Debates of Feb. 20th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink Project

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my hon. friend from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who I know is well aware of the impacts these blockades are having on the Atlantic region, a question.

I was talking yesterday, in fact, with a representative of Shannex, which owns a number of seniors' residences in Nova Scotia, where there are approximately 4,000 seniors. They use propane to heat those buildings, as well as for cooking. This is a great concern for them and for many communities, including the Port of Halifax, in a variety of ways.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would agree that it is important for a solution to be found as soon as possible to resolve this situation in a peaceful manner.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question for probably every community in Canada.

I could mention my own community, where millions of dollars are being spent by steel companies to move very heavy loads by truck from the east coast ports and so on. These would normally travel by rail.

Furthermore, costs in the area of $50 million a month are being spent to deliver finished products from the plants to customers.

This is a huge problem that needs to be solved quickly, but not in the manner that is being proposed by the other side.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying I am going to split my time with my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I made a statement in the House yesterday during Question Period that garnered a lot of heckling from the other side. I stated that I, along with my Conservative colleagues, support the Wet'suwet'en people.

I suppose to the Liberals and the NDP it was a funny thing for a Conservative to say, and a funny thing that we would support 20 out of 20 of the band councils that approved the Coastal GasLink pipeline, that we would support economic opportunity for first nations communities, that we would support law and order and that we would support indigenous communities raising themselves up.

Having said all that, the history of humanity is rife with situations where people do not actually understand each other all the time, their motivations, their values or desires. However, we have persevered and found ways to understand each other. We have built civilizations, we have co-operated and we have accomplished great things together.

The key to the complex process of understanding one another, to perceive their intentions and their motivations, is empathy. The neuroscience of empathy is quite fascinating. Humanity, meaning all of us without exception, is egocentric. We are inherently ugly people. We are narcissistic and at times preoccupied with fulfilling our own needs and desires. However, somewhere in our ancient past, we recognized the importance of caring for our children. We realized the benefits of co-operation, and our capacity for compassion and tolerance grew.

There is a part of the brain that recognizes our self-centredness. The right supramarginal gyrus recognizes the lack of empathy and it adjusts our thinking accordingly. Researchers actually found that, when we make rash decisions, this part of the cerebral cortex does not work properly. Our ability to understand others is reduced greatly when we do not take the time to hear the views of others.

Researchers made another interesting discovery. When we are in a state of comfort or in a pleasant situation, we are less able to empathize with another's pain and suffering. They seized upon and verified an important truth: In order for humanity to make effective and compassionate decisions, we must be able to connect to that part of the brain that allows us to recognize our selfish nature. We do that most effectively by taking the time to hear, see and put ourselves in uncomfortable situations, the same situations as those we are empathizing with.

Fortunately for our species, and perhaps a testament to the great accomplishments we have all made together, the human brain is adjustable. Our capacity for empathy and compassion is never fixed. If we put ourselves in someone else's shoes and do unto others as we would have them do unto us, we can reinforce those neural connections and we can move down the road of reconciliation together.

The road will not be easy. Thousands of years of history have taught us that, but they have also taught us that together we can achieve amazing things.

Here we are asking the House to stand in solidarity with the majority of the Wet'suwet'en people who support the Coastal GasLink project. However, there are two sides. Not everyone supports the decisions of the majority of the Wet'suwet'en people or the 20 democratically elected leaders of the indigenous communities along the proposed pipeline route. While we struggle to put ourselves in other's shoes, we empathize with their concerns.

I have to wonder if those activists have put themselves in the shoes of the majority of indigenous peoples who value self-reliance, communication and fiscal accountability, who believe that resources should be sustainable and equitable, and who believe that governance should be based on their collective heritage. The Wet'suwet'en do. Those values are listed in their mission statement along with a powerful vision and purpose declaration stating:

We are proud, progressive Wet’suwet’en dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of our culture, traditions and territories; working as one for the betterment of all.

“For the betterment of all” is a very empathetic statement to be sure, one that should hang from the very ceiling of this place. Is that not why we are here, for the betterment of Canada and Canadians, one and all?

We also need to take a step back. We need to hear each other. We need to see each other. We need time to sort out these issues and to address them, to reconcile our differences and make agreements. This is why we need to end those blockades. It is not in order to punish, but to ease tension and move forward. Let us demonstrate that here, so we can do it there. We have waited far too long to act.

