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.

Indian Act

[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.

[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.

[Lee Allison Clark, Manager, Policy and Research, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Good afternoon, honourable members.

Thank you for the invitation to come here today on behalf of the Native Women's Association of Canada, to speak about the administration of and accessibility by indigenous peoples to the non-insured health benefits program.

I want to acknowledge that the land that I and others here today are on is the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

As you all likely know, NWAC is a national indigenous organization representing indigenous women, girls, two-spirit, transgender and gender-diverse people in Canada. As we all know, accessibility, availability and acceptability of health services indirectly and directly impact indigenous people's health and health outcomes.

Although the NIHB program provides critical financial support for accessing services, more must be done to ensure that indigenous women, girls, two-spirit, transgender and gender-diverse people have access to essential health care services that are acceptable, culturally and gender sensitive, and trauma-informed.

The NIHB program represents a lifeline for indigenous people. Indigenous women utilize the NIHB at higher rates than indigenous men. Previous amendments to the Indian Act have meant that a greater number of individuals can claim or restore their status. Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, and Bill S-3 aimed to eliminate known sex-based inequities in registration. Because of this, many people became entitled to register under the Indian Act.

Understanding that the population with access to NIHB has grown significantly in the past years, with a vast amount of the growth occurring in small and remote communities, NWAC really welcomes discussions on ways to better this. Today I will highlight several scenarios that underscore where the NIHB falls short, and I will welcome discussion throughout the hour to provide tangible solutions to these shortcomings. The examples I will present in the next few minutes represent just the tip of the iceberg.

In nearly every sharing circle, focus group or engagement session focusing on health care experiences that NWAC has held with indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and gender-diverse people, difficulty in accessing services, availability of services, quality of services and experiences of discrimination, racism and sexism are raised. Whether due to straightforward racism or discrimination embedded in institutions, health care services are often inaccessible to the folks who need them the most.

As with many other countries worldwide, women typically have higher prescription rates than men have. This is also true in Canada and remains true for indigenous women when compared with their male indigenous counterparts and the Canadian population overall. Therefore, the NIHB remains critical for indigenous women to survive, and is a gendered issue.

However, the NIHB drug coverage plan, as continually highlighted by the Canadian Pharmacists Association and others, provides less drug coverage than the average Canadian receives. When we consider that indigenous women, girls, two-spirit, transgender and gender-diverse people encounter one of the highest disproportionate burdens of health disparities in Canada, which stems from various determinants of health, this can be catastrophic.

Access to birthing services close to home is something Canadians expect. This is not the case for indigenous pregnant people. A recent study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that indigenous pregnant people in Canada experience striking inequities in access to birth close to home when compared with non-indigenous folks.

Although the NIHB covers many of the expenses associated with travel for pregnancy, it is limited to one pregnant person and the addition of another person, as of 2017. However, often this other person is a doula or a midwife, not a family member or friend. Children are left behind. This is problematic.

Birthing on or near traditional territories in the presence of family and community is a long-standing practice of foundational, cultural and social importance that contributes to overall maternal and infant well-being among indigenous people. It gives them a good start. Most Canadians have the luxury of giving birth near their home, with their partner in the room or perhaps with their family in the waiting room. NIHB simply does not allow for this, creating a standard for indigenous birthing people that is less than that for the Canadian population.

Layers of racism and sexism continue when you consider dental care for indigenous women, girls, two-spirit, transgender and gender-diverse people. Wearing dentures, receiving off-reserve dental care, asking to pay for dental services, perceiving the need for preventive care, flossing more than once a day, having fewer than 21 natural teeth, fear of going to the dentist, never having received orthodontic treatment and perceived impact of oral conditions on quality of life all have been correlated with experiencing a racist event at the dentist's office. Simple tasks that many Canadians take for granted, such as getting their teeth cleaned, become a potentially traumatic event for indigenous folks. This doesn't even begin to tackle the layers of issues that are rife within finding and accessing the dentist.

Before contact with European settlers, first nations and Inuit healers bore the responsibility of health for their people and relied upon a rich body of knowledge of traditional medicines and socio-cultural practices. The administration of the NIHB program must integrate this and be culturally and gender sensitive, as well as gender-informed, if we are ever to fully walk the path of reconciliation.

However, respecting the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, which was developed in 1986—so many years ago—and as outlined by PHAC, “reductions in health inequities require reductions in material and social inequities.”

When considering the NIHB, this means increasing coverage of easy access to and increasing the availability of preventive allopathic and traditional medicine.

In sum, we cannot risk any more indigenous women, girls, two-spirit, transgender and gender-diverse people falling through the cracks when looking to access the care they have a right to. NWAC wants to be part of the solution of how best to increase accessibility and better the administration of the NIHB program.

I look forward to presenting some more detailed recommendations throughout the hour.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Vice-Chief Richard Derocher, Meadow Lake Tribal Council]

Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for the opportunity to speak before the committee.

To Mr. Lehr, you did a wonderful job on your presentation.

First of all, I am the Cree Vice-Chief of the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, MLTC. The Meadow Lake Tribal Council is in northwest Saskatchewan. We comprise nine first nations, five of which are Cree and four of which are Dene. Our land base takes up just about all of northwest Saskatchewan. We have a population of about 16,000 people. The growth in our territory, the growth of different communities, is very different. Some communities are growing economically; some are not. Some are growing in wellness; some are not. I serve a wide variety of where people are at in their communities.

I want to talk about housing specifically in regard to budget.

I was a councillor in Flying Dust First Nation for 18 years and a band manager for four years, so I know my particular first nation, a Cree first nation. The Flying Dust First Nation has had the same budget for over 30 years in housing.

That is one issue we have. Other than the indexing that we get, there has been no increase in the housing budget for the last 30 years. I believe in Flying Dust it's just under $300,000, and to insure their homes is about $180,000 a year, which leaves approximately $100,000 to $110,000 to build or renovate. I'm sure it's no different for all other first nations in the territory, the MLTC territory.

That leaves us with a definite problem: How do you accommodate housing situations in our first nations when you're building with $110,000?

Remember the area we're in. We're in northwest Saskatchewan. The cost for building is about 20% to 30% more than in southern Saskatchewan. Even close to where I am in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, the cost is about 20% to 30% higher.

The price to build the average house in northwest Saskatchewan is about $230,000, and that's for a three-bedroom bungalow. You can't even finish off a house with that. How do you also look at your renovation list? Our houses are getting depleted and there are no monies to put them into the way housing should be. Therefore, in regard to housing, the chiefs and councils of those communities are very boxed in.

There is another huge impact on housing. With the new bills that are coming, like Bill C-3 and the different membership cases that have been presented by Canada and put into the first nations, our population is growing, not only because of normal population growth but because of new members coming onto the first nations either by the grandmother clause or any other new membership cases. That makes the situation even harder, because now there are new members with expectations of on-reserve housing because that's what they see, which then puts more pressure on the chief and council.

I want to talk to you about overcrowding in houses as well. The average home in the Meadow Lake Tribal Council has 7.9 people per house.

I'm going to use Flying Dust as an example, because I am from there and I'm very familiar with the numbers. Flying Dust has 2.2 people per house. Flying Dust has quite a good housing program, but the shortage is still there. There are only 2.2 people in the houses we do have mainly because of small families and because Flying Dust made what we call an “elders' lodge”, which houses 10 elders in single dwelling units. They are not elders' lodges as you know as long-term care facilities. They are more levels one and two, where they can look after themselves or are looked in on frequently by the nursing staff and family visits.

The overcrowding, as I indicated, is just over 7.9 people per home, I believe. This creates mental wellness problems, especially for our teenage children.

Young adolescents or teenagers get into an arguments with their parents. All of us who are parents know this happens. They get into a little scuffle with their brother or sister or parents. In a normal house, that individual gets to go into their bedroom, sort things out and get their thoughts together. In our homes, that's not possible. They're sharing rooms—sometimes two and three children or maybe two teenagers to a room—which doesn't give them that space to get their thoughts together.

What happens in this case is the young people leave the home frustrated and mad. They go and look for other options, which usually leads to alcoholism, drug addiction and seeking friends. Sometimes it's gang related.

That's the reality of being in northern Saskatchewan and having no place to get your thoughts together. That's one that I speak of often—

[Howard Grant]

There is limited data being collected in regard to the right data. As an example, the government is applauding themselves, patting themselves on the back and saying, “Wow, look at this—from 1985 onward the graduation rate for post-secondary is on the rise.” Absolutely not. If you use the same factors prior to 1985 on reserve exclusively you'd see a decline, because all of the current investment for post-secondary in particular right now is going toward the more urban population, the so-called city Indians. They're taking advantage of that. You had Bill C-31, Bill C-3 and whatnot, and the new Indians and the self-identified natives, and all of those are put into your database, the government database.

Now, that rate looks like it's on the rise, but if you use exclusively on reserve, because those are the people who are going to stay at home.... They're raised there and they're culturally involved. When we send our children off reserve to communities, they lose that in the majority of cases. Imagine sending your children aged 7 to 14, who are living in rural and remote communities, to schools outside of your reserve because there are none there. It's a challenge, and the most important lesson of education is being lost. It's what I call the dinner table talk education. That's the important part. You have not only the education that you learn from high school or post-secondary, but the cultural side of your community as well that's quite important.

I'll give you an example. We have an individual who is a forester, an arborist, and is trying to manage an economic development opportunity. He saw a grove of trees up on the mountainside and said that we should cut that down, invest and make an economic opportunity, but that was a very significant archeological and whatever site for the community. That resource was never to be touched, but just because the person who was the band manager of the day or the forester didn't realize those kinds of things, it may as well be a non-aboriginal person moving in.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again, at the 11th hour, attempting to send Bill S-3 back to the Senate for royal assent prior the December 22, 2017, deadline. I guess we would call this “flying by the seat of our pants” legislation. There is a court-imposed deadline, so the government is going to get it done regardless. We have talked about that in the House most of the day.

Bill S-3 was tabled in response to a Superior Court of Quebec decision, Descheneaux v. Canada, in 2015, and other clearly identified issues. The court found that several aspects of Indian registration under the Indian Act violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because there were differences between how status was passed down from first nation women compared to first nation men. These provisions were struck down, and Parliament was given a limited time to pass an alternative. The new deadline to pass legislative changes, after two extensions, is next month, on December 22. The court has indicated that it has no interest at all, which we have talked about, in giving the Liberal government a third extension.

When Bill S-3 was first brought to the Senate about a year ago, in fact exactly a year ago this month, the government sought to remedy the situation by bringing it back to 1951. However, several independent senators proposed adding what is known as the “6(1)(a) all the way” approach. This amendment would have all Indians registered as 6(1)(a), with equal rights and entitlements regardless of matrilineal or patrilineal descendants, back to 1869. The government, though, rejected those proposals.

After rejecting them on June 21 this year, the Liberal government undertook behind-the-scenes consultations with senators over the summer months to seek consensus around an alternate proposal. The resulting proposed changes were tabled in the Senate earlier this month, on November 7, and would come into force in two stages. The first one we have talked about. The aspects of the bill passed by the House of Commons in June would come into effect by the court-imposed deadline of December 22. Second, newly added clauses, which would extend the proposed remedies for sex-based inequities in the Indian Act back to 1869, would not be enforced until after a consultation process with indigenous peoples on how to proceed. That is the million-dollar question. No date has been given as to when the process would begin or even conclude.

We have talked a lot about this bill, but let us talk about what the previous Conservative government did. It had a long history of supporting gender equity for first nation women. The Conservative government introduced the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act in 2013, which offers a balanced and effective solution to a long-standing injustice and legislative gap that affects people living on reserve, particularly women and children. As a result, many of the legal rights and remedies relating to matrimonial interests in the family home that are available off reserve, in the context of a relationship breakdown, death of a spouse or common-law partner, or family violence, are now available to individuals living on reserve.

The former Conservative government also reintroduced legislation to guarantee to people living on reserve the same protections that other Canadians enjoy under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which came into law on June 18, 2008. It also passed Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, in 2010, in response to McIvor v. Canada in 2009. Bill C-3 allowed for the eligible grandchildren, or women who lost status as a result of marrying non-Indian men, to be entitled to registration if they or their siblings were born on or after September 4, 1951.

It should be noted that the Liberals, including the current Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, actually voted against the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act from 2013, which was introduced and passed by the former Conservative government. It should also be noted that the legislation that made the Canadian Human Rights Act apply on reserves was tabled by the Conservatives, and then all parties worked together to pass the legislation.

Essentially, prior to Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act of 2010, and the proposed changes in Bill S-3, Indian status was passed down to the next generation from the father but not through the mother. Therefore, if a first nation male had children with a non-first-nation female, his status would be passed down, but not vice versa. That is what we are talking about here today in the House.

