SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 336 - Sep/16/24

Sep/16/24 6:10:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-245, which was the original legislation, led to Bill C-71 partially because of the Ontario Superior Court decision. The Ontario Superior Court decision in Bjorkquist states specifically, in the 260 paragraph series, that one of the reasons the judge found the current legislation non-compliant was because of all the administrative burdens, delays and incompetence of government officials. In fact, in several cases, it was found that out of the sample that the judge took, 50% of the files had errors in them, including sending the wrong Canadian citizenship documents to the wrong family, errors in permanent residency and errors in when a person became a citizen of Canada. It goes on and on, and because of those errors, the judge considered it non-compliant. Therefore, one of the things we did at committee is introduce an amendment to the original legislation that is not in Bill C-71, which is to block a person from having their citizenship restored or gaining citizenship by descent if they are facing current criminal charges in another country. The Liberals, at the time, voted down that amendment. I thought it was a very reasonable amendment. It would make sure nobody facing criminal charges or who had been charged and convicted of a criminal offence would be able to get Canadian citizenship through this process. I wonder if the member could reflect on what has happened over the last six to 12 months with other temporary and permanent visa applications, where we have seen the government fail to do proper security screening.

263 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Sep/16/24 6:12:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right that we have seen, just in general, such incompetence from the government when it comes to immigration, or such abuse of process. I did some advocacy on a case. It was a particularly sad situation of international students who were basically victims of fraud. They were able to come into Canada because both they and the government were deceived by that fraud, and then the government proposed to deport them four or five years after the fact. I hope I get another question from the government, in particular from the former parliamentary secretary for immigration, who seemed to be reacting in various ways to my speech but has missed the opportunity to pose a question on this matter.

