- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- Nunavut
- Nunavut
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $178,285.32
- Government Page
- May/7/24 1:24:32 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, I will be splitting my time with the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
Before I start my speech, I would like to send happy birthday wishes to my best friend, Christa Kunuk in Iqaluit. I miss her dearly. I cannot wait to see her when I get home for the riding week.
I rise on behalf of Nunavut with what feels like the weight of the world on my shoulders. This weight significantly increased when, on April 16 in her budget speech, the Minister of Finance did not mention any of the following terms: Inuit, first nations, Métis, indigenous peoples. Not evening the word “reconciliation” was in the budget speech. I think of the number of indigenous peoples who must have felt invisible on April 16.
I remind all indigenous peoples what they voted for when they voted Liberal. According to the Liberal website, these are the promises that were made by the Liberals to indigenous people:
Let’s keep moving forward on real reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. Let’s come together to fight systemic racism. Let’s find the real solutions to the real problems we face. Let’s build a better future that gives everyone a real and fair chance at success.
On reconciliation, the Liberals promised the following: to confront the legacy of residential schools; to continue to work to eliminate all clean long-term drinking water advisories; action to confront systemic racism against indigenous peoples, especially in the justice system and health care system; to launch an urban, rural and northern housing strategy; and to protect the well-being of indigenous children and families.
The budget proposes more than $52.9 billion in new spending over the next five years. How much of the new funding will go toward the invisible? This is not entirely clear, as the budget repeated many of the commitments that were made in the past. Much of what was in budget 2024 for indigenous peoples was a recommitment of past promises.
For example, the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project announced in the 2024 budget was not new funding. I was corrected by Nukik Corporation when I mentioned in the media that I was happy to see the new investment in Nunavut. Nukik Corporation told me that those funds were announced back in 2019. The Liberal government has been making promises for five years. For five years, the Kivalliq have been given lip service.
During this time of severe climate change, the Liberals were provided a viable solution that could work in parts of Nunavut. During this time of climate change, the Liberals were given a chance to have Nunavut communities transition off of dirty diesel. On this solvable issue, what did the Liberals do? They made promises.
When will the Liberal government finally listen to Inuit, to first nations and, indeed, to the Premier of Manitoba, Wab Kinew, who supports this project? When will the Liberal government go from lip service to acting on its promises?
I take this opportunity to remind Canadians that if there is any party that is fighting for indigenous peoples, it is the NDP, not the Liberals and certainly not the Conservatives. The Conservatives would make cuts. I know this because when Nunavut had a Conservative MP, when Nunavut had the same MP serve as a minister in the Conservative cabinet, that government cut the much-needed Aboriginal Healing Foundation.
I strongly believe that making this cut resulted in ongoing mental health issues and substance abuse, which are pervasive in indigenous communities. Former residential school students who were progressing in their healing were suddenly abandoned when the funding to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation was cut. The cuts resulted in intergenerational trauma continuing to be a part of our lives today.
Too many Inuit, first nations and Métis experience hurdles to achieving the same quality of life as the rest of Canadians. Neither Conservatives nor Liberals are committed enough to ensure that indigenous peoples can heal. They are not committed enough to ensuring that indigenous peoples can progress in their healing so that talk of intergenerational trauma could be a thing of the past.
It is the NDP who is willing to make the passing on of intergenerational trauma a conversation of the past. It is because of our work, as the NDP, that this budget will make a difference for indigenous peoples. We started out with 25 MPs, and now we have 24 great MPs who are fighting for indigenous peoples. It is the NDP who hears, listens and amplifies the priorities and solutions that indigenous peoples offer to Canada. It is indigenous peoples who tell us their realities, and it is the NDP who fights for them.
We have been told by the Assembly of First Nations that the housing and infrastructure gap is huge. For 2024-25 alone, it is estimated that $15.197 billion is needed for housing, $1.4 billion for education and $6.6 billion for infrastructure. We were told by the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami that the infrastructure gap has reached $75 billion across Inuit Nunangat.
I take this opportunity to thank my colleague and friend Daniel Blaikie, who was the member for Elmwood—Transcona. It was through his leadership and efforts as the finance critic that he showed great leadership. He collaborated with our NDP caucus. He pushed the liberals to ensure that the supply and confidence agreement would mean more results for indigenous peoples and Canadians.
