Debates of Feb. 12th, 2024

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to remind the member that the bill speaks to requiring the national council for reconciliation to have a minimum of nine members and a maximum of 13. Just because it names four organizations does not mean it excludes others from becoming board members.

Does the member agree that there is nothing in this legislation stating that CAP shall not be a member of the national council for reconciliation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's work on committee. She is correct: There is nothing really saying that CAP cannot be on this board. The point is that there were spaces set aside for ITK, MNC, the AFN and the Native Women's Association of Canada, NWAC, for guaranteed spots on this panel. The point that we are trying to make is that, with respect to first nations, for sure, the vast majority live off reserve. CAP is a group that represents not only off-reserve indigenous peoples but also Métis and other indigenous peoples. Therefore, we have a governing body that represents so many voices that may or may not be guaranteed a seat on that committee. With respect to the structure, and this is the overarching body, it is important to have those voices on this board. Our point was that they should be included, not excluded.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague across the way. I have enjoyed my time in committee with him. I am a little disappointed that his speech was verbatim from what appears to be a Conservative staffer, because there were a few things written in there that he may want to reflect on. If I understood correctly, there was reference to aggressive questioning at committee by members on the Liberal and New Democrat side. In his speech, the member referred to obstruction or interference with economic reconciliation; phrasing it as a question, he asked what they do not like about allowing indigenous people to be creators of their own destiny.

I note that, on that committee, which I am proud to sit on, the member for Nunavut, the member for Northwest Territories and the member for Sydney—Victoria are all indigenous. I just want the member to clarify: Is he suggesting that the three indigenous members of the committee are interfering with the ability of their people to create their own destiny?

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

Mr. Speaker, the point was that the government itself is creating policies that prohibit or severely stunt the growth of the oil and gas sector and even the mining industry and lumber, our natural resources. A lot of these are on first nations land and have the ability to create wealth in those communities, with jobs and opportunity. Bills such as Bill C-69 and others are hampering that growth. The government is using policies behind the scenes to stop investors from investing in the first place and creating jobs, opportunity and wealth there. This is creating the continued dependence on the government for handouts, in the form of program funding, that I am talking about.

When they do have a project, they have the resources leaving the community; the community then has to turn around and go to Ottawa to ask for them back. We think that system is broken, and the status quo is not working. We think there is actually a better way, which is listening to first nations themselves and these leaders in the community, such as the First Nations Tax Commission, the First Nations Financial Management Board and many others. They are doing amazing work, and they want to change how the status quo operates. That is what we support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague's passionate speech here, as well as that of my colleague across the way, and I have a question.

Where will the funding for this national council for reconciliation come from? There were some figures provided in 2019, but now we are talking about adding investigators, monitoring and recommending measures. Where will this budget come from? The bill does not mention that.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not actually sure. The member is right; the bill does not mention that. That is one of the many questions we had in committee with respect to this piece of legislation. We tried our best to bring it up. As I said, there were lots of voices in committee that talked about putting a reserved seat for an organization that focused on economic reconciliation for indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, that did not go through, but I still think the point is the same. It is important to have that lens when we are talking about reconciliation. Otherwise, we still have this broken system that is failing indigenous people, and it is time to change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech and his excellent work. I want to ask him a question about economic reconciliation as it relates to procurement. One of the ways we advance economic reconciliation is that we seek to ensure that government procurement is available to indigenous-owned businesses as well as to businesses owned by other historically disadvantaged communities, and that there are not aspects of the procurement system that are excluding people who have been historically disadvantaged.

One of the problems we have seen as we have unravelled the Auditor General's arrive scam report is that there are systems built into government procurement that are designed to advantage incumbent players; that is, someone has to have had a certain number of contracts with the Government of Canada already. This means that if someone has not dealt with the government before, has started a new business or has had other governments as clients but has have never sold products to the federal government before, they are systematically disadvantaged.

In the past, I have heard from stakeholders asking, for example, why we are not meeting our targets in terms of indigenous-owned businesses' getting government procurement. We then find out, in the context of the procurement ombudsman's report, that one of the reasons is probably that there is a systematic advantage, as a result of the way the system is designed, that steers toward incumbent players and insiders, even if other people have innovative ideas.

I would be curious to have the member's thoughts on how we can advance economic reconciliation by addressing some of the issues in the arrive scam scandal, and more broadly, on what prevents new entrants from participating in government procurement.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Alberta has a great question and a great point. We, as a party, believe in reducing and eliminating these barriers to entry and to competition, but the people who believe in big government quite enjoy these barriers. There are big companies, and the government department has to deal with only a few of them. This is why economic reconciliation is so important.

