- 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: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $175,049.14
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, as my party's critic for indigenous and northern affairs, I am pleased and proud to rise today to speak to Bill C‑29. Being critic for indigenous and northern affairs takes humility and perspective. Certainly the same goes for every portfolio, but I like to mention it.
I rise to summarize everything I heard from witnesses in committee and from people I have talked to about Bill C‑29. It is a bill that is important to indigenous peoples, meaning first nations, Inuit and Métis people. I want to talk about it as respectfully as possible, as I did during the committee study with my colleagues who are here today.
My thoughts are with the first nations living on the North Shore, the Innu and Naskapi. I send them my greetings. They know that I want to do my work very respectfully while keeping their wishes in mind. Even though sometimes first nations individuals and families do not all want exactly the same thing, there is a consensus, and that is what we tried to focus on when studying this bill in committee.
Having said that, I will divide my speech into several small components or several different subjects. These are the subjects that we discussed in committee and that, in my view, really stood out.
The purpose of the council that will be created by the bill will be to monitor the progress and advancement of work done as part of truth and reconciliation efforts. First, I would like to address something that was raised by several witnesses at the committee with regard to the word “reconciliation”. A few minutes ago, some of my colleagues spoke and tried to qualify the term “reconciliation”. They tried to categorize it and say that it must not be this or that.
I must say that, before all that, many indigenous people and members of indigenous communities said that they did not agree with the word “reconciliation”. If we stop and think about it even a little, we realize that that word basically implies that there is already some sort of conciliation and relationship, that something has already been created. However, we have been told that there was nothing at the start, that there was no “us”.
When we talk about reconciliation, we are starting off using a false term, one that I must point out is not even defined. We are working on a bill about truth and reconciliation, but the term “reconciliation” is not even accepted, because it is not considered the appropriate word for the situation and, on top of that, it has not even been defined. As legislators, when we study a bill, we also need to start from that point. At the very start, before we even begin, there is already a stumbling block, a problem, and we need to take that into account throughout our work. I spoke about the word “reconciliation”. That seems really simple, but it is the first principle.
I would like to move on to another subject, namely consultation.
I was surprised to learn that the Innu and Naskapi in my riding, along with members of other communities elsewhere, had no idea that consultations had taken place for this bill. They were not even aware that it existed. At committee, we learned that only a few communities had been consulted. Based on the information I have and my perception, which is not necessarily the truth, I get the impression that the consultations were hastily cobbled together. Clearly, not many people were consulted, but all the communities could have been systematically consulted to get a broader picture. That way, more people would have been consulted, not just those who are more informed than others or who have a network of contacts that allows them to be more aware of what is going on.
That came up in committee too. I will have more to say later about representativeness, because I see that as a very important part of the bill. I am not saying that the consultations were kept quiet, but not everybody was consulted. Only a very small percentage of people were consulted. Furthermore, it was not necessarily representative of what first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples want to see in the bill. For me, that was a concern. It was also a red flag about what else was in the bill, such as the issue of representativeness.
Actually, I want to talk about this right now. I do not mind skipping two or three points that I will come back to later, because this is definitely connected to the issue of representativeness.
The bill creates a board of directors. There was an interim board and a transitional committee, and now there will be a board of directors where positions are assigned to different entities, namely national organizations that represent indigenous people. The committee wanted to make the board more representative. We wanted to know why only three organizations were mentioned in the bill, when there are five that represent indigenous peoples nationally. That was a problem for us. I wanted to know why three were mentioned, when there are five. Not only did we not get a satisfactory answer, but we did not get one at all. We wanted those groups to be included.
People came to testify and said that they did not feel represented by such and such organization and that it was another organization that represented them.
Take the Native Women's Association of Canada, for example. Half the indigenous population is made up of women or people who identify as female. They should also be represented. They were not included. We often come back to the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women, and we are currently talking about the whole issue of violence, including sexual violence, but those were nowhere to be found in the bill either.
From the standpoint of equity and representativeness, I would be remiss if I did not say that this is part of the work the committee did. It was done as a team. Earlier, I heard comments about how people were antagonistic, but we really did have some very interesting discussions, including some with my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. There were some good discussions; it was remarkable.