125 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Sep/16/24 6:13:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑71. I would like to sincerely thank those who spoke before me and defended the interests of Canadians who lost their citizenship due to the complexity and shortcomings of previous legislative amendments to the Citizenship Act. Today, we will take the next step toward fairness and inclusion. For me, being Canadian means taking steps to tackle inequality and injustice within our society. We do this not only through our words but also, and more importantly, through our actions. Bill C-71 proposes amendments to the Citizenship Act in response to issues raised in both Parliament and the courts. In 2007, this place was studying the matter of lost Canadians and Canadian war brides. In March 2007, a witness testified at the CIMM committee and shared how it all started when her brother, by then retired from the Canadian navy, went to get a passport in 2004. That is when she and her brother learned that her family had been stripped of their Canadian citizenship. She thought she was alone, but she soon learned that there were many people like her. They had family members who were World War II veterans and war brides and had learned that they were no longer Canadian citizens. She shared how Melynda Jarratt of Fredericton, the founder of the Canadian War Brides website, put her in touch with Don Chapman and the lost Canadians. Don worked closely with a former member of Parliament, the Hon. Andrew Telegdi, which is how I learned so much about this file. Today I have listened to a mostly fruitful debate. We know where each party in this chamber stands; all agree that the bill needs to go to committee, but for that to happen, it needs to be called to a vote. Canadian citizenship should not be a partisan issue. I did not choose where I was born or whom I was born to, but I am proud that my grandfather chose to come to Canada and that I was born and raised in the Waterloo region. I could not imagine someone arbitrarily taking my citizenship. The CIMM committee witness also spoke about numerous people she met; they had in common that they were lost Canadians. She also shared some of the reasons Canadians lost their citizenship, including being born out of wedlock or being born on a Canadian Forces base overseas. We can let that register for a second: When a person serving in our Canadian Armed Forces had a baby born on a Canadian Forces base overseas, that child could be stripped of their Canadian citizenship. Bill C-71 proposes to restore citizenship to the remaining lost Canadians, the individuals who either could not become citizens or lost their citizenship because of outdated legislated provisions. While previous amendments helped many, a small cohort of lost Canadians remains, so lost Canadians and their families launched a constitutional challenge in court of the two-generation citizenship cut-off. In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that it is unconstitutional for Canada to deny automatic citizenship to children born abroad because their parents also happened to be born abroad. It gave the federal government six months to repeal the second-generation cut-off rule and amend the Citizenship Act. Several constituents within the riding of Waterloo questioned what this ruling meant. It means that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down Bill C-37, the old citizenship law of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government, which prevented parents born outside Canada from passing on their citizenship to children also born abroad. The court ruled that the Conservative bill, Bill C-37, violated these people's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely, their mobility rights and women's rights, or equality rights. Today, I hear Conservative members saying that the government should have appealed this ruling. To me, this is telling, and I hope Canadians are watching and seeing their position. The Conservative Party of Canada may have changed their leader several times, but they have not changed who they are or what they believe. They believe in two tiers of citizenship. They support people who agree with them; everyone else does not belong in their vision of Canada. This is appalling and should be very concerning. My Canada is an inclusive Canada. I respect and value the diversity of people, of perspectives, of experiences and so forth. However, I digress. In response to the courts, in May, our government introduced Bill C-71, which proposes changes to Canada's citizenship laws that would address the concerns of the court and the constitutionality of the Conservative bill, Bill C-37. As I mentioned earlier, a small cohort of lost Canadians remains. These lost Canadians launched a constitutional challenge in court of the two-generation citizenship cut-off, and they won. The legislative amendment outlined in Bill C-71 respects the court's decision; it would help lost Canadians and their descendants regain or obtain citizenship. As the independent courts have ruled, that is their right. It would also address the status of descendants affected by the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit. The revised law would establish clear guidelines for acquiring Canadian citizenship by descent. After enactment of the legislation, the harmful Conservative first-generation limit would no longer apply. Canadian citizens born abroad would be allowed to pass their citizenship to their children, provided they could demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. Within the legislation, a Canadian parent born outside the country would be able to transfer citizenship to their child if they lived in Canada for a cumulative total of three years before the child's birth. These changes would result in a more inclusive and fair Citizenship Act and would right the wrongs of the Harper Conservative government. What is more concerning is that, under its new leadership, the Conservative Party continues to support two-tier citizenship in Canada. It is appalling that Conservatives in this place refuse to respect the courts. They refuse to accept that the Conservatives do not get to choose who should or should not have Canadian citizenship. However, this mentality has existed before. It existed with the previous Conservative government, which introduced and passed Bill C-37. At that time, the point was raised that we could make the legislation better. However, the Conservatives refused; thus, the lost Canadians had to accept a small step. We know today that what was passed is unconstitutional legislation. Lost Canadians took this matter to court and won, and that is what brings us here today. The Conservative opposition repeats the same behaviours. Bill S-245 is sponsored by a Conservative member. This Senate public bill passed the Senate, completed first reading and second reading in this place, and completed consideration at committee on June 12, 2023. Although it should have been called for