House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 37% of the vote.
Business of Supply May 13th, 2015
Mr. Chair, I would like to confirm to the minister, through you, that in the Haida Nation case, the Supreme Court said that on important matters, aboriginal peoples have to give their consent. That is what my bill was supposed to do.
Can the minister tell me which article refers to veto in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?
Business of Supply May 13th, 2015
Mr. Chair, I guess that is why he personally voted against my bill on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which would have enshrined the basic and fundamental rights of indigenous peoples into Canadian law.
Bolivia has done it. It has integrated the UN declaration into its constitution. Why can this country not do it, too?
Business of Supply May 13th, 2015
Mr. Chair, I must admit that the minister must have one of the toughest jobs in cabinet. It is not because of the diversity of the issues that he needs to deal with but certainly because he has important constitutional responsibilities that he seems to be taking so lightly tonight.
My first question is very simple. Does he believe in nation to nation relationships with Métis, aboriginal peoples and Inuit in this country?
Aboriginal Affairs May 13th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, aboriginal communities are tired of waiting on a minister who does not answer their questions.
The Prime Minister promised to work toward reconciliation. Nevertheless, all we are getting from this government is meaningless answers. One minister said that my bill, which seeks to uphold the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples, was “utter nonsense”. My question is simple: rather than being part of the problem, will he now try to be part of the solution?
Belcourt 100th Anniversary May 13th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to recognize an important anniversary in my riding. The village of Belcourt is celebrating its centennial this year.
Originally called Café, which was borrowed from the railway station, the village changed its name to Goulet, after the first permanent settler who arrived in 1915. The village was officially renamed Belcourt in 1958, in honour of Senator Napoléon-Antoine Belcourt, who became well known for taking a strong stance in favour of Franco-Ontarians.
To celebrate this milestone, a wide range of activities are planned. For instance, a huge dinner will be held at the Belcourt community centre on the weekend of July 3, 4 and 5.
I invite anyone and everyone who is in the Belcourt area to stop and visit this beautiful village, which is in a beautiful region, in a beautiful riding, represented by your humble servant.
Aboriginal Affairs May 7th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, the question before Parliament last night was not a matter of left against right, but right against wrong.
My bill received a great deal of support from many municipalities and organizations across Canada. Nevertheless, the Conservatives, including the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, chose to ignore that Canada-wide consensus and vote against my bill.
How can the minister justify abandoning aboriginal peoples yet again by refusing to recognize their most basic rights?
Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015 May 4th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech that we just heard.
I listened carefully to the testimony given before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, particularly that of the Assembly of First Nations, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs and Pamela Palmater. They expressed the same views as those held by most aboriginal peoples across the country.
Everyone here knows that aboriginal peoples have constitutional rights in this country. The Supreme Court has recognized those rights time and time again, against the will of the members opposite, incidentally.
This bill deals with public infrastructure and the threat to economic stability. I know what I am talking about in that regard because I have been very involved in the area of aboriginal rights over the past 30 years. Whether it was here or elsewhere in the world, I have always been seen as a threat to my country's economic stability. I was even accused of being anti-Quebec in the context of a hydroelectric project in the province. Therefore, I know what I am talking about when it comes to this issue.
Many experts have said that this bill threatens to lump together legitimate dissent and terrorism. The Conservatives are telling us that we do not need to worry, but can they give us even one example of an aboriginal protest in Canada that the federal government considered to be legitimate?
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act May 4th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, meegwetch. Today I am proud to rise again to defend Bill C-641, an act to ensure that the laws of Canada respect the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I would first like to thank the other opposition parties for their express support of this bill.
As a jurist, I have deep respect for integrity and the rule of law. Last month, I spoke here about the legal reasons why the Canadian government must pass this bill. However, the federal government once again demonstrated its contempt for the rule of law.
We have long passed the time in history when it was thought acceptable for the Canadian government to make paternalistic decisions on behalf of indigenous peoples. Multiple international and national legal decisions reflect the shift society is making back towards the original spirit, intent and letter of the first treaties between our nations.
It is time for this Chamber to move forward honourably by respecting the Constitution and its promises.
In his response to my bill, the parliamentary secretary followed the well-established pattern used by federal government spokespersons when they address the rights of indigenous peoples. His speaking notes were filled with inaccuracies, showed a misunderstanding of the law and highlighted the government's ignorance of the will of indigenous peoples and, may I add, of all Canadians.
On April 13, a detailed legal response to the parliamentary secretary's comments was published by a coalition of organizations. It is a long list, and I will spare the House. However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise some of their points in the defence of my bill.
Contrary to the member's understanding, implementation of the declaration is a political, moral and, yes, legal imperative, without qualification. This was confirmed by a former special rapporteur, James Anaya. Since 2006, the Government of Canada has not fundamentally changed its adverse strategies and positions in relation to indigenous peoples' rights. Consistent with its international and constitutional obligations, the government has a crucial opportunity here to embark together with indigenous peoples on a collaborative and principled process supporting and adopting Bill C-641.
Yet, and this is troubling, the Canadian government applies a different and lesser standard to democracy, human rights, security and the rule of law when addressing the rights of indigenous peoples. That is shameful. This double standard is highly discriminatory.
In opposing Bill C-641, the federal government claims it is upholding core values and principles, and defending Canada's Constitution in the interests of all Canadians. It also insists that it is devoted to safeguarding aboriginal rights. Such claims do not withstand careful scrutiny.
In reality, the government willfully ignores the rule of law. This includes crucial rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada, which affirms indigenous peoples' right to give or withhold consent.
The government appears to view the declaration as a threat to the government's ongoing colonial domination. However, as underlined by a former special rapporteur on the rights indigenous peoples, “...no country has ever been diminished by supporting an international human rights instrument.”
I am happy to say that my Bill C-641, if fairly implemented in close collaboration with indigenous peoples, could mark a new beginning. Canada could be tremendously strengthened for the benefit of all.
Again, as a country, we need to be consistent. We need to be consistent in our application of such principles and values as democracy, human rights, the rule of law and security. We cannot insist on upholding these principles in the face of terrorism while not doing so in the face of fundamental rights of indigenous people. There is a name for that, discrimination, and that is prohibited under international law and prohibited under our Constitution.
I urge all members of this House to support Bill C-641.
Aboriginal Affairs April 27th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, that is simply disgraceful, but nobody is surprised to hear that kind of thing from the Conservatives.
According to Chief George Ginnish, the anticipated cuts mean that a family of four will receive about $908 per month, which is well below the poverty line, yet the minister would have us believe it is for their own good.
Does the minister really think that New Brunswick first nations receive welfare because they are too passive?
Aboriginal Affairs April 27th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, to add insult to injury, the minister would like first nations to believe that he is actually doing them a favour by cutting services. He is targeting the poorest of the poor in this country by cutting welfare rates for New Brunswick's first nations.
Does the minister really believe that the only reason for keeping first nations on welfare is their “passiveness”, or perhaps it has something to do with high unemployment rates in the region.