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 37
Murray Browne
View Murray Browne Profile
Murray Browne
2021-05-13 11:23
Thank you, Derek.
Greetings from the west coast of Canada.
Good afternoon, eastern Canada. Emote from Tla'amin. Thank you for the opportunity.
My name is Murray Browne. I'm legal counsel for Tla'amin.
Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Murray Browne. I'm legal counsel for Tla'amin.
Twenty-five years ago I began my reconciliation journey working for INAC in Les Terrasses de la Chaudière. Then I went to work for the BC Treaty Commission, and for the last 20 years I've worked exclusively with first nations. I've been on a 20-year journey with the Tla'amin to negotiate and implement their treaty. I also work with four other nations in advanced treaty negotiations and with over 30 first nations in the development and implementation of their land codes. I was also on the legal team for the Tsilhqot'in title case.
What we want to do this morning is to jump straight to our recommendations. I also want to acknowledge our MP, Rachel Blaney, who's been very supportive and very proactive in reconciliation efforts.
I want to determine whether the committee members have our written submissions. We were hoping to refer to them. I'll proceed regardless, but I want to say that in our written submission, we have a summary of recommendations. There are 14 of them, and if we have time afterward, we'll highlight some issues.
I'll go through them quickly.
First of all, there's a lack of stable funding. You've probably heard that from everyone.
Second, in our view treaties should require orders from the chief justice of all courts to confirm court enforcement of first nation laws. You shouldn't have to spend $100,000 like K'ómoks did to just get simple confirmation that your laws are enforceable.
Treaties should confirm, upon request, that arrangements will be made with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada or the BC Prosecution Service to prosecute. We have the unfortunate situation that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has said that it can only enforce COVID bylaws under the Indian Act. That's a nice step under the Indian Act, but it's problematic otherwise.
We need changes to the federal offence act and the BC Offence Act. They need to be amended to refer specifically to the authority of treaty first nations.
We need to confirm that treaty nation enforcement officers are peace officers without having to go to court to get this confirmation, provided they have the training.
We need to retain all of the authorities under the Indian Act as well as under the land code. One of the unfortunate aspects of treaty in British Columbia is that it's about taking away things from first nations. It's the opposite of what it should be. The minute Tla'amin walked through the treaty door, they lost their property transfer tax authority, FNLMA jurisdiction to appoint their own justices of the peace, property tax authority to enforce issues by adding them to property taxes, etc. That's not the way that it should be.
I was really happy to hear the chief of the Akwesasne speak about appointing their own justices of the peace. Tla'amin had that authority under the land code. They do not have it under treaty, and we need to get that back so that they can appoint culturally appropriate justices of the peace.
We need to confirm the authority to evict drug dealers. It's a huge problem in first nation communities. Under land code, FNMLA, we pass a community protection law and we evict drug dealers. I've been involved in a number of those. The nation passes a law. We ask the RCMP to enforce. If they do not enforce, we hire private security and we pass a council resolution. We designate someone as a dangerous individual and we evict them. We also have other measures, for restraining orders and so on. They're hard to enforce, because the federal system thinks that you need a criminal conviction and court orders, and we can't get those. There has to be respect for first nations dealing with their community safety and protection issues.
We also need to think that enforcement is not only about prosecution. Much of enforcement is education, but it is also ticketing. Right now, first nations in B.C. do not have access to municipal ticketing the way municipalities do. I don't know about other provinces, but we have to have ticketing enforcement, because it works. One of the things that really work in British Columbia and other provinces is that if I, as a non-aboriginal citizen, don't pay my traffic fines, I don't get my driver's licence renewed. That's a powerful and effective technique. Why don't first nations have that? If I don't pay my fines for illegal dumping, the municipality tags them onto my property taxes and sells my home. That's a good enforcement mechanism. First nations don't have that.
We also need to sort out issues with DFO. DFO is resisting efforts of Tla'amin to enforce their laws and protect their marine resources. Historically, the Tla'amin had traditional laws for protecting and managing their territory. They had bountiful resources until DFO came along and started mismanaging them. Right now, DFO is resisting Tla'amin's efforts.
I'll finish here. I know time is going to be running out shortly, but Tla'amin is an amazing, beautiful place where oysters grow in abundance. It's one of the few places in the world where you can drive through the park at Okeover and harvest a bucket of clams right from the beach. Tla'amin guardians try to protect that area. Unfortunately, DFO resists them. We have buses of tourists coming in, four busloads of 50 people each, tourists from Vancouver on a day trip, all overharvesting, taking all the oysters so Tla'amin can't get them. DFO will not support Tla'amin, and they in fact tell people that Tla'amin guardians have no enforcement powers.
I'll finish there. We have a number of other items that we could highlight, but those are some of our top 10.
Thank you.
Brooks Arcand-Paul
View Brooks Arcand-Paul Profile
Brooks Arcand-Paul
2021-05-13 11:39
[Witness spoke in Nêhiyawêwin and provided the following text:]
Ahâw nitotemtik kiatamiskâtinawâw kâhkîyaw, nitikawin sîpîysis, kipohtakaw ohciniya.
[Witness provided the following translation:]
Dear friends, I am greeting all of you in a good way, my name is sîpîysis, and I am from the Alexander First Nation.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Brooks Arcand-Paul. My traditional name is Sîpîysis, which means “little river” in nêhiyawewin, my people's language.
I'm the vice-president of the Indigenous Bar Association of Canada. I'm also an in-house counsel for the Alexander First Nation. I'm here today to represent the Indigenous Bar Association and to discuss the important topic of law enforcement on first nations reserves.
As a practitioner on reserve, and having primarily first nations in Alberta as clients while in private practice, I am intimately aware of the issues that exist within the framework of enforcement on reserve in Alberta and certainly on the Prairies. I've been dealing with this issue regularly in my practice. The same problems are highlighted time and time again.
First, we must acknowledge that self-government and self-determination won't happen if we fail to address the elephant in the room. That elephant is Canada's ongoing paternalism towards its indigenous partners in Confederation.
Our treaties have given this country the authority to exist. Before those treaties were concluded, this very country recognized that my ancestors, and those of other indigenous groups who entered into similar relationships with the Crown, had decision-making capacities, including the application and use of our own legal systems that were never subordinate to any government in Canada.
Further, Canadian courts have repeated since Confederation that indigenous peoples continue to have the right to use their laws for areas including, but not limited to, family law, adoption, and marriage, and have given deference to nations that enact their own laws and customs. For a piece of legislation such as the Indian Act or FNLMA to continue to exert paternalism is discriminatory. It is shameful for Canada to treat its partner in Confederation as incapable of making legal decisions outside the confines of legislation.
