Debates of Feb. 18th, 2020

Relations with Indigenous Peoples

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

[Member spoke in Mi'kmaq]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the Algonquin territory which we meet on today. Many of us have acknowledged the traditional territories of indigenous nations on whose land we meet. Some of us go as far as to say we are on unceded land. How many of us give a thought to what that acknowledgement means?

To me, as a Mi'kmaq person, as an indigenous person, it means that we recognize that another group of humans cared for the land, protected the land and maintained it for future generations. We do so out of respect. Maybe we do so out of part of a journey of reconciliation too. While it is an easy thing to say, it is much harder to practise reconciliation.

Growing up Mi'kmaq, we are raised and taught that we are born with responsibilities to our family, to our community and to our nation, but also responsibilities to the ecosystem. We call it netukulimk in my language. When I think about that responsibility, I think about what actions I am willing to take to ensure the quality of life for future generations.

I was a protester, or a land protector, as my colleagues have reminded me. I too was out there on the streets frustrated during the Idle No More era of protests under the Stephen Harper government that saw environmental cuts and indigenous cuts. I was out there with them.

It was only when a new government was elected that I believed that Canada had reached a turning point, where Canada could look to a new relationship with indigenous people. It was with this in mind that I entered politics.

Because of the work that this government has done to advance reconciliation, I believed that a Mi'kmaq advocate would be welcomed into government. I still believe this today. I believe that reconciliation is possible.

I believe that reconciliation is not a destination; it is a journey. Just like any relationship we hope to improve and foster, it is only possible when we listen. It is only possible with respect. It is only possible when we find common ground. We have reached a moment in Canada like we have many times before. This will not be the first time that Canadians have called for police action, even military action, in the face of civil disobedience and protest.

If the civil rights movement in the U.S. has taught us anything, it is that violence, police or the army will not stop a political movement. It will only lead to more political action, escalation and turmoil.

Communication is the only way forward. Good faith negotiation is what the Wet'suwet'en are asking for. I will not go into the comments that my colleague just made about the Wet'suwet'en people in their determination and their fight at the Supreme Court of Canada for recognition of aboriginal title, but they believed it was a victory for them. Many indigenous nations across Canada believed it was a victory.

As many have stated today, section 35 of our Constitution, the supreme law of Canada, recognizes aboriginal and treaty rights. Further to that, section 52 states that the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada, and that any other laws that are inconsistent with them are of no force and effect. Therefore, the rule of law is important, but we must ensure that the rule of law is applied equitably among all peoples.

We have a crisis, but this crisis did not unfold in 12 days. This crisis did not unfold in 12 years. It has been unfolding for more than 150 years.

For more than a decade, I worked for the hereditary chiefs of the Mi'kmaq, as my father did for 30 years before me. They were called the Sante' Mawio'mi. The difference was that they were at the table with elected chiefs while they talked about negotiations moving forward. While it was not always easy, they always found ways to work together.

It is important that both Indian Act governments and traditional governments work together just the same as we in a minority government must attempt to work together.

I ask today for leaders in Canada, leaders of both indigenous and non-indigenous people, to commit to making our relationship work. Political action, not police action, has the ability to decrease tensions. It is the only way. Political discussion and negotiation is what is needed, not inflammatory rhetoric. We need to inspire hope. If nothing else during this speech, I want to make sure to say that there is still hope. The politician in me believes that and the protester in me believes that too.

We are still here. We have been debating all night, but more importantly, we have been listening all week. We are still listening. I promise we will not stop listening. Reach out to us and let us get back to negotiating and let our families from coast to coast to coast get back to work.

Like any relationship between families, between partners, when we sit down and talk about the issues rather than taking extreme positions that is when we have the ability to grow. We have a chance for growth in our country. We have the ability to take strides and take actions that have only been dreamt about by indigenous leaders in this country in the past. When we say that we are focused on reconciliation, let us show it in all of our actions.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's remarks. I would like to thank him for providing more information about his personal background and his world view.

It is great to hear all the talk about communication, about working together and listening, about wanting to hear a variety of different opinions and about everybody having equal value. I hope we all agree on all of that in principle.

