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.

Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, would the parliamentary secretary agree with me that perhaps he should have prefaced his comments with the statement that this House of Commons, this Parliament believes that the Indian Act is a paternalistic, obnoxious instrument of oppression that is unworthy of any western democracy and, in fact, is unworthy of any civilized free society?

I believe that the parliamentary secretary could have prefaced his remarks by recognizing that the social condition and the status of aboriginal people in our culture is perhaps Canada's greatest shame, and that there is and should be a sense of urgency to remedy some of the historic atrocities contained within the Indian Act.

Perhaps he should have acknowledged that the Indian Act was really designed as an instrument, not only of oppression but of extinction. In fact, it had recipes for extinction built into it. For instance, when a 6(1)(a) Indian, they categorized rights as 6, chapter (1) section (a), and a 6, chapter (1), section (c), marry. the results shall have a 6(1)(c) that forfeits their rights. It is not called disenfranchised. It is called enfranchising because they then become full status human beings as non-Indians.

I would just like my colleague to acknowledge and perhaps explain the position of his government. Does he acknowledge that Bill C-3 does not confer rights on aboriginal women, that this bill recognizes and finally acknowledges the inherent rights of those people who gained those rights by their birthright not bestowed upon by the government?

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

Yes. “Good luck”, somebody just said.

Subsection 6.(1) provided a way for Indian women who had lost status through marriage to regain it and subsection 6.(2) made it possible for the children of these women to be registered.

Although this approach earned the approval of Parliament, and many other groups, subsequent generations were still subject to residual gender discrimination, and that is what was ruled on by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.

Now, let me provide members with a little history to the court's decision.

Sharon McIvor is an Indian woman who married a non-Indian man before 1985. They had children together. According to the Indian Act, at that time, Ms. McIvor would have lost her status and her children would not be eligible for registration.

Through the amendments to the Indian Act, in 1985, Ms. McIvor was registered in accordance with subsection 6.(1) and her son was registered under subsection 6.(2). When this son had a child with a non-Indian woman, their children were not eligible for registration. This fact formed the basis for Sharon McIvor's arguments in McIvor v. Canada: that her descendants were not in the same position to transmit registration to their children as they would be if she were male.

To determine if this constituted bona fide discrimination, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reviewed the Indian Act's provisions for registration following the Bill C-31 amendments to the Indian Act in 1985. The court specifically examined Ms. McIvor's situation in comparison to that of a brother. It found that the consequences of two successive generations of parenting with non-Indians actually significantly differed in the male and female lines.

While the 1985 amendments in Bill C-31 succeeded in eliminating gender discrimination in the first generation, it failed to eliminate it in subsequent generations. This is the core, essentially, of the court's ruling.

It is important to note that Bill C-3 responds directly to the court's decision by amending certain provisions of section 6 of the Indian Act. By any measure, this is a progressive and desirable step because it removes an identified cause of gender discrimination.

As a modern nation, Canada champions justice and equality for all. Canadians recognize that discrimination does weaken the fabric of our society and erodes public faith in our justice system. That is why I am pleased to bring forward this legislation identified in the court's decision.

Members of this House have demonstrated over and over again that willingness to address issues related to individual rights. It is something they wish to do. In 2008 Parliament supported the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, for example. Section 67 of this act had created an exception so that complaints for people subject to the provisions of the Indian Act could not seek redress under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which was the only exception for Canadians in the act. To rectify this situation, members of the House supported legislation to repeal this section.

Bill C-3 has much in common with the legislation that repealed this section of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Both strive to protect individual rights and promote equality. Putting an end to discrimination against first nations women is advantageous for all Canadians, which is why I am asking members to support this bill.

When speaking about protecting human rights, I would also like to take this opportunity to remind members of the House that this government has been actively seeking to address a legislative gap that undermines our justice system. I am talking about matrimonial real property legislation. I am talking about eliminating the gap that leaves first nations people, most often women and children, vulnerable and without legal protection.