third reading debate, the Conservatives continue to trade it down so it cannot be called to a vote. Some people will ask why. To pass a bill while elected, especially as a private member, is a massive privilege. However, do members know what happened? The Conservatives did not get their way. At committee, a bill can be studied and scrutinized, witnesses and experts can testify, members can ask questions and amendments can be proposed. The majority of the members of that committee proposed and passed amendments. I believe all did so except for the Conservative members. However, because the Conservatives did not support them, they refused to see Bill S-245 be debated at third reading. To me, that is disgusting, as well as disrespectful of the work we do in this place. I am not surprised, as I have seen the Conservative Party in action for a long time. I know the Conservatives love to change their leader, but they refuse to change their ways. Let us remember what I mentioned earlier: Conservatives support two-tier citizenship, and they only support those who think as they do. That is not an inclusive Canada. I would also like to mention that Bill C-71 would continue to reduce the difference between children born abroad and adopted by Canadians and children born abroad to Canadian parents. It should be noted that any child adopted overseas by a Canadian parent before the law takes effect would be eligible for the current direct citizenship grant for adoptees, even if they were previously excluded by the first-generation limit. With the law in place, the same criteria would apply to children adopted by Canadian citizens abroad, meaning that, if the adopted parent born outside Canada could show a substantial connection to Canada, the adopted child would be eligible for Canadian citizenship. Bill C-71 would restore citizenship to those who have been wrongfully excluded and establish consistent rules for citizenship by descent going forward. Our citizenship process and rules should be fair, equal and transparent. Recently, it has become clear that the act must be amended to address the 2009 legislative amendments, which excluded individuals because of the first-generation limit. The Ontario Superior Court has been clear: The Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit is unconstitutional in terms of both mobility and equality rights. Bill C-71 introduces inclusive changes that would address the challenges raised by the courts on citizenship by descent. This applies in particular to those born overseas to a Canadian parent. For example, former senator and lieutenant-general Roméo Dallaire was born in the Netherlands to a Canadian father and a Dutch mother. He grew up in Montreal. When he was 24, he was a Canadian Army officer stationed overseas. Because of the rules in Canada's Citizenship Act, which have since been amended, he found out when he tried to apply for a passport that he was not actually a Canadian citizen. He was, in fact, a lost Canadian. Today we have a choice. We can commit to addressing past wrongs, take care of those among us who have faced injustice and inequality, be more inclusive and share the benefits we enjoy as citizens with others who deserve to call themselves Canadian too. As proud citizens of this country, we must uphold the commitments that define us as Canadians. Whether we are citizens by birth, by choice or by descent, whether we were born in Canada or in another country, we are bound by our shared values, by our mutual respect for our country and for each other. This matter is very close to my heart. It is something that I have known for a really long time. We have the ability today to see legislation advance. It is okay for us to disagree. It is okay to propose amendments. This government, more than any government in our history, has accepted amendments at committee, on the floor of the House of Commons and from the Senate. That is important to do. Getting legislation right is important because we are here to serve Canadians. Today, we have the ability to actually see the legislation advance. Perhaps we need another day of debate. That is okay. I wanted to speak to the legislation as well, and it is important for people to discuss and raise points that will actually improve this legislation and raise any concerns. However, what is concerning is that the Conservatives today keep talking about how many Canadians will benefit from this. The reality is that these people are Canadian. The court is telling the government and every member here that these people are entitled to their Canadian citizenship. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects them. They should have the ability to be Canadian, and the courts are ruling on that. Therefore, the legislation is really about righting the wrongs of the past. We can move the legislation to committee and debate on amendments, but what will be clear is that something of a consensus is being achieved. I heard from the Bloc and the NDP. I heard from and have spoken with Green members. I have heard the points they are raising. I know where the Liberals stand. The Conservatives are actually not the majority of voices today. Just as they did for Bill S-245, they are making sure that we cannot call it to a vote. They will most likely slow it down in this place. They will read their scripted speeches. They will probably try to move some kind of tactic, or whatever else. Once it goes to committee, I am sure there will be a few tantrums thrown there as well. However, what is important is that we do this right. As I mentioned in my speech, Canadian citizenship should not be a partisan issue. We have a choice in our country. We can actually ensure that we are not following the lead of other countries. We can do democracy well. We can think about the people who fought in uniform for us to have our rights and freedoms. With rights and freedoms come responsibilities, and I hold those responsibilities very near and dear to my heart. When my grandfather immigrated, he would never have imagined that his granddaughter would put her name on a ballot, let alone be elected. To represent the good people of the riding of Waterloo is truly an honour and a privilege. To hear their voices and represent the diversity of their perspectives is something I take seriously day in, day out. I have been here since the day started and have been very impressed with a number of points raised in today's debate. I have really appreciated that even with differing views within our political parties, at the end of the day, we have all been talking about Canadian citizenship and the importance of respecting the independent judicial system. I believe we should have the question called sooner rather than later. I hope the committee is anticipating this legislation so we can hear from experts and witnesses who can help us ensure this legislation is right. It is the time to do it. I look forward to receiving some good questions and having the emergency debate that will take place after we adjourn for the day.