Does the member disagree with the Prime Minister's exclusion of the Leader of the Opposition from the meeting today with all of the other leaders in the House? I am speaking of an opposition leader who received more votes than the Liberal leader in the last election and represents entirely the province of Alberta except for one seat, entirely the province of Saskatchewan and a good chunk of Manitoba. Does everything that the member just said, all of which I agree with in principle, fly in the face of that very act?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, where we have arrived at in this country requires us to talk with respect. When leaders in the opposition can talk respectfully about indigenous issues, I will applaud that. I do not feel that there has been respectful discussion by the Leader of the Opposition. I heard his comments today and I heard his comments when he was presenting in front of the Assembly of First Nations last year. When he was asked by the chiefs if he could differentiate himself from Stephen Harper, he could not. He doubled down and said Stephen Harper was not so bad to indigenous people. He was booed out of the room.

If that member opposite spent a little more time listening to some of the talk by the chiefs and hereditary chiefs, perhaps he would be invited when our Prime Minister sits down and talks about what is best for all Canadians, including indigenous peoples.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He spoke about reconciliation. As part of reconciliation, we must take action to prevent crises from getting worse. In December 2019, The Guardian, a daily newspaper in London, reported that the RCMP had instructed its officers to use as much violence as they want to dismantle the Wet'suwet'en camps and that snipers would be deployed. Ottawa should have made a decision back then.

In response to this article, Donna Kane, a constituent of mine in Shefford, came to my office in January to share her concerns, in particular about these snipers.

If someone from Shefford and the Bloc, which released a statement in December, could already see that the situation was explosive, why did the government not intervene then?

My constituent had to come to my office, in January, when she saw that the problem was getting worse. Once again, there were acts of violence against the Wet'suwet'en people.

In the spirit of reconciliation, I would like to know whether my colleague thinks it is important to do something and stop this situation from getting worse.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise that reconciliation is not formed out of crisis. I feel that reconciliation is something that has been 150 years or more in the making. We can all look at recent events and question the government on our actions, but has any other government in the past 150 years acted differently towards indigenous people?

I grew up in a Mi’kmaq community. I lived this every day for 40 years. This is not something I get to come to a meeting here and just say that this is what is happening. I have lived this and have seen it my whole life, and so it is not something that has just recently transpired.

Can we do better? We can all do better. Our Prime Minister has said that as part of it, but the biggest thing is what this government is trying to do in taking steps towards reconciliation differently from all governments in the past, including Oka and Ipperwash and the other protests that have happened across this country. What we are asking is that we speak respectfully, speak to people, negotiate and have dialogue. This is what reconciliation means. It is having that patience. Indigenous peoples have had patience in Canada for more than 150 years.

Let us put this in perspective. There are three million indigenous people out there and there are fewer than 1,000 protesting. I have spent a lot of time listening to a lot of the comments over the past few weeks. I am kind of rambling here, but I get going because I have lived this. This is not just something that I debate on, but I do believe that our government is taking the steps that will lead towards the necessary path of reconciliation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I see there are many people standing for questions and comments. I am going to do my best to ask members to keep their interventions to about one minute so that we may get three questions in on a five-minute round. I appreciate that members want to take the time to express their arguments in this case, and we need to give them some latitude to do that as well.

We are going to resume debate with the hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Granville.

I have heard many of the interventions this evening through this emergency debate and I want to bring a different perspective to this discussion tonight. I want to put this in context.

About 20 years ago, a previous Liberal government actually arrested farmers and put them in jail for crossing the border and trying to sell their grain in the United States. In perspective, right now we have protestors illegally blockading critical infrastructure across Canada and a Liberal government that is doing nothing to address that situation.

I want to talk about the collateral damage of the inaction that is happening and put that in perspective. Canadian farmers who are trying to sell their own grain are arrested and put in jail by the Liberal government. We have protestors, the court has said this is an illegal blockade and the Liberal government is not doing anything. We can imagine the message this is sending to Canadian agriculture. The blockades are bringing Canada's economy to its knees, and there are very real consequences.

On Friday, a grain producer from my riding came into my office in High River. I have to admit that it is not often I see farmers and ranchers almost in tears, but this 80-some-year-old farmer was extremely frustrated. He has gone through what has been deemed the harvest of hell this fall. He is now finally getting his crops harvested. Throughout January and February, when there was a nice day, some of the farmers in my riding were out in their combines trying to get whatever crop off they possibly could.

I now have this farmer in my office asking what else he can do. He suffered through one of the worst springs and falls in 60 years of farming. He finally harvested his crops, but now he is dealing with a blockade. There are no trains at the terminal where he could sell his commodities and get his product to market.

