Marilène Gill
Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“It is absolutely incapable of doing so. That is what the government is doing right now, so we are wondering whether it is going to help us. For starters, this infrastructure is run down. Some of it is dangerous. We cannot even access some parts of the wharves, even though food is delivered using those wharves.”
“It is going to close certain airports and shut down certain wharves. I mentioned 15 ports and airports, but there are more. There is also the Wabush airport, which is going to be put up for sale. Wabush is next door to my riding, and the airport there provides access to some parts of my riding.”
“That is understandable, but with its bill, the government is threatening some of our hard-won gains. I say “gains”, although not everything is perfect. Let us look at airports and ports. I know that airports are included in Bill C-30, but the government also added some ports that it wants to get rid of.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is just one data point. That said, I will not defend the government. Things seem grim over there, and there is not as much spending as we would like to see to stimulate all sectors of our economy, particularly local ones. I think a broader perspective is called for—a vision, even.”
“The government is always saying that the north should be populated, that it is a strategic territory, that indigenous communities should be supported and that it should be developed. These are communities of 200, 400, 500 and 1,000 people.”
“If we want food at times of the year when the supply ship cannot get through because of the ice, it also has to come by plane. I mentioned ice, but even in summer there are ports where food should be arriving, yet they are no longer in service. People are worried.”
The complete record
Every one of 335 lines we hold for Marilène Gill, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 7.
“Mr. Speaker, all the credit goes to my colleague from Jonquière, who looked through the economic update. The words “forest” and “forestry” only appear four times, while oil and gas are mentioned some 150 times. It might be anecdotal, but it is indicative of the government's interest, or lack thereof, for the forestry sector. What the government is really proposing is retraining. It is offering retraining programs for workers. That is sending a scary message. The government is telling workers that it is turning its back on them even though the economy is strong and it is doing all these great things. If they lose their jobs, all they have to do is retrain and find something else, because the government does absolutely nothing to support the forestry sector. That is what I am reading between the lines.”
“Mr. Speaker, that brings to mind a Dalida song. We keep hearing about a strong economy. I would like the Liberals to come to my riding and tell the workers who have lost their jobs that there is absolutely nothing to help them maintain their employment relationship or get through this crisis. I would like the Liberals to come and tell them that the government has strong measures in place. These strong measures mean more debt for businesses. What is more, no one knows when they will see this money, which could be put to use by the businesses themselves. They are being asked to diversify, but also to innovate. While this could be a viable option for some in a crisis, not everyone is necessarily in a position to do so. In my view, the government has done absolutely nothing for the industry.”
“A fund that belongs to itself, that is the be all and end all, and will fix everything that needs fixing in Canada's economy. It is a fund that is actually a debt. Should we call it a sovereign debt or the Prime Minister's debt? I wonder. It is debt, and the government is choosing to go into debt for oil and gas projects when it cannot even support Quebec businesses, forestry companies and aluminum companies. It is easy to see why we opposed the government's measures. I hope they will listen and take action, but it has been 11 years. I feel like I do not even believe in it anymore.”
“When they talk about pipelines and western oil and gas, that is not what we want at all. We want to develop in other ways. I talked about forestry and aluminum. That is what we do at home, and we do it well. We would like to see that money come back to us. Even a small percentage that could go back to the forestry industry would be extraordinary, but the government is not doing that. In closing, I would like to urge and formally invite the government to revisit the proposals the Bloc Québécois has put forward to help the industries and to help the workers, because these are not two separate issues, and to invest in strengthening these sectors. I was particularly struck when the Minister of Finance unveiled the sovereign wealth fund. That, too, was almost a slogan.”
“With respect to the economic update, I listened to the Minister of Finance and he repeated slogans, which is just fine during a campaign, but now they keep coming back with slogans revolving around the sacrosanct notion of economic strength, but there is nothing for our sector. When I told one of my colleagues on the government side that we no longer want this dependence on the federal government, it is because our money, Quebeckers' money, is not going where it would help. Quebec sends taxes to Ottawa—a fact that is sometimes forgotten—and we get money back while always being told, in a completely patronizing way, how to use it and what we should be doing in Quebec. Right now, it is clear that this is not working. The government has decided to contribute to industries that are not the choice of Quebeckers.”