If we are truly intent on getting back to the relationship that was intended under our treaties and modern agreements, or as required on unceded territories, we have to reconceptualize what it means to recognize indigenous legal rights. If we're not doing a wholescale removal of the acts, we need to get creative in how we move forward together in a good way, as was intended when our ancestors both became beneficiaries of our continued sharing of the territories currently called Canada.
I will move to the next issue that first nations experience when it comes to the limited law-making rights afforded to them under the act. When a bylaw is intra vires a band council's authority, the most common and pressing issue remains enforcement—that police forces and the public prosecution services of Canada will not enforce these fully legal instruments under federal jurisdiction.
In terms of law enforcement, the first issue is the capacity of a first nation to draft, implement and enforce bylaws under existing regimes. It's expensive to draft bylaws. Many first nations don't have in-house counsel to assist them in drafting exercises to cover the many different layers that these bylaws must adhere to in order to be legally binding.
The issues may include, but aren't limited to, procedural fairness, privacy laws, human rights, charter rights and overall constitutionality.
Most recently, an RCMP detachment local to one of my clients stated that they are not able to enforce band bylaws on the reserve, with perhaps the exception of trespass bylaws, and that it was incumbent on first nations themselves to go through the onerous process of hiring an officer to enforce such bylaws. Additionally, the RCMP agent went on further to mention that some officers are not educated on how they could enforce such bylaws. However, I do want to highlight that there was an interest by the RCMP to assist in enforcement.
If they were given the tools to do so, first nations may be better suited to exercise the law-making capacities with the assistance of their neighbouring police detachments or through their own officers where applicable. This latter option obviously comes at the nation's own cost to draft bylaws; apply to become an authorized employer of an officer; purchase equipment, including appropriate vehicles, uniforms, firearms, etc.; and hire a fair complement of officers to ensure coverage to the nation. Many nations do not have spare funds to even consider engaging in these activities, as they have other pressing issues to deal with, including the ongoing demands of the pandemic.
Over the course of my work on these issues, I've been stonewalled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada with regard to the enforcement of bylaws for first nations.
Mr. Richstone raised this issue before the committee the other day.
The public prosecutions office is not seized with the ability to prosecute these bylaws, which Mr. Richstone affectionately referred to as “community laws”.
I would argue that such bylaws, formed under the act, are within the ambit of federal laws, given the first nations' stature within the federation. However, I would go one step further and recognize that Mr. Richstone was correct in his statement that laws passed by first nations should be attracted with the appropriate enforcement by all levels of law enforcement in Canada. Many of your agents are offering their willingness to do so, and I would further argue that they are trying to be good treaty partners in extending their willingness to enforce our laws. It is now your turn.
In sum, I make three major recommendations: a review of the bylaw-making capacities of first nations to amend the act to reflect that first nations have the authority to enact laws, not just bylaws; that such laws be adequately funded for first nations to develop and/or enforce; and finally, that such laws be enforced by those charged to do so, akin to the laws of other law-making jurisdictions in the federation, including your own.
Kinanâskomitin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Deborah Doss-Cody
View Deborah Doss-Cody Profile
Deborah Doss-Cody
2021-05-13 11:47
[Witness spoke in St’at’imcets and provided the following text:]
K’alhwá7al’ap nsek’wnúk’w7a. Dee Doss-Cody nskwátsitsa. St’at’imc, xaxl?i´pmeckan xaxli’p.
[Witness provided the following translation:]
Hello, friends and relatives. My name is Dee Doss-Cody. I am St’at’imc, from Fountain, crest of the hill.
[English]
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Dee Doss-Cody. I'm from the St'at'imc Nation and the Xaxli'p Fountain reserve.
I am the chief officer of the Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service. We were established in 1988. We are a program-funded, stand-alone police service, the only stand-alone police service in the province of British Columbia.
Stl'atl'imx nation consists of 11 communities, and the Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service provides policing to 10 of the 11 communities in the Stl'atl'imx nation.
The Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service falls within two different RCMP policing jurisdictions in the Stl'atl'imx territory. We are part of the Sea to Sky RCMP district as well as the Kelowna district, which is a southeast district. Our traditional territory spans both those districts. As you will note, communicating with two different entities and two different Crown options creates some challenges for the Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service.
We are governed by the provincial Police Act in the province of British Columbia. We have an MOU with the IIO, the Independent Investigations Office.
Our police officers are trained at the Justice Institute of British Columbia. Our training is the same as the Vancouver city police service or any other municipal police service in the province of British Columbia. Our officers can apply to other agencies if they wish to go forward and resume their career with another police agency. We have the exact same training in the province, and we adhere to the same police standards in British Columbia.
We have entered into a 10-year funding agreement, which is a tripartite agreement with the 10 Stl'atl'imx nation communities, the Province of British Columbia and Canada. The chiefs of the Stl'atl'imx have signed that agreement, and that is how we came to be.
We do have a culture component to our policing. The Stl'atl'imx nation has a declaration day, which was just a couple of days ago. In 1911, a declaration of the Lillooet tribes was signed. Every year, that day is recognized, much like Canada Day, if you will. Each time a new officer joins our police service, they are sworn in. The nation has created their own swearing-in ceremony. When we have a new officer, they are drummed in and welcomed in by the nation, and they then come and dance in. They are welcomed in by the nation as an acknowledgement of their choosing to join the Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service. That is one of the things that we do.
The Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service, as you have heard from the FNCPA, is not legislated. We are a program. We are funded as a supplemental service. We are not a supplemental police service; we are the police service for the Stl'atl'imx nation, but we are funded with program dollars, and programs can be cut, so there's no sustainability. There's fear that if it's decided, we will no longer exist.
The Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service has one of the highest Criminal Code stats in the province of British Columbia. We are second to the Victoria police service. We investigate everything from domestic assault and sexual assaults to serious motor vehicle accidents. We get assistance from specialized police services in the RCMP. If there's a fatal accident, we have them come in, or we have IHIT, the integrated homicide investigation team, come in if we have a homicide that occurs in our community. We do rely on the RCMP and we partner with them. We have a good working relationship. We are currently working on a new MOU with the RCMP so that it's clear to everyone what our roles are in our policing jurisdictions.
We do have restorative justice in our nation. We have utilized it. It is effective. Currently with COVID, it is challenged, due to the fact that people can't get together. That creates some issues.
