Bill C-38

An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements)

This enactment amends the Indian Act to provide, among other things, new entitlements to registration in the Indian Register in response to the challenge of certain provisions of the Act under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Nicholas v. Canada (Attorney General) and that the persons who have become so entitled also have the right to have their names entered in a Band List maintained in the Department of Indigenous Services.

Indian Act

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

moved that Bill C‑38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, kwe kwe. Ullukkut. Tansi.

I am honoured to be speaking today in Canada's Parliament, situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinabe Algonquin people, on an incredibly important bill on behalf of the hon. Minister of Indigenous Services Canada, as her parliamentary secretary.

I represent the people of Fredericton, an unceded Wolastoqiyik territory, the people of the beautiful and bountiful river, as well as my family, my husband and my two children, who are also Wolastoqiyik and status Indians under the Indian Act.

For over a century, Canada passed laws and introduced policy with the express goal of expropriating land using tools that ripped apart families and attempted to destroy culture, language, tradition and identity. The Indian Act essentially reduced first nations identity to status and then used this status to strip away access to what most would consider the bare necessities. Sex-based and other forms of discrimination were used to segregate and assimilate, with the ultimate goal of removing indigenous identity or ending the “Indian problem”.

Today, I am speaking directly to the descendants and elders of those wronged. Despite these repeated and oppressive measures, they persisted. They were resilient. They retained their culture and language. Identity is not a status the government gives, but a way of life and a feeling of love and belonging. It is a way of seeing the world.

It is thus fitting that we rise today to discuss an incredibly important bill that would advance reconciliation and do what is necessary to fix some of what was broken right here in this place through previous pieces of legislation. I am incredibly honoured to have the opportunity to be a part of this process.

To peel back the layers of our colonial history to right the wrongs is exactly why I ran for federal politics. I ran for my kids and their home community of Welamukotuk, a good place to fish. I ran for my students: for Justice, [Member spoke in Wolastoqiyik], I wish Justice a happy birthday, and for Desiree, Brianna, Kitarra, Chrystal, Amber, Bailey and so many more. I ran for my former boss, Bob Atwin, at First Nation Education Initiative. I ran for Billy at Sitansisk and for all Wabanaki nations. Sometimes this place feels very far away from home, but I feel them with me today in this chamber.

We have heard from our partners and we have heard from Canadians. Identity is something that one cannot give or take, but something inherently ours. We are putting the power to determine this identity back in the hands of those who should have always had the power over it. The bill before us today would make important progress by addressing several major inequities in the Indian Act and by responding to long-standing concerns raised directly by first nations about the registration and band membership provisions of the act.

More specifically, this bill proposes to address four key issues. First, it would address the legacy impacts of enfranchisement and help more first nations regain their status. Second, it would return autonomy to registered first nations by allowing them to take their names off the Indian register. Third, it would recognize the rights of all first nations individuals to their natal band membership, ensuring women can maintain critical connections to their home communities. Finally, it would eliminate stigmatizing language about first nations persons with disabilities that is currently part of the Indian Act. If passed, this bill would help return agency to the first nations families that lost their status in this colonial process called enfranchisement.

The minister promised to address these long-standing issues and in December 2022, she introduced this bill and followed through on that promise. The legislators of the past put these harmful policies in place, setting in motion the pain that so many families still feel today, but we are the legislators of a new time, one that reflects an honesty of history and a true commitment to a Canada that lives up to the promises and commitments our predecessors made in treaties and other agreements. Reconciliation is a process. It requires a deep collective commitment to the truth and to action.

Although the Indian Act itself is an inherent problem and partners across this land agree it is a tool of colonialism, many indigenous peoples, leaders and nations see that those approaches to ending this tool of oppression requires steady, honest transfer of control over the delivery of programs and services back to first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. This proposed legislation is a step in the right direction. It addresses the most foundational element of reconciliation, and that is self-determination.

The people at home might be asking why we are proposing these changes at all, why we cannot just get rid of the Indian Act with its discriminatory title altogether. The Indian Act is archaic, it is paternalistic, it is rooted in racism and Canada must continue to work toward its end. This work is, in fact, a major part of the mandate for the Minister of Indigenous Services.

The last number of years, we have engaged extensively with first nations on the best ways to move away from the Indian Act and protect the rights of people at the same time. We have made significant progress in developing successful alternatives to the Indian Act for first nations in relation to land management. We will continue to work with partners to transfer control and stand up self-determined policies and programs.

In the meantime, thousands of first nations people continue to face discrimination under the Indian Act. The amendments we are proposing in this bill reflect policy first nations have been calling for the federal government to adopt for many years. Past amendments have not addressed these wrongs.

In 2012, through a formal exploratory process, options for reform were studied with first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations. The study concluded Canada should work with first nations to proactively address the issues with registration and membership under the Indian Act.

In 2018 and 2019, the same themes arose during discussions with more representatives from 200 first nations, who told us that Canada must address these issues and fix inequities in registration and citizenship. What is more, first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations have told us that addressing the existing issues with the Indian Act must happen before communities can regain full control and jurisdiction over membership, registration and citizenship. In other words, partners told us that passing this bill is a necessary step on our path toward restoring full control of membership and community function to indigenous peoples.

This legislation is not proposed unilaterally by the federal government. The solutions proposed in this legislation represent amendments to the act that indigenous peoples have told us are necessary to move past the act and reclaim their sovereignty from colonial systems.

The first, and most significant, amendment we are proposing to this bill addresses the discrimination caused by a family history of enfranchisement. Members will recall enfranchisement was a policy used with the expressed purpose to eradicate indigenous culture and assimilate first nations people.

Just a few examples will give all Canadians a better idea of how enfranchisement was used to segregate and tear first nations families apart. First nations members lost entitlement to registration and membership in their home communities if they wanted to vote in Canadian elections, own land, serve in the Canadian military, marry a non first nations person or keep their children out of residential schools. This last mention should highlight for all just how painful this legacy has been for some.

For some, enfranchisement was involuntary and happened when first nations achieved professional status like becoming a doctor or a lawyer. For others, it was voluntary, by application, severing talented professionals from their heritage. I use the word “voluntary” reluctantly as this was not a real choice. Imagine having to choose between keeping one's connection to one's community and protecting one's children from residential institutions. It is an impossible decision, but it is one the Government of Canada forced many first nations parents to make.

With these false choices, it is no wonder so many people forfeited their status. I have heard many stories from parents who gave up their status without a second thought to spare their children from the same unthinkable traumas and abuse they faced at residential institutions.

With her permission, I can share the story of Kathryn Fournier, who is here with us today, the stories of her grandfather, Maurice Sanderson, a residential school survivor from Pinaymootang First Nation in Manitoba.

Because of provisions in the Indian Act, he was not able to vote or own property unless he enfranchised, meaning he had to give up his right to Indian Act status. In 1922, Maurice made what Kathryn describes as a “strange and difficult choice”. He applied to enfranchise in order to have the same basic rights as other Canadian citizens. As a result, his wife and children were automatically enfranchised as well. Kathryn put it this way, “He made a very difficult choice that shouldn't have been imposed on him in the first place.”

Kathryn's grandfather's and grandmother's assimilation under the policy of enfranchisement may have provided them with some of the rights of Canadian citizenship, but today, generations later, the ripple effects of that policy continue to have negative impacts. The way historic policy erased connection to ancestry and culture continues to be felt. The process of enfranchisement was a deliberate effort by the federal government to colonize and to decrease the numbers of indigenous people who had rights.

Following a pattern of coercion and deception, this proposed legislation continues on Canada's journey to address and amend those decisions of the past that have hurt so many families. Over the last few decades, the government has been trying to reverse these policies by restoring status to first nations who lost it.

In 1985, the government acknowledged enfranchisement was a discriminatory policy, and it was removed from the Indian Act with the introduction of Bill C-31, an act to amend the Indian Act. At this point, people who had been enfranchised could reclaim their status.

The inequity we seek to remedy today is the inability for those with a family history of enfranchisement to transmit status to descendants in the same way that those without an history of enfranchisement are able to.

I ask the hon. members here today: should the family members and descendants of these people continue to be penalized? It is clear that enfranchisement is discriminatory and we need to eliminate all of its residual impacts. To do so, it is proposed that section 6(1)(d) and 6(1)(e) of the Indian Act be repealed.

Individuals currently registered under these categories will have their registration category amended to a 6(1)(a.1) if they were the individual who was enfranchised and (a.3) if they were the child or descendant of the individual who was enfranchised.

The amendment on enfranchisement addresses the concerns brought forward by the Nicholas civil action lawsuit and it will fulfill the recommendations on this issue heard during previous broad engagements. I am proud to acknowledge that Ms. Mary Sandra Lovelace Nicholas is Wolastoqiyik from Tobique (Neqotkuk) First Nation. We are grateful for her courage and trail-blazing as a fellow New Brunswicker.

The second inequity addressed by Bill C-38 concerns the ability for individuals to remove their names from the Indian register. The Indian register is the official record of people registered under the Indian Act in Canada. It is maintained and managed by the Indian registrar, part of Indigenous Services Canada, and exists to determine who is registered under the act and entitled to programs and funding across federal and provincial governments, for example, on-reserve housing, non-insured health benefits, education or tax exemptions.

However, there is a major gap in the authorities of the registrar. While they can add names to the Indian register, they have no formal legal authority to remove the names of registered individuals even when the individuals request deregistration. This is an issue that first nations have called on Canada to address and today, with this, we are doing just that.

For some, deregistration is a matter of having control over their own identity. For others, it is a barrier to gaining membership to other indigenous groups. This has prevented a number of people from accessing important services and benefits through a group they wish to identify with that they should be entitled to.

To fix this issue, this legislation will provide individuals with the right and ability to have their names removed from the Indian register.

That said, individuals who deregister will still be eligible to re-register and their decision to deregister will have no impact on their or their descendants' entitlement under the Indian Act.

This means that the children of deregistered individuals would still be entitled to status. It can only be done at the request of the individuals and protections will be made to ensure that it is not used with mal-intent.

In the spirit of reconciliation, the implementation of this amendment will be co-developed with indigenous partners, to ensure that the needs of all impacted groups are well served.

Bill C-38 also addresses a sex-based inequity related to band membership provisions. Bill S-3 received royal assent in 2017 and eliminated known sex-based inequities in the registration provisions of the Indian Act.

Because of the limited scope of that mandate, however, we were not able to address these sex-based inequities in band membership. This inequity arises from the fact that, until 1985, first nations women who married first nations men from a different nation were automatically transferred to their husband's band list.

While these women did not lose their entitlement to registration, they did lose connection to and membership in their natal band, along with any associated treaty rights, benefits, settlements and services. These women were automatically disconnected from their home communities even if they may have wanted to restore their social and cultural connection to their natal band.

The bill we are proposing today will amend the Indian Act to allow first nations women to seek re-affiliation and membership with their natal bands. This is significant. Supporting and empowering indigenous women is key to supporting indigenous communities, tradition, language and culture as a whole.

The final amendment in Bill C-38 addresses some outdated and offensive language that still remains in the Indian Act today. The act refers to “mentally incompetent Indian”. It is obvious that this term is outdated, offensive and stigmatizing.

Bill C-38 would replace this term with the updated term “dependent person”. This amendment is a logical step forward and would align the Indian Act with developments in capacity and guardianship law over the last 50 years.

In summary, amendments proposed in this legislation would fix four long-standing issues in registration and membership under the Indian Act relating to enfranchisement, individual deregistration, natal band membership and some outdated and offensive language in the Indian Act.

If all enfranchisement issues are addressed, approximately 3,500 people could be newly eligible for registration with these amendments.

These proposed changes represent significant and meaningful action to the affected people and their families. They also demonstrate to indigenous peoples a steady and forward movement by Canada to make amends to the many ways colonial laws and actions intentionally harmed them and their communities.

Even with these proposed changes, there is still much more work to do. Ahead of us, we have the work of undoing the racist policies reflected in the Indian Act, including those related to the second-generation cut-off.

We are engaging with partners so we can continue to explore how to move forward on this deeply personal issue. Indigenous identity must be determined by indigenous individuals, full stop. It is our responsibility to proactively right historic wrongs and make the changes asked of us by first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations. This bill would right some of those wrongs.

It is in this way, working together in good faith, that we would advance reconciliation and support a renewed relationship between Canada and first nations, one not marred by the paternalism and control of the Indian Act, but one based on rights, respect, co-operation and true partnership. Woliwon.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest. The term “enfranchisement” meant the destruction of indigenous identity. To be enfranchised meant someone's inability to leave the reserve, the inability to vote, the inability to marry whom one loved, and even the inability to fight to defend Canada, because the Canadian government, in the First World War, did not want to allow indigenous soldiers because it did not want to recognize them as citizens with rights. We have a long way to go in dealing with the destruction that was done.