I had a call this week from a friend in Saskatchewan. He is from the Cree first nation. He is unequivocally in favour of Bill S-3. He has a status Indian niece who is married to man from Honduras. Not long ago, they celebrated the birth of their first child. My friend said that he is the cutest little Honduran Indian anyone has ever seen. Perhaps with the passage of Bill S-3, that description should change and he would be the cutest little Indian Honduran anyone has ever seen. Would that not be nice? I think that is what we are headed for after December 22.

My friend also had a very good idea that he passed along to me earlier this week. It is regarding the “ 6(1)(a) all the way” approach back to 1869. He suggested giving non-status indigenous people up to 10 years to get their geneology sorted out. That seems like a long time. However, it could be a gradual process. Some people will have their family trees available now, while others will have to dig around and find the right roots and the proof. I think this is a pretty excellent idea he came up with. It would also give the department an opportunity to work through these changes and prepare for the financial implications they would entail.

At this point, it is unknown exactly how many Canadians would become eligible, or would even apply to register, and what the financial implications would be for the Canadian taxpayer. We have no idea whatsoever. It could be 200,000. It could be 400,000. It depends how far back people go in the tree. We need some time to figure this out. I do not know if it would have any implications for roughly one-half of my province's indigenous population.

We, the official opposition, as we have stated all day in the House, support Bill S-3 at second and third readings, because it contains several necessary changes to the Indian Act toward greater gender equality and is the next step beyond the amendments made by the former Conservative government with Bill C-3, back in 2010.

What I do not agree with is this “flying by the seat of their pants” method of legislating by the government. It has had more than enough time to table a good, clean piece of legislation that everyone could get on board with and get passed. Instead, it chose a path it knew would encounter resistance and delays, especially in the Senate.

I do not believe we can please all of the people all of the time, but we as legislators have an obligation to please as many Canadians as possible all of the time. That is our duty, and it really should not be muddied. However, we are going to support Bill S-3. I want to say, on behalf of the people of Saskatchewan, they are excited about the bill and are hoping it passes, and then we can move forward as of December 22.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the party did not have the benefit of having me for the past decade, but I am here now. We cannot change the past. We can only change the future. With that said, I am happy to talk about the record of the Conservative Party with respect to indigenous rights.

Let us not forget that we brought forward the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, a measure to restore gender equality in the way matrimonial property was treated, which most of the Liberals voted against.

We also gave people living on reserve the same protections other Canadians enjoy as part of the Canadian Human Rights Act. We also brought forward Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, allowing eligible grandchildren of women who had lost their status as a result of marrying non-Indian men to be entitled to registration.

I think our record is clear. We were moving in a positive and good direction, and now that I am on board, it is even better.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-3. I will be sharing my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

When I was chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we did a number of studies, in particular on gender equality. Gender equality is built on many pillars, but essentially, its aim is to ensure that men and women are treated equally in all aspects.

Correcting an irregularity like the one raised in this bill is a simple and obvious way to move towards real gender equality. I am proud to support Bill S-3 and I appreciate having the opportunity to speak in favour of this legislation here today. An individual's status should not be based on their sex. It is a question of history and culture, and righting this wrong is a logical step.

I am very happy to talk about Bill S-3. For those who are not familiar with this bill, it amends the Indian Act. It seeks to remedy gender inequality for those born after 1951.

The changes to the act, specifically, are to replace the long title; to delete from the bill a clause that has been quite controversial, and there has certainly been some discussion about the “6(1)(a) all the way” clause today; and to add the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the list of documents the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs has to consider during promised forthcoming consultation on those issues. Those are really the changes to the bill.

I am definitely in support of gender equality. I talked about my experience on the status of women committee. I would also mention that I have two non-status Métis daughters. Gender equality, when it comes to status, is very important. I am glad to see that this bill would take steps in that direction.

If we think about the record of the party I represent, we did a lot of things when it came to gender equality for first nations women. You may recall the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which was brought forward to address differences in the way women were treated with respect to matrimonial property over men.

It is notable that the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs actually voted against that measure. I see that there is a change of tune now on the other side when it comes to gender equality.

In addition to that, we re-introduced legislation to guarantee people living on reserve the same protection other Canadians enjoy under the Human Rights Act. That was another thing the Conservative Party was proud to bring in. We also addressed, under Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, in 2010, the McIvor v. Canada case to allow eligible grandchildren of women who lost their status as a result of marrying a non-Indian man to be entitled to registration.

Members can see that the party has a history of taking steps to try to restore gender equality in our first nations and Inuit societies.

With that, I am certainly glad to see this bill moving along. That said, I would be remiss if I did not talk about how botched this legislation already is. It is bad enough that the Supreme Court had to order the government to do something, but to then have to get two court extensions shows a lack of planning and a lack of an ability to execute.

I noted that there were lots of struggles on the way to getting this bill here. It does not seem that it is just this bill. It seems that the government has great difficulty executing any number of things when it comes to first nations people.

We know that there was a big push to spend $8.4 billion to eliminate the problem of not having clean water in first nations communities across the country. We see now 120 more boil water advisories than we had at the beginning, and we are two years into it. It really shows a lack of ability to execute.

The other example would be the murdered and missing aboriginal women effort. I have quite a number of things to say about that one. First of all, in almost two years, 20 people have resigned or been fired from that initiative.

The government talks about its nation-to-nation relationship and that it is going to consult broadly and everything else. Here is an example of a consultation where it has talked to very few victims. The Liberals have spent a huge amount of money, and it is two years up the road.

There has been a lot of press on this issue saying that people are dissatisfied: there is no plan, there is no schedule, there are inadequate computers and Internet access, there are limited aftercare plans for the family members who are trying to participate, there was an eight-month delay in opening offices, and there was a four-month delay in hiring staff. There is a whole shopping list of things that are wrong with the murdered and missing aboriginal women inquiry. It does not inspire confidence that the government will be able to execute properly in the go forward.

The Liberals need to not be all talk and no action. They need to learn how to execute and actually say the things they mean and then follow up and do the things they need to do.

If we want to talk about examples of places where the Liberals say they want a nation-to-nation relationship but then do not actually follow through, we can look at a number of examples. We see, for example, that the courts said that indigenous children were being discriminated against with respect to welfare, yet the government was ordered to pay $150 million and dragged its feet on that. How can they have a nation-to-nation relationship when they will not even do what the courts are ordering them to do to give restitution to children? It is ridiculous.

We can talk about the oral health of indigenous people. We see that the government would rather spend $110,000 fighting in court than pay $6,000 for dental work for an indigenous child. That again does not say to indigenous people that the government wants a nation-to-nation relationship. It is pretty much hypocrisy.

I am concerned about Bill S-3. I see that it is well intentioned, but in the execution of it, it could become problematic. There were amendments in the Senate, and I am glad to see that some of them were taken along, because that does not always happen. A lot of times, when the Senate has brought amendments, they are refused here. That is a total waste of the taxpayers' money in terms of the Senate, because if the Senate is doing all this work to bring amendments, and they are rejected here, it seems a little pointless.

The fact that there are so many Senate bills coming forward is also a bit problematic. We have a limited amount of time in the House, and the government is running on promises that it is having trouble keeping, but there are a lot of promises, and it is getting late in the mandate to start delivering on some of those things. Every one of the Senate bills disrupts the agenda of the day.

Although I am in favour of Bill S-3, and certainly of gender equality and the restoration of that to first nations people, I wanted to point out a few of those things I see.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my support for this bill. While the Liberal government seems to be incapable of keeping a single election promise, I am pleased that at least it appears to support this effort to achieve gender equality with respect to the transmission of Indian status.

I would again like to thank my colleagues across party lines for their efforts today, as well as the Senate for the hard work it has accomplished since the beginning of the study. The Liberal government has already managed to extend the deadline twice, but the court appears to have no intention of extending it a third time.

It is time to pass this legislation in order to solve a problem that the government seems to be avoiding.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-3, an act to amend the Indian Act.

This Senate bill is in response to the superior court of Quebec's decision in Descheneaux v. Canada and has undergone several iterations. I am pleased to support this set of amendments, which will effectively eliminate sex discrimination under the Indian Act.

I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin peoples.

It is hard to believe that we are having this debate today, in 2017, on sex equality. It is even more disturbing that those making the decision on such a fundamental issue of Indian status for first nations peoples are not members of any first nations communities themselves but are primarily from settler communities. The irony is not lost on me. What is equally absurd is that it has been primarily men making these decisions. Our Indian Act, unfortunately, makes this absurd debate necessary.

The renewed relationship our government seeks to establish with first nations communities on a nation-to-nation basis will untangle first nations peoples from the shackles of colonialism and the Indian Act and will set our country towards a path of true reconciliation.

The Indian Act is deeply rooted in racism and has for generations resulted in uneven and racialized outcomes for our first nations peoples. The Indian Act essentially controls the lives of our first nations peoples. It defines who is and who is not an Indian, where they live, whom they should live with, and so on. It separates first nations peoples from the rest of Canada, physically, through reserves, but also in virtually every aspect of life.

The numbers speak for themselves. I am just going to give some examples. In 2011, 26.2% of first nations people on reserve lived in overcrowded housing, compared to 4% of non-aboriginal people. In education, 39.8% of first nations people do not have high school or a post-secondary degree. Only 12.1% of non-indigenous people do not have a high school diploma or a post-secondary degree. We could go on with life expectancy, suicide, and income.

On virtually every measure available to assess social well-being, Canada's first nations people rank lower in comparison to their settler counterparts. None of the constraints of the Indian Act, however, have been more scrutinized and more painful than the definition of who is and who is not an Indian.

Notably, this Indian Act discriminates against women in a systemic and structural way, leading to inequities in membership and having an effect on their daily lives. Discrimination based on sex has affected the children, grandchildren, and their generations of kin by excluding them under the Indian Act. The amendments to Bill S-3 we are debating today aim to correct that trajectory and ensure that sex discrimination is eliminated from the Indian Act once and for all.

I want to walk members through the history. The issue of sex discrimination has been dealt with by Parliament on several occasions. However, in each round, the amendments made in the House did not go far enough to ensure that sex discrimination was eliminated altogether.

The amendments initially considered under Bill S-3 were in response to a superior court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux v. Canada, rendered in 2015. The Quebec court deemed the provisions of the Indian Act to be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as it treated grandchildren descended from a status Indian man and a status Indian women differently by providing status to the former and denying it to the latter.

Madam Justice Chantal Masse cautioned the government to ensure that any legislation that stemmed from the decision ought to have an expansive view of the issue of sex-based discrimination under the Indian Act. I would like to quote paragraph 239 of her decision:

When Parliament chooses not to consider the broader implications of judicial decisions by limiting their scope to the bare minimum, a certain abdication of legislative power in favour of the judiciary will likely take place. In such cases, it appears that the holders of legislative power prefer to wait for the courts to rule on a case-by-case basis before acting, and for their judgments to gradually force statutory amendments to finally bring them in line with the Constitution.

After considerable back and forth with the other place, we are here today to eliminate sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act altogether.

During debate this summer, we heard from many witnesses, including women whose lifetime of work advanced the issue of gender equality in the Indian Act. It was a very painful experience for most of them. We also heard from many bands and communities that they alone have the right to define the citizenship of their people. I believe that both seemingly divergent views are not incompatible. Ultimately, first nations people should have the say as to who their citizens are, but in a manner that does not discriminate against one particular gender.

I want to take a couple of minutes to outline previous attempts to remove sex-based discrimination from the Indian Act. The sex-based inequities in the law we are grappling with today have their roots in the patrilineal transfer of Indian status that existed in the Indian Act prior to 1985, and the subsequent imperfect attempts to end discrimination in the act.

With the introduction of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, explicit discrimination in the Indian Act finally had to be changed to comply with section 15 charter rights.

Bill C-31 was introduced to make the Indian Act charter compliant. It unfortunately did not go far enough. In fact, it is Bill C-31, including the introduction of the second generation cut-off and the subsection 6(1) and 6(2) categories of Indian status that inevitably opened new sex-based inequities and the inability of individuals to pass on status to their children and grandchildren. The residual sex-based inequities that remained in the act resulted in a rise in registration-related legal challenges.

One such challenge was launched by Sharon McIvor. Dr. McIvor's case centred on her ability to transfer status to her children. Since Dr. McIvor married a non-Indian, she was only able to transfer section 6(2) status to her son, Mr. Grismer. As Mr. Grismer also married a non-Indian, he was not able to transfer status to his children. However, had Sharon McIvor had a brother who was also married to a non-Indian, prior to 1985 their child would have been entitled to status under 6(1). Because of this discrimination, the B.C. Court of Appeal struck down paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) of the Indian Act and gave Parliament one year to respond.

