Jenica Atwin

[Judges Act, October 8th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I unequivocally support this bill. As a new member of Parliament, I did not have the opportunity to state my support for this legislation in the last Parliament, so I am very thankful for the opportunity to do it now. It is my hope that, once passed and proclaimed, this legislation ushers in a new era of change, one of accountability and trust within our legal system and one of real justice for women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people facing sexual violence every day.

In the 43rd Parliament, a record number of 98 women were elected to the House. The statistics on sexual assault say that 32%, or one in three women, over the age of 15 will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, and that is only based on the reported data. This means that as female parliamentarians we come to the House and this debate with lived experience.

I also have the lived experience of being a resource teacher for youth and of having dozens of children disclose to me the traumas they have endured in their lives: the mental anguish and stress, the inability to trust. I have sat in courtrooms where abusers had more rights than the victims, where delay tactics and games prolonged the experience until a victim gave up, until they had been worn down enough from inaction and intimidation. To think that Canadian judges, those entrusted to uphold our laws, to protect victims and to deter further crimes, could be complicit in lending power to abusers through such ignorance and gaslighting is unthinkable.

I wish to thank Rona Ambrose for having the courage to bring this issue to light with her private members' bill. I also wish to thank the Liberal government for bringing it back as Bill C-3, and thank my colleagues on all sides of this House for their words, solidarity and support for seeing this through.

I would be remiss if I did not include the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and the ongoing systemic racism in our legal system. New Brunswick's chiefs are calling for a full inquiry into the failures of our system with respect to indigenous peoples, particularly women, whose lives have not been given the respect and dignity they deserve.

The issue of missing and murdered indigenous women has deep roots in the early days of colonization, where invading forces recognized the power and stature of women in traditional indigenous society. Just as they intentionally decimated the buffalo because it was the lifeblood of the indigenous economy on the plains, they decimated the population of indigenous women as the lifeblood of the people.

The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls reveals that persistent and deliberate human and indigenous rights violations and abuses are the root cause behind Canada's staggering rates of violence against indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people. Testimony from family members and survivors gives context to this violence, marked by multi-generational and intergenerational trauma and marginalization. This takes the form of poverty, insecure housing or homelessness, and barriers to education, employment, health care and cultural support. Experts and knowledge keepers spoke to specific colonial and patriarchal policies that displaced women from their traditional roles in communities and governance and that diminished their status in society, leaving them vulnerable to violence and sexual assault.

Human rights and indigenous rights abuses committed and condoned by the Canadian state represent genocide against indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people. Given the failures of our education system to confront these realities until recently, we find ourselves in a position where the people with the responsibility to offer justice to survivors of sexual violence are from a generation when consent was not part of the discussion, when the burden was put on women to avoid being sexually assaulted rather than holding men accountable for their sexual violence, when considering how many sexual partners a woman had reflected on her worth as a person and when the intersectionality of misogyny and racism was not well understood.

This is reflected in some of the comments that have been made by judges in recent years. They wonder why a woman could not simply keep her knees together, comment that she should be flattered to receive the attention or reinforce the flawed notion that a drunk woman can provide consent. This shows without a shadow of a doubt that many judges are not well educated on sexual assault. They have the power to influence the victim's recovery, but in many cases we see the victim is left retraumatized and without justice.

Judges are entrusted with an important job that carries a number of privileges but also comes with significant responsibilities, and if they are missing important knowledge surrounding myths, stereotypes and biases, their ability to accurately interpret the facts and the law will be impacted. Until our bench more accurately reflects the makeup of our society, it is essential to ensure that judges are empowered with the education they need to do their job effectively.

Rape is not about sex; it is about power. It is our job as parliamentarians to ensure that our system restores power to those who have had it taken from them. Perhaps someday our legal system will live up to its other name, Canada's justice system, but we are not there yet.

