So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 304 - Apr/29/24

Apr/29/24 5:32:43 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, the member talked much about fairness and housing. Unfortunately, the budget does not do enough for first nations housing. The AFN said there needs to be $44 billion to close the gap. This budget promises only $918 million over five years. How can the member say this is fair to first nations, when they are getting meagre pennies out of the budget?

63 words

Context: House Hansard - 284 - Feb/16/24

Apr/29/24 4:30:22 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am glad that the member mentioned a bit about housing. Unfortunately, the budget does not do enough for indigenous housing. For example, the Assembly of First Nations reported, in 2021, that the first nations housing need to close that gap is $44 billion. The Auditor General, this past March, reported that 80% of first nations housing needs are not being met. In fact, she said, at our indigenous and northern affairs committee today, that what the Liberal government is doing is contradictory to reconciliation. What can the government do to make sure that it is not in contradiction of reconciliation? What can it do to show the importance it places on reconciliation and investing more in first nations housing?

121 words

Feb/16/24 1:00:56 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, from what I understood, the member was saying that the bill would discriminate against a certain type of care. I wonder whether she could point to where in the bill it talks about this discrimination. What I understand is that the bill states there needs to be a prioritization for public over private child care, and that it would not prevent any other care from being addressed by the bill.

71 words

Feb/12/24 6:42:57 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am going to ask the member a similar question to what I asked a previous Conservative member, because she spoke to it as well. She mentioned that, by CAP not being mentioned as one of the board members, it is being prevented from being a voice in this board. However, I give the same reminder that the national council for reconciliation will have a minimum of nine members and a maximum of 13, so in addition to the four, there are going to be several other board members that can be on this national council for reconciliation. Can the member tell us where she sees, in the bill, that CAP is being prevented from being on this board?

120 words

Feb/12/24 5:35:15 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to remind the member that the bill speaks to requiring the national council for reconciliation to have a minimum of nine members and a maximum of 13. Just because it names four organizations does not mean it excludes others from becoming board members. Does the member agree that there is nothing in this legislation stating that CAP shall not be a member of the national council for reconciliation?

72 words

Feb/12/24 4:37:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-15

Uqaqtittiji , I always appreciate my colleague's fierceness in the House. I always learn from her. It has definitely been very disappointing to sit here since 2021 and to see the Liberal government not respect UNDRIP after passing Bill C-15. A very important aspect of UNDRIP, as she mentioned, is the importance of free, prior and informed consent. If the Liberal government, for example, had used free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, in developing the Métis bill, I think first nations in Ontario would have been a lot more supportive in helping to ensure that the bill is supported by all. I think that ensuring free, prior and informed consent is something that helps to unite all indigenous peoples. It has been quite unfortunate to see the Liberal government dividing first nations, Métis and Inuit against each other. We need to see the examples set by the Supreme Court of upholding the constitutionality of Bill C-92. In order for us to do better for first nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families, free, prior and informed consent must be at the core of our work. That is how we will make sure that our relationships are respectful, that we are working toward an overall sense of well-being for now and for the future of all of Canada. With Canada being founded on indigenous peoples' lands, if we work together, we can make sure that legislation is meeting the needs of first nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families.

262 words

Context: House Hansard - 279 - Feb/9/24

Feb/12/24 4:15:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

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

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

Feb/5/24 1:48:58 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I thank the member for his very important question on what the costs of not getting this done will be. I think some of the bigger costs could include Canada's being seen as not upholding international human rights laws regarding water and as not upholding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. At the community and ground level, first nations will continue to have to boil their water before they brush their teeth. They will have to continue to make sure they are given funds to buy bottled water. We will continue to see first nations struggling to provide source water, as we have seen in Neskantaga, which is experiencing a 30-year boil advisory and may not get the resources it needs to no longer receive boil water advisories. The Liberal government promised to make sure that boil water advisories would be eliminated, but we still have far too many, and they are causing everyday consequences for indigenous people. We suffer with the highest suicide rates. We suffer the highest rate of mental health issues. There are too many who are addicted and engaging in substance abuse. We need to do better at ensuring that first nations, Métis and Inuit can have access to water. It is at the core of doing better for first nations.

