SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 294 - Mar/22/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/24 10:29:49 a.m.
Watch

Order. There are discussions being had on both sides, and I would tend to think that the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton would want to make sure that his colleague can answer the question without further interruption. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

46 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Mar/22/24 10:30:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would hope the individuals on the other side of the floor would also show that respect to me. I am not for more division in this country, and every time we come up with these ways to say someone is saying this or that, which divides people, it is shameful and it needs to stop. This country is one country full of amazing people who want to be united. That is what I focus on and that is what the people in my riding are focusing on.

90 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 10:30:40 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-38

Madam Speaker, good morning to you and to everyone. I wish all hon. colleagues who are gathered here this morning a happy Friday. Welcome to the folks in the gallery as well. First, I will be splitting my time with my friend, the hon. member for Sudbury, who I get to sit and work with on two committees in this wonderful House. With that, I would like to begin speaking to Bill C-38, an act to amend the Indian Act— Mr. Michael Cooper: Oh, oh!

87 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/24 10:31:14 a.m.
Watch

There seem to be some conversations going on across the floor again. I would ask members if they want to have conversations to please take them outside while someone else has the floor.

33 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Mar/22/24 10:31:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I tried to turn the other cheek, but the member for St. Albert—Edmonton has now repeatedly said things that the Speaker has already said are not allowed in this place. I do not know if he needs to be told again. I would like him to apologize. He said things that are, frankly, very untrue and that the Speaker has already ruled are out of order in this place. He needs to apologize for those statements.

87 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/24 10:31:52 a.m.
Watch

I did not hear what was being said there. I certainly will listen to the recordings to see if we can hear what was being said, but I would just remind members that if they do not have the floor, they should not be trying to participate in the debate until the appropriate time, which is during questions and comments or until it is their turn to speak on the debate itself. If they want to have conversations with other members, they should not be trying to have those conversation across the way while the proceedings are taking place in the House, but they should take them out to the lobby. I will get back to the House if need be. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

128 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Mar/22/24 10:32:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I begin, it is important to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. It is a pleasure to speak today on this topic, and to join my hon. colleagues in providing important information— An hon. member: Oh, oh!

52 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/24 10:33:01 a.m.
Watch

There are still some conversations being had. I would again ask members to please step outside. It is very problematic for individuals who are trying to make speeches. The House has a bit of an echo in here, so when members are speaking to individuals, they do not particularly recognize that the sound does carry.

55 words

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

Mar/22/24 10:33:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I believe the conversation is about the duty of the Chair to ensure that people are not slandered or maligned. The member was standing right beside my colleague and accused her of being a terrorist because she stands up for human rights. If someone is being accused of being a terrorist in the House, you have an obligation to make sure that the rights and the dignity of the member for Edmonton Strathcona are not deprived by someone as low as that member over there.

95 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/24 10:33:59 a.m.
Watch

Order. I want to remind members that I just provided an opportunity for someone to raise a point of order, and other members were interjecting when they had not been recognized. Again, this is about respect in the House. I want to clarify something for the hon. member who just raised the point of order. Unfortunately, I did not hear what was going on. All I could hear was that there were some conversations, but I did not hear the actual conversation itself. I do not know what words were used. I indicated that I would listen to the tapes to see if we could pick something up, and if need be, I would come back to the House. I would ask all members to be respectful of each other. I know that sometimes words are being said, and I think members recognize full well what is acceptable and what is not. However, when the House is in progress and someone has the floor, that is not the time for other people to interject, to try to have conversations or to be yelling anything out.

185 words

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

Mar/22/24 10:35:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. First of all, I agree that nobody should have been speaking during the member's intervention. I am happy to say I was not one of those people. With regard to the point of order raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay, he ended it by making a personal aspersion against the member. He said that the previous member, and I am not even sure which member it was, had been speaking in an unparliamentary way. That may or may not be true; I was not here to hear it. However, I do know that one cannot then add “by someone as low as that member”. If it is unparliamentary, it is unparliamentary. We do not have the sort of category where certain members are beneath contempt and can say so freely, as the member has just done, and others are not okay. That is just ridiculous. I would encourage him to reconsider that kind of language.

171 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/24 10:36:03 a.m.
Watch

I want to indicate again that I just spoke to that. I indicated that I would listen to the tape. I do want to ask members again to respect each other. We are here as parliamentarians. It is no different from when we are out in the community. We want to make sure that people are respectful toward us and that we are respectful toward them. I just want to ask members to please be very judicious in the words they use and to be respectful with each other. As I indicated, I will make sure we listen to the tapes and look at Hansard to see if we can discover what was said. If need be, I will come back to the House and ask the member to apologize, if need be.

133 words

Mr. Scott Reid

Mar/22/24 10:36:56 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my point is that at the end of his intervention, complaining about the unparliamentary behaviour of a previous member, the member for Timmins—James Bay added, gratuitous to the comment, that those are unfit comments from “a member as low as that member”. That, I think, is unparliamentary. I might be wrong, but I think that was an unparliamentary addition to the debate by the member for Timmins—James Bay.

76 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/24 10:37:19 a.m.
Watch

I want to remind everybody to be judicious in their comments. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising. I do not know if he wants to withdraw his comment.

