Robert-Falcon Ouellette

[Indian Act, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the 150th anniversary of this nation should be a year of celebration, because nation building is about people. If we do not lift people up, if we always tell them they are poor, they are hungry, if we say they are ignorant, if we tell them they have no hope in the future, what do they do? They commit suicide. They do not reach their full potential. In this case, what I am hoping for, what I would like to see, is the birthright returned to the indigenous people of this land.

In the beginning, it really was not Canada's right to take that birthright and define who is an indigenous person, but it did so. In this case, the Senate amendment brings us to a time when it is no longer Canada that is deciding, it is the registrar in a way that will determine if someone can prove they have an indigenous ancestry.

Who knows how many indigenous people there are in this country? The indigenous nations will be much stronger for it if they are there working together, because we have been divided so long. This would be a great gift for me, returning that birthright.

[Indian Act, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I just had an interesting meeting with a lady, Alana Daniels from Long Plain First Nation. She said, “Always speak from the heart”, and so I will. I do not really have any prepared notes and I do not have anything to hold up, just a few little scribbles about my thoughts.

This weekend, I had the opportunity of participating in a sun dance under Chief David Blacksmith. It was out at Spruce Woods. It is a ceremony that lasts a minimum of around a week, but really the main ceremony is around three days. For three days and three nights, there is no food or water taken by the participants. I have done a four-year cycle, meaning four years in a row I have pierced. I do not pierce for myself. I do not ask things of the creator for myself. I ask things for others. I pray for others. I put myself and I humble myself for others. This weekend was my opportunity not to have to dance in the sun dance itself, but to be a helper, a skabe. I ran around picking up garbage, running the sweat lodge, doing the things that needed to be done to make sure that the dance was successful for those who were praying for us.

People also knew at the sun dance that I am a member of Parliament, and even though it is not a time for politics, the women at this sun dance asked me again and again about Bill S-3. They asked me, “What are you doing about Bill S-3, and why is the government willing to take away our rights? Why is the government willing to remove our birthright? Why is the government not giving back our birthright to our children, to our grandchildren, to our descendants, and their descendants?” This is a debate that has been going on for many generations in this country, and it is a painful thing for me to stand here, because I do not want to be standing here taking this position. I was hoping that it would not come to this moment, but I must have the courage.

We have been talking about this since 1978 when Sandra Lovelace went to the United Nations with others, and they fought to get their rights back, to remove the discrimination in the Indian Act. The government said it was going to give them back their rights, but it was like when we rub the lamp of a genie and the genie comes out and gives us our wish and says, “I grant you three wishes”. The wish the government gave was “I'll give you equal rights”, but it reduced the rights of men and created first- and second-class status Indians. They could see the termination of their status within the lifetime of their descendants, of their grandchildren. If they married out for love, if they met someone they happened to love, they could not bring the person into the nation as the men could before. In fact, they would see the termination of their status because they married for love, even men are like that today. That is a denial of the birthright of indigenous peoples.

We might not like the Indian Act—no one loves it—but at the end of the day, it is what we have and it defines who is an indigenous person in this country. It defines our citizenship in this country. Therefore, in 1985 when the government passed its legislation, I remember being only 10 years old and knowing about Indian status and who in the family had it and who did not have it, which cousin had it and which cousin did not have it. That is a painful thing. Why should a 10-year-old have to know who has more rights than another, who is a full citizen and who is not a citizen, who can go on the traditional territories and who cannot?

In 2010, the government was once again, after a court case, faced with making a decision. It made a decision. It was to do two rounds, a second round of consultation afterward to see if there should be additional amendments. We are still waiting for that second round of consultations to lead to legislation. Now here we are in 2017. I am 40 years old, and we have been debating this for my lifespan. Here I stand as a member of Parliament and it comes before me. I am asked to support a position that I cannot support.

