Bill C-3 (Historical)

Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act

An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs)

This enactment provides a new entitlement to Indian registration in response to the decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs) that was issued by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia on April 6, 2009.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Well, it's very complex. You described a situation of discrimination that I explained won't exist after Bill C-3. Siblings of people born after 1951 who were born before 1951 will clearly qualify for registration. That's just one example of the complexity. So this bill will actually go further than you describe in addressing discrimination.

[Gwen Brodsky]

Your encapsulation, Ms. Neville, is correct. Regarding the view that we have advanced, it is simply wrong to make some women--any aboriginal women--subject to continued sex discrimination. That is what this bill, if it is allowed to pass as it stands, would do. It would be failed remedial legislation. That's what the 1985 act was--failed remedial legislation. Bill C-3 is a set-up for yet another instance of failed remedial legislation, for disappointment to aboriginal women and their descendants, who have been waiting for a long, long time for Parliament to do the right thing. That must be dealt with immediately.

The other issues concerning band membership, for example, which form no part of our case, can be dealt with separately in what may require a somewhat lengthier process. What's needed to address the discrimination in the status registration provisions is well understood and straightforward and it involves no competing rights whatsoever.

[Sharon McIvor]

I do have a comment on the issue of status and the issue of membership. In this particular case, we separated those out and are only looking at status and our individual relationship with the government. Whatever happens with membership is not part of this case, so there's absolutely no reason to consult with anyone on whether or not the Indian Act should continue to discriminate against women in different ways, or women and their descendants in different ways. If you want to consult on membership of particular bands and what they need and what they want, that's perfectly fine; but on the issue of status, which only concerns the relationship between the government and each individual Indian, there's nothing to consult.

As I said earlier, I find it very offensive to have groups consulted on whether I and my descendants, or my counterparts and their descendants, should be afforded their equality rights. These shouldn't be on the table at all. If you want to consult on membership, that's fine, because membership of a band is a whole different issue.

I see that in Bill C-3 the government has chosen to add newly registered Indians onto band lists without any input from the band. That's not part of the case. That was not part of my case and not part of the decision.

Gwen.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you very much.

It's very nice to actually meet the person we've heard so much about in terms of the McIvor decision and who has spent so much time in trying to get to where we are today.

This part of the Indian Act, the registration part, is very complicated. Nobody is saying otherwise. I'm reflecting on the fact that many of the self-government agreements and treaties that have been negotiated over the last dozen or more years have essentially dropped the Indian Act, with one exception. There always seems to be the exception of the registration portion of the Indian Act being imported into these agreements, because it is such a complex area.

When you were giving an example earlier on, you were talking about a family who had children predating 1951 and postdating 1951. Under Bill C-3, it's very clear that the children born after 1951, as you described, are achieving registration; but it's also very clear that any sibling of those individuals born before 1951 is also eligible for registration. I wanted to clarify that one important matter.

I also want to talk about the process of registration. Like Jean Crowder, I've had experience working with people who are seeking registration. I know it's very onerous on the applicant, but it is also very onerous on the verification process. Sometimes these records are very difficult.

We do expect to hear from the Canadian Human Rights Commission on this whole issue, because there is a possible tsunami of cases coming forward as a consequence of Bill C-3, because it means that the Canadian Human Rights Act, as of June next year, will apply to all first nations people. I just wonder if you have a comment on the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which I think is positive for you.

The other thing is that we have launched this engagement process to follow Bill C-3, as part of our initiative on Bill C-3 to promote gender equality. We want to have a complete, ongoing process to see where we can get consensus across the country on further changes to improve registration status and citizenship. I wonder if you want to comment on that.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Ms. McIvor, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to begin by commending you for leading this battle which, unfortunately—and I am quite sincere when I say this—will not end today. It is absolutely clear that the Indian Act discriminates against aboriginal women. The problem is that it will continue to do that once Bill C-3 has passed. Neither the previous nor the current government has taken any action to resolve this issue. As the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated, we are stuck with a decision that goes back to 1951. I do not want to give you false hope. At least Bill C-3 will represent progress. As a media host back home would say, here is the killer: under the rules of Parliament, we cannot go any further than what this bill proposes. Otherwise, it will be ruled out of order.