As people in all parts of our country fear shortages of essential goods and as job losses mount, the number of people demanding resolution grows. The Council of the Federation, a group composed of all of Canada's premiers, is calling for an immediate and peaceful end to these protests. Temperatures are rising. Yesterday in Edmonton, counter protesters showed up and dismantled a barricade. Heated words were exchanged. Threats were made. Out of frustration and fear, people are not listening or looking at each other. We are all better than that.

During this upheaval the country is looking for leadership, yet despite calls from the hereditary chiefs for the Prime Minister to get involved, the Liberal government has done everything it could to distance itself from the ongoing conflict. The Prime Minister will now, I hope, start taking this matter very seriously. It is a national crisis that needs the utmost attention.

We ask the Prime Minister to act now, to stand with the majority of the Wet'suwet'en people who want to work as one for the betterment of all. Self-reliance fosters self-determination and this is at the heart of economic reconciliation.

The National Aboriginal Economic Development Board produced its 2016 report, “Reconciliation: Growing Canada's Economy by $27.7. Billion”.

The board found that:

If Indigenous peoples had the same education and training as non-Indigenous peoples, the resulting increase in productivity would mean an additional $8.5 billion in income earned annually by the Indigenous population.

It went on:

If Indigenous peoples were given the same access to economic opportunities available to other Canadians, the resulting increase in employment would result in an additional $6.9 billion per year in employment income and approximately 135,000 newly employed Indigenous people.

If the poverty rates among Indigenous Peoples were reduced, the fiscal costs associated with supporting people living in poverty, would decline by an estimated $8.4 billion annually.

Overall, if the gap in opportunities for Indigenous communities across Canada were closed, it would result in an increase in GDP of $27.7 billion annually or a boost of about 1.5% to Canada's economy.

If we want to have true reconciliation, we must have economic reconciliation. It is good for indigenous communities. It is good for local municipalities and it is good for the Canadian economy.

The $6 billion, 670-kilometre Coastal GasLink pipeline, which received approval from the province, the 20 first nations band councils, including five of the six band councils in the Wet'suwet'en nation, is about economic reconciliation. It is ultimately about a shared future, one where government-to-government co-operation benefits all Canadians, both indigenous and non-indigenous.

Bonnie George, a Wet'suwet'en woman, who has been ridiculed and called a traitor, maintains an enlightened view of the world. When asked about how the police and governments were handling this situation, she said:

The authorities, they're just like the rest of us. They have a job to fulfil. They have an injunction in front of them that they have to enforce and they did all possible, you know, to try to de-escalate.

She went on:

As a Wet'suwet'en person, it is really disheartening to see all of this unravel as it has, because our people—our hereditary chiefs and our elders in the past—they've always had discussions.

Let us allow Canadians to get back to work, allow the goods that Canadians need to ensure their health and safety flow and our railways are going, our borders are safe, then, with earnest and swift resolve, meet with the Wet'suwet'en people and take the time to hear and see and to put ourselves in their position.

[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, what we have seen is a different way of approaching this critically important issue. Parties inside the chamber, the governing Liberals, the Bloc, the NDP or the Green, are saying de-escalation, try to work things through. Then we have the leader of the Conservatives saying, let us just instruct the RCMP to clear the barricades. That is if the Conservatives were in power. That caused a great deal of concern.

Would the member agree that whenever we take an action, especially of that nature in terms of what the leader of the Conservative Party recommended, there is a consequence to that action? That consequence could end up costing the economy a great deal more than what they are talking about today.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, we have to recognize that this situation did not happen overnight. This situation has been bubbling for a long time and has gotten progressively worse, especially in the last few weeks, and that is because of a lack of leadership by the Prime Minister to actually work with the community to get this fixed.

The second part of it is the fact that the left likes to lump everyone together. There are the Wet'suwet'en people who have disagreements among themselves, some with their hereditary chiefs, some with their elected councils, and there are traditional methods that they can use and should be using. I am sure they are going forward to work out those differences. However, what they do not seem to realize is that there are people who are glomming onto this situation who have no connection to the Wet'suwet'en and are just anti-energy activists who are bent on shutting down Canada's energy industry.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock is a good friend of mine and I appreciate his comments today.

