[Witness speaks in her native language.]
I wish to thank our host nation, the Anishinabe Nation, for welcoming us to its territory, now shared, on which many times, many moccasins from across Canada have come to remind the federal government of the reality of the aboriginal peoples.
I am proud to be accompanied by my colleagues, Claudette Dumont Smith, Executive Director of the Native Women’s Association of Canada, and Teresa Edwards, who is responsible for human rights and is a lawyer with the Native Women’s Association Canada.
The Native Women’s Association of Canada was founded in 1974 and is very active in several areas, notably discrimination against women, of which one of the primary causes is the Indian Act.
History has surely taught you that we native peoples have been here for thousands of years. It is important to reiterate that this means we were highly organized societies, societies in which governance was very structured in political, social, cultural and economic terms.
Allow me to give you a short lesson on the history of the Indian Act. The Act was designed to ensure the gradual emancipation of the Savages — and unfortunately the goal remains the same today, in 2013 — so that the children of the Minister of Indian Affairs, that is, status Indians, might be emancipated and become Canadians in the prescribed form. I am sorry, but we are still very much alive, very active and very proud of our origins, our history, our present and our aspirations for tomorrow.
It is important to mention that on January 28, I took part in the opening of your debates in the House of Commons. According to the media, there were 5,000 consultations with native peoples here in Canada. I do not believe that some five- or ten-minute periods in a parliamentary committee constitute a consultation. We are talking here about the present and future of our nations. This is not a consultation, but a place where I can, on behalf of an organization, to share with you some solutions or concerns.
I do wish, though, to acknowledge the courage and determination of one member of the committee, Rob Clarke, for calling attention to the archaic aspect of the Indian Act. Yes, the act is archaic, paternalistic and obsolete. Let us recall that this act was imposed on us. None of our native leaders, our elders or our youth participated in the development of this act. You see the results today: when we do not take part in the well-being of our nations, we end up with failures. We are in a state of survival and the act is one of the major causes of this situation.
Why not do things differently then, Mr. Clarke, in 2013, with this bill that may change our present and our future? I am therefore asking you, sir, to ensure that we work together on this, in close cooperation. It is not enough to grant us ten minutes to tell you whether we are in agreement or not. No, the Native Women’s Association of Canada is not in favour of this bill. So I think we could do a remarkable job together.
Native women are the ones most affected by the Indian Act.
[English]
I will switch to English. My coffee is good now.
Aboriginal women are the most affected by the Indian Act, and we all know why. It is sad to say to the committee today that in 2013 aboriginal women across Canada are the most marginalized. Right now, yes, the Indian Act will not protect their human rights or individual rights, not even their collective rights, and there is no protection of their security in the Indian Act.
I understand that. I know. But why are we doing what our ancestors did—my dad is white—when they imposed the Indian Act? There was no real consultation or consent. For me, consultation must have consent attached to it, where two human beings engage in an exchange and ask, “What will be the best for my present and my future?” Right now, I feel that we are using the same paternalistic approach of imposing something that we think is best for someone else.
I'm 41-years-old and I know what's best for my family, what's best for me, and what's best for our people. The people will say the same, I hope, that every person or organization that comes here.... We need to work together, instead of imposing things as our ancestors did.
We have a great opportunity here. I'm asking all of you, appealing to your hearts and to your brains, can we do it differently this time? The native women of Canada would be so proud to work with you if we were doing things differently, where we could be involved, where we could have a voice, and where we could add some beautiful things to that legislation. Yes, we need to get rid of the Indian Act, but not this way, not the way it's proposed.
I will transfer now to my colleague and will come back at the end.
Good morning.
[Witness speaks in her native language]
My name is Teresa Edwards, as I was introduced by Michèle.
I am from the Mi'kmaq First Nation in Listuguj, Quebec.
As Michèle so eloquently stated, the MP Rob Clarke has claimed that he brought this legislation forward because the Indian Act is an archaic piece of legislation that treats aboriginal people as wards of the state, with no power. Yet there has been no thorough process in place to meet with our leaders, our governments, and the people within the communities to hear the voice of women on how to best proceed to amend the Indian Act.