Bill C-3 was introduced by the previous Conservative government in response to the McIvor decision. However, the government decided that it would interpret the decision as narrowly as possible and that it would not address other obvious examples of sex-based discrimination in the act.

At the time, Marc Lemay, a former Bloc MP, rightly pointed out, “As we speak, a dozen or so of these complaints are before the courts in various jurisdictions across Canada, including one or two similar cases currently before Quebec courts.” I have no doubt that the cases in Quebec he was referring to were those of Stéphane Descheneaux and Susan and Tammy Yantha.

It only took six years for us to arrive back here again to pass amendments to the Indian Act to address discrimination, which should never have existed, with Bill S-3. Like Bill C-3, Bill S-3 did not initially take an expansive approach to addressing discrimination in the Indian Act. Initially, Bill S-3 addressed only the cases ruled by the Superior Court of Québec: the cousins and siblings issue and the issue of omitted minors.

I can continue to give more examples of where we have failed, but it is very clear that today, as we stand, we have the right balance to ensure that we eliminate sex-based discrimination from the Indian Act once and for all.

There would be a process of consultation that would ensure that people, particularly women, would not have to go to court to assert their rights. It is embedded in the legislation today. The bill would ensure that any discrimination based on sex, dating back to 1869, would be addressed once and for all. This is an important amendment we need to make to the Indian Act.

As my colleagues have previously said, as we walk toward elimination of the Indian Act, this is a necessary evil that will ensure that we do not continue to discriminate on the basis of sex.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments I would like to make and a question. First of all, the member opposite talked about repealing the Indian Act, and it is probably the desire of all of us, at least on this side of the House, to repeal the act, but we also know that we have a fiduciary responsibility and that, in the absence of other legislation, it is not responsible for government to proceed in that way at this time.

However, we are creating a way and a mechanism to get there. That is the broader agenda of what government is engaged in and what the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs has spoken to. In the meantime, we also have a responsibility to honour the rulings of the court. The rulings of the court indicate that we eliminate all sex-based discrimination against women within the Indian Act. That is exactly what we are doing.

In fact, it has been with the tremendous support of the Senate that we are able to get to where we are today. I would like to ask the member a question, because Senator Sinclair has said:

I would like to add my support for this motion and indicate that I intend to vote for it.... The amendments before us, to my relief, leave no legal distinction between indigenous men and women. It brings the act, therefore, into compliance with the Charter.

The member opposite also knows that we have gone beyond the 1951 cut-off amendment in Bill C-3. In fact, we have made amendments in the bill that would include circumstances prior to 1951 and remedy sex-based inequities back to 1869. I ask why the member opposite will not support these amendments in Bill S-3.

Motions in Amendment

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, it was our Conservative government that gave women living on reserve the same matrimonial real property rights as other Canadian women living off reserve, something the Liberals voted against.

When the Liberals were in opposition, in response to Bill C-3, which dealt with McIvor case, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs brought forward those exact same amendments, which senators have brought forward to amend Bill S-3.

Could the member tell us what has changed between now and then, other than she now sits on that side of the House of Commons?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I totally respect where the member is coming from when it comes to human rights. I don't think anyone in this committee would disagree with his position in that respect.

The difficulty we have is this timeline. I know everyone says we can get an extension, but we did that once, and we're right back where we were at the end of the first extension. If we get another five-month extension, we're going to be in exactly the same place we're in today. There's not enough time to properly deal with some of the issues that the Indigenous Bar Association and Senator Sinclair....

We're bringing about significant legislative change, and we have a duty to consult all indigenous peoples on the changes that are going to have such a huge impact on many of their communities. We just finished discussing an amendment on DNA. We, around this table, can think that we have all the answers to solve it, but we also know that there are certain complexities that need to be dealt with, and those complexities are derived within what the Mohawks had to say. They said they don't care what Bill S-3 says, and that they're the ones who are going to decide who's a member of their community, not the government.

I know in an ideal world we'd like to blow up the Indian Act and let all indigenous peoples make that determination, and I think it's the goal of all of us here to see that happen sooner than later. Until then, we have a duty to consult with all indigenous communities, and that's going to take time. Another five-month extension—or three months, or whatever it is they would give us—is not enough time to resolve this. In the meantime, if we do find ourselves back here in five months in the same situation, those 35,000 people who could have already been starting the registration process are still going to be stuck waiting to start that registration process.

As MP Anandasangaree had communicated, I do truly believe that our ministers, Minister Wilson-Raybould and Minister Carolyn Bennett, do want to see this resolved once and for all, and to get it done right, not just rush into it and get it done under what Senator McPhedran has proposed here in “6(1)(a) all the way”. There are flaws in that amendment, so there's no sense in my mind of passing something we know has flaws when we should be taking the opportunity to get it done right.

I totally respect where you're coming from, but I just think the two-phase process will enable us to get this done right once and for all. Do we wish that Bill C-3 could have done it back in 2010? Sure, but it didn't. So now we're stuck here again at this table, trying to make this determination. Let's get this done right, take the time necessary to do it, and put this behind us once and for all.

Thank you.

[Viviane Michel]

Of course, we can see the contradiction. It is obvious. It's really the outcome of your laws. The expression “divide and conquer” applies, but we can't even agree amongst ourselves.

I can understand the challenges of aboriginal communities: their economic survival, the lack of access to housing, the lack of funding, underfunding, and so on. I can understand their whole situation. I am working with my colleagues at the Assembly of First Nations, and I understand those realities. I myself lived in an aboriginal community. So I know what I am talking about when it comes to things like language and culture.

However, today we are talking about issues that directly affect women. The existence of women is important. Why were women targeted in this piece of legislation? It's because we, as women, are responsible for transmitting language and culture.

In a different context, prior to 1985, a Quebec woman who married an aboriginal was considered a pure aboriginal. Don't you see how ridiculous that is?

The ultimate goal of the Indian Act truly was assimilation. Who was penalized? It was us, the women, as carriers of future generations and guardians of culture and language.

I know that there may be some contradictions today; that's clear. However, we will speak for women, as this act is truly founded on sex-based discrimination, and we, as women, are targeted. Nevertheless, I know that there are other issues related to life in aboriginal communities.

As part of Bill C-3, I walked from Quebec City to Ottawa and I understood why my colleagues were reluctant to support us. In fact, even though 40,000 aboriginals were registered, budgets in communities remained unchanged. That's the economic side.

Existence is truly an important issue. Why are you the ones who recognize who we are, through your laws? We are not given an opportunity to recognize ourselves. That would mitigate many issues. I believe that it would establish a better balance among our nations.

[Drew Lafond]

What's responsible is subjective assessment. In our view, what problems would arise in connection with the 6(1)(a) “all-the-way” approach.... You'll recall that during our previous submissions to the Senate in May—and this was identified in our written submissions as well—we identified that the draft language proposed by the Liberal government in 2010 in connection with the Bill C-3 negotiations and discussions at that time.... The clause during that round of negotiations was ruled out of order, so it wasn't considered and, unfortunately, it essentially died at that point.

We have now reintroduced the discussion in our written submissions. We raised it as a possibility during our oral submissions, as a good starting point for eliminating sex discrimination within the Indian Act. What appears to have happened is that Senator McPhedran has simply taken the language from the proposed Liberal amendment back in 2010, inserted that into 6(1)(a), and then added a provision under (a.2), which is simply an interpretation provision or clarification provision, which interprets (a.1). Therefore, there really hasn't been a lot of modification of the Liberal proposal put forward back during the Bill C-3 negotiations.

We cautioned against simply inserting that in its current form. We identified it at that time as a good starting point, as I indicated. You run into technical problems with the language by simply inserting that into a bill because you run the risk of inconsistencies or some unintended consequences with that. We haven't been able to identify the full extent of those.

When I looked at it last week, the only one who came to mind was the question of who we are referring to when we refer to a person who was born prior to 1985 and is a direct descendent of the person referred to. Looking at the person referred to in paragraph (a) or a person referred to in paragraph 11(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f), as read immediately prior to April 17, 1985, the first issue that came to mind was, does that refer to only peoples who are alive or peoples who are deceased? Or are we dealing with descendants of people who were living immediately prior to 1985 or people who had passed away? There is a deeming provision in the Indian Act, section 6, and it reads, “(a) a person who was no longer living immediately prior to April 17, 1985 but who was at the time of death entitled to be registered shall be deemed to be entitled to be registered under paragraph (1)(a);“ That's under (6)(3), but, unfortunately, that reference is only in connection with paragraph (1)(f) in subsection (2).

There are these small technical problems that you will encounter when you insert a paragraph like that into a bill, and our concern stems from that. I think it echoes the concerns of senators.

Also, we don't know if we can have a proper articulation of what the 6(1)(a) “all-the-way” approach is, and then moving to the next phase, does the legislation accurately implement that intention?

Dealing with subparagraph (a.1), I understand the political strategy. This was something that was introduced by the Liberals, so shouldn't the Liberals be more inclined to adopt it? It's a very admirable approach from a political standpoint. From a legal standpoint, we still have some questions that we haven't had an opportunity to fully canvas.

[David Schulze, Legal Counsel, Council of the Abenaki of Odanak]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, I will address you today in English.

Thank you for inviting us. I'm David Schulze. I was counsel for Stéphane Descheneaux, Susan and Tammy Yantha, and the Abenaki of Odanak and Wôlinak in the Descheneaux case. I am joined by Chief Rick O'Bomsawin of Odanak and Mr. Stéphane Descheneaux.

Now, I know we did this before Christmas, but I offered to briefly take the committee through the status rules again so that we know what we're talking about, because these issues are not simple.

By way of context, you will recall the challenge that Madam Justice Masse put before Parliament in her judgment. She said she was disposing of Mr. Descheneaux and Susan and Tammy Yantha's case, but as she said, “Parliament is not exempted from taking [other] measures to identify and settle all other discriminatory situations...whether they are based on sex or another prohibited ground.” We will look at whether this bill does that.

Briefly, how does status work? There are two subsections in section 6 of the Indian Act that give you status: 6(1) and 6(2). This chart quickly explains it to you, but it's not always easy to follow. Keep this in mind. A person registered under 6(1) will always have a status child. A person registered under 6(2) will never have a status child if they don't parent with another status Indian. It is always better, if you would like your children to have status and to be able to inherit your house on reserve, to be a 6(1) than a 6(2). That is the bottom line.

This system of 6(1) and 6(2) is the way the federal government, in 1985, tried to solve the discrimination in the Indian Act. Just as an aside: before 1985, status under the Indian Act was purely patrilineal, with one exception. Status was for Indian men, their wives, and their children. That was it. The only exception was for an Indian woman who had a child out of wedlock with an unidentified father. If they couldn't show the father was not an Indian, that child could be registered. Otherwise, there was no one on earth who had their Indian status from their mother; they had it from their father. An Indian woman lost it if she married a non-Indian man, and a non-Indian woman gained it if she married an Indian man. That's how it worked, and that had to be cured in 1985. Why 1985? Because that's when section 15 of the charter came into effect.

The government came up with what they called the second-generation cut-off. After two generations of parenting with a non-Indian, the third generation, the grandchild, has no status. If you look at the cabinet documents from the early 80s, they actually call this a 50% blood quantum. That's what they call it. It is, in effect, really a kind of grandparent threshold. Most of the time, if you have two status grandparents, you will have status, but as you'll see, it's not 100%. You see up here on the chart how a 6(1) will always produce a 6(2). If you have two 6(1)s, they each have a 6(2), and those 6(2)s marry: boom, you've got a 6(1) again. There won't be a quiz on this afterwards.

There's a sort of strength in having 6(1) ancestors, so that—as you'll see here—you can end up with a 6(2) grandchild, but it's not 100%. It won't always be enough. If you spread them out the wrong way, and if you don't have enough 6(1)s in your family tree, you can have the same number of status grandparents and end up with no status. The fact is, as I said, it's always better to be 6(1) than 6(2). The government likes to go to court and say there's no difference between 6(1) and 6(2); they're all Indians. That's very nice for everybody except somebody who is 6(2) and is facing the prospect of having children with no right to stay on the reserve.

Here's the other thing you absolutely have to understand. I'll just go back to one other chart. In this example, that 6(1) status doesn't mean the person was born an Indian. Remember, the non-Indian woman who married in, who married an Indian man before 1985, she got status. She is as 6(1) as anyone else. The 6(1) ancestors are counted whether or not they were born Indians or whether they acquired it by marriage.