Addressing issues such as gender discrimination in certain registration provisions in the Indian Act, repealing section 67, and filling a legislative gap respecting matrimonial real property will have positive and lasting impacts. For too long aboriginal people have struggled to participate fully in the prosperity of the nation due to a series of obstacles. By removing these obstacles, Canada enables aboriginal people to contribute socially, economically and culturally to this country. Parliament must play its key role in this process.

We should consider the Specific Claims Tribunal Act. The legislation was a crucial component in a larger action plan to resolve another major obstacle to good relations between first nations and the federal government, and that was a backlog of unresolved specific claims. Thanks in part to the House's endorsement of the Specific Claims Tribunal Act, every claim settled brings a first nation one step closer to realizing its full potential.

To help achieve similar progress, the government has taken action on a number of issues, from human rights to other basics, such as drinking water, education and housing. A multifaceted and collaborative action plan continues to increase the number of first nation communities with access to safe and reliable supplies of drinking water.

A series of tripartite partnerships with individual provinces and first nation groups continues to generate improvements in on-reserve educational outcomes and the quality of child and family services. The government is acting in collaboration with the people directly affected by the issues at play and Bill C-3 is no exception.

Last year, following a thorough review and analysis of the court's decision, department officials had technical briefings with representatives of five national aboriginal organizations to discuss the decision and Canada's proposed response. Following those briefings, 15 engagement sessions were held throughout the country to present Canada's proposed response to the McIvor decision and solicit feedback.

To help focus the sessions, the Government of Canada researched, published and distributed copies of a discussion paper. Hundreds of participants came to the engagement sessions and many written submissions were received.

We had several common themes emerge during the sessions and in the written submissions. Many people were expressing concerns about the broader issues of registration, membership and citizenship.

Based on the views expressed during this engagement process, we announced broader measures that extend beyond the scope of the bill before us and will be discussed in a separate forum. This will be done in partnership with national aboriginal organizations and will involve the participation of first nations and other aboriginal groups, organizations and individuals at all levels.

The findings of the exploratory process will form the federal government's next steps regarding further initiatives on these issues. As important as all of this work might be, it cannot take precedence over the importance of passing Bill C-3.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the legislation now before us responds to a specific court ruling and prescribed deadline. The ruling and deadline inform the design of Bill C-3. The proposed legislation is a precise, compact and focused response.

As Bill C-3 proceeds through the parliamentary process, the plan is to work in partnership with first nations and other aboriginal groups and organizations to identify and discuss the critical issues surrounding registration, membership and citizenship. This process will be separate from Bill C-3 in recognition of the court's deadline and the importance of acting quickly to address the situation of gender discrimination in the Indian Act.

Bill C-3 is progressive, responsive and measured. It is rooted in the principle that all citizens should be equal before the law.

Bill C-3 represents a timely and appropriate response to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia's ruling. It proposes to eliminate a cause of unjust discrimination and ensure that Canada's legal system continues to evolve alongside the needs of aboriginal peoples.

I urge all members of the House to join me in supporting Bill C-3.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-3, Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act and explain why I encourage all members of the House to join me in supporting it.

Bill C-3 proposes to accomplish two objectives. First, this legislation would remove a cause of gender discrimination in the Indian Act. Second, it would meet the deadline imposed upon Parliament in a ruling of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.

My remarks today will describe not only how Bill C-3 achieves these objectives, but also how it would serve the larger national interest.

In last year's decision by the Court of Appeal for B.C. in McIvor v. Canada, the court ruled that the two paragraphs in section 6 of the Indian Act discriminate between men and women with respect to registration as an Indian and therefore violate the equality provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Rather than have the decision take effect right away, the court suspended the effects of the decision until April 6, 2010, and explicitly called on Parliament to enact an effective legislative solution.

What this means is we have until April 6 to implement a solution and if we fail to meet this deadline a key section of the Indian Act, one that spells out rules related to entitlement to registration also known as Indian status, will cease to have legal effect in the province of British Columbia.

This will have some significant consequences. As the members of the House will recognize, Indian status is a legal concept that confers a particular set of rights and entitlements. Should the two paragraphs of section 6 cease to have legal effect, it would lead to uncertainty and confusion about entitlements to registration in British Columbia.

