Debates of Nov. 29th, 2022

Motions in amendment

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg had quite a few questions within that, so I will try to address them in the time I have. To her point around the spending, I alluded to it in my speech. It is not necessarily about more or less, but about spending more efficiently and more effectively. When we have Parliamentary Budget Officer reports saying ISC is throwing money away and not actually achieving results for indigenous people, that is a concern.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to take the floor in the House and, today, I am doing so at the report stage of Bill C‑29.

As we all know, the adoption of this bill will allow for the establishment of an apolitical and permanent indigenous-led national council for reconciliation to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples in response to calls to action 53 to 56 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs studied Bill C‑29 and produced a report that includes the amendments made to the bill. These do not change the spirit and intent of the bill.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle underlying Bill C‑29, and will support its adoption in its current form, since, as I said in a speech here in the House last week, the Bloc Québécois is a vocal advocate for nation-to-nation relations between Quebec, Canada and first nations.

Giving indigenous peoples a stronger voice and allowing them to be heard in the reconciliation process is entirely in line with our position. As members know, the Bloc Québécois has always worked with indigenous nations at the federal level to strengthen and guarantee their inherent rights. It is also working to ensure that the federal government applies the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People in its entirety in its own jurisdictions.

The Bloc Québécois has also come out in support of indigenous nations receiving their due, and we will continue to apply pressure on the federal government to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

Lastly, let us not forget that, on June 21, 2021, the Bloc secured the unanimous passage of a motion to ensure that indigenous communities have all the resources needed to lift the veil on the historical reality of residential schools and to force the churches to open their archives. This bill is a step forward in this regard.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill follows up on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 53 to 56. As members will recall, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established through a legal agreement between residential school survivors, the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit representatives and those responsible for creating and running the schools, in other words, the federal government and church authorities.

It is important for us, here, to remember these calls to action, and that is why I am taking the liberty of reading them, as they are the reason for Bill C‑29. Call to action 53 reads:

We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal Peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation.

Call to action 54 reads:

We call upon the Government of Canada to provide multi-year funding for the National Council for Reconciliation to ensure that it has the financial, human, and technical resources required to conduct its work, including the endowment of a National Reconciliation Trust to advance the cause of reconciliation.

Call to action 55 reads:

We call upon all levels of government to provide annual reports or any current data requested by the National Council for Reconciliation so that it can report on the progress towards reconciliation....

Call to action 56 reads:

We call upon the Prime Minister of Canada to formally respond to the report of the National Council for Reconciliation by issuing an annual “State of Aboriginal Peoples” report, which would outline the government’s plans for advancing the cause of reconciliation.

Naturally, the Bloc Québécois is fully and firmly in favour of these calls to action, which is why we support this bill. We also support Bill C‑29 because of its major components, including the positive goal to establish a national council for reconciliation to advance efforts towards reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

Members will note one thing that keeps coming up in this bill, specifically all the entities that the national council for reconciliation will monitor and on which it will make recommendations.

We can see that the council's current purpose is to monitor the progress being made towards reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada and to recommend measures to promote, prioritize and coordinate efforts for reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada.

First, we need to understand what “all sectors of Canadian society” means.

I assume that all Canadian Crown corporations will be under the council's scrutiny, but that raises questions. Will the council also monitor and investigate federally regulated private businesses? Would an independent airline be included in the mandate to monitor and make recommendations?

The very broad scope the bill allows the council appears to give it great latitude in its activities, but that could also make it less effective when it could be focusing on government corporations and bodies rather than on private businesses. The government must set an example, so it is important to pay special attention to its entities.

The other element to look at is the monitoring of “all governments in Canada”. The intention is to monitor provincial and territorial governments. Although indigenous affairs fall under federal jurisdiction, first nations issues also relate to many areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as health and education. There seems to be a desire to disregard jurisdiction and allow the council to monitor all government activities in Canada.