Calling witnesses to a committee is not, in fact, a thorough consultation by any stretch. We have to ensure that any changes to the act are designed by first nations themselves. If they are not part of the solution, there will not be a successful implementation. We have seen this for hundreds of years. Aboriginal people need the provisions that will protect their rights. With the government moving forward unilaterally, as it has, it is still treating us as wards of the state and making decisions on what it thinks is best for us, even now in 2013.
It's become apparent to all Canadians that this government is not consulting our people, and the resistance is manifesting itself with every Idle No More demonstration that is happening in every community across this country.
There have been little to no opportunities for community women to express their views, to strategize, or to discuss their visions on any amendments to the Indian Act.
Despite the fact that aboriginal rights are protected within the Constitution, and despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has set out specific processes for governments to thoroughly consult, accommodate, and get consent regarding legislation affecting aboriginal peoples, this government has been systematically passing legislation that strips away these rights and our protections with little to no input from our people, which is a breach of this country's very own laws.
Any efforts to change the Indian Act must be based on collaboration between first nations and the government, not on independent action by a member of Parliament or by the government alone.
NWAC opposes this bill for a number of reasons. For example, residential schools created generations of alienated peoples whose earliest experiences were of forced removal from their families and communities, profound racism, and brutalization. In total, some 150,000 aboriginal children attended 130 Indian residential schools from the 1800s until the last one closed in 1996. This is a 100-year history, as the last school close in 1996. So the impacts are very real and very present in past, current, and future generations of our people.
The cultural traditions that honoured children and elders were replaced by Euro-Canadian ones that inflicted physical, emotional, and sexual violence while instilling deep notions of shame and inferiority. Violence was normalized and there was complete impunity for the perpetrators. While violence is a symptom manifested towards our women and within our communities, it is at the core of the ongoing intergenerational trauma from Indian residential schools and the challenges that face us today.
The current effects are demonstrated with educational achievement levels, addiction challenges, child welfare apprehension, over-criminalization, conditions of poverty, vulnerability of women and girls to predators, and increased indicators of mental health difficulties.
Given all these facts, it would be more appropriate to put in place legislation that would ensure that all Canadian students were required to learn in school about the true history of our peoples so that racism could finally be addressed through proper educational curricula and put these myths to rest.
There is an urgent need to address the context of inequality and the intergenerational trauma in which aboriginal women and girls are affected. In particular, more attention must be paid to the continuum of violence and poverty where aboriginal girls are unprotected, revictimized, and then later criminalized.
Measures and processes such as this are not the way to move forward. We can be far better served with other legislation that will positively affect the lives of future generations. This legislation, and similar legislative reforms that are being put forward, are all laying the foundation for further dispossession of lands; loss of resources and benefits; jeopardizing our socio-economic security; as well as putting the environment, water, and animals at future risk while enabling governments. Both federal and provincial governments will have more decisions about the future and about our resources. In no way will these methods or measures benefit our people.
I'm speaking to you about this legislation, but also all the other pieces of legislation that have been moving forward in the same manner.
Thank you, Ms. Audette and Ms. Edwards. I think you've laid out your position pretty clearly.
We would agree that no matter how well intentioned a bill put forward by a member might be, in this case a private member's bill, something that continues to alter the Indian Act piecemeal shouldn't proceed. We would also agree that using the UN declaration's statements about around free, prior, and informed consent, there should be a process developed in conjunction with aboriginal peoples to amend or change or abolish the Indian Act.
You're right: we all agree that it's a colonialist piece of legislation that needs to change. Not everybody from coast to coast to coast is in agreement about how that should happen, and so there does need to be that process.
I have two questions, and I'll ask the first one. A couple of times in your presentation you used the word “collaboration”. In its preamble, Bill says, “for the development of this new legislation in collaboration with the First Nations organizations”, and in clause 2, it says—and this is where the minister is supposed to report to the House—“on the work undertaken by his or her department in collaboration with First Nations organizations”.
In our view, collaboration does not equal consultation and does not equal free, prior, and informed consent. I wonder if you could comment on those two sections of the bill where it talks about collaboration, and whether in your view that translates into consultation.
:
Thank you very much, Ms. Crowder.
These are indeed fragmentary approaches.
