So V ote

Sep/29/23 11:17:01 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, September 30 is the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, a first nations initiative to commemorate the painful history of residential schools. It is an opportunity to remember all those who suffered trauma that then followed them throughout their lives. It also gives us an opportunity to think of all those children who never returned home, as well as their families. On this occasion, everyone is invited to show their solidarity by wearing the colour orange, which, for indigenous peoples, symbolizes truth and healing. There is still more work to be done to uncover the truth about residential schools and bring it to light. We need to know the truth in order to understand the terrible multi-generational consequences of this systematic cultural dispossession. Time alone is not enough to heal the wounds. Healing requires meaningful acts of reconciliation towards first nations, Inuit and Métis people. Only they can tell us what form those acts must take. It is up to us to demonstrate the respect that has too often been lacking throughout our history. In order to write the next chapter together, we must show them that respect. Shutshiteiemueu.

195 words

All Topics

May/2/23 10:48:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for her commitment to the cause of indigenous women and girls. I have a question for her. She mentioned something that I said myself earlier. Last year, we were here talking about the same subject. Despite the fact that we likely think about this every day, I still feel we are not making any progress. Where would my colleague like us to be at this time next year? Why does she think that so little progress has been made to date?

87 words

All Topics

May/2/23 7:46:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, when people are experiencing violence, not having a home and not being able to leave keeps them in that cycle of violence. Obviously there has to be more funding and solutions to provide housing for women. We are talking about women, but I believe my colleague from Winnipeg Centre would agree that this affects the whole community. Children are also affected when they are in crowded living conditions, and every aspect of life is affected. Housing really is a key issue. The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs studied this issue and discussed it with the minister. We realized he means well, but at the same time, there was an admission during the committee that the shortfall would never be eliminated. There is already a shortage, and there will be no way to meet growing demand. These populations are very young, and they need safe places to live. There is not enough money and not enough housing being built. We need concrete measures.

166 words

All Topics

May/2/23 7:44:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I feel like saying that we have already put all the ideas out there. We have the recommendations that resulted from the consultations. We listened to all the witnesses who told their stories and gave ideas to the commission. We already have all that information. Of course, we may run into difficulties, but I think that this is more a matter of will than a matter of means.

70 words

All Topics

May/2/23 7:43:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, obviously, it is unacceptable when the amounts allocated to resolve these situations are not spent. This is not the only area where we see that happening. It also happened with the indigenous languages commissioner. Money was available, but it was not used. When I spoke about mechanisms to measure and track progress, that is one example. I know that there are mechanisms here in the House, but we never ask enough questions and we will never be able to follow up enough to eliminate the situations that my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie was talking about.

101 words

All Topics

May/2/23 7:40:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for the question. Certainly, we all have stories to tell. I cannot say that everyone I have spent time with has wanted to tell these stories. Sometimes it is so painful. We need to respect each person's choice. They might not be able to tell their stories. I have several, but I have one in particular I heard from a woman. In 2015, I organized a march for missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, and a woman came up to me to talk about her sister. She told me that her sister left for the city, let us say Quebec City, roughly 500 kilometres away, and she never came back. Marching is a symbolic action to call for change, but for this woman, just participating in the march helped her to talk about her sister. We did not talk about it as much as we do today. There are also a lot of taboos. She realized that she was not the only one to have gone through this, that there were other cases. Where I am from, it did not happen in an industrial area. It actually happened in an indigenous community of 5,000, where someone disappeared one day. That was one case, but there are so many more across Quebec and Canada, each under different circumstances. There are places in my riding, 1,000 km away, where children were taken away at the age or one or two and never returned to their communities. There are little girls who have gone away, never to be seen again. People are still mourning these children who never came back to their communities. There are so many stories, so many permutations, but they all boil down to the need for solidarity and concrete action to ensure this never happens again and to enable these people to grieve their loss, if not heal.

319 words

All Topics

May/2/23 7:38:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I will quite simply say yes. The Indian Act is the epitome of systemic racism. We are talking about segregation. We are talking about denying human rights. This exists, of course, and we need to eliminate it. The first nations, indigenous peoples, the Inuit and the Métis peoples will show us how to do this.

