Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 18
Betty Ann Lavallée
View Betty Ann Lavallée Profile
Betty Ann Lavallée
2013-03-21 9:52
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
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 C-428, the Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act.
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 Prime Minister 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 C-428 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 C-428 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 C-428, 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.
View Jonathan Genest-Jourdain Profile
NDP (QC)
Hello, Mr. Minister.
I have a few questions for you, but if we should run into time restraints, I would like to have your answers in writing.
I would like to begin with the First Nations Land Management Act.
In 2012, our committee went to Mashteuiatsh, in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. We were able to see the limitations of and flaws in the First Nations Land Management Act, particularly in terms of transferring environmental responsibility and liabilities to the communities that sign the agreement set out in the act.
Mr. Minister, I would like to know what the annual budget is for the First Nations Land Management Act, not including the funds allocated in the 2011 budget. In addition, I would like to know if additional funds will be invested in the rehabilitation and environmental assessments of lands belonging to communities that sign the agreement set out in the First Nations Land Management Act.
I also have a quick question about residential schools. Has the department estimated the financial and human resources that will be required in order to hand over to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada all of the relevant documents held by Library and Archives Canada? How much of an increase might be needed to meet that obligation?
I would also like to ask about first nations infrastructure, since the infrastructure in many communities is insufficient and it is a real problem in many communities. Does your department intend to implement other targeted funding programs to help communities that still need help developing their infrastructure?
Could you provide an explanation and some details about those topics?
Thank you, Mr. Minister.
View Bernard Valcourt Profile
CPC (NB)
Since I am not a machine, I would prefer to answer each and every one of your questions in writing. I cannot honestly say that I am able, at this point in time, to reply to each of them off the top of my head.
However, as for the question about documents at Library and Archives Canada, I would like to inform the committee that, as I said during my opening remarks, this issue is currently before the courts. We will fully meet our obligations, as set out in the agreement that was signed and that the court is overseeing.
If I remember correctly, some 1.3 million documents have been submitted by various departments so far. Library and Archives Canada has provided 1.3 or 1.4 million documents. And some 22 departments have contributed to those 1.3 million documents. I am referring to documents at Library and Archives Canada. Discussions are on-going and, as you know, the court made a ruling. But other circumstances may have to be set out in detail to ensure that the Commission can fulfill its mandate.
Rest assured that the most important thing is that the goals of the agreement are met. We are confident that the resources and means are in place to ensure that Canada, the government and Canadians respect the agreement signed before the court.
View Jean Crowder Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you.
I want to thank the minister for coming before the committee today, and I also want to acknowledge the very good document that was presented to us. It would actually be really nice if the minister would answer every question that is in that document.
Since the minister is only here for one hour and we have limited time, I'm going to pose four questions to the minister and I would appreciate it if answers to whatever questions the minister can't answer today could be supplied to the committee in writing.
First, on the first nations water and waste water, I noted in the research document supplied to us that the first nations water and waste water action plan, which ended on March 31, 2012, was actually not formally renewed, even though there is additional investment. In light of the national assessment report, is the department considering comprehensive additional investments, aside from what is allocated annually for increased capital expenditures, for on-reserve water and waste water, and if so, how much? If not, why not?
The second question I have has to do with the specific claims. I know the minister is well aware that there is a review process coming up next year. I know there is additional money under vote 10, but could the minister indicate what the difference is between a concluded claim and a settled claim?
On page 85 in the supplementary estimates (B) there is an indication of readiness for first nations education legislation. We know we already have one piece of first nations education legislation in British Columbia, and I wonder if any of that allocated money will be going toward funding the B.C. First Nations Education Act, because I understand that negotiations are still lagging.
My final question is the one that it would be useful for the minister to respond to today. I understand that on the disclosure of documents to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, currently $2.38 million in the budget is going in the supplementary estimates (B) from the department to the RCMP. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada interim report indicated there are various concerns around the delays, and I understand the commission has to finish its task by June 30, 2014. The minister in question period today indicated that these documents will be provided in 2013, but it wasn't clear on what date in 2013.
The commission has indicated that in order for them to meet their mandated obligations and enforce compliance of the parties' obligations to produce relevant documents, it's unlikely this document completion process will be completed without a significant shift in attitude on the part of Canada, and those parties have been reluctant to cooperate.
Minister, I wonder if you could start with the issue around the document release and perhaps tell us exactly and what efforts will be made, and when, in 2013 to accommodate the commission being able to meet its mandate by June of 2014.
View John Duncan Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you very much.
Question 4 is the one you would like me to address first. I'm not trying to avoid your question, but I do have sitting beside me my representative on the truth and reconciliation all-party group that deals with this whole issue, so if you wouldn't mind, I'd like Deputy Minister Wernick to address this issue because he can do it much more comprehensively than I can.
Michael Wernick
View Michael Wernick Profile
Michael Wernick
2012-12-03 16:47
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minister.
I'll try to be very short about it. We are providing documents as they are ready, in batches. Our undertaking to the commission is no later than next July, and we've offered many mechanisms for them to come over with researcher status and access documents they feel they need in order to do the report writing between now and the end of June.
