44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 20, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, that is an important question.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I have written so many papers in university about the need to dismantle the Indian Act. We need to throw it in the trash. We need to just completely move forward from it.
When we have conversations with the 634 indigenous communities across the country, there really is no consensus. I think that is the piece right now. We are trying to do it the right way. There would be a risk of losing services if we were to just scrap it altogether. We want to make sure that no services are lost and that rights are enhanced, so it is, unfortunately, a patchwork process.
I would like to address paternalism, because we are in a highly colonial space right now. However, I also feel that there are so many women's voices leading this discussion. With the co-development, the nation-to-nation relationship and the consultations, we are doing this in a good-faith way and with a better approach than I have seen from the federal government in a long time. I am proud to be a part of that process, because I feel we are changing things. I think we are really making a meaningful difference. I am committed to seeing that process through to the end, but done the right way.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to put this question to the parliamentary secretary.
We speak of reconciliation, and today we are debating a baby step in Bill C-38 and, to add to the adjectives used by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, the racist law. However, the actual day of statutory recognition of the day for reconciliation, October 2, was the day the Liberal-owned, and now publicly owned, TMX pipeline began constructing open-trench construction through the most sacred area of the Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc nation in the area called Pipsell, which TMX had pledged it would not disturb. That was on the day that we observed reconciliation. It made a mockery of reconciliation as it made a mockery of the Liberals' commitment to climate.
I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary discusses that with her caucus.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very well how I feel about the TMX pipeline. I have been very vocal about that with my colleagues and my caucus with respect to exactly how it relates to reconciliation and our commitments on behalf of the environment and the original stewards of this land. I continue to have those difficult conversations and try to move forward with a path that I find would bring in those voices.
It is quite shocking to think that it was on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, so I thank the member for bringing that to the attention of the House. I look forward to having further conversations with her on how I can best continue these difficult conversations within my own caucus. Again, I am deeply committed to the environment and to reconciliation. They absolutely go hand in hand.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to build on some of the questions asked earlier. I wonder whether the hon. parliamentary secretary could give us more information on how this would facilitate the phase-out of the Indian Act.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a piece of legislation that would come in a series of other approaches in addressing the inequities in the Indian Act.
The enfranchisement piece is really key. Other items include getting rid of some of the inflammatory language and restoring some of the rights that should be there. Again, it is a process, and we are committed to doing the work that needs to be done to undo the wrongs. This is an important step forward.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, is an honour to rise in my place today to speak to this very important piece of legislation.
Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/23 10:29:14 a.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for that support. I think they will find that my friend from northern Saskatchewan has some very insightful and important remarks to share. Despite his allegiance to the Roughriders football team, he is quite a stand-up individual, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Of course, this is a very important piece of legislation, as I mentioned. It is an honour for me to rise today to speak to it, representing the riding of Kenora in northwestern Ontario, which covers three treaty territories, treaties 3, 5 and 9, as well as the Métis homeland, and it includes 42 first nations.
As has been mentioned in the previous remarks and in questions and comments, this legislation would truly help set out a series of fixes. However, it is much more than a simple patchwork and just those fixes. To me, it is about self-determination, and that is obviously a very important aspect of what we are talking about when it comes to reconciliation. It is giving more control and autonomy to first nations and first nations individuals themselves.
Before I get back to the substance of this bill, I want to highlight a key proposal that our Conservative leader has been championing when it comes to self-determination: a first nations resource charge that would, in essence, allow first nations to directly collect revenues from projects on their lands rather than seeing those revenues go to Ottawa and filter back down through a bloated bureaucracy. It is a simple, common-sense approach to ensure that first nations have greater control over projects on their land and a greater portion of the direct revenues. This is one way we will support self-determination. Our consultations on this are ongoing, and I look forward to being able to say more about it in the near future.
I share that because, of course, it is one aspect of self-determination in this bill also, as the bill highlights and addresses four key issues in the Indian Act.
This bill would ensure that individuals with a family history of enfranchisement, which is having to give up Indian status, would be entitled to registration under the act. They could then pass on that entitlement in the same way as others.
Individuals would be allowed to deregister from the Indian register if they chose to do so via an application for removal, without the repercussions of enfranchisement.
As well, an addition would be made to section 11 of the act that would allow married women to return to their natal band if they obtained status and were registered to their spouse's band before April 1985.
The last of the four key points that the bill addresses is to change a lot of outdated and discriminatory language. We have heard some of that language here today. I do not wish to repeat it, but it is something that we are all happy to see being addressed and being removed from the legislation.
