https://www.macleans.ca/politics/macleans-citytv-national-leaders-debate-2019-full-transcript/

SEGMENT TWO: INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Paul Wells: Indigenous issues have rarely been at the centre of as many national debates as they’ve been over the past four years, from pipelines to clean drinking water to the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls with its 231 recommendations or calls for justice. That’s why we’ve decided our second topic tonight will be Indigenous issues. I’ll warn leaders right now: I’m going to be a little bit more intervention as to making sure you don’t talk all over one another. It’s good to be excited, but we have to be comprehensible too. Andrew Shearer from the Conservative Party, you get the first question. Mr Scheer, last week the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal handed down a decision that could force the federal government to pay two billion dollars in compensation to First Nations children harmed by the on-reserve child welfare system. Would you appeal that decision or accept it?

Andrew Scheer: Well I would certainly acknowledge that the federal government has a unique responsibility as it relates to First Nations and especially Indigenous children both on and off reserve. It’s very important that these programs are offered to young Indigenous people to give them the exact same opportunities that every single other Canadian has. It’s very important that the federal government works in partnership with First Nations communities. I’ve got a great relationship with Grand Chief Perry Bellegarde. He actually comes from my home riding Regina-Qu’Appelle. That’s why our government, our Conservative government, will be focused on practical things that can alleviate the types of challenges that are facing Indigenous Canadians. That includes me ensuring that we end long-term boil water advisories, that there are partnerships in place to set people on reserve and off reserve, can have access to the same types of jobs that other Canadians do. That means saying yes to important natural resource projects that give people an opportunity. We will of course abide by court decisions and see the types of impacts it has on our abilities to provide those programs. But of course we’re going to be there as a willing partner.

Paul Wells: Ms. May.

Elizabeth May: I’m pleased to hear you say if I did understand your answer you will fully enforce the new ruling from the Human Rights Tribunal because we have seen millions of dollars in wasted legal efforts to quash the efforts of Cindy Blackstock and the Child and Family Services and Caring Society. This is a huge victory for the work that’s been done to protect Indigenous children with the Canadian government fighting them tooth and nail. And the things you’ve mentioned to Andrew are essential, but not at all sufficient to meet the challenge of truth, Justice and reconciliation, which means committing to fully, as we do as Greens, completely fulfilling the requirements on the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the murdered missing Indigenous women’s inquiry. We will do these things and that’s just the beginning of working for real justice, which means allowing First Nations Indigenous Metis and Inuit societies that self-identify. They decide who is a member of their community, and we begin to let and encourage that we have communities and nations opt out of the Indian Act so we can end this structural violence.

Paul Wells: I just want to understand in the case of a Human Rights Tribunal decision like this, the federal government has 30 days to decide whether to refer it to a federal court.

Elizabeth May:That’s right.

Paul Wells: Which means that guy, the prime minister must make that decision during this campaign.

Elizabeth May: Yes.

Paul Wells: You would argue that he shouldn’t refer it to a federal court?

Elizabeth May: He must immediately accept that this is long overdue and Canada will fulfill long, in a period of injustice towards Indigenous children. We have more Indigenous children in care now than at the height of the residential schools. This is a crisis.

Paul Wells: Mr Scheer how would you respond.

Andrew Scheer: It’s essential that the outcome of these types of decisions actually gets the resources to the people that need it the most, and ensuring that this type of decision focuses the federal government’s efforts on creating those same types of opportunities that every other Canadian has, is the essential part here.

Jagmeet Singh: I didn’t hear if you would accept the ruling or not. This is Indigenous kids that are not getting equal funding the Human Rights Tribunal of Canada has ruled, and Mr. Trudeau certainly hasn’t listened to rulings in the past. He’s appealed four or five times previous rulings. Now Mr. Scheer it’s not surprising, but it is appalling that he hasn’t said that he would accept the ruling. Let me be very clear. Yes. A New Democratic government would accept the ruling. At a minimum, we shouldn’t be taking Indigenous kids to court. They deserve respect and dignity. That’s what reconciliation is all about at a basic level. We ensure that there’s equal funding. We also ensure that there’s clean drinking water, there’s access to quality homes, then we make sure that Indigenous people are treated as equal partners in decisions. I mean I’m appalled that Mr. Scheer, couldn’t just say, ‘yes, we wouldn’t appeal the decision.’

Paul Wells: On the broader question, don’t rulings like this demonstrate how much expectations and frustration have increased even in only the last four years. And Mr. Scheer, doesn’t that make it a much greater governing challenge than it was even the last time a Conservative was in power four years ago.