I appreciate my hon. colleague for bringing this bill forward, although this bill has been sitting on the back burner for some time now. The issue goes back to the fact that, at the end of the day, those who are trying to re-establish their rights are still going through the department of Indian affairs. That is what it was before and that is what I still call it. It is a department that is underfunded and that does not take this issue seriously. It is bureaucratic red tape.

My hon. colleague says that indigenous identity must be dealt with by indigenous people. When are we actually going to see a bill that is about nation to nation, that is about empowering the nation to make decisions about environmental protection and growth, and that is about who their band members are? We are still going through the department of Indian affairs. It is still a colonial system and a broken system.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I struggle a lot being in this place and talking about these things because, inevitably, we are in a colonial structure. The Department of Indigenous Services remains a part of that colonial structure.

Being the parliamentary secretary, I have made a commitment to do all I can to improve service delivery, to improve the nation-to-nation relationship, and to ensure that indigenous voices are the ones guiding all that we do. There is extensive consultation happening. There is commitment from all parties, which is really momentous here in Canada. We see that we have consensus about moving forward and what it is going to take to truly achieve that reconciliation. This is a piece in a series of legislation that we are working on to address these wrongs. It is incumbent upon all of us to recognize some of the history that led us here and to peel back those layers. That is really what this process is all about.

I am really proud to be part of Bill C-38. I highlighted some of the specific individuals who would be impacted by this in a positive way. However, once again, I highlight that there is so much more work to do. I am absolutely committed to doing that, and I know that the member is as well.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important piece of legislation.

I would like to identify some of the time frames we see around indigenous legislation. Let us go back a couple of years to when Bill C-29 was introduced on June 22, the second-last day of the parliamentary session in 2022. Bill C-38, which we are talking about today, was introduced on December 14. We are now 11 months down the road and are finally starting to debate this very important piece of legislation. Bill C-53 was introduced on June 21, 2023, the very last day of the parliamentary session. In our office, we have a running comment about how we address indigenous legislation from the government: It is the “last-minute Liberals”. They are doing it at the last minute all the time.

The parliamentary secretary identified that there are some issues that still need to be dealt with. She identified the second-generation cut. There are several others that are identified in the engagement kit presented by this bill. If it was going to take 11 months to actually get this bill to the floor to debate, can she identify why we did not solve some of the other issues at the same time so we could speed up this process and solve some of the challenges she identified?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with him on the indigenous and northern affairs committee. I know he is deeply committed to seeing this work progress.

I do not disagree. I would love to see legislation around indigenous rights recognition and frameworks for nation-to-nation building move a lot quicker in this place. I have asked some of those same questions of my colleagues on this side of the House, and really it is about doing it right. Reconciliation is a process. There are deep commitments to consultation that have to happen. It is not just presenting completed bills or completed plans of process; it is also about really working together and co-developing. I get a lot of reassurance from that, that we are doing this the right way.

We cannot rush pieces of legislation that deal with such foundational issues, with respect to identity, for example. The second generation cut-off is brought up a lot. It actually impacts my family in particular, so I am deeply committed to seeing that legislation come forward as well. Again, it has to be done with the right intentions, with the right work and process in place, and consultation is absolutely key, because it has to be an indigenous-led process. However, I am absolutely committed to the urgency and moving it forward as quickly as possible.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Fredericton for her speech and her position on Bill C‑38.

Obviously we are in favour of the principle of the bill, but I am still uncomfortable when bills on indigenous issues are introduced because I find it will only result in some sort of band-aid solution.

The government is trying to fix something that was done on a fundamentally bad foundation. The title itself, “Indian Act”, is repulsive. I find that the federal government tends to take a paternalistic approach to the first nations and that always makes me uncomfortable.

Should we not, for once and for all, rip up the old Indian Act and truly redo the agreements with the first nations, agreements that are created and developed nation to nation and not with someone who has a colonizer attitude draped in virtue?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question.

I have written so many papers in university about the need to dismantle the Indian Act. We need to throw it in the trash. We need to just completely move forward from it.

When we have conversations with the 634 indigenous communities across the country, there really is no consensus. I think that is the piece right now. We are trying to do it the right way. There would be a risk of losing services if we were to just scrap it altogether. We want to make sure that no services are lost and that rights are enhanced, so it is, unfortunately, a patchwork process.

I would like to address paternalism, because we are in a highly colonial space right now. However, I also feel that there are so many women's voices leading this discussion. With the co-development, the nation-to-nation relationship and the consultations, we are doing this in a good-faith way and with a better approach than I have seen from the federal government in a long time. I am proud to be a part of that process, because I feel we are changing things. I think we are really making a meaningful difference. I am committed to seeing that process through to the end, but done the right way.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to put this question to the parliamentary secretary.

We speak of reconciliation, and today we are debating a baby step in Bill C-38 and, to add to the adjectives used by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, the racist law. However, the actual day of statutory recognition of the day for reconciliation, October 2, was the day the Liberal-owned, and now publicly owned, TMX pipeline began constructing open-trench construction through the most sacred area of the Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc nation in the area called Pipsell, which TMX had pledged it would not disturb. That was on the day that we observed reconciliation. It made a mockery of reconciliation as it made a mockery of the Liberals' commitment to climate.

I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary discusses that with her caucus.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very well how I feel about the TMX pipeline. I have been very vocal about that with my colleagues and my caucus with respect to exactly how it relates to reconciliation and our commitments on behalf of the environment and the original stewards of this land. I continue to have those difficult conversations and try to move forward with a path that I find would bring in those voices.

It is quite shocking to think that it was on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, so I thank the member for bringing that to the attention of the House. I look forward to having further conversations with her on how I can best continue these difficult conversations within my own caucus. Again, I am deeply committed to the environment and to reconciliation. They absolutely go hand in hand.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to build on some of the questions asked earlier. I wonder whether the hon. parliamentary secretary could give us more information on how this would facilitate the phase-out of the Indian Act.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a piece of legislation that would come in a series of other approaches in addressing the inequities in the Indian Act.

The enfranchisement piece is really key. Other items include getting rid of some of the inflammatory language and restoring some of the rights that should be there. Again, it is a process, and we are committed to doing the work that needs to be done to undo the wrongs. This is an important step forward.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is an honour to rise in my place today to speak to this very important piece of legislation.

Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for that support. I think they will find that my friend from northern Saskatchewan has some very insightful and important remarks to share. Despite his allegiance to the Roughriders football team, he is quite a stand-up individual, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Of course, this is a very important piece of legislation, as I mentioned. It is an honour for me to rise today to speak to it, representing the riding of Kenora in northwestern Ontario, which covers three treaty territories, treaties 3, 5 and 9, as well as the Métis homeland, and it includes 42 first nations.

As has been mentioned in the previous remarks and in questions and comments, this legislation would truly help set out a series of fixes. However, it is much more than a simple patchwork and just those fixes. To me, it is about self-determination, and that is obviously a very important aspect of what we are talking about when it comes to reconciliation. It is giving more control and autonomy to first nations and first nations individuals themselves.

Before I get back to the substance of this bill, I want to highlight a key proposal that our Conservative leader has been championing when it comes to self-determination: a first nations resource charge that would, in essence, allow first nations to directly collect revenues from projects on their lands rather than seeing those revenues go to Ottawa and filter back down through a bloated bureaucracy. It is a simple, common-sense approach to ensure that first nations have greater control over projects on their land and a greater portion of the direct revenues. This is one way we will support self-determination. Our consultations on this are ongoing, and I look forward to being able to say more about it in the near future.

I share that because, of course, it is one aspect of self-determination in this bill also, as the bill highlights and addresses four key issues in the Indian Act.

This bill would ensure that individuals with a family history of enfranchisement, which is having to give up Indian status, would be entitled to registration under the act. They could then pass on that entitlement in the same way as others.

Individuals would be allowed to deregister from the Indian register if they chose to do so via an application for removal, without the repercussions of enfranchisement.

As well, an addition would be made to section 11 of the act that would allow married women to return to their natal band if they obtained status and were registered to their spouse's band before April 1985.

The last of the four key points that the bill addresses is to change a lot of outdated and discriminatory language. We have heard some of that language here today. I do not wish to repeat it, but it is something that we are all happy to see being addressed and being removed from the legislation.

This is, of course, part of a series of changes in recent history. We can go back to 1985, which is relatively recent. That was when the process started to remove some of the gender-based discrimination, particularly pertaining to status women who married a non-status men and were involuntarily enfranchised. That is what got the ball rolling in this process. We have heard comments in the chamber about the patchwork and the fact that we have not been able to move forward on addressing all these issues as quickly as we would like to, and I share those concerns.

Although this bill is certainly a great help, and we are happy to see it move forward, as the member for Fredericton mentioned, it was tabled in December 2022. On this side of the House, we certainly would have liked to see this move forward much more quickly. It has been almost a year. The bill also has many gaps in it, with more things that will have to be addressed at future dates.

Considering that the government sat on the bill for close to a year, I think that would have been a great time to work on some of those other aspects concurrently. We could be much further along at this point.

It is a concerning trend. We have heard from the governing Liberal Party itself that its members are also concerned about this trend of the government not prioritizing indigenous-led pieces of legislation pertaining to indigenous peoples, and I just want to urge the government to make it a priority instead of table-dropping at the last moment.

The Prime Minister has said that there is no relationship more important to his government than that with indigenous peoples, but I think the actions speak louder than words. The fact that it has taken so long to make such relatively simple and straightforward changes is definitely a cause for concern, so I would like to urge my colleagues on the other side to move these pieces of legislation forward much more quickly.

Further to the fact that it has been so long, we have seen the need for unanimous consent motions in order to get things through at the last second, and we have been trying to work in good faith to get as many of these things through as quickly as possible. However, we recognize a need for debate and a need for proper scrutiny and consultation on a number of these pieces of legislation. With the rushed process we have from the government, I do not feel we have that time for the proper consultation.

That is not the only concern. It is not just from the legislative point of view that the government seems to be too slow to react. We see issues on things such as status card processing times. It is taking far too long for many people to be able to actually receive their card and have access to the rights they are entitled to, so again I am happy to see this moving forward. The bill would impact 3,500 individuals, and I hope that all those individuals are able to access their status cards and their rights as quickly as possible.

Again, I would like to urge the government to put the resources that are necessary toward that, cut through the bureaucracy and ensure there are ways we can get that done more quickly.

I was thankful my colleagues chose for me to split my time, but now with great respect to my colleague, I wish I had a bit more, because there is so much to get into when it comes to the piece of legislation before us. However, I think it is important to remember the discriminatory and racist history behind this and the reasons it is so important we move forward on this quickly.

Enfranchisement was truly not voluntary. Even in the cases where it was “voluntary”, it was done so that people could avoid having to send their kids to residential schools, so they were able to participate more fully in Canadian society, obtain the right to vote and obtain land and financial compensation. It was a number of things. This is a process that has been forced on indigenous peoples throughout our history, and I am pleased to see the bill moving forward. We need to move it forward much more quickly on the government's side.

Our party here in the official opposition stands ready to work and ready to get the bill to committee. If there are any changes that need to be made, we will ensure we have those fixes. We will hear from grassroots, first nations and indigenous peoples across the country and get it to the finish line.

I want to urge my colleagues on the other side to work with us, so we can get it done.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his commitment. I had the pleasure of working with him on the indigenous and northern affairs committee, I know his heart is in the right place and he wants to see these issues dedicated the urgency that they deserve.

I would also like to see his commitment to passing the bill quickly, and I hope he can have that conversation with his colleagues. Would he agree that, despite some of the lengthy timelines or challenges we faced, this government has done more for indigenous reconciliation than any other in our history? I would like to hear him comment on that.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I truly would not agree with that member's framing of this. As I mentioned, if we are talking specifically about these issues, it was in 1985 that the fixing of this patchwork started, and we started to see a series of that. That was certainly not under the current Liberal government. I think with the current government, we have definitely seen a lot of spending and announcements. Unfortunately, we have seen numbers that show that, despite the increase in spending, the department results have achieved only 26% of their goals.

That is just one example of how I think the rhetoric has been very strong and positive from the government, but it has not filtered down to actually delivering the real results that are needed for indigenous peoples across the country.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see you sitting in the House on a Friday.

I thank my hon. colleague for his very interesting speech.

One thing about this bill that really stood out for me is the part that replaces the term “mentally incompetent Indian” with the term “dependent person”. Does the member agree with me that, in this example, the language used by the government is demeaning? Does he agree that it is time to stop discriminating against people with disabilities and be much more inclusive?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree. It is very discriminatory.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, part of the legislation is a clause that justifies past discrimination and violations of human rights. It would allow for the government to have discriminated without impunity and underscores the sense of colonial entitlement.

Does the member agree that the provisions of this legislation would prohibit first nations women from seeking compensation for historical harms? Is it justified that the government denied first nations women access to health care, education and safe housing?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, off the top of my head, I am not sure of the specific clause that the member is referring to. However, to answer her question, I certainly agree with her that it is discriminatory for the government to deny first nations women rights to health care and the rights that they need. I certainly share her concern, and I would be happy to speak with her when we have more time to get into detail about it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, given that my hon. friend's speech this morning is the first time a Conservative Party member of Parliament has spoken to the issue, it seems that there is an intention to vote for the bill at second reading and fix flaws later at committee. Is that something we can count on?

