Debates of Feb. 12th, 2024

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.2070—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

With regard to the government’s policy towards international law and the situation in Israel and Palestine: (a) what is the government’s position on the role that international criminal law plays in addressing alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of genocide committed in the context of the war between Israel and Hamas; (b) with respect to the November 2023 United Nations General Assembly vote which reaffirmed the illegality of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, what political and legal motivations led Canada to vote against the resolution; (c) does the government accept that Israeli settlements in Occupied Territories are illegal under international law; (d) does the government believe that, under international law, Gaza is a territory under occupation by Israel; (e) what is the government’s position on and response to the proposal by Israeli government ministers and Knesset members to “voluntarily move” Gazans to other countries and that Israel can no longer put up with the “existence of an independent entity in Gaza”; (f) what is the Canadian government’s position on the principle of proportionality, as it relates to attacks in Gaza by the Israeli Defence Forces, (i) does the government believe that all of the attacks on Gaza since October 7, 2023, have been proportional, (ii) if not, which attacks have not been proportional or which attacks require further investigation; (g) does the government accept that the lawful right of states to self-defence must be proportional, and what is the government’s position on the proportionality of self-defence under International Humanitarian Law; (h) what is the government’s legal position with respect to both the blockade and siege of Gaza, and does it accept that the blockade is illegal; (i) does the government accept that it is obligated to prevent the commission of genocide under international law, and what obligations does the government accept in this regard; (j) does the government accept that it is under obligation to punish any persons responsible for the commission of genocide under international law; (k) does the government believe that the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is of relevance to the situation in Palestine, and does the government accept that it has a responsibility to protect civilians in Gaza, (i) if so, then how so, (ii) if not, why not; (l) what specific obligations does the government believe follow from Common Article 1 of the Genocide Convention which requires all High Contracting Parties, including Canada, “to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances”; (m) should the opportunity arise, would the government be willing to exercise its universal jurisdiction powers, under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, to prosecute, rather than deport, a person involved in the commission of genocide or war crimes in Israel or Palestine; and (n) does the government make any distinction between lawful and legitimate “unilateral actions” that are peaceful, non-violent and within the framework of international politics and diplomacy and “unilateral actions” that are illegal and war crimes (per the Rome Statute) under international law?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I would like to offer some input for the benefit of the Chair and for all hon. members. The revised answer that was just tabled is in response to a question of privilege raised by the member for Edmonton Strathcona last week respecting the answers provided to Order Paper Question No. 2070. The response contained inaccurate information because of an error in introducing the answer. I understand that, last Friday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs reached out to the member for Edmonton Strathcona to apologize on this issue.

I would like to thank my hon. colleagues for their understanding and to assure all hon. members that the government acknowledges and accepts that it is the right of members to have the best information available to do their important work.

Further, Madam Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 9 consideration of the motion.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, before I begin, I would like to thank the member for Kings—Hants for his apology; I accept it, as he is correct that I abstained. Just to clarify, I abstained, along with my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, with the full support of the whole NDP caucus, because we felt quite strongly that the Liberal government had been failing on indigenous peoples' issues and that we need to keep fighting hard for indigenous peoples.

Representing Nunavut in the House has been a huge honour. I have learned so much more about first nations and Métis in Canada.

I acknowledge that we are on unceded Anishinabe Algonquin territory, and I thank my NDP colleague, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, for doing more land acknowledgements, because what they mean are that, before Ottawa, first nations thrived on these lands for thousands of years before these Parliament buildings were ever built. Acknowledging that we are on unceded territories also means that first nations still exist, despite government and religious efforts to erase them. I am thankful for the strength of first nations that continue to host and welcome us.

I thank the former minister of Crown-indigenous relations, who is now the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, for tabling Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of the national council for reconciliation, in June 2022. The introduction of the bill had been anticipated by indigenous peoples for years.

Before speaking to the bill, I am compelled to retell some of the experiences of indigenous peoples, in order to form the context of what would become the national council for reconciliation. Once I complete some of the context, I will speak to Bill C-29 and the amendments from the other place and conclude with remarks about the greater sense of hope I have for Inuit, first nations and Métis.

I recognize the strength and courage of first nations, Métis and Inuit, who have been waiting far too long for the bill's passage. I am guided by indigenous voices in my support for Bill C-29. I honour the survivors of residential schools. I honour their parents, who were robbed of raising their children. I honour the students who died in residential schools.

First nations, Métis and Inuit children who suffered from genocidal policies continue to ensure that Canada reconciles with indigenous peoples. Canada must do its part. Inuit, first nations and Métis experienced child sexual abuse and physical, emotional and spiritual abuses. These traumas continue to show in the form of intergenerational traumas suffered by children and youth today.