New Democrats fought for indigenous people and secured funding for a red dress alert and for searching the Prairie Green Landfill, which the NDP MP for Winnipeg Centre has been calling for, and increased investments in the harvesters support program, which the Liberal government was going to sunset, despite its success. I will remind members that this program is run through the nutrition north program, which gives millions in subsidies to for-profit companies such as the North West Company.
We also fought for and secured $145 million to develop greater climate resiliency and to deploy mitigation strategies that protect communities, and we secured support for indigenous policing projects and a commitment to introduce first nations policing legislation. It was the NDP who extended Jordan's principle.
It will be the NDP who ensures that indigenous peoples have the investments they need to thrive.
1066 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Representing Nunavut in the House has been a huge honour. I have learned so much more about first nations and Métis in Canada.
I acknowledge that we are on unceded Anishinabe Algonquin territory, and I thank my NDP colleague, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, for doing more land acknowledgements, because what they mean are that, before Ottawa, first nations thrived on these lands for thousands of years before these Parliament buildings were ever built. Acknowledging that we are on unceded territories also means that first nations still exist, despite government and religious efforts to erase them. I am thankful for the strength of first nations that continue to host and welcome us.
I thank the former minister of Crown-indigenous relations, who is now the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, for tabling Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of the national council for reconciliation, in June 2022. The introduction of the bill had been anticipated by indigenous peoples for years.
Before speaking to the bill, I am compelled to retell some of the experiences of indigenous peoples, in order to form the context of what would become the national council for reconciliation. Once I complete some of the context, I will speak to Bill C-29 and the amendments from the other place and conclude with remarks about the greater sense of hope I have for Inuit, first nations and Métis.
I recognize the strength and courage of first nations, Métis and Inuit, who have been waiting far too long for the bill's passage. I am guided by indigenous voices in my support for Bill C-29. I honour the survivors of residential schools. I honour their parents, who were robbed of raising their children. I honour the students who died in residential schools.
First nations, Métis and Inuit children who suffered from genocidal policies continue to ensure that Canada reconciles with indigenous peoples. Canada must do its part. Inuit, first nations and Métis experienced child sexual abuse and physical, emotional and spiritual abuses. These traumas continue to show in the form of intergenerational traumas suffered by children and youth today.
Just last week, I had conversations regarding education. Despite having explained what education was used for, genocide, I was expected to be okay with how it was described. I repeat: Western education was used as a genocidal tool against indigenous peoples. It is still used to keep indigenous peoples at the fringes of Canadian society. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls gathered important evidence. I implore all Canadians to read these reports, to incorporate them into school curricula and to ensure that all work in all of Canada is trauma-informed. These are important ways that Canadians can reconcile with indigenous peoples.
The national council for reconciliation was part of the 94 calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Calls to action 53, 54 and 55, specifically, call on the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with aboriginal peoples, to establish the national council for reconciliation.
The Liberal government not only took seven years to table the legislation but also failed to collaborate with indigenous peoples. I recall specifically the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami dropped support for Bill C-29 based on the concerns not addressed by Parliament.
Call to action 53 will have been implemented when there is monitoring, evaluating and reporting on Parliament's responses. Call to action 54 will have been implemented when multi-year funding is sustained for the national council for reconciliation so it has the financial, human and technical resources to function appropriately, and when an endowment of a national reconciliation trust is created. Call to action 55 will have been implemented when progress on closing the gaps in indigenous peoples' health indicators, on eliminating overrepresentation in the justice system, and on other areas is reported.
The important work of the national council for reconciliation would ensure a non-partisan approach to hearing what the issues are and the changes that need to be made. It would fulfill an important role in monitoring government programs and policies. I think all members of the House can agree on the merits of this work and the pressing need for the establishment of the national council.
Indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and gender-diverse people continue to go missing. Families on and off reserve live in overcrowded, mouldy homes that make us sick. Communities lack access to fresh water and affordable, healthy food. Suicide rates, especially among youth in Nunavut, remain among the highest in the world. The scars of residential schools and other sinister tools of assimilation persist through intergenerational trauma. Too often the government stands by. I have hope that the national council would help pressure the government to end these injustices and many others.
Reconciliation is an important process that demands the highest standards of implementation. When the Liberals tabled the original Bill C-29, it required some work. This is evidenced by the many amendments that were passed at committee stage and now by the Senate.
871 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 10:37:45 a.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, I am quite concerned about some of the Conservative responses when they say they will listen to first nations. When the Conservatives were in government, they were the ones who cut funds to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, which was very important for healing between first nations, Métis and Inuit. Even though they were told not to cut the program, they did.