224 words

Feb/5/24 1:45:19 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I very much enjoy working with my colleague. The reality for first nations, Métis and Inuit, as I was asked about earlier as well, has been unfair. There have been inequities, such as a lack of investments, resulting in many social issues that are beyond what we see for Canadian standards. The indication that the Liberal government is not showing a true commitment to reconciliation can be seen in this bill. If this bill sought to have true reconciliation with indigenous peoples, it would have shown a willingness to uphold indigenous human rights, international human rights and access to water. It would have included provisions to uphold first nations treaty rights, for example, by making sure that first nations have authority for source water protection and providing an absolute guarantee that funding is sustainable and consistent, so first nations have ongoing access to safe drinking water.

149 words

Feb/5/24 1:41:33 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, as I shared earlier, I know that the Minister of Indigenous Services has worked really hard with organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations. However, they do not represent all first nations. There are way too many first nations that were not included during this consultation process. In terms of those who were consulted, I appreciate the sentiment, but that does not extend to all first nations.

69 words

Context: House Hansard - 264 - Dec/7/23

Feb/5/24 12:53:40 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I always appreciate what the member has to share. I also appreciate that he did list some of the court case settlements. However, I want to ask about source water protection and who has the authority. I know that there have been discussions about whether first nations should have the authority to discuss source water, be it municipal, provincial or federal. I wonder if he could share his thoughts on what this would mean and why it should be discussed in committee.

83 words

Context: House Hansard - 264 - Dec/7/23

Dec/7/23 3:17:00 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, the point of order is based on a question that was raised by the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies. The level of ignorance by the Conservative Party about indigenous peoples, first nation—

39 words

Context: House Hansard - 248 - Nov/7/23

Dec/7/23 1:03:00 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, it is clear that the Liberal government has not been making enough investments in first nations, Métis and Inuit. The Auditor General published a report earlier this year about the lack of investments to first nations regarding emergency preparedness. I wonder if the member can respond with stories that validate the lack of investments to first nations, and what the Liberals will do to make sure they are making changes so that first nations, Métis and Inuit are engaged in such things as emergency preparedness, as well as combatting climate change.

96 words

Context: House Hansard - 236 - Oct/20/23

Nov/7/23 3:21:37 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, the gap for first nations infrastructure is at $350 billion. The government committed to end the gap for first nations by 2030, but the Liberals have spent under 3% of what is needed. This does not even include funding for Métis and Inuit, which would make the gap even more extreme. Indigenous communities remain neglected, despite the calls for action. When will the government recognize indigenous peoples' capacity and work with them to fill these gaps?

79 words

Context: House Hansard - 236 - Oct/20/23

Oct/20/23 1:20:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-38

Uqaqtittiji, indeed, nation-to-nation conversations are absolutely important. When it comes to recognizing the right to self-determination and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we must show through our actions what reconciliation actually means. That also means including the use of indigenous legal orders. I hope that, through our conversations, we will continue to advance the importance of nation-to-nation relationships.

69 words

Context: House Hansard - 207 - Jun/6/23

Oct/20/23 1:00:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-3 Bill C-38 Bill C-3 Bill C-15

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

Context: House Hansard - 197 - May/15/23

Jun/6/23 9:42:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Uqaqtittiji, I think that is a different type of program that she might be talking about, but it highlights the importance of Bill C-35 and why we need to nationalize child care. We need to ensure, as I have said, that those who have been excluded from accessing child care get the supports that they need. I heard a Conservative member talking earlier about his family supporting each other in the area of child care. I question whether that member would have had that same level of support if all of their family members had been marginalized for decades, had been oppressed for decades and had been forced to experience genocide for decades. I question whether he would have had the same level of family supports that he needed to ensure child care for his family.

137 words