SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 265 - Dec/11/23

Dec/11/23 7:00:56 p.m.
Watch

Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members how the proceedings will unfold. Each member speaking will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments. Pursuant to order made on Thursday, December 7, members may divide their time with another member. The time provided for the debate may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each. The Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent. We will now begin the take-note debate.

100 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.)

Dec/11/23 7:02:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I would also like to preface my comments this evening by reminding colleagues in the House that we are not just talking about numbers or policies here. We are talking about people, communities, families and children, and what we do in this House really matters. It was my great honour to be here today as the Minister of Indigenous Services introduced Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nation lands. We do not always have good days in this House, but today was a good day. First nations have long called for legislation that affirms their inherent rights, recognizes their stewardship in keeping water clean and meets first nations' needs. Today, we collectively leapt closer to making access and security to safe and clean drinking water a reality. Before I came to the House, and I have spoken many times about my role in education, I was a teacher. I think about my time at Fredericton High School in particular. I used to teach my students about the ongoing water crisis here in Canada and what our nation was and was not doing to address it. I often pointed to the example of Shoal Lake 40 First Nation in Winnipeg. At the time, it was under 18 years of a long-term boil water advisory. Community members had to bring in large jugs. They could not brush their teeth, cook or bathe in the water. Then we built the human rights museum, and they could see this museum from their community. I always thought, “Whose human rights are we fighting for in this country?” I am so proud to say that Shoal Lake 40 First Nation has come off the long-term boil water advisory list. Everyone in Canada should have access to safe and clean drinking water. This simple and seemingly uncontroversial reality has been denied to first nations communities for centuries. It was only through the tireless advocacy of first nations partners and allies that this reality can come to be. This day belongs to them. Clean, safe and reliable drinking water, as well as an environment that helps sustain this reality, as first nations have enjoyed and protected from time immemorial, requires effective legislative tools. It is critical that we have effective legislation, a national regulatory regime and first nations-led institutions, so we can support sustainable access to clean, safe and reliable drinking water in first nations communities in perpetuity. That is why we introduced Bill C-61 today, which is a key commitment to establishing new proposed safe drinking water and waste water legislation in consultation with first nations. I really want to highlight that last piece; consultation is critical. The proposed legislation is aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was developed through engagement that put first nations' voices at the forefront. Our government worked directly with first nations rights holders, including modern treaty and self-governing first nations, through their own representative institutions, and first nations organizations, including the Assembly of First Nations and the first nations advisory committee on safe drinking water, to help ensure that the bill is responsive to first nations' needs and priorities. I want to thank everyone who has been a part of this process and helped strengthen this bill. Engagement leading to this bill began in 2018. Consultation drafts were posted online in the spirit of partnership, and we have encouraged feedback from as many first nations as possible. This consultation process is ongoing, and I think that is important. We want to hear from all voices across this country, and we hope that everyone will have the chance to be heard. This is what partnership looks like. Hand in hand, we will continue to grow and learn from each other, and we can certainly improve and do better at every turn. The days of paternalistic, one-sided and ineffective policy that ignores indigenous voices are gone, and we must ensure that they stay gone. The result is new proposed legislation that would affirm the inherent right of first nations to self-government. Bill C-61 would ensure that first nations have the tools necessary to protect source water and maintain drinking water and waste water infrastructure in a self-determined way. It is important to understand that this proposed legislation would hold the federal government accountable for investing in water infrastructure. It would also lead to the application of minimum standards for clean drinking water in every first nation across the country. It would lay the groundwork for the creation of a first nation-led water institution to support communities. Specifically, the bill would achieve a few things. It would require the Minister of Indigenous Services to make best efforts, in consultation and co-operation with first nations, to provide access to safe drinking water on first nations lands. It would strengthen funding commitments through best efforts to provide adequate and sustainable funding for water services on first nation lands, equitable to the services received in non-first nation communities. It would require that funding, at a minimum, meets the commitment of expenditures set out in the 2021 safe drinking water for first nations class action settlement agreement and establish minimum national standards for drinking water and waste water on first nations lands based on first nations' choice. It would facilitate water agreements, including