- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Subcommittee on Review of Parliament’s involvement with associations and recognized Interparliamentary groups
Deputy whip of the Bloc Québécois
Member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council
- Bloc Québécois
- Manicouagan
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $175,049.14
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I 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
- 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
- Feb/20/22 5:25:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my most sincere and heartfelt thanks to all municipal and provincial police forces, to the officers of the Parliamentary Protective Service, and to RCMP officers.
I am thinking in particular of the Sûreté du Québec officers who were deployed to resolve the impasse, although we cannot yet say it is over. They acted in exemplary fashion at a time when the eyes of the whole world were riveted on Canada—for the wrong reasons, unfortunately.
I thank all these people for their dedication.
I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Salaberry—Suroît.
Speaking of looks, since I just mentioned how all eyes were on Canada, I have always admired the work of editorial cartoonists. The art of editorial cartoons has been part of political discourse since the invention of the printing press in the western world in the late 18th century and early 19th century. It is a counterpoint. An editorial cartoon sums up a political situation with a single, strikingly clear image; the picture tells the whole story. Such a cartoon captures the very essence of a person or event in a humorous way, although that humour can often be biting or cynical. Editorial cartoons are not necessarily designed to convey truth or fact in a single glance, but rather to give the reader pause. Editorial cartoons are meant to inspire necessary and meaningful reflection.
A shining example of the mastery of this informative visual art was published yesterday, around the same time, in the Journal de Montréal by cartoonist Ygreck. Of course, I cannot show members this cartoon without breaking the rules of the House, but I will describe it for them instead. Everyone will just have to use their imaginations. Describing something is just a different way of showing it. At the end of my speech, members will see that the things I have said that gave them pause are actually strong arguments as to why I am voting against the order.
First of all, I would like to set the stage for the cartoon and talk about where it takes place.
First, we have the Prime Minister's office, which has a desk and a chair. The chair is moved to the right to free up space underneath the desk. The desk has a few things on it.
On the left, there is a picture frame and a landline telephone. In the frame, there is a photo of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, thePrime Minister's father, who is covering his eyes with his right hand, a gesture of dismay everyone can recognize. It is commonly known as “facepalming”.
On the other side of the desk, there is a pink teddy bear—some may see a resemblance with a Care Bear. Behind the teddy bear, there is something that looks like a mug in the shape of a unicorn head.
The Emergencies Act is front and centre on the desk and appears to be freshly signed by the Prime Minister, since there is a pen lying across it.
When I said that the desk chair was placed to the right, it was to make room below the desk for the Prime Minister, who is hiding there and dressed like Waldo, from the acclaimed “Where's Waldo” puzzle books. I will remind members that the purpose of the game is to find Waldo, who is camouflaged by his surroundings. The Prime Minister is crouching and looks worried, looking out at the readers and asking them, “Is it over?” with his fingers crossed. The Prime Minister is wondering about the state of the country he is supposed to be governing: “Is it over?”
Let us focus on certain details concerning the two focal points of the scene I described earlier, the setting and the character. Members will recall that the Emergencies Act looms large on the desk. I remind them that on the left, there is a photo of former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whose hand seems to be disavowing what his son has done. Although the reasons why Trudeau Sr. invoked such a law are his own and do not interest me anyway—we are talking about a depiction—it goes without saying that the cartoon clearly and colourfully conveys that it is a mistake. In my view, it points out that it is a mistake to use, for the first time in the history of Canada, a legislative measure passed in 1988 that is a modernized version of the War Measures Act, an act that has a significant, and I daresay even traumatic, place in the collective psyche of the Quebec nation.
Not only has this new version of the act never even been used by any government, but also, using it now is way out of proportion to the situation. As everyone knows, the blockades in Windsor, Sarnia, Fort Erie, Emerson, Coutts and Vancouver were dealt with before the order was released on February 14. Only Ottawa, specifically the seat of government, not the whole city of Ottawa, was occupied until today. Now the occupation is over.
What this means is that an instrument of last resort was ordered to resolve problems that absolutely did not create a need for the Emergencies Act in the first place, because the necessary tools were already available. Moreover, the issues had already been addressed everywhere but in Canada's capital.
In addition, six Canadian provinces plus Quebec, whose National Assembly unanimously passed a motion, categorically refused to allow the application of the Emergencies Act on their territory.