“I was saying that the government was not meeting the needs, and I gave just one example. Not meeting the needs is one thing, but not anticipating is another. What we have noticed is that the government is always reacting to what is happening. CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, and the negotiations are nothing new. They are cyclical, predictable issues. With the current President of the United States, I think we could have guessed that there would be obstacles, since he has been putting up roadblocks for over a year. Once again, there is nothing concrete in the government's economic update or in the measures that should be taken based on the renegotiation of CUSMA. Nothing is being done, and that is worrisome. The government is reactive.”
“I live in what is considered a remote region, a rural community spanning 350,000 square kilometres with a population of 100 people, and we definitely need workers. When sectors of our economy are weakened, folks will leave the region and may never return. We are truly caught in a vicious cycle. This is what businesses, SMEs and workers are all asking for. They are simply asking that the government ensure this employment relationship can be maintained, as it did during the COVID-19 pandemic. Everyone wants a strong economy, as the Prime Minister says. We must ensure that everyone has the tools needed to build a strong economy. Driving workers away is not a solution. Telling businesses to take on more debt when they are struggling the most is also not a solution, and that is exactly what the government is doing right now.”
“Yes, the Bloc Québécois is an opposition party, but we want to offer constructive opposition. What people back home are asking for is to keep their jobs. When a business has to close down because it is threatened by tariffs, it is important that it have the certainty that it will retain its employees and their expertise, and that these employees have the certainty that they will continue to receive a salary, in the form of a benefit. The employment relationship with workers is extremely important for all sectors, because it assures businesses that the workers will be there as soon as they resume operations. (1345) We must not delude ourselves into thinking that workers are everywhere, readily available and properly trained.”
“As my colleague from Jonquière mentioned, the government is offering new loans for businesses, but if it truly wanted to discuss things with people and businesses, it would be listening to what the unions are proposing. The Steelworkers, for instance, have made several proposals to help the various sectors. The same goes for the forestry and aluminum sectors. It is not only the unions. Sure, workers make proposals, but major corporations and SMEs also have demands. We have to listen to the people on the ground. They know what the needs are. They know better than we do, in our offices far, far away from our ridings. To figure out what the needs are, we have to be there on the ground and talk to people. The government is not doing that. I will give an example.”
“Today, I want to say that I stand with the families in my riding and elsewhere who are struggling to put food on the table. It is the same thing in the aluminum sector. The largest aluminum smelter in North America, Alouette, is in my riding. Alcoa is there too. That sector is very strong. At the same time, we are sending the message that it might be a bit easier for large corporations to find other export markets. Let us not forget all the SMEs, the main focus of today's debates, that are forced to shut down and face uncertainty and fear because the government is not doing anything. It says it is, but it is simply empty rhetoric. What is it actually doing?”
“We could even say that people have been talking about forestry for 40 years, this sector that is of little interest to the federal government in everything it does. For example, the government asked Quebec to diversify our markets by exporting to Asia. There were programs for that, but that got us absolutely nothing. I am thinking of the businesses back home, the people from Arbec, of course, all the workers who were laid off at the Outardes sawmill and all those families, because entire communities are being affected by the government's refusal to work together and listen. The government has decided that the money would go to one place but it is failing to understand the industrial fabric of Quebec and its regions, including mine.”
“The Prime Minister spoke of a strong Canada and continues to repeat that ad nauseam today. However, after more than a year, I fail to see any real benefits back home in my riding. I mentioned my riding, but this also affects the ridings of Lac-Saint-Jean and Jonquière, for example, because we are talking about the aluminum and forestry sectors, which are really struggling right now. There are three forestry companies in my riding, two of which shut their doors after briefly resuming operations. In short, the forestry sector is hanging on by a thread because the government is doing nothing to help it. This all happened over the course of a year, but as I said earlier, I have been talking about this for 11 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière, whose speeches are always both eloquent and insightful. I am starting my 11th year in the House, and I have lost count of how many times I have risen to speak about the forestry and aluminum sectors or about the broader issue of Quebec, of course. Earlier, a government member asked a question about our dependence on the United States. As a sovereignist, I would say that the first way that we are, unfortunately, unavoidably dependent on the U.S. is through the Canadian federation. We see how the government and the Prime Minister fail to recognize Quebec. The Prime Minister said that his first major move had to be economic. Perhaps that was necessary since he took office just a few months after the arrival of Trump and the tariffs he imposed.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course, that is speculation. When I try to be empathetic and put myself in the government's shoes, I would obviously prefer that the commissioner not have any teeth. However, the government has obligations, and I hope it will be responsible and meet them. I completely agree with my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord on this matter. When we vote for a bill, we hope that it will not hurt us too much if we know we are not meeting our own responsibilities.”
