SoVote

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

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

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Mar/22/24 10:47:38 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-38

Madam Speaker, Bill C-38, from my understanding, is going to receive support from all sides of the House. If I am incorrect, then I am sure it will be pointed out afterward. What is important is that we continue to consult and collaborate with first nations people, make sure that we understand their concerns and the areas where we can move forward judiciously and with diligence to continue the process of reconciliation because we know it is imperative for our government, any government and all peoples in this beautiful country, which we are blessed to call home.

98 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/22/24 10:48:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always nice to see the government finally implementing some of the recommendations for reconciliation, which is a major undertaking. Still, I think that it is rather shameful that we are not further along in this process, which I think is necessary. The government keeps saying how first nations have been wanting this and waiting for it. There are some things that are easy to implement. During its study, the committee recommended that an official apology be made to those who fought to put an end to discrimination in the registration provisions. There are some easy things we could do to show that we have a real desire to do more than simply recognize that we are on unceded territory, which means very little or is purely symbolic in the eyes of most of the first nations people we talk to. It does not do much to improve their lot. I would like to know whether the government is at least willing to act on the suggestions that are easy to implement, such as issuing an apology, for example. We know that this Prime Minister is very quick to apologize if it means he gets to shed a few tears. Is this something that the government might consider?

211 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Mar/22/24 10:49:37 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-38

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑38 is very important for us. I want to say that I am very happy to hear that the pertinent committee for this bill did the requisite work and put forward a number of recommendations. It is obviously fitting that we continue to do the work in line with the recommendations in UNDRIP. Obviously, how quickly we proceed in this process will determine the timeline. On the recommendations that the committee has brought forward, I am sure, in the spirit of collaboration, that all of those recommendations were looked at by the pertinent individuals and parties who put forward this legislation.

106 words

Ms. Viviane Lapointe (Sudbury, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 10:50:44 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-3