So, how can we improve this bill, despite the fact that we cannot go any further back than 1951 and that it will continue to discriminate? It is a serious problem. I don't know whether you can answer that question or whether other groups that will appear subsequently have the answer.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

The bottom line is that there's still going to be gender inequality after Bill C-3, according to your testimony.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Ms. McIvor and Ms. Brodsky. It's good to have you with us this afternoon. I want to acknowledge your journey and the monumental task you've undertaken. It's hard to fathom 20 years of doing battle, but I guess when the cause is so integral and meaningful, not only to you personally and your families but to so many others, particularly aboriginal women, you just keep on trudging. So with all humility I commend you and those who came before you for your efforts in undertaking some very arduous tasks.

When I spoke in the House of Commons, I gave tacit support to Bill C-3 on behalf of our party. But we also commented that we were concerned about the impact this bill might have. You mentioned Bill C-31 and the residual impacts that had in terms of other forms of discrimination that had arisen.

You made the statement that even with Bill C-3--you're telling this committee and all of us as parliamentarians--there will still be gender discrimination. The government calls the bill an act to enhance gender equity in Indian registration. So can you illustrate for us in a concrete fashion how there would continue to be gender inequality, even if Bill C-3 went through as is?

[Sharon McIvor, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for inviting me. I would like to introduce my friend and colleague, Gwen Brodsky, who will be taking part in probably helping me answer some of the questions that I anticipate you will be asking me.

First, I want to briefly introduce myself. I am Nlaka’pamux, from the Lower Nicola Indian Band, in south-central British Columbia, about two and a half hours northeast of Vancouver. I live and work in my community. I drive by the place where I was born every day when I go to work, so I haven't moved very far. Gwen, aside from being a lifelong friend, has also been one of the lawyers on this particular case.

I've had many questions asked about what role does my band play and what does my band think. I have a letter here from my chief that I would like to read to you:

Re: appearance of Sharon McIvor, an LNIB member:

I wish to advise the Standing Committee that the Lower Nicola Indian Band is in full support of the work of our band member, Sharon Donna McIvor, in her efforts to achieve full equality for first nations women of Canada, their children and their grandchildren. I commend the committee for making time to listen to her views. Bill C-3 is a large part of her achievement, having spent 20 years to get a court hearing on the issue of the grandchildren of first nations women who married outside their nation.

Indian status is a citizenship issue and one fully deserving of its equation to Canadian citizenship. When Canadians need to obtain passports to go to the U.S., the minister responsible for passports ensures all Canadians can obtain passports on an expedited basis in the closest town or city possible. The Minister of Indian Affairs has been severely remiss in his duties to first nations, many of whom have waited and are still waiting for status under Bill C-31. The list is reportedly over 100,000. You must do all in your power to ensure these grandchildren of women who married outside their first nations can receive their citizenship in an expedited manner, along with the 100,000 still waiting under Bill C-31.

I remind you that Ms. McIvor was given, by court order of B.C. Supreme Court, full status for her children and grandchildren based on sex equality and this is substantially reduced by the B.C. Court of Appeal. I encourage you to remove the 1951 date, which reduces full equality for all those who have suffered under this sex discrimination.

I would be pleased to make an appearance before the committee.

Respectfully, Lower Nicola Indian Band Chief Don Moses

So, on record, my chief has supported and continues to support this effort. I also want to acknowledge that although this is my part of the fight, I'm not the leader of this fight. I didn't begin this fight, and I want to acknowledge Mary Two-Axe Earley, Nellie Carlson, Jenny Margetts, Jeannette Lavell, Sandra Lovelace, and other women who have taken this fight throughout the years.

For the members, I have a copy of a presentation that Mary Two-Axe Earley gave to the government in 1978. I'm not going to read the whole speech, but there are a couple things that I think are important for you to understand that it isn't only today that this issue has been a problem. She said:

Let us chronicle our pain, point by point:

1. When the Great Spirit calls us we cannot be buried alongside our ancestors in the tradition burial grounds where their bodies have gone to rest. This is the most cruel condition of our imposed exile. Yet people from the neighbouring City of Montreal can bury their dogs on selected plots of Reserve land.

