House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was aboriginal.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Nanaimo—Cowichan (B.C.)

Won her last election, in 2011, with 49% of the vote.

british columbiaaboriginalcoast to coasthuman rightsaround

Statements in the House

First Nations Elections Act June 17th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for that speech. I know he was pointing to some challenges in first nation communities with elections. However, we know in Canada that in the last federal election there were a number of challenges for Canadians, with low voter turnout, robocalls and some MPs being under investigation for allegedly not following the Elections Canada spending rules.

With regard to first nations, this piece of legislation would only provide for courts as a remedy. There would be no provision in this piece of legislation to have an independent tribunal or a commission, like Elections Canada, for first nations.

I wonder if he would comment on the fact that for many first nations the cost would be prohibitive if they have to end up in courts to dispute elections rather than having that independent process.

As spoken

First Nations Elections Act June 17th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the Conservatives feel about some of the alleged legal difficulties of one of their former candidates when they are talking about selection of candidates.

The former chief of Lac La Ronge Indian Band, Tammy Cook-Searson, raised some concerns with regard to the process of first nations being forced into courts whenever there is a dispute around the electoral process. I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that this act does not specifically allow for either an independent tribunal or an electoral commission, similar to what federal and provincial governments have in place.

As spoken

First Nations Elections Act June 17th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, although we certainly support the four-year election term under this legislation, there are a number of other parts of the legislation that are ill-defined. We have to look to other instances where people cannot trust what is in legislation. I look to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its ongoing dispute with the government over relevant documents.

In this piece of legislation, clause 41 sets out the regulation process. This regulation process is important because it covers the appointment, powers, duties and removal of electoral officers and deputy electoral officers, the manner of identifying electors of a participating first nations and so on. There are a number of very important clauses that regulations would define.

Nowhere in this piece of legislation is the process outlined by which first nations will be included in the development of regulations. At least in Bill S-8, the clean drinking water bill, in the preamble it said “working with first nations”. However, it does not say that anywhere in this act.

I wonder if the member could address specifically how first nations would be included in the development of regulations.

As spoken

First Nations Elections Act June 17th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his previous answer to my question. What I heard him say was that it was too expensive to set up an electoral commission for first nations, but he said nothing about whether resources would be made available to first nations that then end up having to go to court to get this resolved. We all know that most first nations are cash-strapped.

I wonder if he could comment on the fact that this is going to be an expensive undertaking for first nations and that the Conservatives are downloading this on first nations once again.

As spoken

First Nations Elections Act June 17th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member's speech and it was interesting to hear him talk about sound, open and transparent election processes. Although this is not my question to the member, it would be interesting to see when the government is going to bring forward its changes to the Canada Elections Act, since there were such difficulties in the last federal election.

My question to the minister is with regard to the testimony of representatives of the national aboriginal law section of the Canadian Bar Association before the Senate. When they testified before the Senate, they indicated that it was unfortunate that clause 33 states that everything will go to the Federal Court. They said that there are many recommendations for either a first nations electoral commission or a first nations tribunal to settle any election disputes and that the federal government and all provinces already have this as a regular part of democracy. They questioned why, if it is good enough for the feds and the provinces, it is not good enough for first nations.

I wonder if the member could comment on why there was not a similar kind of process recommended in the bill, instead of only a court process.

As spoken

Canadian Heritage June 14th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised a new relationship, and that does not sound like a new relationship.

We have another example of this disrespect: After the Nisga'a land claims agreement, a boat was gifted in the spirit of reconciliation to the Museum of Civilization. Now it is being thoughtlessly shipped away. The Nishga Girl is a significant piece of Canadian history. Will the minister stop the shipment, and will he respectfully consult with both donors and community?

As spoken

Aboriginal Affairs June 14th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, that sounds like the “dog ate my homework” excuse.

The department's nominal roll process for first nations students is usually complete in February. It is now June and the school year is almost over. The department has been forced to send letters to school boards asking them not to charge interest to first nations for tuition. If this were not so serious, it would be just plain embarrassing.

Why is this process still not complete?

As spoken

Aboriginal Affairs June 11th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, Indian residential schools were a tragic chapter in our history, and five years after this historic apology, survivors and their families deserve more than just words.

First nations children are gathered today on Parliament Hill and are asking us for the same opportunities that others have: to grow up in safe homes and communities, to get a good education, to be healthy and to be proud of their culture and languages.

Their dreams matter. They deserve better than the status quo. Why is the minister not listening?

As spoken

Aboriginal Affairs June 11th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, five years ago today, the government officially apologized to residential school survivors.

However, five years later, none of the promises of assistance they made at the time of the apology have been kept.

Aboriginals have to go to court to ensure that treaties regarding energy development projects are honoured.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission must also take the government to court to get access to documents. Why?

Translated

Aboriginal Affairs June 11th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to be one of the MPs in attendance five years ago, when the residential school apology was made in this chamber. Every seat in the gallery was filled, and thousands more people watched this historic event on the front lawn of Parliament. Even more watched it in their homes and communities. It was a good day.

As the late Elijah Harper once said, the apology lifted people’s hearts and opened the doors to reconciliation. From the thousands of Canadians who have already attended events arranged by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, to the many young voices, some on the Hill today, who are part of the Our Dreams Matter Too campaign to bring equal funding to all schools in Canada, to the many workers participating in national Aboriginal History Month events, people want the apology to mean something tangible. They want it to bring a change in perspective and a new relationship between First Nations, Inuit and Metis and other peoples of Canada.

As Jack Layton said that day:

...reconciliation must be built through positive steps that show respect and restore trust. This apology must not be an end; it must be a beginning.

New Democrats want to build on those words.

As spoken