“We will see if that is the case, and perhaps this will come back to the House so we can add something else—perhaps give the commissioner more teeth—or simply realize that it has not worked and see what needs to be done to ensure that the treaties are actually implemented.”
“Mr. Speaker, this has indeed been raised in the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs on several occasions; I mentioned it earlier. Ideally, this would not even be necessary if the government were fulfilling its obligations; we would not need an additional layer of oversight. As we have said, it is a watchdog with no bite. I have said it before: The commissioner will have no teeth. We hope it works. It may be wishful thinking, but we should be able to rely on the government to fulfill its obligations. Then we would not need a commissioner. I think it is worth pointing this out but, at the same time, first nations want a commissioner and are counting on this to put pressure on the government to act more swiftly.”
“Mr. Speaker, three modern treaties already exist in Quebec. Those treaties were signed decades ago. As for the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, the frustration among first nations stemmed from having to fight the government on unequal terms. First nations have to go to court to assert their rights and to point out that the government is not doing its job. They cannot believe this. A lot of time and money is being wasted, resources that first nations communities could put to good use, whether for education or health care, rather than spending it on legal proceedings against the government to force it to fulfill its obligations.”
“That is why I am going to reiterate the Bloc Québécois's position: We are in favour of the bill. As I did at the beginning, and to bring things full circle, I will remind members that although we agree and would like for there to be a commissioner, we also wish there were no need to appoint a commissioner, in addition to the Auditor General, simply to ensure that the government honours its commitments. It is a bit unusual to say that, but, for my part, I already expect the government to do the work that is related to its obligations; that is the baseline. If a commissioner is to be appointed, we do not necessarily want there to be more structure; we want it to work properly. For that reason, I encourage the government to respect this bill and perhaps ensure that there is no need to call upon the commissioner.”
“Yes, they are there to ensure that the government fulfills its obligations under the treaties it has signed and pledged to implement, and they can point out if something is not working or needs to be addressed, but they cannot force the government to act. That is ultimately a matter for the executive branch. Of course, a report will be presented to the House, but it will then be left to the executive branch. That said, this bill is not the ultimate solution. However, those who drafted it were guided by a commendable and necessary principle, and we hope that, by applying additional pressure, we may encourage the government to make the choice—because I believe it is a matter of will—to implement treaties diligently and in the interests of the well-being of first nations.”
“There are a number of departments affected by modern treaties that the government and first nations need to work with. Having a commissioner who can bridge the gap between the various departments and foster consistency in the understanding and interpretation of treaties could promote a faster and more coherent implementation of these treaties. I would even say that consistency could be improved, which would mean fewer disruptions between the various stages of the implementation process. I wanted to point that out. I would also like to highlight a criticism that has been raised on several occasions. It is one that I have also heard in the House. Even if there is a commissioner to act as a watchdog, they will be a watchdog with no bite.”
“I would therefore like to see indigenous communities and nations, as well as Inuit communities and the Inuit nation, have exactly the same opportunities when it comes to their emancipation from the Indian Act. Since time is quickly running out, I will stop here when it comes to self-determination. I would like to add something that was mentioned in committee, which I found very interesting and which was, in fact, pointed out by a number of witnesses. Treaties may be ratified, but when it comes time to implement them, it becomes apparent that each department understands and interprets those treaties very differently. Obviously, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Department of Indigenous Services are not the only departments involved.”
“When we talk about governance, we are talking about identity, culture, language and territory. (1610) This is what the signing of treaties will promote. I am talking about self-governance, the empowerment of first nations themselves, and, beyond identity, everything related to opportunities for economic development, opportunities for social development, as well as environmental protection. The impact of signing modern treaties is enormous. It truly means achieving self-governance based on one's values and what a community needs to live differently. As members know, we in the Bloc Québécois, as sovereignists, want to be able to make our own decisions about how to govern ourselves, how to protect our language, our culture, and the way of life we want for the people of Quebec, for our children and for future generations.”
“I believe that we can achieve the same objective by changing what needs to be changed. This is another way of enabling first nations and Inuit peoples to regain some control when faced with the government's inability to fulfill its obligations. Obviously, we support that. We also support first nations' efforts to move beyond the Indian Act. The ability to sign modern treaties that are implemented is precisely what allows them to escape this enduring paternalism. As was pointed out this year, this has been going on for 150 years, and I would even say it has been going on for more than 150 years, before Canada was even founded. Emancipation is of enormous importance to first nations, and non-indigenous people may not think about it because it is something they take for granted.”
