Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to an issue that, perhaps paradoxically, touches on one of Canada's most important yet too often overlooked relationships: our relationship with indigenous peoples.
The riding I represent includes the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. Like many members in this House, I can candidly say that when I was first elected to represent the area we share with Tyendinaga, I did not truly understand as much as I should have about the community. I lacked an understanding of its history, culture and heritage. I did not fully appreciate the role Joseph Brant played during the American Revolution, the alliance he and his people forged with the British or the promises made to the Mohawk people in recognition of their fierce and loyal support. I did not know the full story of their migration after the war, the lands they lost or how Brant led his people to what would become their home in Canada, and for one group in particular, to the shores of the Bay of Quinte.
I like to think that from talking, engaging and, most importantly, listening, some of my earlier misunderstandings have begun to fall away. With many conversations, and incredibly patient and strong local indigenous leaders, advocates and community members, including colleagues in this very House, I have begun to learn more about the rich and diverse history of indigenous peoples in Canada. Every year I look forward to the celebration of the Mohawk landing in Tyendinaga. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank Chief Don Maracle, the council and the people of Tyendinaga for their kindness, guidance and patience. It is an ongoing learning journey, but it is one in which I hope to continue to make meaningful progress.
There is one more misconception that I, especially as a federal legislator, must set aside when it comes to understanding indigenous communities, which is their relationship with Canada and the Crown. The most effective way to begin to do that is by listening. This means listening to the concerns of the council, the chief, local business owners, builders, educators and anyone else who wishes to have their voice heard. Of course, listening is a very important skill when engaging with any group, whether it is business leaders, foreign dignitaries or members of this chamber.
However, the relationships between Canada and indigenous communities are too often steeped in sadness, violence, betrayal, deception and neglect. They are numerous, and, most importantly, each of them is distinct. Too often, we speak of the indigenous community as though it were a single, uniform entity. It is not. There are indigenous communities, each with their own histories, governance structures, cultures and needs. Even the word “communities” fails to truly capture the full diversity and complexity that exists. This misconception is, if not the core, then certainly a major contributor to the veil that has obscured the understanding of far too many policy-makers and decision-makers here in Ottawa.
That misunderstanding, unfortunately, extends to this very place. The simple truth is that since its inception, Ottawa, and indeed Canada, has too frequently been unable or perhaps unwilling to treat every first nation, Métis and Inuit community with the individual respect, understanding and reverence it deserves. My concern is that the creation of yet another centralized office in Ottawa risks adding only another layer of bureaucratic indifference when what we require is a streamlined, responsive process capable of negotiating, settling and addressing historical wrongs with the attention each community merits.
I quote:
Non-Aboriginal Canadians hear about the problems faced by Aboriginal communities, but they have almost no idea how those problems developed. There is little understanding of how the federal government contributed to that reality through residential schools and the policies and laws in place during their existence.
That is from “Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada”. While it speaks specifically to the horror of residential schools, that same issue can be applied to far too many interactions between the state and aboriginal communities at a larger scale. That is what we parliamentarians need to do. It is what we need to do better at.
The reason this office has garnered some support from stakeholders is that they feel it is needed because government is not doing its due diligence in listening, engaging, learning and advocating for the treaty rights of first nations. The only thing Bill C-10 would do is create another office to release reports that would be ignored, reiterating what we already know is happening: The government is not doing its job.
What is worse is that it may remove the onus from far too many parliamentarians to engage and listen to indigenous communities regarding treaty rights, because they will just wait for the report and let the government deal with it, especially those parliamentarians who do not share their borders with an indigenous community.
There is another glaring issue at hand here. The government has an aversion to properly funding these offices and allowing them to maintain independence if they do not toe the line. Our procurement ombudsman does not have enough money to do their job, which they openly stated. The government is firing the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer because he spoke out against the government. In fact, the advertisement for his replacement is already published in the Canada Gazette.
I support treaty rights because I respect the rule of law and I respect the courts. To me, this is a fundamental underpinning of being a Tory. In many ways, these are the same reasons that convinced Joseph Brant and the Mohawk to ally with the British those many years ago. I want to be a part not of a government but of a House, a legislature and a nation that removes bureaucratic barriers to reconciliation, not doing what I fear would be putting them up. Ultimately, when the state is involved, action is only limited by will.
To put on my partisan hat for just a moment, I want to highlight some of the actions the Harper government took when, and I stress when, political will was shown. In 2013, the Conservative government implemented a change that accelerated and improved the process for resolving specific claims, itself an extension of the 2007 specific claims action plan. Following that, in 2008, through legislation developed in tandem with the Assembly of First Nations, was the Specific Claims Tribunal. It also achieved a number of modern treaties, including with the Tłı̨chǫ, Déline, Maa-nulth and Tsawwassen. This was done without the addition of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. Was it enough? No, but it was done.
I do not believe I will support the legislation, because I believe it signals a silent abandonment of what we should be doing more of in the House: bringing that too-ignored relationship between Canada and first nations into this place, properly funding departments and agencies, and removing the barriers to settlement so that not just indigenous Canadians but also non-indigenous Canadians can move on with their lives, together.
Right now, in the area that I represent, there is a settlement ongoing after years of negotiations. The government has not been forthcoming with either the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte or the Town of Deseronto about what the final steps will mean for each of them. This is unacceptable for what is supposed to be one of the most straightforward treaties in the country.
I sincerely hope that the ministers will work and, importantly, communicate with both communities as this long-standing process moves towards a conclusion. Above all, most importantly, I hope they will listen. If people in the House never listen, we will never learn and our ignorance will never drift away.