2385 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/16/24 6:30:09 p.m.
Watch

The House will now proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the recent deaths of first nations people during police interventions.

39 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Sep/16/24 6:30:12 p.m.
Watch

moved: That this House do now adjourn. She said: Uqaqtittiji, I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay. I sincerely thank the Speaker for seeing the urgency of this matter and agreeing that it required an emergency debate this evening. I especially thank my colleagues in the NDP for helping make sure that we raise the profile and importance of justice for indigenous peoples. Since even before Canada became a country, colonialism and genocidal policies have been very prominent, and they are not a part of history because they are still happening now. Those genocidal policies and the colonial attitudes we see are systemic. We see them throughout Canada. We see them in the education system, the health system and of course the criminal system. They resulted in the call for this emergency debate. I am very saddened to hear of the loss of six first nations people across Canada, and I would very much like to honour their families, who at this time are grieving and I am sure are very confused about what has happened recently. They are probably asking why their loved ones have been killed at the hands of law enforcement. It is not just the RCMP. Provincial law enforcement is part of the system helping to continue to oppress indigenous peoples in Canada. Consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments have made promises for decades, but those promises are not leading to action. As I mentioned in my motion seeking this emergency debate, there has been report after report and recommendation after recommendation. Despite all this great work to see law reform and enforcement reform, we are still not seeing an accountable system that ensures indigenous peoples are protected, that indigenous peoples live in safety and that indigenous peoples get to live in comfort. We are still discriminated against, and we need to do our part as parliamentarians. I very much hope that during this debate, we will not take a partisan approach to representing indigenous peoples in this House. Because Canada was founded and created on indigenous peoples' lands, I know that every one of us MPs in this House has constituents who are first nations, Métis or Inuit, all of whom have been impacted negatively by law enforcement. I want to mention briefly that what sparked this emergency debate was the killing of six first nations people from August 29 to September 8. In just 11 days, Canadian law enforcement killed six people. They were not just regular Canadian people; they were first nations, and that is why this matter is so important. We need to honour the families because of the way these individuals were killed. I should mention that there is going to be some graphic detail. I want to make sure that people are prepared to hear the difficult stories from those living in the communities, from loved ones who are left behind. Not only are they forced to grieve the loss of their loved ones, but for the rest of their lives, they will question whether they can feel safe with law enforcement. We need to do our job to make sure that first nations, Métis and Inuit children, women and other individuals know they will be protected, that they will feel safe when they ask for law enforcement. What we have heard from August 29 to September 8 will only cause more harm and more fear. It is a challenge to want to be Canadian, to want to be part of society. I know as an Inuk and I know from families what that fear can do. It can be paralyzing. It can be confusing. Without proper mental health supports and proper coping skills, isolation can lead to more social issues that will require the need for protection. For people to have to think about being paralyzed because there are gunshots next door or about whether they will be protected is a real fear. We need to do a better job of calling for accountability. As Canadians, we want to be protected. As Canadians, we want a sense of security and a sense of safety, but how can we have that when six individuals over 11 days were killed by law enforcement? We need to address the calls to action and the calls for justice. The TRC reports came out years ago, and we have not seen enough implementation of the recommendations shared by the voices of national organizations. They tell us what things need to happen to keep police accountable and to protect indigenous communities, and there is not enough going on to make sure that indigenous peoples are being protected. I mentioned the TRC. I mentioned MMIWG. I want to thank Senator Kim Pate, who reminded me today that there is also a great report out called “Injustices and Miscarriages of Justice Experienced by 12 Indigenous Women”. This is not just about first nations, Métis and Inuit people. It is specifically about indigenous women, and we need to make sure we are doing a better job of protecting them. I hope that through this debate, we will see some policy changes so that we can make steps toward addressing systemic racism and can see indigenous peoples celebrating their life while thriving and contributing to this great country that we call Canada.

897 words

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

Sep/16/24 6:39:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the member for Nunavut and the member for Timmins—James Bay for bringing this very important debate forward. Let me also express my deepest condolences to those who have been impacted. We have been struggling with the notion of systemic racism in law enforcement for many years and across different jurisdictions. In this particular case, it was in different areas and involved different police services. What would accountability and truth look like in these cases? I know there cannot be one particular answer because they are all different, but I would like to get a sense from the member of what she feels justice would be.

115 words

Ms. Lori Idlout

Sep/16/24 6:40:36 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, that is an important question. The response is a complex one, but some of what needs to happen is a true implementation of the MMIWG and TRC reports. They have made great recommendations to make sure that we do see changes in systemic racism. We need to make sure there is indigenous oversight of law enforcement. That is another recommendation that has been made for years. Right now, with the current staffing of the RCMP, most of its members have always been people I can describe as having come from privileged white communities that have not been given the history and experiences of indigenous peoples. Part of the reason systemic racism still exists is that there is still too much ignorance. There is still too much denialism about residential schools, for example. We need to make sure we are opening the eyes of Canada.

145 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC)

Sep/16/24 6:41:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very sincerely for bringing this forward. I agree with her wholeheartedly that in any solutions and in any work that the government is doing to support first nations, first nations, Inuit and Métis need to be equal partners at the table and the work needs to be guided by lived experience by first nations, Inuit and Métis people. I very much appreciate the member for putting that on the record and for sharing her story. I would appreciate her perspective as well on first nations and Inuit policing. We know the Liberal government promised to legislate this as an essential service in 2020, and then again in 2022. To my knowledge, no legislation has been brought forward, despite the former minister of public safety's stating on the record that he was working around the clock. That was in 2022. Clearly there has been a failure to deliver on these promises.