2. We cannot inherit property given to us by our ancestors or bestow property [on] our children. It is as though we were non-entities, not to be accorded the normal recognition afforded by all free people.

We are prohibited from exercising the right to political participation, including the right to vote and to advocate the candidacy of those worthwhile persons who can be an asset to our people. We cannot be Indian in word or action. We are the victims of cultural genocide.

One more passage:

We Indian women stand before you as the least members of your society. You may ask yourself why. First, we are excluded from the protection

—this is 1978—

of the Canadian Bill of Rights

—that's section 67—

or the intercession of any human rights commission because the Indian Act supercedes the laws governing the majority. Second, we are subject to a law wherein the only equality is the inequality of treatment of both status and non-status women. Third, we are subject to the punitive actions of dictatorial chiefs half-crazed with newly acquired powers bestowed by a government concerned with their self-determination. Fourth, we are stripped naked of any legal protection and raped by those who would take advantage of the inequities afforded by the Indian Act. Raped because we cannot be buried beside the mothers who bore us and the fathers who begot us...we are subject to eviction from domiciles of our families and expulsion from tribal roles. Because we must forfeit any inheritance of ownership or property. Because we are divested of the right to vote. Because we are ruled by chiefs steeped in chauvinistic patriarchy, who are supported by the Indian Act, drafted by the rulers of this country over 100 years ago. Because we are unable to pass our Indianness and the Indian culture that is engendered by a mother to her children, because we live in a country acclaimed to be one of the greatest cradles of democracy on earth offering asylum to Vietnamese refugees and other suppressed peoples while within its borders its native sisters are experiencing the same suppression that has caused these people to seek refuge in the great mother known as Canada.

Those are the words of Mary Two-Axe Earley in 1978, and I'm bringing those words today because they are current 32 years later. We have a piece of legislation being introduced that continues to perpetuate sex discrimination against Indian women and their descendants.

Jeannette Lavell was one of the first to bring the issue to court, followed by Sandra Lovelace, who took it to the UN. Jeannette was unsuccessful. Sandra was successful. And in 1985 Minister Crombie changed the act, Bill C-31. But when the act was changed in 1985, parliamentarians knew there was residual discrimination. Crombie's records show that they understood that some of us would still suffer from the residual discrimination.

My case started in 1985. I got into the court system in 1989. When I started, my oldest son was 14, and my grandchildren...I had not thought of them. I hoped I'd have them some day, but they weren't anywhere on the horizon.

As a result of some of the litigation, my son received his status in 2007, which is 16 years after we started. When we started he was a minor, and, as the case proceeded he was then added on under his own right, because he was old enough.

My grandsons, who were not thought of when I started, will be 17 and 19 this year.

We knew that it was discriminatory. You, as parliamentarians of the day, knew it was discriminatory, and yet they forced someone like me to take it through the courts and have the courts decide that it was discriminatory. As a result of that, my son lost 15 or 16 years of his entitlement, and my grandsons have not been recognized as having that entitlement yet.

I'm not the only one. There are thousands of women and thousands of grandchildren out there who are still looking to have this put right.

The government is now responding to the court decision. The court has told you that you have to change it. Section 6 of the Indian Act is potentially being struck down because it discriminates against Indian women.

I understand from reading Bill C-3 that you have crafted some kind of remedy. I am here today to ask you, to plead with you, to include all of those women and their descendants who are discriminated against, not just the narrow view that the B.C. Court of Appeal addressed. As parliamentarians you know that the court does not draft legislation. They just put it back into your lap so you can do what is right.

It's up to you to do what is right and get rid of that residual discrimination--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, witnesses and guests.

I hereby call to order this 8th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

On today's agenda, pursuant to our order of reference of Monday, March 29, 2010, we are considering Bill C-3, an Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia Decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs).

Ladies and gentlemen, this is our second meeting with respect to this bill. I should say, members, we will be having three one-hour instalments this afternoon to take us until 6:30.

For the first hour we welcome Ms. McIvor, who has been quite involved in this issue for a long period of time and is the source of the claim and the issue we have before us. We welcome Ms. McIvor.

