Thank you for the question.
I'm more comfortable responding in English.
I think one of the problems we are having is that political leaders, judges, lawyers, social workers and educators are not really reading the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. All of the work has been done for people to be on the same page and to understand each other's perspectives.
Yes, we want to get rid of the Indian Act. It is probably the only racist piece of legislation that still exists in the world today. That doesn't mean we have the answers on how to replace it. If we're going to deal nation to nation, then the government needs to get rid of and stop legitimizing the band council system in which council members are the only people it recognizes as the legal authorities. The Rotinonhsesháka, or Haudenosaunee, the People of the Longhouse of the Iroquois Confederacy, is a governing system that has survived colonization. Traditional governments need to be included in any discussions that affect our homelands and our rights. It's not up to Canada to decide who is a legitimate authority.
Amongst us, as indigenous people, we need to discuss what it means when we get rid of the Indian Act, but it definitely has to be a human rights-based approach. We have to use the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and all of the international human rights norms that go with it. Getting rid of the Indian Act does not mean that we are surrendering our land title by any means. We still have to provide some respect and defend the rights of future generations, who will be dealing with the legacy of this climate crisis that we're facing.
That said, getting rid of the Indian Act does not mean you are getting rid of our rights. It's not even protected under Canada's Constitution Act of 1982, in spite of the fact it says it respects the existing rights. Rights that existed before 1982 are a quagmire of legal implications that I think demand more than just reflection. I think there should be a study on what that means in getting rid of the Indian Act. I come from a community where the band council provided a 33-year lease to a toxic waste dump, which we are dealing with and for which no member of Parliament, except for Elizabeth May, is willing to advocate on our behalf—a toxic waste dump that will take at least 10,000 years to clean up, all from the debris and raw sewage from the Island of Montreal.
Those are the kinds of precarious situations we face because of the Indian Act. It's not easy to just get rid of this legislation. It has to be a human rights-based approach. It has to complement and be based on indigenous peoples' human rights law and our constitutions.
Thank you.