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 40
View Mylène Freeman Profile
NDP (QC)
With respect to “Working Together: Engaging Communities to End Violence Against Women and Girls”, could you tell us what percentage was attributed to ending violence for aboriginal women and girls, whether on or off reserve?
Linda Savoie
View Linda Savoie Profile
Linda Savoie
2013-05-23 18:50
That's the call that was closed in the fall, and under that call we had 3 of the 27 successful projects for aboriginal communities. In the same year, our girls call had 8 of the 35 projects that targeted aboriginal communities, so, yes, I do have statistics. The rural call, for instance, the results of which were announced a year ago, had 12 of the 55 projects that were with aboriginal communities.
Mary Eberts
View Mary Eberts Profile
Mary Eberts
2013-05-08 16:28
Thank you.
Members of the committee, I would like to draw your attention, in my four minutes, to two major things this legislation has totally overlooked.
The first is the history of the Indian Act. I agree with my friend that legislation like the Indian Act demeans and devalues the treaty relationship. The Indian Act has never acknowledged the treaties. There are nations now that have law-making power and can exercise that law-making power because of treaties and because of unceded land. Those nations do not need clause 7 of this legislation. It is a mistake for Canada to think that it is bestowing legislative jurisdiction on these nations.
The other part of the Indian Act that this legislation ignores is the way the Indian Act created vulnerability in aboriginal women. It took away their families. It took away their home places, and if they married and went to another community, they were stuck there. They were said to be of that community, and they had no family and no connections to help them out if things got tough and if violence was perpetrated. The Indian Act did that. It enhanced the vulnerability of indigenous women.
The other thing the Indian Act did was ensure that indigenous people subject to the Indian Act would remain in poverty perpetually. One of the reasons that the housing provisions of this act are so important is that there is not enough housing on Indian reserves. Never mind violence, there isn't enough housing. People who are separating fight over housing because there isn't enough for the families who aren't separated, never mind creating more and more units. We know that, and yet this government does nothing.
The second thing this legislation has ignored is the experience of non-indigenous women or women living off reserve with family violence. This legislation puts in place a whole lot of legal terms that try to be just like the legal terms that a woman living in Barrie or Thunder Bay or Saskatoon or Bamfield, B.C., would be able to use in a family violence situation. But what this legislation does not acknowledge is that women, because of the absence of legal aid in this country, do not have lawyers to help them access the legislation, and when and if they do get these protective awards, the police don't enforce them, and there's nothing the women can do about that. That is because there is an imperfect consciousness on the part of police that these orders have to be enforced and a drastically imperfect legal system when it comes to giving women access to justice. I totally agree with Madame Audette when she says that the situation of women living on reserve is, if anything, much worse in terms of access to justice and access to police protection than that of people living off reserve.
So please remember those two things when you consider this legislation.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
My next question is about some of the very disturbing statistics you presented. Is there any delineation between at least on and off reserve? You said you couldn't do micro areas, but....
Cathy Connors
View Cathy Connors Profile
Cathy Connors
2013-05-02 19:10
For the self-reported data that we have on victimization, we are not able to separate the information for on and off reserve because the sample sizes get really small. We have to remember that this is a survey of the general population. Basically, we're surveying everybody in Canada, and we're trying to produce estimates for everybody in Canada.
The aboriginal population, as you know, is about 4% of the Canadian population, so you could expect approximately 4% of the sample of that survey to be aboriginal people. The smaller the numbers get of records that we have, the less able we are to produce detailed information.
View Libby Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much.
I would like to follow up on a few questions.
We heard a little about the community capacity, and you spoke about how communities have to be ready and have to want to take on particular projects, whether it's a safety plan.... I don't know if you were speaking more about on reserve, but I want to get an idea of the capacity on the government side as well.
I know, for example, in the community that I represent, Vancouver East, which includes the downtown eastside, many organizations spend a huge amount of time chasing down various programs to try to get any money to do anything at the community level. I wonder if both Public Safety and Aboriginal Affairs can tell us, or if you have information, about the level of application and how you are able to meet that demand, particularly off reserve, because I think we have huge problems in the urban environment.