In the course of our questioning for each of the three hours we will go for the normal ten-minute presentation followed by questions from members. We'll stay with the usual seven-minutes in the first round and five minutes in the subsequent rounds of questions.

With that, we'll begin.

Ms. McIvor, it's great to have you here. You have the floor for ten minutes.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I do not mean to interrupt, but I would like to finish my question. Will the exploratory process take place at the same time as our meetings for considering Bill C-3? Also, do you expect that, during the exploratory process, we will adopt Bill C-3 without amendments?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Then I will hold on to my questions until your colleague comes to the committee. We will ask him to appear before us.

There is an issue I started talking to the Minister about earlier. You may well implement an exploratory process to find solutions to the membership issue, but how will you reconcile everything involved? Aboriginal nations will tell you that they are their own masters and that they discuss their issues nation to nation. Just look at what happened with the Mohawks. How will you reconcile everything? Is it the working groups's mandate to try to reconcile this matter with the Mohawks, who claim to want no part of this, but only to continue to evict whomever they want from their territory?

I asked for the mandate in writing to understand it properly. I understand that you are supposed to resolve a single issue that was raised by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, but how will you meet the expectations of those saying that they want their membership code to be part of Bill C-3?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you for being here, Mr. Minister. You are accompanied by people who are probably very competent when it comes to the inclusion of aboriginal communities.

There is consensus of sorts here on Bill C-3. I don't think that many people will question the merits of this bill. I say this with all due respect. I feel that this is a good bill that is aimed at resolving an issue brought up by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia and that is making the government get involved.

However, I feel that there is a problem with what you said. Quebec's Aboriginal communities have told me that Bill C-3, which seeks to resolve the problem caused by section 6 of the Act, does not settle the issue of belonging to the community. I will elaborate on this point. If Bill C-3 passes—and I believe that it will pass without many amendments because it meets a need—there will be a problem with reintegrating Aboriginals into reserves with their own membership codes. Authorities are saying that even if Ms. Jane Doe or her children are granted Registered Indian status, people will not accept them in their communities.

Could we add to Bill C-3 a provision that would make it possible to integrate membership codes that already exist? I am mainly referring to the Abenakis of Odanak and several other communities that already have membership codes. This is my first and probably most important question.

You have formed a panel of experts to examine an issue. I would like to know the names of the experts and their qualifications. I would especially like to have in writing the mandate that the Minister has given the panel. If we were familiar with the mandate, we would perhaps be better able to respond to those who will appear before us to answer the first question I asked you.

So, there it is, Mr. Minister. I would like to remind you that my first question is important.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure to appear before you again. This is twice in one month. I don't want to wear out my welcome, but it is good to be back to speak in support of Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act.

The officials with me are Roy Gray, director of strategic initiatives and operational policy; Brenda Kustra, director general, governance branch; and Martin Reiher, senior counsel.

I'd be pleased to respond to questions following my formal remarks. I know there are a lot of technical questions on this, which you can put to the officials as well.

Bill C-3 proposes to amend the Indian Act and to eliminate a case of gender discrimination. To appreciate the logic behind the proposed legislation, however, we must first understand the problem Bill C-3 aims to fix.

Last year, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia issued a decision in McIvor v. Canada. The ruling required the Government of Canada to amend certain registration provisions of the Indian Act that the court identified as unconstitutional, as they were inconsistent with the equality provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court suspended the effect of its declaration until April 6 of this year. In other words, if no solution is in place at that time, paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) of the Indian Act, dealing with an individual's entitlement to registration for Indian status will, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist in the province of British Columbia. This would create uncertainty, and most importantly, this legislative cap would prevent the registration of individuals associated with British Columbia bands.

Even though we've sought an extension on the implementation of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia's decision in McIvor v. Canada, we must continue to work toward resolving this issue as quickly as possible. We've asked for this extension. They could rule on that as early as today, or later on today, but it shouldn't be perceived as an opportunity to delay the process of Bill C-3, as this bill will rectify a long-standing case of gender discrimination. The longer it's left hanging out there, the more embarrassing and more discriminatory it becomes.