Currently there are 12 police officers. We did receive extra funding to recruit four more officers, so we will be up to a total of 14. We did receive $2.5 million in funding for a new building. There is a new building in the Mount Currie area. Another one is being built in the Líl'wat area.
We do not have cells. We utilize the RCMP cells when we arrest someone and bring them before a JP to attend court. Our travel police territory is 2.2 million hectares—that is 8,494 square miles or 22,000 kilometres. That is how big our territorial jurisdiction is. It is huge. We actually did an experiment where we patrolled the area to see if we could fit that in within one of our shifts. It took one of my officers a whole eight hours to go from one end of the territory to the other. And that's not stopping to go to the washroom, to eat, or anything like that. That is just driving through and being that body that the people see from here up, the police officer with no legs, if you will.
Keith Blake
View Keith Blake Profile
Keith Blake
2021-05-06 12:20
Good afternoon, everyone.
[Witness spoke in Tsuut'ina]
[English]
My name is Keith Blake. I'm the chief of police of the Tsuut'ina Nation. I'm also an executive member of the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association and am proud to represent 36 self-administered first nations police services across our country.
First, I want to thank you for this opportunity. It's a critically important discussion, and our communities have been speaking long and loud in relation to this very topic.
As this discussion relates to the enforcement of first nations, which really falls under the police jurisdiction, I thought it would initially be important to touch on the first nations policing program. I was fortunate enough to hear some of the other panellists, and this was a discussion point. I thought it might be good, however, to put it through a first nations policing lens.
The FNPP is over 35 years old and is in dire need of immediate change. The program is a signed funding agreement—in our case a tripartite agreement between the nation, the province and the federal government—which unfortunately creates inequities and unfair restrictions for first nations police services that are not experienced by the traditional mainstream policing services.
The FNPP has not yet been designated as an essential service and it falls under, as was mentioned earlier, the grants and contributions program. The funding is neither long-term nor sustainable, and our funding agreements, specifically in our case, are really year-to-year extensions.
This funding model truly does not allow us to properly prepare and strategize for the community's needs and public safety. It's also funded only for what could be termed core policing function—that is, responsive models. We're not funded to have community programming, prevention or the specified and specialty units other police services have.
It's important and, I think, really critical to note that former public safety minister Ralph Goodale stated that the program “does not cut the mustard” and is in dire need of change. The current minister, Bill Blair, stated that the FNPP needs updating.
Canada has a responsibility to improve first nations policing by making it an essential service and providing adequate funding for the nations to build and sustain proper infrastructure, including governance models.
This unstable funding model has really created an air of instability within our services, whereby our officers and our staff members don't feel that this is a program that will be sustained, and therefore feel that perhaps their profession and their jobs may not be sustained.
This disparity also includes what we receive in our salaries and in our pension and benefits. We end up usually losing our really high-quality officers to more mainstream policing services that have a sustainable funding model at a higher rate.
To sum up, our first nation police services are underfunded and understaffed and face unfair barriers and impediments; yet we still see unprecedented successes in effective, efficient and culturally appropriate community-based policing.
I will also state that we were very happy to hear of the infusion into the program in the last federal budget. We're guardedly optimistic that it will bring some needed support and changes within the program.
Speaking to the enforcement side, the enforcement role that the police undertake is just one important part of the structure of the justice system in our communities. There is the legislative piece, the enforcement piece, the prosecution and the adjudication component. Though we recognize that not many communities have the direct ability to change the way funding and the justice systems correlate, it is important to consider the historical traumas experienced by indigenous peoples, throughout our country and for generations, while considering the ongoing harm that inadequate funding causes in the justice resources that government bodies provide; it is to one of the most vulnerable populations within our country.
Nation-legislated offences are an important aspect of self-determination. They are created from a community lens to address the individual nation's self-identification and the specific needs of the community and the challenges they face.
A key piece of the justice framework is the prosecution of lawfully enacted nation legislation. Most jurisdictions across the country do not recognize or prosecute nation-legislated offences. The challenge most indigenous communities face in this country is the refusal or the reluctance to have provincial crown prosecutors or federal prosecutors undertake the prosecution of these nation-legislation cases.
Although this is unfortunately the situation that most communities find themselves in, there are glimmers of hope. In this instance I'm going to provide a brief glimpse into our Tsuut'ina Nation justice model.
We have a signed agreement with the Province of Alberta for what is termed our peacemakers court, which is unique. Across this province there are no other communities that have this agreement, so we are unique. Our court is configured in a healing circle and is mandated to have an indigenous crown prosecutor, an indigenous judge and indigenous court workers.
It also has a peacemaker present, who oversees this process. The peacemaking process can be utilized if the offence falls under certain criteria. Some offences are ineligible—things like manslaughter or sexual assault. The individual can be recommended throughout the peacemaking process and can be recommended by the Crown, by the judge or by the defence, and the recommendation can occur any time throughout that process, pre-charge or post-charge.
The process requires the approval of the victim. It is also an agreement that the offender must enter into. It requires the offender to appear before a peacemaking tribunal. That tribunal will consist of formally mediated, trained community members and elders. It's designed to be restorative and less punitive, and it really does look at the root causes of crime.
This peacemaking process enables the justice system to address what I spoke to earlier—the root cause of crime—as well as both Criminal Code offences and nation-legislated offences, through a traditional value system that provides the community a voice in determining what an appropriate resolution may be.
Although there are still many challenges and still much work to be done in indigenous communities across the country, I want to thank the committee for giving me this opportunity. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
David Chartrand
View David Chartrand Profile
David Chartrand
2021-04-15 12:35
There's a sad part about all this, when you look at the history of it and why we're where we are today in society: All that history is a reflection. My mom used to always teach me this. I speak fluent Saulteaux, and when I used to leave, my mom always told me:
[Witness spoke in Saulteaux and provided the following text:]
Gaawin-wiikaa waniik ke kan aan-di dibi ka ondaad izi ian.
[English]
She said, “Never forget where you come from”, and I never will. I grew up very, very poor, and I was raised by a single mother. I understand what poverty is. I understand what struggle is. However, we lived a life, and I'd never change it in a million years. I love the way we grew up, even though we were very poor.
At the end of the day, if you look at where we are in society, we shouldn't be here. I'll give a perfect example, and it's such a pictorial way to look at it.
In 1870, when Manitoba was created, the Métis leadership at the time set aside 1.4 million acres of land for the children. Section 32 of the Constitution was for the parents, but the 1.4 million acres of land was set aside for the children.