When I said the name of the game is to have 6(1) grandparents and great-grandparents, that includes women who married in, and that's what gives us the “cousins” rule that led to the McIvor case.

That's how, in a nutshell, the grandchildren of a woman who married out before 1985, under Bill C-31, under the original amendments, weren't going to get status unless the woman's children parented with Indians. If her brother married a non-Indian, however, his grandchildren would get status. His grandchildren get counted as having two status grandparents and hers don't, because she got her status back in 1985, but of course her husband stays a non-Indian. That's the “cousins rule”. That's what McIvor was about.

The government said they were solving that in Bill C-3. As they often do in the Department of Indian Affairs, however, they didn't see what they didn't want to see. They figured that, because Sharon McIvor's son married after 1985, they would only look at women who married out and whose children had their children after 1985 under the new rules. So Sharon McIvor's son had status but her grandchildren didn't.

They ignored the fact that there were generations of men and their sons and their grandsons marrying before 1985. If a man married out before 1985, and if his son then married out before 1985, he didn't have 6(2) grandchildren; he had 6(1) grandchildren. He could not have anything other than status great-grandchildren.

The comparator is Mr. Descheneaux. Mr. Descheneaux's grandmother married out, and after 1985 he was a 6(2). His children still don't have status. His great uncle would produce 6(1) grandchildren and status great-grandchildren, which Stéphane couldn't, because he traced his lineage to a grandmother who married out, not to a grandfather who married out. That's the Descheneaux part of the Descheneaux case in a nutshell. Parliament messed up. They knew exactly what they were doing. The Abenaki came before them in 2010 and pointed this out.

This is the comparator. The grandfather married out and has six status great-grandchildren. Stéphane has children without status. Under Bill S-3, they will have status. That part of the discrimination is cured by Bill S-3.

There was another case, and I won't get into it in great detail, but I want you to understand what we're dealing with. It was all patrilineal before 1985. The result was, to make a long story short, if an Indian man had a child out of wedlock before 1985, his son could be registered but his daughter could not. Post-1985, they looked at the daughter and determined that since she had only one 6(1) parent she was a 6(2). That's how we got Susan Yantha, who had a different status from her brothers. That's how the same parents could have two children, a son and a daughter, each with a different status.

I want all of you to think about the absolute absurdity of the fact that I had to go before the Superior Court and argue that this was really discrimination under the charter, when Justice Canada stood up and said it wasn't. That is how first nations and their lawyers have to spend their time. That is also cured under this bill.

However, Indian Affairs managed to mess it all up. They messed it up in the bill that was provided and tabled, because now they've made sure that if an Indian man had a child out of wedlock before 1985, the status can go all the way to his great grandchildren through his daughter, but they forgot about the fact that there were women who had children out of wedlock before 1985 who could have their...and if it could be shown that the father was non-Indian, that kid's status could be removed. Again, I won't go through the details, but to make a long story short, they were going to leave that woman's descendants in a worse position than Susan Yantha's children and grandchildren.

They actually told me in a meeting when Chief O'Bomsawin and I met with the staff of the assistant deputy minister and Mr. Reiher, “Yes, we saw that problem but we didn't think it was discriminatory. Then, you know, the Indigenous Bar Association pointed it out before the Senate. Then we decided it was discriminatory, and we fixed it.”

They said they fixed it. Then they had to come back before the Senate last month and fix it again, because they actually hadn't gone enough generations forward. That's where we are with Bill S-3. It's a patch on a patch on a patch on a patch on a patch.

They also cured this problem. I think we really don't have time to take you through it, but it has to do with these particular effects. If an Indian woman had a child by an Indian man but then her second husband was non-Indian, her children under the age of 21 by the first husband would lose status. Those children would end up disadvantaged relatives to their older brothers if those brothers were too old to have lost status. That is cured by this bill and that's all to the good.

This is the scenario that I brought up with Mr. Reiher and that he thinks is not discriminatory. I will try to take you through it extremely quickly as well. Before 1985, an Indian man could decide to enfranchise himself, his wife, and his children. This leads to the following situation, and this is a real situation in Odanak.

A woman was enfranchised before the age of 21, when her dad enfranchised the whole family. Her grandchildren don't have status. Her older sister wasn't enfranchised by their dad, because she was already married to a non-Indian, so she benefited from the McIvor decision; she will benefit from the Descheneaux amendments; and she will have status great grandchildren. This woman will not even have status grandchildren.

The department tells me that this is not discrimination based on sex. I say it is. I say it is for the simple reason that this woman's mother had enfranchisement imposed on her by this woman's father. Indian Affairs says that's okay, because if her brother had enfranchised himself and the sister-in-law, they would be in the same place.

My vision of equality is not that. If we end up with men who have privileges, but are treated no better than women who have no privileges, I don't think that is equality. The Department of Indian Affairs and Justice Canada do.

That's where we are with Bill S-3. That's the overview, and now we have this amendment from the Senate. I'm going to try to make a few relatively simple points about it.

The first one is this, and it's very important that you understand it. Here are the points I want to make. Without the amendments the Senate has brought, the registration rules under the Indian Act, the status rules, will continue to discriminate, and they will continue to violate the charter. There's no dispute about that.

The second point I want to make is that the Abenaki nation was not consulted and not engaged with on Bill S-3.

The third point I want to make is that there is no confidence among aboriginal communities about stage two.

The final point is that there is time right now to do this right.

I want to come back to those points. The first point is that there will be discrimination and the charter will be violated, and you might say they're the same thing. They're not exactly the same thing. The department has told you that the McIvor decision means that they don't have to do this or that, and that the Senate is going too far because it is going further than what McIvor said they had to do.

Let's be very clear on what McIvor said, and I'll try to do this without taking you to the finer points of the double mother rule, which always gives people a headache.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

That's why we are here today, because Bill C-3 was flawed.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I think that's the reason this has phase one and phase two.

Phase one is to deal with what the court told us we had to do, and we were able to include some simple parallel cases in that piece of legislation. We knew we would have to then go out and do all the rest.

With due respect, my department has had very little experience over the last decade in going out and talking to people. With due respect, we're here today because Bill C-3 wasn't consulted on properly; therefore, that is what we are having to turn around. We have to turn around to a culture where the solutions are found by the people who know the most, those with expertise and those with lived experience.

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

I agree that it needs to be amended. My caution is that it should be amended to make sure that men and women, married or not, and their descendants are equal pre-1985 under paragraph 6(1)(a) so that there's no hierarchy. However, this was attempted before, with McIvor in Bill C-3, and that amendment was ruled out of order for procedural reasons.

If it comes up that there's some technicality or procedure that doesn't allow you to do that, and you can't amend it properly, then an extension should be sought from the court, with the consent of the Descheneaux litigants, which they've already given, to allow further time to go back and get it right and not leave it for phase two, because phase two has that standard of consensus, and as you know, no human society ever agrees on gender equality, and we don't have the option to do that.

[Dr. Pamela Palmater, Chair in Indigenous Governance, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, As an Individual]

[Witness speaks in Mi'kmaq] Pam Palmater. I'm from the sovereign Mi'kmaq Nation on unceded territories in Mi’kma’ki.

I want to thank you for allowing me to come today to speak to some of my concerns with Bill S-3. First, I think it's important to acknowledge that we're on Algonquin territory. Second, we're here today for the efforts of indigenous women who have continued this battle for many decades, like Mary Two-Axe Early, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Yvonne Bédard, Sharon McIvor, Sandra Lovelace, and now the second generation of litigants fighting for gender equality for indigenous women, including Jeremy Matson, Lynn Gehl, Nathan McGillivary, and of course, Stéphane Descheneaux.

My primary concerns will be laid out in the submission that is being handed out.

The most important one is that Bill S-3 does not address all known gender discrimination. It doesn't. You've heard from other witnesses who have given very specific examples. My examples are not exhaustive, but they include grandchildren who trace their descent through Indian women who married out pre-1951, the illegitimate female children and their descendants who trace descent from Indian men born pre-1951, and also the differentiation and hierarchy that was created between paragraph 6(1)(a), the male category, and paragraph 6(1)(c), primarily the female category. They have come to be known as the “real Indians” and the “wannabe Indians”. In fact, 6(1)(c)s are the same in descent; they just happen to be indigenous women and their descendants.

A problem that also causes gender discrimination is with Bill S-3. They've now included even more complex differentiation in terms of categories. You have proposed paragraphs 6(1)(c.01), (c.2), (c.3), and (c.4). This also disproportionately impacts the descendants of Indian women who married out. Here's the problem with that. There is no legal or policy justification on behalf of Indian Affairs to have everyone identified in this way.

Programs and services are addressed through contribution agreements based on a membership or the status Indian registry. They never have to record whether you get health, if you're a 6(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) (e), (f), or 6(2). There's no justification for it, so then what's the alternative reason for it?

What it does is it places a scarlet letter on women and their descendants for having committed the sins of marrying out, having had illegitimate children, or worse, being born female. That's a scarlet letter that doesn't attach to Indian men and their descendants who have married out and have intermarried for many successive generations.

The other issue is the hierarchy of Indian status between subsections 6(1) and 6(2), those who can pass on status and those who can't. Those in the “who can't” section are somehow seen as defective and cannot pass on their status to others. It disproportionately impacts indigenous women, the children of unwed Indian mothers who cannot name the father, or who will not name the father because of the reasons that LEAF annotated, and also when fathers deny paternity or when they refuse to sign application forms. INAC has given the power to Indian men to have an impact on the children of indigenous women in this way. Last is the denial of compensation to women who have suffered discrimination for so long.

Bill S-3 also does not provide adequate protection for membership. You'll recall that pre-1985, Indian status and membership is synonymous. Even after Bill S-3, it will only be synonymous for Indian men, not for Indian women. Bill C-3 didn't provide those protections, and now Bill S-3 doesn't provide those protections.

The constitutional protection for gender equality is just that. Section 15 of the charter is equality for men and women. Subsection 35(4) of the Constitution, for anyone who wants to exercise aboriginal treaty rights, must be guaranteed equally between men and women. Article 44 of UNDRIP, which this government has said it's going to implement, also says there's equality between men and women. There is no legal option to negotiate, consider, consult, or agree our way out of gender equality.

If you look at the traditional laws of indigenous nations in this country, I have yet to find one in all of my research that promotes gender inequality.

Canada cannot proceed to phase two without addressing all gender inequality. It acts as a legal prerequisite. You cannot talk to our first nations without our indigenous women and their descendants there. It is unconstitutional. It violates all of our traditional laws, and it would act as a legal barrier to even starting the conversation in phase two.

Bill S-3 also needs to be accompanied by funding for first nations. You'll know that INAC has set aside millions of dollars for itself to deal with Bill S-3 applications, but it didn't set aside a single cent for first nations to deal with this at the community level.

Canada obviously failed to engage in any sort of legal consultations by its own admission.

The impact of Indian registration, as we discussed, is very serious. It's not just about programs and benefits; it's a root cause of murdered and missing indigenous women. It's lack of access to elders, language, ceremonies, and even access to powwows. There are powwows children cannot attend unless they have a status card, no matter how they were raised or whether they were raised in a first nation community.

It also won't address any of the pending litigation. Sharon McIvor's litigation is still outstanding. The Descheneaux cases are still in the hopper. There are Lynn Gehl's, Jeremy Matson's, and Nathan McGillivary's cases, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission has many. And of course, there's the Bill C-3 class action that was brought about because of gender discrimination.

My recommendations, very quickly, are for paragraph 6(1)(a) all the way. Every indigenous man and woman who had children prior to 1985, married or not, should all get the same kind of status so that indigenous women and their descendants don't have to wear the scarlet letter of paragraph 6(1)(c). You need rightful compensation for those who have been knowingly denied gender equality since 1982. For pre-1982, Justice said that's a barrier; there have been legal consultations.

My last word to you is that if we do not address gender discrimination now, in all likelihood, it won't happen. In phase two, they want us to deal with aboriginal treaty rights, nation to nation, getting rid of the Indian Act, and the minister has said that her standard for that is absolute consensus. There will never be, in the history of humanity, consensus on gender equality, but that's the law of the land.

Thank you.

[David Taylor, Executive Member, Aboriginal Law Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

I'm pleased to appear before the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

I'll give my presentation in English, but I would be happy to answer questions in French.

The CBA aboriginal law section is pleased to contribute to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs' pre-study of Bill S-3's subject matter.

I would begin by recalling the words of Madam Justice Ross of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in her reasons at trial in McIvor v. the Registrar, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada:

...it is one of our most basic expectations that we will acquire the cultural identity of our parents; and that as parents we will transmit our cultural identity to our children.

It is therefore not surprising that one of the most frequent criticisms of the registration scheme is that it denies Indian women the ability to pass Indian status to their children.