The legislation now before us proposes to avert these consequences by amending certain registration provisions of the Indian Act. The bill addresses the root of the problem by removing the language that the court ruled unconstitutional.

I have no doubt that every member of the House stands opposed to discrimination based on gender. Despite this conviction, I expect that all members appreciate that equality between men and women is difficult to achieve at times.

Bill C-3 would take Canada one significant step closer to this important goal and this is what this debate is all about, the ongoing effort to eliminate gender discrimination.

Parliament, of course, has played an important role in taking corrective actions to address this issue. For example, the House endorsed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is recognized internationally as a milestone in the fight against discrimination. To understand the origins of the McIvor decision we must go back to the 1980s when the charter was first enacted.

The charter required the Government of Canada to amend or rescind federal legislation that caused, aided or abetted discrimination based on gender. A significant effort was undertaken to amend the Indian Act, which clearly discriminated against women.

Perhaps the most egregious example of this discrimination was the Indian Act's treatment of a status Indian who married someone without status. If the status Indian were a woman, she would immediately lose her status. If the status Indian were a man, he would retain his status and furthermore his wife would become entitled to registration.

So these effects were dramatically different of course on their children. Children of a woman who lost status and her non-Indian husband were not entitled to registration, while children of a status man and his non-Indian wife were entitled to registration.

A provision in the former Indian Act, which was commonly referred to as the “double mother clause”, discriminated against children whose mother and paternal grandmother gained status upon marriage. These children, born after September 4, 1951, would lose their Indian status at age 21.

In an effort to eliminate these types of discrimination, Parliament endorsed a series of amendments to the Indian Act in 1985. These amendments are still known, colloquially, as Bill C-31 changes, and they remain controversial and lie at the heart of the McIvor ruling at the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.

The problem lies with the mechanisms that Bill C-31 used to rectify gender discrimination related to status entitlement and registration. I will do my best to simplify two of the key amendments from 1985.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

moved that 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), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to offer my condolences to the hon. House leader for the official opposition, given the fiasco that occurred in the chamber last Tuesday night when some of his members did not know how to vote. I can certainly sympathize with the embarrassment that I am sure he felt.

On the issue of the documents, which I think would be more likely a question for question period rather than contained in the order of business question, as posed to the government House leader on Thursdays, I would point out that it has always been the intent, and it has been our commitment as a government, to make all legally available documents available to the opposition and, through the opposition and Parliament, to Canadians at large when they do become available, which is what happened this morning. The documents were in their original form. Some of them were in English and some were in French and we made that known at the time we tabled them this morning. We asked for permission, acceptance, approval and agreement of all opposition parties, and they gave that approval before those documents were tabled in the House of Commons.

I find it a little ironic that the opposition has all along been demanding these documents and yet, when we make them available, they criticize us for doing so.

As for the issue of the House business for the upcoming week to carry us through to next week, we will continue today with Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-3, gender equity in Indian registration, and Bill C-2 will be the backup bill should we need it tomorrow.

Next week we will continue with the bills from this week but we will also be introducing the budget implementation bill and it is our intention to begin debate on that bill at second reading.

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

I want to thank you and your officials for being here, Mr. Minister. Your answer to the question put by my colleague, Mr. Russell, bodes well for the work we have planned for Tuesday, as we are supposed to discuss the First Nations University.

I do not want to go back to that topic as Mr. Russell has covered it for the time being. I have a few questions for you, and I hope I will have enough time to ask them.

First, page 137 of the Supplementary Estimates (C) reads as follows:

Vote 1: $38,976,785 in total authorities is available: $28,518,000 (...); $4,792,000 from Vote 5 due to the deferral of the Indian Registry System ($4,162,000) (...).

Can we use that $4 million when it comes time to implement Bill C-3, further to the McIvor ruling?

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

Thank you very much.

