SoVote

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

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

Mr. Scott Aitchison

Feb/9/24 10:31:02 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure how to answer that question. I am not sure who is the arbiter of who is indigenous and who is not. I really cannot answer the member's question.

36 words

Indigenous

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

Feb/9/24 10:31:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago, we had a number of calls for action that were being placed on the Government of Canada. Stephen Harper was the prime minister at the time. We were sitting in the position of third party. We had made a commitment to work on and fulfill those calls for action. The Conservatives had consistently been dragging their feet on it. I wonder if the member could just provide his thoughts on recognizing the importance of the calls for action and why we support this particular piece of legislation. Can he be clear in terms of how he is going to be voting with respect to the amendments?

113 words

Mr. Scott Aitchison

Feb/9/24 10:31:59 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if this were not such a serious topic, that would literally be laughable. It is rich to hear the member talk about the urgency of these things, when it has been seven years in the making. The member has been part of a government for seven years, during which we have been talking about this, and now finally there is a race to get it done all of a sudden. I do not think the government understands the word “urgency”, and I find it rich that its members would suggest that we do not understand it. Seven years is an awfully long time to take to put together the council.

114 words

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

Feb/9/24 10:32:34 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments on his vision forward are very important. He talked about economic reconciliation. I think this is one of the most important things that the current government has ignored. On the carbon tax issue, Ontario first nations are having to sue the government. The member spoke about the excellent announcement that our leader gave yesterday with respect to the importance of giving back certainty and control to first nations. I was wondering, with his experience as a mayor and with his leadership, how important it is for a government, and a government-in-waiting like the Conservative Party, to listen to first nations and come up with viable things to give economic reconciliation to first nations.

121 words

Mr. Scott Aitchison

Feb/9/24 10:33:26 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I actually think that what the leader of the Conservative Party announced yesterday is very much like how a municipality would operate. We need to listen, and we need to act and get it done. What I love is that what he has announced is a first nations model. It was presented to him by first nations, and it is an optional model that would simplify the negotiation between resource companies and first nations, and give first nations control, which makes complete sense. It is their idea, and we have committed to implementing it. That is action. That is leadership, and there is an absolute dearth of leadership on the other side.

114 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Feb/9/24 10:34:20 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is genuine in wanting to work toward reconciliation. I do wonder, though, about the Leader of the Opposition. There are indigenous community members in my riding who have said that they do not think there is a possibility of reconciliation with the Leader of the Opposition, when he still has not apologized for meeting with residential school deniers. However, I was heartened to hear some of the things the member spoke about. In particular, I would love to hear a bit more about how it is important to have an arm's-length, permanent organization that could hold the government accountable to these promises.

110 words

Mr. Scott Aitchison

Feb/9/24 10:35:01 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I guess it comes down to this: It is important not just to listen to first nations and pretend to hear but to actually hear and to deliver results and action. In the Conservative Party, there is a commitment to do that and a demonstration of how we would do it if we do form government. First nations across this country can be reassured that they would have real leadership and real reconciliation. A government led by the leader of the Conservative Party would actually deliver results.

89 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/9/24 10:35:41 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I noticed in my friend from Parry Sound—Muskoka's speech that he could not resist talking about the carbon tax. He of course did not mention the rebates that go with the carbon tax, the extra two cents a litre in the last year. What he also did not mention is the exorbitant gouging by oil and gas companies of 18¢ a litre. Is he concerned that there are no rebates whatsoever for the gouging by oil and gas companies across the country?

88 words

Mr. Scott Aitchison

Feb/9/24 10:36:13 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that I truly believe there would be no need for rebate cheques if the government did not take the money in the first place. Frankly, this is classic Liberal government operation; they take more and more and then give a little back. It is the Ottawa-knows-best, top-down approach in which the government decides who wins and who loses. Conservatives believe that Canadians should keep more of their own money and that we should be incentivizing clean energy, not demonizing people for using the only energy they have available to them. Things like carbon taxes punish people. I see the punishing effects of the carbon tax in my riding when I talk to proud people who have worked hard their whole life to buy their own home, and they own their home. When they go to fill their propane tank in November or December, they have to go to a food bank. They are now a client of the food bank they used to support. We are talking about people who cannot afford to wait four months for a rebate cheque that might cover some of their costs. Things cost thousands more in this country, and that is a result of inflationary spending and the carbon tax. No amount of rebate, no matter how popular the government will try to make it, is going to solve that problem.

238 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/9/24 10:37:45 a.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am quite concerned about some of the Conservative responses when they say they will listen to first nations. When the Conservatives were in government, they were the ones who cut funds to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, which was very important for healing between first nations, Métis and Inuit. Even though they were told not to cut the program, they did. Therefore I will ask the member this: Is this how the Conservative Party describes “listening” when it comes to making to cuts? How do the Conservatives actually listen when it comes first nations, Métis and Inuit and ensuring the well-being of our societies in Canada?

114 words

Mr. Scott Aitchison

Feb/9/24 10:38:35 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely appreciate the question from my colleague from Nunavut, but I think it is fair to say that this country, including every government in its history from the time it was founded, might not be judged positively on its relationship with first nations. What we are talking about today is not the history; it is the future and what the Conservative Party and the leader of the Conservative Party are promising. I know the Leader of the Opposition; he is a man of integrity. He believes what he says and he is going to deliver. It is not going to be easy to clean up the mess of the current government, but do not judge the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party today on the history of this country's relationship with first nations. This is a new day; we are moving forward, and it is real reconciliation and true partnership.

156 words

The Speaker

Feb/9/24 10:39:37 a.m.
Watch

We have time for a 25-second question followed by a 25-second answer. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

23 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Feb/9/24 10:39:47 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

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

The Speaker

Feb/9/24 10:40:22 a.m.
Watch

I would ask the member to get right to his question. I will give him three seconds to ask it. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

29 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

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

Mr. Scott Aitchison

Feb/9/24 10:40:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question. I heard a lot of rambling, so I do not know what to say.

22 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Feb/9/24 10:41:01 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

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

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

Feb/9/24 10:51:06 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for all his work and congratulate him on his new role as the Bloc Québécois critic for indigenous relations and northern development. I know that the member has indigenous communities in his riding. Can he talk to us about the importance of consulting indigenous peoples to make progress on the path to reconciliation?

66 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 279