Mr. Speaker, without trying to make light of the serious situation, I will try to speak quickly and maybe I can do the 20 minutes in nine.

Members cannot sit in this House today and not think that this issue is the seminal issue in front of us as a generation of Canadians. In fact, I do not think I ever have. The testimony that comes directly from those members who are indigenous in this House—aboriginal, Métis, or Inuit—moves us to action as no other voice in this country should or could.

There are a few things we should recognize. It has become a new custom in the east, and I know from my time in Vancouver that it has been a much longer custom there, to acknowledge the territory we are on as we make remarks as politicians. It is not often done in the House because of time constraints, but in public speaking engagements, as we move from community to community, we now seek to find out where we stand as we speak and to acknowledge the traditional peoples who have put up with us in ways that are unimaginable to many.

We stand here on Algonquin territory today. We know that there are children of Algonquin families in this city who do not enjoy the rights that children enjoy who have come to this country from all over the world. This has to be fixed. The government is committed to changing that. However, it is a complex process. We have inherited 500 years of colonialism, racism, death, and tragedy, and the scars of those tragedies live on in the lives of far too many people in our communities.

I do not think there is a division across that emotion in this House as we speak of these issues. What we are seized with is to find the best way forward, and not to take baby steps or single steps but to march forward together for the first time in this country's history, toward a future that does not discriminate based on whether one is born on or off a reserve, with or without defined lineage because of technical or bureaucratic decisions.

We have to find a way to share this country in the spirit that has been taught to us and shown to us—and that we have ignored—by the first nations and the first peoples of the communities we all come from. That change has to happen. This government is committed to it.

Will there be debates about whether $154 million or $155 million, or the $200 million that was originally spoken of following the decision, is the right amount? Yes, there will be debates about the amount. There will be debates about the mechanism by which that money flows, and the relationships that are established nation to nation, and even in those areas where no nation-to-nation relationship has yet been established. Those negotiations must happen and will happen, and hopefully will bring us to that new future.

We have been talking about the ruling from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, a ruling that does not specify $155 million, which is why we wonder sometimes exactly how this dollar amount has been arrived at, and exactly how it will impact across this country, child by child, community by community, treaty by treaty, nation by nation. We are grappling with that.

That is the issue we are grappling with, not the principle or the spirit of the motion, not the intent of the motion, but the functionality of the motion. I was in the opposition in the previous Parliament, and it is easy for opposition members to say that is the right way and if the government does not follow it, they disagree with us. The reality is that we agree with the direction. What we are trying to figure out is how to get those dollars into the lives of families and children so that the outcomes are transformational, and the promise of truth and reconciliation is fulfilled in real time, in real ways.

I admit it. Any government that does not admit to struggling with this issue is not being honest. We are struggling with it. It is as if we have been placed into a boat that is leaking, and we start bailing, and we start crossing the river thinking that we can get there if we bail quickly enough. The reality is that repairing the boat before we cross the river, and carrying the bailer, is perhaps the best way to go. However, some, in a hurry, want to go while the boat is still leaking. The fear some might have is that the boat will not cross that river.

I think we heard, eloquently, from the previous speaker that failing to cross that river puts real people, children in particular, in jeopardy. That would weigh on everyone's conscience. If we put the $155 million on the table tomorrow and it did not change lives, where would we be? What accusations of failure would come our way? We grapple with that.

It is a fair point for the opposition to push us. We as a government have a responsibility to respond, and we are. Part of that response is the budget that was brought down. We have listened to the criticism that the budget is back-end loaded.

We know that our first nations communities, whether they are on or off reserve, in our major cities, or in our biggest provinces, or in our smallest communities, it is one of the fastest growing demographics in the country. The reason it is growing is because there are more children this year than last, and there will be more next year.

If the budget did not grow toward the fifth year of the announcement, we would be locking in spending as the number of children and the needs grew. How is that responsible? Therefore, to be criticized for foresight and to invest downstream when we know the waters downstream are going to get choppier, it should not be a criticism of the government; it is something for which we should be praised.

We were told that the 2% cap on the increase of transfers was wrong. That was why we removed it this year. It is gone, and the investments are beginning to grow. However, the significant challenge we are dealing with, and it is the question I asked of members opposite as they made their presentations, is when we say $155 million, how do we operationalize that, because it matters. We can announce a spending envelope, but if there is no mechanism to transport it to communities, it does not show up in the communities. We have to sit down with leadership from the Assembly of First Nations, and from other organizations, and figure out how it arrives as we improve the funding envelope. That is the issue we are struggling with, and that is the issue that is slowing down the process, unacceptably to some, of getting those dollars delivered.

I assure the House that the department, the minister, our government, every member on this side is committed to delivering those dollars in bigger numbers, as quickly as possible, into permanent changes that improve the lives of individuals.

What are we doing? There are investments right across the board in terms of our relationship and our treaty obligations with different nations, different communities, and different individuals. Also, in this calendar year, we received instruction from the Supreme Court about non-status Indians and our responsibility to the Métis nation. As we grapple with the changing environment in which we operate, we have to grapple with budget numbers that must change accordingly.

Have we stepped up on Jordan's principle? Yes. Have we invested more? Yes. Have we put more dollars into education, housing, social services and into our relationships? Absolutely. Has it all been solved in one day? Absolutely not.

What I have asked the members opposite and what I want them to answer is how this $155 million works. When we read the reports, and comments from the person they claim has said $155 million is the magic number, she has also said $200 million is the right number. Which is it, and why $155 million? It is the precision part of the motion that is causing us concern and stopping us from supporting it. Aside from that, we support the principle and the intent, and, quite frankly, the honour in which it is presented.

The party opposite is asking the right questions and moving, absolutely, the right motions. What we are trying to figure out is what it means for us as a government to have to administer and deliver this money, how we operationalize the instructions the members are trying to give us. On that point, we disagree. On that point, we need clarity. As a government, as a country in a nation-to-nation relationship, we have learned that if we do not move in agreement with first nations communities, it quite often causes much damage, even though the intent is good.

I will continue my remarks later.

Adam Vaughan

Transcript

Government Orders

Discussions (0)