Therefore I will ask the member this: Is this how the Conservative Party describes “listening” when it comes to making to cuts? How do the Conservatives actually listen when it comes first nations, Métis and Inuit and ensuring the well-being of our societies in Canada?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 8:12:07 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, I have a lot of respect for the member who just asked me that question. Having experienced those cuts as an indigenous person, I cannot retract that. The Aboriginal Healing Foundation was doing great work when its funding was cut. Time and time again I have renamed former residential school students who have shared their stories and who were only able to do it because of the work of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.
There was a standing committee report back then, from the aboriginal and northern affairs standing committee of this House, that recommended the Aboriginal Healing Foundation continue its work. Despite the strong recommendations at the committee from federal government officials, the Conservative government at the time still cut those programs. That, to me, is a form of genocide because it impacts the well-being of indigenous people. Therefore, I am sorry, but I cannot retract my statement when I talk about the genocidal path.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 8:05:05 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, I will be splitting my time with the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.
Representing Nunavummiut and being the indigenous critic for the NDP have led me to rise for this debate. I thank my NDP colleagues for their solidarity in ensuring that this take-note debate occurred this evening.
Prior to my election in 2021, I experienced many injustices because of decisions made by federal governments of the day. My statement this evening starts with the Harper Conservatives' many cuts and outlines the impending cuts by the Liberals' Indigenous Services Canada. I note that my criticisms tonight are only with respect to Indigenous Services Canada. I will begin my criticisms against CIRNAC and Northern Affairs at a later time.
I will start with a quote from indigenous lawyer Pam Palmater, who assessed the Conservative government:
In ten short years, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has set the relationship with First Nations back a hundred years. While all past governments have had a hand in the colonization and oppression of First Nations, the Harper government stands out as one of the most racist and aggressive governments that First Nations have had to work with in many generations.
The government in these 10 years was considered one of the harshest for indigenous peoples. To name a few, Conservatives cut funding to the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. They cancelled the Kelowna accord, and we were one of only four countries to vote against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007.
Indigenous peoples are strong. Despite the Conservatives' attempts to continue their genocidal path, what resulted was one of the strongest forms of indigenous resistance. We saw that with Idle No More. Indigenous peoples were there to fight for their rights and to protect the environment. Indigenous people's resistance can indeed happen again.
Turning to the impending cuts to indigenous services by the Liberals, funding will decline by $7.6 billion when people are still living in mouldy housing without clean drinking water. There will be almost 1,000 fewer staff to deliver essential programs.
Among the programs that are sunsetting are those with funding for mental health and wellness, addressing the legacy of residential schools, Jordan's principle, the Inuit child first initiative and the health and safety of first nations housing, water and community infrastructure. The current funding does not remedy the current shortfalls experienced by indigenous communities or mitigate the future needs given the population growth in indigenous communities.
Implementing such drastic cuts will keep indigenous peoples marginalized. They will be prevented from gaining tools to ensure the reconnecting of their own self-government models. These cuts will be genocide. The Assembly of First Nations reported a $350-billion infrastructure gap in first nations communities. These cuts do not even include infrastructure gaps for Inuit and Métis.
The Liberals' current spending does not even meet the current needs of indigenous peoples. Existing gaps cannot be filled with broken promises. We must implore the Liberals to change their path to cutting $7.6 billion. Otherwise the genocide will continue.
532 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, before the Indian Act, first nations, Métis and Inuit thrived and passed on intergenerational love from generation to generation. The Indian Act is an attempt to erase indigenous peoples from the lands we now call Canada.
Bill C-38 is about status. It could have been about addressing discrimination to the fullest extent. I struggle to support Bill C-38, an act to amend the Indian Act. I am conflicted and disappointed to witness yet another form of incremental change proposed by the Liberal government.
As the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group have clearly stated, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says indigenous peoples have “the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture”. This bill does not meet this minimum standard. For decades, first nations have fought for their rights to be upheld. If Bill C-38 is passed as it is, discrimination against first nations women and their families will continue.
There are two reasons I support getting this bill to committee. Number one, while experts say it does not go far enough, this bill is needed, and number two, the failings of this bill to respect the rights of indigenous peoples will show, through public discourse at committee stage, that amendments are necessary.