[Natural Resources, October 8th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, when most people think about the future of energy, they will refer to wind farms, geothermal and solar, but far too often we forget about the power reclaimed through energy efficiency. Let us also not ignore the fact that some will try to make us believe that nuclear energy can still be considered clean, safe and reliable. The reality is that it is pointless to dream of a greener future if we are not investing massively today enough to preserve our energy, reducing demand.

My question is for the minister of energy resources. How much precisely is the government projected to invest to intensify energy efficiency in comparison with the upcoming investment to increase Canada's reliance on nuclear power?

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 1st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I am sad that this issue has led to blatant displays of racism, threats and intimidation. Traditional ceremony has been mocked. There are social media posts about the need to re-establish residential schools, and signs in the woods of New Brunswick saying, “save a moose, shoot an Indian.”

I have heard from fishermen that there is a lot of anger, a lot of frustration, but the majority of people are not racist and they are just fed up over a perceived threat to the sustainability of the fishery. I understand the uncertainty of our economy, the fluctuation of our natural resources and the stressful cycle of fishing season and unemployment.

I understand the concern around conservation, but none of this can override the behaviours exhibited throughout this dispute. These are the questions and concerns that must be raised with government. As the lead federal agency for aquaculture development, and consistent with its departmental mandate, DFO must act and discharge its responsibilities in a manner that adheres to the policy principles, including addressing issues of public concern in a fair and transparent manner, communicating with Canadians and respecting constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights.

Today is Mi'kmaq Treaty Day. How fitting that we are here to discuss this topic of such historical relevance on a day meant to remind all of Canada that we are all treaty people under the treaty covenant of law among sovereign nations. In Digby there were celebrations at the wharf, cultural displays and ceremonies where the Mi'kmaq and Acadian flags flew together as they should.

My work today is to ensure peace and prosperity for all, as the treaty originally intended.

Woliwon, we'lalin.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 1st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Orange Shirt Day, a day that honours residential school survivors, a day that reflects our attempts as a country to erase indigenous peoples, and for what purpose? It was to have access to the resources of this land unhindered, because our colonial government signed treaties they seemingly had no intention of following.

Canada underestimated the strength and resilience of indigenous peoples, and continues to do so. Indigenous peoples have had to fight for their lives, for recognition and for rights. It is a matter of survival. Five of the poorest postal codes in Canada are in New Brunswick first nation communities, and some Nova Scotia communities are not far behind.

The livelihood fishery in St. Marys Bay is not a large fishing operation. It is a collection of individuals exercising their right to provide for their families and lift themselves from poverty. I read the article from The Guardian that the Minister of Fisheries shared today, which honours October 1 as Mi'kmaq Treaty Day. I respect the words that she shared, although they do seem to come a bit late considering how long this conflict has been going on.

She stated that she grew up in a generation that was never taught about the history of indigenous peoples. It was not until she became a member of Parliament that she came to see the huge, unsettling gaps in her education, including the legal and cultural significance of treaties, and her obligation as a Canadian to uphold them. I commend her for being brave enough to admit that she began to learn about indigenous history so late in her life. This is important, and I truly believe that a severe lack of understanding and education is at the root of the current dispute.

In 1760, the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqiyik and Passamaquoddy signed a peace and friendship treaty with the British Crown. It was recognized as an international treaty between two sovereign nations, and is upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada as being legitimate.

On September 17, 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada acquitted Mi'kmaq Donald Marshall Jr. of three charges relating to federal fishing regulations. Marshall's legal team argued that he had the right to sell fish to make a living under the peace and friendship treaties. Here is where the moderate livelihood comes into the picture. Marshall's ruling stated:

The accused’s treaty rights are limited to securing “necessaries” (which should be construed in the modern context as equivalent to a moderate livelihood), and do not extend to the open-ended accumulation of wealth.... Catch limits that could reasonably be expected to produce a moderate livelihood for individual Mi’kmaq families at present-day standards can be established by regulation and enforced without violating the treaty right.

This begs the following questions: Did the Supreme Court of Canada mean indigenous peoples have the right to fish with no regulations, under DFO regulations or under their own regulations? What does a “moderate livelihood” look like in 1999 or 2020?