transboundary source water protection agreements, which should involve first nations, Canada and provincial and territorial governments, as well as bilateral financial agreements between first nations and Canada to support the exercise of first nations jurisdiction. It would commit to supporting the establishment of a first nations water commission to assist first nations in exercising greater control over their drinking water and waste-water services, as well as the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including through consultation and co-operation on federal regulatory and funding allocation decisions. To those listening at home, this is huge. It is incredibly transformative, and I really cannot underscore that enough. I want to be clear: The government's commitment to sustainable access to safe and clean drinking water on first nations communities does not end with the introduction of this bill. We will continue to work with first nations rights holders and organizations to ensure access to safe drinking water, now and for future generations, so that no one else has to grow up without being able to brush their teeth, bathe at home or cook their food in the water that surrounds their community. I would also like to acknowledge the Auditor General's third report, titled “Access to Safe Drinking Water in First Nations Communities”. This report provided important recommendations for us to consider, and I want to thank the Auditor General once again for her work. We are working hard to do better for first nations communities. Previous governments of all stripes could not say this. It is the reason I ran to be involved in federal politics: I needed to see a change. The government has made historic investments to help first nations communities meet their needs. I am proud of this work, of this team and of our commitment to keep going. Recognizing that it is not a perfect path forward, we are committed to doing it in partnership with indigenous communities and leadership. When it comes to water and waste water, as of September 30, more than $3.6 billion of targeted funding has been invested to support 1,244 water and waste-water projects. Of these, 547 are now complete, while 697 are ongoing. These projects will serve 471,000 people in 591 first nations communities. We know these investments must continue. The fall economic statement announced in November included a renewal of $1.55 billion from 2024-25 to 2025-26 to support clean drinking water for first nations. This funding will ensure that water and waste-water projects continue without interruption. We heard from first nations leaders. They need strong, ambitious, sustainable and predictable investments. That is what is required, and that is what is being delivered. These investments are directly improving the everyday lives of first nations communities. We are making progress every day, and it is important to acknowledge these efforts while also acknowledging the need to go farther. Since 2015, first nations, with support from Indigenous Services Canada, have lifted 143 long-term drinking water advisories; 267 short-term drinking water advisories have been prevented from becoming long term. Comprehensive action plans are in place in 26 communities to resolve the 28 active long-term advisories. One long-term boil water advisory is one too many. We have a team on each project working at pace and in partnership with communities. This country will no longer dictate terms to first nations on how to achieve their goals; instead, we are extending a hand and letting the leadership shine and carry these remaining communities forward. We understand that many of these projects come with complex challenges, such as procuring resources, especially in remote communities, and extreme weather conditions that continue to affect infrastructure projects across the country. The solutions to address the lack of access to safe drinking water are unique to each first nation community. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Plans have been developed for each community, and we are currently working with them at different stages of these plans to improve infrastructure and operations. Ultimately, we understand and acknowledge that there is no one solution to this complex issue, but despite the complexity, there are many examples of positive results and innovation being led by first nations. I think we need a bit of hope at this time. Through my visits to communities, I have been fortunate to see some of these results and to meet with many leaders about the important work they are doing and the ways we can support them. For example, this June, Northwest Angle No. 33 in Ontario lifted three long-term drinking water advisories by leading the construction of a new centralized water treatment plant, replacing the outdated pump houses. Another example is the Okanagan Indian Band, where community leaders used an integrated project delivery approach to harness the talents of all participants and ensure accountability in environmental stewardship. The result was improved access to clean water and faster project delivery. One of the most critical areas of our work is to define a new approach to how the department funds on-reserve infrastructure and to return decision-making to where it belongs: with first nations communities. Over the next year, Indigenous Services Canada will continue to work on this important issue with first nations communities and organizations, other government departments and financial institutions. Above all, we are focused on service transfer in partnership with indigenous peoples. Service transfer is the basis of our work on access to safe drinking water, and it is critical to supporting indigenous self-determination. We share the goal of supporting sustainable first nations-led approaches to ensure that on-reserve water systems are safe. It is critical that first nations communities have the tools to decide for themselves, and I am honoured to work alongside them as we do this work for the next generations. Woliwon.