Who am I to deny the birthright of my cousins, of my brothers and sisters in the sun dance? I simply cannot do it. It is absolutely shameful that we are debating this. Why should a man have to wait for justice? Why should a woman have to wait for justice. Why should the children have to wait for justice? Have we not waited long enough for justice?

Yes, the bill that the senators have sent us may be imperfect. Yes, it may not be the best type of bill, the greatest bill that the lawyers of the Justice Department had decided we should consult or debate in the House of Commons. Nonetheless, it is the bill that was submitted. INAC had an opportunity for many months since the Descheneaux case to actually come up with a solution and multiple plans, yet here we are facing an ultimatum of July 3, because they could not do the task that was laid before them by their minister. That is a disgrace about the Indian affairs department.

They ask us to trust them, and we have been asked to trust them for 150 years, only to be asked to trust them again for another two years and to hopefully see it happen. I know the minister has a good heart and cares about this issue, but what happens if the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs is shuffled out of that position and it is someone else whose priority is not justice? Are we to wait again and again?

This is truly from the heart. I was going to read some stuff, but at the end of the day I do not care about what is there. I remember listening to the lady at the Indian affairs committee. I am an Indian. I assumed that name Indian because my grandfathers call me an Indian and we use it among ourselves. I am an American Indian, a North American Indian. I am also nehiyo, even more important, Cree.

When I think about the Indian Act, it is discrimination, but it does not mean that the Indian Act must continue into the future as it is. We can make those adjustments, but today the Indian Act is so important because tomorrow it will decide who will be the citizens of the indigenous nations of this land. If people have status today, they will be citizens tomorrow. If they have no status today, there is no guarantee that tomorrow they will have that status and will be able to exercise that status within an indigenous nation, nor will they have access to their traditional territories, nor to who they are and what makes them a nehiyo, Anishinabe, an Inuit, a Métis, a Michif.

This is the basis of the future indigenous nations, taking the Indian Act, which granulated us down into little components fighting among ourselves, and hopefully we will be able to come together. Yes, it is going to be difficult. Yes, it is not going to be fun, but we need to have this debate and we need to be forced into that debate.

The indigenous leaders of our country needs to be forced to face reality as they were in 1985. No chief wanted these bastards back on their territory, yet here we are, and we are still asking to be let in. We are still banging on that door; we are still saying let us into the eastern, the southern, the western, and the northern doors. Let us into our traditional territories because we have a birthright, and it is a birthright that should not be denied in 2017.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

[Indian Act, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the member could give a bit more information about some of the Senate amendments that the government received, the difference in those Senate amendments, and what he feels about those Senate amendments. They are obviously very important.

The Senate amendment mentions a parent or guardian or other ancestral person. It has a large introduction, which essentially says:

...the Registrar shall, without being required to establish the identity of that parent, grandparent or other ancestor, determine, after considering all of the relevant evidence, whether that parent, grandparent or other ancestor is, was or would have been entitled to be registered. ...the Registrar shall rely on any credible evidence that is presented by the applicant in support of the application....

Essentially, we are allowing the registrar greater leeway to determine who is an Indian, so it is essentially moving back perhaps to what we used in Canada back in the late 18th century, early 19th century, in allowing people to determine who is an Indian, such as this is someone who looks like an Indian, sounds like an Indian, lives in an indigenous community, so he or she must be an Indian.

[Indian Act, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would discuss a bit more about the testimony he heard from Ms. Deborah Serafinchon at the committee. She is the lady who talked about how she did not really understand 6(1), 6(2), and 6(1)(a) Indians and what that all meant. She talked about how, at the end of the day, her mother was sent to residential school, that she did not have status, how her mother was forced to hide her as a child and flee the hospital because they were going to seize her as a baby, not because her mother was unwed but because she was an Indian, and even though she did not have status, that did not really matter because she was an Indian nonetheless. She said, “I'm Indian enough to be discriminated against, but I'm not Indian enough to get status.”