161 words

Ms. Lori Idlout

Sep/16/24 6:42:51 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, that is a great question. What I think is that when there is proper representation in law enforcement, in the health care system, in the education system and even in Parliament, and I really hope that we have more first nations, Métis and Inuit run for Parliament, there can be major improvements. I do agree that Inuit, first nations and Métis law enforcement needs to be better supported. When it does exist, it needs to be given better resources. I remember working with the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, the Deputy Speaker, last year because the federal government was not negotiating with law enforcement in her first nations riding. It was not being given equal treatment. When it does happen, we need to make sure that it is equal, but that its members are given equal resources to exercise their knowledge and their expertise in their first nations, Métis and Inuit communities.

161 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Sep/16/24 6:44:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canada prides itself on being a nation that does not have the death penalty. Part of our justice is understanding that people have the ability to have their day in court, and yet we have a situation where six people have been murdered in an extrajudicial way. Could the hon. member comment on what impunity looks like in policing when there is a lack of accountability for what are essentially extrajudicial murders of indigenous people?

77 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/16/24 6:44:46 p.m.
Watch

The member is out of time, but I will allow the hon. member for Nunavut to answer.

17 words

Ms. Lori Idlout

Sep/16/24 6:44:49 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, it means that first nations, Métis and Inuit will continue to be beaten up more and will be followed more, and it means that indigenous peoples will not trust law enforcement to protect them. That is why the motion is so important, so that we can move towards better protections and to make sure that the impunity stops.