Just last week, I had conversations regarding education. Despite having explained what education was used for, genocide, I was expected to be okay with how it was described. I repeat: Western education was used as a genocidal tool against indigenous peoples. It is still used to keep indigenous peoples at the fringes of Canadian society. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls gathered important evidence. I implore all Canadians to read these reports, to incorporate them into school curricula and to ensure that all work in all of Canada is trauma-informed. These are important ways that Canadians can reconcile with indigenous peoples.

The national council for reconciliation was part of the 94 calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Calls to action 53, 54 and 55, specifically, call on the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with aboriginal peoples, to establish the national council for reconciliation.

The Liberal government not only took seven years to table the legislation but also failed to collaborate with indigenous peoples. I recall specifically the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami dropped support for Bill C-29 based on the concerns not addressed by Parliament.

Call to action 53 will have been implemented when there is monitoring, evaluating and reporting on Parliament's responses. Call to action 54 will have been implemented when multi-year funding is sustained for the national council for reconciliation so it has the financial, human and technical resources to function appropriately, and when an endowment of a national reconciliation trust is created. Call to action 55 will have been implemented when progress on closing the gaps in indigenous peoples' health indicators, on eliminating overrepresentation in the justice system, and on other areas is reported.

The important work of the national council for reconciliation would ensure a non-partisan approach to hearing what the issues are and the changes that need to be made. It would fulfill an important role in monitoring government programs and policies. I think all members of the House can agree on the merits of this work and the pressing need for the establishment of the national council.

Indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and gender-diverse people continue to go missing. Families on and off reserve live in overcrowded, mouldy homes that make us sick. Communities lack access to fresh water and affordable, healthy food. Suicide rates, especially among youth in Nunavut, remain among the highest in the world. The scars of residential schools and other sinister tools of assimilation persist through intergenerational trauma. Too often the government stands by. I have hope that the national council would help pressure the government to end these injustices and many others.

Reconciliation is an important process that demands the highest standards of implementation. When the Liberals tabled the original Bill C-29, it required some work. This is evidenced by the many amendments that were passed at committee stage and now by the Senate.

I am proud of the NPD's amendments that were passed at committee. We ensured the inclusion of important advice to be drawn from survivors, elders and indigenous legal professionals. We fought for language that would ensure that the national council would use a rights-based approach to its work on advancing reconciliation. These amendments would make the national council stronger.

I thank the committee in the other place, which took great care in its deliberations on Bill C-29, some of which I will outline. The inclusion of the word “post-contact” in the preamble differentiates Métis from first nations and Inuit. This acknowledges the fact that first nations and Inuit existed before the arrival of settlers. It is an important and welcome change. Next, adding a definition for “indigenous governing body” keeps Bill C-29 more consistent with other legislation. It is more accurate language than the previous use of “government”, as not all indigenous groups are considered governments.

Senate amendment 3 expands on whom reconciliation may be with. It would not be just between government and indigenous peoples but would also be expanded to between indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples. Senate amendment 4 provides greater clarity on what the national council for reconciliation would monitor and report, including education.

Amendment 5 clarifies the importance of the federal government's obligations with respect to the duty to consult. It clearly outlines that the duty to consult, which is owed to first nations, Inuit and Métis, would remain, and that consulting with the national council for reconciliation would not mean that indigenous peoples were consulted. This is an important distinction that would ensure that the national council for reconciliation would remain arm's-length and non-partisan. It reaffirms the section 35 rights of indigenous peoples. New Democrats agree, looking to amplifying the rights of indigenous peoples at every possible opportunity.

Amendment 6 is particularly important as it would enable the national council for reconciliation to seek clarification if the minister fails to comply with obligations set out in the act. Senate amendment 7 changes what the minister would be required to do, from a one-time activity six months after the national council is established to annually. This would be important for keeping the minister accountable always. One of the main flaws of the original bill was that it was overly vague. I am glad that the other place agreed and has added more prescriptive language around the national action plan that helps clarify the national council's research scope and follow-up actions. I am hopeful this would ensure more robust work and reporting.

Senate amendment 8 makes a small but meaningful change. The government's progress towards reconciliation would be reported, and progress by all levels of government and society would be reported separately. This would give the national council more flexibility in its reporting by not lumping the two together.

Overall, as I said, the amendments are welcome additions that would help strengthen Bill C-29. I remind parliamentarians that much work is still required in order for indigenous peoples to acknowledge government efforts in reconciliation. Reconciliation must remain at the core of our work. The passage of Bill C-29 would be another step. So long as indigenous peoples are deprived of their right to self-determination, their right to housing and so much more, reconciliation must continue. I am encouraged by the amendments that were made by the other place and I am encouraged to see the strength they would add to the national council for reconciliation.