I want to emphasize that Bill C-3 offers a solution to the specific issues identified by the court, by amending the Indian Act to eliminate the language that gives rise to the gender discrimination identified in section 6. At the same time, issues that we raised during the engagement process last fall surrounding things like registration, membership, and citizenship are very complex and there's no consensus on them. We know that broader reform of these matters cannot be developed overnight. It certainly can't be developed in isolation, and it certainly can't be developed without the input of aboriginal people themselves.

Mr. Chair, as committee members are aware, I've announced that over the next few months we will be setting up a separate exploratory process to gain further insight into these issues, as was requested by many first nations during the consultative and engagement process. These matters will be explored through a joint process, to be developed in conjunction with various national aboriginal organizations and with the participation of first nations and other aboriginal groups and individuals across the country.

Mr. Chair, the impact of this bill will be important. We expect some 45,000 people to be newly entitled to register as status Indians. In anticipation of this influx of requests, the Indian registration program has developed an implementation strategy to efficiently deal with the new applications for registration under the Indian Act, in accordance with their proposed amendments.

The Government of Canada is also carefully examining the program and financial impacts associated with the implementation of the bill. An internal financial impact working group has been established to examine all the costs associated with the implementation of the proposed legislation.

The legislation now before us proposes to change the provision used to confer Indian status on the children of women such as Ms. McIvor. Instead of subsection 6(2), these children would acquire status through subsection 6(1). This would eliminate the gender-based discrimination identified by the court.

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned earlier, it's also important to recognize that Bill C-3 offers a solution to the specific issues identified by the court, and does so in a tightly focused fashion in order to respect the deadline established by the court. We can all appreciate the need to act quickly, I think, to respond to the court's ruling and to provide new entitlement to registration in a timely way.

The separate exploratory process will allow for an exploration of broader concerns brought forward during the engagement process last fall. As I mentioned earlier, these issues are complex. There's a diversity of views among first nations on them. For this reason, we'll be undertaking a collaborative process with the national aboriginal organizations to plan, organize, and implement forums and activities that will focus on gathering information and identifying broader issues for discussion. The exploratory process itself will be inclusive and will encourage the participation of aboriginal organizations, groups, individuals, and other interested parties at the national, regional, and community levels.

It's important to note that I don't have any intention to predetermine the range of activities that will be carried out in partnership with the national organizations. What we hope to do over the next few weeks is meet with these organizations.

We've already started those meetings to discuss and plan those activities that will take place over the coming years and that we hope will involve the participation of a wide range of aboriginal groups and individuals. I'm confident that the exploratory process will provide the opportunity for a comprehensive discussion and assessment of those broader issues. Again, that work needs to be done separately, I believe, from the legislation itself. This allows us to focus our attention on the legislation now before us and the solution it offers to the specific concerns identified by the Court of Appeal in British Columbia.

I'm convinced that's the best way forward. As parliamentarians, we know the importance being placed on us by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia to provide a legislative solution to a recognized case of gender discrimination. It's a compact piece of legislation, and it's my hope that Bill C-3 can make swift progress through Parliament and deal with that discrimination as quickly as possible.

The proposed legislation has much to recommend it: it proposes a timely and direct response to the ruling of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. In addition, it eliminates a cause of gender discrimination.

In essence, Bill C-3 represents a progressive step by a country committed to the ideals of justice and equality.

Merci. Thank you.

Aboriginal Healing Foundation

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would be very happy if this debate could rise above the issue of whether funding should be cut or reinstated or whether this funding will be replaced by another program. I believe that that is not the issue.

Should the Aboriginal Healing Foundation continue to exist for a time in order to help the aboriginal peoples, the aboriginal communities, the individuals and the families affected by everything that happened in the residential schools?

I say that it should, and so do my Bloc Québécois colleagues.

I will try to explain the importance of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation to the minister and the people who are watching by giving a very specific example.

Near Amos, there is a small town named Saint-Marc-de-Figuery. An Indian residential school was set up there in the 1950s and remained open until 1963 or 1964 or maybe even a little later.