Madam Speaker, kwe kwe, ullukkut, tansi, hello and bonjour. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I am thankful for the opportunity to say a few words today as we debate important amendments to the Indian Act, a relic of our colonial history that needs change. I would like to begin by providing a historical overview to show why these amendments are so important and why we could not be proposing them today without first taking time to listen to and learn from first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations. Before European contact, first nations had their own, long-established methods for determining citizenship. While methods varied between nations, the issues of kinship and community ties were at the heart of these processes. Colonial administrations, and then successive Canadian governments, introduced a progression of statutes that drastically changed the meaning and the nature of citizenship within first nations. The goal of these statutes was assimilation, and through the Indian Act, the process of enfranchisement was introduced. Through enfranchisement, first nations members lost entitlement to registration and membership in their home communities if they wanted to vote in Canadian elections, own land, serve in the Canadian military, marry a non-first nations person or deny compulsory residential school attendance for their children. This legal process not only extinguished individual rights to registration under the Indian Act but also eliminated the right to access a range of rights and benefits, including the ability to vote in their nations' elections. Individuals, including men, their wives and minor children, could be enfranchised involuntarily or by application. As I alluded to earlier, many parents sought enfranchisement simply as a means to protect their children from forced attendance at residential schools. Some were involuntarily enfranchised when they earned a degree; became a doctor, lawyer or professional; or resided outside of Canada for more than five years without permission. The implication of enfranchisement in these circumstances was that first nations heritage and culture was somehow incompatible with notions of modernity and professional achievement. The evolution of the Indian Act had particular consequences for first nations women. By 1869, the definition of “Indian” was no longer based on first nations' kinship and community but instead on the predominance of male lineage and their community connection. Under the Indian Act, a woman who married an Indian man was automatically transferred from her father's nation to her husband's community. Women who married non-lndian men lost their status and any associated benefits completely. The result of these policies has been devastating. The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls explains how the policy played a role in limiting women's social and economic independence. We know from the national inquiry that social and economic marginalization was among the root causes of the unspeakable violence that indigenous women and girls endure in this country. There have been attempts over the years to do better, but these have fallen short. Amendments to the Indian Act in 1951 attempted to remove some of the offensive political, cultural and religious restrictions, but they also gave the provinces jurisdiction over indigenous child welfare. This paved the way for the sixties scoop, a painful process where first nations children were removed from their families and communities instead of being provided with resources and supports. In 1985, the process of enfranchisement was eliminated from the Indian Act. Individuals who had been enfranchised by application had their entitlement restored, but they still could not pass on entitlement to their grandchildren. This is why it is so crucial for any amendments to be made in coordination with those who are most affected by them. Today we are on a path toward reconciliation. We are trying to listen, learn and do better. Policy development must reflect the recommendations and perspectives of first nations peoples and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations. For example, through the collaborative process on Indian registration, band membership and first nation citizenship, first nations partners guided the development of Bill S-3, which received royal assent in 2017, came into force in 2019 and eliminated known sex-based inequities in the registration provisions of the Indian Act. Today, because of these changes, matrilineal and patrilineal lines of ancestry are treated equally in entitlement to registration, all the way back to 1867. Despite the successful removal of sex-based inequities in registration, the Government of Canada and first nations agree that there are still legacy issues that impact women and issues in registration and membership which remain, and these need to be addressed. In March, the Minister of Indigenous Services reaffirmed the federal government's commitment to addressing enfranchisement-related inequities in the Indian Act as soon as possible. We have been working with first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations to craft these amendments. We are grateful for their advice and guidance, and we recognize how difficult it can be to share their stories over and over again in a struggle for change that spans decades. The amendments in the bill before us today are the result of discussions with impacted first nations individuals, first nations representatives, Indian registration administrators and national indigenous organizations, including the Assembly of First Nations, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Native Women's Association of Canada, Métis Nation of Canada and the Manitoba Métis Federation. Some provided formal written feedback on the draft of the legislation, while others participated in conversations about the need for and direction of the amendments. I will now provide a brief overview of what the amendments include. The amendments being proposed will address discrimination caused by a family history of enfranchisement. They will also address individual deregistration, natal band membership and some of the outdated and offensive language in the Indian Act. They will ensure that first nation individuals with a family history of enfranchisement will be treated equally to those without. The amendments will also allow those individuals who want to remove their names from the Indian register the opportunity to do so. We know this is important for members of Métis groups or American tribes who wish to pursue this option based on the membership requirements of their respective groups. We note that those who are deregistered will still legally retain their entitlement to be registered under the Indian Act in the future and subsequently transmit entitlement to their descendants. The proposed amendments would also create a legal mechanism that would ensure that women who lost the right to membership in their natal first nations, prior to changes made in 1985, have the right to apply to have that membership restored. Last, we know the Indian Act includes all manner of outdated and offensive language. Today's amendments will focus on the term “mentally incompetent Indians”, which would be replaced with the more respectful “dependent person.” We recognize that there is much more work to be done to address the colonial legacies in legislation. Starting early in 2023, we will begin engagement on the additional inequities that still remain in registration, including the second generation cut-off. We will plan to introduce additional amendments once we have engaged broadly. We are committed to working hand in hand with first nations to accomplish this. We are striving to make changes based on recognition and respect for the right to self-determination. It is a learning process. We are learning how to listen and also how to act with humility. I reiterate my thanks to the first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations who have devoted their time and energy to this process of change, and to the many individuals that work hard every day to make things better in this country. Their resilience and patience paves the way for a brighter future, and I offer my deepest gratitude to them. It is my hope that this historical context and overview provides members of Parliament with a sense of why these amendments are needed. I hope all members will join me in supporting this important bill and in continuing to work towards true reconciliation.

1391 words

Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 11:00:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy, and our chambers of commerce do incredible work serving and representing member businesses. This winter, I had the opportunity to participate in two panels hosted by the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce and the Cloverdale District Chamber of Commerce. These local leadership panels are wonderful initiatives that connect businesses with representatives from all three levels of government and provides them with the chance to ask questions about government policies and other areas of concern. I am continuously grateful for the hard work of our chambers of commerce in representing the businesses operating in Cloverdale—Langley City. However, these events would not be possible without the dedication and leadership of Cory and Scott in improving our community. I want to thank my co-panellists for joining me in participating in the local leadership panels. I also want to thank the business leaders who attended these panels as well as the organizations and institutions that support our chambers of commerce and make these events possible.