It is a shame to see debate so often where it looks as though we might all be voting for something to get it to committee and only later discover that there is going to be a longer debate; I do not want to use the word “obstruction”. Does the hon. member know if his caucus is prepared to vote yes for the bill?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we are looking forward to moving forward on the bill. As I mentioned, we want to get the bill to committee, but we also want to ensure that we are able to have the voices of members raising thoughts on it. We hope that we can move forward on it as quickly as possible. I encourage the government to continue to progress this legislation through the House.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as has been part of the interaction of the members so far today, people tried to take credit for whatever and said that things were accomplished under certain governments. However, with the indigenous stakeholders that I talked to, they very clearly indicated to me that there has been more achieved for indigenous people in our country under Conservative governments than any other government in history. Does the member think it is time for a Conservative government to step up and effect the change that we need to improve the lives of indigenous people across the country?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree. It is time for a Conservative government that will bring it home for all Canadians, including indigenous peoples across this country.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand up to speak on behalf of the people who I serve, but one of the things that we do not do in this place is recognize the people who serve us behind the scenes. I want to take a minute today to acknowledge my team, who work tirelessly, without recognition often, to serve not only the people in the House, members of Parliament like myself, but also the people who we represent, in my case specifically those from northern Saskatchewan. I want to take a minute to recognize Linnae and Emalie, who work with me here in Ottawa, and Dion, Hunter and Cindy, who are back in the riding. I want to make sure they know that they are appreciated for the work they do in serving the people that we get to serve.

With those comments out of the way, let us talk about Bill C-38 for a few minutes. I appreciate the opportunity that my colleague has presented to me to speak on this very important bill.

Bill C-38 is an act that amends the Indian Act to address four separate matters, which we have already heard about from the members who spoke already, but I am going to hit on these just for a few minutes.

First, it addresses the gendered inequity issues that were a result of enfranchisement. I am going to speak a little bit more about that in a few minutes. We have already heard as well that it addresses the issue of natal band reaffiliation. If passed, this legislation would allow women to affiliate with their natal band, or the band they came from before having been forced to change to their husband's band if they were married before 1985.

We have heard about the opportunity through application to deregister from the Indian registry. There is a number of reasons why people might want to do that. I am not going to get into the details of that. Finally, we have heard the conversation already today around replacing offensive and outdated language so that no individual under the act is referred to using any kind of discriminatory or offensive language. That, I think we would say, is a very good thing.

As has been mentioned as well, Bill C-38 is the continuation of a series of fixes, fixes that began in 1985 under then prime minister Brian Mulroney, some fixes that carried on in 2011 under then Prime Minister Harper, and finally, Bill S-3, which took from 2017 to 2019 through the Senate bill to make some progress on this.

Each of these pieces of legislation addressed various matters of gender-based discrimination in the act. While it is important to note that we support amendments to ensure that no federal legislation, including the Indian Act, has any discriminatory components to it, we must recognize that these amendments are just that, changes to existing legislation that supports the maintenance of the status quo, a status quo that perpetuates control over first nations people across our country. We cannot simply reverse the damage that these outdated laws have had, but what we can do is to move forward in support of first nations people on their journey to self-determination. Conservatives seek to ensure that we are making positive strides towards truth and reconciliation, and we know how important it is to hold open and honest discussions in doing so.

Since I only have 10 minutes here, I want to spend some time talking about enfranchisement. We have done a bit of that already, but I want to flesh it out a little bit as well.

For those who may not be familiar with the term, enfranchisement was a policy prior to 1985 that terminated an individual's right to be considered as a first nations person or have status under the Indian Act. As the parliamentary secretary, my colleague from Kenora, already identified, this could be done voluntarily or it could be done involuntarily. When we think of involuntary registration, as mentioned, it could be because they received a university degree, joined the medical or legal professions, married a non-Indian man or became a priest or a minister.

We have heard as well that there were a number of reasons for voluntary enfranchisement, although we use the term “voluntary” in this case when it does not seem like it was really of their own free will. Rather, other factors forced it upon them. Some, as already identified, gave up their status for the sole purpose of preventing their children from having to attend residential schools. World War II veterans voluntarily enfranchised to obtain the same essential benefits that other non-status veterans were provided. Some did so just to have the right to vote.

If we look at those examples of voluntary enfranchisement, it does not really seem like it was a matter of personal choice but maybe more a sacrifice of rights, or something that they were forced into, to protect members of their family or others.

Bill C-38 seeks to address some remaining gender-based inequities that were a result of this unequal reinstatement of status in 1985. In short, women who were enfranchised and later reinstated were placed in a different category than men in the same circumstances. Because of this, first nations women could not pass down status or rights to the same number of generations as first nations men could. This is something that this bill addresses. It has a ripple effect because it affects the descendants of these people as well.

I would like to encourage members of the House to talk to people and hear their stories. We have heard a couple already today, but they should talk to the people who have been affected by enfranchisement. I have heard many of these, and I am going to quickly share one story.

My team and I met with a Professor Karl Hele, a member of Garden River First Nation and a professor in Canadian indigenous studies. His personal experience with enfranchisement is not unfamiliar to many others. His mother and many other women in their community were targeted and coerced by an Indian agent to voluntarily enfranchise. This resulted in an unfair exclusion of their rights and those of her descendants.

To access his child's rights, Professor Hele had no other choice but to pursue legal action, which came at a hefty cost, both in time and resources, which is an option that many people do not have. This case highlights how the Indian Act gatekeepers have historically been, and continue to be, much of the problem.

It is little wonder that first nations people in Canada feel there is an Ottawa-led system, which feels broken. We need to fix it. I believe we need to acknowledge, despite amending the act, there still needs to be a change in how first nations issues are approached. This means acknowledging the failure in the cumbersome bureaucracy that is meant to support first nations, but instead often creates significant barriers.

The population of my riding is over 70% indigenous, and my team deals with the endless frustrations of individuals trying to either access their right to status, respond to other requests of maybe a financial nature or even access appropriate health services. Our office has been dealing with one individual who has been denied status time and time again. However, the bigger issue is not the denial of status, but that this individual has been given a variety of excuses for the denial, which contrast with their family story, and where other members of the family have been granted status under the same circumstances.

It seems as though this case has been passed around the department without a care or concern for the provision of an honest answer. That is unacceptable. In one of the calls with my office, this gentleman finally expressed his frustration and disappointment, and that he is going to give up because he believes he is going to die before this ever gets resolved. That is a very sad story.

What this story tells us is that we cannot accept simple amendments to the Indian Act as a means to an end. We can reshape the tool as many times as we like, but if we do not fix the mechanism, there will never be a fix for the problem.

Our Conservative team is determined to address this problem. In fact, we are proposing steps to do that. My friend from Kenora has already addressed one of those, in relation to our leader proposing the first nations resource charge and our plan for that.

The goal of the federal government should be to work with indigenous leadership to put the control of their communities back into their hands. While the hope for Bill C-38 is to address this to some degree and to respond to a constitutional challenge on enfranchisement, it is merely a small step in the long journey to self-determination.

We have a lot of work to do, and as Canada moves forward on eliminating the Indian Act, the “Ottawa knows best” mentality has got to go.

It is imperative that we recognize the rights and freedoms of first nations people across our country. They know what is good for them. They know what needs to be done. They have already taken many of the steps necessary by investing in projects and businesses, and creating prosperity and employment. They are focused on increasing capacity, and they are generating opportunities that will pay dividends for generations to come.

It is important that the government no longer stands in their way, and that we ensure that first nations are the decision-makers controlling their own destiny. We recognize that this is the only way forward, and although it will have its challenges, Conservatives are not afraid of a challenge.

In closing, let me simply say, under the leadership of a Conservative government, I would be very hopeful for the future of our first nations people across this country. I am personally very eager to see meaningful change.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the House might not be aware, but in my riding we had an Iroquois first nation, and the entire nation enfranchised in 1958. I am talking, of course, about the Michel band.

Under Bill C-31, back in the 1980s, 700 members of the Michel band, as individuals, were allowed to gain back their Indian status. However, as of today, this band is still not fully recognized and are not able to make any claims. I do not see anything in this legislation that addresses that injustice, as they were enfranchised under very suspicious circumstances.

Could my hon. colleague tell me what this legislation could do to help a band such as the Michel band, which, as far as I am aware, is the only entire first nation band that was ever enfranchised in Canada, to get their recognition back?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I understand he is saying that this is the only example of this happening to an entire band, but there are many, many examples of communities or very large groups of people being enfranchised involuntarily or “voluntarily”, or being coerced into it by very suspicious circumstances.

This legislation should address some of those situations by creating an equal opportunity for people to be re-registered to gain their status back and create an equalization between the descendants of what might be male lineage compared to female lineage to ensure the descendants of those two lines of descendants is brought to a place where they are treated equally.

We will look at this closer in committee to ensure those kinds of questions are answered and solutions are proposed.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, and he spoke about this, first nations, Métis and Inuit continually have to go through the court system to have their rights recognized, including with this bill. It is tragic that people would need to go through the court system to have their basic rights met.

It sounds like the member agrees it is unfair for indigenous people to need to go through this court system to have their rights recognized. I am wondering what the member would suggest we change about Canada's political and legal system so indigenous people no longer need to do this.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, from a personal perspective, and on behalf of Conservatives, one of the things we would say in response is that we need to eliminate the “Ottawa knows best” approach and the control imposed over people across the country by this outdated and archaic Indian Act, but we need to do this much quicker.

We need to get to a place where first nation, Inuit and Métis people across the country all have the ability and the right to determine their own future, to true self-determination. That is the only path where we are going to get past all of the litigation, all of the lawsuits and all of the court cases and where we actually empower indigenous people across the country to control and dictate their own futures and their own destinies.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the foundation of a solid house cannot be built on sand. Unfortunately, this bill is yet another pillar or beam in a house that the government is trying to build on a very shaky foundation, namely the Indian Act.

After hearing my colleague's speech, I would like to ask him a question that reflects the Bloc Québécois's position. Why not simply abolish the Indian Act itself, which is so problematic?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, very simply, I agree.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. Saying that the Conservatives are going to support indigenous self-determination is something I like, but I will give an example. Timiskaming First Nation is set-up as 110,000 acres between the Blanche River in Ontario and the Des Quinze river in Quebec. It was then arbitrarily cut apart with illegal land surrender after illegal land surrender until it was down to about 4,500 acres in between the municipalities.

The traditional land rights in Ontario continue to be ignored, so how would the Conservatives say to the people of Timiskaming First Nation that they would make sure their land rights, amidst an endless sea of stolen land, would be respected for the community's development?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say we need to get to a place where it is not taking 25, 30 or 40 years to solve some of the claims issues in our country. We need to speed up the process so we can settle these things and get out of the endless litigation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑38, an act to amend the Indian Act, which corrects serious mistakes committed in the past regarding the status of many first nations members.

Today, I speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, but also as a member of the Huron‑Wendat Nation. First, let me say one thing: The Indian Act is a colonial law that introduced a system of domination and ghettoization. Its very name is just as racist as the N-word can be. I cringe whenever I see the word “Indian” on my status card. Cosmetic or vocabulary changes do nothing to fix the fact that this is a law on ghettos. This law was put in place by a conqueror in order to park people on reserves. It is a throwback to British colonialism and a culture that became woven into English Canadian colonialism. The Indian Act must be abolished and replaced by a new, respectful regime founded on a dialogue between nations. International relations begin at home.

Be that as it may, although it merely amends the scandalous Indian Act, the bill before us today remains incredibly relevant. The spirit of Bill C‑38 stands as a sentinel against the injustices perpetrated by the Indian Act, which continues to cast long shadows, even into present-day Canada. It courageously tackles the evils that continue to impede deregistration, enfranchisement and reaffiliation with the natal band, despite multiple attempts at amendment. This noble bill embodies a common quest and a never-ending conversation with the indigenous nations that stretch across our vast land. No fewer than 50 virtual sessions, held from August to December 2022, enabled first nations, indigenous organizations and all those concerned to engage in dialogue and express themselves.

The government anticipates that close to 3,500 individuals will be granted the right to registration as a result of these legislative amendments, thus opening a door towards the righting of many historical wrongs. This bill, like a small breath of fresh air, offers thousands of Canadians of indigenous lineage the chance to reconnect with their cultural heritage. It gives them access to the rights rooted in Indian status in Canada, but goes far beyond that, by allowing them to fully reclaim their identity.

It is worth recalling that prior to 1985, enfranchisement was a sinister assimilation policy under the Indian Act. Under this vile legislation, first nations individuals lost their entitlement to registration as well as membership in their home communities. Enfranchisement could be voluntary, but the government could also impose enfranchisement on individuals, either by virtue of their profession or because they had been residing outside of Canada for five years. When men were enfranchised, their wives and children were automatically enfranchised. This led to entire families and their descendants losing entitlement to registration, membership in their communities, and any associated benefits under the Indian Act.