The Mennonites were given 586,000 acres. I mention them because they're a perfect example of what production can do and what the future can give you if you work as a community, and if we allow it to be run as a community and don't interfere. We can look at the progress of the Mennonites. They had less than half the land set aside, but today in Manitoba they're the richest, most powerful people in many aspects. I'm very proud of them. I'm seriously proud of them.
When you look at the Métis nation, we were chased off our lands, pushed away to live wherever we could find. We were called the “road allowance people”. Imagine for a second if our lives did not have interference, and we didn't get chased off our land. We'd be the most powerful and richest people in Manitoba today. There's no doubt. We're very strong thinkers economically and strong business people. We're hard-working people.
When you look at where we are today, a change needs to happen. We can't keep having society or Canadians as a whole say, “We're tired of paying for the indigenous people,” and then we just say, “You're using our land, you're using our assets and you're taking all our riches.” There's an imbalance that happens in ideologies with the growth of Canada and educating everybody. We need to find a balance in how we come together. This is the future. The future we're talking about today is taking us there.
I speak to industry, and I guarantee you that once they really see and hear you, they're not afraid of this anymore. They've gone past that. They're ready for business. They're ready to sit down. Trust me. I invest millions in shareholder institutions in this country and outside this country, and any shareholder who's investing wants to be sure their money is being well planned and well protected and that they're going to make money that will return to them. Industry knows now that they can trust a new pattern, a new process, a blueprint. It is where this is going to take us.
We cannot make a change, as I said earlier, nation to nation and government to government that is going to change things 10 years or 20 years from now. I guarantee you that right now. I've been fighting this since I was 18 years old and I'm 61 years old today. When you look at it from that perspective, change is coming and UNDRIP is another pathway that's going to really let us play catch-up so that indigenous and non-indigenous people can compare economically, educationally and so forth. It's about catching up. We're slowly catching up, which is something we should have done 50 years ago or 80 years ago.
Lorraine Whitman
View Lorraine Whitman Profile
Lorraine Whitman
2021-04-15 13:08
Thank you.
Good afternoon. Kwe Kwe. Wela’lin.
My name is Lorraine Whitman, Grandmother White Sea Turtle, and I am speaking to you today from Mi'kma'ki, the unceded traditional territory of the Mi'kmaq L’nu people.
I would like to thank the members of this committee for asking us to appear before them to talk about Bill C-15.
NWAC is the voice of the grassroots indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people in Canada. As such, we have different perspectives from the male-led national indigenous organizations when it comes to issues like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
I am going to turn the floor over to Adam Bond, legal counsel for NWAC, who will be going into the technical details of the bill and the UN declaration.
Before I do, I would put on the record that considering the importance of UNDRIP and the implementation of it in Canada, we are more than disappointed at how the consultation, or I should say the lack of consultation, has occurred. Indigenous women were not meaningfully consulted. Where is the honour of the Crown?
I want to bring this to your attention, because this is not an exception but rather the norm. This must stop. UNDRIP is about us, our families, our communities, the thousands of pages of the national inquiry testimony and its calls for justice. Specifically, call to action 1.3 demands that government end the political marginalization of indigenous women. Our exclusion from this important consultation flies in the face of these demands.
On saying that, I am going to ask our legal counsel Adam Bond to take over from here.
Wela’lin.
Gerri Sharpe
View Gerri Sharpe Profile
Gerri Sharpe
2021-04-15 13:13
[Witness spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following translation:]
Good morning. I am joining you from Yellowknife and I am happy to be here.
[English]
President Kudloo has connectivity challenges this morning and sends her regrets.
The passage of Bill C-15 is important to all Inuit women and girls in Canada. Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee on this legislation—
Gerri Sharpe
View Gerri Sharpe Profile
Gerri Sharpe
2021-04-15 13:26
[Witness spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following translation:]
Good morning. I am joining you from Yellowknife, and I am happy to be here.
[English]
President Kudloo had connectivity challenges this morning and sends her regrets.
The passage of Bill C-15 is important to all Inuit women and girls in Canada.
Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee on this legislation. With me today is Beth Symes, Pauktuutit's legal counsel.
I was born in Yellowknife to David Sharpe and Maudie Qitsualik. My mother is the oldest of 17 born to Gideon Qitsualik. My grandfather Qitsualik helped shape the Nunavut land claims agreement in which education and self determination were key. He is also one of the seal hunters on the back of the 1972 two-dollar bill.
My childhood was spent in Nova Scotia and Gjoa Haven, an Inuit hamlet in Nunavut. I was among one of the first Inuit women in 60 or 70 years to receive facial tattoos to strengthen my connection to my Inuit culture and identity. I work towards the advancement of Inuit for my children and my grandchildren.
Inuit women in the mining industry are an example of the larger issue of the lack of respect for the voices of Inuit women and the partnership that is needed with all members of our community for the future resource development in Inuit Nunangat and to make progress on reconciliation with Inuit. Progress with Bill C-15 will advance by supporting Inuit and project developers to find a common ground.
Pauktuutit is the voice of Inuit women wherever they live in Canada. I am the vice-president of Pauktuutit. Our board has representatives from each of the four regions of Inuit Nunangat as well as representatives from urban centres and youth representatives.
For 36 years, Pauktuutit has been the national voice for the rights of Inuit women and girls, working towards our health and education and economic, physical, emotional and social security. Pauktuutit had legal standing at the MMIWG inquiry and was at every hearing where Inuit families told their stories. Pauktuutit and ITK are co-chairing the Inuit working group that is writing the Inuit chapter on the MMIWG national action plan.
Pauktuutit is also active on the international stage on the rights of indigenous women. Every year, Pauktuutit participates in the session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women and the UN indigenous peoples permanent forum.
In October 2020, Pauktuutit was invited to two consultations with CIRNA and Justice on a preliminary draft of Bill C-15. As well, Pauktuutit filed a brief asking for changes to the draft legislation. Bill C-15 incorporates many of the changes that Pauktuutit sought.
Bill C-15 is a step forward for Inuit women and all Canadians on the journey towards reconciliation. It is important because it states that Inuit women will have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that affect them; the right to improvement of economic and social conditions including education, housing, health, employment and social security; the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; and the same rights and freedoms guaranteed to Inuit men. As well, Inuit women are able to enforce all their rights in the UNDRIP act wherever they and their children live in Canada.
For all of these important reasons, Pauktuutit is not seeking any amendments to the legislation. Pauktuutit asks members of this committee to work towards a quick passage of Bill C-15.