To the future board members of the national council for reconciliation, expectations will be high. Inuit, first nations and Métis all across Canada will look to them to keep the governments accountable. It is not easy to challenge the established colonial structures and to hold the government to account on injustices. If anyone will be able to do it, it can be the national council for reconciliation. I urge all parties to support the Senate amendments so the national council for reconciliation can be established.

Finally, as I said in the beginning, I will conclude by sharing the hope I have for the future. I express my gratitude to the Supreme Court of Canada, which has upheld indigenous peoples' right to self-govern over children, youth and families. Indeed, prior to the damages caused by Canada's genocidal policies, Inuit and first nations, and later the Métis, exercised their own laws in areas that include well-being for children, youth and families.

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of Bill C-92 is an important milestone in Canada. It has acknowledged that indigenous peoples can make our own laws. It has affirmed the importance of implementing UNDRIP. I thank the 42nd Parliament for having tabled Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to consideration of Government Business No. 34, at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate not be further adjourned.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

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

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoyed sitting on committee with the member for Nunavut thus far. It has been a collaborative and rewarding experience. I am wondering if she can speak a bit further to the importance of this being indigenous-led and to the importance of this being an opportunity for indigenous peoples who have, for so long in our country, through a variety of different mechanisms, been left out of the conversation.

Why is it critical that this important piece of legislation be indigenous led? How does she see that being of benefit to the process?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I also enjoy sitting in committee with that member. It is critically important for the national council on reconciliation to be indigenous-led because it will need the experience of first nations, Métis and Inuit to guide its work in the accountability that is demanded of the government. If there is anyone who can express the failures of federal governments and provinces in the best way, it is indigenous peoples, because we are the ones who are subject to these policies. We are the ones who are subject to this legislation, and we feel, every day, all the injustices we are experiencing. Because of what we have experienced to date, we are in the best position and have been already saying for years that we are the ones with solutions. Our solutions have been ignored for far too long, and the national council for reconciliation will be an opportunity to ensure that those solutions are being heard.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is an extremely important and delicate subject that needs to be handled with great intelligence and diplomacy.

I do not know whether my colleague will be able to answer my question. In 2002, an agreement known as the peace of the braves was reached between the Quebec government and the Cree nation in northern Quebec. That agreement resulted in a better partnership. This is not entirely the same thing, but that was constructive change. The standard of living for those in the Cree nation has risen considerably since then. Of course, it is not perfect, and we are still a long way from perfection. However, it fills me with pride to see that we have managed to accomplish something.

The council will generally monitor progress across Canada. Does she think this kind of initiative is a positive thing? I would like to hear her perspective on this.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji , I am not too familiar about the work that was done before. I am aware that it was led by my colleague, the former NDP MP, Romeo Saganash. I very much always appreciated his leadership because he is also a former residential school student and one of the people that I very much look up to, being able to be a leader despite all the atrocities he experienced.

I learned from him that partnerships are so important between indigenous peoples and settler governments. We need to make sure that focusing on those partnerships are for the overall well-being of all. If that is the focus, then that is why there is always going to be better success.

I think the national council for reconciliation is not supervising what Canada is doing; it is making sure that Canada will be accountable. It will be reporting on what Canada is not doing. I think there is a huge difference between those, so I do look forward to Canada's accountability toward indigenous peoples improving. That is why I support Bill C-29 so wholeheartedly.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nunavut blows me away every day in this place.

She mentioned the SCC ruling on Bill C-92. In terms of self-determination, there are concerns I have had lately about child welfare matters impacting our kids. At committee, I pushed an amendment forward to an adoptive care bill, an EI bill, to include kinship and customary care to ensure that the bill was consistent with Bill C-15, meaning that all future legislation has to be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Winnipeg North member said the other day that they are in the process of trying to throw out those amendments, which, once again, with the SCC ruling, affirm the need for amendments to the current EI bill.

I was wondering what my colleague's thoughts were about the government's continual fight to not allow us to bring our kids home.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji , I always appreciate my colleague's fierceness in the House. I always learn from her.

It has definitely been very disappointing to sit here since 2021 and to see the Liberal government not respect UNDRIP after passing Bill C-15. A very important aspect of UNDRIP, as she mentioned, is the importance of free, prior and informed consent. If the Liberal government, for example, had used free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, in developing the Métis bill, I think first nations in Ontario would have been a lot more supportive in helping to ensure that the bill is supported by all.

I think that ensuring free, prior and informed consent is something that helps to unite all indigenous peoples. It has been quite unfortunate to see the Liberal government dividing first nations, Métis and Inuit against each other. We need to see the examples set by the Supreme Court of upholding the constitutionality of Bill C-92.