1919 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/11/23 7:02:01 p.m.
Watch

moved: That this committee take note of Indigenous services.

9 words

Mr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC)

Dec/11/23 7:12:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary and I work together on the INAN committee and have had a good history of working together. The parliamentary secretary spent much of her time tonight talking about the water legislation, and I get that it is an exciting announcement for the government, but with the introduction of this legislation there has been a lot of talk about co-development, the idea of engaging with first nations across the country. To be honest, in my engagement with people last week who were in Ottawa for the Assembly of First Nations, all of the people I talked to say they are not sure who this co-development was with because it was not with their communities. Today, the FSIN, which represents 74 first nations in Saskatchewan, said the bill completely misses the mark. Chief Bobby Cameron said in a release, “As it stands, the federal water act announced today is not true reconciliation, it is an attempt to legalize the status quo.” I would ask the parliamentary secretary to explain to us who exactly the co-development was with, who they talked to, which first nations across the country they communicated and engaged with on the development of this legislation, because nobody I have talked to was part of that process. If she could answer that, I would appreciate it.

226 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

Dec/11/23 7:13:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned, consultation is critical. We are really trying to redesign this approach and make sure we are moving forward hand in hand in partnership. I know that it is five years since the consultation process began in 2018. Draft legislation was shared with every first nations community in this country at least twice. We heard from indigenous partners. At the announcement this morning, they were able to share some of that process and the idea of getting as close to co-development as we can get. It is a process we need to ensure moves forward in other departments as well. I would like to see it improved. It is also important that any voices who have concerns know that the process is still continuing. We still have the committee process and debate in this House. We want to make sure everyone has the opportunity to be part of this and be proud of what we are moving forward with. I would challenge the idea that it is the status quo. I really think this is transformative. It is changing lives and we will see this, hopefully, in perpetuity because this legislation really enshrines it to ensure that it continues regardless of what government is in power. Consultation is key, and I appreciate the member highlighting that.

221 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Dec/11/23 7:15:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, specific to the member's statement about the water legislation, it is clear from speaking with members of Treaty Nos. 6, 7 and 8 across the Prairies and, in particular, in my home province of Alberta, that they are concerned about the consultation process. The government has a very important principle that it must honour, which is the honour of the Crown. It is to do things to better the relationship with the nations with which they have signed treaties. Those same nations are today saying that they have not been spoken to. Four times Treaty Nos. 6, 7 and 8 reached out to the Minister of Indigenous Services and failed to get a response. When will the minister take the rights of treaty people seriously and consult, with the true honour of the Crown? It must be acknowledged by these nations. The continued failure to do so is a failure on the part of Canada and on the part of the minister. What does the government have to say to treaty nations that feel right now that the government is taking steps to stomp on the rights of treaty people across our country? What will it do to ensure that the consultation process is more robust and clear, but, more importantly, respects their rights? To date, they are telling us it does not.