These are the very real consequences farmers across this country are facing. It is not just in western Canada or in my riding, but in every corner of this country.

Members across the floor are talking about not wanting to rush this through and wanting to have a discussion and open dialogue and saying they will be there for as long as it takes. However, there are business owners, farmers and ranchers across this country who literally cannot wait for this dialogue and the Liberal government to just stand back and hope that this resolves itself. They will be bankrupt before this is resolved if the Prime Minister continues to stand on the sidelines.

This is not just rhetoric. I have heard from many of my colleagues across the floor that this is rhetoric. I would like to mention the stats of what is going on right now. Currently in the port of Prince George, there are 19 ships waiting to be loaded with grain. They are short 400,000 tonnes of grain that is not there to be loaded. In the port of Vancouver, there are 42 vessels waiting to be loaded.

Just in Prince George alone, it is 400,000 tonnes of grain they are waiting for, which is about 4,000 railcars. Every day of waiting is about a million dollars. If we include both ports, every week the cost directly to grain farmers is between $40 million and $50 million. When those ships are not loaded, the demurrage costs are passed directly on to the producers. They cannot pass those costs on to anyone else. They are price takers. They are the end of the line. If we add this up over the four weeks, this has cost Canadian agriculture well over $200 million to $300 million, and that is only in grain. I am not talking about cattle, fertilizer, pork or other commodities. That is only in grain. We can understand the implication this is having on our farmers and ranchers.

This is not only on the commodity side. I spoke to a propane dealer today, who said that Quebec and Ontario may have four to five days of propane reserves left and that it is being rationed. I have heard similar stories from Atlantic Canada. This includes farmers who are trying to heat their barns and dry their grain. Every time they turn around, they are getting another punch to the gut. They are throwing up their hands and asking what more can they do and wondering why no one is paying attention to the anxiety, stress and frustration they are feeling.

The ironic part on the propane side is that these same farmers are now hit with a Liberal carbon tax, which is costing them tens of thousands of dollars a month.

We heard from the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, which said that the carbon tax was equal to 12% of one's revenue just disappearing.

The farmers finally got their grain off in the fall. Then they were faced with a CN rail strike, where again the Liberal government did not take any action and decided to stand on the sidelines and wait for it to resolve itself. That is finally now starting to get caught back up. Then in January, farmers were hit with a carbon tax. In February, now they are being hit with illegal blockades across this country and they cannot get their products to market. I hope my colleagues across the floor can see the utter frustration from Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector. Every time they turn around they are getting another punch in the face by the Liberal government.

When we asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food if she knew the impact the carbon tax was having on Canadian farmers, her response was that her department was not keeping any data on it and she was hoping to find evidence and data on it. Before one puts in a carbon tax, maybe one should have done an economic impact analysis on the agriculture sector.

For the last two weeks I have heard the Liberals say that they are not going to enforce the court injunction and they just hope it resolves itself peacefully and quickly. I am sorry, but that is just not good enough. I am absolutely not inciting violence or anything along that line, but sooner or later they have to understand there are real economic consequences to this inaction.

I do not know how else I can say this, but Canada's economy is on its knees. Even when this is resolved, whenever that may be, to just assume that Canada's economy is going to pick back up and get back on track is simply not the case. I spoke to CN last week and it is 200 freight trains behind. That will take not days, not weeks, but months to get caught back up.

The government also has to understand the implications this has on our global relations with some of our most trusted and important trading partners. They look at Canada as a supplier. They are our customers. What will customers do when the ships they have sent from Japan, China, India, Australia, New Zealand and Peru to be loaded in Vancouver or Prince George are turned around empty? They will take those ships to where they know they are going to get a reliable supply. They will go to Brazil, Peru or the United States. These are customers that we will have lost.

This impacts our reputation in the global marketplace. More than 50% of the commodities we produce in agriculture are exported. Almost more than any other country in the world, we are reliant on those export markets. We cannot have this unreliability within the critical infrastructure and the supply chain from coast to coast without there being very clear consequences to what is going on.

I have talked a lot about the farmers on the ground who are being impacted by this, but I also spoke with Chuck Magro, the president and CEO of Nutrien on Friday to see the impact this was having on its business. It is the largest fertilizer company in North America and is based in Calgary. This is Nutrien's busiest time of the year. It is trying to get its supplies not only across Canada to its domestic customers but also to ships to send it around the world. If these blockades are not removed in the very near future, Nutrien will be forced to shut down some of its most important plants across Canada and lay off people. Nutrien is now 125 railcars short and that number continues to grow each and every day.