There are organizations that have the capacity. They know what needs to be done, but the sense I have is that they can't get the resources to do it. It's a different picture from what we hear about, that maybe the capacity isn't there. Maybe the capacity isn't there more on this side to meet the demand. I wonder if you have that information, and if you do, can you share it with us, in terms of the number of applications you might get for any of the programs you run and what percentage of those get funding?
Françoise Ducros
View Françoise Ducros Profile
Françoise Ducros
2013-05-02 19:34
Just on the programmatic side, on all of the programs that we've talked about, they are generally, as a matter of policy, to provide the programming on reserve that isn't provided on reserve by the provinces in their general program delivery.
On the urban aboriginal issue, which of course is growing and is significant off reserve, we do have the urban aboriginal strategy, which is designed to work with aboriginal leaders off reserve in the urban centres. I actually can provide you with what we're doing to that effect, the way in which it's approached, the projects and the numbers of projects that are funded, and how they are funded—
Jeffrey Cyr
View Jeffrey Cyr Profile
Jeffrey Cyr
2013-05-02 12:44
Thank you. I'll try to be as succinct and brief as I can so that everyone gets their time.
Colleagues on the video conference, Madam Chair, distinguished members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, thank you for the opportunity to present on what we consider to be a very serious issue.
I wish to also acknowledge the traditional lands of the Algonquin nation where we are meeting today.
For your edification, my name is Jeff Cyr. I'm a Métis from Manitoba and the executive director of the National Association of Friendship Centres. This is my first appearance in front of your committee. As such, I'll provide some background as to who we are as an organization, what we do, and why that's relevant to the issue at hand.
The National Association of Friendship Centres is a national aboriginal organization comprised of 119 friendship centres across the country, from coast to coast to coast. That includes seven provincial and territorial organizations.
The early history of the friendship centre movement in Canada is found in the cities of Toronto, Winnipeg, and Vancouver. It was started in the 1950s, by aboriginal people, for aboriginal people. The history and evolution of the friendship centre movement is reflective of the modern history of aboriginal people in Canada. Our history is one of continual growth and continual expansion as we seek to meet the health, social, economic, safety, educational, and transitional needs of first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples in the urban centres of this country.
For over 60 years we've been front and centre in assisting aboriginal people to become fully acquainted with urban life, maintain their culture as an anchor, and utilize services available to them as they adjust to life in the city.
Friendship centres not only provide invaluable services to urban aboriginal people who utilize these programs; the movement also provides employment. There are currently 2,600 people employed through friendship centres, and 72% of them are women. We are also community anchors and we're hubs for social innovation in urban centres.
In my notes I have a list of programs and services that we provide. I'm going to be very brief with this: prenatal, healthy babies, head start, youth care, housing, mental health and wellness, diabetes, drug and alcohol, youth programs, employment services, and on and on. Issues of violence and youth at risk for sexual exploitation and crimes are also areas of high priority for our movement, along with protecting women and children from harm and family violence.
While friendship centres have had long-term success in offering and delivering these vital services, there are many challenges that we confront. Some are forced by demographic realities while others pertain to organizational capacities. As you know, the urban aboriginal population in Canada continues to increase. In 1996 it was 47%. In 2006 it was 54%. Today it is over 60%. In some metropolitan areas, over 80% of the population lives in urban areas. Of course, that population is overwhelmingly young, under the age of 25.
These demographic realities place strong pressures on the human and fiscal capacities of our centres. We can talk later about how our centres are funded, if it comes up in questions. I'm going to move on so that we can get to the point. Throughout our history, friendship centres have been places that aboriginal peoples seek out as they move to urban areas for a variety of reasons.
Now we come to the issue at hand: matrimonial real property and its effects. It is abundantly clear that MRP is a serious issue, a serious human rights issue, and it needs to be dealt with. When women and children leave their community as a result of these issues, where do they go? Where do you think they go? On the whole, they end up in cities. They look for services, and they end up at the friendship centre door.
As the National Association of Friendship Centres, we need there to be awareness of the social complexities of these issues that have been wrought in the off-reserve environment. The presentation earlier today by AFN and the other presenter spoke to some of those social complexities.
I want to commend, first of all, the lands modernization unit of Aboriginal Affairs, who approached us to discuss this issue well over a year ago—not on a legal basis but on a service basis, because what we're talking about is people's lives—on who helps those affected while the legal realm gets sorted out.