Andrew Scheer: No you’re absolutely right. And if there’s one area where Justin Trudeau raised expectations to levels that he has been a complete disappointment, it is on Indigenous files. We have seen the disdain that he has shown people that he had promised. As it relates to Grassy Narrows, an important improvement in health care service to those people, and the disdain and dismissive attitude he had to those people who are advocating on their behalf. I think we can all agree on that that the fact that there are still so many places in Canada where Indigenous children can’t drink the water, where they don’t have the access to…

Elizabeth May: With all due respect Andrew, it was Conservative senators that blocked the passage of the bill that passed in the House of Commons that we should honour the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. Those are your people…

Andrew Scheer: For very important reason, for a very important reason…

Elizabeth May: …Because they want to block Indigenous rights.

Andrew Scheer: Because they voted in that bill. In that bill there is a provision that would force governments to recognize that in order for big projects to go ahead, the types of job-creating projects that give people opportunity…

Elizabeth May: You actually would have to give free prior and informed consent.

Andrew Scheer: Sorry let me finish…Free prior and informed consent and that means that we would have tremendous uncertainty. It means that if there were so many…Sorry, sorry let me finish… This is very important. If there are Indigenous communities who want a project to proceed, they would be vetoed if there were some that were opposed. And part about respecting Indigenous rights, means respecting the right to say yes, and we do not live in a country where any one group of people…

Elizabeth May: Free prior and informed consent is the reason the Conservatives stopped the bill. Free prior and informed consent.

Andrew Scheer: Does that mean, you mean unanimity for big projects to go ahead?

Elizabeth May: We signed in, in the United Nations, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government under Justin Trudeau said they would live up to it and we passed it in parliament.

Paul Wells: Let me jump ahead to the next question because this thing that moderators dread just happened. You started debating my next question before I got a chance to ask it. But I think it works so well. The next question is for Jagmeet Singh and it’s on Bill to C-262. Mr. Singh your colleague Romeo Saganash, has spent his last months as an MP promoting his private member’s bill to C-262 which called for Canadian laws to be brought into conformity with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That bill died in the Senate because of Conservative opposition. Basically let’s keep going with this debate. Beyond the symbolism of that bill, how would it improve the daily lives of Indigenous people?

Jagmeet Singh: Well it’s a pretty transformative piece of legislation. What it essentially says is that we should treat Indigenous peoples with respect as equal partners. And it’s something that we haven’t seen by Mr. Trudeau. In fact Mr. Scheer alluded to it but I want to just spell it out. I went to Grassy Narrows. This is a community surrounded by lakes and rivers, a beautiful community surrounded by water, and the people who live there wake up every day and look at those lakes and rivers knowing that those lakes and rivers are poisoned by mercury. Now people who are deeply concerned about the poisoning of their water, who suffer the impacts of mercury poisoning, which results in shakes and dizziness, they live in that with that threat. Some of those activist went to a private fundraiser, and behind closed doors we saw the real Justin Trudeau. What he did was he mocked activists who are concerned about poisoned water. He mocked them, made fun of them, and then people clapped and applauded. That is what you get with Mr. Trudeau. I mean these are people that deserve justice and fairness, and that’s why I would implement the declaration. But most importantly, I would assure that clean drinking water, clean homes, access education are a right. We would establish that.

Paul Wells: Mr. Scheer, on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people.

Andrew Scheer: Again this is a very important provision. It’s there are many laudable goals within this piece of legislation. Many things that the Conservative government that I will support as Prime Minister. But we cannot create a system in this country where one group of individuals, one Indigenous community, can hold hostage large projects that employ so many Indigenous Canadians. Mining for example is the single largest employer for Indigenous Canadians. With this bill is implemented we will see the complete blockages of large projects that build the types of prosperity. There were over 37 partnerships agreements signed with the Northern Gateway pipeline project. There are many Indigenous Canadians who will benefit from Trans Mountain. And yes there are people who are opposed it, but we do not live in a country where any one group of people have a view.

Elizabeth May:  The language you are using is so inappropriate when talking about Indigenous Canadians. You are missing the fact that section 35 of the Constitution already is interpreted by the courts; goes almost all the way to what the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous people.

Andrew Scheer: Consult is much different than…

Elizabeth May: It’s not, ‘I will consult with you ’til you agree with what we’ve already decided to do.’ That’s not consultation and it’s not. It’s what Trudeay thinks is consultation,  it’s obviously what you think is consultation, but it has to be free prior informed consent.