I would argue that a treaty right is a designate of a sovereign nation, and to extend the right without the ability to self-govern is not appropriate. Indigenous communities and leaders must take the lead in determining the definition of a livelihood fishery with the support of the federal government rather than the intervention. To begin to set monetary limits on a livelihood fishery, through definition, is problematic.

A policy drawn by the Mi'kmaq, Wolastoqiyik and Passamaquoddy describes a commitment to conservation as the first priority for the indigenous fishery. The policy also specifies a commitment to education and peaceful coexistence with Canadians. It is as follows:

Mi'kmaq [and Wolastoqiyik] people will exercise control of all fisheries resources within traditional tribal territories.

Any fisheries policy must protect and promote fishing rights recognized within relevant treaties and laws.

Mi'kmaq and [Wolastoqiyik] leaders will not enter into fishing agreements that appear to abrogate or derogate from Treaty or Aboriginal rights, recognized in applicable treaties or are protected by law. Such treaties and laws express Mi'kmaq and [Wolastoqiyik] responsibilities and intentions to assert full control over all fisheries resources within traditional tribal territories.

In 2017, Fisheries and Oceans Canada began to negotiate time-limited rights reconciliation agreements on fisheries, signing two such agreements in 2019. While these agreements seem to be in good faith, there is no formal mechanism for negotiation for indigenous peoples. The unfairness on display continues an uneven relationship and ignores self-governance and sovereignty on unceded lands. Indigenous chiefs have the capacity and the knowledge to advocate for their nations and negotiate with the government.

I ask that the minister immediately convene a discussion table founded on respect and recognition that allows for these conversations to continue. I would also add that non-indigenous fishermen must be given a voice. As frustrations boil over, the situation in St. Marys Bay will only get worse.

[Clinic 554, October 1st, 2020]

Madam Speaker, on a day where all parties rose in the House and denounced the hateful practice of conversion therapy, I rise once again to speak about Clinic 554.

There has been a lot of talk about the work of this clinic on ensuring New Brunswickers have access to abortion services. What has flown under the radar is that Clinic 554 is also a centre of excellence for trans health care in a province where there is still a lot of stigma. Many of the same people who have been vulnerable to the human rights abuses of conversion therapy have experienced the life-saving compassion and validation that Dr. Edgar, Valerya and the whole team at Clinic 554 provide.

Clinic 554 saves lives and it is closing because the province will not rescind regulation 84-20 of the New Brunswick Medical Services Payment Act, in direct contravention of the Canada Health Act, nor will it recognize that trans health care is a subspecialty in medicine that deserves compensation commensurate with the service.

To save this clinic, to protect human rights and to save lives, we need federal intervention in New Brunswick.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my hon. colleague, but I could not help but notice the lack of enthusiasm in his voice when he is talking about these promises.

How could I be excited about the speech? Is there something I am missing? Is there something for us to believe this time versus following the 2019 speech? I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned greening the future and this opportunity that we have. However, I could not help but notice that nuclear was mentioned in the throne speech, and there was an announcement by our natural resources minister just days after.

I am wondering what the member thinks about further investments in nuclear. We have already dumped $20 billion into it, federally, since 1950. The nuclear industry failed to deliver on its promise to provide cheap, safe energy. Globally, the industry is in decline.

I wonder what the minister thinks about this instead of supporting Canadian gas as we move to renewables.

[Conversion Therapy, October 1st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada we have the right to live free from discrimination. Across the nation we are setting the example of what it means to live freely, to be who we are and to love who we want.

We must not forget that globally more than 70 countries still criminalize consensual same-sex acts, countries in which people experience violence, discrimination, harassment and are victims of hate-motivated violence, including physical attacks, torture and murder.