When we are creating jobs, opportunity and wealth, other businesses will spark up. As long as we create the environment for them to do so and create the entry to the marketplace by reducing barriers, there will be opportunity and jobs sparking up in oil and gas, lumber, and mining. There are many opportunities here in Canada. We just have handcuffed ourselves to the point where for businesses, unless they are big players, as my friend mentioned, it is very difficult to get into the field. Abundance equals peace; let us have more jobs, opportunity and wealth for all.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his dedication to advancing reconciliation in all ways as he moves forward.

Could he talk more about the innate nature of economic reconciliation and what it means for indigenous people he discusses with?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake for her leadership on this very important file. It has been great serving with her on the committee the last few weeks, and I appreciate her views.

She points out something really important. Even in my speech I mentioned the fact that indigenous peoples are then able, with the wealth and the revenue stream, to create their own paths and not have to ask Ottawa for permission to do so. That is the way it should be.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is such an honour to rise today to talk about Bill C-29. I want to let the House know that the NDP wants the bill to pass. I am always very honoured to work with my good colleague, the member for Nunavut. She has put a lot of effort in to amend the legislation to make it much stronger.

If we want to reconcile in this country, we must focus on children and families. I say that because I want to go back to why we have to have these discussions in the House to begin with; it is for the country to try to reconcile, as was affirmed in the Haida Nation case, the sovereignty of indigenous people with the assumed sovereignty of the Crown. I share that because it was an assumed sovereignty that began a violent genocide of indigenous people in Canada, which began with the dispossession of lands and led to the dispossession and kidnapping of our children and taking them off to resident schools, where they experienced all kinds of abuses.

It is important to note that, as we sit here in the House debating the bill before us, there are more kids now in the child welfare system than there were at the height of residential schools. We will not reconcile in this country until all governments make a concerted effort to bring our kids home. However, I worked on the legislation in committee making amendments, and that does not happen in real time, even though in the last session the Liberal government passed Bill C-15.

I would like to read article 5 of Bill C-15, under the title “Consistency”. It says, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” I share that because at every turn on matters impacting children, the Liberal government continues to not support the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people to make decisions about our own children. I will give an example: The national child care strategy, until the NDP amendment, did not support the inclusion of honouring the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples to make decisions on matters impacting our children.

Why is this significant? First, it is because the government is now obliged to ensure that all legislation is compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Second, it is because one of the most serious violations that has reverberated in our communities and has had lasting impacts is when they robbed us of our children and shipped them off to residential schools. I have said in speeches before that, as a mother, I cannot even imagine the pain that reverberated in our communities when those communities fell silent each September when they stole our children, many of whom never returned home.

I share that because every day, even now, there is a growing movement of residential school denialism, where survivors and descendants have to confirm the fact that genocide did occur in residential schools and that many of our children did not in fact return home but are buried around schools around the country. What school needs a graveyard? What school is built with a graveyard attached?

There was nothing about the residential schools that was about education. I say that because although the government talks a good game of reconciliation, and although it passed Bill C-15 in the last Parliament, it is one thing to pass a bill but another thing to change colonial behaviour, a tradition of colonial violence in this place. That includes something I had to experience today, having the member for Winnipeg North lecture me about the dark cloud I place on this place when I talk about the ongoing genocide of indigenous women and girls, and when I complain about the fact that the government has not moved fast enough around the crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will continue to listen to what she is saying, but I did not attribute anything to the specific member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has risen on a point of order that is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. If he thinks that the member is mistaken in some substantive point she made in her speech, the appropriate time to raise that would be during questions and comments. We should not be using points of order to make points of argument.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

That is noted.

I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre's very poignant speech, but the hon. member for Windsor West is rising on a point of order.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was here at that time, and one could feel it.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

That is not a point of order.

I would like the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre to please continue.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am just pointing out that the member did mention Winnipeg Centre. I assumed the comments were made toward me when he said my riding, but let us leave that.

Going back to what I was saying, the fact that he felt a need to defend himself in the middle of my speech is another example of what I had requested in my point of order, which was for him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to leave his white male privilege at the door and not to tell indigenous women what to talk about when they are talking about indigenous kids.