This is, of course, part of a series of changes in recent history. We can go back to 1985, which is relatively recent. That was when the process started to remove some of the gender-based discrimination, particularly pertaining to status women who married a non-status men and were involuntarily enfranchised. That is what got the ball rolling in this process. We have heard comments in the chamber about the patchwork and the fact that we have not been able to move forward on addressing all these issues as quickly as we would like to, and I share those concerns.
Although this bill is certainly a great help, and we are happy to see it move forward, as the member for Fredericton mentioned, it was tabled in December 2022. On this side of the House, we certainly would have liked to see this move forward much more quickly. It has been almost a year. The bill also has many gaps in it, with more things that will have to be addressed at future dates.
Considering that the government sat on the bill for close to a year, I think that would have been a great time to work on some of those other aspects concurrently. We could be much further along at this point.
It is a concerning trend. We have heard from the governing Liberal Party itself that its members are also concerned about this trend of the government not prioritizing indigenous-led pieces of legislation pertaining to indigenous peoples, and I just want to urge the government to make it a priority instead of table-dropping at the last moment.
The Prime Minister has said that there is no relationship more important to his government than that with indigenous peoples, but I think the actions speak louder than words. The fact that it has taken so long to make such relatively simple and straightforward changes is definitely a cause for concern, so I would like to urge my colleagues on the other side to move these pieces of legislation forward much more quickly.
Further to the fact that it has been so long, we have seen the need for unanimous consent motions in order to get things through at the last second, and we have been trying to work in good faith to get as many of these things through as quickly as possible. However, we recognize a need for debate and a need for proper scrutiny and consultation on a number of these pieces of legislation. With the rushed process we have from the government, I do not feel we have that time for the proper consultation.
That is not the only concern. It is not just from the legislative point of view that the government seems to be too slow to react. We see issues on things such as status card processing times. It is taking far too long for many people to be able to actually receive their card and have access to the rights they are entitled to, so again I am happy to see this moving forward. The bill would impact 3,500 individuals, and I hope that all those individuals are able to access their status cards and their rights as quickly as possible.
Again, I would like to urge the government to put the resources that are necessary toward that, cut through the bureaucracy and ensure there are ways we can get that done more quickly.
I was thankful my colleagues chose for me to split my time, but now with great respect to my colleague, I wish I had a bit more, because there is so much to get into when it comes to the piece of legislation before us. However, I think it is important to remember the discriminatory and racist history behind this and the reasons it is so important we move forward on this quickly.
Enfranchisement was truly not voluntary. Even in the cases where it was “voluntary”, it was done so that people could avoid having to send their kids to residential schools, so they were able to participate more fully in Canadian society, obtain the right to vote and obtain land and financial compensation. It was a number of things. This is a process that has been forced on indigenous peoples throughout our history, and I am pleased to see the bill moving forward. We need to move it forward much more quickly on the government's side.
Our party here in the official opposition stands ready to work and ready to get the bill to committee. If there are any changes that need to be made, we will ensure we have those fixes. We will hear from grassroots, first nations and indigenous peoples across the country and get it to the finish line.
I want to urge my colleagues on the other side to work with us, so we can get it done.
1332 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his commitment. I had the pleasure of working with him on the indigenous and northern affairs committee, I know his heart is in the right place and he wants to see these issues dedicated the urgency that they deserve.
I would also like to see his commitment to passing the bill quickly, and I hope he can have that conversation with his colleagues. Would he agree that, despite some of the lengthy timelines or challenges we faced, this government has done more for indigenous reconciliation than any other in our history? I would like to hear him comment on that.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I truly would not agree with that member's framing of this. As I mentioned, if we are talking specifically about these issues, it was in 1985 that the fixing of this patchwork started, and we started to see a series of that. That was certainly not under the current Liberal government. I think with the current government, we have definitely seen a lot of spending and announcements. Unfortunately, we have seen numbers that show that, despite the increase in spending, the department results have achieved only 26% of their goals.
That is just one example of how I think the rhetoric has been very strong and positive from the government, but it has not filtered down to actually delivering the real results that are needed for indigenous peoples across the country.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see you sitting in the House on a Friday.
I thank my hon. colleague for his very interesting speech.
