44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 20, 2023 10:00AM
- Oct/20/23 12:23:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to present a petition on behalf of 823 signatories based on the work of medical students from the Canadian Federation of Medical Students, specifically Ethan Kendlar, Winnie Foo and Kathy Zhang.
In light of the ever-increasing, tragic and preventable deaths as a result of the toxic substance crisis, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to: refine the national approach to treating substance use disorder to emphasize evidence-based harms, harm reduction strategies like safe consumption sites, safer supply and drug-checking services; provide additional, conditional funding to provinces for the implementation and expansion of these programs in order to facilitate access; and incorporate decriminalization of the simple possession of substances and a national overdose strategy in order to allow substance use disorder to be treated as a medical and social issue rather than a criminal one.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/23 12:24:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise for the 15th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. People are scared to leave their homes. Businesses face constant threats from the same repeat offenders, but the Liberal government says not to worry. It told the people of Swan River that its bureaucratic, pan-Canadian, strategic framework on rural crime will bring a feeling of safety to rural communities. Unfortunately, no one knows what this program does or where it is. We need jails, not bail, for violent, repeat offenders and not another framework.
The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/23 12:25:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is not a surprise that I am tabling this petition, given that there were forest fires across my riding, that divided my riding this summer.
The petitioners cite that there is a climate emergency crisis in our country and that Canada's temperatures are rising faster than overall global temperatures. Extreme weather events, including unprecedented droughts, hurricanes, floods and forest fires, like those I cited that occurred in my riding, are destroying lives, homes, communities and our forests. There are 120,000 Canadians who have been driven from their homes and young people are grieving. They are feeling hopeless and anxious about a frightening future. They feel abandoned by a government that is failing to act decisively to counteract the worsening climate catastrophe.
The petitioners are urgently calling on the government to legislate and swiftly enact an economically prudent oil and gas emissions reduction plan. The target of this plan would be to reduce oil and gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030. They want to do this by placing a legislated emissions cap that delivers absolute emission reductions that includes methane; removing all publicly financed tax exemptions to the oil and gas sector and eliminating all inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by January 1, 2024; redirecting this money to the urgent development of proven clean energy; and, lastly, stopping all government assumption of transfer of risk and provision of goods and services to fossil fuel companies and prohibiting those fossil fuel companies from using offsets or exemptions on exported fuels.
257 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/23 12:26:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition calls upon this place to legislate the abuse of a pregnant woman and/or the infliction of harm on a preborn child as aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes in the Criminal Code. At the stage of sentencing, after someone has been found guilty, they want aggravating circumstances to be required.
Their rationale is that it is a well-established fact to all of us, and we know this, that the risk of violence against women increases when they are pregnant. Currently, the injury or death of preborn children as victims of crime are not considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes in our Criminal Code, which means they may or may not be considered, and often they are not. Canada has no abortion law and the petitioners indicate that this legal void is so extreme that we are not even in a place in this House to recognize preborn children as victims of violent crimes.
Finally, justice requires that an attacker who abuses a pregnant woman and/or her preborn child should be sentenced accordingly. The sentence should match the crime.
192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/23 12:28:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the signatories call on this place to respect the right of every Canadian to health freedom. Their explanation is that freedom of choice in health care is becoming increasingly curtailed and further threatened by legislation and statutory regulations of this Government of Canada. They say that it is a fundamental right for individuals to be able to choose how to prevent or address illness or injury in their own bodies. Canadians want the freedom to decide how they will prevent or address illness or injury in their own bodies, as they always have. Canadians are competent and able to make their own health decisions without state interference.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon this Parliament to guarantee the right of every Canadian to health freedom by enacting the charter of health freedom drafted through the Natural Health Product Protection Association on September 4, 2008.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/23 12:29:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/23 12:29:30 p.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑38, an act to amend the Indian Act, which corrects serious mistakes committed in the past regarding the status of many first nations members.
Today, I speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, but also as a member of the Huron‑Wendat Nation. First, let me say one thing: The Indian Act is a colonial law that introduced a system of domination and ghettoization. Its very name is just as racist as the N-word can be. I cringe whenever I see the word “Indian” on my status card. Cosmetic or vocabulary changes do nothing to fix the fact that this is a law on ghettos. This law was put in place by a conqueror in order to park people on reserves. It is a throwback to British colonialism and a culture that became woven into English Canadian colonialism. The Indian Act must be abolished and replaced by a new, respectful regime founded on a dialogue between nations. International relations begin at home.