I conclude by addressing the development of the action plan to implement UNDRIP. The action plan must be distinction based. Gender equality is a deeply held value for all Canadians. The federal government must use a GBA+ lens to develop the action plan. The voices of all Inuit women must be heard.
Bill C-15 is critical to closing the gaps for Inuit women with other women in Canada in education, culture, language, health, housing and economic security. It is also critical to realizing the hopes and aspirations we have for our children and our grandchildren. The passage of C-15 is also a historical opportunity for Canada to advance the path of reconciliation with Inuit and other indigenous people.
Qujannamiik. Thank you.
Perry Bellegarde
View Perry Bellegarde Profile
Perry Bellegarde
2021-04-13 11:06
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all of the committee members for agreeing to the 15-minute time.
[Witness spoke in Cree]
[English]
That was just a little bit in Cree for my friends and relatives.
I'm very happy to be here with all of you.
I used one of my spirit names, King Thunderbird Child. That is one of the names I carry. I'm from Little Black Bear First Nation and Treaty 4 territory in southern Saskatchewan. I gave thanks to the creator for this beautiful day and I acknowledged as well the Algonquin peoples here in the Odawa territory, where I'm sitting and working from today, their ancestral lands.
Chairman Bratina and honourable committee members, thank you so much for this opportunity.
I also want to acknowledge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who is with me on this presentation, and Willie Littlechild as well. I acknowledge them and thank them for their work.
Our Assembly of First Nations has long supported the adoption of a clear and strong legislative blueprint to advance the implementation of the United Nations declaration.
I appeared before this committee three years ago to support the adoption of Bill C-262, the private member's bill brought forward by Romeo Saganash, so I'm very pleased to now speak in support of a government bill that builds on the foundations of Bill C-262.
The Assembly of First Nations chiefs-in-assembly have passed numerous resolutions calling for the full implementation of the declaration. These resolutions included support for the adoption of Bill C-262.
When a filibuster prevented Bill C-262 from coming to a final vote in the Senate, where it did have sufficient support to be passed, our Assembly of First Nations chiefs-in-assembly passed a resolution in December 2019 calling for a government bill as strong or stronger than Bill C-262. That's my mandate. That's the direction the chiefs of Canada gave me as national chief: to get a government bill that's as strong as Bill C-262.
Bill C-15 meets that test. Bill C-15 provides a principled and pragmatic path forward to ensure that Canada respects and upholds fundamental human rights that have been affirmed and reaffirmed by the international community many times through consensus resolutions of the UN General Assembly.
I want to emphasize that the declaration did not create new rights, and neither does this proposed new bill. They also do not impinge on or detract from any inherent or treaty rights.
When I testified before this committee about Bill C-262, I felt very strongly that a collaborative and coordinated approach to implementing the declaration was critical to closing the social and economic gap facing first nations people.
Today, I am even more convinced that implementation legislation is the right way forward. I also applaud the work of elected officials in other jurisdictions who have taken steps to implement the United Nations declaration and note the chiefs' work with British Columbia in achieving the unanimous passage of a law in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia on November 28, 2019.
Given the deep racism and discrimination that first nations still face every day, Bill C-15's critical commitment to combat all forms of discrimination makes this bill both timely and urgent. I have seen how in B.C., with the implementation of the declaration, important work has been undertaken to address the racism against indigenous peoples in the health care system, using the standards in the declaration to bring people together in the health care system.
Now, we know that every bill can be improved. Since the tabling of Bill C-15, we have heard critiques and suggestions for improvement—most importantly, from indigenous peoples ourselves. Some AFN regional chiefs and first nations leadership have appeared before you and have identified areas for improvement from their regional perspectives. You should listen carefully to those positions. In Canada, some first nations are in support of Bill C-15 and some are against Bill C-15, while others support it with amendments.
What I am tabling today is a contribution from the Assembly of First Nations that constitutes some relatively straightforward suggestions for improvements. These are intended to respond to the overall objective of first nations to make the bill stronger and clearer. So this is indeed an historic moment.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada looked closely at the UN declaration and concluded that the declaration was “the framework for reconciliation at all levels and across all sectors of Canadian society.” They set that out as their first principle of reconciliation. That's how important the declaration is as a source of guidance and as a foundation for action.
Canadians have embraced the cause of reconciliation; implementation legislation is crucial to bringing that commitment to life.
With the improvements we've tabled, Bill C-15 will better enable us to move forward in a collaborative and coordinated way, consistent with first nations treaty and inherent rights and Canada's legal obligations.
I'd like to review those 12 improvements right now.
Number one is preamble clause 6. It's our recommendation that this provision is not accurate and should be deleted.
Number two is preamble clause 8. It's our recommendation that the word “racism” be added to this clause. Racism is a critical daily concern for first nations, and we believe strongly that it should be named.
Number three is preamble clause 9. It's our recommendation that the paragraph include explicit reference to the doctrines of discovery and terra nullius, and to be clear that, as the Supreme Court of Canada said in the Tsilhquot'in Nation case in 2014, these doctrines should not be part of the law or policies of Canada.
With regard to clause 2(2), it's our recommendation that the non-derogation clause be revised to more accurately reflect the working of the UN declaration, article 37, the previous approach in Bill C-262, and wording has been provided for you to consider.
Number five, it's also recommended that you consider adding two new clauses in the interpretation section, clause 2, to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation on some matters of great importance to first nations. The first of these two new clauses is clause 2(4):
For greater certainty, the rights of Indigenous peoples, including treaty rights, must be interpreted flexibly so as to permit their evolution over time and any approach constituting frozen rights must be rejected.
This provision is important because we cannot permit interpretation of treaty rights or any of the rights of indigenous peoples as frozen in time. Approaches that reflect stereotypes and old ideas, especially on treaty rights, must be overcome as an ongoing obstacle to moving forward.
Number six, and the second of the two new clauses, is 2(5):
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to diminish or extinguish the rights of Indigenous peoples, including treaty rights.
This provision makes it clear that extinguishment of the rights of indigenous peoples is not acceptable under any circumstances and cannot be part of Canada's laws or policies. Indigenous peoples have been subject to policies that sought to extinguish our rights and identities, such as the residential schools and other unilateral crown policies. Extinguishment is a systemic barrier to reconciliation that Canada must permanently and clearly reject.
Number seven, it's our recommendation that the subtitle for clause 4 or the purpose section is incorrect and it should be titled “Purposes”. Romeo Saganash spoke to this issue in his appearance on March 11. This is an obvious grammatical problem, but could lead to inaccurate interpretation in the future and should be fixed, as it has been flagged by first nations as a concern. I urge you to correct this at this study of the bill by committee members.