One of our main points concerns the manner in which this bill was brought forward and is being considered by Parliament.

When Bill S-3 was introduced at first reading in the Senate, consultations with regard to the first phase of the government's response to the Descheneaux decision were far from over. While we understand that the Indigenous Affairs consultations regarding Bill S-3 were to conclude last Friday, December 2, it remains the case that moving forward in the legislative process while there were still consultations under way undermines the fulfilment of the federal government's duty to consult indigenous peoples regarding legislative changes that affect them, as required by the honour of the crown and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. While the committee stages in the Senate and in the House are designed for the amendment of bills based on public feedback, the honour of the crown and the United Nations declaration require more than indigenous peoples being left to watch the legislative train leave the station.

We are also concerned by clause 8 of Bill S-3, which precludes those impacted by Bill S-3 from seeking compensation for their past exclusion from Indian status. Parliament and the federal crown have been on notice since at least the 2009 decision in McIvor by the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the amendments to the Indian Act in 1985 did not entirely resolve the discriminatory aspects of the Indian status system and, in fact, created new discriminatory elements.

On this point, Madam Justice Masse held in Descheneaux:

The year is now 2015. The 1985 Act from which the discrimination arises has been in force for a little more than 30 years.

The general finding of discrimination in the 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia in McIvor could have enabled Parliament to make more sweeping corrections than what was accomplished in the measures in the 2010 act. The discrimination suffered by the plaintiffs arises from the same source as the one identified in the case.

Canada was aware that work remained to be done following McIvor and Bill C-3. Leaving clause 8 in Bill S-3 immunizes Canada from the consequences of its conduct and provides little incentive to ensure that the eradication of discrimination in the context of Indian status proceeds without delay.

By continuing to withhold eligibility for Indian status from certain women and their descendants, government realizes a cost saving: controlling costs by having fewer members. The result of discrimination should not be an economic benefit to the government.

Removing clause 8 from Bill S-3 would change the financial incentive going forward and would send a clear message from Parliament that the government will not be given a licence to discriminate through absolution for the past consequences of its actions where government was clearly on notice through prior court decisions that its broader legislative scheme was not on sound constitutional footing.

As a practical matter, sufficient resources should be provided to bands that will see an influx of new members as a result of Bill S-3, and sufficient resources should be provided to the relevant operational sectors at Indigenous Affairs in order to ensure that the registration of individuals who have been unconstitutionally excluded for more than three decades proceeds with all due dispatch.

The subject matter of Bill S-3 should also be referred to a parliamentary committee within 18 months of its coming into force. We understand that the government is committed to proposing further revisions to the Indian status system as part of its two-stage response to the Descheneaux decision. This is to be commended and is in keeping with Justice Masse's calls for a broader review of this question.

Indeed, in the second-last paragraph of her reasons for judgment, Madam Justice Masse held:

Parliament should not interpret this judgment as strictly as it did the [Court of Appeal for British Columbia's] judgment in McIvor. If it wishes to fully play its role instead of giving free reign to legal disputes, it must act differently this time, while also quickly making sufficiently significant corrections to remedy the discrimination identified in this case. One approach does not exclude the other.

Given the long history of discrimination involved in the Indian status system, the phase two process will benefit from timely parliamentary scrutiny long enough before the next election to ensure that parliamentarians' expertise and the views of community members do not get lost in the legislative crunch that accompanies the end of a parliamentary session.

In closing, it is important to note that the McIvor and Descheneaux decisions deal with aspects of the Indian status system that are discriminatory and contrary to section 15 of the charter. As such, they set the constitutional floor, the level of fairness below which the Indian status system may not fall. Certainly, the legislative process, both here and in the phase to come, should set its sights higher in an attempt to rectify the inequities that have long been identified in the Indian status system.

Those are our submissions.

Thank you.

[Sharon McIvor]

I'm unclear about what they want to consult about. Perhaps it's membership. I don't know.

I know that they don't have the right to consult about discrimination. No one has the right to say it's okay to discriminate. They did it for Bill C-31. They did it for Bill C-3, and it looks like it's their intention to do it for Bill S-3. Whoever they consulted is saying that it's okay to discriminate. We don't want any more. There are some that want more members, as well, but the consultation has never, ever been sufficient. I cannot think of any consultation in the last 50 years that has resulted in anything. You go and talk, and you do what you want to do anyway.

My immediate concern with Bill S-3 is that it seems that instead of taking out all the known discrimination in the Indian Act, the minister has now decided, “Well, we won't take it all out, even though we know it's there, and we'll consult with people about how we're going to do it.” It doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm not a big fan of consultation in this kind of legislation.

Yes, when you're looking at land, resources, all those kinds of things, absolutely. But on whether or not you should take discrimination against an identified group out of the Indian Act, consultation won't get you anywhere. You can't do it. You cannot consult and get somebody's agreement and then continue to discriminate, and then continue to discriminate while you're consulting.

[Jeremy Matson]

As an individual, I wasn't privy to any information about nation to nation. I belong to a nation and I have a relationship with my nation. Just as I have a relationship with the crown and with section 6 of the Indian Act, I have my own relationship with my own nation.

Also, every family within the Squamish Nation is affected by Bill C-31 and Bill C-3 and now Bill S-3, so it's important to communities such as mine.

[Jeremy Matson, As an Individual]

Hello. My name is Jeremy Matson. I would like to thank the Algonquin people for allowing me to speak on their traditional territory. I would also like to thank Mr. Descheneaux, Ms. Yantha, Ms. Sharon McIvor, her son Jacob, Ms. Sandra Lovelace Nicholas, Ms. Bédard, Ms. Lavell, Mary Two-Axe Earley, and many others who continue to advance or who have advanced indigenous peoples' rights here in Canada.

Currently, I'm registered under subsection 6(2) of the Indian Act under Bill C-3, the McIvor bill, which is the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. I'm a Squamish Nation member and I have direct ancestral connections to the Tsleil-Waututh, Musqueam, and other Coast Salish nations.

I am married to my wife Taryn Matson, née Moore. We have two children: Iris Matson, who is eight years old, and August Matson, who is five years old.

I am one of many grandsons of Nora Johnston and Vino Matson. My grandparents were married in 1927, and because of her marriage to my non-aboriginal grandfather, my grandmother was commuted under the 1927 Indian Act and remained disentitled to her identity.

My father, Eugene Matson, was one of seven children born to my grandparents Nora and Vino between the years 1928 and 1942. My grandparents had approximately 30 grandchildren. We'll go into the effects of the upcoming Bill S-3 on those 30 grandchildren.

My grandmother remained disentitled as a band member or as a status Indian—a recognized Indian under the Indian Act—until April 17, 1985. Under Bill C-31, the amendments back then, my grandmother was registered under paragraph 6(1)(c) of the Indian Act and registered as a band member under section 11 of the Indian Act under the Squamish Nation.

My grandmother's seven children were registered for the first time under subsection 6(2) of the Indian Act, Bill C-31.

Canada has imposed discriminatory legislation against my family for 90 years. The intergenerational impact is significant. Canada has denied our cultural identities and/or placed my family members in an inferior position compared with those in other indigenous families in Canada, and the sole reason is gender discrimination and its adverse impacts.

I'll go a little bit into the nuts and bolts of Bill S-3 as drafted and its shortcomings and the way it affects my family.

I will be potentially entitled to paragraph 6(1)(c.2) registration under the proposed amendments. I'm going to go through my children's case. That means they'll be entitled to subsection 6(2) Indian status under this bill.

But there are a few inequalities in your tinkering with the Indian Act. You've created more problems—not you the INAN committee, but the drafters. I'll go through proposed paragraph 6(1)(c.4)—this is part of the Bill S-3 draft amendments—and show how my children meet some of these categories but will be left out from proposed paragraph 6(1)(c.4) Indian status.

The first category is for those for whom:

one of their parents is entitled to be registered under paragraph (c.2)

That would be me, as my children meet that criterion—and then they qualify under item (ii) of that proposed paragraph 6(1)(c.4) if:

their other parent is not entitled to be registered

That would be my wife.

Then item 6(1)(c.4)(iii) states, as its qualifying criterion:

they were born before April 17, 1985, whether or not their parents were married to each other at the time of the birth, or they were born after April 16, 1985

My children meet that, and then it says:

and their parents were married to each other at any time before April 17, 1985

My children do not meet that category, so they're not entitled under that item of proposed paragraph 6(1)(c.4).

The newly entitled under Bill S-3—that means the generation below mine and descending generations from there, the newly entitled great-grandchildren or the second-generation cousins of my grandmother—the descendants of my grandmother, will be treated in a differential manner.

Some will be entitled to proposed subsection 6(2) Indian status, some to proposed subsection 6(1) Indian status under the Indian Act amendments in Bill S-3.

In my submission, I broke down all 30 grandchildren and how their standings would fall under Bill S-3. The first three grandchildren of my grandmother will not be entitled under this bill. They were not entitled under Bill C-3, because they were born prior to September 4, 1951, and they will remain disentitled under proposed subsection 6(1) Indian status, and their descendants will, too.

I also broke down.... I don't know what version of my submission you have. The first-generation cousins, the grandchildren, are highlighted in red. Those would be the individuals who were married prior to April 17, 1985. They will be entitled to pass proposed subsection 6(1) Indian status to their children, and the remaining non-highlighted grandchildren, which I fall under, will only be able to pass proposed subsection 6(2) Indian status to their children.

There is going to be differential treatment of siblings and families. In my family, first-generation cousins are going to be left out or left with an inferior status.

On page 6, in a detailed chart for the INAN committee, I broke down how I, my family, and my children will be treated differently, in comparison to my first-generation cousins' families and their breakdown.

I would encourage this committee to look at that, as it could be a possible recommendation. If you are staying in all the four corners of Bill S-3, and what Justice Masse has done with her decision in the Descheneaux case, my submissions and recommendations would stay within those four corners, but it would be nice to have everybody who was born prior to April 17, 1985 under proposed paragraph 6(1)(a) Indian status, as Ms. McIvor mentioned.

Not too long ago, on October 25, Canada went under review by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Canada is a treaty member of that particular United Nations committee, and Canada's review was in the 65th session. On November 18, only a couple of weeks ago, CEDAW, from the United Nations, with the report CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/8-9, called Canada out about this very bill, Bill S-3. I provided that in there, but I didn't provide the reference and the web link. I forgot to put that in my submission.

Paragraph 12 of the report states that the committee:

further notes that a new Bill [S-3] amending the Indian Act is currently being developed. However, the Committee remains concerned about continued discrimination against indigenous women, in particular regarding the transmission of Indian status, preventing them and their descendants from enjoying all the benefits related to such status.

In paragraph 13 the committee recommends that parliamentarians fix that.

This is the third CEDAW report that has announced to Canada to abolish or fix this discrimination. I currently have a petition before CEDAW about section 6 of the Indian Act and the relationship between the state and me as an individual, my children, my grandchildren, and my future descendants.

I also listed numerous other United Nations reports calling on Canada to abolish this, and I have provided links.

I'll now get to the the recommendations for Bill S-3.

It would be nice for this committee to provide a recommendation for proposed paragraph 6(1)(a) Indian status for everybody born prior to April 17, 1985, and also to provide future amendments, because there are implications, too, about April 17, 1985 to the present day. It's not just between April 17, 1985 and back to 1876, and before, that that there was discrimination. We also have to go forward after that date.

Staying within the four corners of this bill, under proposed paragraph 6(1)(c.4) I recommend providing Indian status to all the newly entitled, meaning my children's generational level, and not create differences between first-generation cousins or siblings.

Recommendation two is to provide Indian status or entitlement for all those individuals born prior to September 4, 1951. As my family history clearly displays, I have three first-generation cousins who remain disentitled under Bill S-3, even though CEDAW has recommended to Canada to fix all discrimination.

[Sharon McIvor, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs]

Thank you.

My name is Sharon McIvor. I'm appearing at this committee for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, which is a B.C. group of chiefs that has been in existence since the mid-1970s, and whose major focus is aboriginal title right and treaty rights.

Today I'm just speaking specifically to Bill S-3, the amendment to the Indian Act. You have to understand that status under the Indian Act is exclusively the jurisdiction of the federal government. It's in 91(24), so it's a relationship or recognition of who the federal government recognizes as Indians. It has nothing to do with self-determination or self-government. Those issues are out there to be discussed at another time and place.

Up until 1985, the Indian Act was blatantly discriminatory against women. Lots of pressure was brought, but mainly the Charter of Rights and Freedoms kicked in on April 17, 1985, and forced the government to deal with that ongoing discrimination.