There are other groups that were not represented. Although I am not an indigenous person myself—I am white—I do spend time with people, I have friends, I am aware and open, so I have absorbed some indigenous culture, including Innu-aimun and Innu-aitun in my riding.
Consider elders, for example. When we think about reconciliation and residential schools, elders were not automatically represented in the bill. That was the first thing that occurred to me. I did not stop there. I consulted people. Witnesses were also asked whether the bill ought to include elders, or rather survivors. They said that we were talking about elders, but that we should be calling them survivors of colonial practices and policies. This was also included in the bill.
I am talking about elders. I also talked about women. Basically, we wanted to ensure that membership on the board was not limited to certain groups selected by the minister himself from the outset.
This brings me to a point that I have not yet mentioned, but it is something that I do want to talk about: independence. I am not talking about Quebec independence. I am talking about the independence of the board. Independence is important to us.
Of course we need to start doing something, and we understand that the minister is involved, because this is his bill. Of course we want him to start the work, but we also want the board to eventually become autonomous and independent, with members appointed by the members of the transitional board. That is what we want, and we have talked about making the council more independent. The word “independent” was a key word in our discussions.
“Transparent” was another a key word. My Conservative Party colleague made a very worthwhile proposal that the Bloc Québécois completely agrees with, because we believe that the nations are nations unto themselves. The leaders are leaders of nations and should therefore be able to address their Quebec or Canadian government counterparts.
We wanted the Prime Minister himself to be required to respond to the report that will be tabled by the council every year. That was extremely important to most of us. There is talk of a nation-to-nation relationship, but such a relationship requires that the Prime Minister himself be held accountable for responding to the council's requests.
As we come to the end of the process, I must say that the opposition in particular has done a lot to strengthen Bill C‑29. It has improved representativeness by enabling more indigenous people and more indigenous groups from different backgrounds to add their own colours to the council.
Earlier, we talked about economic reconciliation. Yes, the Conservatives are talking about it, but some indigenous groups are also talking about it. We need to look at reconciliation from all angles. In short, sectoral committees may be struck at that time, and the council itself would be responsible. I really think we have improved the bill in terms of transparency, independence and representativeness.
I would really like everyone to keep in mind that everything can be improved. I hope that the voice of indigenous people will be heard through this new mechanism, which will have significant power because it will be able to monitor the government's progress.
Symbolism is something that comes up a lot. Previous speakers talked about it. Other people generally get the impression that actions vis-à-vis indigenous groups and individuals are merely symbolic. I said “other people”, because I was not thinking of myself as part of that group, but I could be part of it.
Symbolic gestures may cost money, but they do not cost the government anything. They do not have a negative impact on the government or force it to take more meaningful and nuanced action. Admitting wrongdoing is one thing, but making it right is another. Saying sorry is not enough.
All I want to say is that we really hope to see more action. We hope indigenous people themselves will get really involved in this. We hear talk of a nation-to-nation relationship on the one hand and “by indigenous people for indigenous people” on the other. They are the ones who will be able to assess, draw conclusions and make recommendations. That is what will enable us to go beyond symbolic gestures, which may confer a temporary halo upon the government but do not really change anything in the day-to-day lives of indigenous people. It may have an impact on those who are close by, but not on those who are far away.
I would like to invite all members of the House to visit my riding. Kawawachikamach, Matimekush‑Lac John or Unamen Shipu are far removed from statues and celebrations. I completely agree that we must celebrate indigenous cultures, but they face other difficulties. I used the word “difficulties”, but that is an understatement because these communities have major problems that must be resolved. Naturally, the council could speak to that.
In closing, I would like to again address my constituents to point out that even though it is quite simple, the testimony and the fact that consultations are held, and not just superficial consultations, really help improve bills.
I am thinking, for example, of Marjolaine Tshernish of the Institut Tshakapesh, an organization that promotes Innu culture across Quebec, but also in Labrador, because there are Innu communities there. She told me that it was difficult for her. She was concerned about what would happen next, for example with the council. For some, Innu is their first language, but for others living elsewhere, their first language may be French or English. She said that she did not yet have that information and that she was concerned that she did not have it. Innu is her language. She also speaks French, but she does not speak English. She said she wanted to ensure that there would be a francophone presence on the council.