“For decades, first nations have seen that, although the government has an obligation to implement various treaties, it is not doing so. There are delays and, after a great deal of struggle, first nations ultimately have to go to court to make their voices heard. They spend a lot of money for the court to tell the government that it has to fulfill its obligations. That is just common sense. It is a truism, but that is what the government has to do. We need a commissioner to help with that. The Bloc Québécois unequivocally supports the self-determination of nations. It supports any quest for autonomy or freedom. It is a legitimate cause, particularly here, in the face of persistent colonialism that once tried to brutally eliminate or assimilate certain nations.”
“Quite simply, indigenous organizations were calling for the creation of a commissioner position to work on the federal government's accountability, transparency and responsibility in meeting its obligations. In their view, these obligations were not being met. That is why we are studying this bill. It may come as a surprise, because the government should be responsible and transparent. It should be diligent in answering for its acts or omissions, but that is not the case. Unfortunately, to supplement the Auditor General's work, indigenous groups had to ask that a commissioner also be assigned to ensure that the government fulfills its obligations. Bill C-10 is a step in the right direction because it is something that first nations and Inuit peoples have been calling for in terms of the signature and implementation of treaties.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C‑10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation . I want to thank all the groups that worked together to develop this bill. This includes the 130 first nations and Inuit indigenous groups who offered their collaboration and who have been calling for this bill for decades. I also want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, who worked together during the study of the bill to see if we could improve it. Naturally, we wanted to work diligently because the bill had already been introduced in the previous Parliament. This bill is a second attempt and it is one that everyone agrees on, so I believe that we should move forward fairly quickly.”
“Mr. Speaker, just a few hours before the new Premier of Quebec's first visit, the Minister of Justice announced that he would be cracking down on the notwithstanding clause. He is going to limit the right of Quebec's elected officials to pass laws that Quebeckers voted for. He is going to target secularism, the protection of the French language and all of our societal choices that are different from those of Canada. Is that how Quebec deserves to be welcomed to Ottawa?”
“Mr. Speaker, during a ceremony held yesterday to commemorate the repatriation of the Constitution—an event known in Quebec as the night of the long knives—the Minister of Justice dropped a bomb. He announced that no matter which way the Supreme Court rules on the notwithstanding clause, he will take action to constrain it before the court even renders its decision. He announced that if Quebec is unhappy about it, he will attack Quebec's powers. Does he think he can bend Quebec's democracy to his will? Who does he think he is?”
“He brought cell service and the Internet to the region. He saved lives. He may not have had time to drive the 500 kilometres of coastline from Kegaska to Blanc-Sablon in his pickup truck, but the day we inaugurate “Jones Road”, many of us will be there to travel down the road with him one last time. Farewell, Randy.”
“Mr. Speaker, as a native of the Lower North Shore, Randy Jones was bound to be born a giant. In a landscape as vast as the horizon, between rock and sea where the possibilities were endless, he did it all: from fisherman to mayor of Gros-Mécatina, from warden of the Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent RCM to candidate in Manicouagan, from husband to father, from friend to legend. He carried the Lower North Shore on his shoulders, not because of his stature, but because of his heart, which beat for all the coasters, his vision, which saw all the possibilities beyond the obstacles, and his voice, which said, like a promise, “Follow me wherever you want to go”. He knew how to fight with strength and compassion for the forgotten, for dignity, and for the right to live on the land. He wanted to liberate his island.”
“Mr. Speaker, as a native of the Lower North Shore, Randy Jones was bound to be born a giant. In a landscape as vast as the horizon, between rock and sea where the possibilities were endless, he did it all: from fisherman to mayor of Gros-Mécatina, from warden of the Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent RCM to candidate in Manicouagan, from husband to father, from friend to legend—”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois finds it unacceptable that the government is granting greater powers to the police and intelligence services while slashing the budget of the body responsible for overseeing them, namely the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA. Its budget has been cut by 15% as a result of the Liberal government's penny-pinching. I would like to know what my colleague thinks.”