In 1985, Bill C‑31 created new categories under section 6 of the act for determining eligibility for registration, which restored access to registration for a large number of people and their first-generation descendants. As part of these changes, the emancipation process was eliminated from the act, and people who had already been voluntarily or involuntarily emancipated could request that their registration be restored. Although the provisions of the Indian Act regarding registration and membership were amended in 2011 through Bill C‑3 on gender equity in Indian registration and in 2017 through the passage of Bill S‑3, An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général), these legislative reforms focused mainly on eliminating gender inequities in the registration process.

However, other injustices rooted in the grim past of emancipation are insidiously persistent. The descendants of those who were at one time subject to emancipation are still unable to pass on their right to registration in the same way as those who were not affected by this measure. Similarly, those who were subject to emancipation as a member of a band or community continue to be excluded from registration today.

The introduction of Bill C-38 offers the promise of better days ahead. After it is passed, many people will be in a different registration category and others will be newly eligible for registration. What is more, if the problems of individual and collective enfranchisement are resolved, nearly 3,500 people will be given the invaluable access to registration.

Right now, the Indian Act does not provide for the possibility of voluntary deregistration at the specific request of the interested parties. However, thanks to the proposed amendments, it will be possible for a person to have their name removed from the Indian register for various reasons, such as wanting to join indigenous tribes in the U.S. that do not allow those registered under the Indian Act to enrol; wanting to identify as Métis; deciding to no longer be recognized on the federal Indian register; or withdrawing consent to be registered as an adult, for those whose parents registered them as children.

Mercifully, Bill C‑38 will guarantee that, when a person has their name removed from the register, they will still legally retain their entitlement to be registered under the Indian Act, the right to be registered again in the future, and the right to transmit this precious birthright to their descendants.

For some individuals, deregistration is vital because it is a matter of having control over their own identity. For others, it is a barrier to gaining membership in other indigenous groups, like Métis, if they have mixed ancestry. This has long hindered many people from accessing important services and benefits they should be entitled to through a group they wish to identify with.

For example, Métis lose their right to Métis membership if they are registered under the Indian Act. Bill C‑38 will provide individuals with the right and ability to have their names removed from the Indian register. Once deregistered, the individual will not have the right to access any programs, services, settlements or benefits associated with Indian Act registration. Even if the individual later seeks to be re-registered, that individual will have no retroactive claim to any such benefits for the period in which they were deregistered. However, any individual who opts to deregister will retain their entitlement to registration under the Indian Act, including the ability to regain their status in the future.

When a woman who is registered under the Indian Act is a member of the band that she was born into, in other words, either the mother's or father's band, this is referred to as being a member of her natal band. If passed, Bill C‑38 would recognize the acquired rights of all first nations to membership with their natal band. This bill would provide a legal framework to re-affiliate women and their descendants to their natal bands who were automatically moved to their husbands' band list upon marriage. Bill C‑38 provides a valuable opportunity to re-establish important cultural and community connections for first nations women and their families.

Since this bill is intended as a response to historical wrongs perpetrated by Ottawa and its racist, sexist legislation that discriminates against indigenous people, it is imperative to remain vigilant to ensure that this bill does not itself become an indirect instrument of assimilation and cultural erasure of indigenous people by allowing overly broad access to their recognized Indian status for those unfamiliar with indigenous cultures.

Luckily, the limited yet still significant scope of individuals who will now be eligible does not seem to pose a threat of diluting indigenous identity, as once provided for in the Indian Act, along with ethnocide. The indigenous groups that the Bloc Québécois consulted did not seem consider that an imminent risk. However, we will remain watchful.

It is imperative that this bill be considered in its entirety, with careful attention paid to its consequences and impacts, to ensure that it truly rectifies past wrongs while respecting the rights and identity of indigenous peoples.

From the 19th century on, women and their descendants have been the victims of blatant gender discrimination when it comes to registration and band membership.

In 1869, with the passage of the Gradual Enfranchisement Act, the definition of “Indian” was no longer based on first nations kinship and community ties. The act was deliberately designed to remove families headed by a non-Indian man from first nations communities by building on the predominance of men over women and children. The 1869 law also included a provision concerning interracial marriages. Known as the “marrying out rule”, it was retained in the first Indian Act of 1876. This rule removed entitlement to registration from Indian women who married non-Indian men, while granting entitlement to non-Indian women who married Indian men. In addition, children of entitled men who married non-Indian women became entitled under the Indian Act, while children of women who “married out” were no longer entitled. This is clearly a flagrant inequality.

In 1951, important amendments were made to registration, namely, the creation of a centralized Indian register. Later, other amendments further reinforced the discrimination against women and their descendants, especially the double mother rule. Gender discrimination in the Indian Act was challenged under national and international human rights legislation, which brought to light the fact that women were excluded from first nations communities and were being deprived of the ability to retain their indigenous identity in the eyes of Canadian law.

For decades, indigenous women fought for their rights in court, challenging the patriarchal provisions of the Indian Act. In the 1960s and 1970s, women like Jeanette Lavell from the Wikwemikong nation, Yvonne Bedard from the Six Nations of the Grand River, elder and advocate Mary Two‑Axe Earley from the Kanien'kehà:ka nation, and Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas from the Malecite nation took legal action to fight the Indian Act's discrimination against women and their descendants. These courageous women paved the way to reform and justice and thus helped to advance the cause of indigenous women's rights and to fight the systemic injustice that has long marked the history of the Indian Act.

The chief commissioner of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Marion Buller, said the following after tabling the more than 2000-page report:

Despite their different circumstances and backgrounds, all of the missing and murdered are connected by economic, social and political marginalization, racism, and misogyny woven into the fabric of Canadian society.

As much as indigenous communities need to rebuild, Quebeckers and Canadians need to become aware of the collective trauma experienced by these communities, understand it, and ensure that nothing this disgraceful ever happens again. Quebec Native Women had this to say:

[In the case of many of the missing or murdered women] [o]ne might claim that the person responsible for [their] death is the one who gave [them] the beating that led to [their] passing. In fact, this interpretation was favored by former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he insisted on the criminal, as opposed to sociological, nature of the murders of Indigenous women in the country (La Presse Canadienne, 2014)...Beyond the single act of violence perpetrated by one person against another, it is the accumulation of each of the above-mentioned acts of violence that led to [their] death.

According to Viviane Michel, a former president of Quebec Native Women, it is essential that indigenous women, families and communities have the opportunity to be heard as part of any inquiry. She also said that understanding the deep roots underlying the systemic discrimination faced by indigenous women is crucial to ensuring their dignity and safety.

In listening to the testimony of indigenous women, Quebec Native Women counted four types of violence.

The first type of violence is structural violence. This all-encompassing form of violence refers to the systemic effects of policies of erasure and assimilation since at least the middle of the 19th century. The Indian Act is the quintessential example of a system that governs all areas of the lives of first nations people, including political, economic, social, legal and cultural.

The second type of violence is institutional violence. This second form of violence, which necessarily flows from the first, has more to do with the repercussions associated with specific institutional regimes, whether in education, health or public safety. The residential school system is a prime example. Not only did this violence manifest itself in the lives of residential school survivors, but its consequences have spanned generations and have permanently altered the life trajectories of thousands of children by insinuating themselves into every aspect of their existence.

The third type of violence is family violence. This expression is frequently used in an indigenous context to emphasize the fact that violence affects not only couples, but also the children and potentially other people connected to the family.

The fourth and final type of violence is personal violence, which includes instances of physical violence, psychological manipulation and financial control, to name but a few. It involves individuals.

In their descriptions of the encounters, the families and survivors who spoke to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls all linked their experiences to colonialism, in its historical or modern form, through one or other of four main factors: historical, multigenerational or intergenerational trauma; social and economic marginalization; maintaining the status quo and institutional lack of will; ignoring the agency and expertise of indigenous women and girls.

The trauma of Canada's indigenous people is both individual and collective. Expert witness Amy Bombay's testimony at the child and family welfare hearing highlighted the importance of the concept of historical trauma to speak to what she called the cumulative emotional and psychological wounding that happens over the lifespan and across generations, emanating from massive group trauma experiences.

It is the response to this trauma that perpetuates this colonialist legacy, which has become embedded in all of Canada's indigenous cultures through no fault of their own. This response, which can take the form of various social problems, is always aimed at surviving this trauma. Throughout history, the Canadian government and the clergy planned the collective trauma with the ultimate goal of driving all indigenous communities to extinction. Those communities have since been left to deal with the consequences alone. One day, Canada will have to confront this reality.

We have a duty to remember precisely because the past determines our present and future. However, this duty to remember only makes sense in this case if we learn from the past. If we, like the Prime Minister of Canada, get used to shedding crocodile tears and settling for continuing under the Indian Act, then our collective duty to remember will be in vain. We need to build a new system, ideally an independent republic of Quebec, based on a new, respectful dialogue with all nations. That is what the Bloc Québécois is advocating for.

Tiawenhk.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many examples the member brought forward when talking about the real need. I think they amplify the importance of Bill C-38.

I know from personal experience in dealing with constituents, in particular a very good, dear friend of mine, Mr. Chartrand, that we have been trying as much as possible to make sure there is some justice in regard to someone getting registered and being identified by their heritage. It has caused a great deal of frustration.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on that. It is important to recognize, as we move forward, that leadership has to be driven from indigenous communities. This is an important aspect, and we have to ensure that we turn to that leadership to make sure we are getting this right. Would the member agree?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, and as one might imagine, when I was asked to speak to this issue, I immediately contacted the grand chief of my nation, the Huron-Wendat Nation. I asked him what he thought of this. It goes without saying that this must be done.

That being said, when it comes to leadership, it takes two to tango, as they say. It has to come from both sides. The desire for dialogue and leadership in dialogue must come from both sides. Unfortunately, I often get the impression that things move far too slowly in the House.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I am wondering, and what I want to ask the Bloc Québécois member, is why the Liberals took so long to move second reading of the bill. They introduced Bill C‑38 a year ago.

Why are they dragging their feet on this matter? Does this suggest a lack of sincerity and enthusiasm when it comes to indigenous relations? Can my colleague comment on that?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating our colleague on his excellent efforts to speak French. Allow me to applaud him. I understood his speech completely.

First of all, I would like to say that, for my own sake, I have long given up trying to explain the Liberal's slow response to a host of issues. Some things are better left chalked up to the mysteries of life. Even on my deathbed, I doubt I will have the answer.

That said, I want to come back to something I mentioned earlier. At some point the government needs to stop with the words, the processions, the public ceremonies and the crocodile tears. People need to stop pretending they find this tragic. At some point, they have to get moving. Why does it always take so long for something to get started? It is unacceptable.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the structural violence that was committed against indigenous identity, indigenous language and indigenous families, we also have to talk about the resistance to defend that identity. That is why I think this is so important, and I thank my colleague for his speech. We have to be rooted in the history of this country and what happened.

I will talk about Beaverhouse. Beaverhouse is a community between the Algonquins of Timiskaming and Abitibiwinni and the Ojibway Matachewan, yet it was ignored by the federal government, which said it was not a real band. For 100 years, it had no legal rights. It had no legal rights to represent itself and no legal rights to defend its families. When the sixties scoop came, they went after communities like Beaverhouse to trash and destroy them.

Chief Marcia Brown Martel led the legal battle to bring the children home. It changed Canadian law because this little community stood up. It was only last year that Beaverhouse was finally recognized as a band. It had been on its land since time immemorial.

Colonialism destroyed and attacked communities in different ways, but to repair the damage, which is our obligation, is going to take a multi-faceted approach. What does my hon. colleague think about the need to address the individual impacts that were felt by various communities and various nations by the colonial system across this country?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure that I understand the situation that my colleague just described to the House. His intervention was very interesting.

Something that has always bothered me is the use of the term “indigenous people”. Of course, people use it to be brief and concise, but indigenous people are not a homogenous group. We refer to first nations because there is more than one nation. Each nation has its own values, its own culture, its own identity, its own language and its own interests. We obviously need to differentiate when speaking about each of these nations.

It would be like saying “all of the peoples of the world”. Obviously, there are a lot of things that all of the peoples of the world have in common, but the fact remains that we cannot treat them as though they are all identical. That is how we need to look at things when we are dealing with adults. It helps us break away from the colonial mindset.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and riding neighbour from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot for his eloquent speech. As he himself is a member of the Huron-Wendat Nation, I think he knows what he is talking about. He is well read and very passionate about the issue.

I also liked the fact that he talked about the future republic of Quebec, which will truly establish a nation-to-nation relationship. I was pleased that he did not talk about the future monarchy of Quebec, although that would be unlike him.