I would remind members that the Public Inquiry Commission on relations between Indigenous Peoples and certain public services in Quebec, known as the Viens commission, was set up to determine the underlying causes of all forms of violence, discrimination and differential treatment towards Indigenous women and men in the delivery of certain public services in Quebec.

In his report, the commissioner issued 135 recommendations to the Government of Quebec. These calls to action apply to all of the services the government delivers to indigenous peoples, such as justice, correctional services, law enforcement, health, social services and youth protection.

In the interest of independent and impartial monitoring, the Quebec ombudsman was mandated to follow up on the implementation of the recommendations made by the Viens commission. The ombudsman has established an advisory committee comprising first nations and Inuit members to foster collaboration and ensure that the Viens commission’s calls to action are translated into measures that meet the needs of first nations and Inuit representatives.

Another committee, made up mainly of university researchers and representatives of civil society, was also set up to independently document the implementation of these calls to action. The committee, which was based out of the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, released its first report in 2021.

The national council for reconciliation is another body tasked with monitoring progress and making recommendations, in addition to the two similar bodies already at work in Quebec. It is worth asking whether there will again be overlap between their mandates or whether the council will focus on federal issues in Quebec, analyzing only issues that fall under federal jurisdiction. I certainly hope there will be no overlap.

Lastly, we know that the national council for reconciliation will have to conduct investigations, since its mandate is to monitor and make recommendations. That means it will need investigators and analysts. I would be curious to see the current forecasts concerning the number of employees the council will need in order to carry out its mission properly.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, when we look at the truth and reconciliation calls to action, there are several that touch on multiple jurisdictions, such as the need for us to do more around systemic racism within our justice systems, but also in systems that are largely provincial in jurisdiction, like education and health.

I wonder if the member opposite believes it is important for this independent committee to be able to look at some of the progress being made in education, especially by including indigenous nations regarding what happened in the residential schools and during some of the dark chapters in the history of this country.

Is it important that the national council of reconciliation not only look at the federal mandates under the calls to action, but also give assistance to the provinces in saying that these are some of the things that we would like to see from them as well?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

This bill was drafted as part of a legal agreement between residential school survivors, the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit representatives and those responsible for establishing and overseeing the schools, as I mentioned earlier. It is very important that the council have all the freedom it needs to demand that the needs of indigenous communities be met.

I agree with the hon. member's question, and I think the council will have to resolve this whole issue and look at what is happening in each province.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of working with my colleague from the Bloc previously on the indigenous and northern affairs committee. To that end, I want to talk a bit about the amendment that was put forward by the Liberal Party to remove the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples from having a seat on this council. The Conservatives proposed that initiative at committee and we had support from the NDP and the Bloc to include the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

How does the Bloc Québécois feel about the inclusion of the congress?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I do believe that all indigenous communities must have representation on this council, including the Inuit and the Cree. It is very important because there must be stability. This council will finally address certain issues that have been known for years and even centuries.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to ask the member about something she did not really talk about in her presentation and give her the time to tell the House what the 14 Inuit communities in her riding have said about Bill C-29.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

There are indeed Inuit communities in my riding, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. In fact, I recently went to Aupaluk in Nunavik. It is very important to the Inuit that this bill receive our support and be passed.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her work on this bill.

I would like her to clarify something for me. Often, in indigenous matters, we speak about communities and on behalf of communities, but they are not allowed to participate and to speak.

I would like her to reassure me that for the bill in question, we will not be “talking about” but “talking with” these communities.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I am very aware that far too often we do not listen to the communities enough. It is therefore important that this council listens to all the communities. It is not for us to make suggestions to them. They are the ones who need to suggest to us which avenues to take or decisions to make regarding the communities. I think this is an important aspect and it was mentioned at every stage of the Viens commission.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I thank my constituents in Nunavut who continue to reach out and give me encouragement in this work. The faith they give me drives my work and continued commitment to ensure that their voices are amplified in this place.

I speak passionately as an Inuk, and I am guided by the voices shared with me by first nations and Métis. I thank the many indigenous peoples in Canada to whom I dedicate this speech.