In conclusion, I want to be crystal clear to my colleagues across the floor that there are very real consequences to this inaction and this grandstanding. Farmers, ranchers, food processors across this country are going to be bankrupt. They are desperate. They need people to stand up and show they are fighting for them, but unfortunately, time and time again the government has shown that it is not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for outlining the pain that farmers are feeling. I think everyone agrees with that. It is a very difficult situation. We have offered a path forward.

We heard tonight from an erudite lawyer, with a couple of cases, the exact example of how it is a fundamental precept of our democracy that governments do not direct the police in enforcing the law.

I would like to ask the member what his solution would be. Is he going to go against the Supreme Court and this fundamental precept of our democracy, or does he have another solution for solving this problem that we all want to solve for the farmers?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do find that question ironic, which I am sure has come up over and over again during this debate.

The Prime Minister had no problem directing the RCMP when it came to the SNC Lavalin investigation. He was pretty clear that Liberals did not want them to investigate this before, during or seemingly after the election. The government cannot be hypocritical here. It cannot have it both ways.

There is a solution. The Prime Minister could talk to his Minister of Public Safety and say that there will be a policy in place that the RCMP and the government will enforce the court injunctions that are in place and remove these illegal blockades.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to offer sympathy to the farmers who are being affected by the current situation. I wish this was not happening. I wish that the Liberal government had come to the table with meaningful reconciliation with the Wet'suwet'en people so that we were not in this place. I wish that the government had sat down and had proper dialogue.

I think about my riding. The member talked about the socio-economic impacts of what is happening to the farmers. I think about the Nuu-chah-nulth people who have been in court. The government spent $19 million on government lawyers fighting them for the right we know they have, the right they won in the Supreme Court of Canada, which the government appealed, not only once but twice. Their hands are up in the air, too.

The member for Sydney—Victoria talked about respect, which they call iisaak. They came and operated in this function of our government through our laws, yet they continually face a government that is fighting them in court just so they can catch and sell the fish running by their villages.

This is the problem. When we do not invest in meaningful reconciliation, what is the cost? I know what the cost is to the Nuu-chah-nulth people. It is suicide, unemployment rates and poverty. That is the cost. We have to fix this.

We have to move forward together. We need meaningful reconciliation.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, but there are suicides, bankruptcies, anxiety and mental health issues within the agricultural community as well.

Why are we putting that aside as not an issue at all in favour of another part of the country, when the vast majority of the Wet’suwet’en community, the elected council, the elected chief, as well as the majority of the hereditary chiefs, all support the Coastal GasLink project?

What is frustrating for me is we are throwing every issue that has been around for 150 years into this. Absolutely, I believe that consultation and reconciliation is a fundamental part of our country, and it needs to be addressed. However, does it have to happen at the expense of our entire economy? I do not think that is the case.

These negotiations could happen outside of this, and should be happening outside of this.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree, I want the blockades to end. I feel action is delayed and unnecessarily so. I feel there is a lot that goes into this very nuanced conversation.

I hear the member about the farmers. I am just curious as to what the member thinks about the National Farmers Union issuing a press release that is in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en people. It is the first thing on their website.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear with my colleague across the floor. Every, and I mean every, single other agriculture stakeholder that I have spoken with is extremely concerned with what is going on with these rail blockades.

I do not want this to be about one sector of our economy or one people against another. That is not what this is about. This is about everyone in the House understanding the consequences and the real ramifications that are happening right now as a result of these illegal blockades.

The vast majority of Canadians are onside with the majority of the Wet’suwet’en community who support the Coastal GasLink project. I do not see a problem with that.

This is a democracy. The greater good should be at play here, not just a small group of protesters.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand to speak in this emergency debate. I would like to thank the member for Foothills for sharing his time with me.

I want to acknowledge the comments of the Prime Minister earlier today, and certainly acknowledge comments or other remarks from individuals in this place, looking to try to find solutions to this important question and consideration. I agree that good faith, partnership and a non-partisan approach have to take place when it comes to indigenous issues and pursuing true reconciliation.

I think about two basic questions that need to be asked. First, why are we in this situation? Second, what should be done?

Why are we in this situation? Why are we seeing blockades and protests and economic disruption?