With very limited funding, we as an organization created a searchable online database that provides information on over 6,000 service agencies, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, where our friendship centres are located. It includes contact information on programs and services related to health, housing, education, justice, culture, child care, community support, and government support.
We created this database as a means of providing information directly into the hands of aboriginal people, and in particular first nation women, who need this information for their transition from reserve to a city. This website, which will be launched later this month, is called New Journeys, and other than the thousands of service organizations and agencies it lists, the site also contains transitional planning guides for women, students, and families. There are safety features on the site that include an erasable search history to safeguard women who may be experiencing domestic violence and are making plans to relocate to a city.
This project began in 2011 when we did an environmental scan and some research. There are a few things we learned during that process. Aboriginal people are likely to face multiple barriers when they first arrive in the city, including poverty, lack of education, unemployment, lack of adequate housing, racism, and a sense of social exclusion.
Many will face difficulties navigating multiple systems in jurisdictions while attempting to locate programs and services. Easy access to services upon arrival in the city is essential to ensuring a good transition, however some aboriginal people are unaware of available programs and services. Moreover, agencies are also often unaware of available services.
There was a need for a system to address the immediate transition issues of newcomers to ensure that their adjustment to city life is a positive one. There are only a handful of organizations that offer services that are specific to supporting aboriginal people who are newcomers to the city. There was a need for collaboration between first nations and urban aboriginal organizations in program delivery, and such cooperation will result in a more seamless transition to city life.
I want to draw the attention of the members of this committee to the reality of how socially complex issues such as MRP play out on the ground, and to who supports those who need help. I believe we need to engage and support organizations such as ours, and friendship centres, in a more robust manner to be that bridge between emerging issues and innovative solutions. It serves Canada better to do so.
Right now we have created a set of tools. We have taken a nickel and stretched it to make a dollar, which is really what we're good at actually. But eventually we'll need to look behind the veil and we'll ask: how are we supporting aboriginal women in Canada in the long term?
Changes to matrimonial real property and the legal infrastructure in Canada are, in my opinion, long overdue. As Canada's largest aboriginal service infrastructure, the friendship centre movement will continue to be central in addressing issues related to MRP and be that vital resource to women and children relocating to urban areas.
But it goes beyond legislation. We need your assistance, we need your deep engagement, we need your recognition of our services and our partnerships, and we need to move beyond project-driven funding and build real capacity in our organizations.
This is an added comment to my notes. This is incredibly important. When we bring in pieces of legislation, they have far-reaching implications. That won't be done within one year. When people are seeking services, they're going to seek them in the urban environment and they'll be at our door, and we won't necessarily have the resources to answer all those questions. We can't do it on a project-driven basis, it's too difficult.
I'm going to cut my comments short.
Thank you, meegwetch, to all of you for your attention. I look forward to more dialogue on issues affecting urban aboriginal life.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
View Niki Ashton Profile
2013-05-02 13:11
Thank you very much, from our side, Ms. van der Woerd. It's unfortunate that we didn't have the time to ask you questions, and so many important points were raised.
Mr. Cyr, there's no question that the friendship centres do really critical work with aboriginal women, men, and youth in many communities. I'm very proud for the chance I've had to work with friendship centres in the area that I represent. However, I've been concerned at times when the government hasn't been there to support the critical work, particularly with young people, for example.
Recognizing that this legislation is about on-reserve first nations, I think has somehow been lost in the fray. We've spent quite a bit of time hearing from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, who don't represent on-reserve first nations. We've heard a lot of rhetoric. The reality is that we have to be clear about who this pertains to.
Now I'm wondering, in your experience in working with the friendship centres, in terms of bringing an on-the-ground perspective, could you speak to us about some of the reasons why people leave first nations, whether it's in Manitoba or across the country?
Jeffrey Cyr
View Jeffrey Cyr Profile
Jeffrey Cyr
2013-05-02 13:13
The reasons make a pretty long list, but we'll try to put some of it in plain speak.
People have been migrating to cities from rural areas and reserves at a fairly rapid pace for the better part of 50 or 60 years. This is not a trend unique to Canada. It's happening around the world. People migrate for a couple of key reasons, usually it's driven by economics. You want a certain level of education, or you want a certain level of access to employment. As you well know, around the country, around certain reserves and rural communities, for Métis or Inuit as well, that opportunity doesn't exist. So you need to travel. You may come back to your community, but you need to travel to find those opportunities.