61 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Sep/16/24 6:45:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nunavut for bringing this important debate, and I want to thank the House of Commons for recognizing its importance. I have been around a long time, and the idea that we would actually have an emergency debate about the needless deaths of indigenous peoples at the hands of police would have been unimaginable just a few short years ago. Therefore we have come down the road, but have just not come to where we need to be. I would like to begin by apologizing to Shelley Mae Anderson, who died in my hometown, a murdered and missing indigenous woman. I had never even heard her name. I knew nothing. This was in a little town. We all look out for each other. We know everybody. She was taken and killed. Her family was putting up posters and had T-shirts, but she was indigenous. I want to apologize to Shelley Mae Anderson's family, because I think of it being in my hometown and that we did nothing. My colleague talked about people being safe, and it is a fundamental issue: the right of indigenous communities to be safe. Right now, I think of Ricardo Wesley, 22, and James Goodwin, 20, two young boys in Kashechewan, who got picked up one night for being drunk and put in a police station that looked like a crack house. It was not a proper police station because it was so seriously underfunded. A fire broke out and those boys burned to death. For years, Kashechewan talked about safety in the community and the rights of people to make sure they had not just proper infrastructure but proper police services, and we are still having those fights today. I want to be fair to the police officers whom I know who are trying to wrestle with so many issues with the opioid crisis, the gangs coming in and the young gangbangers who are threatening and killing people. These are very complicated times. They do not have the support they need, and they do not have the support in first nation communities. The first nation communities are calling for the ability to be able to use band powers to get predators out of the communities, who are making people sick, causing people to die and causing violence. We need to be looking at this holistically. I want to thank Mushkegowuk Council, which worked with the City of Timmins, and the Fire Keepers, who walk the streets to keep people safe now, to keep people alive. We need this holistic approach of police and mental health, and working with first nations so we can do this to keep people from getting in situations where violence seems to be the solution. I have to admit that I grew up in Pierre Berton's Canada. Pierre Berton's Canada was a great place to grow up. We got taught that the RCMP was like bureaucrats. It kept us all safe. Nobody ever taught me in school that it was the light cavalry, the shock troops to enforce the taking of indigenous lands. That history I never learned. Indigenous peoples knew that history from the get-go and still know that history. We have to confront that history if we are going to make a change, because if we do not confront that history, we do not understand the fact that when my colleague talks about people being safe, it is being safe not just in their home communities but also in Toronto, Winnipeg or Montreal. Are they going to call the police when they have been in a situation where they have faced threat? Absolutely not. There is a term, and I do not know what it is because I don't speak Oji-Cree, but the woman told me what the name for police was: “the ones who take our children”. They do not call the police, because there is not that trust. That is the shame of the colonial Canada that still results in six of our young people dying. Therefore in the time I have, I want to name some names so they are on the record. There is Jethro Anderson from Kasabonika, who was 15 years old when they pulled him out of the McIntyre River in Thunder Bay in 2000. The police told his family that he was just out there partying like a native kid. They did not investigate how this 15-year-old kid, who had to leave his home to get an education because Kasabonika Lake does not bother to provide schools, was pulled out of the McIntyre River. There is Curran Strang from Pikangikum, who was found in 2006 in the McIntyre River in Thunder Bay. Police said that it was accidental and just another native kid. On November 11, 2006, Paul Panacheese was pulled out of the McIntyre River in Thunder Bay. He was from Mishkeegogamong First Nation. Each time, Thunder Bay Police said it was just a native kid partying and it was an accident. As Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler said, these are kids who grew up on the northern rivers; they know how to swim. Is it possible to believe that all these children died in a river because they did not know how to swim? The police then pulled out 15-year-old Reggie Bushie's body from the McIntyre River. He was from Poplar Hill First Nation. Thunder Bay Police said it was just a native kid; it was just an accident, and he was partying. All these children had to come to Thunder Bay because the government would not give them schools and safe communities. They had to leave their families to go live in boarding houses when they were 13 years old. Kyle Morriseau was the grandson of the great Norval Morriseau. Kyle was apparently an incredible artist. The police pulled him out of the river and there was no further police investigation. On February 7, 2011, Jordan Wabasse got off a city bus and was walking back to his boarding house. He was found in the river. There was no further investigation. They said he was just a native kid. He was from Webequie First Nation. Who found him? It was not the police; it was the community members who came down from Webequie and searched the river because they knew that was where they were going to find their boy. The cops said not to go to the river because they would not find him. I also think of Tammy Keeash, who was found in the river in 2017, and within two weeks, so was Josiah Beggs, who was a 14-year-old who went to Thunder Bay for a medical appointment. In every single case, Thunder Bay Police said it was just a native kid partying; there is nothing to see here. Tammy Keeash, if I remember correctly from meeting her family, was found in the reeds in two or three feet of water. She was a strong swimmer, yet she drowned? There have been major questions about the racism and the systemic racism, but it was a police force, and nobody was going to take on the police force. What does that say to indigenous communities anywhere? What does that say to indigenous people in my community about whether or not they should trust the police, when they know there were numerous requests for investigations into how those children were allowed to die, and nobody thought there was a serial killer. I can tell members if there were seven blonde girls found in the McIntyre River, the police would turn the world upside down. I say that while thinking very carefully about what that means. I do not want to pit one group against another, but we need to address the systemic failures. Going forward, we need to address the need to keep communities safe at this time. I am not trashing the police officers who are out trying to do their best and who are dealing with very complicated situations without the mental health supports they need. They are dealing with the PTSD of first responders. I know people who have seen first responders commit suicide, because when there is a child suicide or when there is a killing, they are the first ones in, especially in isolated communities. We need to talk about this, and the fact that we have brought this forward tonight is important. However, I have been in a lot of these emergency debates. We had the emergency debate on the suicide crisis in Attawapiskat. We have had numerous emergency debates. The question is, are we going to do something about it? I want to thank my hon. colleague for raising the issue. I want to say to victims' families and to everyone, from Colten Boushie's family, which we met, to everyone else who has lost a young one to violence, that, as a nation, we have to set a higher standard. That means making sure we put resources into protecting communities, into training for police, and into mental health supports to treat this holistically, and stop treating it as the colonial shock troops enforcing the treaties on behalf of the white power state.

1554 words

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

Sep/16/24 6:55:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's bringing forward the personal stories he has brought to light this evening. I suspect, knowing the member, he has probably even raised a few of them not only inside the House but also outside the House. The question I have for the member is in regard to law enforcement agencies in general. I like to think that over the last number of years in particular, primarily because of the calls to action, reconciliation has been on the agenda of many agencies, not only of governments but also of those at arm's length. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to the different stripes of law enforcement agencies, like provincial, municipal and the RCMP, and the importance of reconciliation?