The answer is pretty straightforward. It is because Canada, through successive governments, including the current government, has not done the basic work of resetting the foundations for relations with indigenous peoples, despite the rhetoric. We all know what needs to be done. We have known for decades, but we are here, yet again, in a moment of crisis, because this hard work has been punted.

The history of Canada saw indigenous peoples divided into smaller administrative groupings, with systems of government imposed upon them. For Indians, this was through the Indian Act and the creation of the band councils system.

The work of decolonization, of reconciliation, requires supporting nations to rebuild, to come back together and revitalize their own systems of government, to self-determine. Until they do, we will never know who truly speaks for the nations, irrespective of the good work and good intentions of the hundreds of Indian Act chiefs and councils and traditional leaders, who, in many cases, are one and the same.

However, we have not done this work. We have maintained the same legislation and policies for decades that keeps first nations under colonial statute, keeps nations divided, renders negotiations long and nearly impossible and does not support first nations nearly enough in doing the rebuilding work they must inevitably do. There are lots of reasons for this: the historical denial of rights to self-government and the denial to one's land and, so too, paternalism. The result of the perpetual inaction are situations like we see in Wet'suwet'en territory.

The Prime Minister did say today that these problems had roots in a long history. That is true. However, let us be honest, and with respect, the Prime Minister has to learn to take responsibility. Canadians over many years have come to learn our true history and the need for fundamental change. He has been speaking for five years about this most important relationship. He stood in the House of Commons over two years ago and pledged to make transformative, legislative and policy reforms, reforms that would be directly relevant to the situation in Wet'suwet'en territory today, that would have supported the internal governance work of the nation, shifted the consultation processes that took place and provided a framework for better relations.

What have we have seen as a result of this speech, and its transformative words? Honestly, almost nothing. The promise of legislation has not come. I know it is hard, but we cannot keep punting the hard work because of political expediency. If we do, we will have another situation like we have today in five years from now or quite likely sooner.

Therefore, here we are. What should be done? In the spirit of good faith and in the spirit of working together, may I be so bold as to offer four suggestions?

One, governments have to lead. They need to lead. Weeks have passed. If the Prime Minister wants to have dialogue to resolve matters peacefully, de-escalate the situation and show real leadership, in my view he should have gotten on a plane, flown to British Columbia, picked the premier up on his way up to Wet'suwet'en territory and met with the leadership of the Wet'suwet'en and some of the broader indigenous leaders in British Columbia.

The Prime Minister could still do this, having regard for and respect for the wishes and preconditions perhaps of the Wet'suwet'en leaders and recognizing some of the challenges that exist in their community. Honestly, there is a practice of leaders not wanting, in my opinion, to be in meetings where the outcomes and structures are not basically predetermined. We have had enough of that. One cannot script dealing with real issues and challenges. Let us just deal with them.

Two, the government should act now on making the fundamental changes that are long overdue. Long ago the government should have tabled comprehensive legislation that implements the minimum standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and upholds the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights, a recognition and implementation of rights framework. Such legislation would include supports, without interfering, for indigenous nations to rebuild their governments. It also would include pathways for moving out beyond the Indian Act. Indian Act chiefs have an important role to play in this process. Once truly self-governing, we will know with certainty who speaks for the indigenous title and rights holders. This is important not only for indigenous peoples to have faith in the legitimacy of their own democratic institutions but ultimately the people will choose and vote on their system of good governance. It is now also important for all Canadians to know.

I will be frank. The government uses language like “co-development” and the need to do it “in partnership” with indigenous peoples a lot, but a lot of the time it uses that language simply as an excuse to delay or justify inaction. For decades, at least since the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 25 years ago, we have known the foundational legislative change that is needed. UNDRIP is a decade old. The government is five years old and it has been two years since the Prime Minister announced legislation would be tabled within 10 months. Enough is enough. The time for action is now. No more half measures, no more lofty rhetoric, no more setting up interminable negotiations that get nowhere very slowly over years and years.

Three, I believe the government should consider a cooling-off period when construction activity does not take place. That would allow everyone to step back and assess where things are, clear the space for dialogue and de-escalate current tensions. Whether this period is for one month or for a few months, it can be of benefit to all.