Be that as it may, although it merely amends the scandalous Indian Act, the bill before us today remains incredibly relevant. The spirit of Bill C‑38 stands as a sentinel against the injustices perpetrated by the Indian Act, which continues to cast long shadows, even into present-day Canada. It courageously tackles the evils that continue to impede deregistration, enfranchisement and reaffiliation with the natal band, despite multiple attempts at amendment. This noble bill embodies a common quest and a never-ending conversation with the indigenous nations that stretch across our vast land. No fewer than 50 virtual sessions, held from August to December 2022, enabled first nations, indigenous organizations and all those concerned to engage in dialogue and express themselves.
The government anticipates that close to 3,500 individuals will be granted the right to registration as a result of these legislative amendments, thus opening a door towards the righting of many historical wrongs. This bill, like a small breath of fresh air, offers thousands of Canadians of indigenous lineage the chance to reconnect with their cultural heritage. It gives them access to the rights rooted in Indian status in Canada, but goes far beyond that, by allowing them to fully reclaim their identity.
It is worth recalling that prior to 1985, enfranchisement was a sinister assimilation policy under the Indian Act. Under this vile legislation, first nations individuals lost their entitlement to registration as well as membership in their home communities. Enfranchisement could be voluntary, but the government could also impose enfranchisement on individuals, either by virtue of their profession or because they had been residing outside of Canada for five years. When men were enfranchised, their wives and children were automatically enfranchised. This led to entire families and their descendants losing entitlement to registration, membership in their communities, and any associated benefits under the Indian Act.
In 1985, Bill C‑31 created new categories under section 6 of the act for determining eligibility for registration, which restored access to registration for a large number of people and their first-generation descendants. As part of these changes, the emancipation process was eliminated from the act, and people who had already been voluntarily or involuntarily emancipated could request that their registration be restored. Although the provisions of the Indian Act regarding registration and membership were amended in 2011 through Bill C‑3 on gender equity in Indian registration and in 2017 through the passage of Bill S‑3, An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général), these legislative reforms focused mainly on eliminating gender inequities in the registration process.
However, other injustices rooted in the grim past of emancipation are insidiously persistent. The descendants of those who were at one time subject to emancipation are still unable to pass on their right to registration in the same way as those who were not affected by this measure. Similarly, those who were subject to emancipation as a member of a band or community continue to be excluded from registration today.
The introduction of Bill C-38 offers the promise of better days ahead. After it is passed, many people will be in a different registration category and others will be newly eligible for registration. What is more, if the problems of individual and collective enfranchisement are resolved, nearly 3,500 people will be given the invaluable access to registration.
Right now, the Indian Act does not provide for the possibility of voluntary deregistration at the specific request of the interested parties. However, thanks to the proposed amendments, it will be possible for a person to have their name removed from the Indian register for various reasons, such as wanting to join indigenous tribes in the U.S. that do not allow those registered under the Indian Act to enrol; wanting to identify as Métis; deciding to no longer be recognized on the federal Indian register; or withdrawing consent to be registered as an adult, for those whose parents registered them as children.
Mercifully, Bill C‑38 will guarantee that, when a person has their name removed from the register, they will still legally retain their entitlement to be registered under the Indian Act, the right to be registered again in the future, and the right to transmit this precious birthright to their descendants.
For some individuals, deregistration is vital because it is a matter of having control over their own identity. For others, it is a barrier to gaining membership in other indigenous groups, like Métis, if they have mixed ancestry. This has long hindered many people from accessing important services and benefits they should be entitled to through a group they wish to identify with.
For example, Métis lose their right to Métis membership if they are registered under the Indian Act. Bill C‑38 will provide individuals with the right and ability to have their names removed from the Indian register. Once deregistered, the individual will not have the right to access any programs, services, settlements or benefits associated with Indian Act registration. Even if the individual later seeks to be re-registered, that individual will have no retroactive claim to any such benefits for the period in which they were deregistered. However, any individual who opts to deregister will retain their entitlement to registration under the Indian Act, including the ability to regain their status in the future.