[English]
I urge the committee to abandon this legislation or project. I urge you to do this. We can do something else that will be in collaboration with the native women of Canada—I won't speak on behalf of the other organizations. We have so much to learn from what happened in the past. Why are we making the same mistake when we can discuss this together and can have an exchange?
For me, collaboration is when we talk about a consultation, when I have time not only to absorb what is proposed but also also to go back and propose something. For me, that's an equal or working relationship. In this case, we found out a couple of days ago that we were invited here and that we would have to say within 10 minutes what we wanted to happen. It would have an impact on the next decade, and I don't know how many decades. I don't want to put that on my shoulders, not even on NWAC's shoulders.
So if I respond to your question, madame la députée , my perception or NWAC's perception is that this is not a consultation. Collaboration is where we also have time to go across Canada to meet with the women so that they can understand the situation and the project that is being proposed here, but that is not happening in this case.
[Translation]
With regard to the human development index, Canada was once the best country in the world. Today it is in 11th place. Regarding the equality of men and women, it has fallen to 18th place. So imagine what it must be for native peoples. We must have slipped to 80th place.
With this bill, maybe we could reverse the trend if we worked together on improving these statistics.
It is extremely important to equip our national organization and all our regions so that, in our communities, we can speak freely and comfortably about what could be a project of society or a project in a region.
We also feel that it is necessary to stop making all projects the same, as if all native peoples were the same. That is wrong. Among the first nations, there is an unbelievably rich cultural diversity throughout Canada.
I would say that the Indian Act is the source of a lateral form of violence within our nations and our communities. The way it has been constructed over the years, women have been the ones most affected. So forums are necessary, as are places where we, too, can write recommendations or build a vision of these things. Women have something to say, whether they are in an extremely isolated community or in an urban centre because they can no longer go back to their communities for whatever reason.
This consultation also requires that the whole matter of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples be enforced. It clearly talks about education, culture, identity, protection, safety, individual rights, collective rights, women’s rights, children’s rights and so on. Everything is good in that project. We could have a firm foundation.
It is necessary to ensure that we have the necessary funding and the necessary native experts. It is necessary to have a reasonable length of time, not just ten minutes. I am talking here about a year or two during which this reflection and this mobilization from the base will lead us to a project of society in which, finally, we will no longer be treated like children.
Ms. Edwards, you wanted to say something.
I thank the witnesses for being here today. Perhaps a couple of clarifications are in order.
Teresa, in your speech you made at least a couple of references to this being a government bill, and I would clarify that it's a private member's bill. Moreover, this is a private member's bill that's being brought forward by a first nation member of Parliament, who, for the purposes of any and all discussions around this matter and in his day-to-day life, is subject to the conditions and the terms set out in the Indian Act. In this manner, I'm going back to my initial clarification with respect to government and private members' business.
It is available to members to advance legislation of particular interest, as it is for all members, irrespective of the political party they represent. It may be personal, it may be on behalf of a constituent or group of persons who may exist in their riding or in a region or across the country. To that extent, and as someone who has invested an entire professional career living and working in first nations communities, I am very pleased that a colleague of mine from those communities has come forward with a piece of legislation—which, I might add for your benefit, originally looked somewhat different than it now does for purposes of our discussion and debate here at committee.
Rob's work over the past two years has started a conversation about certain components of the Indian Act that are relevant to him, including the history of his family, and the community or communities that he was raised in as a young person. Michèle and Teresa, they reflect his own experiences, many of them very personal, experiences I would respectfully submit to you, that have had a profound impact on him for the purposes of bringing forward these specific clauses in his private member's bill.
For example, on the matter of wills and estates, prior to being a member of Parliament Rob spent a professional career with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He accumulated a certain pension and various assets. It looked very much like something that other Canadians would accumulate. He lost a colleague on a particular evening who was fatally shot. Rob then realized that unlike the process his colleague would have to go through, he on his part would have to have his will, the transfer of his assets and legacy to his family, signed off on by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs under the terms and conditions of the Indian Act.
On this very narrow question, Michèle, do you agree there is something wrong with that? It's really a yes or a no.
:
For me, the idea isn't that I would not want the words “Indian residential school“ removed from the act. What I am cautious about is any history being taken from the Indian Act that demonstrates what occurred with Indian residential schools at a time when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is under way and in the process of making ongoing recommendations about implementing strategies that could heal the generations who currently exist.
