SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 280 - Feb/12/24

Feb/12/24 5:44:51 p.m.
Watch

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.

89 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/12/24 5:45:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29 Bill C-15

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.

681 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/12/24 5:51:31 p.m.
Watch

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.

29 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Feb/12/24 5:51:48 p.m.
Watch

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.

73 words

The Speaker

Feb/12/24 5:52:02 p.m.
Watch

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.

32 words

Mr. Brian Masse

Feb/12/24 5:52:15 p.m.
Watch

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

13 words

The Speaker

Feb/12/24 5:52:25 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. I would like the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre to please continue.

19 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Feb/12/24 5:52:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-54 Bill C-29 Bill C-15

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.

1636 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Feb/12/24 6:05:19 p.m.
Watch

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?

95 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Feb/12/24 6:06:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-15

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.

152 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/12/24 6:07:31 p.m.
Watch

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?

125 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Feb/12/24 6:08:14 p.m.
Watch

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.

114 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Feb/12/24 6:08:56 p.m.
Watch

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.

100 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Feb/12/24 6:09:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-15

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.

195 words

Hon. Gary Anandasangaree (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.)

Feb/12/24 6:11:11 p.m.
Watch

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.

104 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Feb/12/24 6:11:57 p.m.
Watch

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.

211 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Feb/12/24 6:13:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, just to follow up to my previous question, I thought my question was fairly clear. I characterized those attacks on churches as a form of anti-indigenous violence. That is, somebody has, in many cases, burned down churches in indigenous communities, and I see that as attacks on those communities. I thought that was clear in my initial question, but I will repeat the point. I am in no way making any assumptions or suggestions about who is doing that. I am concerned not only about how those attacks on churches undermine religious freedom, but also about how they are an aspect of destruction of the cultural property of those indigenous communities. We have not heard statements from the NDP condemning those attacks on churches. Again, in the spirit of condemning anti-indigenous violence, I wonder if the member would be willing to join me, to join us, in condemning those various attacks we have seen on churches in indigenous communities.

163 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Feb/12/24 6:14:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, again, I will give him the same response. I do not know what the motive was or who burned down the churches. Second, because I do not know that, I cannot call it anti-indigenous violence. I have not heard him debate anti-indigenous violence when he talks about residential school denialism. I know what the motivation is for that. I know where it is coming from. They are very public about it. I do not have the facts, so I cannot assume the motive. That is a basic premise in law. I think as legislators, we can understand the basic premise in law, that I cannot read into an action where I have no facts, and I do not know what the motive is. Maybe he should do some research. Maybe he would understand potential motives, or he could talk to officials.

145 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC)

