Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-05-14 10:17 [p.7231]

Madam Speaker, I am torn on this matter and I am going to be very candid with the minister. I am rarely less than decisive. I fully support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but the process by which we come to this place has left indigenous communities, first nations, Métis and Inuit, divided on the matter. The right path, the right way to vote, is not at all clear to me, and it certainly is the case that we cannot wait any longer to take the steps we need to take for reconciliation.
There are a number of very significant first nations policy analysts and a number of legal analysts who are on both sides, and of first nations themselves that say they were not consulted in the development of Bill C-15. It is therefore really important that we hear the different perspectives and we ask the hon. minister if he does not regret that there was—

Hon. David Lametti (LaSalle—Émard—Verdun)
2021-05-14 10:18 [p.7231]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member’s observation that it is rare that she is less than decisive on a matter. I always appreciate her opinions and I take this question very seriously.
Yes, in a minority government context, we consulted as many indigenous leadership groups in a variety of forms as we possibly could. As I said, they had an impact on the original Romeo Saganash bill before tabling. We continued to consult, and they had an impact on the bill at committee. I commit to the hon. member that I will continue to consult as many indigenous leadership groups as I possibly can, in particular in the development of the action plan as we move forward.

I would just point out to her that although there is disagreement, there is an increasing trend, particularly after the last set of amendments in committee, to be supportive of the bill on the part of indigenous leadership.

The post Bill C-15 has left Indigenous communities divided appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Banning Glyphosate in Canada

Thursday was a historic day for Jenica as she presented her first ever Private Members Bill to ban the use of Glyphosate, a toxic herbicide used in forestry and agriculture. In the context of Laval’s decision to ban glyphosate in city limits this week, Jenica called on the government to join the growing global consensus recognizing that Glyphosate has been deemed a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).The press release announcing Jenica’s PMB and the text of the bill can both be found online.

Question Period

Pursuing fairness in Question Period

Interventions

Questions and Statements

Jenica Atwin tables first PMB, to ban Glyphosate in Canada

Paul Manly: The government should borrow from the Bank of Canada for public infrastructure funding

Jenica Atwin: Will the upcoming budget be a pathway to a fair and more prosperous Canada?

Elizabeth May: PM must update Canada’s climate target at Biden’s Earth Summit next week

Key moments

Jenica Atwin: We should examine all tools for addressing systemic racism in Canada

Paul Manly: The government should have invoked Emergencies Act to coordinate pandemic response

Elizabeth May: The budget must be more informative and more transparent

Paul Manly seeks Unanimous Consent to allow members from non-recognized parties to ask more questions

Paul Manly: Would the Member support a national Indigenous Urban Housing Strategy?

Paul Manly: Decriminalizing the use and simple possession of drugs?

Elizabeth May rises on a Point of Order to request more questions be allocated to Greens during QP

Elizabeth May: Laurentian University is the canary in educational coal mine. We will fight for it.

Elizabeth May presents a petition on COVID-19 ‘long haulers’

Elizabeth May’s statement on the occasion of the passing of Prince Philip

Elizabeth May supports “right to repair” bill

Debate on Bill C-15

Jenica Atwin on federal UNDRIP bill: Can I believe in Canada this time?

Jenica Atwin: Resource extraction does more harm than good to First Nations

Jenica Atwin: Why is Canada’s UNDRIP bill hesitant to use the word “racism”?

Jenica Atwin: We should speak of reparations rather than reconciliation

Elizabeth May: Government claims to support free, prior and informed consent, but bought TMX without it

Paul Manly: UNDRIP legislation has not stopped the silencing of First Nations

Petitions

e-3206 Include long-term care in the Canada Health Act (closes April 25)

e-3301 Stop logging old-growth ecosystems (closes April 25)

e-3218 Reduce violent crime (closes May 2)

e-3014 Modernize the complaints review panel of the Canadian Judicial Council (closes May 7)

e-3221 Reduce emissions to meet the Paris target (closes May 11)

e-3256 Protect the Kavango basin region (closes May 11)

e-3075 Halt all transfer of Canadian made weapons to Saudi Arabia (closes May 27)

e-3138 Make Election Day a paid holiday when it falls on a weekday (closes May 29)

e-3307 Review the Victims Bill of Rights (closes May 30)

e-3159 Ban new strip mines in the Rocky Mountains (closes June 5)

e-3164 Implement a national living wage (closes June 29)

Further reading

Parliament’s “rising star” tables her first Private Members Bill to protect health and wellness of Canadians

Private Member’s Bill C-285, An Act to amend the Pest Control Products Act (glyphosate)

Lone wolf MPs break down what it‘s like to be a region‘s solitary party voice (Hill Times)

MLA calls Higgs ‘racist’ after First Nations tax move (Telegraph Journal)

MP Jenica Atwin tables private members‘ bill to ban the use of glyphosate in Canada (NB Media Co-op

Elizabeth May: Good Sunday Morning (April 11)

The post Green Caucus Week in Review: 04/12-16 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Speaker: Ms. May
Time: 15/04/2021 18:17:52
Context: Questions and Comments

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Madam Speaker, this may be my only opportunity to speak to the legislation before us.