Bill C-38 was tabled because of a court case, Nicholas v. Canada. It is not because the government is taking a proactive, co-operative approach to reconciliation. Introducing this bill is the minimum requirement set out in that case. After years of discrimination caused by enfranchisement in the Indian Act, 16 courageous plaintiffs sued the Canadian government in June 2021. They agreed to pause proceedings on the condition that legislation be introduced to address this inequity.
The Liberals' commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples is abysmal. If their commitment was real, Bill C-38 would be fulsome. It would have addressed all discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act. Incremental changes are not sufficient to ensure the advancement of indigenous peoples' rights.
I acknowledge that the Indian Act must be abolished. It is a complicated assimilative tool going back generations. The Liberal government has shown that it is not ready to abolish the act. Bill C-38, like previous court cases, makes amendments that are narrow in scope. Future court cases will be imminent if amendments are not made to this bill. Discrimination will be allowed to continue without the ability to seek reparations.
The Liberal government has shown that it is not ready to undertake the full-scale reconciliation needed to adhere to international law as the governing party. The following background will be the tip of an iceberg. All parliamentarians must commit to learning more about the Indian Act and how it continues to implement the genocide of indigenous peoples.
The Indian Act was established in 1867. John A. Macdonald understood the strength of first nations, Inuit and Métis as a threat to his causes. He had to find a way to weaken them. The Indian Act was the tool to continue the process of genocide against the first peoples who thrived on the lands we now call Canada. The Indian Act is a long-ago piece of legislation that was introduced in 1867. The act remains today.
Since its inception, the Indian Act has continued to deny equality for first nations. The Indian Act allows discrimination without justification. The Indian Act denies women status and therefore rights by gaining status. The Indian Act introduced residential schools, created reserves and imposed a band council system. The Indian Act also tells first nations who can have status and who cannot.
Before the creation of bands by this act, indigenous peoples had their own forms of governance. I am thankful for the strength of those who maintained their governance. I am thankful to Inuit elders. I am thankful to hereditary chiefs. I am thankful to the Wet'suwet'en. I am thankful to the Tseeweyhum family and the many others who keep indigenous legal orders alive.
The Canadian government has known about sex-based inequities in the Indian Act for decades. Bill C-31 in 1985, Bill C-3 in 2011 and Bill S-3 in 2017 have attempted to eliminate sex-based inequities. None of these bills worked to the fullest extent; what they did was complicate indigenous identity for some and not for others.
The Indian Act continues to divide indigenous peoples against each other. With each amendment, the Indian Act becomes more complex and confusing to navigate for indigenous peoples. Indeed, I am told by many how confusing it is to know if they have status, how to get status and if their children will be able to get it. They ask, “What are the implications of being removed?”
It is a shame that in 2020, the Minister of Indigenous Services tabled one of three reports after Bill S-3 to amend the Indian Act was passed. The final report made recommendations that are not being addressed in Bill C-38 by the Minister of Indigenous Services today.
As of 2020, there were over 12,000 applications for status still needing review. The special Bill S-3 processing units created in 2016, as of February 2023, have 1,770 files in progress and 3,990 files in the queue. The bill before us would do nothing to address this backlog. First nations are waiting up to 18 months for a decision by Indigenous Services Canada. This is unacceptable.
Bill C-38 would address enfranchisement, deregistration, loss of natal band membership and certain offensive language. These are long-awaited amendments that indigenous peoples have demanded for decades.
Enfranchisement is a particular genocidal policy and a clear example of Canada's attempts to assimilate indigenous peoples. Enfranchisement was either voluntary or involuntary. Women were enfranchised when they married a non-indigenous man between the years of 1869 and 1985. Other examples of enfranchisement included going to university, becoming a doctor or lawyer, working as a minister, seeking to vote and if one sought freedom from residential schools. Amendments introduced in 1985 attempted to remove enfranchisement. Obviously this did not work.
Bill C-38 would still discriminate against women and children who were involuntarily enfranchised. Descendants are unable to transmit entitlement to registration to the same extent as families that were never enfranchised. Those who were enfranchised as a band or collective have no entitlement to register under the Indian Act today.
I will now turn to deregistration, which provides for removing status from membership. There can be any number of reasons to deregister. These provisions would keep the safety of not impacting the children of those who may have deregistered.
The third component of Bill C-38 is on natal band membership. Bill C-38 would provide a legal mechanism to re-affiliate women to their natal bands. This amendment would serve to allow for membership to be reinstated on a band list based on specific conditions. It would address reinstatement of membership for a group of individuals who were originally prevented from being reinstated based on oversight.