The member heard that testimony directly. I have seen it on video. I think it is perhaps one of the most poignant I have heard because she is a lady who is not a lawyer, not someone who might be considered an expert, but she is someone who was speaking from the heart, from the heart of her absolute core, about the discrimination that occurs in the Indian Act and the potential to actually make a difference through the Senate amendments on this act.

[Petitions, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of Canada who draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following. It has been 17 years since the Chinese Communist regime launched the persecution to eradicate Falun Gong, a spiritual practice centred on the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance. Millions of Falun Gong practitioners have been arbitrarily detained, including family members of Canadians. Mass extrajudicial imprisonment, forced labour, torture, rape, and killing, along with hate propaganda, have all been reported by major human rights organizations.

The petitioners state that an updated report released in June 2016 indicates that prisoners of conscience, primarily Falun Gong practitioners, have been killed on demand to fuel the massive state-run transplant industry, supplying most of the organs for an estimated 60,000 to 100,000 transplants per year in Chinese hospitals since 2000. This could mean that at least hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been murdered for their organs over the last 15 years.

Therefore, the petitioners request the Canadian Parliament and government to establish measures to stop the Chinese regime's mass murder of innocent peoples for their organs, including but not limited to introducing Canadian legislation to ban organ tourism and criminalize those involved, taking every opportunity to call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong, and urging the Chinese authorities to bring former leader Jiang Zemin and his cohorts to justice.

[Privilege, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, [Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

I rise on a point of privilege of prima facie.

[Member spoke in Cree and provided the following translation:]

I am proud to be here.

[English]

On May 4, 2017, I rose in the House of Commons to speak on important issues of violence being committed against indigenous women. In order to make a larger impact, it was felt that it would be appropriate to speak in nehiyo, or the Cree language. Even though I had provided documentation to the translation and interpretative services 48 hours prior to my speaking on May 4, 2017, they were unable to provide a time-appropriate translation during members' statements under Standing Order 31.

It is my belief that my parliamentary privileges have been violated because I could not be understood by my fellow parliamentarians and Canadians viewing the proceedings, thus negating the debate and point that I wished to make. I was effectively silenced, and even though I had the floor and had been duly recognized, my speech was not translated, rendering me silent and thus violating the parliamentary privileges of all MPs present in this chamber. Imagine for an instance if a French Canadian spoke in the House but no translation and interpretative services were provided.

It is is my belief that parliamentarians have a constitutionally protected right to use indigenous languages in Parliament. Subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 states:

The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

Do language rights fall within these provisions?

Professor Karen Drake has written about indigenous language rights in Canada as pre-existing the Canadian state, and these rights have not been extinguished and are still present.

Others, like David Leitch and Lorena Fontaine, have been working towards launching a constitutional challenge, arguing that under subsection 35(1), the federal government has not only a negative obligation not to stifle aboriginal languages but a positive obligation to provide the resources necessary to revitalize those languages.

The latter claim is perhaps the most challenging, while the former is more straightforward. Though the test for establishing an aboriginal right under subsection 35(1) has ballooned into a labyrinth of steps, sub-steps, and sub-sub-steps, the core of the test has remained relatively consistent since the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Van der Peet:

...in order to be an aboriginal right an activity must be an element of a practice, custom or tradition integral to the distinctive culture of the aboriginal group claiming the right.

Many, including me, argue that indigenous languages easily meet this test. As Leitch puts it, “there is no more distinguishing feature of most cultures than their languages.”

Other arguments also focus on the inherent connection between language and culture, as illustrated by the way in which indigenous languages structure indigenous knowledge.

An additional nuance can be added to this argument. The Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence recognizes that the practices, customs, and traditions protected by subsection 35(1) include the laws of aboriginal peoples.

At least some aboriginal languages reflect aboriginal laws. As Doris Pratt and Harry Bone explain:

Our languages are sacred gifts, given to us by the Creator. They carry our way of life, our views of the world, our history, our laws and they bind us to each other.