Paul Wells:  It is true, Mr. Scheer though, that the judge in the Trans Mountain decision last last year said that a duty to consult doesn’t mean waiting until the people you’re consulting stop talking and then do what you want.

Andrew Scheer: No you’re absolutely right. The judges and the court decisions on this have been clear. The duty to consult means real consultations. It means dynamic consultations. We saw the Trudeau Liberals fail to do that properly. It means that where appropriate…

Elizabeth May: …We saw the Harper Conservatives fail to do it too.

Andrew Scheer: Where appropriate, those concerns…Those concerns need to be addressed. But it does not mean that any one Indigenous community or another can hold up projects if they happen to disagree with it. We have to live in a country where we can have the types of confidence from investors to build things, to get people working. That is the only way to build prosperity for Indigenous Canadians.

Jagmeet Singh: So that’s not at all what’s going to happen first of all. You use language like “hold hostage.” I mean that’s just incredibly disrespectful. No, no…I listened to you…Sir, I listened to you.

Paul Wells: Jagmeet Singh.

Jagmeet Singh: What happened is he’s talking as if he doesn’t understand the reality. You’re going to have to work with communities; if you don’t have communities buying in, projects won’t go ahead, and it’s a matter of respect and dignity. And we should move forward with respect and dignity. It’s in fact better for business if we ensure that we have a process that we know is going to work. We’re going to work with communities and make sure that they feel engaged, involved and yes, that means they can say no. And yes that also what they can say, yes. It means we need to work together and partnership is the only way forward. We can’t have Mr. Scheer’s approachm, which is to ram projects through please.

Jagmeet Singh: What happens if one Indigenous community says no?

Elizabeth May: We’re talking nature, not communities, not groups. The language you are using Andrew shows no respect.

Paul Wells: Okay, Ms. May, does the Conservative leader not have a point? Is there not division among Native nations over some of these projects?

Elizabeth May: First to say that when when Andrew tries to deflect the reasons that they stopped the acceptance of the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People, and ignoring the the Section 35 requirements that are already there. He threw it. Well Trudeau did it wrong on Trans Mountain. Okay. Harper did it wrong on Enbrigde. Same thing. We have governments that think that consultation is to keep talking at Indigenous Nations until and groups until they agree. Now in the context of territorial recognition, you can’t treat Indigenous Canadians as though they were a an interest group or a lobby. The rights that they have in the constitution, and which we as federal leaders have a feduciary responsibility to protect even under section 35, much less under UNDRIP, require a rootedness in territory. So with the territory of the Squamish and the Musqueam and the Tsleil-Waututh what truth will be irrevocably destroyed if Trans Mountain goes ahead and there’s a single dilbit leak…a single one.

Paul Wells: Let’s move on there, because we will be spending a whole block later talking about pipelines. So I want to go to my last question on Indigenous issues specifically. And that question is for Elizabeth May of the Green Party. Ms. May, in interviews you suggested that if SNC level and were found guilty on corruption charges, the company should be ordered by a court to perform community service by repairing water infrastructure on reserves. Did you mean that as a serious proposal? And if you didn’t, what’s your real policy for improving on reserve infrastructure?

Elizabeth May: Well of course, our policy on on-reserve infrastructure is that every First Nation and every Indigenous community should have drinkable water and that’s a responsibility of the federal government. So the connection to First Nations around my approach for SNC Lavalin is just one example of what could be done. Let’s be clear, SNC Lavalin needs to go to court. The DPA agreement is still hanging out there and after the electio, whether it’s a Conservative or a Liberal sitting in the PMO, they are all riddled with influence from SNC Lavalin. They have,SNC Lavalin had its tentacles right in to the civil service at the most senior level, at a way that requires an inquiry. But what do you do to protect the workers, okay? That’s what Justin Trudeau’s excuse: gotta protect the workers. Well, the workers have it. The corporation has billions of dollars of existing contracts. There is no evidence that jobs are at stake, but if you wanted to come up with something creative which could not be Green Party policy it would have to be up to a judge to say I’d like to order this company to do community service; do the work that needs to be done maybe in transportation infrastructure in a downtown. Maybe fixing the waterline under the Fraser River from Mission B.C. which if it’s 38 years old it’s already showing cracks. Someone has to pay to do that work. Why not make SNC Lavalin do it, but no profit, no profit line in the work they do.

Paul Wells: Mr. Singh your MPs were quite critical of this idea.