I would hate to think that the Indian Act would be amended in a piecemeal fashion, striking out the section on Indian residential schools so that we could thereby look back, without an alternative in place, and say that never happened. We already have many members of Parliament and Canadians who say that was 100 years ago, when in fact it wasn't. The last school closed in 1996. This is a very real issue.
I respectfully submit that despite the MP’s personal experience, Michèle and I, as first nation women, have lived the personal experience that we have been advocating about for some 30 years, and we've been personally affected by Indian residential schools. We've been impacted by Bill and by Bill . However, I would never propose that I have the solution or would never come forward to tinker with the Indian Act in a piecemeal fashion for my personal benefit when I know, even as a lawyer, that any case that goes forward to the Supreme Court of Canada is a huge risk because it's not only about my case but also about the 633 first nation communities and hundreds of thousands and millions of people who will be impacted by this legislation and by cases that go forward and are decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.
With all due respect, personal issues aside, we still need to proceed in a manner consistent with the UN declaration, in a manner consistent with how it's been set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision.
:
Indeed, I think so, for personal reasons. I live in a community where I am raising my five children and I see injustice, violence, discrimination. It is a lovely community, but I do not even have the right to vote, because I am not a member. There are a thousand and one reasons.
Furthermore, I would say no to this bill for reasons related to well-being. I cannot speak on behalf of all women in Canada, but I can say one thing, from the fact that I defend the interests of these women. If we have a chance to get rid of an archaic act, can we, native women, be in the front row and contribute solutions? We are the ones who are concerned.
[English]
Can we be the ones at the front line to change that legislation? With this case right now, we are not.
So, no. I urge you, members of Parliament, to withdraw or to abandon this legislation and to please make sure that we will be part of such changes, as community members, as mothers, and for the rest of women across Canada. We're amazing. We have lawyers, doctors, social workers, and police. We have all kinds of people who could build a beautiful project for our societies. Please.
:
No, that's not what I was referring to. I wasn't referring to being protected from Indian men. Michèle also made reference to how we're marginalized in the Indian Act, even currently, with issues such as status. I know that's not the matter at hand, but when we talk about protections.... When you have Indian status, that directly correlates with membership, benefits, housing, schooling—all of your treaty or band rights. Right now, even with the implementation of Bill C-31 and Bill , we still have a situation that hasn't been rectified, where women and men with the exact same parents are not sitting with the same Indian status, thereby leading to their not having the same rights to pass on to their children and grandchildren.
Although it looks on the surface that it's addressed by Bill C-3, if you examine Sharon McIvor's case, which she's taking to the UN, you will see that she still does not have the same, as it were, “Cadillac of rights”, as her brother. They have the exact same parents, but for the fact that she is a woman, she has lesser rights. That has an impact when you are talking about their continuing to pass on those rights. Those were more the protections that I was looking at.
In 2013, half of the aboriginal women population are not married—80% of women are single mothers raising their own children alone. When they go to register their children for Indian status with their band, it's not up to their band but the registrar at Indian Affairs. The mother will indicate who the father is on the Indian birth registry to ensure that her child has status. When that form gets to the national registrar in Ottawa—one registrar—the office will strike it out as void if the father has not signed that birth registry. That's a practice that is currently under way. In many cases, the woman is not with the man. She could have been raped. It could have been a case of incest. She could have had a child with a man who is married. Of course he's not going to want to sign the birth registry. She is at the will of the man. Therefore, there's a negative assumption that the child is not native, thereby removing the mother's rights to be eligible for housing for possibly five children. She'll be allocated a house for herself, because the way that the funding agreements go, they will only count status Indians. That's what I refer to when I talk about women being further marginalized and having lack of protections within the Indian Act. It's more a result of the impositions of the Indian Act and the inequalities in government processes. It's not something aboriginal men are doing.
:
Well, change is not always good, right?
Mr. Ray Boughen: No, no.
Ms. Teresa Edwards: Sometimes change is to our detriment, as we have seen. Bringing in the act itself was change. Bringing in the policy about Indian residential schools was change. I'd say those are very devastating impacts on our nations.