Thus, at least some aboriginal languages are integral to their respective cultures, not merely insofar as to reflect those cultures, but also insofar as they reflect the laws that are included within the practices, customs, and traditions protected by subsection 35(1).

The analysis thus far may support a negative right to be free from government laws prohibiting aboriginal peoples from speaking aboriginal languages, pursuant to subsection 35(1) and subsection 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

However, the real issue is whether aboriginal peoples have the right to use their own languages at public expense; in other words, whether governments have a positive obligation to provide aboriginal peoples with government services in aboriginal languages.

Commentators have answered this question in the affirmative by appealing to the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on Canada's official languages.

According to the majority in R. v. Beaulac, 1999:

Language rights are not negative rights, or passive rights; they can only be enjoyed if the means are provided.

Additional arguments in support of a positive language right can be deduced from the section 35 jurisprudence itself. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the purpose of section 35 is to promote reconciliation between aboriginal peoples and non-aboriginal peoples in Canada. Section 35 should be applied and interpreted in the light of this purpose.

After spending six years gathering 6,750 statements from residential school survivors and others, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada concluded that reconciliation requires the preservation and revitalization of aboriginal languages, and it issued numerous calls to action on the topic, one of which states:

The federal government has a responsibility to provide sufficient funds for Aboriginal-language revitalization and preservation.

Language figures prominently in the commission's analysis because the very purpose of the residential school system was the destruction of indigenous cultures and language for the sake of assimilating indigenous peoples into a non-indigenous culture. Children were prohibited from speaking in indigenous languages both inside and outside the classroom. As Leitch notes, no other cultural group in Canada has been subject to a state-sponsored attempt to eradicate its language. Thus, the case for a positive obligation on governments in this context is compelling. The federal government took active steps to destroy aboriginal languages, and so reconciliation requires that it take active steps to revitalize these languages.

Parliament is to be the representative of the people of Canada and to uphold the highest principles. Today, the Government of Canada has stated it supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, without reservation. Article 13 of UNDRIP states, “Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize...and transmit to future generations their...languages”, and “[s]tates shall take effective measures to ensure this right is protected...”.

In December of 2016, the Prime Minister stated he was ready to introduce an aboriginal languages act. While there are no laws or rules specifically protecting or governing the use of indigenous languages here in Parliament, it is my belief that, since aboriginal rights are pre-existing, they should be considered a right. While that has not been exercised or supported, it is nonetheless still existing. Cree, because it is my indigenous language, nehiyo, should be considered an official language in the House of Commons. Standing Order 1 states:

In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair of Committees of the Whole, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.

The use of indigenous languages like Cree is not foreign to Canada. The parliamentary tradition has multiple examples, and I would like to enumerate a few other examples of the use of indigenous languages in legislatures in Canada. For instance, in the most recent example, the Senate of Canada provides interpretation and translation services in Inuktitut for Inuit senators. This has been under the visionary leadership of the Hon. Charlie Watt and the Hon. Serge Joyal.

In addition, there are multiple other examples, such as the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, where indigenous languages have the opportunity for interpretation services. In Manitoba, the hon. James McKay was on the Assiniboia council under President Louis Riel, where Michif, Cree, French, English, and Gaelic languages were used. This legislative assembly was integral to the entry of the Red River, modern-day Manitoba, into Confederation. An example of the openness of the time is the Hon. James McKay. He was an indigenous Métis man of Scottish origin, from a Cree nehiyo mother, and spoke many different languages, including Cree, in official proceedings of the assemblies where he sat.

In an official history prepared by the Manitoba legislature, it is recorded that indigenous languages were used in official proceedings. James McKay was a member of the Legislative Council of Manitoba, the Manitoba upper chamber, and served as its speaker until 1874. He was then elected to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. McKay is known to be very proud of his indigenous heritage and used indigenous languages frequently. He was also a member of the North-West Council. In the second session of the Legislative Assembly of Assiniboia, from April 26 to May 9, when discussing the hay privilege, James McKay addressed the assembly in the Cree neyiho language.