Number eight, in this same clause, it's recommended that the word “framework” be removed. As acknowledged in the preamble of this bill, the UN declaration itself is the framework, and reference to other frameworks simply cause confusion.
Number nine, I also note that the reference to the “Government of Canada” in the purpose clause 4 must be removed because Canada's obligation extends not just to government, but to Parliament, and this wording as it currently reads is inaccurate. The phrase “Government of Canada” could simply be removed, and I recommend you do that as we show in the table submitted.
Number 10, it is recommended that the time frame set out in clause 6 for the action plan be reduced from the three years to two years. Implementation is already long overdue. Canada should have begun implementing the declaration when it was adopted as a global minimum standard in 2007. Canada has been committed to implementing the declaration without qualification since 2017. I don't think it's necessary to wait another three years.
Number 11—which is similar to the preamble provision in number eight—the recommendation is to add the word “racism”. This word also must be added to paragraph 6(2)(a), as the wording is tracked in both parts of the bill.
Finally, number 12, I recommend that the words “implement”, “implementing” and “implementation” be used in the bill only in relation to implementing the declaration. For all other uses, I recommend that expressions like “carry out” be substituted, and you will see those suggestions in the table attached. If I have missed other examples, as the First Nations Leadership Council of British Columbia has indicated in their submission to you, I recommend that we adopt those recommendations to ensure that the entire bill is corrected, so that “implementation” is only used in relation to implementing the declaration.
Bill C-15 deserves the support of this committee and the support of all members of Parliament and senators. In my view, the improvements we have brought forward are modest and reasonable, and I urge you to adopt them when your committee gets to that part of your deliberations.
To conclude, I want to be very clear. The AFN is eager to see Bill C-15 move forward to final votes in the House of Commons and the Senate as soon as possible. First nations leaders and legal experts like Chief Littlechild poured their heart and soul into the creation of the declaration. They did this for a reason. They went to the United Nations year after year for more than two decades because they saw this international human rights instrument as key to building a new relationship with Canada.
Canadian government officials were also active participants through that long process at the United Nations. In fact, Canada deserves a lot of credit for helping to build support among other states so that the declaration could be finalized and adopted. This is something that we accomplished together and something that Canadians can be proud of. Yet, despite what was accomplished, more than 13 years have passed now since the declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly, more than 13 years since the UN proclaimed the declaration as “the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples [in all regions] of the world.” In this time we have had expressions of support for the declaration from federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments of all political stripes.
Canada has been part of numerous consensus resolutions at the UN committing to domestic implementation. Canada has made commitments to the indigenous peoples of the world that it would implement the declaration. It's time to complete this and make good on these commitments by working together. Canada has added the commitment to implement the UN declaration into the text of other laws passed by Parliament, including important bills on the inherent right of self-government in relation to child welfare and indigenous languages. What we still lack, however, is the legislation that implements the declaration and sets us on a course of recognition of rights and provides a framework for reconciliation, as the TRC wisely called for action. Bill C-15 provides that path. It's important for first nations, and I believe it is important for all Canadians to seize this opportunity now. We need to hear the words “royal assent” before the end of June.
Thank you. Kinanaskomitinawow.
Terry Teegee
View Terry Teegee Profile
Terry Teegee
2021-03-23 11:19
Mahsi cho.
[Witness spoke in Dene]
[English]
Members of Parliament, first of all, I want to acknowledge the territory that I am on, the Lheidli T'enneh Dene people of the Dakelh territory near Prince George, British Columbia. I want to also acknowledge the territories that you are broadcasting or attending this meeting from: that they are indigenous lands and have always been indigenous lands since time immemorial.
I want to thank the committee for the invitation to offer some remarks. I am honoured to speak on the topic of federal legislation to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This marks a significant turning point in the history of this country and follows a historic occasion in the province of British Columbia. On November 28, 2019, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, DRIPA, passed unanimously in the B.C. legislature with support from all parties in British Columbia.
DRIPA was widely supported by first nations in British Columbia. It represents a sea change from the provincial government's tradition of denying and opposing our titles, rights and existence as distinct peoples and an acceptance of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission call to action 43 “to adopt and implement the...Declaration...as the framework for reconciliation”.
This was a turning point in B.C. While much hard work lies ahead, we are starting to see a shift toward the human rights-based approach required by the declaration.
As an example, last fall the B.C. government commissioned a comprehensive review of anti-indigenous racism in the provincial health care system, promoting article 24 of the declaration and affirming indigenous peoples' rights to access to health care without discrimination.
Historic and recent events demonstrate the imperative for concrete measures to address racism in our society and the responsibility of the public governments to act. The United Nations declaration is a global human rights instrument, and human rights cannot be fully enjoyed where there is racism and discrimination.
The anti-indigenous racism and discrimination that continue today underscore the appropriateness of the human rights-based approach to reconciliation. Reconciliation cannot be based on denial of rights or racism. This is inherently contradictory and incompatible with upholding human rights.
Bill C-15, with the improvements, is an important next step in Canada's implementation of the declaration. It is a long overdue pathway for change, predicated on respect for human and inherent rights and the repudiation and eradication of racist and colonial constructs and doctrines that have no place in this country or our relationships.
The preamble is important, as it speaks to our collective history in Canada and the legacy of colonialism that has had tragic and profound impacts on first nations across the country, underscoring the need for the United Nations declaration to apply in Canada.
The bill must be clear that Canada is repudiating the doctrines of advocating superiority, like the doctrine of discovery and terra nullius. All interpretations of indigenous rights from an era based on colonial denial cannot continue. It must also be clear that implementation of the United Nations declaration is a responsibility of all in government to take actions and ensure consistency of laws as required under article 5.
Further, it is imperative that the co-operation and consultation carried out under the bill reflect the constitutional relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples and key standards of the declaration, such as free, prior and informed consent. The bill must clarify and specify mechanisms and a plan needed for achieving consistency of laws. The new pathway will see laws of Canada shift to be more inclusive and respectful of the rights and our unique relationship and see new actions and approaches of partnership and participation.
Bill C-15 will complement the B.C. declaration act and contribute to the strengthened foundation of Crown-indigenous relations and reconciliation in B.C. where treaties were not concluded throughout the province and the land question remains largely outstanding, as does the implementation of pre-Confederation Douglas treaties.