Inuit and first nations thrived on these lands we now call Canada for generations before the arrival of settlers. Métis have thrived in Canada. Much to the chagrin of settlers, Inuit, first nations and Métis still use our cultures, languages and practices.

Unfortunately, there are still far too many indigenous peoples whose experiences show the constant disparity between Canadians and indigenous peoples. In support of the need to pass Bill C-29, I share some of these disparities and some basic words that have such disparate treatments between most Canadians and indigenous peoples in Canada.

On reproductive care, most Canadian women get proper guidance, they easily talk about birth control and do not have to worry about their pregnancies. Indigenous women still experience unconsented sterilization, do not get proper birth control guidance and must worry about nutrition due to a lack of accessible nutritious food.

Most Canadian women give birth in places with which they are completely familiar, with doctors and nurses they recognize, and the comfort in knowing that the system will be ready for any urgent issue that may arise while giving birth. Some indigenous women must leave their home communities and travel thousands of kilometres to give birth a month in advance. The doctors and nurses are not indigenous, may not necessarily speak their language and they may worry that their newborn baby may be taken by social services.

Love for most Canadians can be unconditional. The love between generations provides the financial stability, educational goals and freedom to choose to transfer a property from one generation to the next. For too many indigenous peoples, love is short lived, tainted by intergenerational trauma and little to no guarantees about the financial security needed for the next generation.

Education for most Canadians is having one teacher preside over many children and youth. It is a system rooted in colonial history, with Canada's successes. While there have been improvements, it is still largely without the history of how indigenous peoples were treated by assimilationist policies, which are still plaguing indigenous peoples. For indigenous peoples, it was a process of genocide and indoctrination. Indigenous children were emotionally, physically and sexually abused by so-called teachers. Some children never returned to their indigenous parents. Instead, they were buried next to the school that was supposed to take the Indian out of the child.

The RCMP for most Canadians is an institution whose members they can recognize and call upon to be protected. For indigenous peoples, it is a current and ongoing enforcer of systemic racism. It is still very fresh in my mind when RCMP officers, who were equipped with assault weapons, helicopters, dogs and a chainsaw, were breaking down the doors of indigenous women who were seeking to defend their lands against the unconsented project to cross their ancestral lands. There is also a lack of presence in other places where gang violence and squatters are allowed on indigenous lands.

Violence, for most Canadians. are the things they watch on TV screens, in movie theatres or some far away social media. For most indigenous peoples, it is a common experience. From childhood to the dying days of elders, violence is surrounding our lives.

Justice, for most Canadians, occurs quite quickly. For indigenous peoples, it takes generations, if any. Justice has tests to meet to determine if it is justifiably infringed. Justice for indigenous peoples will continue in jails and in gravesites.

Missing and murdered, for most Canadians, are terms they hear in the media about indigenous women. For indigenous families, it is a far too common experience. Reports after reports are not making the systemic changes to stop this genocide. There are far too many basic emotions to express all the heartache experienced by indigenous peoples.

Crisis is another word we hear all too often in the House. First nations, Métis and Inuit have been experiencing crisis for generations. Let us choose to be more careful when we use the word crisis in the House.

Suicide is something that has been a reality for far too long in Canada. For most Canadians, it is a debate on legislation that allows people who are suffering medical conditions to choose. Suicide, for indigenous communities, is something chosen by youth because they have no hope left. I am still hurt, and it is still very fresh in my mind, about the young pregnant woman who committed suicide because she was given the news that she would not have a home.

Reconciliation, for most Canadians, is a term on which the federal government needs to act. There is no sense of obligation for regular Canadians. It is a term used by politicians to make promises during campaigns. It is a term that costs too much, so the piecemeal approach is often taken.

I have not even mentioned the environment, housing, culture, languages and so much more. These disparities demand that the national council for reconciliation finally be established. I thank the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which heard and voiced such important calls to action. The national council on reconciliation must take a rights-based approach to monitoring the work of the government, whose side of reconciliation has failed for generations to date.