We are here today because of the violent kidnapping of our kids, which has had lasting impacts on our families. It goes back to the dark cloud our parents and families felt when they robbed our kids, leaving our communities silent. Can members imagine being in a community without laughter and without play? I cannot imagine that and not to have the privilege of being able to raise my son. For no reason other than who I am and where I was born, the government is able to steal my child and to have that legislated. That is why these amendments are so critical to legislation if we are going to reconcile and to honour this new bill, Bill C-29. That is why amending legislation so it is compatible, especially on matters impacting our children, is so critical. I would argue, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the government violating its own law and its own constitution by not ensuring legislation is compatible with Bill C-15, as we saw with the child care legislation in the last session that we managed to get through committee.

Now the government is going against amendments to make the legislation compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and is trying to overturn it in the House. If the Liberal government is not willing to give our kids back when we have more kids in child welfare than we did at the height of residential schools and when we know that 90% of kids in care are indigenous and that all this new adoptive care legislation will probably not apply to 90% of parents, which once again will leave the financial burden on families to care for their children, then the government is not ready to reconcile.

The government took over 13 non-compliance orders in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling to let them know that it was intentionally racially discriminating against indigenous and first nations kids on reserve on matters impacting child welfare. It finally came up with a settlement that was $17 billion less than what was ordered by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling. Then, I have to listen to the government talk all the time about how it wants reconciliation, when we constantly have to fight for the fact that our kids deserve the same as other kids in the country, and I have to go to committee and fight for the EI legislation.

I would like to, once again, read to the House the amendment that would allow us to uphold Canadian law and that was passed at committee, even though the Liberal members abstained from the vote and outright voted against it during the national child care legislation. They are now trying to overturn it in the House because it was passed at committee.

I will read the amendment, which states:

For greater certainty, in this Part, a reference to the placement of one or more children with a claimant for the purpose of adoption includes a situation in which one or more Indigenous children are placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the Indigenous group, community or people to which they belong, with a claimant, other than their parent, for the purpose of giving the claimant primary responsibility for providing their day-to-day care.

I will refer to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the NDP's attempt to make this legislation compatible. It says:

Article 19

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Article 20

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.

2. Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress.

That would include equal benefits under EI.

It goes on to state:

Article 21

1. Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.

2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.

Once again, like The Twilight Zone, I am here fighting to bring our kids home. I am here having to plead with the government as to whether it is really ready to reconcile or not. I have been told there is a bill, Bill C-54, that the government will put forward and that it wants to consult with indigenous people. My reply is for the government to find me one indigenous person who would argue against the right for them to raise their children in their own traditions and customs. The kinds of things we have to consult on, basic human rights, being used as a stalling mechanism is another form of institutional racism. I will provide a couple of examples.

How do indigenous people feel about clean drinking water? Let us consult on that for four years. How do indigenous people feel about toilets and how fire trucks are going to get to their communities so their houses do not burn down? The government asks them to say how they feel about that. Find me one indigenous person who feels they need to consult about human rights and life and death matters at every turn. I can provide a whole list. I can give an encyclopedia of them, in fact. I can point out the Indian Act that the government developed without the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples.

I can name a million resource extraction projects where militarized police are smashing in the doors of indigenous women, being called out by the United Nations where there was no consultation, yet when we ask to bring our kids home, when we say we want to uphold Canadian law so this new legislation is aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, something the government is obliged to do, what does it say? It thanks me for my work and says it needs to consult on it.

What do I call that? I call it systemic racism. What do I call child welfare? I call it a pipeline to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. What do I call that? A pipeline to the justice system. What do I call the sixties scoop? I call it a loss of identity, the disruption of our families that we will never get back and the ongoing genocide of our families.

This is shameful, and I am going to call out this shame unapologetically, because it is time for all governments, without excuse, to bring our kids home, period. It is time for our kids and our families to get the same resources that are afforded to other families in this country.

Do you know what I think the problem is, Mr. Speaker? I am going to be fully transparent here. It is money. Because 90% of kids in care are indigenous, the government is going to fight it every step of the way, like it did the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Do you know what that tells me? It tells me that we are less than, still, in this country. Our kids are not as valuable. Our women and our 2SLGBTQIA+ people will continue to go missing and be murdered. Why? It is because the government has completed zero calls for justice in 2023.

They finished 13 altogether out of the 81 that they are responsible for as the federal government, yet I had to hear a speech about the dark cloud that I place over their heads. I will tell you something. I will tell you a dark cloud.

I have a friend whose loved one was just murdered in an incident involving grotesque police brutality. That is a dark cloud. That is called systemic racism.