I also worked to ensure a francophone presence on the council. For me, that is a big win in terms of representation. Some may say that I thought about French or francophone issues because I am a member of the Bloc Québécois, but that is not even the case. I must humbly admit that this idea did not come from me. It was the people at the Institut Tsakapesh who pointed it out to me. In short, it is thanks to them that we managed to amend the bill. I apologized to them for not thinking of it myself, but it is something that could have been brought to light through consultations with people and communities whose first, if not second, language is French.
I would like to close by telling you about a very witty Innu chief, Mr. Piétacho, from Ekuanitshit on the north shore. Mr. Piétacho has been a chief for over 30 years. I appreciated his quick wit when he appeared in committee. We all sometimes run into minor technical difficulties in committee. In short, he forgot to take himself off mute and, as soon as he began to speak, our chair told him that he could now speak. Chief Piétacho told the chair that he had been on mute for 500 years but not to worry, he was going to speak.
I hope that this council will give all indigenous people a chance to speak and that this will enable the government to respond and take real action.
2360 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:10:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
What we are discussing today centres around our principles and our ideals, so I do not think this debate is unwarranted. I would like to thank everyone who is taking part in it, including those who just spoke before me.
As a matter of principle, I often look back at my roots. Everything we have experienced has helped shape the elected officials we are today. I was born to a working-class father and a mother who was a nurse. I was born female and that is the way it is. I was born a Quebecker and that is also the way it is.
Because of what we are discussing today, like all Quebeckers and Canadians, I cannot even aspire to become the head of the Canadian state, even if I wanted to.
I have barely spoken three sentences, and we are already deeply entangled in something that makes absolutely no sense to someone like me with democratic ideals. After all, what kind of state deprives its entire population of the possibility of becoming head of state? It is certainly not a democracy. At most, I would say that it is masquerading as a democracy and trying to imitate its form. It is a bit of smoke and mirrors.
As some of my colleagues have done, I often like to recall the past and dwell on the meaning of words we use ad nauseam that sometimes might escape us. The word “democracy” derives from demos, the people, and kratos, to rule. Democracy is sharing power between the people. Democracy is the power of the people.
Canada, as we know, and that is what we are talking about today, embraces a constitutional monarchy. That means that the true head of state cannot be an MP, not me or anyone in the House, but a monarch such as an Elizabeth or a Charles, someone who through fate or arbitrary alliances and births, inherited a crown. That bears repeating because it is important, not only symbolically, but because it also has tangible and potential implications.
The word “monarch” derives from monos, one, and archon, ruler, and therefore refers to a single ruler, a single person who rules. Literally and absolutely antithetically, Canadian democracy does not rest in the hands of everyone, but in the hands of a single person, namely the monarch. I say this with all due respect, but, to me, this is a ceremonial democracy.
I spoke just a moment ago about appearances and form. Appearances are not the only reason why the Bloc Québécois wants to sever ties once and for all with the British monarchy. In fact, this situation goes against Quebeckers' very values.
I spoke of the people earlier because I work for them. Indeed, we need to think about values such as equality. In the Bloc Québécois, we affirm that all citizens are equal; we promote and we defend equality. There needs to be equal rights, as well as equality in fact. Not only is the monarchy hereditary by nature, the order of succession attributes preference to male heirs and to Protestants above all others.
We can therefore infer that the primary role in the Canadian state is preferably, and we truly are talking about a preference or arbitrary choice, assigned to an individual on the basis of their sex and religion, not to mention bloodline.
A democracy that has preferences and that excludes half of humankind is not a democracy and is practising discrimination. The monarchy discriminates both literally and figuratively and takes away the very sovereignty of its people because the monarch is not a Quebecker or a Canadian. The monarch is British, only British.
As a legislator, it is my job to create laws. As a member of Parliament elected by the people, I and the people I represent are supposed to accept a monarch from overseas, whose legitimacy is arbitrary, and who has the power to make or unmake laws that we vote on in the House of Commons and also in my own National Assembly in Quebec.
The public proposes, Great Britain disposes. The potential British—and patriarchal, I might add—veto belies any claims of sovereignty by the people. The sovereignty of the people is a value that is important to the Bloc Québécois. It requires another element that is important to the Bloc, another value that we have had the opportunity to debate, the separation of state and religion.