32 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Mar/22/24 10:37:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was not clear because I did not identify the member who accused my colleague of being “a terrorist”, and I think that is a very low comment. He is the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. I just want to make sure that—

49 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/24 10:37:43 a.m.
Watch

I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that part about “as low as that”. I think we can move forward. Some hon. members: Oh, oh. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): These types of conversations or words being used against each other are not acceptable. It is not acceptable in the House. It is not acceptable outside of the House. We need to be respectful to everyone. Again, I want to ask the hon. member to withdraw that part, and then we can move forward. As I indicated, I will listen to the tape. If we can pinpoint what was said, then I will be asking the other hon. member to withdraw his comments as well and to apologize.

123 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Mar/22/24 10:38:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely. I respect this chamber, and that is why I am asking you to make sure that members like him do not come in and harass, insult and threaten someone with the language of calling someone “a terrorist” for doing human rights work. It is absolutely abominable. I expect a standard. I withdraw saying that he is “low” for doing that, but I am appalled by his behaviour.

74 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/24 10:38:49 a.m.
Watch

As I indicated, I will look at Hansard and will come back to the House, if need be.

18 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 10:39:01 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-38

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on this topic and to join my colleagues, the topic being Bill C-38. Again, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sudbury, as I indicated earlier, and I will be providing important information about the Indian Act and about the amendments being proposed in Bill C-38. My colleagues have described how these amendments were developed through engagement with first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations, which was central to the process. We could not do this without their collaboration and guidance. Now, I would like to share the potential impact of the amendments and some next steps in addressing the historical inequities of the registration and membership provisions of the Indian Act, and ultimately, a full transition away from the act to true self-determination and governance by first nations. The amendments being proposed today are situated within a broader whole-of-government effort to advance indigenous rights to self-determination and to self-government. Our government acknowledges that the Indian Act is an extension of our colonial history. These amendments would be an incremental step toward the development of an approach to first nations' citizenship that would be an alternative to the Indian Act. We have heard from many first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations that we need to address a range of issues before a full transition of jurisdiction over citizenship to first nations can occur. That is what we are working toward today by introducing amendments to address inequities in registration and membership under the Indian Act. What would the impact of these amendments be? Let me begin with the proposal to address the discrimination caused by a family history of enfranchisement. This bill would eliminate the differential treatment of those whose family histories include involuntary or voluntary enfranchisement, resulting in approximately 2,400 newly entitled individuals. It would also reinstate individuals who collectively were enfranchised as a band prior to 1985, resulting in approximately an additional 1,100 newly entitled individuals. Descendants of enfranchised individuals would be entitled to registration and would be able to exercise their rights and access the associated benefits and services, which include education and non-insured health benefits. These amendments would also recognize the acquired rights of all individuals to membership in their natal communities. The amendments would provide a legal mechanism enabling women to re-affiliate with their natal bands, if they wish. This would directly benefit those first nations women and their descendants whose membership in their natal bands was changed without their consent or their say. The result would be that first nations women who married first nations men from a different community, between 1876 and 1985, would have the choice to reconnect to their natal community. The bill would also return autonomy to first nations by allowing them to deregister or to remove their name from the Indian register if they wish. Individuals would have the legal capacity to exercise agency over their status. Finally, by eliminating outdated and offensive language about first nations persons with a disability, the amendments strive to align the language of the Indian Act with the last 50 years of development in capacity and guardianship law. The outdated and offensive language in the Indian Act is a lingering affront. Addressing culturally insensitive and offensive language would positively benefit first nations persons with disabilities, and their caregivers, by acknowledging their fundamental humanity and personhood, instead of relegating them as defective in some manner. These amendments in Bill C-38 are considered necessary incremental changes with an aim to align the Indian Act with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; although, clearly, much work remains. By amending the Indian Act to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the amendments support the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 43, which calls upon federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments to fully adopt and to implement the UN declaration as their framework for reconciliation. The amendments also support the national action plan to address missing and murdered women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people by acknowledging and recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples. Of course, we know that the work is not complete. Reconciling the colonial legacy of Canada's relationship with first nations while constrained to the framework of the Indian Act is fundamentally challenging. During this round of engagement, we have heard loud and clear that the second-generation cut-off issue continues to impact many individuals, and our next focus must be on this issue. An equal application of the second-generation cut-off has resulted in many grandchildren and great-grandchildren being denied status and membership to a first nations community. There are also remaining issues, such as the scrip taking and cross-border concerns. Further conversations are needed with first nations partners to listen and learn about what future changes may encompass. To this end, starting in early 2024, we will begin engagement on these initial inequities, with a plan to introduce additional amendments once we have engaged broadly. Changing the Indian Act is a continuous iterative process. We unequivocally respect the need for engagement and input from first nations voices. Any future legislative changes will be the result of ongoing engagement and the codevelopment of solutions with first nations partners and other rights holders. Under section 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the Government of Canada must, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration. The amendments being introduced today are considered requisite incremental changes that both increase the Indian Act's alignment with the declaration while also laying the groundwork for the Indian Act to be repealed in due course. The changes under discussion today are a necessary step to transition Canada out of the business of Indian registration and toward a future beyond the Indian Act. By addressing historic wrongs in co-operation with first nations, we will continue to advance reconciliation and support a renewed relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. We strive toward a relationship based on rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. I encourage members in this most honourable House to join me in supporting Bill C-38 and the steps it proposes to begin to move away from the Indian Act.

1083 words

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC)

Mar/22/24 10:46:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are having some excellent discourse in the House today regarding this very important issue. I was certainly very impressed with my colleague from Yorkton—Melville on this side of the House, who spoke of some of her interactions and relationships. I am hoping that perhaps the hon. member can share some of his interactions and relationship building with first nations groups, which, of course, are so important at this time.

74 words