. The dialogue must engage all parties involved in the conflict, including the hereditary leaders, and that dialogue must consider the impact of climate action that we could take here in Canada that could impact the global climate problem.

Those are the issues that are at stake here. Those are the issues that are fundamental to this debate. I invite questions from the hon. members.

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

Madam Speaker, it is rather ironic to hear my colleague giving his speech. For the past 20 minutes he has been saying that elected members cannot ask the police and the RCMP to intervene in the conflict we are discussing. That is rather ironic because the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, the government is saying that the RCMP must not intervene and, on the other, it is saying that the government must not tell the RCMP what to do.

Can the member tell me what he is really thinking?

Must we tell the RCMP not to intervene because there is dialogue or should we let the RCMP do its job, and not tell it to not intervene?

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

Madam Speaker, perhaps my speech was not entirely clear. I will try to be clearer.

We must not tell the RCMP what to do or give it instructions. It is up to the RCMP to decide whether to intervene, period. It is the RCMP's decision. That is the foundation of democracy and the rule of law. We can talk with the RCMP's representatives, but we must not influence the RCMP or interfere in its decisions. It is the RCMP's responsibility to protect the rule of law in our democracy.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had a question all ready for my colleague, but the Conservative member got me thinking about something. From what I understand, the RCMP deployed members on the ground, including snipers, to put an end to the peaceful protests. I do not know what exactly was said to the RCMP. It is not really clear.

I want to come back to what is happening in my riding. The community of Listuguj is protesting on the ground. Obviously, this is having an economic impact. Rotor blades for wind turbines are not getting to our community, work has come to a standstill at the Port-Daniel cement factory and the softwood lumber industry is affected. We are talking about thousands of dollars in losses per day and per week.

I have been hearing good principles and fine words since this morning. We are trying to have a dialogue, but I am not hearing about any practical measures.

What does the government intend to do to resolve this crisis?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to point out what we already mentioned in the ministers' statements this afternoon and during this evening's debate.

We need measures that include the ongoing dialogue with the Minister of Indigenous Services, the Minister of Transport and theMinister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

Dialogue will allow us to resolve the situation without violence, which will maintain peace. During the Ipperwash and Oka crises, we lost an officer and a protestor. This is what we are trying to avoid with our response to this situation.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, last week I met with indigenous youth in my riding. They told me that they do not want their children to have to fight for basic human rights the way that they, their parents and their grandparents did.

They have every reason to be concerned, because they see the government fighting indigenous kids in court. They see indigenous communities struggling without access to clean drinking water. They watched the Prime Minister spend the last few weeks denying responsibility for nation-to-nation relationships.

Will the member admit that weeks of denying responsibility were a factor in getting us to where we are now, in an emergency debate? Will the government admit that this was, and continues to be, a failure of leadership?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her questions, and I will take them in reverse order.

The first point is that it is an absolute presence of leadership to convene Parliament and address the chamber as Prime Minister, ensure that the ministers are tasked with commencing that dialogue, and put value into the dialogue that he is spearheading himself.

The second point is with respect to clean water, and I will stand by our government's record. We have a record of having lifted 88 boil-water advisories thus far. We are on track to eliminate all of them by March 2021 by investing well over $1 billion in the infrastructure required to address the very significant need for clean drinking water.

The third point is with respect to litigation against indigenous children, which is a problematic piece of litigation. The member opposite knows that we have admitted responsibility, that we accept the fact that discrimination has been found.

What we are working on right now is an agreement that will include a more encompassing group, including a pending class action, so that a larger body of people can have justice rendered to them so that inequality can be addressed.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I sat in relative awe of a lot of people today listening to a variety of statements and perspectives. Like a lot of things, that is what makes the House great: a lot of different perspectives and opinions.

However, there is a degree to which this issue and the people involved in the project are being co-opted to reinforce multiple political narratives. One thing that is clear is that this issue severely lacks consensus. I have heard tonight conflicting reports of support from locals as disparate as the opinions in the House.

We can certainly all agree, I hope, that a peaceful process and a resolution that results in no violence is in everyone's best interests. However, the language that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition is anything but peaceful, as he suggested that indigenous people “check their privilege”. The Leader of the Opposition doubled down on that statement today when he urged haste and force.

I am grateful that my colleagues on this side are able to learn from history and not repeat the mistakes of the past.

My question for my colleague refers to his prior role as parliamentary secretary and his important work on the Indigenous Languages Act. Could he elaborate on the value of listening, even to a small minority, to reach common ground, sometimes in the absence of consensus?