I conclude by sharing names of some indigenous role models who have proven indigenous peoples are vibrant, strong and vital to the continued success of indigenous peoples. These people are leaders and voices we must continue to amplify as they are the ones who have advanced reconciliation, whether they tried to or not.

This is an incomplete list and I challenge members to name more: Governor General Mary Simon, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Okalik Eegeesiak, Dalee Sambo Dorough, Cindy Blackstock, the member for Winnipeg Centre, Justice Murray Sinclair, John Amagoalik, Tagak Curley, former member of Parliament Romeo Saganash, John Borrows, Tracey Lindberg, Duncan McCue, Pam Palmeter and James Eetoolook. I know this is not an exhaustive list in any way.

We must all do what we can to ensure the national council on reconciliation is established. Through the great work of the interim board, we will see the advancement of indigenous peoples' rights, the advancement of self-determination and the expectation that the federal government does better to support the work of indigenous peoples in Canada.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her work on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, or INAN. Her insights have been tremendously helpful for me and the rest of the committee.

I thought there was really good collaboration happening there between all parties to strengthen this bill. In fact, there are two specific sections I would like her to speak to.

A lot of the testimony that we heard at INAN was to make sure that we ensured gender parity and that we made sure that we were not only looking to the calls to action as part of the national council for reconciliation but also had our eye on the calls to justice for murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. There was also an amendment to ensure that there is effective representation from northern indigenous communities.

I am wondering if the member opposite could speak to what she heard and what the important parts were in amending this to reflect not only looking at the calls to justice for missing and murdered indigenous women but also representation for indigenous people from the north.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, indeed, the bulk of our conversations at INAN on this work was very much about representation and making sure that we do ensure indigenous women are better represented in the board, given that a lot of the issues indigenous peoples experience should centre around solutions and the need for reconciliation to better meet the needs of indigenous peoples.

I was absolutely happy to support the motion to make sure that northern territories are represented on this board as well. Given our fewer populations in the north, we do need to ensure that our northern territories' voices are amplified.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Nunavut touched on a number of very important issues. I really appreciate the passion she brings to this place. She really speaks from the heart on a lot of these issues. I have had the pleasure of working with her on the indigenous and northern affairs committee, as the parliamentary secretary has as well.

A lot of the issues that are experienced in the northern part of my riding of Kenora are experienced similarly and, in many ways, are exacerbated and quite more severe in the hon. member's riding. I want to ask particularly about food security. The government has spent more on the nutrition north subsidy every single year it has been in office, but we have seen rates of food insecurity continuing to increase.

I am wondering if the member has any thoughts on how to improve the nutrition north program, or perhaps bring in other methods, to ensure that everyone across the north can have access to healthy, affordable and culturally appropriate food.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, it is an important question. While off topic, it is still quite important.

The biggest change that needs to happen in the nutrition north program is that the government needs to do better in monitoring what is going on with the program. Currently, the way it is operated is that the government allows the for-profit corporations to monitor their own program. There is no external review of what is going on. The for-profit corporations are allowed to continue to profit off of these subsidies.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. She is a unique voice in the House. I always like to hear her talk. What she said is particularly relevant this morning, as we study this bill.

I feel very helpless faced with all the truth and reconciliation issues in this country. An article in yesterday's Le Soleil reported that indigenous women and girls are still undergoing forced sterilization in northern Quebec. That is appalling.

In the last budget, the government announced a $300‑million investment in indigenous housing. We know that nothing has been done yet. Things are moving very slowly.

This morning we will be voting on this bill, and we agree with its purpose, which is to establish a committee.

However, beyond this bill, what would my colleague recommend as a way to make everything move faster, to ensure that this discussion between Canadians and indigenous peoples leads to real solutions so that we can get out of this cycle of discussing the same thing over and over?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member's question is important. I am very glad that the federal government has acknowledged that there is systemic racism. We now need to make sure that all provinces and territories acknowledge the existence of systemic racism because continuing to deny the existence of systemic racism will not allow solutions to emerge.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to add a couple thoughts. When the member makes reference to names, I think of individuals such as Diane Redsky, Sharon Redsky, Cindy Woodhouse and Amy Chartrand.