In this time, dialogue between the Wet'suwet'en and the government can take place. As well, the Wet'suwet'en, in my respectful view, need to take responsibility in such a period of time to have, in a very inclusive manner, the internal dialogue needed to bring clarity about how they will approach the future of this project collectively. Also, such a period of time may allow for explorations, as there have been in the past, of alternative routing for small portions of the line that can address some concerns, including, if necessary, government roles in accommodating the costs of such changes, should they be adopted with broad support.

Four, as a proud indigenous person in this country, I know that indigenous governments also need to lead. The main request I have heard, including meetings with the Prime Minister and premier, is that the RCMP leave the area where it conducted enforcement activity. My understanding as of today is that the company and the Wet'suwet'en are both in the area and things remain currently peaceful. If the RCMP decides it is appropriate to leave, perhaps as part of a cooling-off period, then I would expect indigenous governments, including the Wet'suwet'en leadership, to take action, to look at reconciliation and to look at how they can move forward collectively.

I want to make one last observation about reconciliation and the things that we have heard about reconciliation being dead.

Reconciliation in its true meaning always involves a reckoning. With our past, we are taking responsibility with changing course in real ways, with making the hard choices for our future. These are the choices that every parliamentarian in this place representing their constituents has to make for the benefit of all Canadians. This is our opportunity to finally finish the unfinished business of Confederation and enable indigenous peoples to be self-determining, embrace the minimum standards of the United Nations declaration and finally ensure that indigenous peoples have their rightful place in this amazing country.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver Granville for her thoughtful comments. We are in a very important moment in time in our history, and it is absolutely essential that all of us in the House of Commons be on the right side of history.

The member proposed a number of actions that the government could take, particularly on the question of a cooling-off period. That would mean the RCMP would need to stand down. I think it would also mean, and I would like her clarification, that the provincial government should pause the project as part of a cooling-off period so the discussion toward a peaceful resolution can actually take its course. Did I interpret that correctly from the member's suggestions?

If we can actually come to that place, then we would have set the table to say that we would do things differently and that, yes, for the entire country, the most important relationship is in fact the nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples, recognizing that they have full rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, as part of a cooling-off period, I believe fundamentally that leaders, the Prime Minister, the Premier of the Province of British Columbia and Canadians need to have reflections around what happens and how we move forward. An agreement between the Prime Minister, the premier and certainly involving the leadership and citizens of the Wet'suwet'en nation is important to determine the best way forward. Cooler heads prevail when there has been an opportunity to reflect and plan a way forward. I certainly would support that happening.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the suggestions, such as strong engagement and leadership, including the Prime Minister potentially getting on a plane and bringing the premier with him. That kind of engagement, which we have seen from the Minister of Indigenous Services, has been important. Additional engagement would be important.

With respect to provincial versus federal actions, I understand that the member for Vancouver Granville is suggesting a pause, a cooling-off period, from the provincial government. On the federal side, with respect to cooling off, it is in regard to the RCMP. I understand that under the RCMP Act, the minister could request a review of actions undertaken to date by the RCMP on enforcing the court order and potentially stepping outside of that court order. That would be a positive potential step, given that much of the problem at the outset had to do with the RCMP overstepping its jurisdiction in some ways.

With respect to requesting the RCMP to stand down, given the member's former experience, to what extent does she think direction of the RCMP would be appropriate in the circumstances?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the debate all night. Based on my former role, I generally understand the role of the RCMP and police forces and the reality of not having political interference happening. I know that very well.

I am familiar with the authorities in the RCMP Act. I am also familiar with the necessity to ensure the RCMP has the ability to exercise its discretion as appropriate. However, there has been a conversation in the country, and perhaps it might be a result of this debate for this conversation to continue, on the balance between the independence of police forces and the authorities of ministers. We have had inquiries about this, Ipperwash for one. This is a conversation that needs to continue, but appropriately with political action and agreement on all sides. Perhaps that would lead the way for decisions to be made by police and the RCMP.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We are resuming debate. I will let the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport know that there are seven minutes remaining in the time for tonight's debate. I will give him the usual signal when we are getting close to that time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has obviously been a difficult past 12 days for our country. I will be making my speech today from the perspective of transport, but I would like to preface my remarks by acknowledging that many of the issues we are struggling with go well beyond transportation.

As Canadians, whether we realize it or not, we inherit and benefit from the rich legacy of those who came before us, of the indigenous peoples who lived here from time immemorial, of the Europeans and others who came later and settled here, of all those who built the infrastructure and institutions that underline our present wealth and status as one of the most successful countries in human history, including the rail networks, ports, bridges and roads that continue to play a vital role in connecting our vast country from coast to coast to coast.