With Bill C-31, there was an agreement at that time between Minister Crombie and his department that although he wanted all the discrimination gone, I understand that it was too expensive, so he allowed the second-generation cut-off and said that those guys could come and fight for themselves.

I took up the challenge. In July 1989 I started a case that was called the McIvor case about the ongoing discrimination in the Indian Act.

In 2010, after court decisions, the government got together to do Bill C-3. Bill C-3 continued with the discrimination. We've been here before and done this before because of the ongoing discrimination, and the government decided it was okay to continue to discriminate against aboriginal women and their descendants.

Looking at Bill S-3, it's exactly the same thing.

I can tell you what happened in 1985. The government threw out this thing to say that they had to consult with the people about whether or not they should end this discrimination.

From my perspective, and for most people who believe in human rights, discrimination isn't negotiable. As the Government of Canada, it's your responsibility to make sure your legislation complies with the charter, so you can't go out and ask all of those aboriginal organizations, which are mainly led by males, if it is okay to continue to discriminate against the Indian women. I can tell you that most of them will say, yes. We know, because in Jeannette Corbière-Lavell's case, the Assembly of First Nations and their allies were sitting against her with the government. In other cases we've taken, those male-dominated organizations sit on the other side.

It's your fiduciary responsibility to make sure that your legislation, no matter what you pass, complies with the charter. Bill S-3 does not. What Bill S-3 does is it continues the discrimination.

I have a petition with the UN Human Rights Committee to say that Bill C-3, the McIvor amendment, did not take all of the discrimination out of the Indian Act. That's sitting there. It was to be heard in July 2016. The Department of Justice put in a request to the UN committee to suspend the hearing of my petition, because of the bill—now S-3—that will bring gender equality to the Indian Act in February 3, 2017.

I handed a package to the clerk. There is a media release in which Carolyn Bennett promises that. I also have in the package the request to the UN committee by the Government of Canada, and in several places they said that by February 3, 2017, all known discrimination will be out of the Indian Act.

They knew it and they could do it, and then they were going to do a second phase, consulting nation to nation with the aboriginal people. The only thing that I'm saying today is yes to the consultation. You cannot consult about ending discrimination. You cannot consult about asking somebody else's permission if it's okay to continue to discriminate against me.

It's totally unacceptable and the position that you're taking as parliamentarians is really untenable. I absolutely can't understand why you're doing it. Discrimination is contrary to the charter and you know and I know, and you've heard probably from a lot of people, that there's still discrimination in the Indian Act. You have the ability to scrap the bill and do something that's going to take all of the discrimination out.

In 1985 the Government of Canada did something that helped take care of some of the bands' problems. The bands are not nations. The bands are an artificial construct by the Government of Canada, but what they did is they separated the membership and status. Section 10 allows absolutely every band in Canada to decide who can be a member. They cannot take membership away and the women who married out were to be put back into their birth bands, but second generation can be left out. You don't have to give membership to them. They separated that out.

The Government of Canada is determining who is an Indian and who do I have responsibility for and who do I have a relationship with. Absolutely every band in Canada has the right to make a law that determines who their membership is.

I just don't want the waters to be muddy there. What we're looking at is the Government of Canada deciding whether they're going to recognize me as an Indian. The other piece that's really important is that when I was born, I had birthrights. Outside of the human rights that every human is born with, I have aboriginal rights that come from my heritage. Those cannot be defined away. I cannot be discriminated against so I cannot exercise those rights, and recognition of me as an aboriginal person is one of those rights.

When we're looking at what you're doing with Bill S-3, what you did with Bill C-3, what you did with Bill C-31, you violated my rights as an aboriginal person. My plea to you is you can clean it up. If you look at in May 2010 the House of Commons committee reviewing Bill C-3 brought to the House an amendment to Bill C-3 which for the most part alleviated all of the concerns about the ongoing discrimination based on gender. That was rejected.

Actually, it wasn't rejected. The Speaker ruled most of it out of order and it was left in one piece, but you know how to do it. It's there. I put that in the package as well. It's a two-pager and it will alleviate most of the discrimination, all of the known discrimination. There are some things still there that need to be fixed, but for the most part it's doable and that's your fiduciary responsibility. You cannot continue to make legislation that has known discrimination in it. It's your fiduciary responsibility to take it all out. That's what the charter is all about.

Thank you.

[Frankie Coté]

I just find it a little odd—and please don't take this as an insult or anything, because I don't mean any disrespect—coming from the Conservative side, considering that the Harper government appealed this decision from the onset, and the Liberal government is the one that withdrew the appeal.

That being said, let me finish that first part. For consultation, yes, it's guaranteed that there needs to be more consultation, but that's just in general on all aspects. The courts have been clear about consultation within the legislative body. In the legislative process, through Mikisew, they went to court and they won in dealing with the omnibus bill and the changes to CEAA.

Going to the second part of your question, yes, there needs to be more money injected into it. When Bill C-31 was enacted, there was some money, but definitely not enough. There was some housing money given, but definitely not enough to meet the demands that the communities faced. With Bill C-3 there was no money injected when it came into effect.

When these people returned to their communities and asked for programs and services, it was a huge strain on communities, so definitely more money is always welcome and needed.

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Citizenship Commissioner, Anishinabek Nation, Union of Ontario Indians]

Meegwetch.

[Witness speaks in Ojibwe]

I'm giving you greetings from my people, the Anishinabek Nation in Ontario. I am a member of the Wikwemikong unceded territory based on Manitoulin. I also shared my Anishinaabe name, which is Giiwedanang, which is North Star.

Having listened to the previous presentations, I am here to share with you the work that we have been doing within the Anishinabek Nation. It is what we are all talking about . It's called the Anishinabek Nation Citizenship Law or E-dbendaagzijig—“Those Who Belong.” This is the appointment I was given by the Grand Chief of Anishinabek Nation many years ago—well, not that long ago: in 2007, actually.

Just listening to everyone and looking around the table, I was thinking it might be good to take a few steps back and take some time to share with you my own personal experience with the Indian Act. It might have some relevance and bearing on what we're going through right now.

This is my status card. It says: “Jeannette Corbiere Lavell”. For 15 years, I didn't have it.

By the way, this one expired too. The irony is how can a citizen or a status member expire? But that's what happens.

In 1970, I married David Lavell, who is non-Indian—and as I pointed out, I was a member of the Wikwemikong unceded reserve—and then my rights as a member of my community were automatically taken away. I received a cheque in the mail for $35, which said that's it; you're no longer a member.

It was really hard-hitting for me, because I grew up there; my family is there; and that was my whole life—even though I did travel to Toronto, where I met my husband, but that was for work.

What I want to share with you is that changes and revisions of the Indian Act have been ongoing. Prior to that, it was revised so that our people could imbibe liquor. In 1970, when I looked at the Indian Act and the impact it was having on me, when I had no choice in the decision, it gave me that challenge. I took it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. That's the Lavell case, from which Bill C-31 was the result, many years later.

In 1970, we approached the chiefs—at the time it was the National Indian Brotherhood, and now it's the Assembly of First Nations—but no one really wanted to tackle this discrimination within the Indian Act, because of course it only affected indigenous women or Indian women with status.

We're still dealing with this. Here we are, 46 years later, with the same problem, so it has been ongoing. Nonetheless, this is the task you have been given as members of this committee. I understand the timeline; however, realizing the hardships that have taken place among many of our people in our communities, I say that decisions have to be made and change must be made. It is not relevant in this day and age to continue to have this kind of discrimination, especially against our women, within the laws of Canada. It must be changed.

I would like to see whatever we can do as members within our Anishinabek Nation to assist in bringing about this change.

Just to also relate, in 1973, we lost by one vote, so there wasn't any change for me and, as I've said, I didn't have my Indian status for 15 years. However, I guess the biggest impact was that legally I would not have been able to even visit my family or reside with my parents, my aunts, and my community, and this is also who I am. I have my language; I grew up there. We have our own spirituality.

When we say that Indian status is only getting access to health benefits, that's not true. To us, this is who we are as a people, that recognition. No matter where you go, you can say, “I am a member of my community, I am Anishinabek”. For me, I'm an anishinaabekwe, which is an Indian woman.

When we dealt with it in 1972-73, we didn't have any aboriginal women's organizations, but because of the determination of our women and the fact that no one was listening to us, we had to get that word out. So we formed our own provincial aboriginal women's organizations in 1973, and here they are. They just left. I am a member of the Native Women's Association of Canada as well through our provincial group.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that there have been changes, and they have been good. They haven't been perfect, and here we are. Then Sharon McIvor worked on behalf of her grandchildren. That went through the B.C. Supreme Court and, as you well know, then we had Bill C-3. So we have Bill C-31, Bill C-3, and now we have the next step. So it's ongoing, and it won't be resolved because there will be other aspects coming out.

I hear what you're saying, that the Indian Act is not the best. However, it is the only protection that many of our people recognize, the only protection that we have. Unless we can be assured that we will have something that is strong, and that we will be a part of it, and we will have a say in the development of a governance structure, our own constitutions, and our own citizenship act, it just can't be done away with. It may take a little while longer, but as members of the Anishinabek nation in Ontario—there are 40 first nations who are members—we have started on that process.

I don't know how much time I have.

[Viviane Michel, President, Quebec Native Women Inc.]

[Witness speaks in Innu]

Good afternoon, everyone. I thank the Creator for having brought us here, and I also wish to acknowledge the vast non-surrendered Algonquin territory we are on.

Ladies and gentlemen members of Parliament, Kwe. The Quebec Native Women's association wishes to acknowledge the Anishinaabe Nation that welcomes us today on its vast non-ceded territory. Today, this welcome has particular significance, given the recent events in Quebec. It was on Anishinaabe territory that aboriginal women courageously denounced the abuse and violence there were subjected to by Sûreté du Québec police officers. The Quebec Native Women's association reiterates its message: we believe these women, and we demand an independent provincial judicial commission of inquiry in Quebec. IKWÉ solidarity.

Quebec Native Women Inc. is an organization of aboriginal women that has worked to put an end to injustice since 1974, so that our children may grow up amongst their own people and know their language, culture and traditions, and be proud of them. Since 1974, Quebec Native Women Inc. has been fighting against policies intended to assimilate our peoples, and against sex-based discrimination, that constitutes the basis of the Indian Act. Still today, in 2016, our societies are being torn apart by this.

According to the aboriginal oral tradition of the pre-colonial era, life between men and women was well defined. Although our roles were different, there were valued equally. There was mutual respect between the sexes and the generations. Aboriginal women benefited from a level of respect, equality and political power that European women of the the same era could only dream of. Several aboriginal societies were in fact matriarchal and matrilinear.

As you know, that balance between the sexes was violently destabilized by the colonial policies that were subsequently put in place deliberately by Canada. Colonization had devastating effects on our peoples, due notably to increasingly aggressive assimilation policies. These targeted our women and children in particular. The Canadian government was well aware of the importance of women in our society, particularly their role in passing on knowledge. It knew that to achieve its objectives and to eliminate the “Indian issue” and the Department of Indian Affairs in Canada , it had to uproot our peoples and tear us away from our lands and traditions.

It was expressed quite clearly in black and white that this law was created to accelerate territorial dispossession and decrease the number of aboriginals in Canada. In its annual report in 1895, the Department of Indian Affairs clearly expressed its intent to target our languages in order to assimilate us as peoples. To reach that objective the government intended to target the pillars of our societies, our women, who passed on knowledge to our children, the future of our societies.

The Indian Act served as a tool to achieve that by defining in a patriarchal and paternalistic way who was recognized as an “Indian” in Canada. During the 1800s, only those whose fathers were aboriginal were considered “Indian”, and any woman who married a non-aboriginal lost her aboriginal identity under the law.

It was this same law that imposed the residential school system on us. Its purpose was, and I quote, to “kill the Indian in the heart of the child”.

This law was built on a foundation that sought the abolition of our societies by attacking our women and children, as well as the transmission of our cultures, languages and way of life.

If Canada sincerely intends to bring about reconciliation with aboriginal peoples, it must be accountable and accept history and its repercussions on our current societies. Quebec Native Women Inc. believes that it is impossible to achieve reconciliation if our relationships are governed by a law that does not give us the right to determine our own identity, keeps us in wardship, and is based on racist and discriminatory principles.

Since the beginning of the 1970s, there have been court challenges to the Indian Act. After the very long and worthy battles led by Ms. Mary Two-Axe Early, Ms. Jeannette Corbiere Lavell and Ms. Sandra Lovelace Nicholas, Canada, that refused to recognize the sex-based discrimination of the Indian Act, saw its decision invalidated at the international level by the United Nations, which asked it to amend this act.