The implementation of the declaration through laws and action by both Canada and the Province of B.C. will be a strong foundation for innovation and principled negotiations, improving and expediting the negotiation and conclusion of robust, enduring rights-based treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements in British Columbia.
The work of upholding and protecting indigenous human rights is urgent, particularly during a global health pandemic, when human rights are vulnerable and unordinarily impacted. The urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples is stated in the preamble. There are many actions that can and must be taken immediately and not delayed. This should be reflected in the time frames in the bill.
Chiefs in British Columbia have indicated that they believe this legislation meets the floor of the former Bill C-262, although they have identified areas where improvements are needed to address some drafting issues that may cause confusion and to reinforce issues of importance, such as those I have referred to here. We have provided you with a written table of our recommended improvements. We are happy to make ourselves and our technical staff available to further brief you, should you wish for more information regarding our position.
I thank you for the time today to speak in support of Bill C-15.
Mahsi cho.
Dillon Johnson
View Dillon Johnson Profile
Dillon Johnson
2021-03-23 12:20
[Witness spoke in Sliammon and provided the following text:]
ʔaǰečepʔot. toqʷanən kʷəṫᶿ nan. tawač ɬaʔəmɛn. čɛčɛhatanapɛč.
[Witness provided the following translation:]
How are you all doing? My name is toq?an?n. I am from Tla’amin Nation. I thank you all.
[English]
Honourable members of Parliament, thank you for the invitation to provide some remarks on Bill C-15 from a modern treaty perspective.
My name is Dillon Johnson. My Tla'amin name is toq?an?n and I'm a member of the Tla'amin Nation executive council. As mentioned in my sound check, the Tla'amin Nation territory is located in the area now more commonly known as the Sunshine Coast of B.C. We are a Northern Coast Salish nation that negotiated a modern treaty that took effect in 2016.
Tla'amin Nation is a member of the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, or LCAC, which was formed in 2003 by modern treaty holders to collectively address modern treaty implementation issues that are of a federal nature. Modern treaties are comprehensive land claims agreements. The first was the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, entered into in 1975. Twenty-six modern treaties now exist in B.C., Yukon, NWT, Nunavut, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador and cover more than 40% of Canada's land mass.
Tla'amin Nation is also a member of the Alliance of BC Modern Treaty Nations, which was formed in 2018 to collectively address modern treaty implementation issues that are of a provincial nature. All eight modern treaty nations in B.C. are members of the alliance, and we are currently actively engaged with the province on developing an action plan to implement B.C.'s UN declaration legislation, which is quite similar to Bill C-15, and came into force in November 2019.
Our messages in that work are similar to the messages that I am pleased to be able to share with the committee today. I'll focus primarily on what many consider, from a modern treaty perspective, to be the most significant provision of the declaration, namely, article 37, and then I'll close with a few points on the action plan required under clause 6 of the bill.
Article 37 states, in items one and two, that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties...” and that “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as diminishing or eliminating the rights of indigenous peoples contained in treaties...”.
The effect of article 37 is clear: Every other article set out in the declaration must be read in the light of the primacy of the right of modern treaty holders in Canada to have their treaties recognized, observed and enforced.
I must say that this is not to minimize or detract from the importance of the other articles set out in the declaration, each of which must be implemented to enable the full recognition, promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. Treaty rights are already recognized in section 35 of the Constitution, but those rights have too often not been observed by politicians in their legislative initiatives, nor by officials in their administrative actions or when exercising statutory authority.
The requirement under clause 5 of the bill that government “must...take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration” means ensuring treaty rights will not be diminished or eliminated by legislation or any administrative action contemplated by legislation.
This is what article 37 requires, so when enacting legislation, entering agreements, adopting policies or contemplating administrative action, government must determine whether doing so would diminish or eliminate a right under a modern treaty, and when exercising statutory authority, every statutory decision-maker must ensure that their decision is consistent with the recognition, observation and enforcement of modern treaty rights.
The declaration recognizes the distinct standing of indigenous peoples with treaties. In light of this, it seems appropriate that the action plan contemplated by clause 6 of the bill should have a separate chapter for modern treaty partners. In my view as a representative of a modern treaty partner, an effective action plan should include an upfront commitment to the timely, effective and fully resourced implementation of modern treaties and detailed actions to support this commitment.
Unfortunately, the timely, effective and fully resourced implementation of treaties has not been a priority for the Government of Canada. When we entered into our treaties, the government repeatedly avowed that modern treaties are the ultimate expression of reconciliation. However, time and time again, we have encountered challenges in advancing our government-to-government relationship and our shared commitment to treaty implementation.
This act and the development and implementation of the action plan provide the Government of Canada and its modern treaty partners a unique opportunity to transform our government-to-government relationship and align it with the requirements of the declaration. We are committed to working collaboratively, efficiently and productively with the government to build the kind of treaty partnership that all sides envisioned when we entered into our treaties.
Thank you for the time today. I look forward to the question period.
Brenda Gunn
View Brenda Gunn Profile
Brenda Gunn
2021-03-11 11:12
[Witness spoke in Northern Michif]
Hello, my name is Brenda Gunn. I live in Winnipeg and my family is from the Red River.
I am Métis, and, as noted by the chair, I am an associate professor at the University of Manitoba Faculty of Law. I have worked in both international and constitutional law, including the application of international human rights law in Canada, for almost 20 years now. I've developed a handbook on implementing the UN declaration and I've done many presentations on the UN declaration and how to begin implementing it domestically.
Today, I am speaking from Treaty 1 territory and the homeland of the Métis nation, my home territory. I want to acknowledge also the Algonquin people, as the House of Commons is located on unceded Algonquin territory.
Thank you for the invitation to be here today. I am very grateful to be here and I want to acknowledge my co-panellist as well.
I will start by saying that on March 22, 2018, I sat before this committee, invited to present on Bill C-262. As I prepared for my presentation today, I was wondering what I should say, thinking about what has changed and evolved over the past three years. I kept returning to the same thought: it is devastating that we have lost these three years, three years that could have been spent developing a national action plan building on the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the national inquiry, three years where indigenous peoples have continued to have lower socio-economic and health outcomes than other Canadians. Three years is a long time. In fact, it's a lifetime to my daughter.
I support this legislation because I think it is an important step toward reconciliation, toward recognizing inherent human rights, toward a fairer and more just Canada for all.
When speaking about the UN declaration, and why I believe it to be the framework for reconciliation, I often highlight four key preambular paragraphs that I'm going to read out to all of you now.
The first is, “Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such”.
