- 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
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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 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
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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