Jagmeet Singh: I mean it’s a bit ludicrous to suggest that we should be building public infrastructure through punishment of a multi-billion dollar corporation is a ludicrous idea. We should be we should be building public infrastructure through public dollars. We should be investing in not P3s where profit is the motive, but where we publicly…

Elizabeth May: I took the profit out of it. That’s the whole proposal.

Jagmeet Singh: We shouldn’t be proposing that a private company do it that way.

Elizabeth May: Who do you think builds infrastructure on First Nations?

Jagmeet Singh: We should have a public tender and a public tender should be providing the services…

Elizabeth May: But the public tender goes to private corporations.

Jagmeet Singh: No one would ever suggest that in a city like Toronto that if the water was not clean that we would ask a corporation as punishment to clean it. We would clean the water. I mean people across this country deserve clean water…

Elizabeth May: Your MP…On your letterhead, the NDP issued a press release that was a fat big fat lie. Claimed I wanted to privatize water infrastructure. The Green Party doesn’t support P3s. The Green Party is against privatizing infrastructure, and is fully against…

Jagmeet Singh: You could just accept that was a bad idea.

Elizabeth May: Well it certainly was misinterpreted and it is not policy of the Green party.

Andrew Scheer: You started off the question on a very topical note and that is Justin Trudeau’s corruption scandal as it relates to SNC Lavalin and the fact that he broke the law. He is the only prime minister that has ever been convicted of breaking the law And he lied about it. And now we find out that the RCMP is looking into this case with the view to possible obstruction of justice charges, and he is obstructing their attempts to get the truth. So I want to use this opportunity to again call on Justin Trudeau to do the right thing and wave full cabinet privilege in cabinet conference to allow people to testify to the RCMP, so we can get to the bottom of this.

Elizabeth May: Don’t you agree with me that we need a full inquiry. I don’t think we’re going to get an RCMP inquiry is internal. I think we need the equivalent of a Gomery inquiry because we have to get corporate influence out of government. SNC Lavalin is not the only large transnational that can get people in PMO and PCO to say jump when they say jump.

Jagmeet Singh: Yeah I think you’re absolutely right. That’s what we started with when we were first asked the question, we came out and said there should be a public inquiry. But I want to make something really clear. Whether we have Mr. Trudeau in government and aLliberal government or Mr. Scheer in government, at the end of the day, both these parties, they continue to make it easier for the rich to get ahead. That’s their priority. So it wouldn’t have been much different. The PMO was office if it was Mr. Scheer office, would have got the call directly from SNC all the wealthiest corporations either donate Liberal or donate to…They donate to either Conservatives or they donate to Liberals because they know…

Paul Wells: There’s a there’s a there’s a pretty simple test of, your attitude towards us and see, Mr. Scheer: if you become prime minister will the public prosecutor be permitted to decide whether SNC continues to trial?

Andrew Scheer: Absolutely. The core of this issue is whether or not we want to live in a country where powerful politicians get to pick up the phone and tell prosecutors how to do their job. The whole root of this is that Justin Trudeau didn’t like the answer that his attorney general gave him. So he fired her. That is a huge attack on the independence of our justice system.

Paul Wells: And I can hear so many people saying right now, this was supposed to be about Indigenous issues. So I do want to as…You’re saying Mr. Scheer, if there’s time, because you’ve already been addressing the question. How do you fix dirty water on Indigenous communities? It’s a it’s an intractable problem it seems.

Jagmeet Singh: It’s a huge problem. Paul, I don’t see how in a country as wealthy as ours in the year 2019 with the technology that we have, that there is any excuse for clean drinking water not being available to everybody. I reject any excuse. I reject any sort of plausible denial that this is not possible. It is possible. We have the resources. What we’ve lacked is the courage to do so. Mr. Trudeau jumped quickly to give 14 billion dollars to the wealthiest corporations to buy corporate jets and limousines. He jumped quickly to buy a pipeline. If this is a priority it would have got done. With New Democrats we would make this a priority.

Paul Wells: We’re nearly out of time. Mr. Scheer same question.

Andrew Scheer:  This is a huge issue and one that a Conservative government will take you seriously. I will absolutely ensure that I sit down with Indigenous leaders to find ways to address this. It means investments in infrastructure on reserve it also means training people on reserve to be able to maintain and upgrade and manage these types of facilities. That’s a partnership that I’m willing to engage.

Elizabeth May:  It’s straight forward. Water infrastructure in Indigenous communities needs to be owned by Indigenous communities and the workforce that keeps that system working needs to be from people in the community. The ownership with top-notch equipment will ensure that every community has safe drinking water.

Paul Wells: That concludes our discussion of indigenous issues. I’ll be back in a minute with the leaders.