That was the backdrop against which the government issued its February 14 order to invoke a completely unnecessary and disproportionate measure to address a situation that was no longer even a situation. The whole thing is utterly absurd. To paraphrase my colleague from Joliette, this is like me using a nuclear weapon to destroy a mosquito that did not even land on my arm.
Let us turn our attention to the objects sitting to the right of the War Measures Act on the Prime Minister's desk in the cartoon, specifically the pink stuffed animal and the mug in the shape of a unicorn's head. Of course, Ygreck's cartoons about the Prime Minister are often peppered with objects that are reminiscent of childhood and an imaginary world, and that evoke a certain naïveté. In this case, they are used pejoratively, perhaps intended as harsh criticisms of the Prime Minister, as they emphasize what could be described as his magical thinking: believing that his abstract wishes are all it takes to solve concrete problems, without him ever having to do anything. The pink teddy bear and the mythical horned animal, representing the power of love and purity, respectively, reflect the Prime Minister's tendency to refuse to take reality into account, to flee from it, thereby shirking his responsibilities.
The Prime Minister's undeniable tendency to shirk responsibility is conveyed by his clothing, as he is dressed like the “Where's Waldo" character, as I mentioned earlier. This is someone who hides in the crowd at all times and is hard to find. He looks like Waldo cowering under his desk, using it like a toy bunker, with his fingers crossed for good luck. The Prime Minister's chair is symbolically empty. Basically, the Prime Minister is nowhere to be found.
Indeed, where was the Prime Minister before news of the crisis first broke? When it was first reported that the convoy was about to leave, once the convoy did set off, once it arrived in Ottawa and first settled in and once it became entrenched, the Prime Minister should have been there for Canadians, as he has been happy to repeat ad nauseam for the past few weeks. Yes, he should have been there, even with all his smugness, his arrogance and his contempt. Yes, he should have been there, even in what I would call his selective absence, that fascinating ability that some people have to decide when they will make an appearance without ever being really, fully present.
Rainbows or unicorns, I do not believe for one minute that the Prime Minister is that naive. I see a clear lack of leadership, since the most important quality of a leader is the ability to communicate. To communicate like a leader fundamentally means needing to persuade, if not convince, people. To be a leader means not only truly being there, but also being there to take action. A leader has to be an agent.
I will conclude with the question asked by the Prime Minister in this cartoon, which captures the essence of what we are seized with today in the House. Legend has it that the fires that have been burning from Quebec City to Vancouver have been put out these past few days by the magical power of the rhetoric surrounding the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which was proportionately inflated by the cosmic emptiness of the Prime Minister and his lack of leadership. Yes, a big balloon, an inflated measure might grab attention, but it is full of air and eventually deflates.
To answer the question of the prime minister character who asks whether it is over, I would say—
1580 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 11:32:50 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to let you know that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle.
I have not yet thanked my constituents for the last election, so I would like to do that now. I thank them with all my heart. This is the third time they have given me their support and renewed their trust in me. I am honoured. It is always a privilege to work for the people of the North Shore and the people of Manicouagan. I really do put all my energy into working tirelessly for them 24–7. From the bottom of my heart, I am immensely grateful to them.
We do not work alone. We have a team and a party, but there are also the people who work very closely with us. My North Shore team members are Jeff, John-James, Antoni, Marjorie, Jessie and Rita, as well as Josh, who sometimes joins the team as a North Shore man. I thank them from the bottom of my heart because I would be nowhere without them. It is important to be humble.
Obviously, an MP's job is to represent their constituents, all of their constituents. We each have a unique riding, but, as I like to point out, my riding is roughly 350,000 square kilometres in area, with 1,300 kilometres of coastline. It is truly a coastal region bordering the sea, the river, the estuary, and the gulf. My riding even has two different time zones. I am here to represent all the files and priorities that are important to my constituents. I would like to name a few of the priorities to show how diverse they are.
I teach at the post‑secondary level, and I have to say that my own students would not dare hand in any papers with such wide margins and large font to hide their lack of ideas. To me, that is what we find in the Speech from the Throne. I would like to talk about things that could have been addressed. Even though some issues are very specific, there are still broader guidelines and ideas that can inspire the government. In my opinion, this document is short in length and short on substance.
Rural and remote areas have needs, but often we are not heard and in fact we are forgotten. There should be some practical instruction about how things work in the regions, how people live and what needs they have.