I hope these usages, customs, forms, and precedents can be considered as you, Mr. Speaker, craft a just and equitable response to my question of privilege concerning the translation, interpretation, and use of Canada's original languages in the people's chamber, the House of Commons. I am looking for not only the right to use my indigenous language of nehiyo Cree in the proceedings of this House, but that Parliament provide minimal resources so I may participate fully with other members of the chamber in all activities of the House of Commons, and that all other members of the House may participate and interact fully with me in the chamber.

Tapwe akwa khitwam.

[June 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Sherbrooke for that good question.

We are both members of the Standing Committee on Finance. He knows that I have a hard time with how much money judges make. They are not even part of the 1%. They are part of the 0.5% of highest earners.

Governments have long held a policy of negotiating with judges directly so that they may maintain their independence. The problem is that judges have become a class of their own in our society. They have even become more important than Parliament itself. That is one of the problems we have with judges.

I really do not agree with how much judges earn. Their annual salary is between $340,000 and $430,000. One of the reasons cited is that we must not have corrupt judges, but judges who are above reproach. Think about the message that sends about judges' involvement in our society.

I might get in trouble later for taking such a position, but it is in the budget because it is part of the budgetary measures. In the meantime, I believe that Parliament should have the courage to level more criticism at the judiciary and the salaries of judges, as they are an integral part of our society. They should understand what is happening and how the rest of the population lives with a more average salary.

[June 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, from what I understand, the government's position was that the motion was a little too narrow. I applaud the member for his advocacy on behalf of people with autism and ensuring that this advocacy moves forward. We try to find what we can do to make lives for people with autism better.

I also understand the Minister of Health is trying to build some form of framework, a better policy that will build off that motion. Therefore, I do not think the debate is completely over. It is still going to move forward, and the member should congratulate himself for the hard work he has been doing.

[June 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I did not realize I could not use my own name.

She asked me to help get her off the street. At 3:30, I started calling around to homeless shelters and addiction centres. At 3:30 p.m. on a Friday, it seemed that no one was around to respond to those needs. This is part of the issue about budgets. Budget are large macro things, but the issue goes far deeper. It is actually how we implement that budget on the ground, day in and day out. For me, that is the issue. How do I obtain services for this young lady? How do I get her the addiction counselling that she needs so that she can be successful because she was not happy working the streets?

She had come as a refugee from a northern community looking for better services, a better way, and she ended up slipping through the cracks. By 5:30 or 6:30, I had nothing that I could offer her. That is heartbreaking for an individual MP. All I could do was listen to her story and try to find whatever services existed, but no one seemed to respond on a Friday afternoon.

As we start moving forward in refastening the budget, I call upon the federal government to think about how our educated bureaucrats, who have bachelors' degrees and masters' degrees in urban design, social work, and finance, go about crafting the policy, how it actually impacts the people on the ground, how we ensure that we protect not those who do not need protecting but those who really need to be protected. This is the thing that pushes me to ask those bureaucrats to go in the trenches to talk to the people who need to be talked to.

I was proud to do town halls on homelessness recently, as well as on social housing. I went into a homeless shelter and asked homeless people what they want and need, to ensure that we get it for them.

With regard to the budget, I do not want to do a bunch of statistics because people forget stats, but we are contributing $11.2 billion over 11 years to a variety of initiatives to build, renew, and repair Canada's stock of affordable housing. I know we are trying to renew our federal-provincial-territorial partnership in housing. We are also trying to build a new national housing fund administered through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is going to receive another $5 billion over 11 years. We are trying to target housing for people off reserve, and homelessness as well. However, these things are at the macro level, and I want to push our ministers to work for the people on the ground.

I will leave this with one final short quote from Pope Francis.

Each of us has a vision of good and evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is good. Everyone has his or her own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight the evil as he conceives it. That would be enough to make the world a better place.

[June 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to talk about Bill C-44.