When a woman who is registered under the Indian Act is a member of the band that she was born into, in other words, either the mother's or father's band, this is referred to as being a member of her natal band. If passed, Bill C‑38 would recognize the acquired rights of all first nations to membership with their natal band. This bill would provide a legal framework to re-affiliate women and their descendants to their natal bands who were automatically moved to their husbands' band list upon marriage. Bill C‑38 provides a valuable opportunity to re-establish important cultural and community connections for first nations women and their families.
Since this bill is intended as a response to historical wrongs perpetrated by Ottawa and its racist, sexist legislation that discriminates against indigenous people, it is imperative to remain vigilant to ensure that this bill does not itself become an indirect instrument of assimilation and cultural erasure of indigenous people by allowing overly broad access to their recognized Indian status for those unfamiliar with indigenous cultures.
Luckily, the limited yet still significant scope of individuals who will now be eligible does not seem to pose a threat of diluting indigenous identity, as once provided for in the Indian Act, along with ethnocide. The indigenous groups that the Bloc Québécois consulted did not seem consider that an imminent risk. However, we will remain watchful.
It is imperative that this bill be considered in its entirety, with careful attention paid to its consequences and impacts, to ensure that it truly rectifies past wrongs while respecting the rights and identity of indigenous peoples.
From the 19th century on, women and their descendants have been the victims of blatant gender discrimination when it comes to registration and band membership.
In 1869, with the passage of the Gradual Enfranchisement Act, the definition of “Indian” was no longer based on first nations kinship and community ties. The act was deliberately designed to remove families headed by a non-Indian man from first nations communities by building on the predominance of men over women and children. The 1869 law also included a provision concerning interracial marriages. Known as the “marrying out rule”, it was retained in the first Indian Act of 1876. This rule removed entitlement to registration from Indian women who married non-Indian men, while granting entitlement to non-Indian women who married Indian men. In addition, children of entitled men who married non-Indian women became entitled under the Indian Act, while children of women who “married out” were no longer entitled. This is clearly a flagrant inequality.
In 1951, important amendments were made to registration, namely, the creation of a centralized Indian register. Later, other amendments further reinforced the discrimination against women and their descendants, especially the double mother rule. Gender discrimination in the Indian Act was challenged under national and international human rights legislation, which brought to light the fact that women were excluded from first nations communities and were being deprived of the ability to retain their indigenous identity in the eyes of Canadian law.
For decades, indigenous women fought for their rights in court, challenging the patriarchal provisions of the Indian Act. In the 1960s and 1970s, women like Jeanette Lavell from the Wikwemikong nation, Yvonne Bedard from the Six Nations of the Grand River, elder and advocate Mary Two‑Axe Earley from the Kanien'kehà:ka nation, and Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas from the Malecite nation took legal action to fight the Indian Act's discrimination against women and their descendants. These courageous women paved the way to reform and justice and thus helped to advance the cause of indigenous women's rights and to fight the systemic injustice that has long marked the history of the Indian Act.
The chief commissioner of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Marion Buller, said the following after tabling the more than 2000-page report:
Despite their different circumstances and backgrounds, all of the missing and murdered are connected by economic, social and political marginalization, racism, and misogyny woven into the fabric of Canadian society.
As much as indigenous communities need to rebuild, Quebeckers and Canadians need to become aware of the collective trauma experienced by these communities, understand it, and ensure that nothing this disgraceful ever happens again. Quebec Native Women had this to say:
[In the case of many of the missing or murdered women] [o]ne might claim that the person responsible for [their] death is the one who gave [them] the beating that led to [their] passing. In fact, this interpretation was favored by former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he insisted on the criminal, as opposed to sociological, nature of the murders of Indigenous women in the country (La Presse Canadienne, 2014)...Beyond the single act of violence perpetrated by one person against another, it is the accumulation of each of the above-mentioned acts of violence that led to [their] death.
According to Viviane Michel, a former president of Quebec Native Women, it is essential that indigenous women, families and communities have the opportunity to be heard as part of any inquiry. She also said that understanding the deep roots underlying the systemic discrimination faced by indigenous women is crucial to ensuring their dignity and safety.
In listening to the testimony of indigenous women, Quebec Native Women counted four types of violence.