The second is the UN is “Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests”.
The third is the UN is “Convinced that the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in this Declaration will enhance harmonious and cooperative relations between the State and indigenous peoples, based on principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith”.
Finally, the fourth is that the UN “Solemnly proclaims the following United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect”.
What these four preambular paragraphs tell me is that in Canada we need to stop believing in mythologies that recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples is going to somehow tear Canada apart. We have to accept that we are broken, that indigenous peoples have paid too high a price for the development of Canada for too long. We have to accept that the only way to reconcile is to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and shift from a colonial relationship to a relationship based on justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith.
With this understanding of why we have a UN declaration, and its significance in Canada, I want to just highlight one key aspect to the substantive rights included within the UN declaration. Specifically, I want to note that the UN declaration includes economic, social and cultural rights in areas such as language rights, education, health care, housing and economic development, all of which are critical to the exercise of civil and political rights.
Under the international human rights system, there is no hierarchy of rights.
Under Bill C-15, a national action plan that can be developed is critical to ensure that economic, social and cultural rights receive the same level of attention and consideration as political and civil rights.
During the prolonged debate over Bill C-262 there was unfortunate fearmongering that claimed that it introduced uncertainty, highlighted concerns around indigenous peoples' right to free, prior and informed consent, and implied that indigenous peoples might try to stop all resource development projects from proceeding.
From my perspective, these so-called concerns highlight the need for a better grasp of the UN declaration in Canada and the need for a coordinated effort to implement the UN declaration into Canadian law in a way that builds upon the over 20 years of international human rights jurisprudence on which the UN declaration is based. Canada was very slow in turning its support toward the UN declaration. There is a lot of work to do. We've lost a lot of time and now is the time for action.
While Bill C-15 is not going to resolve all problem and tensions between indigenous peoples in Canada, it can be part of the solution. Bill C-15 includes some critical steps toward developing a plan to implement and realize indigenous people's inherent rights. It includes important accountability measures to ensure Parliament puts words into action. It addresses some of the misunderstandings of the application of the UN declaration in Canada.
Marsi. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Marlene Poitras
View Marlene Poitras Profile
Marlene Poitras
2021-02-02 11:07
[Witness spoke in Cree]
[English]
Members of the committee, friends and relatives, thank you for inviting me here today to share the perspectives of the Assembly of First Nations. I'm honoured to be on the unceded territory of Treaty 6.
Before discussing the proposed legislation, I would like to give committee members a brief history of the Assembly of First Nations advocacy and leadership that led to the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, the reason we are all here today.
Prior to the creation of the TRC, the AFN was a party to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. At that time, we stressed that compensation alone would not achieve the goals of reconciliation and healing. Rather, a comprehensive approach would also require truth-telling, healing and public education. From this, the TRC was created, resulting in 94 calls to action. I thank everyone involved in the commission, including recently retired senator, Murray Sinclair.
It has now been almost six years since the release of the final report of the TRC and its calls to action. While progress to implement all 94 calls has been slow, I am hopeful that this government's recent attempt to implement calls to action finally proceeds. We cannot waste time anymore. Ensuring first nations are included in Canada's citizenship oath will go far to symbolically affirm what first nations have known all along and what is already inferred in Canada's constitution: Our aboriginal and treaty rights already existed prior to the creation of Canada.
Here in Alberta, Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 first nations are sovereign peoples and nations. Treaties were signed to allow us to share the land and to allow for peaceful coexistence. They were not agreements by first nations to give up their sovereignty, laws, forms of governance or right to self-determination over the lands and their people. While true reconciliation goes beyond implementing all 94 calls to action, implementing this initiative will better enable new Canadians and first nations to begin the journey of peaceful coexistence.
Each year hundreds of thousands of people decide to become Canadian citizens. Hundreds of thousands of people decide to call Canada their home by taking the citizenship oath. I have heard many who have attended these citizenship ceremonies remark on the emotional significance of this day. Many of these people have their own experiences of colonization and its effects. Many of these people share first nations' love and respect for each of our sacred lands, languages and cultures. For every year this initiative is delayed, we are delaying our ability to meet one another and our ability to start on this journey of peace and prosperity.
The AFN has been involved in discussions on the citizenship oath since 2016. We have worked with the honourable minister and his predecessors, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council to develop language that reflects our unique histories and the contributions of Canada's indigenous peoples. The language contained in the bill differs from language put forward by the AFN. In 2017, our executive committee provided the following language as a guide, “I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the inherent rights, titles, treaties and agreements with First Nations and the rights and agreements with Métis and Inuit peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian”.
The inclusion of “inherent rights, titles, treaties and agreements” is important as it affirms Canada's legal obligations to first nations. These obligations are shared by Canadian citizens as well. As National Chief Perry Bellegarde so often says, “We are all treaty people.” That is why the AFN has been involved in providing guidance to Canada on changes to its citizenship test and accompanying materials as called for in call to action 93.
We are hopeful that with the passing of this legislation newcomers can begin to use the citizenship test and guide to develop a better understanding of the legacy of our many contributions to Canada, and the potential we all have in working and prospering together.
I'm also aware of the role the citizenship guide plays in its use as an educational tool in elementary and secondary schools across many parts of Canada. The time is now to implement these changes. Canada is reconciling with its past and renewing a commitment to a future free of racism, discrimination and intolerance. It is only through ensuring that Canadians understand this past and the ongoing injustices that we can move forward together.
This legislation represents a significant step. The only way we can truly reconcile past and ongoing injustices is by all of us, indigenous and non-indigenous peoples alike, working together to find a way forward.
I look forward to answering your questions.
Hay-hay. Knanâskomitinâwâw.
James Eetoolook
View James Eetoolook Profile
James Eetoolook
2020-12-10 12:33
[Witness spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you, and good afternoon.
I would like to thank the standing committee for inviting Tunngavik to speak about food insecurity in Nunavut and in our communities. I wish to thank you for being here to listen to our concerns. Thank you to my interpreter, Simona Arnatsiaq.
I am James Eetoolook, vice-president and acting president of NTI at the moment, as NTI is holding its election for president.
In 2017, research showed that Inuit age 15 and up were 70% food-insecure. They needed food, and they are studied the most.
James Eetoolook
View James Eetoolook Profile
James Eetoolook
2020-12-10 12:36
Okay.
I can hear myself.
[Witness spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
I'll get back to.... No, I can still hear myself.
Results: 1 - 15 of 37 | Page: 1 of 3

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

For more data options, please see Open Data