There are other reasons as well: health care. Where do you have access to health care and access to services more generally? This refers directly to Bill S-2 because people leave divorce and separation situations for a variety of reasons when they occur, and they need services. I know this. I was divorced six years ago. I went through the process, and it's not fun. There's not a lot of guidance, even if you're not aboriginal and aren't dealing with the complexities of a first nation's law or Indian Act law on reserve, and the complexities of inter-working that with provincial law as well.
For this committee, the problem exists of access to services for those people affected by Bill S-2, or affected both before and after Bill S-2's potential passing, and it's going to exist for a long time. One of the reasons is that it takes a long time to resolve marital and other spousal disputes on or off reserve. It takes years, and in those years you need service. Ninety days is nothing; 180 days is nothing in that situation.
So what do those people do? Their home community, whether it's a reserve or not, may not be a friendly place to be for 180 days.
View Joyce Bateman Profile
CPC (MB)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much for being here with us, Mr. Cyr.
I can speak first-hand, as a former school trustee, to the importance of your organization in Manitoba. We served many of the same children and families. You were the point of reference; you were the guiding hand. You often connected young women in distress and with young children to the Winnipeg school division, and I thank you very much for that.
The housing piece has been spoken of. Since 2006 we've put more than a billion dollars into aboriginal housing through Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. In 2009 through to 2011, we increased that by an additional $400 million. There was another Aboriginal Affairs allocation of $150 million. There was a CMHC $150 million allocation in that period of time, and about $143 million is spent annually by CMHC to support specific needs of aboriginal households off reserve. As well, the Canadian economic action plan put another $200 million into this. So there is money going into houses.
But in your remarks, sir, you made the comment that people are escaping domestic violence. Regardless of the house, if you have no rights to stay in that house with your children, if you're thrown out of the house as a result of a conflict, organizations such as yours are crucial in the urban setting.
You've talked about how you are reaching out to these people, and another witness, who has gone now, earlier talked about aboriginal women being three times more subject to domestic violence. This is what we're trying to help with. This is what we're trying to achieve, and it seems to me that you are, too. You're supporting these people.
How do we best work together on this?
Jeffrey Cyr
View Jeffrey Cyr Profile
Jeffrey Cyr
2013-05-02 13:22
There are some resources. I don't think there are enough, whether on the housing side.... Especially in the off-reserve setting, I think there is more work to be done. Although some investment has happened over the last number of years, I think we may just be shaving off the tip of that iceberg. I think there's a lot more that needs to be done in an urban setting for affordable, sustainable housing for low-income families.
View   Profile
2013-04-18 8:48
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members of the committee, for allowing me some time to present on Bill C-428.
I'm the regional chief for British Columbia and the national portfolio holder for governance at the Assembly of First Nations. I'm happy to be joined here today by Karen Campbell and Alyssa Melnyk from our offices.
Turning to Bill C-428, as set out in the preamble of the bill, there's no question that the Indian Act is “an outdated and colonial statute”. On that, we all agree. However, for far too long, our political challenge has been what to do about it: appeal it, amend it, or replace it, and if so, what with? Our challenge has also been to find the courage and the ability to actually do something about it.
In this regard, I commend MP Clarke's leadership in bringing forward this bill to further stimulate the conversation about what actually needs to be done to move forward. Unfortunately, Bill C-428 is not the solution. We need strong and appropriate governance, not tinkering with the Indian Act, creating perhaps the illusion of progress.
The good news is, however, that first nations do have solutions and are making progress in their efforts to move away from the Indian Act, despite progress being far too slow. We need to continue developing our own solutions, building on our success and what we have learned over the past 40 years from those first nations that already are governing outside of the Indian Act, either sectorally or comprehensively through self-government agreements.
Additionally, mechanisms are needed to support our nations, at their option, to move beyond the Indian Act when they are ready, willing, and able to do so. While the preamble of Bill C-428 acknowledges that the Indian Act “does not provide an adequate legislative framework for the development of self-sufficient and prosperous First Nations’ communities”, the bill itself is not a mechanism that will move us closer to the appropriate legislative framework that would assist our nations in comprehensively moving beyond the Indian Act. Public Bill S-212, An Act providing for the recognition of self-governing First Nations of Canada, was developed to meet this need, a bill I hope at some point I will be presenting on before you.