We are talking about the leader of another country not only being subject to a foreign state, but also, as I mentioned earlier, to a church, the Anglican Church. The Canadian head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church. For those of us in Quebec who decided a few decades ago to separate church and state, this is a relic of an idea that is completely outdated in terms of the sovereignty of peoples, the sovereignty of ideas and the matter of the state itself.
I do not have much time left, so I would like to very quickly talk about the status of women, colonialism and accountability, which is also important to me. Of course, the status of women is an issue that is particularly close to my heart. I will let my colleagues talk more about colonialism because that is what the monarchy's wealth is built on. We too have a story to tell here. With regard to accountability, we hope that elected representatives will no longer be subject to anyone above them or look to anyone else to save or decide for them. We are fully responsible for our own decisions.
As I was pondering what to say today, I smiled to myself because I remembered thinking about these same things back when I was a young teenager. That is when people begin to think critically, question conventional thinking, question authority and throw off the shackles of beliefs that do not stand up to reason. I went through my own quiet revolution as a young woman.
For me and for Quebeckers, our desire to cut ties with the British monarchy goes back a long way. It is centuries-old. It is an intense desire to sever a connection, seek emancipation and empowerment for our society as a whole and affirm the deeply held values I mentioned earlier: democracy, equality and separation of church and state. The majority of Quebeckers want to cast off the trappings of another world and a long-ago time so alien to who we are. I am one of them.
As a democratic woman of no religious affiliation, I reject this inequitable, arbitrary and colonialist form of power. My faith and my loyalty lie with Quebeckers.
1151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 4:51:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I also thank my colleague from the NDP who spoke earlier.
I would have liked him to go further. He talked about transparency, as well as the need to show scientific evidence and to provide an update. We need to go even further. Once the evidence is provided, a strategy needs to be presented to the public as well.
The thing that many people find frustrating is the fact that nobody knows where we are headed, because nobody has up-to-date information.
I would like to know whether my colleague agrees and whether he thinks that his government will come up with an exit strategy—
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/22 8:05:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I rise today as a parliamentarian, but also as a woman and as a mother. This is an issue that has impacted my life, so what I have to say is quite personal.
Let me begin by saying that I went into politics because I am a woman, but I asked myself one question during my second pregnancy when I found out the baby was a girl. I remember thinking to myself that it was going to be hard to have a girl in this world. I actually thought having a second son would be easier.
I say this as a woman, a white woman. If I try to picture what that would be like for an indigenous woman, I cannot even imagine what I might have thought at the time. Indeed, this world we live in is, on the whole, still hard.
Just look at the take-note debate we are having this evening. In French, it is called “exploratoire”, but to me that is exactly the wrong thing to call it. We do not need to explore the topic, to take note of it as though it were something new. It is not new.
These reflections began about 15 years ago. My daughter is now 14. Roughly 10 years later, I found myself working as coordinator of the Regroupement des femmes de la Côte-Nord, a group that focuses on advocacy and rights organizations. I also found myself working in shelters and addressing gender equality issues and, a little naively, I organized a march with many people, including indigenous women, of course. I would like to salute my friend Béatrice Picard, from Pessamit, as well as Michèle Audette, whom I invited to the march just before she was appointed commissioner. We marched through the streets with other women, and to me at, that point, it was all very theoretical.
However, women came up to me on those streets and shared their stories with me, stories that often began with something unthinkable and often had no ending, because, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, some of these people are still missing. We do not know what happened to them, and they may never be found. It was a very symbolic march for me, because I was also there with my daughter. I must say that this is very important for the people of our region, but also for the entire population, both in Quebec and in Canada.
Today we are being told that this is a take-note debate and that we are looking at what is happening in committee. I must admit that makes me think of the song “Fatigué”, or tired, by Renaud. There are some topics like this one that we are tired of, not because the topic is unimportant, but because we are still talking about it today. We have to keep talking in the House and bringing up statistics. I do not think we need any more statistics or quotes or commissions to realize that it is time to do something about this.
