Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2013

[National Chief Betty Ann Lavallée]

At our assembly, we're allowed 18 delegates per province. Each of my board members is the chief and president of the province he or she comes from, in which they have a board of directors that they report to. Those board members are the chiefs and councils of the communities in that province.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

So you can say that they actually consulted in order to give you input for the decision to either take a stand on this bill or not.

[National Chief Betty Ann Lavallée]

I have been given direction by my board to support this, but with the amendment concerning treaties.

As I said, it's the same as it was with JMAC. It's the same thing. It's the same stuff that we had extensive consultations on under Minister Nault, when I went for a month and a half throughout the whole province of New Brunswick. At that time I was the chief in New Brunswick. We went throughout the whole province picking apart the Indian Act. We had a seat on the committee.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

My question to you, then, is this. Do you think that first nations should have the ability to consult as well? Should they have a timeline permitting consultation and be able to come here to speak on the issue?

[National Chief Betty Ann Lavallée]

I don't see why they aren't requesting to come here.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Some of them have. The problem with the private member's bill is that it's very limiting as to when and how many people can come in and actually have a say. This is the problem with the private member's bill.

Mr. Clarke has indicated that the bill basically provides some framework, “a legislative process” to “start meaningful dialogue...on a year-to-year basis”. He also talked about a serious discussion about getting rid of the act, but also the inability to “conduct a full-scale consultation” and an “open, frank conversation”.

I appreciate the fact that Mr. Clarke acknowledges that his government is not living up to its fiduciary responsibilities to first nations people and that the government takes a “paternalistic approach”. He said that over and over again during his presentation.

The fact of the matter is that the government is not taking a fiduciary responsibility. Do you think Mr. Clarke should have worked with the government to table a government bill that would allow for proper consultation to take place, and that it would then be taking its fiduciary responsibility?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You are out of time, but if there is just a short answer, we'll allow a response.

[National Chief Betty Ann Lavallée]

No, if I have an opportunity to make a change to this Indian Act, as a first nations person I'm going to take it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you so much.

Ms. Ambler, we'll turn to you now.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to you both for being here today, and for your very enlightening testimony.

I want to pick up on something mentioned by my colleague opposite. She said there are some things that are problematic in this bill. What has struck me most today in hearing what you've been saying, and what was said by a previous couple of witnesses, is a proverb I think we all know: The best is the enemy of the good. We now say: The perfect is the enemy of the good. This is human nature. We all want a perfect solution, and sometimes we reject a more moderate—the glass is half or three-quarters full—solution for that reason. It seems to me that is what so many people might be saying.

I want to thank you for accepting the fact that, while this might not be exactly what you want to see, it is definitely a step in the right direction—Mr. Clarke's intentions are to improve the quality of life for aboriginals in Canada. That's what strikes me the most.

Does that accurately reflect what you're trying to tell us?

[National Chief Betty Ann Lavallée]

I'm saying yes. We have to start somewhere. What really bothers me about this whole Indian Act is that I don't think most Canadians realize that the apartheid system in South Africa was based on the Indian Act. Here we were in Canada condemning the South African government for apartheid at the UN and in international courts when we were still doing the same thing here in Canada. They saw the light 20 years ago. Why haven't we seen the light? It's not just one government; it has been a multitude of governments over the years.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Yes, Mr. Clarke mentioned that.

[National Chief Betty Ann Lavallée]

We have to start somewhere—if it starts with four little amendments, then it starts with four little amendments. You can't just take the Indian Act, as a lot of people would like to see, and rip it up, because you're going to leave a void. That's the problem. But at some point we have to start addressing the points in the Indian Act that have no meaning. Residential schools—

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

I was going to ask you about that, actually. I'm new to this committee, so please forgive me. Would off-reserve aboriginals have been affected as well?

[National Chief Betty Ann Lavallée]

Yes.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

When Mr. Clarke spoke to the committee on Tuesday, he mentioned that his grandparents were survivors, so he comes to this from a very personal angle. We haven't mentioned this government's historic apology in 2008, but I suspect it certainly made all Canadians aware of that terrible chapter in our history.

But I digress. I want to ask you specifically, because I am new to the committee, are off-reserve first nations individuals treated as all other Canadians, or are they still subject to the paternalistic and archaic aspects of the act?

[National Chief Betty Ann Lavallée]

We actually fall in no man's land some days. It just depends on how well we're able to blend in.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Right.

For example, in respect of wills and estates, would you have to have your will approved by the minister?

[National Chief Betty Ann Lavallée]

Yes, but before that ever happens, I'm going to ensure that everything has already been turned over to my grandsons.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

That's the practical fallout of a law like this.

[National Chief Betty Ann Lavallée]

I have no choice. If that is not taken out, I have no choice. Before I die, I have to ensure that everything I own is transferred to my grandchildren to ensure they're protected. I own 25 acres of land, fully wooded, which is very valuable, and I've worked hard for everything I have. So has my husband, who's still in the military.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

And you don't want to risk it.

[National Chief Betty Ann Lavallée]

I'm not going to risk my estate.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Unless this bill passes, in which case....

[National Chief Betty Ann Lavallée]

In that case then, it will depend on how well behaved they are over the next 15 years. That will determine what they get.