59 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 170 - Mar/21/23

May/2/23 7:28:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, it is with great solidarity with my female colleagues that I rise to speak this evening. Of course I am thinking of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, my colleague from Nunavut and also my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach. Today I was thinking about this speaking opportunity, and there are some topics that truly speak to us as human beings. Certainly we are elected members first and foremost. I represent a riding. However, I will never stop thinking about the tragic events all around, most recently in Winnipeg. Empathy is the foundation of every human being. Even if it is impossible to truly get there, I try to put myself in someone else's shoes, in those of the family and that of my colleagues who are elected. It hurts every time. Yes, it is happening in Winnipeg, but it can happen anywhere. As a classic playwright once said, “I consider nothing human alien to me”. This affects us all. I am the member of Parliament for Manicouagan, a riding that is not Nunavut or Winnipeg, but it is large. There is natural resource extraction. There are women who are stuck in situations of poverty, isolation and lack of resources. Basically, these are very difficult situations, so we also have our own missing women, women who left their homes one day and were never seen again. Some of them are still missing. I would like to begin by expressing my full solidarity, as a woman, as an elected member and as the Bloc Québécois indigenous affairs critic. This is not unrelated to my own past experience, since I worked as a coordinator for the Regroupement des femmes de la Côte-Nord, which is also in my riding. I have worked in shelters for abused women where I have seen the reality on the ground, although I have never witnessed this violence first-hand. I often speak about my children. One does not necessarily need to have children to be compassionate. However, when we make decisions and take positions as elected officials, the fact that we are parents makes us question things and consider issues with our children in mind. I have two sons and a daughter. I remember that I talked about my daughter in the House last year. When my daughter was very young, I told myself that her life would be harder because of violence against women. My daughter is not indigenous. In theory, it is less likely that she will experience this violence, but she does still run that risk. I wonder if, since giving that speech last year, things have really changed for indigenous women, who are four times more likely than non-indigenous women to be impacted by such violence. I would like to say that things have changed, but I have to say that I do not see it in general and given everything that has been accomplished. Actually, my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis was just talking about what gets accomplished in committee. It is true that important work gets done in the House. This afternoon, a motion was moved that proves it, but at the same time, Parliament is a sort of bubble. There are positions and wishes that are expressed, but it all remains theoretical once again. These are not meaningful actions. I have been wondering how we can measure what we are doing right now, what has been done since the report was tabled and even before that. We can do something before the report is tabled. We know that something is happening. We know that many women are killed or disappear when they should not have been killed or disappeared. What do we do? What tools do we have to find out? It is quite broad. I am not saying we can find out exactly, but it feels like we need some tools. There is talk of the 231 recommendations. I will name two huge pieces. This involves both colonization and the entire issue of the patriarchy, as someone else has already noted. Those are daunting issues. They are huge. How are we able to say that what we are doing as elected officials is really having an impact? We can see that funding was invested in various programs, for example, and more investments were made this year. We need to look at how those investments will really address the root of the problem. Will it make a difference? Is it really a practical solution? I do not think we are doing that. Perhaps we need to think about that. I was talking about the ability to measure. I do not like to talk about units of measurement for this type of subject, but I think that, as human beings, we always have to be able to measure what we are trying to do to see whether improvements have been made or whether we are failing to meet our objective. That is huge, but we need to have this overall view to figure out where we can provide more assistance. I was pleased to see that the motion by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre mentioned an alert. For me, that is a concrete example where we can see a real, measurable impact on the ground. I am grateful for that. That is not exactly the word I am looking for, but I do appreciate it. At the same time, it is interesting that that comes from the indigenous community itself. I am the Bloc Québécois critic for this file, however I am not indigenous. Earlier my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach talked about consultations. Yes, we must always consult the people involved. We must always ask what first nations and indigenous people would like and what can be done. Here we have some examples. I say this quite humbly because I am not an indigenous person. I found it interesting that my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis used the word “humility”, a word I often use. Consultation is needed. Once again, it must not end with the tabling of a report. We must continue to have relationships with all the first nations, organizations and women's organizations to go even further. I talked about money. I talked about one-size-fits-all measures, but there also needs to be flexibility, perhaps through a number of smaller measures. It would be impossible to come up with one big measure that will solve everything, so we need to take baby steps, although perhaps we can pick up the pace, with measures like the alert. As my colleague from Nunavut stated earlier, there are no roads in certain regions. There may not necessarily be a police force. Women are on their own. Their families are nearby. The individual who may be violent is part of their immediate circle. These are very complex situations requiring many measures that are truly adapted to and appropriate for each situation. In conclusion, I will come back to what I said at the beginning. I hope that, in the House, we show what we are doing in theory, but that we can see the concrete applications of the decisions we make. We need to take action and not just by investing money. We really need to see how this can appropriately respond to the calls to action. We are talking about urgent situations. Nothing can be more urgent than people's safety, integrity and lives. For these women and communities, it is their lives that are at stake. Their lives are in danger. For me, there is nothing more urgent than saving human lives. Clearly, this cannot wait.