In the fall, all the Algonquins who could be found along Lake Abitibi or the railway were brought by force to the Indian residential school in Saint-Marc-de-Figuery. Terrible things went on in this school and probably in many other Indian residential schools. The government acknowledged that there had been abuses and put in place a system to help communities and individuals deal with what they had gone through.

The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo, is a true visionary. He said this nearly three months ago:

As we look forward we must also remember our history, and this is especially true of residential schools survivors. The resources in this do not specifically reference the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. This concerns us because the Foundation delivers critical programming to help survivors right at the community level. [Every word is important.] This work is needed now because the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is underway and survivors will be telling their often-times painful stories.

There is no better way to express the importance of preserving and renewing the funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, which does a remarkable job.

I am going to explain what happened. The consequences of the forced assimilation policy, and I do say forced, of the Indian residential school scheme continue to burden the aboriginal people even today.

Many people who were in the residential schools did not have the opportunity to develop parenting skills. They had to fight against the elimination of their identity as aboriginal people, and against the disappearance of their language and culture.

Even today, generations of aboriginal people remember the trauma they suffered, the neglect, the shame and they poverty they were victims of. Thousands of former students have publicly disclosed that physical, emotional and sexual violence was endemic in the system, and that little effort was made to stem it, to punish the people committing the abuse, or to improve conditions.

The Aboriginal Healing Foundation operates, and I hope it continues to operate, in a culturally and politically complex environment, often finding itself embroiled in controversy. That being said, the foundation itself is an apolitical entity that is concerned only with healing, and it maintains excellent relations with aboriginal political organizations, aboriginal people, the government, the churches and the Canadian public in general. The foundation is considered to be a very successful experiment, a model to follow.

That is why we, as parliamentarians, must absolutely speak out against the risk, if it were only the risk, that the Aboriginal Healing Foundation will disappear. It has to continue to operate and to work with aboriginal people and communities. I have had it explained to me that near Amos, an aboriginal community called Pikogan, and I apologize for saying it so bluntly, scraped up the pieces of the survivors of the Saint-Marc Indian residential school near Amos. These are people who suffered severe trauma. In recent years, they have started to set up an Aboriginal Healing Foundation in the community of Pikogan. For the Algonquins of Pikogan, Lac-Simon, Kitcisakik and Winneway, of Notre-Dame-du-Nord—I could name them all—it is extremely important that this Aboriginal Healing Foundation continue. I do not want to limit my comments to the Algonquins, but those are the communities I know in my riding.

We have to go back a ways into the past, but it was the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that produced the famous Erasmus-Dussault report, which prompted the government to set up the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. It was created in 1998. I do not want to go over that again, it has been discussed at least three times in recent speeches in the House. But it must be understood that the reason why a need to create an Aboriginal Healing Foundation was perceived was that the job was going to take a very long time.

People do not recover from the trauma suffered in the Indian residential schools from one day to the next. Whether named Kistabish, McDougall or Blacksmith, these people have passed on the problems they experienced from father to son, from mother to daughter.

At the residential school of Saint-Marc-de-Figuery near Amos, the first thing they did was to cut the hair of the aboriginals brought there to be educated. If the residential schools were not reform schools, I do not know how else to describe them. There were all kinds of abuses. This mistreatment left wounds that take a very long time to close. They will never heal completely.

The Aboriginal Healing Foundation works in the various communities, which is very important. This evening, I heard that individual therapies are available as well as competent personnel—I am very sure of that—to provide individual assistance to the people marked by these experiences.

Who will take care of the community when people start to relive everything that happened? As National Chief Atleo said, “This work is needed now because the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is underway and survivors will be telling their often-times painful stories.”

The government had difficulty establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I say that with respect because I can understand the reasons. I have been sensitized to the problem. Still, the commission is just beginning its work. It will go to a number of communities to meet people and try to understand what happened then and what is happening now.

The wounds will never heal. I spoke with Jackie Kistabish, an aboriginal woman who was affected by what happened in the residential schools. She told me that when her mother came back from the school, she did not recognize her. When she herself came back from the school, her parents were no longer able to take care of her. She had lost her culture. Relearning her culture was very difficult for her. All sorts of things happened in the residential schools.