226 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

Dec/11/23 7:16:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I thoroughly respect my colleague. It is an important question for all of us to discuss in this House. What does true consultation look like? What does true partnership look like? We know that every indigenous community in the country was given this draft legislation on two different occasions. I know it was first released in May. There was also the online consultation period. It is disheartening to hear that they had an issue communicating with the minister. I will certainly bring that back to the department and make sure we have open lines of communication. I am also happy, as the parliamentary secretary, to sit down with these communities and have these discussions. Ideally, this is supposed to be done before we introduce legislation, so we really need to look at this process moving forward. It is absolutely about respecting the treaties. This is one of the reasons I came to this House: to ensure the treaties are recognized and upheld. I come from a peace and friendship territory on the east coast, which is unceded, unsurrendered territory, and this is what we talk about all the time. The number one thing we can do in this country to walk in reconciliation is uphold the treaties. We did hear from Treaty No. 5 territory partners, who are happy with this. There are some issues as well about ensuring that all voices are heard. The Assembly of First Nations is largely supportive of this as well. The Atlantic First Nations Water Authority, which is first nations-led, from my neck of the woods is also very supportive and spoke at the press conference today. It is important and we will receive the criticisms, but I am going to look forward in a really positive way because this is transformative and speaks to challenging the status quo. Every department can look into what they can do to better that consultation process.

322 words

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

Dec/11/23 7:17:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I want to ask the government a bit of a broader question. The member spoke about including the voices of indigenous peoples, consultation, self-government, etc. However, I note that in many cases there is a tension between the government's stated goals with respect to climate policy and what individual indigenous nations may be asking for. There is a case now that has over 130 indigenous nations taking the government to court over its carbon tax policy. I have heard from indigenous communities, for instance in the north, that there was a complete lack of consultation before the government imposed development bans. We heard on a foreign affairs committee trip a number of years ago to the Northwest Territories that the consultation before imposing the development moratorium was a phone call 45 minutes before an announcement was made. Therefore, it seems that the government has a bit of a problem in cases where indigenous peoples are calling for policies that contradict the government's stated goals when it comes to its so-called climate policy. In instances where there is a conflict, what should win out? Should it be the government's intentions with regard to a carbon tax or blocking development; or should it be the wishes of indigenous people?

214 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

Dec/11/23 7:19:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, it is important that all members of this House try not to use indigenous people as a pawn in their political games or their partisan ideology. What we are seeing playing out with this conversation right now is a misrepresentation of what is happening. Indigenous peoples are on the front line of what is happening with the climate crisis and they really want us to act. I know that, in most cases among the leadership I have spoken to, there is a consensus that pricing mechanisms can get us further on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and indigenous peoples want to be partners with that. The conversation that is happening around Ontario chiefs is important. It is really about their wanting a more equitable stake in what is happening around our approach to the environment, so we are going to have that conversation. I really look forward to the judicial review and what comes out of that, but, again, it is important to deal in facts and it is really important to acknowledge that indigenous peoples are there with us, wanting to confront this climate crisis head-on.

190 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Dec/11/23 7:20:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, over the last 20 years, Indigenous Services Canada has cut tribal council funding in half. This is under both the Harper Conservative government and the current government. These severe cutbacks have had a huge impact on critical services to the nations in my riding. The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council and AFN have been asking for increases in funding via motions, letters and meetings. They have been literally begging for the government to increase funding. This is impacting children, youth and elders in our communities. When does Indigenous Services Canada intend to finally increase tribal council funding and bring it back to the level it was 20 years ago?

111 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

Dec/11/23 7:21:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, we know we need stable, predictable, ongoing funding so that communities can provide the services that they need. We know that it affects children. We know that it affects operations. I know that, in general, Indigenous Services Canada's funding has increased by 156% since 2015. I would love to look specifically into this piece around the tribal council funding. Again, it is incumbent upon all of us. We have the 2024 budget ahead. I will need help in asking for this increase. It is going to take all of us to ensure that this is a priority for our government. I hear the member on this. I am also concerned. I would specifically, again, like to look into it and I will get back to the member with that information.

133 words

Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)

Dec/11/23 7:21:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I would like to direct the question to the parliamentary secretary related to how this work helps with reconciliation. Many Canadians follow the relationship between Canada and the indigenous peoples. We have disappointed this relationship time and time again, as the Crown. The residential school legacy that has generational impacts and the fact that many indigenous persons have not had adequate water for generations are inexcusable, but reconciliation has to start somewhere. Could my colleague reflect on how this is one small step forward in the work that needs to happen? I have heard from first nations communities in particular that our government has done more than any government, probably since Confederation, in moving forward reconciliation. How is this one more piece of that healing path that we need to be on as a Canadian society with the indigenous peoples in Canada?