In 1985, Bill C-31 was passed to alleviate this discrimination. However, it did not put an end to it. On the contrary, it created new ones. It led to the creation of two categories of status. Status aboriginals were now divided into two groups: the one described in subsection 6(1) and the one described in subsection 6(2). This is painfully close to eugenics. These provisions inserted into the Indian Act the concept of the purity of bloodlines that once again divided our peoples and imposed a foreign system on our ways of governing.

In 2011, Sharon McIvor continued the struggle by standing up to sex-based discrimination due once again to the Indian Act. This led to Bill C-3, which failed to put an end to these years of discrimination.

Here we are together again today in 2016 to deal with these same issues. Quebec Native Women Inc. is asking you, ladies and gentlemen, to acknowledge the absurdity of the current context and the insidious nature of exercises like this one.

Quebec Native Women Inc. wishes to highlight the courage and perseverance of the women and men who waged these legal battles, but is forced to recognized nevertheless that each of these amendments was only a small bandaid on the serious and gaping wound of the cultural genocide attempted by Canada on aboriginal peoples.

Quebec Native Women Inc. wishes to remind Parliament of article 33(1) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which establishes that “indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions.”

Indian status, that has been divided into categories and is awarded according to criteria that will remain sexist even after the current proposed changes, represents a blatant violation of this right we have to decide who we are.

In 2011, our association held a gathering of the nations where the theme of identity was discussed with its members. Together, they expressed the nature of language, culture, belonging to a territory, values and traditions that are the markers of our identity and indigenous citizenship, and not blood quantum or the number on a card issued by the Government of Canada.

In today's context, Quebec Native Women Inc. is asking the Government of Canada to eliminate once and for all the discrimination practised against aboriginal women, including those who, for several reasons, do not declare the paternity of their child.

We also ask that the women who have suffered from discrimination since the period before 1951 may recover their status before it is too late for them.

Finally, we ask the government to eliminate the categories of status that set registered aboriginals apart and give rise to a contemptible and discriminatory hierarchy based on racist and shameful criteria such as the purity of blood.

Quebec Native Women Inc. is asking the Government of Canada to allow first nations themselves to determine who they are.

Given the government's intent to begin the second phase of the work in February 2017, the Quebec Native Women's association is proposing its collaboration with you in this process. We have expertise on this issue developed since 1974, and we believe that we can make an important contribution to reconciliation for the future of our peoples, of our women and children, for the next seven generations.

I would also like to say that we are going to run out of time to consult the 54 aboriginal communities of Quebec. This process is really inadequate. Our organization, Quebec Native Women Inc., met with representatives of the department. I invited them myself to come to our general assembly to discuss the Descheneaux decision, but only 66 women will be present. There are 54 communities to consult. The process is not adequate.

Thank you. Tshinaskumitin.

[Grand Chief Denise Stonefish, Deputy Grand Chief, Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about Canada's effort to eliminate sex-based discrimination through this latest amendment to section 6 of the Indian Act.

As indicated, I represent seven first nations, mainly in southern Ontario. I am also the chair of the Assembly of First Nations' Women's Council. This council is an essential consultative body of the AFN under its charter, representing the interests and perspectives of first nations women who are members of our 634 first nations across Canada. As chair, I participate in meetings of the executive committee, our chiefs in assembly, and other meetings, including presentations to parliamentary committees on occasion.

As we are all painfully aware, the Indian Act was founded on the goal of complete assimilation of first nations as distinct nations. Since 1876, the Indian Act has undermined our kinship systems, our systems of governance, and many other aspects of our lives, including by enabling the imposition of the residential school tragedy. A primary tool to achieve those ends has been discrimination targeting first nations women.

This is the third time Parliament has attempted to rectify the sex discrimination in the act. In 1985, changes made under Bill C-31 left the task incomplete. In 2009, the British Columbia Court of Appeal found that the combination of the two-parent rule, the hierarchy of different types of status under subsections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Indian Act, and the second generation cut-off perpetuated sex discrimination under the act. Now the Descheneaux case has forced Parliament to make a third attempt.

We understand the compelling need for the government to respond to the discrimination identified in Descheneaux. Unfortunately, Bill S-3 will result in continued discrimination. In addition, the proposed amendments in Bill S-3 will compound the existing complexity of the Indian Act registration provisions by adding three additional subparagraphs to paragraph 6(1)(c).

The basic approach of this bill is to continue arbitrary federal control over first nation identity and simply push the residual gender-based discrimination down one generation.

Our review of Bill S-3 suggests other discrimination that will not be addressed. Number one, under Bill C-3, which addressed the McIvor decision, a woman who regains her status is deemed to be under subsection 6(1), and her children would also be eligible for subsection 6(1) status, passing on through future generations. However, a woman who lost and regained status for any reason other than that addressed under Bill C-3 was deemed to be under subsection 6(2), disadvantaging any future offspring.

Number two, Bill C-31 attempted to address the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in the Sandra Lovelace case, as well as charter compliance issues. Now, under Bill C-31, a woman who regains status is deemed to be under subsection 6(1). A person, male or female, who lost and regained status under any circumstance other than marriage, under Bill C-31, is deemed to be under subsection 6(2), and any future offspring may be ineligible for status.

In our view, Canada's continued imposition of a two-parent rule, combined with the hierarchy of status transmission established by Bill C-31 under subsections 6(1) and 6(2), lies at the heart of the ongoing sex-based discrimination. We note with considerable concern that there is apparently no remedy yet for the unfair and long-standing discrimination in the department's policies respecting so-called “unstated paternity”.

I emphasize that these are not usually situations of paternity being unknown but most often of a woman having other reasons for not identifying the father of her child.

Thank you.

[Nathalie Nepton]

As indicated, $19 million has been set aside for over five years to deal with the registration of those who will become entitled as a result of Bill S-3. Definitely, when we look at lessons learned from Bill C-3, we'll take what we've learned and apply that, because that process went very well, but that process can't completely be transferred. For example, as Madam McLeod indicated, $700 I think is the figure she provided to process a file. When we process a file, we go from A to Z. We also look at genealogical research that's required, as well as other administrative issues. That means, for example, everything from requesting additional information of provinces to looking at what's required potentially for vital statistics, and trying as much as possible to assist the person who's seeking to be registered under Bill S-3.

[Nathalie Nepton]

Okay. For registrants seeking to be registered under Bill C-3, the process, as far as I know, hasn't signalled that there is a sufficient or a significant backlog. I can confirm that in writing to the committee later and provide you with an exact statistic.

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

Bill C-3, yes.

[Nathalie Nepton]

I'm sorry, a backlog for Bill C-3?

[Candice St-Aubin]

Just with regard to programming and the numbers we've provided, there are two tranches of programming. There are those that are federally led programming for registration. Those are the two we talked about: the non-insured health benefit, as well as the post-secondary education.

The other programs are the residency-based on-reserve programming. Based on the demographics and the trends analysis that we've done, the impact will be quite minimal for those programs delivered on the ground based on residency. We do not see mobility on and off reserve to be quite large based on the 1996 census data, the 2011 household survey, and, of course, the implications and trends we saw with Bill C-3. It's been pretty stable at about 49%, 51%, and then 48%. It's really quite consistent. We're not anticipating a large impact on programming on reserve.

[Nathalie Nepton]

In terms of individuals who were registered as a result of McIvor, Bill C-3, it comes out to, as of today, 38,467 individuals.

What I should say is that this only includes individuals who were actually registered. There's a whole other factor of applications that still has to be looked at, who weren't registered. We still have to go through with the whole work of assessing the file on an individual basis.

I'm sorry, I forgot—

[Teresa Edwards, In-House Legal Counsel, Director, International Affairs and Human Rights, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Thanks so much, Gladys. I feel like I don't need to speak after that. It was very thorough and says it all.

Wela'lin. [Witness speaks in Mi'kmaq]

My name is Teresa Edwards and I am a Mi'kmaq of the Listuguj band. I am here today in the capacity as the legal counsel and director of human rights for the Native Women's Association of Canada.

I want to acknowledge the territory of the Algonquin people, where we are gathered today.

The Native Women's Association of Canada, otherwise known as NWAC, has worked for the last 40 years to advance the well-being of aboriginal women and girls, as well as their families and communities through activism, policy, trying to change legislation, making presentations such as these, and all forms of advocacy.

NWAC was incorporated in 1974 and is one of the five nationally recognized aboriginal organizations whose purpose is to represent and speak at the national level, on behalf of aboriginal women, primarily first nations and Métis. We do have some Inuit members, but defer to Pauktuutit to speak for them.

NWAC has identified a number of very specific concerns with Bill C-23 and the changes it makes to the Canada Elections Act. As you may or may not know, prior to 1960, registered Indians were not able to vote in Canadian elections or they would no longer be considered Indians under the law and would not be able to live within their territory, community, the reserves. The fact that some aboriginal peoples only fairly recently acquired the right to vote explains, in part, the low number of aboriginal women and men elected to the House of Commons. Since 1867, approximately only 18 people who have self-identified as aboriginal have been members of the House.

The relationship between first nations and the government has not always been positive, particularly as it relates to voting and elections. This has had an impact on first nations participating in elections for all levels of government, federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal, outside of their own communities. It's quite the reverse when you talk about participation in their communities. It's not a question of apathy or being ill-informed. It's a choice they are making, generally speaking, from what we've learned at NWAC, from what the women have shared with us and what our research has shown.

These first nations are extremely active in running as chief and/or council within their own communities and in voter participation. It's not a question of their not knowing about the process. They are very well-informed and do partake in the process within their own communities.

In the work that we've done on elections, aboriginal women have listed numerous reasons why they don't participate in federal elections. A few are: they don't see themselves as being represented by the government, particularly with this government; they don't recognize the federal government as their form of governance and leadership; and/or they don't believe the federal system will positively impact their lives. That's some of the reasons.

I would never want to speak for Six Nations, but for example they have their own passports. They have their own position on why they would never participate, from what we've heard from our women, in elections. It would be seen as complying or going out of their sovereignty, if you will.

Although there may be many reasons to explain why aboriginal women do not participate in federal elections, such as the ones I've listed, there should not be barriers put in place, as Gladys so eloquently listed, by this government to further limit their ability to vote, if they so choose.

Aboriginal young women are often single mothers. They live in poverty and have high rates of mobility, and are often forced to move several times a year, possibly. They could be moving on and off reserve or from different provinces to be with other family members. Sometimes it's due to housing crises, poverty or they're going after jobs, going away to school, or perhaps they are fleeing violence.

NWAC has been working this last year on a project for Elections Canada, and we hope to continue to do similar work in the future, to increase voter turnout among Aboriginal women and youth. We are targeting this group because statistics show that if you vote when you are young, you will continue to vote when you are older.

In 2007, in advance of the general election, a number of changes were made to the Canada Elections Act with respect to ID requirements. These changes required voters to have two pieces of ID, one photo ID and the other had to show a home residence.

Many aboriginal women do not use home addresses and are serviced by post office boxes. In fact today I was just filling out a form to be submitted to Canada Revenue, and two of our board members have post office boxes. There was a criteria that said “not allowed: post office boxes”. Well, that is their address, that is where they live. I'll have to go reconcile that problem when I get home, before I can file those papers for our board.

There's another form that is commonly used, as there are also many aboriginal women who live in urban areas, including students, or who have moved multiple times throughout the year, who may not have ID that corresponds with their current address at the time of voting. So that was mentioned by Gladys, and I mentioned that earlier.

A major problem is the form of ID that is used as the Indian status card. Right now there is no standard for service with the Indian status card within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. NWAC deals with cases of women who have been waiting three years, five years, twelve years, for their status card. Or in a case like mine, I'm an expired Indian. Just out of sheer rebelliousness, I refuse to go and get my card renewed, because what other race would expire at a certain date. Sorry, I just had to add that.

That would be an acceptable ID. I've tried to use that. I expired last year in July, at my birthday, and I've tried to use it on numerous occasions. Although it's supposed to never be refused for services, if you can show other ID such as a passport, driver's licence, which I have, I'm constantly refused service because I'm expired.

As Gladys mentioned, that's the case for many aboriginal women. In the case of Bill C-3, the law that just came into effect a couple of years ago, where aboriginal women want to register their children they have to have birth certificates for each of their children. Perhaps she is a single mother with five children and she needs birth certificates for each child. The cost of that birth certificate could be up to $90, depending on the province or territory that you have to pay, for each child. Then you have to have pictures taken, and that could be $25 at your Shoppers Drug Mart to get passport-size pictures. Then you send the forms into the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

I know, for example, my daughter sent hers in three years ago. They have sent it back three times. The process took so long. They said everything she sent was accurate; however, the picture had expired. After a year, it was no longer any good. They hadn't finished processing it and it was sent to a new department, so she had to pay for the pictures to be done again. They also needed a new copy of the original birth certificate, and the first one hadn't been returned to her. So there she had two charges of $90 for birth certificates and two charges for.... This is all just to get an Indian status card, which is a primary card that is used in this process.