I mentioned that my riding covers approximately 350,000 square kilometres, but we have a 400‑kilometre area that does not even have any roads. In the summer, people get around by boat. In the winter, it is a little more complicated. People travel by snowmobile on what is known as the White Trail. However, this is no longer viable as a result of climate change. It is almost as if these people were living on islands. They need medications and Canada Post services. We are talking about food security and physical safety and security. They need certain goods every day. Canada Post has a monopoly, but it does not provide door-to-door delivery for parcels. I want to point out that people back home are currently very worried about the medications issue.
Wanda Beaudoin, a proud Coaster and mayor from the Lower North Shore, in my riding, passed away last year. She was not getting her cancer medications, which were coming in late. We made all kinds of suggestions to Canada Post. Anything is possible. I always say that if we can land on the moon then we can get medications delivered to the Lower North Shore. This is one of the major issues for the entire North Shore. We rely on these postal services, which are gradually eroding.
I have so much to say about my riding that I could talk for days, but I do want to say that the remoteness of the North Shore—that is not quite true: the big cities are far from the North Shore but we are not far from the big cities—causes a lot of concerns with respect to maintaining seasonal access. I drive at least 2,000 kilometres every week, and sometimes more when I travel throughout my riding, because air transportation, in particular, can be difficult.
It is very difficult for us to travel to visit family or attend doctor's appointments. We just cannot do it.
Some of my colleagues from the Maritimes are here today. It is much cheaper, almost half the cost, to travel from Moncton to Montreal than to travel from my home to Montreal. People simply cannot manage it, but everyone has the right to choose where they want to live and use the land.
I am talking about air transportation, but the same goes for roads, bridges and tunnels. In fact, there should be a tunnel connecting Quebec and Newfoundland. These issues are very important to me and they must be taken into account. Climate change is of course an issue, but it is just as important to think about those who still do not have road access.
I would also like to talk about other places in my riding, because it is very diverse. Let us talk about Anticosti, that massive island of ours that is bigger than Montreal and Prince Edward Island. People live on the island, and prices are outrageous on the North Shore. Municipalities in the region are remote and do not have year-round access to the mainland, to the continent, as we say back home. They need money, a tax credit so they can buy high-quality, affordable food. Michel Charlebois, a resident I spoke to in my office a while back, said that they are not even entitled to that tax credit.
On the island, no boats can dock for five months of the year. The residents are forced to stock up on food and it is extremely expensive. In fact, if my colleagues come to my riding, they will notice that a can of Maxwell House costs $55 in the north. It is not necessarily what one would call premium coffee. We have huge problems with food, and we need to think about these folks who live in the area and contribute to economic development in our regions. They provide a presence and we must support them. In the Throne Speech, there is nothing for the remote areas. The intent is not even there, so what is going to happen when we get to the actual spending?
I would also like to talk about employment insurance because I think what is happening now is unacceptable. I am not talking about workers in the seasonal industry, but rather about workers suspected of EI fraud. They have not had any money since November. They are being told that they will have to wait for their file to be reviewed, yet there is already a backlog of nearly 93,000 files and not enough staff to process them. Last week, the minister announced a staffing increase, but they are only investigating fraud.
These people have had no money since November. They are being told to go to food banks and to prove that they are not fraudsters. They are being asked to call the Quebec government to apply for social assistance, which is unacceptable. We really need to support them. There is talk of reform, but there is already something that could be done. We do not always need reform before we can take action. The minister could have simply listened to the Bloc Québécois' proposal, which is to first provide benefits to people and then deal with the issue of fraud. These two elements must be separated. We were able to do that with CERB, and we can do it now with EI.
We also need to talk about first nations. The Innu and Naskapi make up 15% of the North Shore's population. That is very important to me as the indigenous affairs critic. We need to take action on the ground. The big issues are economic development and ending violence. The pandemic has hit first nations harder than most. What they need is housing. That is what all the chiefs are asking for. Ghislain Picard, whom I congratulate on his recent re-election as chief of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, has been asking for housing for years. People need housing.
Demographically, things are booming. We are seeing more and more kids and big families. People need homes to keep first nations children and families safe and whole. Then they can look at development opportunities. Actually, we can tackle both at the same time.
I know I do not have much more time. Anyone can see what I am passionate about. I swear to my constituents, from Tadoussac to Blanc-Sablon and Kawawachikamach to Anticosti Island, that I will continue to stand up for what matters to them.
1517 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