As the member knows, I live in the Nuu-chah-nulth territory, and a very good friend of mine is the Tyee Ha’wilth of the Ahousaht Nation, which is the highest level chief. As established and proven in the court of law, affirmed by the Delgamuukw decision, they are the highest governing body in this land and certainly in our territory. They carry a huge amount of inherent responsibility where they have a duty to their ancestors. Their relationship goes back 17 generations, they have responsibility to their people in their territories today and, of course, to future generations to look after the land. Chief Maquinna often cites that he is responsible for certain valleys in his territory. He knows that people in the Wet'suwet'en territory have the same responsibility.

Does the member believe that the government should have the right to arrest hereditary chiefs who are defending their inherent right and responsibility in the valleys of the Wet'suwet'en territory?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's question from the NDP. I call him a friend, and I appreciate the work he does on behalf of his constituents.

As I mentioned in my last answer, the Wet'suwet'en people do have traditional methods that they use to work out conflicts. I encourage that and no one in this place, on this side of the House anyway, has stopped or discouraged that from happening.

There is also a difference between peaceful and illegal protests. However, what is happening here is that there are groups of people who are not associated with the Wet'suwet'en people who have glommed onto this cause, because they have another agenda, which is to shut down the Canadian energy industry. That is their goal and not lifting up the people of these indigenous communities who want responsible resource development as a way to be fiscally independent and prosperous.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, today we heard in question period moments ago a Liberal cabinet minister speaking about reconciliation for the benefit of all Canadians, or reconciliation for Canadians. However, what we have not seen is reconciliation for the Canadians who have been out there working and building this country.

Last night I took a call from a constituent of mine who is working in northern Alberta. He is a workplace safety coordinator and he is worried about the safety of the people he supervises, because they are so focused on losing their jobs and supporting their families that they cannot focus on the dangerous work that they are doing.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that type of reconciliation that is needed—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We only had enough time for a very brief question, and the member took up all the time.

I will allow a brief answer so that we can continue on with the debate.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend. We do need to have a fiscal conversation with the first nations communities, and that is on the sharing of resource development. As I have said many times, 20 out of 20 elected councils and chiefs support this. Let us move forward with it.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, we face a national crisis and we need strong leadership to address it. We have a natural gas pipeline project that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by displacing coal with cleaner natural gas. It will create jobs and opportunity and it has the support of all elected indigenous leaders in the area and a majority of the local hereditary chiefs.

A small minority of hereditary chiefs oppose the designated route for this project and so radical activists, many of whom are not indigenous, are using this issue as an excuse to shut down critical infrastructure and paralyze our national economy. These activists are operating openly under the banner Shut Down Canada, and they are succeeding to some extent. This is our winter of discontent.

These illegal blockades have forced massive job losses already and risk creating shortages of vital commodities in certain regions. There has also been tampering with rail lines, putting many people at risk. How bizarre that activists who claim to care about the environment are shutting down rail transport?

As the government fails to act, escalation continues. Escalation is the result of the messages that the government is sending that this kind of lawlessness is permissible. We have some members of this House who are explicitly celebrating these violent, illegal and dangerous protests. The longer this goes on, the more likely that we will see a repeat of these illegal blockades every time anyone tries to build anything.

We need a strong response from the government. We need the government to give policy direction to enforce the law. The government says it cannot direct the police force. Certainly it cannot direct operational aspects of its response, but it is the responsibility of an elected government in a democracy to give broad policy direction to our police. We accept, in many cases, that this kind of policy direction is right and necessary already.

In fact, the government is saying explicitly in this House that the police should not enforce the law. As such, the government is already giving policy direction. From my perspective, it is the wrong policy direction, but either way, I do not think here there is any serious dispute of the idea that civilian authority giving policy direction to police is legitimate. Indeed it is already happening. Civilian oversight of police is part of how democracy works.

Also in a democracy, the principle that justifies the use of force by police is the idea that police are there to protect society and law-abiding citizens, people who want to work and take the train to buy the things they need. The police have a moral obligation to protect law-abiding citizens by enforcing the law. There is a reasonable margin of discretion in enforcement, but if the police fail to enforce the law on a grand scale in a way that is injurious to the rights of law-abiding citizens, then they bring the law into disrepute and reintroduce a state of nature in which people feel they have no choice but to take the law into their own hands.

Conservatives' contention is that it is the obligation of the government and the police to ensure that the law is enforced. A failure to enforce the law leads to escalation as more and more people feel they do not have to respect the law. It then leads to a response from citizens and further chaos with devastating social and economic implications.