If that is dark, if people say, “Oh, you want your clip, Leah. There, you got your clip, I heard,” and if that is what they think it is about, I do not care. We are going to bring our kids home, and I am going to fight this government or any other government that comes in its place to give us the resources we need to bring our kids home.

I will not be questioned by a member whose riding has the highest number of kids in care in the whole country, justifying and celebrating how well his government is doing, when I am now, once again, fighting his government so that our families do not have to live in poverty. That is disgusting, and it is racist.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a bit about the Indian Act. That word itself is a violent, racist word that harkens back to an extremely violent colonial history. The previous name was even more repugnant, if such a thing is possible. The current Indian Act is an amendment to an old law whose name I would not even dare utter.

What does my colleague think about the fact that today, in 2024, a supposedly modern and contemporary country that claims to be open, multicultural and progressive can still have a law called the Indian Act?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we passed legislation in the last Parliament. In fact, I worked with the current Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, amending it, putting this bill forward. We have something, in fact. It is not a lack of legislation. It is now a fact of pushing for a change of colonial behaviour.

We have the TRC's 94 calls to action. We have the 231 calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which provide a framework and a path forward.

We have legislation, Bill C-15, to make sure any legislation going forward respects the human rights of indigenous peoples, because we know, globally, that we needed a declaration because there has been a universal, global violation of the human rights of indigenous peoples throughout the globe.

I am just heeding the government's call to act on the very legislation that it supported.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask this member a specific question about anti-indigenous violence and reconciliation. One of the sad, continuing examples of anti-indigenous violence that we have seen in this country has been a series of attacks on churches in indigenous communities. Many churches in indigenous communities, sacred spaces for indigenous Christians, steeped in personal and familial traditions and sometimes containing important community records, have been vandalized or burned down. These acts of arson are not just damaging to property; they are also very dangerous to human life. I have noticed that we have not heard anything from the NDP on these incidents.

Will the hon. member join me in condemning these attacks on churches that we have seen in indigenous communities?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am kind of concerned with this question, because there seems to be a presumption of who has done it. I am not sure who is burning the churches and why the member is relating it to this speech, but is he insinuating that it is indigenous people? Does he have proof of that? If he does not, I would say that is a stereotype. I would also call that racist. I would first ask the member if he had proof, and then I would be willing to discuss it, because without knowing what the answer is, it is really hard for me to answer what the root of that issue is.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention in today's debate and for making it relevant in so many ways, not only to the history but to the future.

My question to the member is about the future. She mentioned residential schools, in particular, and finding gravesites. The reality is that there is so much more work to do, and I would like to know from her a recommendation of what we can do to kind of get past that or at least acknowledge it. A school should not have a record of youth being buried at it.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not about getting past it. History is important, but I would say that this history continues with the child welfare system, and it is about justice. We cannot get past things when things are still in our way that impact our ability to receive justice. For example, the fact is that we still have a crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. Where is the justice?

We need to implement those 81 calls to action specifically, and I would call for all of them, but specifically the 81 still tasked to the federal government to complete. We need to not just read and talk about reconciliation, but implement and lift up the 92 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We need to ensure that all legislation is compatible with Bill C-15, especially on matters impacting our kids. Ninety per cent of kids in care are indigenous. Do members know why? It is because of the “inter-generational impact of colonization”, most specifically residential schools.

This government has to allow this amendment to go through. It has to if it is serious about reconciliation.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the conversation about missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. I know that, right now, it is an area particularly being highlighted. There is work that we have been doing for the last several years in order to get both the calls for justice as well as the implementation. However, the member mentioned 81 items that are still outstanding from a federal perspective. I wonder if she could talk about how the Red Dress Alert, for example, is part of that, because it is one of the things that she had advocated for for many years.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with the minister very much on the Red Dress Alert. I have to say that I have appreciated, since he has been appointed, that in very short order he has actually pushed things forward. That is reconciliation to me. That is justice.

The Red Dress Alert will save lives. However, it needs to be implemented. We have had a number of consultations to date, and we need to get it implemented in short order. We know that it is a crisis. Through the consultations, we found that there is wide support in figuring out what it is going to look like, but the sooner we get it in place, the sooner we will save lives.

Again, we should never have to use a Red Dress Alert. We need to deal with the root causes so that we do not even have to use the system. However, right now, we are in a crisis, and we need something to deal with the end game, because the system is so broken that is has resulted in this. We need to respond to those 81 calls for justice. I look forward to working with this minister to get the Red Dress Alert out the door as soon as possible.