Finally, the bill would amend outdated language, which is a small but important step. The offensive language regarding first nations peoples who require dependency on others would be amended. The offending definition of “mentally incompetent Indian” would be replaced with “dependent person”.
Bill C-38 would address these cases, and it is estimated it would impact around 4,000 people. Many more would remain discriminated against.
The Liberals had a chance to remove discrimination from the Indian Act once and for all. Bill C-15, on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, became law in Canada. The Liberals had a chance to introduce that bill so that it would be in alignment with international law. Instead, they are introducing more piecemeal legislation. The past court challenges, Descheneaux v. Canada, McIvor v. Canada, and Matson v. Canada, make it clear. The Senate committee on aboriginal peoples makes it clear. The Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group makes it clear. So many more make it clear. The Liberal government's pattern of reluctant piecemeal changes in response to litigation is unjust.
There is no justification for Canada to ignore, and indeed infringe on, indigenous people's rights. Parliaments would debate again after the passage of Bill C-38 why it is not okay to keep disrespecting indigenous peoples and infringing on their rights.
Two other major issues not addressed are the second-generation cut-off and the ability to seek reparations. The second-generation cut-off in section 6(2) is not addressed in Bill C-38. This is shocking, given how much attention has been paid to this section in past works. In its Bill S-3 review, the ministry of Indigenous Services Canada reported on it. The Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group in its works reported on it. The Senate committee on indigenous peoples reported on it. They all recommended to remove provisions related to the second-generation cut-off.
If bands reject second-generation cut-off, it is because they are not being properly resourced by Indigenous Services Canada to meet the needs of their increasing membership.
Section 6(2) is sexist, and it is problematic. Who a child's mother is, is usually readily apparent. Who the father is, is not always apparent. Whether the father acknowledges his paternity, and this can be counted as the second-status parent for purposes of eligibility for status, is essentially his decision. The two-parent rule continues Canada's program of forced assimilation. Maintenance of the two-parent rule would fulfill the genocidal intention of the Indian Act, getting rid of “the Indian problem”.
Until this rule is amended, hundreds of thousands of indigenous people, mostly women and their descendants, will be discriminated against.
First nations children were robbed of their mothers. First nations children continue to be robbed of their mothers. The current child welfare system continues to separate indigenous peoples from each other. The Liberals say they will consult on second-generation cut-off. Consultation should not be necessary. Discrimination is discrimination. No amount of consultation will result in the justification of it. The government must interpret the rule of law as adhering to international human rights laws and the charter.
We are told by the Liberals that the public portion of this consultation will not begin until 2024. It will be much longer before legislation is drafted and presented before the House again. This tactic to delay is a denial of the rights of indigenous peoples. We should not have to wait for discriminatory provisions to be removed. There is no justification for discrimination to be allowed to continue.
Another form of oppression is preventing indigenous peoples from seeking reparations. Bill C-38 includes specific clauses that will not allow victims of these policies to seek reparation for the discrimination they have experienced. First nations women and children will continue to be harmed, yet they will not be able to seek reparations, even if discrimination is found.
In past bills, there were related provisions legislating that governments are not liable for harms done under the act. Persons are prevented from seeking claims against the government for discrimination caused by the implementation of the Indian Act.
These injustices remain in Bill C-38. According to human rights laws, Canadians are allowed to seek reparations. Why can first nations not do so?
Bill C-38 is a flawed proposal. While it addresses some injustices in the Indian Act, discrimination against first nations would continue. Bill C-38 continues the Liberal incremental approach to reconciliation.
The Liberals' interpretation of Nicholas v. Canada is about status. Bill C-38 must not just be about status; it must be about addressing discrimination and violations of basic human rights. It must be about reconciliation.
I ask this again: Why is it that when Canadians experience human rights violations, they are allowed to seek reparations, when first nations are not?
I hope that Bill C-38 can be salvaged. I hope that, at committee, we hear from experts explaining why improvements must be sought to ensure that first nations' rights are on par with Canadian human rights.
2057 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 12:09:29 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, I completely understand what my colleague says when he says not to take this motion at face value, because Conservatives have a history of making it seem like they want to help but they do not. I have a specific example. When the Conservatives were in government in 2010, they made cuts to two things that were very important to indigenous peoples: funding to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and to the Native Women's Association of Canada. This was at a time when Nunavut had a Conservative MP.
