- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Subcommittee on Review of Parliament’s involvement with associations and recognized Interparliamentary groups
Deputy whip of the Bloc Québécois
Member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council
- Bloc Québécois
- Manicouagan
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $175,049.14
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Of course, the content of the question is not directly related to the bill currently before us.
However, everything can change in a bill. This one is more or less symbolic. Yes, it grants certain powers to the ministers, but it does not really provide the spending powers it refers to.
Like my colleague, I completely agree with the fact that the government needs to fund research and then beyond that, seek the truth and begin reconciliation. This needs to be done and quickly because sites are disappearing. Sites of memory are not necessarily eternal and neither are the people around us who hold these memories. Obviously, it is important to do this, to do this quickly and to consult the first nations and make them stakeholders who decide for themselves.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Sarnia—Lambton. It is very easy to work with her because, as we just heard, her questions are very clear and simple.
Obviously, as a democrat, I always hope for as much representation as possible and for power to be shared among as many people as possible. We ourselves are representatives and we speak for others.
Obviously, I am always interested in challenging power, the minister's power, because we want this work to be neutral and objective, not partisan.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if my colleague had listened to me carefully, he would know that that was the whole point of my 10-minute speech on the bill.
I stated that we were in favour of this bill and also that improvements could be made in committee after this second reading stage. That is exactly what I talked about for 10 minutes.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as the Bloc Québécois critic on indigenous affairs to shed some light on the bill currently before us, namely Bill C‑23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage.
I will not talk about everything in the bill. It is an update and a reworking of an act from 1985. As the indigenous affairs critic, I would like to draw specific attention to its reference to indigenous peoples. It is in the bill's preamble, in fact. It is one of the biggest changes to the Historic Sites and Monuments Act.
Madam Speaker, I apologize. I forgot to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my invaluable colleague, as my leader would say, the member for Terrebonne. Now back to my speech.
As I was saying, one of the major changes in the bill is the voice given to indigenous peoples. There is a reference to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, in the bill's preamble.
More specifically, the bill refers to call to action 79, which is quite long. To paraphrase, the idea is to work more and more with first nations so that they feel like they are active participants in everything that has to do with heritage. We are talking about parks and all the historic sites of commemoration or national interest.
There is also a reference to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The preamble is meant to respond to articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the declaration, which should, in theory, be implemented in the next few months. I know that the consultation process is over. This is a first step.
There are structural changes in the bill, for example, on the issue of powers and on the legislative framework for offences. I would like to focus on the issue of structure for the sake of consistency and out of respect. This still relates to what I just mentioned, specifically, the TRC's call to action 79 and articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
That said, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill. The perfect is the enemy of the good, but we can improve it. In any event, that is the purpose of second reading and referring the bill to committee, where changes can be made. Even though we are in favour of the bill, I would like to raise a few points about its structure.
I want to clarify that I will be talking about two major changes. One of them is representation. Previously, the act did not give first nations representatives a seat at the table. Three positions are now being added to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Three new members will sit on the board. That is the first thing. It is in subclause 9(2) of the bill, which reads as follows:
Representatives for First Nations, Inuit and Métis
(2) The representatives appointed under paragraph 8(2)(b) are to be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister made after the Minister has consulted with a variety of Indigenous governing bodies and a variety of entities that represent the interests of Indigenous groups and their members.
That is the first thing. We are seeing some progress. I will come back to it later to suggest improvements that could be made with respect to representation.
Then there is also the issue of tenure of office. The relevant clause reads as follows:
10 (1) A member appointed by the Governor in Council holds office during pleasure for a term fixed by the Governor and Council of up to five years, but they continue to hold office until their successor is appointed.
Reappointment
(2) A member may be reappointed.
As I interpret it, a reappointed member would have no time limit or term limit.
Clearly, the fact that the board will have first nations, Métis and Inuit representatives is in itself an important change. Of course there are places of interest to them that they wish to preserve and that are meaningful for them and the population at large. We must also identify these places, learn about them and recognize their existence and importance.
That said, I worked on Bill C‑29, which provides for the establishment of a council whose purpose is to monitor the progress of reconciliation efforts. I thought that Bill C‑29 went much further than Bill C-23. Obviously, Bill C‑29 also stated that indigenous representatives needed a seat at the table, but first nations, Métis and Inuit communities were guaranteed a seat too. This bill mentions first nations, Métis and Inuit representatives, but the wording of subclause 9(2) does not guarantee that the Inuit, Métis and first nations will be represented. It is a possibility, but there is no indication that everyone will be at the table. That is something I wanted to raise.
There is also the issue of the process. Will all due respect, I find that the process is unclear. Of course, the Governor in Council will be able to take part in the recommendation, but we still do not know which indigenous governing bodies will be consulted. Once again, does this mean that the Métis, Inuit and first nations peoples will all be consulted, or just a few groups chosen at random? The same applies to the question of indigenous interest groups. We have no idea how inclusive this will be. The preamble says that one of the aims of the bill is inclusivity. Yes, there is some opportunity for inclusivity, but there is no guarantee that each of the various indigenous interest groups or governing bodies will be represented.
Then, there is the tenure of office. Individuals will be appointed rather than elected. In my view, the fact that there may be changes and that the deck may be shuffled at some point is a good thing, it could create new energy and at least give the impression of greater representativeness. In this respect, I would like to make a comparison with the clauses of the current version of Bill C-29 regarding nominations. It is not exactly the same thing, but there is a guarantee that a member of the board may be elected only after being nominated by the Assembly of First Nations, by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, therefore the Inuit, by the Métis National Council, and by the Native Women’s Association of Canada.