Michael Wernick
View Michael Wernick Profile
Michael Wernick
2012-12-03 16:48
No. Every document we turn over to them is digitized and tagged in a way that is conducive to search. I don't know if the churches are doing the same, but every federal document goes over digitized and tagged for searchability.
The question before the court is of the relevant scope of documents and what is appropriate to turn over to the commission in order for it to meet its mandate. We have, I think, a legitimate disagreement with them about the relevance of documents from the 2005 negotiations. We simply disagree with them that they need to see all the applications and decisions coming out of the adjudications that are now under way. There is no question that everything that's relevant up to the closing of the last school in 1996 they will get, and even everything up to the conclusion of the agreement in 2005 they will get.
We have tried to scrape some money together to help the other departments, as you see in these estimates. The other large document holders, because of the residential schools experience, were the RCMP and Health Canada. We are acting as the sort of orchestra leader to make sure all federal documents are turned over.
We've turned over a million documents already, and we will certainly be complete by next spring.
View Carolyn Bennett Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have to reiterate my colleague's concern about own source revenue. It seems that people are making money running a development, and then that goes to pay for the sewage. I think we've heard that at Westbank. We've heard it at a number of places. Own source revenue is a real stickler for FNESC and for people across the country.
Minister, after the beautiful stained glass window, I am concerned about the estimates. Even though you've allocated some money toward the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, there is trouble now with the documents and trouble with the commission starting late.
Would you be able to commit that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will have the time to do its job properly? It seems a bit ridiculous that they're not even going to get the documents until after the date you're telling them they have to finish. They need the money to do this properly.
With regard to the February 24 report, I read it as an open plea for help—your help—to get them the money and the time to do the job properly. Turning over the documents seems to be taking way too long, obviously, but the fact that the Aboriginal Healing Foundation was rolled up.... It seems that the commission is not going to be able to do its work unless they get the extra time and the extra money.
View John Duncan Profile
CPC (BC)
As the deputy indicated, the documents should all be in their hands next year. Their wrap-up isn't until 2014, so I fail to see the issue on the documents.
I can't speak for the other parties, the churches and so on, but federally I think we're in pretty good shape.
View Dany Morin Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you very much.
The residential school system represents a shameful part of Canada's history, and we've since been forced to apologize for it. While the government's apology was certainly historic, its actions since then have done little to improve the lives of first nations in Canada. As with many things done by this government, words, sadly, were louder than actions.
As a result of continued government inaction, the suicide rate in aboriginal communities is reaching epidemic proportions in some regions of Canada. Survivors are angry and outspoken. They expect Canada, they expect Ottawa, to work with them to find long-lasting solutions for themselves and their children.
Enough is enough. When will this government stop wasting everyone's time and finally implement the recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the extension and enhancement of health support services?
Glenda Yeates
View Glenda Yeates Profile
Glenda Yeates
2012-03-13 9:50
Thank you.
The member raises a very important question. We are all very much focused on providing the kinds of supports for communities and individuals that we know are needed.
There are two things I would mention in response to the member's question about what we're doing at Health Canada as part of this process.
Budget 2010 expanded five years of coverage, essentially, for a series of prevention programs in a number of areas, including mental wellness, early childhood development, and youth suicide prevention, for example. We have a number of programs across the country. Some are in very targeted communities. For example, on youth suicide, we're working with 160 communities very specifically on this issue to try to provide prevention and support to communities. It varies community by community.
Our regions work with individual first nations and the people in those communities, and in some cases the AFN and others, to try to tailor the supports needed.
The member also raised the issue of the truth and reconciliation process. We are working very closely with that process to provide the supports we know are needed. As individuals come forward as a part of that process, they themselves need support. We've been working very closely to provide those supports. When the reconciliation commission is in a centre having discussions or hearings, we are very much there providing both health professional support and traditional support. The court has indicated that we must provide these. We are working very hard and have had some very good comments on the support we're providing under some very challenging circumstances, obviously.
View Dany Morin Profile
NDP (QC)
Glenda Yeates
View Glenda Yeates Profile
Glenda Yeates
2012-03-13 9:53
I do not have those recommendations with me, Madam Chair, but we work very closely with the commission. We are going to study the recommendations and do everything we can to help and support people who need those services.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Wernick, I don't know if you can provide any additional information with regard to vote 35. I'm not certain that we need to know the inner workings of the commission in order to vote on the allocation of funds, seeing as all we can do in this committee is decrease the estimate or vote down the estimate. We can't increase the estimate. But I believe it's important that we get as much clarity as we can with regard to it.
Ms. Bennett, I'll just turn off your time for a minute, because I do have some questions that relate to exactly your point.
Mr. Wernick, on the Indian Affairs and Northern Development vote regarding the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I read in the highlights of the documentation that the last sentence says, “An estimated $11 million from the 2011–12 carry-forward will be added to the existing $7.7 million budget for 2012–13”. It would seem to me that this would be an addition of $11 million to the amount that's been allocated for this year. I'm just not sure if that's a typo or if in fact that is what is being suggested. I think that may alleviate...or some clarity surrounding that would be helpful for committee members before we vote on vote 35.
Results: 1 - 15 of 18 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data