127 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Sep/16/24 6:56:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I come from Ontario, where we do not tend to deal with the RCMP; we have the Ontario Provincial Police. I represent is Treaty 9, with the Nishnawbe Aski Police, NAPs, who were seriously underfunded. I do not know how many times we had to come to the House when they had no backup, with a single officer representing two or three communities, over 200 kilometres, by himself. Who goes into a dangerous situation without backup? The NAPS had to. They did not have backup radios. Why did we have someone die in Kashechewan, when those two young boys died? It was because we did not have proper funding. There has been a continual pressure to get adequate funding to make sure that police can do their duties. Now, we are seeing the complexity of gangs coming in and we are seeing the opioid crisis and the mental health crisis. As Timmins police have said to me, this is beyond us. What we need are the other options to be able to come to the table, like in Timmins where we have the Firekeepers, who can actually walk on the streets, keeping people safe, keeping people alive, because everyone deserves to know that their communities are going to be safe from gangs and opioids, and that the police who are doing it are not doing it through a racist lens, that they are doing it because they have the support and the clarity to know how to deal with these increasingly complicated situations.

255 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC)

Sep/16/24 6:57:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his heartfelt speech. I am deeply sorry that he has experienced and his communities have experienced the trauma that he outlined, and no community should have to go through that. I would like to extend sincere apologies to his community members, that they had to go through that. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and the community that he represents. I appreciate him putting that on the record. As he outlined and as many others at other times in the House have outlined, their first nations communities and others in the indigenous communities face a number of issues. We know that there are bad people who like to go into marginalized communities and prey upon them and take advantage of them. Notably, just last fall, in fact, Karla Buffalo, CEO of the Athabasca Tribal Council, had said, “We're seeing a significant rise in violence and illegal activities by people coming from outside our region and preying upon those experiencing crisis who are desperate for some relief.” Her first nation and others have put in drug bans and roadblocks to stop drug dealers from coming in. Can the member comment on his thoughts on those policy proposals and perhaps how the federal government could support first nations in their pursuit of this policy or policies like them?

227 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Sep/16/24 6:58:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will give my hon. colleague a simple solution for the fly-in communities. When one is flying in out of Sioux Lookout, Thunder Bay or Timmins, none of those flights get checked. On Air Canada, one's bags are checked. If one is flying into a first nation, one does not have to get checked. What the communities have asked for is for the federal government to make sure that Transport Canada gives the first nations the ability to check bags before people get on planes. There are people coming into the communities carrying serious and dangerous levels of fentanyl and opioids and guns that would be stopped before they got on the plane. Let the communities police it at the airports in the white communities before they come in. Once they are in the communities, the havoc that they are causing is a deadly situation. Communities do not have the tools to keep those gangs and the criminality out.

163 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Sep/16/24 7:00:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the subject of our debate today is important. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about it too. I read a lot about the events that have brought us here tonight and that occurred just about everywhere in Canada except Quebec. That being said, Quebec is not free from this type of violence and injustice. There have been cases like that of Sindy Ruperthouse. Unless I am mistaken, my colleague mentioned her earlier. Sindy Ruperthouse was from the Pikogan community, near Val‑d’Or. Her situation gave rise to the Viens commission, which was launched by the Government of Quebec and which made several recommendations. We are therefore rather concerned about this. Not all of those recommendations were implemented, like so many other recommendations in this regard. I am trying to sort all of this out. From what I can see, and maybe I am wrong, the police officers who are in the best position to deal with these types of situations are indigenous police officers, those who work in the various communities or who are from indigenous communities themselves, because they are more attuned to these situations and have a better knowledge of the community. I would like my colleague to talk about that. I am also wondering whether they may have more credibility with the indigenous population, which would enable them to respond more effectively. If so, we understand that adding police officers to the various indigenous police forces would require additional funding. Does my colleague not think that the solution would be to give more responsibilities to police officers from indigenous communities? I thought that was the case, from the other answers he gave.

284 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Sep/16/24 7:02:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before my career in politics, I worked for the first nations communities in Quebec. I remember the investigation into the police violence against the indigenous women in Val‑d'Or and in Rouyn‑Noranda and the need to deal with the racism in that sector. As far as the solution is concerned, we need to implement an agreement with first nations communities and the police across Canada to ensure that women and vulnerable people are protected.

80 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/16/24 7:02:42 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind folks that we want to have a natural conversation, but we do want to have folks stick to the times assigned to us. I want to make sure that we keep the questions and comments as quick and exact as we possibly can.

48 words