In Canada, our constitution and our laws protect people from discrimination based on grounds such as sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation and sexual identity. Through the years, the scope of these protections must evolve. Looking through the historical lens, we can be proud of when the former prime minister, the Right. Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, affirmed that what is done in private between adults does not concern the Criminal Code, and when marriage between two partners of the same gender became legal in 2005. Through this evolution in our society, we witnessed the power of the rising tide of freedom and love, but to say that these rights were recognized without any suffering would be to blind ourselves to the constant fight for justice that achieving equality requires.

Even with our laws and protections providing a safe haven for many, when compared to other nations, the reason we are here today is evidence that for many Canadians, being who they are is still not a safe option. The cruel practice of conversion therapy is a practice aimed to change, by employing various approaches, an individual's sexual orientation to heterosexual, or their gender identity to cisgender.

The World Health Organization issued a statement almost a decade ago, saying that this type of therapy poses a severe threat to the health and human rights of the affected person. The Canadian Psychological Association warned in 2015 of the numerous impacts on the health of an individual, from depression and anxiety to self-harms and suicide. It is more than time that we act and criminalize this inhumane practice.

I want to strongly affirm my support to the proposition to criminalize conversion therapy, completely and utterly. We must protect Canadians from the harm of this practice and not leave any stone unturned to ensure a future where no one will have to undergo such pain.

We must also understand that for many, the realization of their true identity only comes once they have the opportunity to experience and explore life. Criminalizing the practice for minors is essential, although we must go further to ban the practice for everyone and not legitimize any loophole. Assuming that people, even if they are not a minor person, will not hope to try to please family members who offer their love only on the condition that the person goes through conversion therapy ignores the human need to receive parental and family support, freedom and affection. Many adults would accept to undergo the procedure in the hope of erasing who they are, to finally receive the love that they need. That is why allowing the therapy to simply exist in any shape or form is unacceptable.

Beyond the criminalization of conversion therapy, we need to invest in services that support people. Discovering oneself in an accepting family environment can still come with challenges for many people. Everyone should have access to the affirming and caring support that they need to thrive.

Educators and health care providers must receive training to ensure that they are providing the best support to the people who they are supposed to help. That means learning about gender identity, respecting pronouns and not further fostering an environment that assumes heterosexuality as the norm. That means supporting, financially, community organizations and health care providers, such as Clinic 554, whose work has had life-saving impacts for many patients.

Canada must continue to stand up for the protection and promotion of the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, two-spirit and intersex people globally. All of us here in this chamber must ensure that we pass legislation that effectively protects that community, but also support any measure that would fund services and ensure that anyone who needs support can easily access it.

To the parents, teachers and coaches out there, many of our children are hiding their truest selves from us because they are still afraid that they will not be loved for who they are. Join me in celebrating this bill for what it is: a chance to explain to all our children that they are worthy of love just as they are.

I would like to give a shout-out as well to journalists, who have done the important work of bringing many of these voices forward.

I am eager to see the bill passed in the House.

[Proceedings on the bill entitled An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19, September 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will vote for the motion.

[Proceedings on the bill entitled An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19, September 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, obviously that is a huge piece of this opportunity that I was talking about. It seems that we try not to follow the trends and the good business advice that is being offered by experts that this is absolutely the direction we need to go in: focus more on renewables. We still need oil and gas in this country, but we know we need to ramp down our demand and invest in renewables. They go hand in hand. I do not think we need to choose one or the other at this point. We know that the skills are transferable for workers in the oil fields. I want to bring New Brunswickers home from Alberta because I want renewable energy options on the east coast as well.

I am very passionate about seeing those things come to fruition, and I am tired of hearing those words in speeches without actions that make sense, talking about climate crisis one minute and then buying a pipeline the next, when instead we should be ramping down the demand I am talking about. It is confusing, and I have said that before about the messages that the Liberals are giving to Canadians. It is very confusing when it comes to the idea of the environment and the climate crisis.

I am looking for clarity, and that is why I spoke in my speech about transparency and collaboration, because it sounds like we want the same things, but when we come to this House to vote on bills, it is not what we fought for, and I need to see more of that.