These individuals have committed so much of their lives and efforts toward indigenous people on the issue of reconciliation in a real way. There are obviously many others. I am referring just to Winnipeg North, and it is a relatively small number of individuals that I could recognize.

I would like to pay a compliment to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on how effective he has been as an indigenous caucus chair. He has provided advice to the Prime Minister and to members of Parliament, such as myself. He has provided us very valuable information to ensure we continue to be on the right track.

Back in 2015, when the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberal Party in third-party status, the 94 calls to action were tabled here. The then leader of the Liberal Party made a solemn commitment to indigenous people from coast to coast to coast, and beyond, to implement and work toward getting all 94 calls to action moving in a positive direction.

Upon the election results later that year, we made it very clear that our priority was indigenous reconciliation. That was something that was not optional. If one were to check the mandate letters provided to ministers, they would see a very clear indication on indigenous people. This is something that is of a strong personal nature for our Prime Minister. It has been a priority for our entire caucus, with the guidance of individuals like our Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

If we look at budgetary measures or legislative measures, virtually from day one to today, we will see calls to action being responded to in a tangible way. We hear some members of Parliament say we are spending too much, implying there is too much waste. Others will say we are not spending enough.

What is clear is that we have never before seen a government invest so much in financial resources, and other resources, to deal with truth and reconciliation and justice for indigenous people in Canada. There should be no doubt about that.

When I was in opposition, I on occasion made reference to the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls from indigenous communities. That is an issue I recall asking for a public inquiry on. That was before the calls to action.

I would like to read call to action 41. It states:

We call upon the federal government, in consultation with Aboriginal organizations, to appoint a public inquiry into the causes of, and remedies for, the disproportionate victimization of Aboriginal women and girls. The inquiry’s mandate would include:

(i) Investigation into missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls

(ii) Links to the intergenerational legacy of residential schools.

I raise that because one of the very first actions of this government was to call for the public inquiry. We have many actions being requested of the government that have come out of that public inquiry.

Fast-forward to today, and we are talking about Bill C-29. If we look at what Bill C-29 is all about, let there be no doubt that it is specifically in response to calls to action 53, 54, 55 and 56. Call to action 53 states:

We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal Peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation. The legislation would establish the council as an independent, national, oversight body with membership jointly appointed by the Government of Canada and national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members. Its mandate would include, but not be limited to, the following....

Call to action 53 then goes on to list five points.

Call to action 54 states:

We call upon the Government of Canada to provide multi-year funding for the National Council for Reconciliation to ensure that it has the financial, human, and technical resources required to conduct its work, including the endowment of a National Reconciliation Trust to advance the cause of reconciliation.

Call to action 55 states, in part:

We call upon all levels of government to provide annual reports or any current data requested by the National Council for Reconciliation so that it can report on the progress towards reconciliation. The reports or data would include, but not be limited to....

It then lists two items.

Finally, call to action 56 states:

We call upon the prime minister of Canada to formally respond to the report of the National Council for Reconciliation by issuing an annual “State of Aboriginal Peoples” report, which would outline the government’s plans for advancing the cause of reconciliation.

Those four calls to action are in this legislation, in the amendments that were brought forward. I highlighted call to action 41, which we took action on immediately after we became government back in 2015, and today we are debating those four calls to action.

It is not only budgetary and legislative measures that the government makes on a daily basis. If we focus our attention strictly on truth and reconciliation, we can talk about not millions, but billions of dollars that the government has allocated in working in partnership with indigenous people, whether it is on issues such as systemic racism, health care, housing and so much more.

In terms of legislation, we can talk about enactments to support indigenous child welfare. We can talk about legislation to support indigenous language. We can talk about Bill C-15, the UNDRIP legislation that was brought forward. What about the statutory holiday that was brought forward in legislation? There is legislation dealing with the oath of citizenship. When we hear that every child matters, calls to action 72 to 76 are ongoing. We can talk about the lobbying that took place and call to action 58, which was the formal apology from the Pope here in Canada.