The first type of violence is structural violence. This all-encompassing form of violence refers to the systemic effects of policies of erasure and assimilation since at least the middle of the 19th century. The Indian Act is the quintessential example of a system that governs all areas of the lives of first nations people, including political, economic, social, legal and cultural.
The second type of violence is institutional violence. This second form of violence, which necessarily flows from the first, has more to do with the repercussions associated with specific institutional regimes, whether in education, health or public safety. The residential school system is a prime example. Not only did this violence manifest itself in the lives of residential school survivors, but its consequences have spanned generations and have permanently altered the life trajectories of thousands of children by insinuating themselves into every aspect of their existence.
The third type of violence is family violence. This expression is frequently used in an indigenous context to emphasize the fact that violence affects not only couples, but also the children and potentially other people connected to the family.
The fourth and final type of violence is personal violence, which includes instances of physical violence, psychological manipulation and financial control, to name but a few. It involves individuals.
In their descriptions of the encounters, the families and survivors who spoke to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls all linked their experiences to colonialism, in its historical or modern form, through one or other of four main factors: historical, multigenerational or intergenerational trauma; social and economic marginalization; maintaining the status quo and institutional lack of will; ignoring the agency and expertise of indigenous women and girls.
The trauma of Canada's indigenous people is both individual and collective. Expert witness Amy Bombay's testimony at the child and family welfare hearing highlighted the importance of the concept of historical trauma to speak to what she called the cumulative emotional and psychological wounding that happens over the lifespan and across generations, emanating from massive group trauma experiences.
It is the response to this trauma that perpetuates this colonialist legacy, which has become embedded in all of Canada's indigenous cultures through no fault of their own. This response, which can take the form of various social problems, is always aimed at surviving this trauma. Throughout history, the Canadian government and the clergy planned the collective trauma with the ultimate goal of driving all indigenous communities to extinction. Those communities have since been left to deal with the consequences alone. One day, Canada will have to confront this reality.
We have a duty to remember precisely because the past determines our present and future. However, this duty to remember only makes sense in this case if we learn from the past. If we, like the Prime Minister of Canada, get used to shedding crocodile tears and settling for continuing under the Indian Act, then our collective duty to remember will be in vain. We need to build a new system, ideally an independent republic of Quebec, based on a new, respectful dialogue with all nations. That is what the Bloc Québécois is advocating for.
Tiawenhk.
2581 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many examples the member brought forward when talking about the real need. I think they amplify the importance of Bill C-38.
I know from personal experience in dealing with constituents, in particular a very good, dear friend of mine, Mr. Chartrand, that we have been trying as much as possible to make sure there is some justice in regard to someone getting registered and being identified by their heritage. It has caused a great deal of frustration.
I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on that. It is important to recognize, as we move forward, that leadership has to be driven from indigenous communities. This is an important aspect, and we have to ensure that we turn to that leadership to make sure we are getting this right. Would the member agree?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, of course, and as one might imagine, when I was asked to speak to this issue, I immediately contacted the grand chief of my nation, the Huron-Wendat Nation. I asked him what he thought of this. It goes without saying that this must be done.
That being said, when it comes to leadership, it takes two to tango, as they say. It has to come from both sides. The desire for dialogue and leadership in dialogue must come from both sides. Unfortunately, I often get the impression that things move far too slowly in the House.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what I am wondering, and what I want to ask the Bloc Québécois member, is why the Liberals took so long to move second reading of the bill. They introduced Bill C‑38 a year ago.
Why are they dragging their feet on this matter? Does this suggest a lack of sincerity and enthusiasm when it comes to indigenous relations? Can my colleague comment on that?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating our colleague on his excellent efforts to speak French. Allow me to applaud him. I understood his speech completely.
First of all, I would like to say that, for my own sake, I have long given up trying to explain the Liberal's slow response to a host of issues. Some things are better left chalked up to the mysteries of life. Even on my deathbed, I doubt I will have the answer.
That said, I want to come back to something I mentioned earlier. At some point the government needs to stop with the words, the processions, the public ceremonies and the crocodile tears. People need to stop pretending they find this tragic. At some point, they have to get moving. Why does it always take so long for something to get started? It is unacceptable.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the structural violence that was committed against indigenous identity, indigenous language and indigenous families, we also have to talk about the resistance to defend that identity. That is why I think this is so important, and I thank my colleague for his speech. We have to be rooted in the history of this country and what happened.