A bit earlier in the debate, I asked a Liberal member a question about the very nature of the work being done to try to correct a fundamentally racist and archaic piece of legislation. I told her that we should simply tear up the Indian Act and start over on a respectful and new foundation in order to be able to work intelligently nation to nation. She told me that within many first nations across Canada, there is no consensus. Again, we have this sort of claim that it is up to the federal government to build consensus.

I would like to hear the thoughts of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who, I repeat, is a member of the Huron-Wendat Nation. I would like his view as a first nations member. According to him, how should we proceed with building consensus among all the first nations of Canada?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, neighbour and friend for his question.

Let me make one thing clear. The title of this bill, while perhaps a little better than the title it replaced, is in itself a sign that it must be abolished. I used the word “Indian” unwillingly, and it turned my stomach every time I used it throughout my speech. I was using it for the sole reason that it is the title of the act. Indians do exist, and they are the inhabitants of India. It is not the term for first nations, Métis and Inuit people. These people are known as indigenous people.

Again, as our NDP colleague said in his previous question, each and every one of these indigenous people must be treated individually. What I am trying to say in answer to the question is that it is possible that many communities will see benefits as a result of several provisions of the current legislation. However, the best way to do this is to open a dialogue and start from scratch.

There is no requirement that the same law apply to all first nations. In order to determine what should replace the current legislation, it is important to listen to the first nations communities themselves. We will have to listen to what they want to do. If there is no consensus, obviously that also shows that there is no consensus in favour of it. If there is no consensus against it, there is no consensus for it. We can look—

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I thank the hon. member. I spent the last 30 seconds motioning for him to conclude his remarks. He will have time to answer a brief 30-second question.

The hon. member for Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the 2021-22 departmental results report for the Department of Indigenous Services Canada indicates that the department's ability to meet the target that it set for itself was only achieved at a level of 26%. In other words, of the goals the department set for itself, it was able to achieve only 26%.

My colleague has indicated that he is a member of a first nation, and this department is meant to provide services to first nations people across our country. Does he think that achieving 26% of the targets it set for itself indicates that the government is serious about its commitment to meeting the challenges faced by first nations people across our country?

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member has only a few seconds.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I only have a few seconds. A quick question lends itself to a quick answer. I apologize for not heeding your instructions. I do not want you to think, even though we were friends even before we sat together, that I do not respect your authority as Speaker.

My very short answer to the question is no.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, before the Indian Act, first nations, Métis and Inuit thrived and passed on intergenerational love from generation to generation. The Indian Act is an attempt to erase indigenous peoples from the lands we now call Canada.

Bill C-38 is about status. It could have been about addressing discrimination to the fullest extent. I struggle to support Bill C-38, an act to amend the Indian Act. I am conflicted and disappointed to witness yet another form of incremental change proposed by the Liberal government.

As the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group have clearly stated, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says indigenous peoples have “the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture”. This bill does not meet this minimum standard. For decades, first nations have fought for their rights to be upheld. If Bill C-38 is passed as it is, discrimination against first nations women and their families will continue.

There are two reasons I support getting this bill to committee. Number one, while experts say it does not go far enough, this bill is needed, and number two, the failings of this bill to respect the rights of indigenous peoples will show, through public discourse at committee stage, that amendments are necessary.

Bill C-38 was tabled because of a court case, Nicholas v. Canada. It is not because the government is taking a proactive, co-operative approach to reconciliation. Introducing this bill is the minimum requirement set out in that case. After years of discrimination caused by enfranchisement in the Indian Act, 16 courageous plaintiffs sued the Canadian government in June 2021. They agreed to pause proceedings on the condition that legislation be introduced to address this inequity.

The Liberals' commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples is abysmal. If their commitment was real, Bill C-38 would be fulsome. It would have addressed all discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act. Incremental changes are not sufficient to ensure the advancement of indigenous peoples' rights.

I acknowledge that the Indian Act must be abolished. It is a complicated assimilative tool going back generations. The Liberal government has shown that it is not ready to abolish the act. Bill C-38, like previous court cases, makes amendments that are narrow in scope. Future court cases will be imminent if amendments are not made to this bill. Discrimination will be allowed to continue without the ability to seek reparations.

The Liberal government has shown that it is not ready to undertake the full-scale reconciliation needed to adhere to international law as the governing party. The following background will be the tip of an iceberg. All parliamentarians must commit to learning more about the Indian Act and how it continues to implement the genocide of indigenous peoples.

The Indian Act was established in 1867. John A. Macdonald understood the strength of first nations, Inuit and Métis as a threat to his causes. He had to find a way to weaken them. The Indian Act was the tool to continue the process of genocide against the first peoples who thrived on the lands we now call Canada. The Indian Act is a long-ago piece of legislation that was introduced in 1867. The act remains today.

Since its inception, the Indian Act has continued to deny equality for first nations. The Indian Act allows discrimination without justification. The Indian Act denies women status and therefore rights by gaining status. The Indian Act introduced residential schools, created reserves and imposed a band council system. The Indian Act also tells first nations who can have status and who cannot.

Before the creation of bands by this act, indigenous peoples had their own forms of governance. I am thankful for the strength of those who maintained their governance. I am thankful to Inuit elders. I am thankful to hereditary chiefs. I am thankful to the Wet'suwet'en. I am thankful to the Tseeweyhum family and the many others who keep indigenous legal orders alive.

The Canadian government has known about sex-based inequities in the Indian Act for decades. Bill C-31 in 1985, Bill C-3 in 2011 and Bill S-3 in 2017 have attempted to eliminate sex-based inequities. None of these bills worked to the fullest extent; what they did was complicate indigenous identity for some and not for others.

The Indian Act continues to divide indigenous peoples against each other. With each amendment, the Indian Act becomes more complex and confusing to navigate for indigenous peoples. Indeed, I am told by many how confusing it is to know if they have status, how to get status and if their children will be able to get it. They ask, “What are the implications of being removed?”

It is a shame that in 2020, the Minister of Indigenous Services tabled one of three reports after Bill S-3 to amend the Indian Act was passed. The final report made recommendations that are not being addressed in Bill C-38 by the Minister of Indigenous Services today.

As of 2020, there were over 12,000 applications for status still needing review. The special Bill S-3 processing units created in 2016, as of February 2023, have 1,770 files in progress and 3,990 files in the queue. The bill before us would do nothing to address this backlog. First nations are waiting up to 18 months for a decision by Indigenous Services Canada. This is unacceptable.

Bill C-38 would address enfranchisement, deregistration, loss of natal band membership and certain offensive language. These are long-awaited amendments that indigenous peoples have demanded for decades.

Enfranchisement is a particular genocidal policy and a clear example of Canada's attempts to assimilate indigenous peoples. Enfranchisement was either voluntary or involuntary. Women were enfranchised when they married a non-indigenous man between the years of 1869 and 1985. Other examples of enfranchisement included going to university, becoming a doctor or lawyer, working as a minister, seeking to vote and if one sought freedom from residential schools. Amendments introduced in 1985 attempted to remove enfranchisement. Obviously this did not work.

Bill C-38 would still discriminate against women and children who were involuntarily enfranchised. Descendants are unable to transmit entitlement to registration to the same extent as families that were never enfranchised. Those who were enfranchised as a band or collective have no entitlement to register under the Indian Act today.

I will now turn to deregistration, which provides for removing status from membership. There can be any number of reasons to deregister. These provisions would keep the safety of not impacting the children of those who may have deregistered.

The third component of Bill C-38 is on natal band membership. Bill C-38 would provide a legal mechanism to re-affiliate women to their natal bands. This amendment would serve to allow for membership to be reinstated on a band list based on specific conditions. It would address reinstatement of membership for a group of individuals who were originally prevented from being reinstated based on oversight.

Finally, the bill would amend outdated language, which is a small but important step. The offensive language regarding first nations peoples who require dependency on others would be amended. The offending definition of “mentally incompetent Indian” would be replaced with “dependent person”.

Bill C-38 would address these cases, and it is estimated it would impact around 4,000 people. Many more would remain discriminated against.

The Liberals had a chance to remove discrimination from the Indian Act once and for all. Bill C-15, on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, became law in Canada. The Liberals had a chance to introduce that bill so that it would be in alignment with international law. Instead, they are introducing more piecemeal legislation. The past court challenges, Descheneaux v. Canada, McIvor v. Canada, and Matson v. Canada, make it clear. The Senate committee on aboriginal peoples makes it clear. The Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group makes it clear. So many more make it clear. The Liberal government's pattern of reluctant piecemeal changes in response to litigation is unjust.

There is no justification for Canada to ignore, and indeed infringe on, indigenous people's rights. Parliaments would debate again after the passage of Bill C-38 why it is not okay to keep disrespecting indigenous peoples and infringing on their rights.

Two other major issues not addressed are the second-generation cut-off and the ability to seek reparations. The second-generation cut-off in section 6(2) is not addressed in Bill C-38. This is shocking, given how much attention has been paid to this section in past works. In its Bill S-3 review, the ministry of Indigenous Services Canada reported on it. The Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group in its works reported on it. The Senate committee on indigenous peoples reported on it. They all recommended to remove provisions related to the second-generation cut-off.

If bands reject second-generation cut-off, it is because they are not being properly resourced by Indigenous Services Canada to meet the needs of their increasing membership.

Section 6(2) is sexist, and it is problematic. Who a child's mother is, is usually readily apparent. Who the father is, is not always apparent. Whether the father acknowledges his paternity, and this can be counted as the second-status parent for purposes of eligibility for status, is essentially his decision. The two-parent rule continues Canada's program of forced assimilation. Maintenance of the two-parent rule would fulfill the genocidal intention of the Indian Act, getting rid of “the Indian problem”.

Until this rule is amended, hundreds of thousands of indigenous people, mostly women and their descendants, will be discriminated against.

First nations children were robbed of their mothers. First nations children continue to be robbed of their mothers. The current child welfare system continues to separate indigenous peoples from each other. The Liberals say they will consult on second-generation cut-off. Consultation should not be necessary. Discrimination is discrimination. No amount of consultation will result in the justification of it. The government must interpret the rule of law as adhering to international human rights laws and the charter.

We are told by the Liberals that the public portion of this consultation will not begin until 2024. It will be much longer before legislation is drafted and presented before the House again. This tactic to delay is a denial of the rights of indigenous peoples. We should not have to wait for discriminatory provisions to be removed. There is no justification for discrimination to be allowed to continue.

Another form of oppression is preventing indigenous peoples from seeking reparations. Bill C-38 includes specific clauses that will not allow victims of these policies to seek reparation for the discrimination they have experienced. First nations women and children will continue to be harmed, yet they will not be able to seek reparations, even if discrimination is found.

In past bills, there were related provisions legislating that governments are not liable for harms done under the act. Persons are prevented from seeking claims against the government for discrimination caused by the implementation of the Indian Act.

These injustices remain in Bill C-38. According to human rights laws, Canadians are allowed to seek reparations. Why can first nations not do so?

Bill C-38 is a flawed proposal. While it addresses some injustices in the Indian Act, discrimination against first nations would continue. Bill C-38 continues the Liberal incremental approach to reconciliation.

The Liberals' interpretation of Nicholas v. Canada is about status. Bill C-38 must not just be about status; it must be about addressing discrimination and violations of basic human rights. It must be about reconciliation.

I ask this again: Why is it that when Canadians experience human rights violations, they are allowed to seek reparations, when first nations are not?

I hope that Bill C-38 can be salvaged. I hope that, at committee, we hear from experts explaining why improvements must be sought to ensure that first nations' rights are on par with Canadian human rights.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague from the NDP is very passionate about the issues she speaks of. I serve on the indigenous and northern affairs committee with her and I know that she is very serious about solving these issues.

She spent a fair amount of her time going to great lengths to explain the shortfalls of this bill. She talked about the second-generation cut-off and how much work has already been done on that.

As we have talked about today, since this bill was introduced, it has taken almost a year for us to actually get to debate on this. We have had a lot of time to initiate some of these changes.

With all those frustrations and concerns, has there been any attempt by her or her party to utilize these discussions to leverage their coalition agreement with the Liberals to actually include some of these indigenous issues in their agreement, to get some action?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, when it comes to the confidence and supply agreement, we have discussed, very clearly, what the conditions are. In terms of indigenous issues, we have been clear about what we need to do, so there would be no surprises.

I shadow the Minister of Indigenous Services, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Northern Affairs. I continue to work with the ministers that I shadow to make sure that we are going beyond what is said in the confidence and supply agreement, so that indigenous people's rights are being respected.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut for her speech. She too, like our colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, is very credible. She is very concerned and knowledgeable about the issue, to say the least.

Earlier, I was talking about consensus-building, which is not the federal government's role within first nations.

Since the beginning of this debate, we have been talking about the Indian Act, about reviewing it, improving it and making changes to it. Basically, my question to my colleague is this: Rather than talking about legislation, should we not start talking about agreements between the federal government and first nations?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, indeed, nation-to-nation conversations are absolutely important. When it comes to recognizing the right to self-determination and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we must show through our actions what reconciliation actually means. That also means including the use of indigenous legal orders.