Bill C-428 is an eclectic bill. In addition to the requirements for the minister to report on progress, moving away from the Indian Act, in clause 2, there are two types of amendments to the Indian Act that are proposed: first, those that repeal and amend sections of the Indian Act that are no longer appropriate in this day and age; and second, amendments that repeal, amend, or add language that would design aspects of our post-colonial world for us. It is the latter group of changes that are problematic. This is all the more significant because the changes would not be optional and would apply to all first nations still governing under the Indian Act.
Unless these clauses of Bill C-428 are amended or removed, this bill should not become law. Ironically, keeping them could even create new problems. I know that a review of the clauses of the bill will take a little bit of time, but I will try to do it in brief, so I hope for and look to the indulgence of the committee.
Looking to clause 2 of the bill, which requires the minister to report to this committee on the work undertaken to develop new legislation to replace the Indian Act, I appreciate the intention; however, this suggests in my view that it could take years until we actually do. Respectfully, this sends the wrong message. We have the solutions now. Personally, I'm less interested in reporting on progress made in developing appropriate federal legislation than simply making progress as the first order of business.
It is equally important, of course, that all first nations know what options are currently available to them, along with the continuum of governance reform and to opening up the post-colonial door, to know what other nations are actually doing on the ground in terms of developing the policy framework for their post-Indian Act world, and further, what work is required. This is why the BCAFN developed our governance tool kit, which provides or includes a comprehensive governance report. Mr. Chair, I do have copies of the tool kit on a USB. With your indulgence, I would like to provide them for the members of the committee.
The report referred to in clause 2 should probably be tabled in Parliament, or it is not just in the interest of this committee. The clause also makes reference to the report being developed “in collaboration with First Nations organizations and other interested parties”, but does not define what these organizations are or whom the other interested parties might be.
More generally, what constitutes adequate consultation, and how deep, with respect to developing federal legislation is complicated. What is required depends on the intent of the legislation. Is it enabling, or is it intended to govern first nations, and is it optional?
A more considerate and rigorous approach needs to be developed. Our nations are extremely upset with the consultation processes to date.
Clause 3 amends the definition of “reserves”, and is required because of other amendments proposed to the act.
Clause 4 addresses the application of the Indian Act off reserve and removes references to sections of the Indian Act that will be repealed later in the bill.
Clause 5 repeals sections 32 and 33 which, of course, are paternalistic and prohibit a band member, or a band, from selling their animals and crops unless Indian agents approve. All self-government agreements do away with these sections regardless of whether or not the nation assumes jurisdiction over agriculture. These sections should have been repealed years ago.
Clause 6 deals with special reserves. I'm not sure what is intended by this amendment, or why it was proposed. This is a really complicated area of the law and any tinkering with this section could have unintended consequences.
Clause 7 removes those sections of the Indian Act dealing with wills and estates and the descent of property. This is one of the most problematic series of amendments proposed in this bill because jurisdiction for wills and estates would automatically default to the provinces. While some first nations may desire this, simply making provincial law applicable with respect to all Indians with no option would amount to a surrender of jurisdiction and is not appropriate.
Furthermore, this is another very complicated area of the law that is tied to how lands are held and administered by our nations. It really needs to be dealt with at the same time, or after a nation has developed its approach to land management, how lands are held, interest created and registered, and so on. All self-government agreements deal with lands as well as wills and estates.
Clause 8 repeals the sections of the Indian Act that provide for the minister to disallow any bylaw made by a council under section 81 of the Indian Act. While in principle we do not oppose this amendment, in practice it will create challenges if not considered as part of a more comprehensive approach to nation rebuilding.
There is a real question as to how a nation makes its laws in the first place, and the legitimacy of the institutions under the Indian Act making them, and the scope of the law-making powers. There are no procedures in the Indian Act for how nations develop, consider, and make bylaws or laws, perhaps because it was not considered important or necessary due to the minister's power of disallowance. However, our citizens demand that before law-making powers are expanded and exercised by their governments there is an open and transparent process with proper consideration of the policy rationale behind any law. This is good governance.