One thing about this bill that really stood out for me is the part that replaces the term “mentally incompetent Indian” with the term “dependent person”. Does the member agree with me that, in this example, the language used by the government is demeaning? Does he agree that it is time to stop discriminating against people with disabilities and be much more inclusive?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree. It is very discriminatory.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, part of the legislation is a clause that justifies past discrimination and violations of human rights. It would allow for the government to have discriminated without impunity and underscores the sense of colonial entitlement.
Does the member agree that the provisions of this legislation would prohibit first nations women from seeking compensation for historical harms? Is it justified that the government denied first nations women access to health care, education and safe housing?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, off the top of my head, I am not sure of the specific clause that the member is referring to. However, to answer her question, I certainly agree with her that it is discriminatory for the government to deny first nations women rights to health care and the rights that they need. I certainly share her concern, and I would be happy to speak with her when we have more time to get into detail about it.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, given that my hon. friend's speech this morning is the first time a Conservative Party member of Parliament has spoken to the issue, it seems that there is an intention to vote for the bill at second reading and fix flaws later at committee. Is that something we can count on?
It is a shame to see debate so often where it looks as though we might all be voting for something to get it to committee and only later discover that there is going to be a longer debate; I do not want to use the word “obstruction”. Does the hon. member know if his caucus is prepared to vote yes for the bill?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes, we are looking forward to moving forward on the bill. As I mentioned, we want to get the bill to committee, but we also want to ensure that we are able to have the voices of members raising thoughts on it. We hope that we can move forward on it as quickly as possible. I encourage the government to continue to progress this legislation through the House.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as has been part of the interaction of the members so far today, people tried to take credit for whatever and said that things were accomplished under certain governments. However, with the indigenous stakeholders that I talked to, they very clearly indicated to me that there has been more achieved for indigenous people in our country under Conservative governments than any other government in history. Does the member think it is time for a Conservative government to step up and effect the change that we need to improve the lives of indigenous people across the country?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree. It is time for a Conservative government that will bring it home for all Canadians, including indigenous peoples across this country.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand up to speak on behalf of the people who I serve, but one of the things that we do not do in this place is recognize the people who serve us behind the scenes. I want to take a minute today to acknowledge my team, who work tirelessly, without recognition often, to serve not only the people in the House, members of Parliament like myself, but also the people who we represent, in my case specifically those from northern Saskatchewan. I want to take a minute to recognize Linnae and Emalie, who work with me here in Ottawa, and Dion, Hunter and Cindy, who are back in the riding. I want to make sure they know that they are appreciated for the work they do in serving the people that we get to serve.
With those comments out of the way, let us talk about Bill C-38 for a few minutes. I appreciate the opportunity that my colleague has presented to me to speak on this very important bill.
Bill C-38 is an act that amends the Indian Act to address four separate matters, which we have already heard about from the members who spoke already, but I am going to hit on these just for a few minutes.
First, it addresses the gendered inequity issues that were a result of enfranchisement. I am going to speak a little bit more about that in a few minutes. We have already heard as well that it addresses the issue of natal band reaffiliation. If passed, this legislation would allow women to affiliate with their natal band, or the band they came from before having been forced to change to their husband's band if they were married before 1985.
We have heard about the opportunity through application to deregister from the Indian registry. There is a number of reasons why people might want to do that. I am not going to get into the details of that. Finally, we have heard the conversation already today around replacing offensive and outdated language so that no individual under the act is referred to using any kind of discriminatory or offensive language. That, I think we would say, is a very good thing.
As has been mentioned as well, Bill C-38 is the continuation of a series of fixes, fixes that began in 1985 under then prime minister Brian Mulroney, some fixes that carried on in 2011 under then Prime Minister Harper, and finally, Bill S-3, which took from 2017 to 2019 through the Senate bill to make some progress on this.
Each of these pieces of legislation addressed various matters of gender-based discrimination in the act. While it is important to note that we support amendments to ensure that no federal legislation, including the Indian Act, has any discriminatory components to it, we must recognize that these amendments are just that, changes to existing legislation that supports the maintenance of the status quo, a status quo that perpetuates control over first nations people across our country. We cannot simply reverse the damage that these outdated laws have had, but what we can do is to move forward in support of first nations people on their journey to self-determination. Conservatives seek to ensure that we are making positive strides towards truth and reconciliation, and we know how important it is to hold open and honest discussions in doing so.
Since I only have 10 minutes here, I want to spend some time talking about enfranchisement. We have done a bit of that already, but I want to flesh it out a little bit as well.