I hope that, through our conversations, we will continue to advance the importance of nation-to-nation relationships.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the wisdom and knowledge she has brought to the House on this issue.

Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have failed indigenous, Inuit and Métis people with their incremental approach to reconciliation. In fact, I still remember that the Conservatives under the Harper government said that the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls issue is an Indian issue. Here we are today with this bill, yet another bill with an incremental approach.

Can the member advise the House on what generational damages she sees for the people, the women and families on the ground as a result of Canada's colonial and incremental approach to ensuring indigenous rights are respected.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, being Inuk, I have grown up in a colonial system, and people do not understand that a lot of the time. All I have to say to better describe it is that my dad committed suicide. I was raised in the foster care system. I have too many families that I have to thank for helping raise me to be who I am.

The unfortunate truth about my story is that it is a common story of indigenous peoples. What I just shared is common to so many first nations, Métis and Inuit. With the ignorance we experienced from regular, mainstream Canadians, we had to start using terms such as “systemic racism” and “genocidal policies”. The terms help explain what the impacts are of these discriminatory policies, discriminatory lies and administrative tactics to not only steal our lands but continue to steal our time and oppress us.

I am so thankful to indigenous peoples who keep our culture alive and who keep our languages alive.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say, at this great distance, that I speak to you acknowledging that I am on the territory of the W̱SÁNEĆ peoples, who held this land on the southern Vancouver Island and the islands I represent, whom I have the honour to work with. I try constantly to remember that I am in a nation-to-nation relationship with five different first nations that are on this territory. Although, as the chiefs will always remind me, they are Indian Act nations and, in reality, we are villages within a much-larger nation of the W̱SÁNEĆ nation.

I am deeply honoured to share a working place with the member of Parliament for Nunavut, and I appreciate her voice and leadership more than she knows. I was so disappointed when I read Bill C-38. She confirmed for me my sense that this is so much less than what one should expect at this point.

I was the first member of Parliament, as far as I know, a number of years ago, to call for the repeal of the Indian Act in the House of Commons. I turned to my colleague at the time, Romeo Saganash, to tell him I was about to call for the repeal of the Indian Act. I asked him if he thought that was okay, because I had not consulted with a lot of first nations before I did that. He said that nobody asked them before they passed the legislation, so he thought it was okay.

We have a long road to go. It is not a slow road, and yet the steps being taken by the government are slow and often completely contradictory in terms of reconciliation.

I wanted to express my deep support and gratitude to the member and let her know that, where I can, I will do what she recommends on Bill C-38. It obviously needs—

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I need to allow time for the answer.

The hon. member for Nunavut.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, solidarity is so important, and in a party system, it is very hard to see solidarity. I do feel the sense of solidarity the member has shared with me, and I think we all need to talk about solidarity more often when it comes to discussing indigenous people's rights.

I started off my conversation about intergenerational love and how we lived with it since time immemorial. Since 1867, all the successive governments stripped us of our intergenerational love. We have shown that, through our strength and our willingness to understand that our culture is too important, it is for us to manage the wildlife and the environment. We are the right people to be the leaders in Canada.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a Métis, an indigenous Canadian, I am happy and pleased to see this bill coming in. It has taken a long time.

However, I am concerned about the NDP-Liberals and how they have worked against indigenous people in many respects, such as with natural resources projects. There have been projects, such as northern gateway, that were approved and wanted by indigenous peoples. Why are the NDP and the Liberals working against indigenous peoples?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, when oppressed people have been led to poverty and have been suppressed for generations, the options they have become fewer.

The industry and the mining companies provide an option that looks attractive because governments are failing indigenous peoples. When indigenous peoples are saying they support it, it is because it is the only option left. I thank the Wet'suwet'en who continue to fight against the LNG project.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I really have appreciated hearing the debate in the House today. It draws our attention to the fact that this is a very complicated issue that we really need, in the House, to listen to far more than to debate amongst ourselves. I thank the last member for her speech on her concerns about the circumstances that our first nations and our indigenous peoples find themselves in.

Part of the challenge, I do believe, is that indigenous communities are multiple and they come from very different perspectives themselves. I have had conversations with young leaders in the indigenous community who say that their circumstances are so complicated. In their minds, it will take time. What they want to see is something that is really important. I will focus on just this one point and get into the bill more at the next opportunity I have to speak.

The bill would provide strides toward reconciliation and the reversal of discrimination and inequalities within the Indian Act, but it is only a milestone in a long journey of self-determination for first nations across Canada.. What I hear more than anything, over and over again, from indigenous individuals who want to see a good future for themselves and their families is that they do not want to be stakeholders in Canada. They want to be shareholders. I look forward to that day with them.

The House resumed from October 20, 2023, consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I was two minutes into speaking to Bill C-38 when my time ended on October 20, 2023. I am delighted to carry on today and will begin by reflecting first on what I said five months ago as I preface my further comments.

I really did appreciate hearing the debate in the House that day. Once again it was apparent that we gain far more from listening to those impacted and finding common ground to bring about positive change where needed. There was true concern about the circumstances that indigenous peoples find themselves in as a result of hardships they have faced through abuse and the intergenerational impact of those abuses from the past. Part of the challenge, I believe, is that while indigenous communities are many and have much in common, they also come from different life experiences themselves, and the same realization exists within all people groups throughout the world and those that call Canada home.

Although the long-awaited piece of legislation before us would provide strides toward reconciliation and the reversal of discrimination and inequalities within the Indian Act, it is only a milestone in a long journey of self-determination for first nations across Canada.

First of all I will deal with a reprimand I received in this place from other members who chided me for saying “our” first nations and “our” indigenous peoples, implying that I was suggesting ownership as a statement of colonialism. It might be some people’s choice to define the use of the word “our” as a weapon used by some in an effort to further hurt and create division, but in my case, nothing could be farther from the truth. Divisive rhetoric causes wounds. In my conversation, the word “our” is recognition of the desire of our indigenous people to be shareholders, not stakeholders.

In the riding of Yorkton—Melville, diversity is not our strength; unity in the midst of our diversity is our strength. In just the past few weeks, I have participated in and enjoyed two Unity in the Community events hosted by the Métis Nation Saskatchewan and the local communities of Porcupine Plain and Hudson Bay, where Métis, first nation, Filipino, Ukrainian, Norwegian, Portuguese, African, and some I think I am forgetting, many different cultures, came together from those communities and packed the building for an entire day of great food, displays, history, clothing, dancing and singing that intentionally celebrated everyone who calls those communities and the surrounding area home. The relationship-building and reconciliation are intentional there.

Another example is the efforts of the Yorkton Tribal Council as an association of six first nations and the City of Yorkton, which are working together to invest in common goals. Then there is the coming together of the Cote First Nation with the Good Spirit School Division, Kamsack School and Isabella and her family, to model grace in reconciliation through the creation of Ribbon Skirt Day. These are fruitful changes that we create.

As we keep these moments in mind, here is a truncated history lesson about the timeline of 45 years of incremental changes that have gone by since the Indian Act was created and implemented in 1876. In 1982, the Canadian Constitution was patriated, and section 35 of the Constitution recognized and affirmed the aboriginal title and treaty rights. Section 37 of the Constitution was amended, obligating the federal and provincial governments to consult with indigenous peoples on outstanding issues, creating the duty to consult.

In 1985, Bill C-31's amendment to the Indian Act passed, and it addressed gender-based discrimination pertaining to status women who married a non-status man and involuntarily enfranchised and created categories of status Indian registration under subsections 6(1) and 6(2). Then in 2010, Bill C-3's amendments to the Indian Act addressed gender discrimination in section 6 of the act in response to McIvor v. Canada. Subsection 6(2) was amended, allowing women who regained status to pass down status to their grandchildren.

In 2017, Bill S-3, an amendment to the Indian Act, addressed further gender-based discrimination in the act. The lineage eligible for registration from a status woman who was enfranchised by marrying a non-Indian man was reinstated in 1985, but it is still shorter than the lineage of a status male who married a non-Indian woman. In 2019, continuation of the coming-into-force of Bill S-3 addressed the removal of the 1951 cut-off, where in order for an individual to pass down status, they must have had a child or adopted a child on or after September 4, 1951, and have a mother who lost entitlement due to a marriage to a non-Indian man.

I hope I am not losing my colleagues.

In 2020, the final report to Parliament on the review of Bill S-3 acknowledged residual inequities, including the impacts of a family history of enfranchisement or entitlement registration. Enter 2023 and the introduction of Bill C-38, which responds to a 2021 case where 16 individual plaintiffs launched a constitutional challenge seeking to end inequities and exclusion faced by families that were enfranchised under earlier versions of the Indian Act. An agreement was reached to put the litigation on hold while working to pursue the legislative solution.

Bill C-38 would amend four key issues in the Act. First, individuals with a family history of enfranchisement would be entitled to registration under the Indian Act and could pass on entitlement to descendants with the same degree as those without family history of enfranchisement. Second, individuals would be allowed to deregister from the Indian register if they chose to do so, via an application for removal, without the repercussions of enfranchisement. Third, an addition would be made to Section 11 of the Indian Act that would allow married women to return to their natal band if they obtained status and were registered to their spouse’s band before April 17, 1985, addressing natal band reaffiliation. Finally, outdated and offensive language when referring to “dependent persons” would be addressed and changed.

The amendment, with four parts, is estimated to provide eligibility for registration for approximately 3,500 individuals. The individuals who are eligible and choose to apply for registration would have access to the rights and benefits of registrants under the Indian Act. Unlike with enfranchisement, first nations individuals would have more control over their own identity and ultimately determine themselves which services and benefits they would like to access based on the group they wish to identify with. Once an individual has chosen to deregister, they would no longer have access to any programs, services, settlements and/or benefits associated with the Indian Act. That would be their choice.

While this amendment would be a positive stride towards reconciliation and the reversal of discrimination and inequalities within the Indian Act, it would be, as I said, but a milestone in a journey of self-determination for first nations across Canada. On October 20, 2023, I said that indigenous individuals who want to see a good future for themselves and their families do not want to be stakeholders in Canada; they want to be shareholders. I ended on that day, October 20, 2023, by saying that I look forward to that day with them. I had a lot of good response to that comment.

At that time, I had no idea that three and a half months later, an announcement would be made that provides a clear map to a better future laid out by first nations for first nations, for reconciliation, forgiveness and healing, and for our shared nation of Canada. On February 8, the hon. leader of Canada’s common-sense Conservatives committed to enabling first nations to take back control of their resource revenues from big-government gatekeepers in Ottawa. For hundreds of years, first nations have suffered under a broken system that takes power away from their communities and gives it to Ottawa. The Indian Act hands over all reserve land and money to the federal government. This means that first nations have to go through Ottawa to ask for their tax revenues collected from resource projects on their land.

This outdated system puts power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists, not first nations. The direct result of this “Ottawa knows best” approach has been poverty, substandard infrastructure and housing, unsafe drinking water, and despair. Conservatives have listened to first nations, and we have announced support for an optional first nations resource charge that enables first nations to take back control of their resources and money. This is a first nations-led solution to a made-in-Ottawa problem.

First nations and the First Nations Tax Commission developed the plan. They brought it to Conservatives, and we accepted. This new optional model will simplify negotiations between resource companies and first nations. The FNRC will not preclude any community from continuing to use other existing arrangements, such as impact benefit agreements. The Conservative leader, in his conversation with them, said, “The First Nations Resource Charge cedes federal tax room so communities will no longer need to send all their revenues to Ottawa and then ask for it back. It will also make resource projects more attractive to First Nations so they are more likely to go ahead.” Then he said—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The Sergeant-at-Arms just went out to take care of the noise. We are on top of it.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, in light of what has been going on, I would like to go back to where I indicated that first nations do not want to be stakeholders; they want to be shareholders. I ended my speech back in October 2023 by saying, “I look forward to that day with them.” I received an awful lot of very positive responses to that comment.

At that time, I had no idea that, three and a half months later, an announcement would be made that provides a clear map to a better future, laid out by first nations, for first nations for reconciliation, forgiveness, healing and for our shared nation of Canada.

On February 8, the hon. leader of Canada's common-sense Conservatives committed to “enabl[ing] First Nations to take back control of their resource revenues from big government gatekeepers in Ottawa.”

The news release reads:

For hundreds of years, First Nations have suffered under a broken colonial system that takes power away from their communities and places it in the hands of politicians in Ottawa.

The Indian Act hands over all reserve land and money to the federal government. This means that First Nations have to go to Ottawa to ask for their tax revenues collected from resource projects on their land.

This outdated system puts power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists – not First Nations. The direct result of this “Ottawa-knows-best” approach has been poverty, substandard infrastructure and housing, unsafe drinking water and despair.

It goes on to say:

Conservatives have listened to First Nations, and...we are announcing support for an optional First Nations Resource Charge (FNRC) that enables First Nations to take back control of their resources and money.