For me, as I've said, I would recommend a thorough free, prior, and informed consent model that's laid out in the UN declaration. The government has signed on to the declaration, and therefore implementing could occur in a full partnership.
You asked who we would engage with. It would be with leadership—obviously the Prime Minister getting behind this movement of positive change and partnership and collaboration—but with a full and thorough process with all those impacted: the Assembly of First Nations, the leadership, the governance, but also the community people.
It would be a thorough process, set out over five or ten years, with deliberate goals and objectives set out by both parties and led by a first nations, not a rushed process. It's always this rushed process that government is trying to impose. Then you have huge resistance, and then people ask why there's resistance. Let's do it right for once and save the taxpayer billions of dollars of legislation going forward. Minor meetings happening don't constitute consultation.
Let's do it properly the first time. Actually, it wouldn't be the first time, but let's make a change and do things right, thoroughly, using the UN declaration as a road map for action.
:
Good morning, ladies. It is refreshing to have you with us this morning.
I have seen, in the past two years, the thinly veiled attempts of this government to get rid of responsibilities it has regarding aboriginal nations across the country. These are veiled attempts because they are made within legislation that may seem harmless at first glance, but we can see that the bills coming from the members are no exception to the rule.
I particularly appreciated the part of your presentation that dealt with the scope of the concept of consultation and the search for consent from the parties. I would like you to go into this more deeply by talking to us about the possibility being offered to the nations, first and foremost to their members as individuals, of not giving their consent to a particular initiative.
Also I would like you to talk to us about the need for this government to go and consult the members of the communities, above all, and not be content with meeting the nine leaders of a community. In Uashat-Maliotenam, to take a familiar example, there are 9 leaders for 3,000 individuals. It cannot be considered that a proper consultation has taken place if only these nine individuals are consulted.
:
Thank you, Mr. Genest-Jourdain. I point out that you are the MP for my riding.
As Ms. Edwards clearly explained, for us, consultation is closely linked to consent. When we go into the communities to see what is happening on a daily basis, we note that consultation, whether federal, provincial or within the community, is a new process. This type of democracy comes little by little and that is just fine.
Our organization has been fighting since 1974. We find it extremely important to have real consultation, if of course there was some cooperation with the Conservative government with a view to changing or amending the Indian Act. We could be equipped, with human resources, expertise, funding or whatever, in order to educate people in our communities, because these are the people who will be directly affected. It would mean going to where the communities are located. Why not do so in collaboration with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada? It is necessary for organizations to be able to present their proposals and inform the government about what is taking shape so that the government can in turn say what it is thinking. Because solutions come from the communities. In my opinion, in such a case, we could talk about consultation.
We have to give people the time to think about things and absorb everything, because such projects are very heavy. Then we have to make sure we can build it all together. Quebec does so with its estates general. Why not do likewise this time?
The personal stories like those I heard earlier could be multiplied by a million from one end of Canada to the other. Everyone has some such experience. If this bill is maintained, we will end up saying the same things in 10 or 20 years.
I'll apologize beforehand. I have a slight cold, so if I start coughing, everybody clear the room. You don't want it.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Chief Betty Ann Lavallée: Kwey, hello, and bonjour.
Good morning, Chair Warkentin and committee members. It's a pleasure to be here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples to speak to you about Bill , the .
I am the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Since 1971, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, formerly known as the Native Council of Canada, has represented the interests of off-reserve, status, and non-status Indians, the Southern Inuit of Labrador, and Métis throughout Canada. The congress is also the national voice for its affiliate organization that advocates on behalf of aboriginal peoples living off reserve.
For over 43 years, the congress has been a strong advocate for amending the Indian Act. Today, over 60% of aboriginal peoples live off reserve. The provisions of this act are rooted in a colonial ordinance directed at imposing restrictions and regulations for the purpose of assimilation. These restrictions are what created the removal of Métis and non-status Indians from their historical communities in the first place.
Our organization supports the removal of the archaic provisions created under the Indian Act, such as, for instance, eliminating the minister's control and authority over wills and estates. Canadian governments do not control the average person's wills and estates. Likewise, aboriginal people should be able to take control of their own personal affairs and not be subject to such childish scrutiny and personal interference by the crown into matters that no other resident of Canada would ever tolerate.