For those who may not be familiar with the term, enfranchisement was a policy prior to 1985 that terminated an individual's right to be considered as a first nations person or have status under the Indian Act. As the parliamentary secretary, my colleague from Kenora, already identified, this could be done voluntarily or it could be done involuntarily. When we think of involuntary registration, as mentioned, it could be because they received a university degree, joined the medical or legal professions, married a non-Indian man or became a priest or a minister.
We have heard as well that there were a number of reasons for voluntary enfranchisement, although we use the term “voluntary” in this case when it does not seem like it was really of their own free will. Rather, other factors forced it upon them. Some, as already identified, gave up their status for the sole purpose of preventing their children from having to attend residential schools. World War II veterans voluntarily enfranchised to obtain the same essential benefits that other non-status veterans were provided. Some did so just to have the right to vote.
If we look at those examples of voluntary enfranchisement, it does not really seem like it was a matter of personal choice but maybe more a sacrifice of rights, or something that they were forced into, to protect members of their family or others.
Bill C-38 seeks to address some remaining gender-based inequities that were a result of this unequal reinstatement of status in 1985. In short, women who were enfranchised and later reinstated were placed in a different category than men in the same circumstances. Because of this, first nations women could not pass down status or rights to the same number of generations as first nations men could. This is something that this bill addresses. It has a ripple effect because it affects the descendants of these people as well.
I would like to encourage members of the House to talk to people and hear their stories. We have heard a couple already today, but they should talk to the people who have been affected by enfranchisement. I have heard many of these, and I am going to quickly share one story.
My team and I met with a Professor Karl Hele, a member of Garden River First Nation and a professor in Canadian indigenous studies. His personal experience with enfranchisement is not unfamiliar to many others. His mother and many other women in their community were targeted and coerced by an Indian agent to voluntarily enfranchise. This resulted in an unfair exclusion of their rights and those of her descendants.
To access his child's rights, Professor Hele had no other choice but to pursue legal action, which came at a hefty cost, both in time and resources, which is an option that many people do not have. This case highlights how the Indian Act gatekeepers have historically been, and continue to be, much of the problem.
It is little wonder that first nations people in Canada feel there is an Ottawa-led system, which feels broken. We need to fix it. I believe we need to acknowledge, despite amending the act, there still needs to be a change in how first nations issues are approached. This means acknowledging the failure in the cumbersome bureaucracy that is meant to support first nations, but instead often creates significant barriers.
The population of my riding is over 70% indigenous, and my team deals with the endless frustrations of individuals trying to either access their right to status, respond to other requests of maybe a financial nature or even access appropriate health services. Our office has been dealing with one individual who has been denied status time and time again. However, the bigger issue is not the denial of status, but that this individual has been given a variety of excuses for the denial, which contrast with their family story, and where other members of the family have been granted status under the same circumstances.
It seems as though this case has been passed around the department without a care or concern for the provision of an honest answer. That is unacceptable. In one of the calls with my office, this gentleman finally expressed his frustration and disappointment, and that he is going to give up because he believes he is going to die before this ever gets resolved. That is a very sad story.
What this story tells us is that we cannot accept simple amendments to the Indian Act as a means to an end. We can reshape the tool as many times as we like, but if we do not fix the mechanism, there will never be a fix for the problem.
Our Conservative team is determined to address this problem. In fact, we are proposing steps to do that. My friend from Kenora has already addressed one of those, in relation to our leader proposing the first nations resource charge and our plan for that.
The goal of the federal government should be to work with indigenous leadership to put the control of their communities back into their hands. While the hope for Bill C-38 is to address this to some degree and to respond to a constitutional challenge on enfranchisement, it is merely a small step in the long journey to self-determination.
We have a lot of work to do, and as Canada moves forward on eliminating the Indian Act, the “Ottawa knows best” mentality has got to go.
It is imperative that we recognize the rights and freedoms of first nations people across our country. They know what is good for them. They know what needs to be done. They have already taken many of the steps necessary by investing in projects and businesses, and creating prosperity and employment. They are focused on increasing capacity, and they are generating opportunities that will pay dividends for generations to come.
It is important that the government no longer stands in their way, and that we ensure that first nations are the decision-makers controlling their own destiny. We recognize that this is the only way forward, and although it will have its challenges, Conservatives are not afraid of a challenge.
In closing, let me simply say, under the leadership of a Conservative government, I would be very hopeful for the future of our first nations people across this country. I am personally very eager to see meaningful change.
1706 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