This is a First Nation-led solution to a made-in-Ottawa problem. First Nations and the First Nations Tax Commission developed the plan, brought it to Conservatives, and we accepted.

This new optional model will simplify negotiations between resource companies and First Nations.

The FNRC will not preclude any community from continuing to use other existing arrangements, such as Impact Benefit Agreements. First Nations can choose the FNRC to replace the financial component in Impact Benefit Agreements or supplement IBAs, as they wish. The FNRC will respect all treaty rights and all constitutional rights—including the duty to consult.

Putting First Nations back in control of their money, and letting them bring home the benefits of their resources, will help get local buy-in for good projects to go ahead.

In other words, more earnings for grassroots first nations communities, not Ottawa gatekeepers. Those earnings will mean paycheques, schools and clean water for people.

The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada said:

The First Nations Resource Charge cedes federal tax room so communities will no longer need to send all their revenues to Ottawa and then ask for it back. It will also make resource projects more attractive to First Nations so they are more likely to go ahead.

I am committed to repealing [the Liberal] radical anti-resource laws to quickly green-light good projects so First Nations and all Canadians bring home more powerful paycheques.

When we talk about axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime, that is a promise to every Canadian who lives in this country and every person who is calling it home. What we are hearing about today is just the tip of the iceberg. We are excited about the opportunity we have here with first nations, and we are especially thrilled they have come up with this situation to solve some of the frustrations they experience. We know they have so much more opportunity now to succeed, just as every other Canadian and every other Canadian organization, group or people has that opportunity.

I am so pleased that we, as common-sense Conservatives, are fighting for real economic reconciliation by supporting first nations to take back control of their money and their lives.

It is my home, members' home and our home. Let us bring it home together.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was born in a country that was a colony of foreign rulers for centuries, and I appreciate that people had to face multi-generational trauma.

I am happy to note that she mentioned the word “unity”, which we should use when we talk about diversity. Her comment about using the word “shareholders” instead of “stakeholders” was interesting. Could she explain whether her reason for using the word “shareholder” is because the resources, and the returns they have generated, can be equitably distributed among indigenous people?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the difference between stakeholders and shareholders was expressed to me by indigenous people. Often, they feel that they are on the outside looking in with the government, where they are somewhat being “consulted”.

However, it is not about consultation. It is about being part of the process and being included, because they are shareholders in what is happening in Canada as much as anyone else. They have the added pressure, because of past circumstances that they have experienced, in feeling that they are not being given that due attention.

That is why, as a Conservative, it was very exciting for me to hear about the opportunity that our leader had. He was asked to come and meet with them, to hear their plan and their excitement about the potential for their futures and taking responsibility for what is truly theirs.

I am also so thrilled to know that in Canada, we all have the opportunity to succeed. That is our goal, on this side of the floor, for when we become government.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, given what we know about it, I would like my colleague to explain why the government is disregarding Amnesty International's final report entitled “No More Stolen Sisters”, which was tabled five years after its initial report. We finally managed to make a bit of progress when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission came out in favour of a national inquiry into the disproportionate violence experienced by indigenous women and girls. Can my colleague explain that to me?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am being general at this point in answering the member's question, but women do face disproportional violence in every segment of our society. This needs to change.

I think what frustrates me the most is that the government is picking and choosing where and how that might take place.

In other situations, as an example, when a woman who is pregnant faces an attack by a third party and she is injured or the life inside her is injured or killed, the government chose to ignore doing something that we could do. That was to bring in a requirement of recognition of that by the judge who is in the process of sentencing. Therefore, we are not even talking about determining whether there was a crime committed. That has already been determined, yet the government chose not to respond to that opportunity.

There are a number of them that I would like to speak to, but I believe we agree that women in this country and around the world should be protected from violence far more than they are.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, part of this legislation is a clause that justifies past discrimination and violation of human rights. It allows the government to have discriminated with impunity and underscores the sense of colonial entitlement.

Does the member agree with the provision of the legislation that prohibits first nations women from seeking compensation for historic harms? Is it justified that the government denied first nations women access to health care, education or safe housing? I think I know the answer, but I would like to hear it from her.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, obviously, I disagree with that.

Part of the reason I went through a little bit of a historical comment from one year to the other was, for me, just to indicate how incremental government can be in dealing with issues and problems when, really, the whole thing could have been dealt with substantially.

That is why I am excited about what first nations have brought to the Conservative Party and that they have asked us to partner with them, to make sure that a lot of those circumstances from the past are nullified, going forward, for their women and girls and for their nations.

That is why, as I mentioned, I spoke to the history and I am also speaking to the wonderful future that I believe our first nations have here in Canada, with the decisions that they are making and that we are encouraging.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's intervention on this important debate on Bill C-38. Obviously, a number of inequities existed after various governments brought forward legislation. That has, unfortunately, hit upon many of the individuals that this legislation tries to target. I know this particular member has worked very hard with indigenous leaders, community members and individuals in her riding, and probably throughout her region.

Could she comment on some of the positive things she has seen and also remark on some of the other inequities she believes need to be addressed by a future government?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, with my role as the member of Parliament for Yorkton—Melville, this is one of the highlights of my personal experience. It has opened me up to a lot more relationships with the indigenous communities in my riding and within the province.

I can say that, even for myself, it has taken hard work on both sides to build that relationship up. We cannot really succeed at anything if we do not have that relationship. I had the opportunity when we did our Saskatchewan caucus retreat, which we do every winter and summer, to get together with various groups and individuals who want to meet with us.

I had reached out to Chief O'Soup, who is the chief of the Yorkton Tribal Council, to see if we could come and visit. She said yes, and it did happen. However, she came to me and said, “We have never done this before. We are not sure what we are getting into here.” We showed up a little late, because we had another meeting. We sat down, and the first thing we did was have soup and bannock, and we started talking. We found out that our senator had gone to school with one of these individuals. Over that time together, we built a realization that we could then talk about some pretty serious circumstances in our community.

I am thankful for the time to say there are a lot of good things going on, and it is at the initiative of our first nations wanting to work with their communities in reconciliation.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and I appreciate that she is, especially in her riding, building those relationships.

She said early in her speech, and she has repeated it again, “our first nations”, and she said something to justify why she uses that term. I find it a bit disconcerting, because it is certainly not the way I would refer to Kahnawake, the neighbouring reserve to my riding.

Could the member say more on that and why she said that diversity is not a strength?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, thanks for the question, because I know it is out there. I refuse to succumb to wokeness and for people to tell me what I am defining with the words I use.

I used to coach teams. I would say “our team”. These are “our children”, these are “our friends”. I refuse to respond to anything that indicates that I do not have anything but the deepest respect and passion for—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

There are discussions being had on both sides, and I would tend to think that the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton would want to make sure that his colleague can answer the question without further interruption.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would hope the individuals on the other side of the floor would also show that respect to me.

I am not for more division in this country, and every time we come up with these ways to say someone is saying this or that, which divides people, it is shameful and it needs to stop. This country is one country full of amazing people who want to be united. That is what I focus on and that is what the people in my riding are focusing on.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, good morning to you and to everyone. I wish all hon. colleagues who are gathered here this morning a happy Friday. Welcome to the folks in the gallery as well.

First, I will be splitting my time with my friend, the hon. member for Sudbury, who I get to sit and work with on two committees in this wonderful House.

With that, I would like to begin speaking to Bill C-38, an act to amend the Indian Act—

[Michael Cooper]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There seem to be some conversations going on across the floor again. I would ask members if they want to have conversations to please take them outside while someone else has the floor.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that C-38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on this topic and to join my colleagues, the topic being Bill C-38. Again, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sudbury, as I indicated earlier, and I will be providing important information about the Indian Act and about the amendments being proposed in Bill C-38.

My colleagues have described how these amendments were developed through engagement with first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations, which was central to the process. We could not do this without their collaboration and guidance. Now, I would like to share the potential impact of the amendments and some next steps in addressing the historical inequities of the registration and membership provisions of the Indian Act, and ultimately, a full transition away from the act to true self-determination and governance by first nations.

The amendments being proposed today are situated within a broader whole-of-government effort to advance indigenous rights to self-determination and to self-government.

Our government acknowledges that the Indian Act is an extension of our colonial history. These amendments would be an incremental step toward the development of an approach to first nations' citizenship that would be an alternative to the Indian Act. We have heard from many first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations that we need to address a range of issues before a full transition of jurisdiction over citizenship to first nations can occur.

That is what we are working toward today by introducing amendments to address inequities in registration and membership under the Indian Act. What would the impact of these amendments be? Let me begin with the proposal to address the discrimination caused by a family history of enfranchisement. This bill would eliminate the differential treatment of those whose family histories include involuntary or voluntary enfranchisement, resulting in approximately 2,400 newly entitled individuals.

It would also reinstate individuals who collectively were enfranchised as a band prior to 1985, resulting in approximately an additional 1,100 newly entitled individuals. Descendants of enfranchised individuals would be entitled to registration and would be able to exercise their rights and access the associated benefits and services, which include education and non-insured health benefits.

These amendments would also recognize the acquired rights of all individuals to membership in their natal communities. The amendments would provide a legal mechanism enabling women to re-affiliate with their natal bands, if they wish. This would directly benefit those first nations women and their descendants whose membership in their natal bands was changed without their consent or their say. The result would be that first nations women who married first nations men from a different community, between 1876 and 1985, would have the choice to reconnect to their natal community.

The bill would also return autonomy to first nations by allowing them to deregister or to remove their name from the Indian register if they wish. Individuals would have the legal capacity to exercise agency over their status.

Finally, by eliminating outdated and offensive language about first nations persons with a disability, the amendments strive to align the language of the Indian Act with the last 50 years of development in capacity and guardianship law. The outdated and offensive language in the Indian Act is a lingering affront. Addressing culturally insensitive and offensive language would positively benefit first nations persons with disabilities, and their caregivers, by acknowledging their fundamental humanity and personhood, instead of relegating them as defective in some manner.

These amendments in Bill C-38 are considered necessary incremental changes with an aim to align the Indian Act with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; although, clearly, much work remains. By amending the Indian Act to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the amendments support the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 43, which calls upon federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments to fully adopt and to implement the UN declaration as their framework for reconciliation.

The amendments also support the national action plan to address missing and murdered women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people by acknowledging and recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples. Of course, we know that the work is not complete. Reconciling the colonial legacy of Canada's relationship with first nations while constrained to the framework of the Indian Act is fundamentally challenging.

During this round of engagement, we have heard loud and clear that the second-generation cut-off issue continues to impact many individuals, and our next focus must be on this issue. An equal application of the second-generation cut-off has resulted in many grandchildren and great-grandchildren being denied status and membership to a first nations community. There are also remaining issues, such as the scrip taking and cross-border concerns.

Further conversations are needed with first nations partners to listen and learn about what future changes may encompass. To this end, starting in early 2024, we will begin engagement on these initial inequities, with a plan to introduce additional amendments once we have engaged broadly. Changing the Indian Act is a continuous iterative process. We unequivocally respect the need for engagement and input from first nations voices. Any future legislative changes will be the result of ongoing engagement and the codevelopment of solutions with first nations partners and other rights holders.

Under section 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the Government of Canada must, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration. The amendments being introduced today are considered requisite incremental changes that both increase the Indian Act's alignment with the declaration while also laying the groundwork for the Indian Act to be repealed in due course. The changes under discussion today are a necessary step to transition Canada out of the business of Indian registration and toward a future beyond the Indian Act.

By addressing historic wrongs in co-operation with first nations, we will continue to advance reconciliation and support a renewed relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. We strive toward a relationship based on rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

I encourage members in this most honourable House to join me in supporting Bill C-38 and the steps it proposes to begin to move away from the Indian Act.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are having some excellent discourse in the House today regarding this very important issue. I was certainly very impressed with my colleague from Yorkton—Melville on this side of the House, who spoke of some of her interactions and relationships.

I am hoping that perhaps the hon. member can share some of his interactions and relationship building with first nations groups, which, of course, are so important at this time.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-38, from my understanding, is going to receive support from all sides of the House. If I am incorrect, then I am sure it will be pointed out afterward. What is important is that we continue to consult and collaborate with first nations people, make sure that we understand their concerns and the areas where we can move forward judiciously and with diligence to continue the process of reconciliation because we know it is imperative for our government, any government and all peoples in this beautiful country, which we are blessed to call home.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always nice to see the government finally implementing some of the recommendations for reconciliation, which is a major undertaking. Still, I think that it is rather shameful that we are not further along in this process, which I think is necessary. The government keeps saying how first nations have been wanting this and waiting for it.

There are some things that are easy to implement. During its study, the committee recommended that an official apology be made to those who fought to put an end to discrimination in the registration provisions. There are some easy things we could do to show that we have a real desire to do more than simply recognize that we are on unceded territory, which means very little or is purely symbolic in the eyes of most of the first nations people we talk to. It does not do much to improve their lot.