144 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

Dec/11/23 7:22:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I think about water in particular as being so critical to this conversation around reconciliation. It is about the environment. It is about stewardship but water is life. My stepfather is a Wolastoq Grand Council chief and his main priority is protecting the water and that is what I have been taught to do from a young age. For me, this is huge. I had tears in my eyes this morning, in taking part in the press conference. I think we can all be proud of what was accomplished today.

92 words

Mr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC)

Dec/11/23 7:23:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, as I begin my comments tonight on the Department of Indigenous Services, I want to take a moment to congratulate the newly elected national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Cindy Woodhouse. Also, as an MP from Saskatchewan, I would like to congratulate David Pratt on running a great campaign and on a strong second-place finish. Speaking of the AFN, last week, as chiefs from across the country gathered here in Ottawa, I had the opportunity to meet with many of these leaders. I always come away impressed with how the leadership is focused on finding ways to improve the lives of the people that they serve. More and more of these discussions revolve around trying to find ways to end the failing path that forces them to come to Ottawa to fight for programming dollars. The waste of time, energy and resources for first nations leaders, who are put in a position to compete with other first nations to see who can best fill out forms or who can hire the right lobbyists or endlessly spend money on outside consultants to make sure applications are done just right for somebody sitting at a desk in Ottawa, needs to end. It is time for first nations people to make their own decisions. What they need is less made-in-Ottawa, not more Ottawa. Unfortunately, when looking at the indigenous services department, or ISC as I will refer to it, it is clear why major change is needed. I would like to spend a few minutes talking specifically about the results of this department. ISC sets targets under its four core responsibilities. In 2022-23, ISC sought to achieve 45 results. Progress toward meeting these results was measured using 83 separate indicators. A result status is assigned to each indicator based on the measured outcome, or the actual result. Of the 83 indicators, only 14, or 17%, of them met their target; 19, or 23%, have no result available; and 37, or 45%, are to be achieved at some point in the future. To extend this out a little bit, over the last five years, there were 367 indicators and the results are actually very similar, as 17% met their target, 23% have no result available and 46% are to be achieved sometime in the future. Additionally, there is this internal services component of the department, which, according to public accounts, increased from $146 million in 2018 to $296 million in 2023. The solution now is to take a whole new approach and to implement a renewed departmental results framework for 2023-24. By the way, they did this for the 2019-20 year already. ISC will roll all four core responsibilities into one new core responsibility. Remember, this is a department that claims that it plans to meet 45% of the targets it sets for itself sometime in the future. I guess that future will never come. This department spends more time playing bureaucratic games by changing target-setting schemes than working on solving the actual challenges indigenous people face. This is a department that has increased its planned spending from about $9.3 billion in 2018-19 to $39.6 billion in 2022-23, with the same projection for 2023-24. The actual authorities that were approved for 2022-23 were $44.8 billion. Over the same period, it has increased the number of FTEs, or full-time equivalents, from 4,210 to 7,278. Those are significant increases. I am not the only one who has raised these concerns. On February 1, 2022, at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, I moved a motion asking the Parliamentary Budget Officer to conduct a research and comparative analysis on the estimates of CIRNAC and ISC from the years 2015-16 to 2022-23. On May 18, 2022, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released his report. Let me quote from the executive summary of that report: Financial resources allocated to providing Indigenous services has increased significantly over this period. A quantitative and qualitative approach using publicly available data was employed to evaluate how effective the organizations providing these services were in using these resources. The analysis conducted indicates that the increased spending did not result in a commensurate improvement in the ability of these organizations to achieve the goals that they had set for themselves. This was partly driven by the volatility in the departmental result indicators. Many were added or removed over the course of the period