This present escalation is a national crisis and it requires real leadership. The Prime Minister's response to this crisis has been to emphasize dialogue in isolation. He talks about the need to understand the experience of people with different perspectives. I will make two specific points about dialogue. The first is about the right time and place for dialogue and the second is about the question of with whom the government should be undertaking dialogue.

Therefore, when is the right time and place for dialogue? It is critically important for all of us to seek to understand the experience and perspectives of different people. This is something I personally take very seriously. Over the Christmas break, I read Love & Courage, the NDP leader's book, which is by the way very good and very worth reading. I also read Common Ground, by Jonathan Kay. I read them both because I decided that it was important for me to understand the ideas and experience that influence the leaders of other parties.

In addition to reading and listening, after the appropriate period of proportionate deliberation, leaders must also have the capacity to take decisions in the public interest. There is a time for talk and there is a time for action. We must dialogue with people with whom we disagree, but we must also insist that we do not stand in the middle of railroad tracks in the process.

If a violent assailant came into my home to attack my family, I might be very curious to know his ideological motivation, whether he is motivated by some particular kind of violent extremism or reacting to violence he has experienced in his own life or something else. These would be interesting and perhaps important questions, but my first response to the violent assailant would obviously be to protect myself and my family.

When our vital national infrastructure is being violently blocked in violation of the rule of law and when rail tampering is not only endangering the economy but people's lives, then we must act to end the violence. We must dialogue, yes, but from a strong position of commitment to law and order. Dialogue and enforcement can happen concurrently on separate tracks, and not on train tracks.

Of greater importance is the question about with whom we should be dialoguing. There are large and complex issues involved in indigenous reconciliation, but these protests and the debate today are about a very specific issue: the development of the Coastal GasLink project.

All of the band councils impacted, and a majority of the hereditary chiefs, support the project. All of us in the House want to have a respectful, collaborative, serious and functioning nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples. In order for one nation to have a functioning relationship with another nation, each nation's representatives must know who the representatives of the other nation are and be able to talk to them.

When Canada and the U.S. negotiate on trade issues, for example, we need to know who speaks for the American people so that we can talk to them and negotiate with them. Of course, we recognize that a nation's decision-making structure can be complex, but to work together two nations need a process through which the right people can talk to each other about the right things.

In the case of our relationship with a nation like the United Kingdom, we understand that there is an elected leadership in the British House of Commons and a hereditary structure in the Royal Family.

Although we recognize the important role in the British constitution and in our own Constitution for this form of hereditary leadership, we still understand that any nation-to-nation dialogue involves the pursuit of agreement with the elected representatives of the British people. If Canada and the U.K. were to negotiate a free trade deal through their elected governments and Houses of Parliament and a member of the Royal Family decided that he or she did not like it, we would say that it is not necessarily for that person but it is rather for the elected representatives to speak on behalf of the nation.

Even if the present relationship of the Crown and Parliament was imposed through a Dutch colonial intervention in British affairs in 1688, it is still the law as it is.

This is what is required for a functioning nation-to-nation relationship. If we are to have a functioning nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous nations in Canada, then we must know who speaks for particular indigenous nations and who speaks for the Canadian government so that representatives for each side can dialogue and come to agreement. If we do not seek to identify who our dialogue partners are going to be, then we can never move forward together on anything.

I believe that while dialogue can happen between any groups of people, negotiation and a realization of agreements on behalf of a people are the responsibility of the elected representatives of that people. The idea that the elected representatives of a people speak for the people is not rooted in a particular cultural or intellectual tradition. Rather, it has come to be recognized as part of the body of universal human rights.

Article 21, subsection 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Similar UN declarations recognize the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions. Indeed, it is the right of indigenous peoples to maintain, develop or change their own models of government, but that is a right vested in the peoples of indigenous nations, not in their hereditary leaders.

I believe in the rights of indigenous peoples and all peoples to democratically elect their own leaders. It must be the decisions of elected indigenous leaders that carry the day.

There could certainly be a role for hereditary chiefs in a democratic system, just as our system has a role for hereditary leadership in the form of the Canadian Crown. However, it is the fundamental human right of people to choose to develop if they wish. Our dialogue about the development plans of particular nations needs to be with the elected representatives of those particular nations.