I have a really hard time with this. Earlier one of my colleagues said that we ask questions in the House when we know we will not get a valid response. We are truly engaging in a soliloquy, a dialogue with ourselves, a monologue in the House.
I know someone who is here this evening in our gallery who has worked hard for the rights of indigenous peoples. He has done a lot, and I would like to acknowledge him. We are talking about legislation, but not implementation. We need to reach the implementation phase.
We often talk about systemic discrimination. In fact, the Indian Act is a prime example. It harms women. We talked about how residential schools are a form of systemic discrimination, institutional discrimination, but they still stemmed from a desire for cultural genocide.
Thinking back to the women I marched with who knew people who had disappeared, thinking back to the impact of the residential schools and the Indian Act, I can say that there are multiple factors at play, not just one.
I agree with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who is full of good intentions. However, when I asked earlier what had been done for women experiencing violence during the COVID-19 crisis, given that we knew violence was on the rise, and why more funding had not been made available when the government had been able to find money for so many other areas, I was told that cultural centres would be built in a few years.
It is interesting. The government cannot do one thing and not do other things; it is complex. We also need cultural centres. When we talk about cultural genocide, we are talking about language and culture. When I hear that in the House, I think we are still overlooking so much.
I mentioned our work in committee, where exactly the same thing goes on, when we bring up all the government's spending, budgets and supplementary budgets. I heard it again earlier, when it was said that $60 million has been allocated to British Columbia, and someone was told that $2 million had been allocated to her riding and that it would be so great. I would like to stay above the fray and say that perhaps what we need is drastic action. That is what the people here in the House tonight are expecting. Quebeckers, and Canadians as well, are probably expecting drastic action.
We were talking about housing recently in committee. We have known for ages that this is one of the key difficulties that indigenous communities are facing. Housing is connected to many things. In any case, it is a basic need.
We keep being told that targets will be met, that it is very difficult to build in the north, and thinking that living there and having a house means that it must be possible to build it. In short, I find that there is a lot of bad faith.
I know that we are constrained by our budgets. However, for me, the government is talking a good game and making it look like it is taking action by sprinkling money around, acknowledging that people have been waiting for a plan for three years, and saying that it will be presented soon. Tonight's take-note debate applies a bit of pressure. I do not think that the government can be taken seriously.
Personally, even if I am not the right person to ask the question, if I told first nations people in my riding, who make up about 15% of the population, to watch tonight's debate, to listen to everything going on in committee and to consider everything we do here concerning indigenous affairs, I believe that they would not be satisfied. I do not think they would be satisfied with the answer I was given earlier.
People are saying that we should not play politics in the House. It is a little hard not to play politics. That is what I heard, but I do not think they would be satisfied. No, they want houses. They want security. They want the same thing everyone does.
What we hear in the House is the same old rhetoric. People are saying that they are doing their best, but they are not doing their best. I call on all members of the House, especially the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the government, to show that they truly do want reconciliation.
If we want to reconcile with someone, we cannot unilaterally impose terms. That is not how reconciliation works. We must listen to what the other person wants and accommodate their requests. Of course it is hard. Money certainly plays a big part, but I do not think that it is the only factor. I think there are measures that can be taken.
I have been in the House for seven years now, and I certainly would not say or imply that I am naive, because I am not. We come to the House because we want to serve our constituents. We are humble, but we very much want to serve them. I feel as though it is one disappointment after another. I find myself thinking, “my God, they are making things up as they go along”. I see a lot of this. When the government does not have a plan, it makes things up. I am disappointed by what I see.
If there is one thing the government can do tonight and in the weeks and years to come, maybe it can provide some reassurance about that. What I heard tonight from the minister himself is not satisfactory. My daughter is very young right now and tells me she absolutely does not want children, but I really hope we will all have the courage to do the work to ensure that, when she is a woman a few years from now, she will not ask herself the same question that indigenous women ask themselves, about whether they even want daughters because our girls are always in danger and come into this world without benefiting from the same conditions, the same actual rights. Yes, we do have theoretical rights, but we also have the actual reality of our existence to contend with.
I would like every indigenous woman to come into this world knowing they have the same rights and need not fear being assaulted or killed.
I would like the government to take concrete action. I expected nothing less from the minister than bold action, but that is not what we saw this evening.
1629 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