175 words

Mr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC)

Mar/22/24 11:01:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we honour the life of Saskatoon philanthropist, Les Dubé. Les and his wife Irene have donated millions of dollars in our community for health care, scholarships, education, research, poverty, homelessness and, most importantly, mental health. Les built his success from humble beginnings. He was the founding member of the Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Authority and served on multiple boards and committees. He holds the Saskatchewan Order of Merit and the Order of Canada. In 2013, Les was awarded as the outstanding philanthropist of the year for North America. The Dubés were generous supporters of all four hospital foundations in Saskatoon and established a number of charitable foundations bearing their name. Les is survived by his wife Irene and three children. We thank him.

128 words

Ms. Joanne Thompson (St. John's East, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 11:02:50 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, more houses are going to get built in St. John's, thanks to the housing accelerator fund. St. John's is getting over $10 million, which will add over 4,000 homes in the next 10 years, incentivize rentals, allow for fourplexes, more secondary units and the use city lands for affordable housing, and more. This is part of the $4 billion we are investing in housing across this country, and it is getting a large number of housing built. It's a lot more than the six, not the 6,000, not the 600, but the six affordable units that the opposition leader built when he was housing minister. We are working with municipalities. We are changing how we build homes, and we are getting more units built.

131 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Mar/22/24 11:03:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this week saw 85 young basketball teams gather in Terrace, B.C,. for the Junior All Native Basketball Tournament, one of the largest youth sporting events in British Columbia. I had an opportunity on Sunday evening to take in the opening ceremony, and watching hundreds of young athletes enter the gym to the sound of the host Nisga'a Nation's drums was a powerful sight indeed. It takes a huge amount of energy and work to pull off a tournament this big. I want to recognize the organizing committee, the host nation, the City of Terrace, the sponsors and, of course, the players, coaches, family and friends who made this event so special. Young people are the future, and the co-operation and unity that I saw at this tournament shows that the future is in very good hands. I wish the very best of luck to all the players heading to the finals this afternoon.

159 words

Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 11:04:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am excited to rise here today and talk about the building of more and more affordable housing in my community of Ottawa Centre. Thanks to our government's housing accelerator fund, we are building thousands of new, affordable homes across my riding today. This historic investment of $176 million will translate into 4,400 new homes across the city of Ottawa within the next three years. By the end of the decade, it will mean almost 33,000 homes in the area for our neighbours to call home. This comes on top of the $565 million that the government has already spent in my community of Ottawa Centre since 2015 to build another 2,100 new homes. We can do more. Provincial governments, such as Ontario's Doug Ford government, can change the planning laws to allow for four units as of right. I encourage all members, especially the Conservatives—

154 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/22/24 11:05:42 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

7 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Mar/22/24 11:05:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, last week, Russell Clarke, one of our last surviving veterans of the Second World War, died just a few days before his 100th birthday. In 1942, when he was 18 years old, Russell answered the call and joined the Royal Canadian Artillery. He saw the first casualties come back to England on D-Day and later served in the Netherlands until the end of the war. For the rest of his life, Russell would be an upstanding citizen, a pillar of his community, respected and appreciated by all who knew him. He was a loving husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather. Everyone who met Russell was struck by his decency, humility and kindness. What was once a living memory for most of us is now rapidly passing into history. There are not many men like Russell left anymore. Those Canadians who did their part in the fight against Nazi tyranny are one by one leaving us to take their rightful place in eternity, men who spent the prime years of their lives far from home. I offer my best to Russell's family and to the members of Royal Canadian Legion Branch 10. Lest we forget.

198 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Mar/22/24 11:06:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on March 7, the community of Barrhaven woke up to the horrific and gut-wrenching news of six people killed, which included four young children, their mother and a family friend. The entire community of the city of Ottawa and beyond shared the grief and rallied to support the injured surviving father of these kids, Dhanushka Wickramasinghe, and the family of Gamini Amarakoon. I would like to acknowledge the work and support of the first responders in Ottawa. I would also like to recognize the Sinhalese Canadian community, the Sri Lanka High Commission in Canada, the Hilda Jayewardenaramaya Buddhist Monastery and the Buddhist Congress of Canada for their hard work in supporting the families of those killed. May the souls of the deceased rest in peace.

128 words