In contrast to this bill, the approach taken in Bill S-212 is that a first nation will develop its law-making procedures as part of its constitution and this will be part of the self-government proposal that the community, the citizens, will ratify when voting whether or not to move beyond the Indian Act.
The debate we should be having is on what areas of jurisdiction do first nations want or, indeed, need to exercise. Considering the existing Indian Act bylaw-making powers should be part of such broader discussion or debate.
Clause 9 repeals the intoxicants bylaw-making powers in section 85.1 of the Indian Act. In British Columbia, for example, there are 32 first nations who have made bylaws under this section. If you remove this section, the existing bylaws of our nations in this area would be invalid and our nations would lose this power. I am sure this is not the intent of the drafters. This is a power that we need. In fact, we need it expanded. All self-government agreements consider governance over intoxicants. Clause 9 should therefore be deleted.
Clause 10 deals with the publications of bylaws and replaces section 86 of the Indian Act with a requirement that a first nation publish its bylaws on the Internet in the First Nations Gazette, which is not a defined term in the bill, and in a local newspaper. Again, the intention is good but the execution is lacking. All comprehensive self-government agreements and sectoral governance arrangements provide for the publication of laws respecting the principle that those who are affected by the law need to have access to the law and can rely on it.
There are different policy considerations for different types of laws, depending on who is subject to them. A number of approaches for publications are used currently. This is one of those areas that our nations need to address when they are rebuilding their institutions of government post-Indian Act. Today there are thousands of first nations bylaws and laws. In B.C. alone, our nations have enacted over 2,500 laws or bylaws. In the future, there will be thousands more.
The suggestion that all these bylaws and laws can be published in a newspaper is, of course, unrealistic. Similarly, whether or not it's appropriate for all first nation bylaws to be published in a single First Nations Gazette published by a university law centre under the authority of the tax commission also raises a number of serious policy questions.
Further, clause 10 requires that a bylaw come into force either when it is published on the Internet in the gazette or in a newspaper. Again, this is too simplistic. Laws may come into force on the date set out in the law itself, and not all sections of the law may come into force at the same time. Some laws may require publication before they come into force, and some indeed may come into force when they are published. The rule will depend on the particular law and policy objectives of the government making the law.
Clause 11 repeals section 92 of the Indian Act, which sets out that certain people acting in a fiduciary capacity cannot trade for profit with an Indian unless the minister has given them licence to do so. This section should be repealed and all self-government agreements do this.
Clause 12 is a consequential amendment respecting the seizure of goods. This section would need to be amended if the bylaw on the power to make intoxicants is kept.
Clause 13 deals with fines. I'm not sure why the drafters have the fines going to Her Majesty for the benefit of the band, and not simply the band itself. I would change this, and this is how it is dealt with in self-government agreements.
Clause 14 repeals the offences in section 105 of the Indian Act.
The remaining clauses of the bill, clauses 15 to 19, deal with schools.
The amendments proposed in clauses 15 to 17 would remove all references to religious or charitable organizations, and the operation of residential schools. In my opinion, these amendments should really have been made immediately after the residential school apology.
Clauses 18 and 19 deal with sections 117 to 121 of the Indian Act and address attendance at schools, and truant officers. It conflates these provisions, simply saying that a child is not required to attend school because of sickness, or that they are being home-schooled. We would not object to these changes; however, these are matters that are properly addressed in our own laws dealing with education, and should be considered as part of a broader conversation about how schools and first nations lands are governed and administered.
In conclusion, the bill may be well intentioned, but for the reasons I've set out, it's flawed. If this bill is to proceed further, I would recommend strengthening the preamble. We should also consider more closely with whom the government is consulting in developing its report on progress in moving beyond the Indian Act. Is this a consultation with Parliament or a committee? It should not simply be a progress report on federal legislative initiatives.
As I have stated, I would amend or delete clauses 2, 4, and 13, as discussed. I would delete clauses 3, 5, 7, and 10, as the policy considerations are far more complicated than the solutions suggested in this bill. Changes need to be developed with our nations.
This leaves clause 8, with my caveat that there will be work required by our nations to develop procedures for law-making. Clauses 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of the bill for the most part get rid of sections of the Indian Act that should be removed.
Those are my comments, and I look forward to questions from members of the committee.
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 Rob Clarke Profile
CPC (SK)
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?
Results: 1 - 15 of 40 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data