Members have rightly spoken about the horrific violations of fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples in the past, but those violations do not justify the violations today of the rights of indigenous people to democratic self-determination. Those who think that they can overrule the democratically expressed wishes of this indigenous nation are just as colonialist in their thinking as the colonizers of the past.

We cannot negotiate with people who do not speak for these communities about the future of these communities. We must dialogue with the right people. Solidarity with people who are vulnerable is important. Being in solidarity with someone, though, does not mean that we claim to speak for them. I have not spoken about whether this project should go ahead, simply that the will of the elected leadership must prevail.

One thing that I have heard often from other members that is quite offensive is the suggestion that indigenous people who support development are somehow only doing it because of the money.

That is ridiculous. Legislators of all backgrounds and at all levels generally support economic development in their communities because they want a bright and more prosperous future for their children and grandchildren. These are reasonable decisions for elected indigenous leaders to make, in view of the common good for the communities that they are elected to govern.

It is time that we clear the blockades and let the Wet’suwet’en people make their own choice.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I always respect my colleague's speeches.

He stated in his speech that he heard the government instruct the police, in this place, not to enforce the law. I have listened very carefully to the Minister of Public Safety, and I have listened very carefully to the other ministers who have spoken about this issue. Each and every one of them has said that the police have discretion in terms of what to do and that the government does not instruct the police on what to do.

Could he please tell us exactly which minister said that the police should not enforce the law, and at what time they said that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear about what I said. I was talking about how it is legitimate for the government to give broad policy direction to the police.

When the government says that the path forward is dialogue, when it says that it is not a good idea for blockades to be cleared, that is giving broad policy direction. It is something we hear over and over again from the government members.

The member is right to say that a minister has not gotten up and said, “I am saying that the police should, on this day, at this place, undertake such and such an action.” However, the government has expressed the way that it would like law enforcement to approach this issue in general.

We have said that it is appropriate for the government to express how it thinks these issues should be approached on a broad level of policy, and we have said that the policy direction that should be given is to enforce the law.

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

Madam Speaker, I live in a territory where the Nuu-chah-nulth have been in court with the Government of Canada. They won in the Supreme Court, and twice it was appealed by the government. They, again, won those appeals, which affirmed their right to catch and sell fish.

We have seen what has happened with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal when it comes to child welfare and the discriminatory practices of the government and its policies.

Again, I do not see the Conservatives there, defending the laws of this country, fighting for indigenous people when they win in court, the dozens and dozens of court cases that side with indigenous people, reaffirming their constitutional rights in this country. Here, today, they are saying they are standing up for indigenous communities. Where were they for the Nuu-chah-nulth people?

The member states that the government fails to enforce the law, or that it takes the law into its own hands, and that failure to enforce the law leads to escalation, social and economic unrest and challenges.

When do indigenous people start to take things into their own hands? When the government does not enforce its own laws and its own courts of this country. Maybe the member could enlighten us on that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about many issues that were different from the Coastal GasLink project. I agree with the member that there are many instances that need to be identified and discussed, instances of injustice against indigenous peoples, and of violation of fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples.

I made the very specific point in my remarks that one of the rights, which has in the past at times been denied to indigenous people, is the right to democratic self-determination. This means the choice to proceed or not proceed with certain development projects.

What we have before us right now is debate on a motion about a case in which the democratically elected representatives of an indigenous nation want to move forward with a project. In fact, all 20 affected nations want to move forward. Then there are radical activists, in a different province predominantly, who are opposed to that democratic decision by indigenous people.

This is one issue where I think we should be able to agree, that respecting indigenous rights means respecting the rights of those elected representatives. There are many other issues that we need to talk about. My speech was about this particular issue.

However, I agree with the member that more work needs to be done across a broad spectrum of issues on reconciliation. I look forward to working together on those issues.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Conservative member for the impetus taken in the debate. I listened to the rhapsodies from my colleague.

I have a simple question for the member. Not too long ago a convoy of trucks came to Ottawa because of the drivers' grievances. They felt they needed to be heard here. During that blockade, I was walking to the House. It could have been perceived that my parliamentary privilege was impeded because I could not actually get here. That is fine.

My question is, would he describe any of those grievances or that convoy as luxurious?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I quibble with a number of the facts, in terms of the way the member described those events.