Feb/12/24 6:15:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, it is really outstanding that we are still debating this bill. I consulted my notes from the last time I addressed the chamber to speak to the bill, which was November 30, 2022. At that time, I highlighted the fact that the bill was missing some important pieces. Specifically, it was missing economic reconciliation as a factor. Economic reconciliation was heard about throughout testimony on the bill. It is something I bring up because it went through and was brought forward by a number of witnesses, yet the bill still contains no actual piece on economic reconciliation. I believe strongly that economic reconciliation is going to be an integral part in how we go forward and move with these kinds of pieces. The fact that the bill is still here, and that we are still in the process of debating it after having numerous amendments, speaks to the failure to do consultations in advance. I am very proud of my Conservative colleagues and all members of the INAN committee who worked hard to make the bill so much better in the committee process. Then the bill went to the Senate and was amended further. It was amended because the government failed to do adequate consultations before bringing it forward. In my estimation, and from everything I have been able to ascertain, that tells me that the bill was not done properly to begin with. Typically, good bills with adequate consultation do not actually require that many amendments or need to be in the chamber for this length of time. This speaks to the government's overall failure to consult, and its having a very paternalistic approach to pieces. I am frustrated tonight that we are still here debating the bill. I am frustrated, on behalf of many indigenous people I have talked to in my riding, that economic reconciliation still has not come to pass. I think this is an important piece because the track record on the legislation before us should be noteworthy. Even though there is cause for some congratulations, and indeed I truly believe this is an important step forward, it has been very frustrating that we brought forward indigenous partners and we brought forward stakeholders who highlighted a missing piece of economic reconciliation, and it was completely blindsided. We also heard that a not-for-profit organization would be established to monitor, evaluate and report the progress being made toward reconciliation, and that it would respond to call to action number 53 made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is worth noting that during the entire year of 2023, the Liberal government that purports to be there for indigenous people and says that is its number one relationship, did not accomplish a single TRC call to action. In fact, there are 94 calls to action, and 81 are still unfulfilled. The piece of legislation before us, had the Liberals put the work in from the beginning, would have fulfilled one of the calls to action. The problem was not stalling by the Conservatives; Conservatives worked quite collaboratively with many members of the House to ensure that things were going forward so the bill would be the best possible piece of legislation. It is just frustrating that we see there would be an oversight body, yet we are still missing the mark when it comes to some of the pieces. Conservatives have been supportive of the legislation and the very concept around it from the very beginning. I want to highlight that fact. My speaking poorly of this is in the hopes that at some point, when a future parliamentarian looks at this piece of the bill, they will see there were concerns being raised when it was first brought forward that highlight the missing piece. I have had the great fortune, in my time as an elected official, to get to know Dr. Willie Littlechild. He was a chief. He is now a Companion of the Order of Canada. He was a member of Parliament for Wetaskiwin—Rimby. He is truly such an amazing, wonderful man. He is a great hockey player. He has pretty much done it all. Dr. Wilton Littlechild, when this bill was first introduced in 2022, said the council will be an important tool for Indigenous Peoples to hold the government accountable to achieving meaningful change for our peoples.” He also said, “We need to know where we are today as far as reconciliation and how do we measure the advancement of reconciliation”. As with almost all Liberal initiatives, the establishment of this council sounds like a very good thing. Indeed, in many respects it is, but now we come to the first problem with Bill C-29. The act stipulates that the first board of directors would be selected by the minister in collaboration with a transitional committee. However, the transitional committee was selected by the minister in December of 2021, so this raises some pretty serious questions about how independent the new council would be. I have seen the body of this council. It is made up of members such as Dr. Wilton Littlechild, so I do not have any concern with the members who have been put on this council. However, I believe the mechanism by which it was done was not right. When I was a kid, my mum used to say the ends do not justify the means. One has to do things with the right intention along one's path for it to be ultimately good. I try, in every step I take, to remind myself of the important words of my mom that the ends do not justify the means. While I think that the committee and the composition of that council have some amazing, wonderful people who will really help our country move toward reconciliation, it was not done in a consultative way, in a way that would move us further toward reconciliation. That is problematic to me because the ends do not justify the means. There have been so many concerns brought forward by my Conservative colleagues. I know the NDP brought forward many amendments when it went to committee, as did others. It seems to have been almost rushed. It is whatever is the most convenient for the government at the time. I understand that this is complicated. Reconciliation is not static. One phrase Dr. Wilton Littlechild has used frequently has really stuck with me. He said that it is not reconciliation, but “reconciliaction”. It is the idea that we need action. We cannot just sit here and continue to consult, continue to get stuck in the bureaucratic processes and the red tape. We really need to reach past that. How can I make things better? The fact that we are still here in this chamber more than a year after I gave my last speech on this, still having these conversations about how this bill is better than it was, but still not as good as I believe it could be, is very frustrating. If it is frustrating to me, it has to be intensely frustrating for those who have been working toward this. One interesting piece about this bill is that it is very prescriptive. It sets aside three permanent seats, one for the Assembly of First Nations, one for the ITK and one for the MNC. They are three national organizations that the Liberal government has almost exclusively dealt with when it comes to indigenous issues in the country. One thing that I have heard very clearly in my role as the member of Parliament for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is that the AFN does not speak for the first nations, specifically in Treaty 8. They speak more broadly, but chiefs who I have chatted with, who I have had an opportunity to sit down with and have conversations with have told me that the AFN does not represent them, so consulting with the AFN is not consulting with them. They believe that is an issue when it comes to their inherent treaty rights. I believe this is indicative of the overall issue we are facing when it comes to how the government is approaching some of its dealings with indigenous people. It is going to some of these larger, umbrella organizations rather than having what could be sometimes some very tough conversations. We have to do very difficult things as people, but people, I believe, are able to do tough things. I try to live in a space where, if I have something difficult ahead of me, I try not to kick it down the road. I try to deal with it in the moment because the faster I can deal with something difficult, the more likely I am going to learn and the more likely I am going to stop and live in that space of discomfort until I can find a space of magic. The fact that the government is looking to these big national organizations rather than sitting down with each and every chief to have these conversations, to me, highlights perhaps a lack of reconciliation. I know that would require a whole bunch of work, and I do understand that there are some pragmatic challenges with this, but the fact that there is not representation of women or children