The removal of the phrase “residential schools” from the education provisions in this bill is a big step forward. In June 2008, the apologized for the residential schools, although no one should ever forget the tragedies and the injustices that have been done to so many of our aboriginal peoples. Our constituency has been touched by the residential school system. In fact, many of our people relinquished their status so their children would not be forced away from their homes and into residential schools.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada is now a major part of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. This amendment could be part of the healing process for all those personally affected by the residential school system.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, along with other participants, partnered with the federal government in the joint ministry advisory committee, JMAC, to assist in drafting Indian Act amendments. This committee tabled their final report on March 8, 2002. The report laid out recommendations and legislative options for a first nations governance act. At that time, our organization was supportive of this initiative.
Some of the proposals put forth in Bill are not dissimilar to the positions put forth in the joint ministerial advisory committee report and the First Nations Governance Act. For example, Bill C-428 repeals section 85.1, “By-laws relating to intoxicants”, under this act. The governance act also addresses section 85.1 and how these limitations have long been criticized by bands and representative organizations as being out of keeping with traditional law-making practices.
This bill also requires permitting and mandating individual first nations councils to publish bylaws. This measure allows for more inclusion to all community members, regardless of residency. Aboriginal peoples should be informed about their communities. Since the Corbiere decision, aboriginal people who live off reserve have the right to vote in elections should they choose to do so, and they also have the right to participate in and vote on decisions regarding specific claims and resource issues.
One of the most significant aspects of Bill is that it will require the minister to report annually on the work undertaken by his or her department, in collaboration with aboriginal organizations and other interested parties, to develop new legislation to replace the Indian Act. We at the congress believe that this is useful and positive initiative that would keep all parties informed on the progress thus far.
As I previously indicated, the Indian Act was one of the first pieces of legislation to define and create arbitrary classes of aboriginal peoples such as status, non-status, and Métis. Prior to delineating aboriginal peoples, it was understood that non-status and Métis were included in the Constitution Act of 1867 under subsection 91(24). Recently, we've had this confirmed. This subsection provides Canada's federal government exclusive authority to legislate in relation to Indians, and lands reserved for Indians.
Under the Indian Act, non-status and Métis were gradually excluded from the same rights and privileges as status Indians. A recent Federal Court decision ruled that Métis and non-status Indians in Canada are Indians under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867. This decision marks a new relationship with the Government of Canada.
As a national aboriginal organization, we fully expect the government to abide by their duty to consult.
Mr. Rob Clarke has done just that. He consulted with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples on a few occasions about his private member's bill, Bill , and he made himself available to any aboriginal community off reserve who invited him to learn more about his private member's bill. He attended our annual general meeting and met and had a discussion with my board of directors. He offered his time to come out to speak to their individual boards, which they held at this meeting, and community peoples.
On the whole, this legislation addresses obsolete sections of the Indian Act and permits more participation by off-reserve community members. As a Mi'kmaq, I am a registered Indian under the Indian Act, with my status tied to an Indian Act band. Although I live off reserve, I am recognized as a Mi'kmaq woman with treaty and aboriginal rights. Much of the relationship between the crown and aboriginal peoples involves treaties and treaty relationships, not the Indian Act. There are members in our constituency who are non-status Indian with treaty rights, but they are not protected under the Indian Act.
Treaties were established before the Indian Act. Treaties did not discriminate between mixed bloods. Status and non-status Indians and Métis were all included in these treaties.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples respectfully requests a helpful addition to this bill. We believe the annual report by the minister should be amended to include the implementation of treaties. Most non-aboriginal people, and even the media, seem to think the relationship between the crown and aboriginal peoples is based on the Indian Act. This is not the case. The treaty relationship is the basis of the relationship. It is not based solely on legislation. To view it otherwise would limit our thinking to only those issues that are currently covered by the Indian Act, and not those that are broader in scope.
This is an instrumental bill, and it's important to address the distinctions made between people living on and off reserve, as well as the broader principles.
We lalioq. Thank you. Merci beaucoup.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the witnesses for making it here today. I guess they had a fun-filled journey trying to find the building.