If, during that day, somebody was violently preventing him from doing his job and from accessing Parliament Hill, I would say that would be very bad. If that had happened, the member should have contacted the appropriate authorities, and he should have raised a question of privilege in the House of Commons. My recollection is that he did not. If any protester representing any cause is disrupting members' access to their legislature, that protester is violating the law.

However, it is fairly common that we would allow marches to take place on the streets in front of Parliament. Those happen through a coordination with the police, and those happen with permission, from time to time. That is a completely different instance from somebody violently, in violation of the law, blockading our railway.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that when we indicate that it is a brief question and a brief answer, that it exactly should be a brief question and a brief answer.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mount Royal.

I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

The motion before us today addresses a pressing issue impacting communities across the country. The current situation is difficult for everyone: indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, impacted communities, businesses, workers and travellers. I believe there remains time for all parties to engage in open and respectful dialogue to ensure the situation is resolved peacefully.

For more than 150 years, indigenous peoples in Canada have faced systemic discrimination in every aspect of their lives. Canada has prevented a true equal partnership from developing with indigenous peoples, imposing instead a relationship based on colonial ways of thinking and doing, paternalism and control.

The relationship of the past has provided us with a legacy of devastation, pain and suffering. For decades, indigenous peoples have been calling on the Canadian government to respect their right to jurisdiction over their own affairs and to have control and agency over their land, housing, education, and child and family services.

This history and growing awareness was the genesis of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which enshrines the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination. Its 46 articles cover collective and individual rights on everything from cultural identity and education to language and health rights. It is a universal framework for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous people all over the world.

I am very proud this was endorsed by Canada without qualification in 2016 and I am proud our government has committed to developing legislation to fully and effectively implement this framework by the end of this year.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action describe the declaration as the framework for reconciliation. That is because the declaration, fundamentally, is about advancing self-determination and rebalancing the relationship between states and indigenous peoples.

This is just one step on the long path toward reconciliation our government is taking. We are working to build a new relationship with indigenous peoples grounded in the affirmation of these rights, in respect, in co-operation, in partnership and in the aim for a new legacy built on a solid foundation of self-determination that we can be proud of.

As the Minister of Indigenous Services stated, it is clear that self-determination is the right path to take. We are making progress from coast to coast to coast. We are doing the work.

Indigenous self-government is important. Self-governing indigenous peoples have better socio-economic outcomes. More of their children finish high school. Fewer of their people are unemployed and health outcomes are better.

Self-determination improves the health, well-being and prosperity of indigenous communities, and it benefits all Canadians. Conversations about self-determination and self-governance have never been more urgent, and steps are being taken to bring our country toward a future where indigenous peoples are the drivers of their own destinies and where the federal government is there to support them in any way they see fit.

It is a privilege to represent a riding that encompasses the territories of three first nations. We know that indigenizing our education systems empowers first nations, which is why the Ts'zil Learning Centre was the right step to help Lil'wat Nation thrive. Their learning philosophy is based in Lil'wat cultural renewal, holistic learning and personal growth. The learning centre is a potent example of what indigenous self-government looks like in education.

On the Sunshine Coast, the shíshálh Nation is leading the way. In 1986 they became the first band in Canada to achieve self-governance after a dialogue and partnership with the government that resulted in legislation being passed. They now hold elections, have control over their lands, administer services and share their culture with the community. They are excited to be embarking on a new, affordable housing project for their people. They also recently had their first election after making their election process even more inclusive.

There are mechanisms within our power in order to help first nations partners. We are taking steps in the right direction. One of these mechanisms is to have regular meetings between the Prime Minister, key cabinet ministers and first nations, Inuit and Métis nations. These meetings are to identify each community's distinct priorities and help the government and indigenous peoples work together to develop solutions.

These permanent bilateral mechanisms were created to better serve indigenous peoples engaged in the important work of advancing greater self-determination. They also enable Crown-indigenous co-operation in identifying priorities and developing policies. This important national work will reflect the diversity and unique priorities of first nations, Inuit and Métis in Canada.

Another vehicle for advancing self-determination is through the negotiation of new treaties, self-government and other constructive arrangements. In the last four years, the government has created 90 new negotiation tables, including with the Wet'suwet'en, and there are now more than 150 active negotiation tables across the country to advance the relationship with indigenous peoples and support the spirit of self-determination.

We have taken steps to ensure that indigenous partners can fully participate in these discussions and advance conversations that promote the rebuilding of their nations.