1295 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 170 - Mar/21/23

Mar/21/23 3:55:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-23

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

Mar/21/23 3:41:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-23

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

Nov/29/22 5:06:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, I am entering my eighth year as the MP for Manicouagan. I have seen some great successes over the years, but at times I become cynical. When that happens, I tell myself that it is a question of willingness. We have seen it many times: Large sums of money are spent, very easily, without any criteria. It is not always clear which numbers go with what. There can be some secrecy there. There are some real concerns right now. We have concrete demands that everyone agrees on, but nothing is happening. We talk about elders, women and girls, and housing is part of that as well. It is one of the factors that keeps this violence going. Then there is the fact that seniors are facing difficulties and health is an issue. I totally agree with my colleague. It is a question of willingness. That is perhaps one of the only things I cannot give the government as an opposition member.

163 words

All Topics

Nov/29/22 5:04:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, if I were to try to sum up my thoughts on the importance of the council with respect to the calls to action and how effective the council itself will be, I would say that it is going to be up to the indigenous people themselves. One of the things I forgot to mention in my speech is that one of the government's responsibilities will be to provide all the information that indigenous people feel is necessary to do this work. That is important, but the government will not be able to free itself of all its responsibilities, either. It must ensure that it does not prevent the council from functioning properly. On the one hand, the council must be independent, but at the same time, the government is responsible for providing everything that is needed for concrete action to be taken until the Indian Act and all colonial practices are completely abandoned.

156 words

All Topics

Nov/29/22 5:02:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, if I think of the indigenous people I represent, when we talk about systemic racism, the Indian Act is perhaps the most obvious example, and certainly for all of us, it is shameful that it still exists. Obviously, it is bad to be out of step with the times, and this is something that needs to change. I spoke of symbolism. We are talking about concrete actions, but we will have to go further and tackle the relics of colonialism, although the word “relics” is too weak.

91 words

All Topics

Nov/29/22 5:00:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of questions when we see the first iteration of a bill. We always notice things that are missing. We often draw a comparison with the private sector. If a company wants to meet goals, it needs specific targets, deadlines and, in short, the means to achieve these goals. I did not get an answer to that question or several others, but I do believe it is necessary in order to get things done and meet goals. As my colleague stated many times, what we want is not just to make some progress, but to make efforts to move forward. That word was taken out, incidentally. We got the word “efforts” taken out because it should already be understood. All we want is to make progress. I believe that having clear, specific goals to meet is absolutely necessary.

145 words

All Topics

Nov/29/22 4:59:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I believe that he knows my love for indigenous languages. Aside from the emotional aspect, it is clear to me that language is part of our identity. Protecting indigenous languages is certainly as important as protecting French. I would like to share a story. I read part of an Innu dictionary and quickly realized that it contained words that presented realities that I had a hard time understanding because I did not have access to the land, to this history with the land. A language is much more than a vehicle; it is an identity, it is the entire person. I know that in communities near where my colleague lives, there are young people relearning the Mi'kmaq language. Naturally, I will always be an ally. I think we are all simply better for it.

144 words

All Topics

Nov/29/22 4:39:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

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

Context: House Hansard - 112 - Oct/18/22

Nov/29/22 4:34:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Rivière Churchill for his speech. I sit with him on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs and I must say that his diligence, his tireless efforts—we see that there is work behind each of his interventions—and his openness make him a great colleague to work with. I have a question for him because his work goes beyond what was said a few seconds ago, for example when it comes to including the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. It is an idea he could have debated. I would like my colleague's thoughts on this and anything else he would like to add to improve the bill.

127 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 105 - Sep/29/22

Oct/18/22 6:18:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-219

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

Context: House Hansard - 93 - Jun/21/22

Sep/29/22 2:16:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to rise today to commemorate the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. This is a day for remembrance and reflection, for acknowledging our present and thinking of the future we will build. We cannot forget that reconciliation will only be possible once we have uncovered the truth. This means that reconciliation calls on us to objectively learn about the past of indigenous nations, a past at once so near and so distant, a past that still causes pain. Reconciliation also calls on us to understand this past, because we must work together with respect and trust to do the healing work that is required. On behalf of myself and the Bloc Québécois, I want all indigenous nations to know that they have our full and complete commitment. We hear them, we understand them and they will have our unwavering support. [Member spoke in Innu]

155 words

All Topics