I would introduce Colleen Swords as well, who is our associate deputy minister over at INAC. It may be her first appearance here, so I know that you'll ask her some very pointed questions later, but she is ready. She is fully ready and has been a great addition to our team over at INAC. As well, Peter Traversy is here to answer a lot of the detailed financial questions I know you'll have. The whole team is assembled nearby. We hope to answer all your questions today, and for those we can't answer of course we'll get you answers, as we've done in the past, if necessary in written form or in other appearances.

Mr. Lemay mentioned that I should practice speaking French today. Since there are no cameras here today, this is a good opportunity for me to do so. So perhaps at the end of my remarks, I can answer in French.

I do thank everyone. It's good to be back here, especially to discuss the 2009-10 supplementary estimates (C) of the Department of Indian and Affairs, which were tabled in the House of Commons on March 3. I appreciate the important role that you play here in this committee in reviewing the expenditures of the Government of Canada and of this department especially.

As was outlined clearly in the recent Speech from the Throne, our Conservative government will continue to build a stronger, healthier relationship with aboriginal people. The supplementary estimates list many initiatives that are key to this relationship and will drive progress on important issues of concern to aboriginal people and indeed to all Canadians.

As outlined in the documents now before members of the committee, these initiatives total over $224 million and effectively increase the department's budget for the current fiscal year to almost $8 billion. I know that members of this committee are familiar with many other elements of the government's agenda: legislation to protect the rights of vulnerable citizens and accelerate the resolution of specific claims, for instance, tripartite arrangements on first nations education, and on-reserve child and family services, to name just a few.

The Speech from the Throne and budget 2010 highlight a number of areas where our government will focus its efforts to achieve a real and significant difference in the lives of aboriginal people. We will work hand in hand with aboriginal communities and with provinces and territories to reform and strengthen education and to support student success and provide greater hope and opportunity.

Over the last two years, the Government of Canada has expanded its partnership with the provinces, the first nations, and Inuit through several different agreements. You'll be familiar with some of these.

In April 2008 there was an MOU between New Brunswick first nations, the Province of New Brunswick, and the Government of Canada. In April 2009 the Inuit Education Accord was signed between the Inuit of Canada, as represented by ITK, and their partner organizations and governments. In October 2009 a letter of understanding for education was announced between the Government of Canada, the Province of Manitoba, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, MKO, and the Southern Chiefs Organization, another great development.

Just last month, another MOU was signed, this time between the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs of Alberta, the Government of Alberta, and the Government of Canada. On that great occasion, I was there to sign that MOU. As the aboriginal leaders in the room said, they felt it was a very historic moment. I was delighted to sign on behalf of Canada.

We will also introduce new legislative measures to further safe drinking water and effective waste water treatment on reserve. The progress the government has achieved in this area, in collaboration with first nations across the country, is unprecedented.

In 2006, when we took office, there were 193 high-risk first nation water systems. Today, that number has been significantly reduced to 44. In addition, 21 communities were identified as priorities, which meant that the community had both a high-risk system and a drinking water advisory. Today, only 4 communities remain on that list. There is more work to be done on this and that is partly why we need this new legislative framework.

As you know, last week we introduced Bill C-3, the legislation that corrects serious gender inequality issues that currently exist under the Indian Act. I appreciate the support we're hearing about this important legislation. It really is a gender equity issue and I do think we need to get at this quickly. I appreciate many of the comments I've heard from people around the table who are saying that we need to get at this quickly.

Our Conservative government will proudly be reintroducing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of real property assets in the event of death--this is on reserve--and to further protect the rights of aboriginal people. Again, this is particularly important to women living on reserve.

We'll take action to address the disturbing number of unsolved cases of murdered and missing aboriginal women. I am delighted to see that in the budget.

Also, we will take steps to endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in a manner fully consistent with Canada's Constitution and laws.

We also will continue the work that was started in Canada's economic action plan to ensure that the north's economic and social potential is fully and sustainably developed. Specifically on that, we will be working with our northern partners to promote and build investments in the north through the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency.

We'll continue our work on opening the northern project management office, which will provide a single point of contact for clients undertaking natural resources projects in the three territories. We'll build on the successes of programs such as SINED to ensure economic diversification and encourage northerners' participation in the economy.