If we look at the 94 calls to action in total, well over 80% of them have been acted on in one form or another, and many of them have been completed. It is important to recognize that, as a national government, where we have responsibility, we act on it. That is a commitment that the Prime Minister and Liberal Party made before we formed government, and now that we have the reins of government, we are implementing these calls to action because it is the right thing to do.

I recognize there is a lot more that needs to be done. I suspect if we were to check with the Prime Minister, cabinet or any individual member of the Liberal caucus, we would find the same sentiment.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member intently as he literally read calls to action 53 to 56.

My question for the member would simply be as follows. He did refer to the legislation with amendments, so that is fair, but my challenge would be as follows. If we look at the calls to action 53, 55 and 56, the spirit and intent of those calls to action were not met in the original draft of this legislation. Without Conservative amendments proposed at committee, the spirit of those calls to action would have been failed.

I will give an example. Call to action 53 was supposed to be an independent body, and if we read the draft legislation, independence was not met in the sense of governance. The minister had total control over how the board was structured and how the organization was set up. He had total control over the information that was going to be set up in a protocol.

Finally, call to action 55 was about measurables. There were no measurables in this bill until we proposed an amendment. The member referred to call to action 56, where the Prime Minister was to respond, and in the legislation it was the minister—

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

We have to give the hon. parliamentary secretary the opportunity to comment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is one of the nice things we have as parliamentarians, in terms of a process. We have the second reading stage followed by the committee stage.

There is a lot of fine work done at the committee stage. That is why members will often find I am anxious to get bills into the committee stage. Where we have a sense of openness, we will see amendments brought forward that would make the legislation even better in terms of, as the member puts it, reflecting the actual intent of the calls for action.

I suspect that is why we are going to see the amendments pass.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Winnipeg North.

The Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of Bill C‑29 and is a strong supporter of nation-to-nation relations with the first peoples.

My colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned that there is still a lot to do. Yes, there is still a lot to do for there to be true reconciliation with first nations. I am referring to the Indian Act, a racist, colonial and discriminatory piece of legislation. The Minister of Indigenous Services has said that it is unacceptable legislation, that it needs to be eliminated. For that to happen, we will need to replace it.

I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to tell us when his government will take concrete action to change the Indian Act to ensure that we can have true reconciliation with first nations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that is one of the reasons we saw such unanimous support in regard to Bill C-15, which passed not that long ago, dealing with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

That is something all of us could take a great of credit for, sharing, promoting and encouraging what UNDRIP is all about.

I represent an area in Winnipeg North that has one of the higher per capita populations of indigenous people. I have a very good understanding of many different related issues. Like many others in this House, I want to make a positive difference on reconciliation. That is why I often comment on the issue of reconciliation and just how important it is for us as a nation.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, in addition to having one of the largest indigenous populations of our relatives in Winnipeg North, the member's riding is also home to one of the largest apprehension rates from Child and Family Services in Canada. In addition, this is a member of the government.

However, do not take it from me, take it from a previous auditor general, who said in 2011, at the end of her mandate, that she was not impressed. After 10 years of audits, it was simply unacceptable. The auditor general after that said it was more unacceptable.

The current Auditor General's report, which was just recently published, says that the government is failing to put the interests of first nations at the heart of its mandate.

When will the government truly take indigenous issues seriously? The government has had seven years. We cannot wait. When?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in my final days as an MLA, before I became a member of Parliament, I released in the Manitoba legislature a condemnation from a child advocate, saying that Manitoba had a child care crisis.

The NDP failed the children of the province of Manitoba in the managing of children, foster children. That is one of the reasons I was in wholehearted support of the legislation we came up with to deal with indigenous-led child welfare. I believe that will make a positive difference because, in good part, of the failure of the Gary Doer regime back a number of years ago.