I wonder if the member can explain why we must not trust this motion to be as it appears to be.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, that is a great question. I think that is why this legislation discusses the importance of non-profit organizations in ensuring that public child care is also a priority.
All of the communities in Nunavut have schools. Some of them have spaces for Aboriginal Head Start programs. There are many communities as well with buildings that we need to ensure will provide access. I think that with more investments in ensuring that infrastructure exists, we could make sure that this bill could work for Nunavummiut.
Ultimately, we will also need to make sure that child care centres are being built in Nunavut.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I rise today with fond memories, having attended Ataguttaaluk High School in Igloolik in my riding. I send out a special thanks to the Igloolik District Education Authority, Igloolik elders, Nunavut Research Institute, the late Graham Rowley, Susan Rowley, Carolyn MacDonald and John MacDonald. These amazing groups and individuals delivered an archaeology credit course that contributed to my high school diploma. I share my speech today, realizing how investments for youth can have lasting impacts. Qujalivakka. I am so grateful to them.
Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage is of particular importance to indigenous peoples in Canada.
I am glad to see, in Bill C-23, that roles are provided for indigenous peoples in determining historic places. It is great to see that the bill responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 79. Specifically, the bill would add three members to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, from first nations, Métis and Inuit groups. In addition, it would compel Parks Canada to incorporate indigenous knowledge into the designation and commemoration of historic sites.
Unfortunately, what the bill would do is not enough. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action set a framework, and this framework should have been used in ensuring a better legislation.
The TRC call to action 79 specifically reads:
We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Survivors, Aboriginal organizations, and the arts community, to develop a reconciliation framework for Canadian heritage and commemoration. This would include, but not be limited to:
i. Amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to include First Nations, Inuit, and Métis representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and its Secretariat.
ii. Revising the policies, criteria, and practices of the National Program of Historical Commemoration to integrate Indigenous history, heritage values, and memory practices into Canada’s national heritage and history.
iii. Developing and implementing a national heritage plan and strategy for commemorating residential school sites, the history and legacy of residential schools, and the contributions of Aboriginal peoples to Canada’s history.
In 2017, the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation raised concerns about the state of conservation of the 17 remaining residential schools and said it was urgent for the government to respond to call to action 79. It is unclear to me what has happened since 2017, and whether this bill addresses those concerns.
The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's 2017 report entitled “Preserving Canada’s Heritage: The Foundation For Tomorrow” provided clear recommendations, which I will speak to in more detail later.
During its study, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development learned that Canada is the only G7 country that has not passed legislation to protect historic places and archaeological resources under its jurisdiction. Unfortunately, alongside many other recommendations not implemented by this government and previous governments, this is not a new recommendation. In 2003, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada also recommended that the federal government strengthen the legal framework built for heritage in Canada.
The committee I mentioned earlier examined the issue of preserving indigenous heritage places. Unsurprisingly, the committee found that indigenous peoples define their heritage in a more holistic manner than the western model. As a result, solutions currently used to protect heritage places must be adapted in order to preserve indigenous heritage places.
The committee amplified the need to implement TRC calls to action 72 to 75, which create the process to commemorate the indigenous children who never returned to their families. Canada’s heritage includes genocide of indigenous peoples. As such, incorporating these calls to action is just as important as implementing call to action number 79. Indigenous peoples should be able to protect their own heritage. Indigenous-led heritage would involve coordination among communities, elders and knowledge keepers.
I will conclude by entering into the record recommendation 17 from the committee's report.
Recommendation 17 of the report also recommended that:
The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada revise the policies, criteria, and practices of the National Program of Historical Commemoration to integrate Indigenous history, heritage values, and memory practices into Canada’s national heritage and history.
Parks Canada develop and implement a national heritage plan and strategy for commemorating and, where appropriate, conserving residential school sites, the history and legacy of residential schools, and the contributions of Indigenous peoples to Canada’s history.
The federal government, in collaboration with Residential School Survivors, commission and install a publicly accessible, highly visible, Residential Schools National Monument in the city of Ottawa to honour Survivors and all the children who were lost to their families and communities.
804 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:55:28 p.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.
I agree that we need to see a way out of the pandemic. I agree that we are in need of hope. Inuit, Métis and first nations were given hope by the former prime minister, Stephen Harper, when he gave an apology to former students of residential schools in 2008. That same government, the Conservatives, made cuts to important initiatives like the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.
Is this the same hope the Conservatives are aspiring to give to Canadians?
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