I'm delighted again to see allocations for the next stages of building a world-class high-Arctic research station. That will be important for everything from climate issues to the scientific underpinnings for much of what needs to be done in understanding and working in the north for years to come.

We will reform the northern regulatory regime to ensure that the region's resource potential can be developed where commercially viable, while ensuring a better process for protecting our environment.

I think I had a question today on the successor program to the food mail program to help alleviate the costs of shipping healthy foods by air to isolated northern communities. We need to have a successor program. The program we have has done a valiant job, but it needs to be renovated and brought into the 21st century. We need to bring a program renovation forward on that, and we did get allocations in the budget to make that possible.

We want to proceed to give northerners a greater say over their own future and take further steps toward territorial devolution. There are important talks that are ongoing. We will continue to vigorously defend Canada's Arctic sovereignty, map our northern resources, and fulfill our obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, for example, and other national and international efforts. We want to make sure that people not only in Canada but around the world know that Canada's north is Canada's, and we intend to use it and protect it, as Canadians would expect us to, from coast to coast to coast.

Finally, we'll continue to work with other Arctic nations to settle boundary disputes that are well managed. These are kind of long standing, but they're also well managed in the sense that we have a good working relationship with other countries in those boundary areas.

I want to speak to a few of the items on the supplementary estimates themselves. On the Indian residential schools settlement agreement, $120.5 million is for the settlement allotment, and $18.9 million is to ensure that Canada meets its obligations under the agreement.

We all know the significance of the Indian residential schools settlement agreement. It was a huge milestone in the history of Canada's relationship with aboriginal people, and we're providing the resources to implement that agreement. Following on the supplementary estimates, budget 2010 has provided a further $199 million over two years to support implementation of the settlement agreement and help former students, their families, and aboriginal communities embark on the path of healing and reconciliation by ensuring timely payments and health supports that are necessary.

The items I've described today, along with the other investments included in supplementary estimates (C), will help address a wide range of challenges and issues facing northerners and aboriginal peoples. These investments support our government's efforts to work toward collaborative, sustainable solutions that benefit all Canadians.

I know that this committee has recognized that there are a number of obstacles that prevent many aboriginal people and northerners from fully sharing in and contributing to Canada's prosperity. Supplementary estimates (C) will help remove some of those obstacles. Some are monetary, some are legislative, and some are policy.

My guess is that our discussions probably won't stick entirely to the supplementary estimates themselves, but will deal with the panoply of issues that I know this committee has been seized with. So I look forward to the questions specifically on the supplementary estimates, and on other issues as people would like to raise them.

Merci.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how much I appreciate your sending me the photocopy of the rules that govern our operations in the House, in particular the rules on the scope and asking of the Thursday question and my response.

Hence, I am going to hesitate this week from launching into a full-blown debate with my hon. colleague about prorogation and the fact that so many of his colleagues seem not to understand that prorogation is over and the House is back in business.

When it comes to the business leading up to next Thursday, I would note that we will continue today with the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on second reading of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act , known as Sébastien's Law.

Monday, March 22, will be day three of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Tuesday will be the last supply day for the opposition. Hopefully, we will get some meaningful motions put forward by the official opposition and they will show up for the debate.

We will continue with the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, followed by Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

If time permits, we could start 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).

Opposition Motion—Prorogation

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, in fact there was another bill that was introduced, Bill C-3 on the McIvor decision from the B.C. Supreme Court. That bill still has not been brought forward for debate in the House despite the fact that there is a deadline of April 6 for implementation of that very important decision for first nations across this country.

When the Conservative House leader was speaking, he characterized what was happening today as a waste of time. I would like the member to comment on the fact that the Conservatives seem to characterize having a debate about the fundamentals around our democratic process as a waste of time. What we have heard from thousands and thousands of Canadians is their concern around what they see as a unilateral abuse of power.

I wonder if the member could talk about the fact that contrary to this being a waste of time, this is an important debate about how this House should function in a democratic process.

Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act

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

moved for leave to introduce 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).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)