In Bill C-29, there is an attempt at representativeness, and there is also a guarantee that specific groups will be consulted. Nothing is left to chance. I am not saying that it is perfect, because it is not up to me to say whether indigenous groups feel represented or not. It is up to them to decide. However, here we are at least trying to cast the widest net possible, and we are offering guarantees to all three groups. That is something.
The same applies to the term of office. Bill C-29 allows for a maximum of two terms. After that, there will be changes to the board. I feel that Bill C-23 might be stronger if it was modeled on Bill C-29. This is only a small part of the bill, but I wanted to mention it because of the whole issue of consultation, which is crucial for the first nations. Out of respect for the first nations, and for the sake of inclusivity and transparency, I think that, when it comes to Bill C-23, we would be wise to look at the work done on Bill C-29 to ensure a fair and diverse representation of all three groups of indigenous peoples.
1349 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first, I would like to say that I am honoured to be able to speak today about national ribbon skirt day. I am honoured because I represent the people in my riding, but I also hope to lend my voice to other indigenous nations in Quebec. I am honoured because, today, I am wearing a ribbon skirt. I will come back to that later.
My riding includes two nations, the Innu and Naskapi nations, and I am proud to be their spokesperson and their MP and to be able to wear these colours as I present these ideas this evening. I salute them.
The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill. We have always sought to promote these relationships. In concrete terms, we have always taken action to be able to discuss and maintain a dialogue nation to nation. For us, it makes sense to showcase these symbols that are so precious and important to their traditions. We talked about it a bit earlier. The skirt itself is a statement on its own. I will come back to that later.
I would also like to thank Élise Vollant, a proud Innu woman from Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam, an Innu community on the north shore or Nitassinan. Ms. Vollant made the skirt I am wearing today, a skirt that is very special to the Innu nation and particularly the community of Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam. It is a gift from the Innu nation, since it is a symbol that they want to see represented in all the traditional ceremonies and rituals, as it is usually done. For me, being white, it is truly a sign of trust and, at the same time, a request for me to walk with them. When wearing a garment like this, every step we take is for these people, these communities, these women, and it is their history that we think about.
I say tshinashkumitin to Élise Vollant and the entire community of Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam for allowing us to think of them today and walk alongside them in a symbolic way in the House. I believe it is an important moment for the nation.
As I said earlier, the garment is a statement. We described it in several ways. These are fabrics, bright colours that have been transformed and evolved over decades or even centuries as contacts were made. It is truly the product of the relationships between the nations themselves and of their own history. The statement is transformed. We see in the garment itself all that history that the women want to pass on through tradition, language and culture. It is also a way of taking action.
Today, I am wearing a red dress. It is a colour that is particularly favoured among indigenous nations, and also among the Innu people. It has several symbolic meanings relating to the spiritual world and life. Again, the ribbons chosen by the Innu nation are orange, red and purple. Undoubtedly many people already see the strong symbolism of this skirt, in the orange that refers to the survivors of residential schools, to a painful history. At the same time, we want to move forward, heal and find the truth.
Through this skirt, the Innu nation reminds us that it is important for them to highlight this element. Again, there is a call for us to take action. That was for the colour orange.
There is also red, representing the missing and murdered women and girls. It is the famous red dress we have seen represented in recent years and that has also become a symbol. The skirt has therefore two symbols.
Finally, there is purple, representing Joyce Echaquan. I believe people are familiar with the story of Ms. Echaquan, who, because of horrendous racism, experienced horrors that no human being should endure. Ms. Echaquan’s story is remembered on this skirt.
For me, it is also a symbol of the fraternity between all communities. Ms. Echaquan was an Atikamekw woman and the Innu people represent her on their skirt. It is a symbol of the entire issue of the equity of fundamental human rights, the right to security and the right to life. This memory must be eternal. When we talk about truth, we also care about memory, because memory should help us avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
All these colours are symbolized in an image that I will quickly describe. We see a woman wearing the red skirt, eyes blindfolded, holding the scale, the symbol of justice. We also see purple. All the colours are there and they truly show the desire of the Innu nation, particularly the Innu of Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam, to move forward and to always remember the survivors of the residential schools, the murdered or missing women and girls and the story of Ms. Echaquan, to finally achieve reconciliation.
Wearing a garment such as this is not about the fabric, the ribbons or the colours. It really sends a message. We are in a position where we can be interpreted and, at the same time, we can remember everything I have just said and remember that the nations are proud.
For me and for others, wearing this skirt makes sense. Despite that, some have noted that, for many people, it is not easy to wear the skirt in public. In fact, children, particularly in Saskatchewan, have received racist criticism and comments because they were wearing this garment. For me and the members of first nations, it is also an affirmation, a recognition of the past and of the people who came before them. It really makes a statement.
In short, I believe that we could talk about it for really long time, but it is more than just the garment. It is what I would like us to remember and I think and hope that the entire House will agree to make January 4 national ribbon skirt day, so we can remember our obligations and commitments to first nations and truly listen to what they have to tell us.
These garments show that members of first nations are strong and proud, and also that Canadians, and we, the elected members, have much work to do to perhaps be worthy of wearing a ribbon skirt. I am very proud to do so, but it also gives me a sense of duty that is humbling.
1077 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