“Mr. Speaker, seasonal workers are not asking for the moon. The Interprovincial Employment Insurance Alliance calculated that it would cost one penny per $100 of wages to eliminate the spring gap forever. It would cost a single penny. The federal government needs to understand that, while work is seasonal in the regions, the workers are permanent. They are the ones who keep regional economies going. They need 15 more weeks every year. Will the government finally fill the EI spring gap once and for all?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. The Bloc Québécois has a question about the budget cuts. Of course, we agree that the government should give intelligence services and the police more power so that they can do their jobs, but at the same time, it is cutting the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, by 15%. That seems rather inconsistent to us. On one hand, the government wants to grant more power, but on the other, it is cutting necessary funding for organizations such as the NSIRA, funding that may already be insufficient to carry out the work that these organizations need to do. I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are actually duplicating the work in committee because, when the bill gets to committee, we will be studying this issue and hearing from witnesses, as was done in the Senate. We are already doing this work as part of another study. I would not say that we are wasting our time. The testimony we are receiving is all relevant and interesting. I hope that we can include these in the next study so we can hear from as many witnesses as possible. I think the first nations would agree. I am their critic, so I am going to say this very humbly. I am not going to put words in their mouths. However, I can say that we held consultations a long time ago and that we have known what to do for a long time. Now we need to act.”
“Representatives from Quebec Native Women said the following: It is only by integrating [the Senate's amendments and their] amendments and providing communities with necessary resources that Canada will be able to definitively end legal assimilation policies and respect its commitments regarding human rights and reconciliation. Chief Verreault-Paul said that first nations people have the inherent right to define their own people. He urged all members of Parliament to join forces to dismantle the colonial scaffolding of the Indian Act. (1230) To conclude, I would say that the Bloc Québécois obviously agrees with putting an end to all of the federal government's systemic colonial practices, because we alone must decide our own identity.”
“In terms of delays in the department's service standards, thousands of people have not obtained their status within the prescribed time limits. The situation could snowball. More resources are badly needed to address this situation, and more resources are needed for first nations too. The community is about to grow, but services and funding for first nations are already falling short of the mark. This will have to be done properly. In closing, I would once again like to quote Chief Verreault-Paul and Quebec Native Women. I am using their words as my own.”
“The situation is urgent. I spoke earlier about the year 2046 and then 2066. We see that rights are being extinguished among children, which means that indigenous communities themselves are being threatened. Considering how long consultation and implementation will take, these communities are truly at risk. Obviously, there is the issue of the government's intentions. Does the government really want to move forward quickly? It can hold more consultations later. No problem there. It can move forward gradually, not too fast, but little by little. That is what it has been doing from the start anyway. First, we should pass the bill with the amendments proposed by the Senate. Then we can go on our tour. Furthermore, we know that thousands of people are still waiting to register.”
“The committee is currently conducting a study that talks about eligibility for registration, but more broadly than Bill S-2 does. I bring this up today, but obviously, the bill has not yet been referred to the committee for study. The fact remains that there is a lot of talk about consultation. There is talk of going on a cross-Canada tour to see if everyone agrees and if there are any other provisions that could be addressed. Knowing that the bill is expected to come to us soon, I am concerned, as are all members of the committee. There is a deadline. The Supreme Court says that the matter must be resolved by April 26. Time is already short, but now we are hearing about possible consultations. I am afraid that will take too long. I think we also need to be clear, because all the stakeholders have called on us to take action on this.”
“The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples calls for effective redress. Victims are entitled to redress under article 8, paragraph (2)(d). Quebec Native Women is also asking for an official apology. They want redress, but the government needs to apologize for having systematically discriminated against indigenous women and indigenous peoples since time immemorial and into the present day. As I said, we cannot delude ourselves. Despite everything, whether Bill S-2 is amended or not, systemic discrimination continues to exist. Before I wrap up, I would like to make a final point because I have a concern that I raised earlier today when I talked about the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.”
“Let us call it what it is. Cases of rape occur, and sometimes it is best not to identify the man for safety reasons. In some situations, unfortunately, the father's name is not even known. In any case, for women who are victims of violence, this is a violation of their charter right to security and dignity. (1225) Another issue that was the subject of much debate, and that may also be debated in the House, was the whole question of officially recognizing and redressing the harm caused by the Indian Act. Each reform, whether it is Bill C-31 or Bill S-3 , introduced a provision that excluded any possibility of compensation for victims of discrimination, and the same is true of Bill S-2 . For women, the impact is much the same: loss of status, exclusion from the community, denial of socio-cultural rights, intergenerational trauma.”
“My colleague Michèle Audette testified about this in committee. Unfortunately, women and girls have suffered a great deal of violence and trauma as a result of these exclusion clauses, which have torn women away from their families and communities. I am talking about women, but this also happened to boys and men. It was decided overnight that they were no longer indigenous, that they no longer had any rights. They were deprived of their culture. They were deprived of their families. They were deprived of their language. They were asked to leave their communities. Forcing women to identify a child's father does much the same thing. Once again, it was decided that certain children no longer had the right to be indigenous. We are asking that women no longer be required to identify the father. I mentioned violence, but I could have said rape.”