I would like to know whether the government is at least willing to act on the suggestions that are easy to implement, such as issuing an apology, for example. We know that this Prime Minister is very quick to apologize if it means he gets to shed a few tears. Is this something that the government might consider?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑38 is very important for us.

I want to say that I am very happy to hear that the pertinent committee for this bill did the requisite work and put forward a number of recommendations. It is obviously fitting that we continue to do the work in line with the recommendations in UNDRIP. Obviously, how quickly we proceed in this process will determine the timeline.

On the recommendations that the committee has brought forward, I am sure, in the spirit of collaboration, that all of those recommendations were looked at by the pertinent individuals and parties who put forward this legislation.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, kwe kwe, ullukkut, tansi, hello and bonjour. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded traditional lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I am thankful for the opportunity to say a few words today as we debate important amendments to the Indian Act, a relic of our colonial history that needs change.

I would like to begin by providing a historical overview to show why these amendments are so important and why we could not be proposing them today without first taking time to listen to and learn from first nations and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations.

Before European contact, first nations had their own, long-established methods for determining citizenship. While methods varied between nations, the issues of kinship and community ties were at the heart of these processes. Colonial administrations, and then successive Canadian governments, introduced a progression of statutes that drastically changed the meaning and the nature of citizenship within first nations. The goal of these statutes was assimilation, and through the Indian Act, the process of enfranchisement was introduced.

Through enfranchisement, first nations members lost entitlement to registration and membership in their home communities if they wanted to vote in Canadian elections, own land, serve in the Canadian military, marry a non-first nations person or deny compulsory residential school attendance for their children. This legal process not only extinguished individual rights to registration under the Indian Act but also eliminated the right to access a range of rights and benefits, including the ability to vote in their nations' elections.

Individuals, including men, their wives and minor children, could be enfranchised involuntarily or by application. As I alluded to earlier, many parents sought enfranchisement simply as a means to protect their children from forced attendance at residential schools. Some were involuntarily enfranchised when they earned a degree; became a doctor, lawyer or professional; or resided outside of Canada for more than five years without permission.

The implication of enfranchisement in these circumstances was that first nations heritage and culture was somehow incompatible with notions of modernity and professional achievement.

The evolution of the Indian Act had particular consequences for first nations women. By 1869, the definition of “Indian” was no longer based on first nations' kinship and community but instead on the predominance of male lineage and their community connection. Under the Indian Act, a woman who married an Indian man was automatically transferred from her father's nation to her husband's community. Women who married non-lndian men lost their status and any associated benefits completely.

The result of these policies has been devastating. The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls explains how the policy played a role in limiting women's social and economic independence. We know from the national inquiry that social and economic marginalization was among the root causes of the unspeakable violence that indigenous women and girls endure in this country.

There have been attempts over the years to do better, but these have fallen short. Amendments to the Indian Act in 1951 attempted to remove some of the offensive political, cultural and religious restrictions, but they also gave the provinces jurisdiction over indigenous child welfare. This paved the way for the sixties scoop, a painful process where first nations children were removed from their families and communities instead of being provided with resources and supports.

In 1985, the process of enfranchisement was eliminated from the Indian Act. Individuals who had been enfranchised by application had their entitlement restored, but they still could not pass on entitlement to their grandchildren.

This is why it is so crucial for any amendments to be made in coordination with those who are most affected by them. Today we are on a path toward reconciliation. We are trying to listen, learn and do better. Policy development must reflect the recommendations and perspectives of first nations peoples and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations.

For example, through the collaborative process on Indian registration, band membership and first nation citizenship, first nations partners guided the development of Bill S-3, which received royal assent in 2017, came into force in 2019 and eliminated known sex-based inequities in the registration provisions of the Indian Act. Today, because of these changes, matrilineal and patrilineal lines of ancestry are treated equally in entitlement to registration, all the way back to 1867.

Despite the successful removal of sex-based inequities in registration, the Government of Canada and first nations agree that there are still legacy issues that impact women and issues in registration and membership which remain, and these need to be addressed.

In March, the Minister of Indigenous Services reaffirmed the federal government's commitment to addressing enfranchisement-related inequities in the Indian Act as soon as possible. We have been working with first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations to craft these amendments. We are grateful for their advice and guidance, and we recognize how difficult it can be to share their stories over and over again in a struggle for change that spans decades.

The amendments in the bill before us today are the result of discussions with impacted first nations individuals, first nations representatives, Indian registration administrators and national indigenous organizations, including the Assembly of First Nations, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Native Women's Association of Canada, Métis Nation of Canada and the Manitoba Métis Federation. Some provided formal written feedback on the draft of the legislation, while others participated in conversations about the need for and direction of the amendments.

I will now provide a brief overview of what the amendments include. The amendments being proposed will address discrimination caused by a family history of enfranchisement. They will also address individual deregistration, natal band membership and some of the outdated and offensive language in the Indian Act.

They will ensure that first nation individuals with a family history of enfranchisement will be treated equally to those without. The amendments will also allow those individuals who want to remove their names from the Indian register the opportunity to do so. We know this is important for members of Métis groups or American tribes who wish to pursue this option based on the membership requirements of their respective groups.

We note that those who are deregistered will still legally retain their entitlement to be registered under the Indian Act in the future and subsequently transmit entitlement to their descendants. The proposed amendments would also create a legal mechanism that would ensure that women who lost the right to membership in their natal first nations, prior to changes made in 1985, have the right to apply to have that membership restored.

Last, we know the Indian Act includes all manner of outdated and offensive language. Today's amendments will focus on the term “mentally incompetent Indians”, which would be replaced with the more respectful “dependent person.”

We recognize that there is much more work to be done to address the colonial legacies in legislation. Starting early in 2023, we will begin engagement on the additional inequities that still remain in registration, including the second generation cut-off. We will plan to introduce additional amendments once we have engaged broadly.

We are committed to working hand in hand with first nations to accomplish this. We are striving to make changes based on recognition and respect for the right to self-determination. It is a learning process. We are learning how to listen and also how to act with humility.

I reiterate my thanks to the first nations individuals and indigenous partners who represent non-status first nations who have devoted their time and energy to this process of change, and to the many individuals that work hard every day to make things better in this country. Their resilience and patience paves the way for a brighter future, and I offer my deepest gratitude to them.

It is my hope that this historical context and overview provides members of Parliament with a sense of why these amendments are needed. I hope all members will join me in supporting this important bill and in continuing to work towards true reconciliation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I stand before you to discuss a monumental step forward in our nation's journey toward reconciliation and justice for first nations communities. The proposed legislation, Bill C-38, seeks to amend the Indian Act in response to long-standing concerns voiced by first nations individuals and communities, as well as to address the residual discriminatory impacts highlighted by the Nicholas v. AGC litigation.

For too long, the Indian Act has been a source of division and inequality, its outdated provisions casting long shadows over the promise of equity and unity. Bill C-38 represents a pivotal moment in our collective history, a chance to right the wrongs of the past and lay the groundwork for a future where justice and equality are not just ideals but realities.

The proposed changes would be both comprehensive and transformative. First, the bill seeks to eliminate known sex-based membership inequalities from the act. This would be a critical step toward ensuring that all first nations individuals, regardless of gender, have equal rights and opportunities. By addressing these sex-based inequalities, we would not only uphold the principles of justice and fairness, but would also honour the resilience and dignity of those who have fought tirelessly for these changes.

Second, the legislation aims to address inequities caused by the practice of enfranchisement. This historical practice, which stripped first nations individuals of their status and rights, has left deep scars on communities. By rectifying these injustices, we would acknowledge the wrongs of the past and take a significant step toward healing and reconciliation.

Additionally, Bill C-38 would allow for deregistration from the Indian register. This change would recognize the autonomy and agency of first nations individuals, providing them with the freedom to define their own identities and affiliations. It would be a move toward self-determination, empowering individuals to make choices that reflect their personal beliefs and circumstances.

It is essential to emphasize the gravity of enfranchisement. The process unjustly stripped thousands of first nations individuals of their status, severing their ties to their communities and heritage. Although the practice was abolished 35 years ago, the shadows it cast are long and dark, with its harmful legacy still felt today. The scars left by enfranchisement are not merely historical footnotes; they are also lived realities for many, manifesting in lost connections, identities and rights.

In alignment with our commitment to reconciliation, and guided by the wisdom of first nations partners, our government is dedicated to confronting and eliminating these registration inequalities at a systemic level. Bill C-38 is not just a legislative measure; it is a testament to our resolve to address these injustices head on. By targeting these inequities, we are taking a stand against the vestiges of policies designed to assimilate and erase first nations identities.

Moreover, the bill's commitment to eradicating sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act would address a critical aspect of inequality that has persisted for far too long. These discriminatory practices, embedded in the act, have undermined the principle of equality and fairness. By confronting these injustices, Bill C-38 would be setting a precedent for the kind of nation we aspire to be, one where equality is not just a principle but also a practice.

Let us recognize that Bill C-38 represents a step forward in our journey towards reconciliation. It is a journey that requires our collective effort, commitment and compassion. As we move forward, let us do so with the understanding that true reconciliation involves acknowledging the past, rectifying injustices and working towards a future where the rights and dignity of all first nations peoples are respected and upheld.

Bill C-38 would commit to removing outdated and offensive language found in the Indian Act. Language shapes our perceptions and attitudes, and by eliminating derogatory terms, we foster a more respectful and inclusive dialogue. This change is not just about updating terminology; it is about reshaping the narrative and affirming the dignity of all first nations people.

In our journey toward progress and inclusivity, we encounter a significant obstacle: our legal code, a labyrinth of statutes, some of which date back a long time to a previous era. Among these laws are provisions that no longer reflect our current values, ethics and understanding. Even more concerning, some contain language that is offensive, discriminatory and wholly out of step with today’s standards of respect and equality.

The task before us is not merely administrative; it is morally imperative. To rectify the situation, we must undertake a comprehensive review of our legal system. The review should not only identify outdated and offensive provisions but also evaluate the relevance and applicability of laws in the contemporary context. The goal is not to erase history but to ensure that our legal framework is just, equitable and reflective of the society we aspire to be.

The process requires a collaborative effort involving legal experts, historians, ethicists and, importantly, the community at large. Public consultation would ensure that the process is transparent, inclusive and sensitive to the diverse needs and values of our society. Technology can aid in this endeavour, enabling more efficient review and broader engagement. Moreover, this effort presents an opportunity for educational outreach, helping the public understand the evolution of our legal system and the importance of laws that are just, inclusive and respectful. By engaging in this critical work, we affirm our commitment to democracy, justice and the dignity of all individuals.

The bill includes further required consequential amendments to ensure that the act would reflect the values of equality, respect and justice. These changes are not merely administrative; they are a testament to our commitment to addressing historical injustices and building a more equitable society.

Bill C-38 is more than simply legislation; it is a beacon of hope. It signifies a profound shift in our relationship with first nations communities, one rooted in respect, understanding, and partnership. As we move forward, let us do so with open hearts and minds, committed to the principles of reconciliation and equity.

Together we can build a future that honours the rich heritage and contributions of first nations peoples, ensuring that our nation's legacy is one of unity, justice, and mutual respect. The path to modernizing our legal system is both a challenge and an opportunity. It is an opportunity to reaffirm our values, to strengthen our democracy and to build a more inclusive society. Together let us embark on this journey with determination and hope.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly remember, as the bill came forward, expressions of disappointment that it did not go farther, that it would bring relatively minor changes in the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Crown, and that much more would need to be done. However, I did not hear anyone suggest that it was not a good step forward, though small.

I wonder whether the hon. member can inform us of the extent to which more substantial changes will be coming in the legislative scheme of this country's racist laws.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with her that much more needs to be done. We are taking a step in the right direction; that is the most important thing. We have the intention and have already shown that we are converting our intention into reality by taking this step.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the need for reaffiliation and membership is extremely important and that we must move forward.

My question for my colleague is this. Why, after five years and after everything that has happened, did his government not take action and why is its current action so limited?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are many more things that we could have done and should have done, but the important thing is that we are doing them now.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the topic of Bill C-38, the department estimates that around 3,500 individuals would be enfranchised. That ultimately means that any financial costs of integrating them would be put onto Indian bands.

Section 10 bands have the autonomy to determine membership. Therefore an individual would be able to obtain status from the Indian register after Bill C-38's passage. However, that leads to a question I have, which is whether this would complicate the section 10 process that has been well established. Does the member think that this needs to be studied further or that some amendments or some clarity from the government needs to be forthcoming?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be very honest and frank, I am not very sure as to the specific nature of the question the member asked, and I do not have the answers for it, but hopefully the government will listen to the question and provide some clarity.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do remember that in 2019 there was a bill called Bill S-3, which I thought was the government's answer to all of these problems. Is Bill C-38 not an admission on behalf of the government that it did not get Bill S-3 right?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many times, we may not cover every single thing that we aim to do. Sometimes there may be things that were not covered, but the important thing is that we have recognized it and have come up with the legislation that is before us.