Without taking anything away from the government, I would say they may have been surprised. Maybe they did not realize how great the impact would be of the failure to renew the funding of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. However, that impact is huge and could well cause irreparable damage to aboriginal communities.

We are not asking the government for a lot: we just want it to maintain the funding. It is extremely important to take care of the communities affected by what happened in the residential schools.

I want to speak briefly about the amount of money.

I do not think that this $45 million would cause irreparable damage to the federal government’s budget. I listened to the minister and am not deaf. I understand we are running deficits now, but the government has to understand as well that the Aboriginal Healing Foundation is essential. It plays a key role in the re-establishment of connections between aboriginal peoples, aboriginal communities and non-native communities.

I want to thank my colleague in the New Democratic Party who sought this emergency debate and obtained it, as well as the Speaker who granted her request. I repeat that we think it is essential to restore this funding. The Aboriginal Healing Foundation has done nothing wrong. It took a long time to establish the foundation because nearly a year was needed for it to really begin its work. It was officially established in 1998, but a year or two were needed for it to really start working and disbursing funds.

We must help aboriginals not only by acting on an individual level, which the government claims to have done by giving money to Health Canada, but also by acting act on a community level. I cannot stress enough the importance of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation in helping communities take charge of their situations. If the alcoholism and dropout rates are so high, and if there are a number of problems in many aboriginal communities, it is likely because of the problems they have had in their childhood or even early childhood. In some cases, we are talking about people who are now grandmothers and grandfathers.

With all due respect to the minister, it seems odd to me that on the one hand, they are cutting funding and not renewing the budget for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, and on the other hand, the minister has introduced Bill C-3, which will soon be examined in committee, to review the Indian Act. Section 67 of the Indian Act was also repealed, which means that the Canadian Human Rights Act will now apply to aboriginals.

There is one more big step to be taken, and I do believe that the Canadian government will soon adopt the declaration on indigenous peoples. It took a long time to convince the Conservatives, but these good intentions could be forgotten if funding is taken away from the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues and the minister to reinstate funding, not only for the sake of aboriginal peoples and their communities, but also for the sake of all of Canada. It is in our best interests to reinstate funding so that the Aboriginal Healing Foundation can continue to do the extraordinary work it has started and has yet to finish.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

She probably wondered the same thing about me. I have legal training, particularly in criminal law, but Indian Affairs didn't suit me as well. My leader asked me to take charge of that file. I must say I was vaguely aware of it, from a distance, but it wasn't the same thing when I arrived here.

Since 2006, I have been the Bloc's Indian Affairs critic. I have noted the outstanding and remarkable work done by Ms. Hurley. When I saw her in the House yesterday, and I'm going to repeat it here for those who haven't heard it. Ms. Hurley sent you the Library document yesterday concerning Bill C-3, which we will soon be examining, I was stunned. I'm being sincere. I was pleasantly surprised to see the scope of Ms. Hurley's knowledge and, especially, her patience. She did the research so that she could provide us with an extraordinary 15-page history of the Indian Act. Yesterday I realized that we were going to lose her. I hope the person who replaces her has the same qualities: discretion, concern for a job well done and knowledge of the file. That is what I will remember about Ms. Hurley.

In addition, I will especially remember the fact that we all went to Nunavut together, that we tried to buy some souvenirs. I get the impression that Rob Clarke and I intended to buy quite a bit more than you, poor Ms. Hurley. One day I hope it will be possible for you to go back there without Rob Clarke and me so that you can buy the works you deserve.

On behalf of the Bloc, I of course wish you the best possible retirement. I hope you have prepared for retirement and that you are ready for it. Don't worry though: if you want to come back to Parliament, the debates will still be the same. If you have the time, I'll invite you to visit a few aboriginal communities. Perhaps you haven't had the time to visit many, but if you have the opportunity, you will see there are some extraordinary aboriginal and Inuit communities in Canada and Quebec.

On behalf of the Bloc, thank you very much. You have been an outstanding reference authority. I am telling you that on my own behalf and probably on behalf of Mr. Lévesque as well. Now I know who she is, someone who works for the Library of Parliament, someone who does her job very well.

Thank you, and I wish you a happy retirement.