designated on the council is problematic. I have had an opportunity, through the years since I was elected and in my time just casually growing up in Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, to have many important conversations with a variety of first nations elders and hear how important the relationship of women was in their society, how the matriarchs of the community help guide how the decision-making processes are, how sacred women are and how sacred the power of women is. The fact that there is no space for women specifically in this takes away from that sacred recognition that exists in many indigenous communities of the power of women, the power of children and the power of these positions. It is really frustrating that there are not on-the-ground communities, because when someone is sitting there and making the decision from Ottawa, they do not necessarily understand the reality on the ground in a community like Fort McMurray or Thunder Bay or Timmins. They are a bit further insulated from those nitty-gritty minutia problems. It is often in the nitty-gritty minutia that we can find the simple solutions. They failed to include them, despite the fact that Conservatives put forward many amendments trying to include the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which represents the 800,000 off-reserve indigenous people in this country. That failure overlooks the important fact that indigenous people do not just live on reserves. Many have chosen to move off reserve, and many have not chosen to move off reserve but were forcibly removed from their reserves. The reality is that there are over 800,000 people in this country who are first nations who do not live on reserve. Through this process, their voices are not prescribed into this bill as being included, so it is very frustrating. In fact, Kim Beaudin, vice-chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, noted, “Bill C-29 is really very, very disappointing...the federal government has ghosted the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.” “Ghosted” is the term being used. That is a slang kind of comment meaning when someone just stops talking to a group. I do not understand how a government that is trying to move forward with reconciliation would leave aside the voices of people who are living off reserve because theirs perhaps are more difficult to include. In fact, Kim Beaudin later said that exclusion from the council was more than just simple oversight by the government. He said it was part of an ongoing strategy to exclude off-reserve and non-treaty status people from the decision-making process. Again, I quote: “One thing that is really frustrating is that this is a divide and conquer policy that’s been around for hundreds of years by the federal government and these organizations—ITK, MNC, AFN—they’re playing right into that playbook.” Those are not my words. Those are the words of the vice-chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Kim Beaudin. As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, Conservatives support this bill. We believe that reconciliation is critically important, but it is worth highlighting the fact that the ends do not justify the means. I believe that the means of preparing this legislation are part of why we are still here, more than a year later, still having these conversations and still in this space, because the work was not done before the legislation was brought forward. They did not make it clean and neat, because it was easier not to. As was pointed out, it was divide and conquer. I do not know if that necessarily was the case, and I do not want to assume why members made certain decisions, but it is now pointed out. It has been pointed out many times by members of various parties in this House that voices were excluded. I am just going to continue laying it down there, because it is important to highlight. Sometimes a mistake is not made intentionally. Sometimes it is an unintentional mistake. However, I was taught that if one has made a mistake, whether it was intentional or not, then one has to do better. When we know better, we do better. When something has been brought to our attention as not as good as it could be, we try to make it right. The fact that the government has failed to do what it can to make it right is frustrating. It is frustrating to a number of indigenous people who have brought forward their concerns to me on this bill. They feel like they have not been heard, that this is not their version of reconciliation. As important as this bill is, it also highlights the failure of the Liberal government to listen to Canadians, and to listen meaningfully and to consult with indigenous peoples. This is, of course, not the first time we have spoke about the Liberals' inability to consult and listen. Most recently, the Chiefs of Ontario and Attawapiskat First Nation filed a lawsuit against the federal government over what they allege is discriminatory and anti-reconciliatory application of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to first nations. This is a troubling pattern that we have been seeing, over and over again, with the government, where it is not spending the time to understand what its jurisdictional space is. It steps over the line, and then instead of correcting it, it waits until it goes all the way to a court, the most expensive option. We are seeing increased costs. We are seeing a space where people are waiting in limbo for court decisions to be made, because the government went too far. It goes too far, time and time again. In this particular case, while non-indigenous taxpayers get approximately 90% of charges refunded through tax rebates, this is not the case for first nations members, because property and income on reserve are tax exempt. Most indigenous people do not use the income tax system if they are living on reserve. Therefore, chiefs are now demanding a judicial review of the policy, something that they said would have been unnecessary if federal officials had bothered to engage with them to begin with. We are in an expensive, costly court battle over something that probably could have been avoided had there been some actual meaningful consultation and dialogue. That is the difference. Consultation does not necessarily mean that everyone is going to get their way. It means that there is an understanding of the arguments, and perhaps someone can make a change to identify those concerns and prevent them from having to go to court, time and time again. However, the Liberal government seems to be more keen on satisfying its agenda than sitting down and doing the tough work, and actually having those tough conversations. In contrast to the Liberal government, Conservatives are listening to first nations. Last week, we announced support for an optional first nations resource charge that would enable first nations to take back control of their resources and their money. This is a first nations-led solution to a made-in-Ottawa problem. First nations and the First Nations Tax Commission developed the plan, brought it to the Conservatives, and we accepted. Putting first nations back in control of their money and letting them bring home the benefits of their resources would help get local buy-in for good projects to get ahead. Only common-sense Conservatives would fight for real economic reconciliation by supporting first nations taking back control of their money and their lives. Bill C-29 is deeply flawed, as I have pointed out. Conservatives have proposed numerous amendments to improve it. I am very proud of the work that my colleagues have done to improve this legislation. Many of the amendments have been rejected by the Liberal-NDP government, which continues to implement an “Ottawa knows best” policy, which generally fails to accomplish their goals, no matter how laudable they might be. On this front, we will continue to support Bill C-29, but not without some very serious reservations on this very seriously flawed bill.

2944 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/12/24 6:35:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member spent a lot of time in her comments dealing with the makeup of the national council itself. It is important to recognize that the minister did work in collaboration with the transitional committee, a committee whose membership she made reference to. The very impressive group of people in the membership of that committee came up with the terms of the future board, including the four identified groups that would ultimately get appointments. I wonder whether the member could add her further thoughts on what specific groups she would suggest should be incorporated into the legislation, or whether she is okay with the four that are listed.

110 words