44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 9, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/9/24 10:12:31 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech and his work. I feel he is sincere.
He said something in his speech that bothered me a bit. He mentioned the summit that took place yesterday, which he himself organized. It was about an issue of critical importance: missing and murdered women and how we approach reconciliation and grief. So many indigenous mothers and fathers are intimately familiar with that kind of grief.
However, I witnessed the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples being denied entry into the summit. At a time when we are supposed to be working toward reconciliation, it is deeply disturbing to see the government decide who is indigenous and who is not, especially since statistics show that the murder and disappearance of indigenous women occurs more often in urban areas than on reserves.
The government decided to exclude one group because it is part of a group called the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, but refusing to recognize urban indigenous people in the context of a conversation about sharing grief and suffering makes no sense to me, so I have a lot of questions about what happens next.
How are we going to achieve reconciliation if certain groups are marginalized like this, especially groups that are grieving?
209 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 10:30:28 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member made some recommendations on behalf of his party that seem rather good in theory.
However, the devil is in the details and it is easy, two years before an election, to say that one party would be better than another, particularly when it comes to relations with first nations.
I would like the member to talk about the notion of overlap. How will he be able to determine who is indigenous and who is not? Do the Conservatives have a position on that?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 2022, the Conservatives joined all members of the House in voting in favour of Bill C‑29. Perhaps it is the member for Carleton's appointment as the Leader of the Opposition that has changed the dynamic in the House since then.
It is certainly not the amendment that says that we recognize “since time immemorial, First Nations and Inuit peoples — and, post-contact, the Métis Nation — have thrived on and managed and governed”. That is basically the amendment that was presented.
Now, the Conservative member—
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 10:40:31 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was just getting to the end of what I was saying. I should not have been interrupted.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. This council will monitor progress being made towards reconciliation across all sectors of Canada and support the sustainable implementation of measures to foster long-term reconciliation. I believe these elements are important, particularly in the context of the ruling that has been handed down, which somewhat neglects the long-term aspect.
There is no question that the current government has adopted a reckless strategy. One could argue that it has gotten off to a rocky start. Bill C‑29 still suffers from a serious flaw: The national reconciliation council is woefully lacking in representation. In its current form, three seats are reserved for national organizations, and this Liberal government collaborates with them almost exclusively on indigenous issues. That is not enough. Other voices, notably those of urban and disadvantaged populations, are being left out. Reconciliation cannot move forward if we continue to divide and exclude certain groups of people. The government should not play the role of judge and jury in deciding who is indigenous and who is not. The Supreme Court already ruled on that issue in the 2016 Daniels decision.
This government, which claims to be committed to a reconciliation process, only recognizes persons affiliated with the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami or the Métis National Council as indigenous. By placing indigenous peoples in an order of priority, the Canadian government is openly pursuing a divide and conquer strategy. It is fuelling internal discord by favouring some groups over others. This deplorable approach stands in stark contrast to the spirit of reconciliation and mutual respect that we aspire to achieve as a society. When most murdered and missing women come from urban centres, why is the government relegating crucial entities like the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to the back burner?
As we know, members of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples were prevented from participating in the summit. They had to fight for it. I joined them in the same room yesterday so that they could attend via Zoom. Both the summit and the Zoom meeting took place in the same building, the Shaw Centre. People went there to mourn, yet had the doors to an event organized by the federal department shut on them. Where are the voices that should be representing the full scope of Métis and indigenous interests?
Of course, funding is always an important issue. However, when it comes to Bill C‑29 in particular, it is clear that this is about more than just money. It is about representing all women and giving them a voice, especially those who are marginalized and experience violence in urban centres. They deserve not only to be heard, but also to have justice served. The same goes for young people, seniors and two-spirit people. It is ironic to talk about reconciliation while actively excluding certain individuals. This approach reinforces the hierarchy of groups that is not only unfair, but also profoundly destructive to our social fabric. As observers of this situation, it is our duty to denounce these practices and to promote a true spirit of justice and reconciliation. We must remain vigilant and never lose sight of our common goal, which is to create a society in which every individual is respected and included.
As I was saying earlier, there was unanimity on Bill C‑29 when it was passed. Again, there should be consensus on what the Senate brought to it. I am having a hard time figuring out the Conservatives' position. They have become very critical of the government regarding a bill that they supported roughly a year ago. The amendment, which was adopted in the Senate by a vote of 36 to 32, with six abstentions, provides that Bill C‑29, as amended, be amended again in the preamble, at page 1, by replacing lines 2 and 3 with the following: “Whereas, since time immemorial, Indigenous peoples—and, post-contact, the Métis Nation—have thrived on...their Indigenous lands”. The text continues unchanged from its previous version.
Essentially, this amendment modifies the preamble by setting out the timeline of when the Métis nation appeared, which was later than the first nations and Inuit in America. This amendment has no legislative impact in itself. However, it is interesting to see that it is important for certain first nations who seem to want to emphasize the fact that they were here first, as though the Métis are a little less legitimate. That said, it is still a form of inclusion, and the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this amendment.
I want to reiterate the principles behind our support for Bill C‑29. The Bloc Québécois is a strong advocate of a nation-to-nation relationship between Quebec, Ottawa and indigenous nations. Giving indigenous peoples an additional voice in the reconciliation process is entirely consistent with the Bloc's position. The Bloc Québécois works with indigenous nations on the federal level to strengthen and guarantee their inherent rights. The Bloc Québécois is committed to ensuring that the federal government fully implements the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in areas of federal responsibility.