I would like to start with a quote by Pope Francis, who stated:

And every man, every woman who has to take up the service of government, must ask themselves two questions: “Do I love my people in order to serve them better? Am I humble and do I listen to everybody, to diverse opinions in order to choose the best path?” If you don’t ask those questions, your governance will not be good.

When I came to Parliament only 19 months ago, I was faced with choices, choices about who I will serve and who I will be working for day in and day out. For me, one thing that guided me throughout that time is that parliamentarians are here to serve all citizens, everyone. I am sure everyone in the House agrees that we must serve both rich and poor alike, but we also have a duty to remind the wealthy to help the poor, to respect them, to promote them, and to build them up. I am reminded of that every time I am in Winnipeg Centre. I am reminded of that when I look at my family and friends and when I am in my riding when I am not here.

A few months ago, on April 16, I was called by Radio-Canada. The journalist was asking questions and wanted comments about the flooding going on in Manitoba and what the federal government's probable response would be concerning those floods. I said I would certainly talk about the first nation communities affected. It was a Sunday and my wife goes to a soup kitchen every Sunday. It is her form of going to church. She does not enjoy the service so much when she goes to church, but she enjoys going to a soup kitchen run by St. Euclid church in North Point Douglas.

She goes there with about 50 other people who help serve the poorest of the poor of Winnipeg: people who sniff gas, young families, and people who have very little to call their own. She takes my two oldest children, who are 12 and 10 years old, Xavier and Jacob, and I am left to look after the three younger children, who are eight, six, and five years old. I told the journalist that I would love to do the interview on Sunday, but I have to look after my children, so I asked if we could meet somewhere in my riding downtown, to which he said, “Of course.”

My wife dropped me off on the south side of the Manitoba Museum. As we were doing the interview, a gentleman walked by. He was not dressed in an extremely rich way and did not look wealthy. As the interview was taking place, he asked very quickly if he could have a word with me once I was done the interview. He waited patiently until the interview was completed, my kids waiting patiently with him, and then we had the opportunity of speaking. He has been homeless for a number of years and has been forgotten for a number of years. People do not seem to have cared about him or his wife. They sleep under a bridge in Winnipeg. He told me about how many foster families he had been in throughout his life. He had been in 70, if anyone can believe it. He had been in 70 foster families throughout his life. He was taken by the government and thrown from family to family, with really no one to care for him. Imagine the type of individual who creates a sense of connection with others when no one, even as a child, really and truly wanted him.

He asked me what the federal government was doing for him. He said he did not read the newspapers and asked what it was doing for him. I was proud to say that in budget 2016, $69.7 million were given to the provincial government in Manitoba for social housing and infrastructure. I told him that funding is not yet on the ground to build the housing, but I am trying to work with the provincial government to see if it can get to that place to get him housed, get him something. He asked me to please not forget about them and that he voted for me. He said he had picked up beer bottles and managed to raise $10 to buy an ID card so he could vote in the election because it was so important to him. He said not to forget about him and his wife.

When I looked him in the eyes and saw the tears, I sensed at the same time that he is a little ashamed because he is homeless. One has to ask who we are here to serve. I asked myself what I am doing in Parliament and who I serve. I am reminded time and time again about that in my riding when I do meet and greets or go to the local Tim Hortons or Portage Place mall. The Portage Place mall had some racism issues. It was kicking indigenous people out of the mall about a year and a half ago when I was first elected, because they did not look right and were not welcome there.

We seem to have fixed that problem. I do my meet and greet there, so people who are poor and do not look quite right can go into the mall and sit down at the food court, and maybe I will buy them a cup of coffee. I get to hear their stories and what is going on in their lives.

I remember a young lady from an indigenous northern community, who on a Friday afternoon at 3:30 sat down in front of me, and—this is the troubling part—she smelled like she had been doused in kerosene. She was obviously a gas sniffer and had some addiction issues. She had the smell of alcohol on her breath. She had glassy eyes and she said, “Robert, help me.” She had been two weeks on the streets—