preventing results from being collected due to data collection lags. Some indicators lack target values and completion dates altogether. Based on the qualitative review the ability to achieve the targets specified has declined. These are the words of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. They are not my words. Mr. Ken Coates is a distinguished fellow and director of the indigenous affairs program at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. He is also the Canada research chair in regional innovation at the University of Saskatchewan. In August 2022, he wrote an article in response to the same PBO report that I referred to. Here is what he said: Put bluntly, Canada is not getting what it is paying for—and what’s worse, the massive spending is not improving lives in Indigenous communities.... If Canada spends billions on Indigenous affairs, it must mean that we care deeply about First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. But it does nothing of the sort. While headlines emphasize dollar amounts, the statistics that tell the actual story of Indigenous well-being—around employment, health, housing conditions, suicide rates, violence and imprisonment, language, cultural revitalization—are much more sombre. When spending vast sums fails to make a substantial difference in many communities, the federal response is too often to double down and spend even more, in the absence of understanding what actually works to improve the lives of Indigenous peoples. When Mr. Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, was at INAN to discuss his report, I asked him to comment on what Mr. Coates had said. I asked him whether these results were common to other departments or whether they were unique to CIRNAC and ISC. Mr. Giroux responded by saying: In short, [I would say] based on the performance indicators that we have analyzed in our report last year, I would tend to agree with Mr. Coates. [That] seems to be consistent....whether it's common among departments, I would say...it's not common to see a level of increase of that magnitude that is not accompanied by a significant improvement in performance indicators. Mr. Coates went on in his article to say something else: “The government can and does change up targets and metrics, making it difficult to determine actual outcomes. But given the vast expenditures, such a conclusion is tragic.” When I asked Mr. Giroux to comment on this, he said, “I agree with Mr. Coates that there seems to be an outcome problem.” I asked him further, “Do you think there's an accountability issue that's created by these moving, changing targets that aren't consistent?” He replied: I agree with you. I don't think it's done on purpose. I think public servants who come up with these indicators genuinely mean to have the best indicators. However, changing them regularly or frequently does not help for accountability and accountability purposes to track a departmental performance over time. It is a department where, in 2021-2022, 94.6% of the employees, at executive level or above, received performance pay totalling almost $3.3 million. Remember, it is a department that met 18% of its targets in that year. What is worse is that when I drilled a little deeper, I found that over the previous five years, 99.2% of executives at a level three or above received performance pay. This represents the top 33 people in the department in 2018-2019, and that number grew to 56 people by 2022-23. I asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer about the performance pay system, in response to an answer I got on an Order Paper question. The Order Paper response reads, “Individual performance pay holds executives accountable for individual results and is not related to departmental results, which measure organizational goals.” I asked Mr. Giroux whether he thought there was merit in tying performance pay to organizational achievement rather than just individual achievement. He replied: I don't see how a majority of executives can have at-risk pay and performance pay if a department only meets half of its targets. Is there merit...? I think there's more than merit. I think it would be common sense. If I can be so blunt, it does not require a great deal of management expertise to conclude that the department of indigenous services is failing. Almost every conversation I have with indigenous leaders from across Canada involves commentary around the fact that they are utterly exhausted by the inadequacy and bureaucracy of the department. A leader of a national indigenous organization told me recently that ISC is a machine that eats money. If we want to move down a path of reconciliation, we must at least begin with the truth. I think, unfortunately, that is what the Prime Minister and government fail to admit. After eight years, the government has spent more money with fewer results. It has hired more people with fewer results. It has increased bonuses with fewer results. It has shuffled targets and target-setting procedures with, yes, fewer results. It is time to accept the truth: This is not working.