However, in addition to inheriting this tremendously valuable legacy, we also inherited the mistakes and misdeeds of those who came before us. Much of our present good fortune came at the expense of indigenous people and communities who were displaced and had their lives and customs disrupted, some of whom we made treaties with, which were often violated either in word or spirit, and many of whom were forced into residential schools in an attempt at cultural assimilation.

We all live with the consequences of those decisions, the dual legacy of the accomplishments, the mistakes and the mistreatment. As a government and a country, we possess a better understanding today of those mistakes that were made in the past, the effects of which are still felt today and are reflective of things such as a lower quality of life for indigenous people or systemic challenges, including higher rates of incarceration.

We have embarked upon a long and difficult process of reconciliation. It presents many challenges, but it is also essential if we want to move forward and build a country that we can be more proud of. However, untangling some of those past mistakes and patterns is challenging. Many indigenous people in this country are angry over how their communities have been treated and are suspicious and mistrustful of the government, of our system of law and our police forces that enforce it, and not without some justification. To their credit, many non-indigenous Canadians sympathize with these feelings.

All this is to say, to repeat an earlier remark, that these issues raised by the protests we have been experiencing over the last 12 days go well beyond transport. They are complex and not easily resolved. They stir deep feelings of anger and resentment.

It is easy to feel frustrated over the cost and inconvenience of these blockades and the protests that are causing them, but it is important to understand the reasons behind them. It is also essential to show compassion and understanding toward each other, to show some patience and take the time necessary to truly listen. We have to think about the people who are losing their jobs and seeing their lives disrupted as a result of the blockades, but we also have to think about those lives that have been impacted by a legacy of racism, neglect, marginalization and ignorance. What is called for at this moment is empathy, patience and cooler heads as we try to find a peaceful, negotiated solution. As the Minister of Indigenous Services has remarked, we have a choice in this country: We can either repeat some of the mistakes we have been making for hundreds of years or we can find a more peaceful path.

Let me turn to discussing some transportation aspects, with an emphasis on safety.

The government feels very strongly about safety, especially around our rail transportation corridors. As a government, we have a duty to ensure that our rail system and its infrastructure are safe. We take that responsibility seriously. Our rail companies are also working to make their operations as safe as possible. Consequently, we are preoccupied with the recent activities in and around rail lines and rail yards across our country.

As the Minister of Transport remarked last Friday, let us be clear that rail lines and rail yards are dangerous places for people without the proper training. Working in proximity to rail lines and rail cars requires a complete awareness of safety procedures. Furthermore, large moving trains confronted with unexpected obstacles on a rail line cannot stop instantly. This presents an extreme hazard to the lives of those inside the train and in front of a moving train.

I also want to remind Canadians that tampering with rail lines, rail cars or signalling systems is illegal and extremely dangerous. In addition to putting themselves at risk, they are endangering rail workers and train passengers, as well as the living communities around them.

I would ask those who are violating the Railway Safety Act to consider the consequences should a serious accident occur, that injuries may kill innocent people. Will this advance the cause of reconciliation? Will it help indigenous people?

However sincerely the protesters hold their concerns, we cannot condone activity that deliberately obstructs rail operations. Therefore, I am calling on all Canadians to respect the Railway Safety Act and be conscious of the dangers associated with recent demonstrations. I know there are some who may perceive rail stoppages as something that only affects large companies' profitability. However, when rail services are disrupted we cannot overlook the impact on people's jobs, livelihoods and lives. We cannot overlook the impact of safe and efficient shipping of things such as propane and other fuels for heating homes, agriculture products, medical supplies, de-icing fluid at airports and so much more. These and other shipments are all sitting idle, unable to get to their destinations, because of obstructions on rail corridors. CN announced that blockages could force the rail company to shut down significant parts of its network. Hundreds of trains have been halted because of those blockages. VIA cancellations mean people cannot get to their homes or other destinations.

As I alluded to earlier in my remarks, there is no denying that there is a sense of alienation. There is no sense denying that there is a divide between us and different perspectives on an important issue. There is no denying that Canadians should have freedom to express their frustrations and concerns, but taking those frustrations and concerns to the country's vital rail network is dangerous. Livelihoods are at stake; lives are at stake. Canada is a trading nation, and our coastal inline ports are critical for both domestic and international trade.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)