“Once again, I would like to remind the House about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Government of Canada is once again violating article 33 by not giving first nations this authority. This is a clear, direct and overt violation of the right to self-determination. We hope that this authority will be transferred to first nations. Another issue raised by Quebec Native Women is the right to end the obligation to provide the father's name. Since 1985, if the mother does not identify the father, the department assumes that the child is not eligible for registration. This means that the repercussions affect mothers of unrecognized children covered by subsection 6(2). Once again, we must refer to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.”
“As we know, the government has authority over first nations registration, but first nations are asking for that authority to be transferred to them so that they can decide who belongs to their band or community. This request makes perfect sense to me. We are talking about identity and citizenship. It makes no sense to me for one nation to be responsible for deciding who belongs to another nation. This is something that all stakeholders are calling for, including the Assembly of First Nations and the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador. This registration rule applies to all communities, except for those covered by section 10, which enables some first nations to use customary law. It basically applies to all first nations in Canada.”
“I could also have mentioned the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The issue was raised there, and it contravenes two articles of the declaration. I also want to add that one of my Senate colleagues, Michèle Audette, spoke at committee during the study of Bill S‑2 and said that the government was making it harder for first nations people to pass on their identity than for other Canadians to pass on citizenship. We can see that there is already a double standard. Indigenous people cannot pass on citizenship in the same way as other Canadian citizens. I will now talk about transferring authority over first nation membership to first nations. This is the same type of thing. This is another thing that is being called for by Quebec Native Women.”
“What is more, by 2066, 60% of registrants will be registered under subsection 6(2); 60% is huge. We know that these 60% will no longer be eligible for registration. These children will not be eligible for registration. As the representatives of Quebec Native Women said themselves, this rule functions as a demographic countdown. I am reminded of a young woman who appeared before the indigenous affairs committee and spoke about her daughter. The young woman is indigenous, but her daughter's father is not. Her daugher is therefore of mixed parentage and is not considered indigenous, which is absurd. (1220) We keep talking about provisions, the Supreme Court and systemic discrimination, but this example alone clearly shows that some children are being denied the right to be who they are.”
“Quebec Native Women obviously wants to point out that women have been the primary victims of this kind of discrimination, especially under the exclusion provisions that no longer recognized a woman as indigenous if she divorced or separated from her husband or was widowed. That has been resolved, but now it is the second generation's turn. Through the various amendments or bills that have been passed, the government has simply put its intention—I say “intention” because I believe that the government knows perfectly well what it is doing—to assimilate first nations people on hold. We could look at the figures for Canada, but Quebec Native Women pointed out that in Quebec, for example, by 2046, 22,445 children will have been excluded. By 2066, 54,745 children will have been excluded under subsection 6(2).”
“If we take a closer look, we realize that this is really a strategy. The reason I say that there is an underlying intention behind the act and the bill, that a real assimilation strategy is at work, is because this exclusion denies second-generation children their indigenous identity. If we do the math, as the generations go by, the children who are denied indigenous status will no longer be included in the statistics. Obviously we are talking about people here, but I have to talk in terms of numbers. This is just a roundabout way of extinguishing the indigenous identity of children who should be recognized as indigenous. Once again, the government is deciding for them.”
“Second, when the government does decide to implement a bill, it takes a really long time and it does not necessarily allocate the resources needed to implement the bill properly. I would like to continue by talking about the requests made to the Senate committee by the organization Quebec Native Women, which wanted something to be done about the systemic discrimination against women and children. I believe the first amendment they suggested involves doing away with the second-generation cut-off. We agree with that and that is what we are interested in, although I will not say that it is what interests us the most, all things being equal. In this case, there is discrimination. No form of discrimination is any better than another, but this provision affects a huge number of people.”
“The government always waits until it is pushed to the brink or cornered before making changes to the Indian Act when it comes to registration entitlements. (1215) What is happening today with Bill S-2 is the same thing that has happened before with other bills, namely Bill S-3 and Bill C-31. There are Supreme Court rulings that call upon the government to amend the act to make the unconstitutional provisions constitutional, but such changes always take a really long time and then that becomes an excuse for failing to take action. First, the government is not taking action when it could be doing so. When I say that nothing has been done for 40 years, I am referring to 1985, but I could just as easily say that nothing has been done since 1876.”