I will talk about Beaverhouse. Beaverhouse is a community between the Algonquins of Timiskaming and Abitibiwinni and the Ojibway Matachewan, yet it was ignored by the federal government, which said it was not a real band. For 100 years, it had no legal rights. It had no legal rights to represent itself and no legal rights to defend its families. When the sixties scoop came, they went after communities like Beaverhouse to trash and destroy them.
Chief Marcia Brown Martel led the legal battle to bring the children home. It changed Canadian law because this little community stood up. It was only last year that Beaverhouse was finally recognized as a band. It had been on its land since time immemorial.
Colonialism destroyed and attacked communities in different ways, but to repair the damage, which is our obligation, is going to take a multi-faceted approach. What does my hon. colleague think about the need to address the individual impacts that were felt by various communities and various nations by the colonial system across this country?
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure that I understand the situation that my colleague just described to the House. His intervention was very interesting.
Something that has always bothered me is the use of the term “indigenous people”. Of course, people use it to be brief and concise, but indigenous people are not a homogenous group. We refer to first nations because there is more than one nation. Each nation has its own values, its own culture, its own identity, its own language and its own interests. We obviously need to differentiate when speaking about each of these nations.
It would be like saying “all of the peoples of the world”. Obviously, there are a lot of things that all of the peoples of the world have in common, but the fact remains that we cannot treat them as though they are all identical. That is how we need to look at things when we are dealing with adults. It helps us break away from the colonial mindset.
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and riding neighbour from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot for his eloquent speech. As he himself is a member of the Huron-Wendat Nation, I think he knows what he is talking about. He is well read and very passionate about the issue.
I also liked the fact that he talked about the future republic of Quebec, which will truly establish a nation-to-nation relationship. I was pleased that he did not talk about the future monarchy of Quebec, although that would be unlike him.
A bit earlier in the debate, I asked a Liberal member a question about the very nature of the work being done to try to correct a fundamentally racist and archaic piece of legislation. I told her that we should simply tear up the Indian Act and start over on a respectful and new foundation in order to be able to work intelligently nation to nation. She told me that within many first nations across Canada, there is no consensus. Again, we have this sort of claim that it is up to the federal government to build consensus.
I would like to hear the thoughts of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who, I repeat, is a member of the Huron-Wendat Nation. I would like his view as a first nations member. According to him, how should we proceed with building consensus among all the first nations of Canada?
245 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, neighbour and friend for his question.
Let me make one thing clear. The title of this bill, while perhaps a little better than the title it replaced, is in itself a sign that it must be abolished. I used the word “Indian” unwillingly, and it turned my stomach every time I used it throughout my speech. I was using it for the sole reason that it is the title of the act. Indians do exist, and they are the inhabitants of India. It is not the term for first nations, Métis and Inuit people. These people are known as indigenous people.
Again, as our NDP colleague said in his previous question, each and every one of these indigenous people must be treated individually. What I am trying to say in answer to the question is that it is possible that many communities will see benefits as a result of several provisions of the current legislation. However, the best way to do this is to open a dialogue and start from scratch.
There is no requirement that the same law apply to all first nations. In order to determine what should replace the current legislation, it is important to listen to the first nations communities themselves. We will have to listen to what they want to do. If there is no consensus, obviously that also shows that there is no consensus in favour of it. If there is no consensus against it, there is no consensus for it. We can look—
261 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I thank the hon. member. I spent the last 30 seconds motioning for him to conclude his remarks. He will have time to answer a brief 30-second question.
The hon. member for Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the 2021-22 departmental results report for the Department of Indigenous Services Canada indicates that the department's ability to meet the target that it set for itself was only achieved at a level of 26%. In other words, of the goals the department set for itself, it was able to achieve only 26%.
My colleague has indicated that he is a member of a first nation, and this department is meant to provide services to first nations people across our country. Does he think that achieving 26% of the targets it set for itself indicates that the government is serious about its commitment to meeting the challenges faced by first nations people across our country?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The hon. member has only a few seconds.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I only have a few seconds. A quick question lends itself to a quick answer. I apologize for not heeding your instructions. I do not want you to think, even though we were friends even before we sat together, that I do not respect your authority as Speaker.
My very short answer to the question is no.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