In order for us to do better for first nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families, free, prior and informed consent must be at the core of our work. That is how we will make sure that our relationships are respectful, that we are working toward an overall sense of well-being for now and for the future of all of Canada. With Canada being founded on indigenous peoples' lands, if we work together, we can make sure that legislation is meeting the needs of first nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Nunavut for providing me with a chance to speak to Bill C-29.

This is a bit of an explanation and background, and a bit of mea culpa, because when Bill C-29 came forward, I recognized it of course as being in response to one of the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, specifically found in paragraphs 53, 54 and 55. I compared Bill C-29 at first reading to the language in the TRC report and found it quite lacking. It was quite thin, so I made amendments.

As members know, when one goes into committee and one is not a member of the committee, but one tries to make amendments, it is very difficult. However, I took the language from the TRC call to action that was missing and brought forward an amendment, which got widespread support, to add in all the words that were in paragraphs 53, 54 and 55 of the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the Green Party amendments were accepted. However, I then came to find out, from indigenous peoples in my community of Saanich—Gulf Islands, from first nations, that it seemed to them I had participated in approving a bill that had not been properly consulted with indigenous peoples before first reading. Therefore, I am grateful to the Senate for the additional amendments as outlined by my friend, the hon. member for Nunavut. It is very important—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to allow the hon. member to answer.

The hon. member has just taken a minute and a half to ask her question. I will allow her to wrap up very quickly.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, please forgive me. I thank the hon. member for Nunavut.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do remember when you came to our committee, and I thank you for coming to our committee at that time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Members should address all questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to members.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do recall the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands coming to the indigenous and northern affairs committee to help make those amendments.

As well, I have learned in this whole process that the colonial process of first reading, second reading, third reading and sending bills to committee, even though it is 150 years old, is still a very foreign process for indigenous peoples. When we call on witnesses to speak to us to share their testimony, doing it for five minutes as a first point and then for another two and a half minutes later is not a form of consultation for indigenous peoples. Therefore, even those processes are flawed, and I think that is why free, prior and informed consent is so important.

The duty to consult, as a standard, is too late. We need to make sure that we hold governments to account and ask them to please exercise free, prior and informed consent for indigenous peoples so that they do feel engaged, and to ensure that legislation that does come to them is something they recognize and is not a foreign instrument that is yet another legislation they have no idea about.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Housing; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Carbon Pricing.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and talk about such an important piece of legislation. It is not the first time I have had the opportunity to debate the legislation. We have seen a great deal of effort by the current ministers and parliamentary secretaries, and those who held these positions previously. I believe they have followed the lead of the Prime Minister of Canada.

Even before he was Prime Minister and we sat on the opposition benches, when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report was presented with all 94 calls to action, he made it very clear, before any other political party or leader, that we recognized the injustices that have been done and that it was important that we get behind and support all 94 calls to action. From day one, that has been the approach by the leader of the Liberal Party. Back then, we felt it was very important. I stood in my place while I was in the third party to talk about murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and said that we needed a public inquiry.

In late 2015, we saw a change in government and there was an affirmation of a commitment that the Prime Minister talked about while he was the leader of the Liberal Party, as the third party. The Prime Minister and the government, with its different ministries, have worked diligently and followed indigenous leadership on a wide spectrum of issues. As a direct result of that, we have seen many calls to action implemented. This is not the first time I have stood in my place to talk about legislation that is rooted in the calls to action that the government has brought forward.

The member for Winnipeg Centre referred to children. I take a lot of pride, in the area I represent, in being a strong advocate. I work with people like Cindy Woodhouse and Sharon Redsky, and many others to deal with an issue that is so very important. I can understand and appreciate its importance to indigenous leaders, and that is one of the reasons we brought in the legislation regarding children.

The member for Winnipeg Centre has to be careful when she makes accusations about me carrying out my responsibilities as a parliamentary secretary with regard to legislative suggestions that are outside of the scope. That is what the member was referring to when she referred to my comments to another member. It is somewhat unfortunate because I have been very diligent on this issue as it is an important issue to my constituents also.

When I think of reconciliation, this is a significant step forward, but it is not the first step, nor will it be the last. When we look at the holistic approach of the calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, many of us follow, in a very real and tangible way, what indigenous leaders are telling us, and we are acting where we can. We have seen things, such as the statutory holiday, brought in under this government.

We have seen the opportunity enhanced significantly due to the leadership of indigenous people in regard to children, in the form of legislation. We have seen the reinforcement of things such as language, as part of heritage, brought in.

In fact, if we look at the 94 calls to action, when we look at the total number, we are probably talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of just above 80%, where the federal government has the entire scope or shares responsibility. On a vast majority of those, either significant progress has been made or they are done.

Some might try to paint a dark cloud over the calls to action. I would suggest that those members who paint that dark cloud need to take a look at what other previous governments have done, to show some contrast—