I am deeply troubled by the fact that this government, which professes the high purposes of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples appears in practice to decide that free, prior and informed consent means to continue to coerce first nations until they give consent to a decision that has already been made. I refer to the Trans Mountain pipeline as an example, which the Government of Canada bought without conferring with first nations, as we should have done. It continues, as elected members of council of the first nation in my territory, which I am honoured to represent, the territory of the WSANEC Nation, have told me that the TMX, now a Crown corporation, comes to them offering money to try to get them to stop objecting. That is not free or prior consent, and yet that is what is being practised right now—

Arif Virani (Parkdale—High Park)
2021-04-15 18:19 [p.5712]

Madam Speaker, this is an important issue. It is an issue that is obviously a dynamic one and an issue that will be considered on an ongoing basis.
However, what I was about to relate from Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond I think captures the idea in response to the member’s question. She said, as counsel for the AFN, that “The idea that free, prior and informed consent is some kind of a veto is simply not supported, and that is not how it’s operationalized.” That is an important point to register.

With respect to the timing of the negotiations and the timing of the outreach to first nations communities, be they elected leaders, hereditary chiefs or other individuals, that is a very valid point that the member is raising, and something that we will continue to work on as a government and as all parliamentarians to ensure that this consultation is sought at the earliest possible opportunity.

The post Government claims to support free, prior and informed consent, but bought TMX without it appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to this bill but doubt very much that I will use a full 10-minute or 20-minute slot. I realize that debate is on the verge of collapsing. I only wish to say more than I was able to say earlier in questions and comments.

It is lamentable that we approach something as critical as the injustices, embedded racism, and deep discriminatory aspects of the Indian Act in an attempt to deal with a deadline for one court case. I think it is unfortunate that the bill began its course in the Senate and has come to us with an important amendment that is not supported by the government but which to many of us on this side of the House, and certainly I think to some others on the Liberal benches, is the only thing that makes it possible to vote for the bill. The amendments that come from the other place would ensure that all gender discriminatory aspects have been removed. It is only through the elimination of the gender discriminatory aspects that one could imagine voting, at least on this side of the House, for the legislation.

I recognize that the policy downsides for the government are the vast unknowns and how many people would then become status Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act and whether there would be knock-on effects and unintended consequences. This is a difficult place for parliamentarians to find themselves.

As we deal with this bill, I remind us all, only at second reading, normally it would be a bill on its way to committee. However, as we heard from members of the committee, particularly the member for Peace River—Westlock, they cannot say how they will vote on this bill until the committee finishes its work. Therefore, we find ourselves in a doubly, perhaps triply, awkward space.

As a parliamentarian, I try to stay on top of all my files. However, Bill S-3 is one that I find not ready for vote in this place. It is going to committee, but I very much fear that positions are already entrenched. The government does not want to approve the amendments that came forward from the Senate. Those amendments are the only things that actually eliminate all the discriminatory aspects of who can inherit the status of their parents, grandparents, and so on. It is certainly an appalling situation that we live under this act, where it is people outside of indigenous communities who decide who is indigenous and who is not. Therefore, the vast Gordian knot of Bill S-3 will not be fixed in this second reading debate tonight.

Given time pressures to get this through by July 3, I doubt very much that it can be fixed at the committee that will now study it before it comes back to this place at report stage. I just want to register, as strongly as I can, a plea that we not treat this as something to deal with using a quick fix for a specific problem but that as much as possible, we open our minds to the bigger question of how we, in 2017, 150 years from Confederation, commit to striking down the oppressive colonial discriminatory act on which South Africa’s apartheid was based. We all know this.

It is an appalling situation that our friend from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou identified. He identified that under the Indian Act, the minister could decide to nullify his personal will and bequest to his family. It is appalling that in 2017, this is still the law of the land, and we are dealing with one piece of it.

I would urge the committee if it can, and the minister and the government if they possibly can, to use this opportunity to signal that we want to get outside, beyond, and out from under this discriminatory piece of legislation. It will be way beyond the mandate of amendments to this bill to actually fix the Indian Act. I know that. However, can we make some bigger commitments to get out from under a racist and discriminatory piece of legislation before the end of the 41st Parliament? If we just push it down the road to another parliament, it will not get rid of it either. There will always be an excuse for why we are not ready.

As the member for Winnipeg Centre asked, how long does a man have to wait for justice? How long does a woman have to wait for justice? How long do first nations children have to wait for equal funding under a law, which they have already been promised? It has been far too long. When I see the calls from Idle No More for July 1 to be about unsettling, I sympathize so deeply with that and understand it, but if anything has defined the response of indigenous peoples on this continent to cultural genocide, abuse, and oppression, it is patience. It is such a deeply moving degree of tolerance and patience for the oppression from settler society.

I cannot add much to the Bill S-3 debate. I cannot vote for Bill S-3 unless it includes the amendments that the other place sent us that create a situation where there will not be gender discrimination, but it is within the fabric of a bill that is entirely about racial discrimination. Therefore, I urge us to do something better and something more with every opportunity that comes our way.

The post Recognizing and addressing the injustices, embedded racism, and deeply discriminatory aspects, of the Indian Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On March 21, 2013 the committee resumed consideration of Bill C-428.  The Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal People presented their statements and answered questions from the committee members.  The Native Women’s Association argued that the consultation process for the Bill was not sufficient, and noted that the government should consider using the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to frame the bill and the consultation process. The Native Women’s Association was not in favor of the Bill. The Congress of Aboriginal People spoke about the how the Bill will affect Aboriginal People living off reserve and non-status Aboriginal people. The Congress of Aboriginal People was in favor of the Bill.  Despite some issues with the Bill, the Congress believes that the process must begin somewhere.

The Minutes can be found here.

The post Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (ANNO) appeared first on Elizabeth May.