1616 words

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

Dec/11/23 7:33:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the member started off by acknowledging the election process of the Assembly of First Nations. I want to congratulate the national chief, Cindy Woodhouse, who is someone I know. Throughout my friendship with her, she has always been a very powerful indigenous woman and a very strong advocate. I am sure she will do exceptionally well and make many contributions in the years ahead. Even though the member has been somewhat cynical, what we have seen over the last number of years is numerous calls to action actually put into place, and many of them are actually a work in progress. I think we are at 80% or 85% where the federal government plays a role. The Government of Canada has been engaged with reconciliation virtually from the beginning, in the call for the public inquiry and in what we heard earlier today in regard to water. Could the member, at the very least, acknowledge that a big part of establishing a positive relationship is that we need to ultimately work harder on reconciliation?

176 words

Mr. Gary Vidal

Dec/11/23 7:34:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, in response to my colleague's question, the Parliamentary Budget Officer disagrees vehemently with his conclusions. After the study he did, he said that the department was failing miserably in the context of the targets it set for itself. In fact, he said that the results are actually declining in spite of the increase in spending. It is government's Parliamentary Budget Officer that is disputing the government's claim that its investments are working. He is the one who is saying that the results are not getting better and, as I said in my speech, that the conditions measured are declining. That is the sad part.

109 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Dec/11/23 7:35:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I know that the hon. member does care a great deal about this file. Before I begin, I want to congratulate the newly elected national chief, Cindy Woodhouse from Manitoba. I am sure she will do a fantastic job. One thing we are talking about in the House today, in a take-note debate, is the failure of Indigenous Services Canada, noting that there is $7.6 billion in funding that is scheduled to sunset over the next few years. Listening to my colleague talk about how we are not getting our money's worth, I want to remind every member of the House that indigenous people have been lifted up in the international community because of constant human rights abuses, including massive underfunding. One only has to think about the latest Canadian tribunal ruling on child welfare. Let me tell the House that the Conservatives are no better. When they were elected, first of all, they unanimously voted, on several occasions, against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a minimum human rights document; cut funding to the Native Women's Association; cut funding to Aboriginal Healing Foundation; took money away from residential school survivors; and took money away from the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society, from kids in care. I am wondering, given all of that information, whether my colleague could confirm that all the cuts that I shared with him are in fact true, and whether it is also true that the Conservatives just voted against $10 million that was supposed to be allocated for indigenous people in the budget last week.

272 words

Mr. Gary Vidal

Dec/11/23 7:37:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, in my comments tonight around Indigenous Services Canada, I do not think I complained even once about the amount that was being spent. What members heard me challenge was how the money is being spent and the outcomes we are getting as a country for that investment. I and the Conservative Party are all for lifting up indigenous people and improving the quality of life of indigenous people across our country. I support that, 100%. My colleague knows that I support that. For four years, I have stood up for that in the House. My point is not the amount of spending; my point is the quality of the spending. We actually need to invest in the right things. We need to hold a failing department accountable so it actually achieves the outcomes and targets it sets for itself. There has to be some accountability. Somebody has to hold these people to account. The minister and the government are not doing that.

164 words

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC)

Dec/11/23 7:39:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I thank the member for, as always, his advocacy for indigenous peoples right across the country. I want to pick up on the very last topic. The member spoke about the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, which showed that the increase in spending that we have seen under the government has not led to a similar increase in the ability of Indigenous Services Canada to meet the targets it set for itself. Can the member speak more to his frustration with that? We have a government that seems to measure its success based on how much money it can spend. If there is an issue, it says it spent this much money on it so it is getting the job done, but clearly, if it is missing its targets and it is not getting the job done, it is not improving the lives of indigenous peoples across the country. Does the member have further comments in that regard?

160 words

Mr. Gary Vidal

Dec/11/23 7:39:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, as I said in my comments, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that there is a lack of accountability and that the investments being made are not being made in a way that is improving the lives of indigenous people across our country. That is what we advocate for. If we go over my record in Hansard, we will see the word “outcomes” in my interventions, both at committee and in the House, probably hundreds of times. I am all about our getting outcomes. I am all about accountability. I am all about getting results. I believe that is how we are going to make the investments in indigenous people across the country that will result in an improved quality of life and improved standard of living. That is how we are going to get it done.

143 words