The Bloc Québécois has also come out in support of indigenous nations receiving their due, and we will continue to put pressure on the federal government to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. On June 21, 2021, the Bloc Québécois secured the unanimous passage of a motion to ensure that indigenous communities have all the resources needed to lift the veil on the historical reality of residential schools and to force the churches to open their archives. This bill is a step forward in that regard. The Bloc Québécois also announced that we want to ensure that there will be predictable and sustainable funding for programs to help residential school survivors heal, such as the health support program that was specially designed for that purpose. This bill would establish a council to provide ongoing follow-up for this file. Since the bill proposes the creation of a council that can only make recommendations, there is nothing binding in this bill. Supporting this bill only confirms our position as an ally with the indigenous nations of Quebec and Canada.
As far as matters regarding truth and reconciliation are concerned, I want to note that there are different groups that are interested in those, including back home in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue. A committee made up primarily of university researchers and people from civil society was formed to independently document the implementation of these calls to action. The committee specifically focused on the Viens commission, which was held in Quebec because a discussion was needed in order to understand what had happened. There have been several defining events, including what happened to Ms. Echaquan.
That committee is based at the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and I applaud the university's leadership. Not only is it our very own university, but it is one of the first in the world to adopt a decolonial vision of relations with indigenous peoples. I think this very forward-thinking approach is definitely part of the solution in the context of reconciliation.
Yes, I have only recently taken on this responsibility, but I contacted my university to make sure I understood all the nuances and subtleties well enough to play this role. I feel this is also about being a facilitator or intermediary. Our role as elected members of the House of Commons is important, especially when it comes to relations with indigenous peoples. Right now, reconciliation is an issue that should matter to us all, regardless of where we are or where we come from. I commend the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue for its leadership.
I am sure there will be recommendations we will have to take into account. For this bill, we will support the government on this amendment and its inclusion. However, I urge the government to be open about its next steps so we can all be as inclusive as possible within our own territory while respecting the jurisdiction of the governments of Quebec, the provinces and Canada, as well as the indigenous communities themselves, which aspire to greater autonomy within their territory.
1457 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 10:51:48 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister. I am quite moved by the quality of his French. One of the challenges that comes with this new responsibility is that it seems like many things happen in English, so being able to talk about these issues in French makes me happy and is an acknowledgement that is not insignificant.
Obviously, in the context of reconciliation, the issues of the first nations back home are important. I have had many discussions with people close to the minister about this acknowledgement.
Abitibi—Témiscamingue is home to the Anishinabe nation. Some indigenous community leaders make a lot of demands and are very eloquent. They want to protect the soul of their territory. I want to talk about one of the things that the Kebaowek First Nation and its leader, Lance Haymond, have been making a strong claim for. There is something going on there. When we talk about reconciliation, the fundamental issue for me is respecting traditional lands. We can share a territory. We can work together on economic development. However, when it comes to an issue as critical as water quality and the potentially devastating effects that a nuclear waste storage facility in Chalk River could have on their land, then I completely understand why the Kebaowek First Nation and the other indigenous nations that support it are strongly opposed to this project.
It is absolutely fundamental that the government think about whether it will follow the recommendation of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and I would invite the government not to do so.
264 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 10:54:21 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the way I see it is that the first nations feel as though the Conservatives are using them for political purposes on the carbon tax issue.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 10:55:31 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the bill specifically sought to address calls to action 53 to 56 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada report.
With this in mind, I would like to focus more closely on call to action 54, which reads as follows:
We call upon the Government of Canada to provide multi-year funding for the National Council for Reconciliation to ensure that it has the financial, human, and technical resources required to conduct its work, including the endowment of a National Reconciliation Trust to advance the cause of reconciliation.
As I see it, predictable funding is absolutely essential. This is true not only for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, but for the various diversification funds for indigenous peoples as well. Reconciliation goes beyond the work of this committee. It has to apply coherently to all government action.
I recently met with an economic development group interested in developing indigenous entrepreneurship from the ground up, in the communities, through various models such as co-operatives and registered charities. That is fundamental. The federal government has not guaranteed the group's funding for the coming weeks. To cement good relations, predictability is essential.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 10:57:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I could not have described the consequences of these problems better myself.
Indigenous housing is at the heart of self-determination issues. In Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, there are sometimes two, three or four families living in the same space. I have heard horror stories about families who have to take turns sleeping during the night. They wake up every two, three or four hours to be able to get a bed, or to offer their spot to a brother, sister or neighbour. It is a major social issue. Human dignity is a fundamental aspect that has been pushed aside in the housing file, and the problem is worse among first nations than anywhere else.
It is obviously easy to turn a blind eye, but there are fundamental issues here, and, all too often, the government allocates funding in the various budgets so it can make some nice announcements. However, when it comes time to disburse that money, it comes with strings attached. First nations, however, are unable to meet the conditions because they live in rural or remote areas, and they do not have access to engineers, consulting engineering firms or others whose fees are often higher than they would be elsewhere. The government is therefore not meeting its objectives of providing decent housing for everyone.
We are going to have to think about these issues in a much more holistic and inclusive way.
238 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 10:59:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for being so thorough and taking an interest in intersectional issues affecting women. The example she gave is an excellent one. I think the government will be judged by its actions, and the council will be a great example of that.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