We are also making changes to how we support indigenous participation in these negotiations. For example, we stopped requiring groups to take loans to sit down with us, and we are in the process of forgiving and reimbursing about $1.4 billion of comprehensive land claim loan debt. More than $100 million is provided annually to support indigenous participation in negotiations and to enhance capacity.

Progress is being made at these tables.

I have spoken of a number of successes in self-determination and self-governance. What many of these successes have in common is that they were achieved through co-operation. They are based on listening to indigenous partners as they led us to discuss and codevelop solutions to the issues that are most important to their communities.

We can learn from that and to do so we need to understand that recognizing and affirming rights is a first step in finding a way forward. We need to support our indigenous partners to identify our challenges, and then we need to rise to them. We need to recognize that the most important actions that we can take are to listen to the hard truths, embrace change and welcome creative ideas.

We have all seen what happens when we do not come together to get the conversation going. It results in mistrust and confusion, which can be the root of conflicts. It is a barrier to moving forward together. We have seen that in the past. We must learn from those mistakes and make sure it does not happen again.

The Prime Minister noted that the issues we are facing were not created overnight. They were not created because we embarked upon a path of reconciliation recently in our history. It is because for too long and for too many years we failed to take this path. After all this time, finding a solution will not be simple.

It is up to the rights holders to determine who speaks on their behalf regarding their aboriginal rights and title. Our government is committed to dedicating effort to continue those conversations.

We here in the House do not speak for our indigenous partners, but I hope we can take part in speaking with them. Standing up for the empowerment of first nations peoples and for their freedom of speech and self-governance is a vital role of the government in this instance. Acknowledging all of these challenges, the hard work ahead of us is worth the effort.

It is worth it for the youth of the next generation and for the ones after that, who will grow up seeing the crown and indigenous peoples putting in the hard work, together, to invest in their future, improve their quality of life and heal.

It will take determination, persistence, patience and truth-telling. It will mean listening to and learning from indigenous partners, communities and youth, and acting decisively on what we have heard, building trust and healing. It will mean doing everything we can to support the inherent right to self-determination of indigenous peoples.

We are at a critical juncture in Canada. Canadians want to see indigenous rights honoured, and they are impatient for meaningful progress. They are counting on us to engage with indigenous leaders, communities and peoples to achieve lasting, long-term results. This is what our government is committed to.

We can, and we will, build a better Canada together, one in which healthy, prosperous, self-determining and self-governing indigenous nations are key partners.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the member talks about self-determination and empowerment in this chamber, which I believe is an example of that, 50% plus one means that a bill passes and a decision is made by the House. The Wet'suwet'en people, through 85% of a vote, determined that they wanted to have this pipeline. Now the lack of action by the government is disempowering those very people.

What does the member think about the action of his government in regard to self-determination and empowerment and is it actually doing that job or quite the contrary?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about self-determination of indigenous peoples, we need to keep in mind both the hereditary process and the colonial band councils that were put in place. We need to also be careful about who speaks for indigenous nations.

There are processes that need to happen internally within the nation to determine how they make decisions and how the reconciliation will happen between these levels of government. It is dangerous for the government to insert itself in that situation and, instead, should be there to support capacity building in those nations to make decisions on their own. That is what our government is committed to doing.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful speech.

He gave a lengthy explanation of everything the Liberal government has done in the past to promote reconciliation with indigenous peoples and how it will work in the future to improve its relationships with the Wet'suwet'en nation and all indigenous nations in Canada. However, we are in the middle of a crisis right now. The economy is paralyzed, trains are immobilized and the government is doing nothing.

I have a simple question for my colleague. What does he think of the Bloc Québécois's four-point plan to solve this crisis, specifically, suspend work on the pipeline, have the RCMP withdraw from the territory, replace the RCMP with an indigenous police force, and sit down and negotiate?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, we need to be a little careful about the level of direction the federal government has over the police force. This agency is contracted to the province and we do not direct it on what it should or should not do.

One of the measures I have been very encouraged to see is how all parties have been able to work together. In the meetings, the Liberals, the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens have come together about discussing solutions. Working together is where we are going to find—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

That is not all the parties. What about dialogue and listening to and respecting others?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is very hard for someone trying to put his point across to keep his mind on track when other people are trying to answer the question or asking other questions. I would ask that members respect those who have the floor.

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.