First of all, what I heard is that the Indian Act in its entirety has to go. It's ironic because that is what one of my first drafts of my bill intended to do. My private member's bill was to repeal the Indian Act in consultation with first nations, and over a two-year period to implement new, modern and respectful language. After meeting met with first nations' leaders, organizations, and grassroots, we went from three drafts to my final and current fourth draft, which was submitted back in June 2012. My colleague Mr. Bevington mentioned the really interesting part here. I'd like to quote former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie for the record:
Canada’s Indian Act is riddled with "archaic features," but Parliament would be wise to phase in reforms rather than scrap it and start from scratch.
And...
I think the government will have to proceed area by area, with the aboriginal communities and range of interests, and pick off things that can be resolved today, abolish the related aspects in the Indian Act, and move forward in this piecemeal fashion.
This was back on April 12, 2012. It was on the CBC News Saskatchewan website. It's interesting because those are very strong words. This is from a Supreme Court justice who understands the laws of the nation and had to enforce or make decisions that affected Canadians and first nations across Canada.
There was another article by David P. Ball on March 1, 2013, on the launch of the missing and murdered women inquiry. He said this:
[The] Assembly of First Nations (AFN) urged politicians to collaborate on what National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo called a “critical issue.” Atleo said in a statement that he hopes indigenous people’s voices are included in the committee’s work and that a core priority of the body’s deliberations must be to ensure that “our peoples are safe wherever they live.”
That goes into the bylaws and economic development and getting first nations away from the poverty created by the Indian Act. In my private member's bill, we also talk about meeting on a year-by-year basis. The minister has to report back to the committee on progress.
As a national chief, can you clarify whom you represent?
Thank you for coming, National Chief.
You've commented on the importance of the duty to consult. Obviously it was important that the member consult with you and your board. As you've heard from other witnesses before you and, I'm sure, in the media, there are serious concerns that the duty to consult hasn't been taken as seriously as people would think should be the case for a bill to have come to this place after second reading, to have been passed in principle, to have come to a parliamentary committee without really any response to negative feedback or an understanding that this piecemeal approach is upsetting people as we take the time and energy to do this instead of doing what many believe is the only way to truly get out from under the Indian Act, which is for the Prime Minister to actually lead a process to replace it, including the fiduciary responsibilities.
So my concern is whether, even though you were consulted, you think there has been sufficient consultation for it to be at this place, at this committee. This committee can't really do anything other than fix these fatal flaws, because it has already been passed in principle. The officials who have come before us have told us that the way this bill is written now, a band wouldn't be able to declare itself dry. There are serious problems that could have been fixed if there had been consultation, but as you, I think, know, a lot of people feel that the time and energy being placed on this private member's bill would be better spent by Parliament and by important stakeholders like you actually doing the big piece of work led by the Prime Minister of this country.
:
Thank you very much for appearing and for your input on this. I'm glad you were able to meet with Mr. Clarke, because that's not the case for everybody.
I have a chief who took the initiative to write to Mr. Clarke and Mr. Rickford with respect to a meeting on this. Although they were invited to their community, which is Whitefish River First Nation, what the chief got back was “Thank you for your letter” and no indication of whether or not they would attend the meeting to discuss this particular piece of legislation. Neither was there an invitation for him to come to Ottawa. I'm hoping he'll have an opportunity to come here to voice his concerns with respect to this type of legislation.
The other thing is this. As you indicated, you aren't a parliamentarian, but given the position you have, I guess you can say that you are political in some sense, because you have to take some stands on issues.
You also talked about the consultation piece and the treaty piece. In the past there have been two major attempts to remove the Indian Act. The first was the white paper authored by Jean Chrétien in 1969 that sought to assimilate first nations into mainstream Canadian society by scrapping the Indian Act and reserves.
Interestingly, Harold Cardinal and other first nation leaders published the red paper called “Citizens Plus”, which outlined the reply:
It is neither possible nor desirable to eliminate the Indian Act. It is essential to review it, but not before the question of treaties is settled.
And as you indicated, those treaty issues are still not settled.
The fact is that there are some problematical aspects of this bill. You talked about consultations. I'm trying to get some sense of this. You said that you had a meeting and relayed some information to your board; then you had a meeting, and I'm sure that not all of your membership was able to attend, given how vast Canada is. Isn't that right?
What percentage of your membership was able to attend this meeting to provide input?