Bands were aware of the ID requirements and options available to resident voters, including the option to have authorized band officials using an attestation of residence; the use of voter information cards to establish current residency; or the option of vouching, as Gladys mentioned, where someone who is already a registered voter at the same polling division is able to confirm a person's residence and identity.

AFN's efforts in 2012—and they did this with Elections Canada—included phoning bands and using a series of scripts developed jointly with Elections Canada, basically, to inform eligible voters of what they needed for ID. What we found at NWAC, in the work that we've been doing with Elections Canada, is that there's a clear role for independent organizations such as NWAC or AFN to work with our populations, in collaboration with Elections Canada, to give information or workshops or help inform our people regarding election processes, and so on and so forth.

There are so many other things that can be done to enhance first nations participation in federal elections, such as the ones that we're doing and AFN's done in the past, in relation to Elections Canada, to build on past campaigns. Or we could even learn from the U.S. in this one instance with the Indian vote campaign.

It's in this context that we have specific concerns with the changes proposed under Bill C-23: the restrictive ID requirements and disallowance of vouching. So the provision of Bill C-23 that disallows the use of voter information cards as proof of residency will create a whole new barrier for us, and for women, in particular, especially for those residing in first nation communities that don't use their home address or have PO boxes.

Further, with the removal of vouching as an option, it's possible that some of these aboriginal women and elders, in particular, will have no other options available to them to enable them to vote in the next election. For example, you have students who are living away from home, a single mom, as I mentioned, who moves multiple times throughout the year, or an elder who is living with the family.

I know I'm running out of time. I also want to talk quickly about NWAC's working with Elections Canada. Basically, the changes we see happening to the current section 18 of the Canada Elections Act, which provides a broad mandate for Elections Canada with respect to public information and engaging with electors, would limit the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to communicate with electors to provide information through unsolicited calls. We had hoped in the future to deliver the guidebook we're developing for aboriginal women and girls about voting and to work with our provincial and territorial member associations in a way that could be described as similar to this. This would prevent us from doing that work.

The role of Elections Canada has included providing impartial support for fair and accessible elections that enable all eligible voters to exercise their right to vote if they so choose. The changes noted above will limit or prevent this role from being fulfilled.

Therefore, NWAC recommends removing from Bill C-23 any amendment to section 18, so as to retain the current mandate for the Chief Electoral Officer to implement public education information programs to make the electoral process better known to the public.

Additionally and finally, NWAC recommends that provisions that remove the ability to use the voter information card as proof of residency and that disallow vouching be struck from this bill.

Thanks very much. I'm sorry for going over.

Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this has to do with, quite frankly, liability, fairness, and equity.

Clause 4 in the bill provides certainty that no compensation or damages will be paid either by Canada, the first nation, or any other party to the individuals who are determined not to be members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation once the enrolment process is completed. However, it does not prevent those individuals from appealing the enrolment committee determination pursuant to the agreement, nor does the clause prevent court challenges to the agreement or to the schedule to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order.

Such a clause is not uncommon in this federation. Similar clauses are found in both the 1985 legislation removing discrimination from the Indian registration provisions of Bill C-31 and the recent Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, which was Bill C-3.

Clause 4 supports the overall integrity and credibility of the membership enrolment process of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation by ensuring that applicants who are found not to be entitled to registration do not obtain compensation for the benefits that are only intended for registered Indians.

Once again, it relates to the first question of fairness and equity and making sure that our agreements strike the right balance.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a very puzzling point. In the case of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq, they had to go to court. In 1989 they brought forward a lawsuit against Canada seeking Indian Act recognition. Unfortunately, this is too often the case: in order for first nations to get their rights recognized, they are forced into court situations to have that determination. The government loses the case and then appeals the case, and eventually it will end up in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will side with first nations. First nations have taken 187 cases to court to have their inherent rights, their constitutional rights, recognized.

The other question that has not been resolved in debate around Bill C-25 is whether or not the government would put in adequate resources to move forward on recognizing status. Status cards need to be issued, and the department has been incredibly slow in issuing them, and that impacts on people's access to benefits and other things that are guaranteed with regard to the status card.

I posed a question to the government earlier with regard to whether the government would invest the required resources to make sure the backlog around membership applications is cleared up. I did not get a substantive answer. A backlog has already been generated as a result of Bill C-3, the McIvor decision, and this would only add to that workload.

I am hopeful that the government will recognize it has an obligation not only to pass legislation but to put resources in place to make sure the legislation can be implemented appropriately.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a question that has arisen with respect to resources for membership. We know from Bill C-3, called the McIvor bill, which reinstated membership for a number of people who had been denied membership because of some gender discrimination, that there is a lengthy list of people waiting to get their status cards. This current legislation would increase that list of people waiting for their status card, which also impacts the ability of people to access benefits.

I wonder if the member could comment on whether the government is prepared to put additional resources into processing applications for status.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although I do not know if the hon. member heard it, I was clear in my speech that those 23,877 members who received status in the initial enrolment will continue to receive Indian status benefits until this process is completed and the appeals process has been exhausted. We are looking at late 2015.

These people have been receiving benefits. They will continue to receive benefits during this phase, even as a result of this bill. However, everyone is aware now and has been put on notice that there is a new process and that everyone will be evaluated again. That will give some time to those individuals. There is no cutting-off of benefits right now, which might be a concern of the member.

Also, clause 4, the legal clause in the bill about protecting the government, which the member talked about, would not prevent individuals from appealing the enrolment committee's determination, nor would this clause prevent court challenges to the agreement or to the exclusion from the schedule of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band order. This is a very limited clause that has been enacted in other pieces of legislation.

It was also part of Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. It says that if people are determined not to be members of the Qalipu band, they do not have the right to seek compensation for that decision. They still have the right to the court process on the actual enrolment order. I want the member to be aware of that.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Excellent.

There's also some funding that is being reprofiled for the registration of applicants for Indian status as a result of the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. Can you explain why it was delayed from 2012-13 to 2013-14? Is there going to be a need for additional reprofiling or should this take care of that?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to clarify that it really is an interpretation problem, I feel, because I did not say that they were playing the victims.

Madam Chair, if we needed proof that this bill is no longer what it was at the outset, a private member's bill, that is, we had that proof yesterday evening. We certainly have confirmation that it is now a government bill. The 30-day extension in order to expand the scope of Bill C-425 shows the same thing.

Let us tell those who are listening to us that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is perfectly capable of introducing a government bill himself. It will give him all the freedom he needs to include his own amendments that he wants to make to Bill C-425 and, not to put too fine a point on it, that he wants to impose on this committee.

Before resuming the remarks that I was making last night, or, perhaps I should say, very early this morning, I would like to insist once more on the importance of the level of decorum and respect to which we as parliamentarians are held.

As a result of this request for the extension and the amendments submitted during the study on the amendments introduced during the discussion on Bill C-425, this became a question of privilege. I would like to share the matter of privilege with the committee and also the decision made by the Speaker of the House in reply to that request:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the question of privilege—which is not truly a question of privilege—raised by my colleague from Toronto Centre. The question has to do with the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which recommends to the House that it: ...be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) to expand the scope of the Bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces.

Clearly, a question of privilege had to be raised so that we could see if the eighth report could make a claim for Bill C-425 to be extended.

From the outset, Bill C-425, the bill the committee has been dealing with, was a private member's bill, and I can never remind you of that enough. With the request to expand the scope of the bill, here we are again discussing the procedure.

I would like to review for you the reasons why the request should be ruled out of order. However, before I do so, I would like to set the record straight about what my colleagues have said up to now.

When the honourable government House leader, the member for York—Simcoe, spoke last April 25, he misled the House by insinuating that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was asking for:

…the House to debate it for a number of hours and decide whether we think it is within the scope…

As you know, Madam Chair, that is not the case at all. The report does not ask us to judge whether the suggested amendments are within the scope of the bill. On the contrary, as I will explain later, the committee has clearly demonstrated that it knows the proposed amendments go beyond the scope of the bill. In fact, the bill, which was really limited to recognizing and honouring the Canadian Forces, was all of a sudden fixed up with amendments that clearly went beyond its scope and changed it into a different bill entirely. The report asked the House to empower, or not empower, the committee to expand the scope of the bill, not to pass judgment on amendments that could subsequently be introduced at committee.

I must also add that the honourable member for Toronto-Centre clearly did not do his homework by hastily talking about adopting the report before a motion to adopt it had appeared on the Order Paper. Procedure follows procedure and things are moving quickly, but they did not really conform to the legal procedures of the House. This caused some problems and led us to turn to the Speaker of the House.

So a committee is within its rights to ask for instructions from the House about extending the scope of a bill. In the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien and Bosc are clear on the matter:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example:…consolidating two or more bills into a single bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

That is precisely what the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is seeking to do through its eighth report. However, and I am now getting to the point of my comments, there is a limit to the instructions that the House may give to a committee. Once again, I quote O'Brien and Bosc:

A motion of instruction will be ruled out of order if it does not relate to the content of the bill, if it goes beyond the scope of the bill (for example, by embodying a principle that is foreign to it …)

Madam Chair, this passage is critical and fundamental, because it indeed states that the main essence of the original bill will be transformed. I will continue to quote my comments on the matter of privilege:

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that you must intervene and rule that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's request for instruction is out of order. This request is far too broad and does not allow the House to determine if the committee is likely to include a principle that is foreign to the bill. There is some precedent where motions of instruction were deemed to be in order and were debated in the House. However, in each of those instances, the instructions were far clearer than those sought by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration today.

When I mention amendments that are far clearer, it simply means that, when making amendments, attention must be paid to the nature of the original bill; amendments must be restricted so that they cannot alter the nature of the original bill. We have an example on April 27, 2010, when my colleague, the honourable member for Nanaimo—Cowichan proposed the following motion of instruction:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, that it have the power during its consideration of 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) to expand the scope of the Bill so that a grandchild born before 1985 with a female grandparent would receive the same entitlement to status as a grandchild of a male grandparent born in the same period.

Madam Chair, that motion was very clear and was rightly ruled to be in order. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was therefore given permission to expand the scope of the bill, but within very precise limits on the way in which the committee could do it. There were clear and precise instructions to prevent the scope of the original bill from being transformed and diverted away from its original intent. By stating its position on the bill, the House could be assured that the committee would not include in the bill a principle that would be foreign to it.

Conversely, the motion of instruction that we have before us comes right out and asks the House for the power to expand the bill to the extent that it would not just apply to the Canadian Forces. Exactly what does that mean? How does the committee want to amend the bill so that it would no longer apply solely to the Canadian Forces?

As it currently stands, the bill allows, among other things, permanent residents who are members of the Canadian Forces to obtain citizenship more quickly. Of course, we are in favour of that. By asking that the bill apply not just to the Canadian Forces, is the committee hinting that it would like to amend the bill to allow permanent residents working in professions that have no relation to the Canadian Forces to obtain citizenship more quickly?

In our discussions at committee, in the presence of the witnesses we called, we have actually brought up the possibility of extending Bill C-425 to others, not just those who want to enlist in the Canadian Forces. Clearly, this private member's bill was limited to the Canadian Forces and our suggestion was ruled out of order.

Madam Chair, this is not clear at all. How can the House make a decision about a motion of instruction like this when it is impossible to know how the committee will proceed and whether or not it will try to include in the bill a principle that is foreign to it?

I would also add that, if this motion of instruction to the committee were to be deemed in order, it would create a dangerous precedent. If we allow a standing committee to expand the scope of a bill without precise instructions, we will be opening the door to very sensitive issues, given the current context. Let us not overlook this majority government's propensity for using private members' business to promote its own agenda. When used like that, private members' bills become a way for the government to get round the rules.

Catherine Dauvergne, a professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia appeared as an individual when the committee was studying Bill C-425. She could not have more clearly expressed the danger of asking for this kind of instruction:

Second, such a profound change to our Citizenship Act such as the one the minister is proposing must not be done by a process like this, by a private member's bill. That process reduces the time allowed for debate and for this committee to do its work and it protects the changes that the minister is proposing. This is controlling democracy.

We do indeed find ourselves in a situation where debates are scheduled as if the process were for a private member's bill. Those debates will not have the same breadth and scope as they would if we were dealing with a government bill or a departmental bill to which additional hours of debate had been assigned. This would not be the case for a private member's bill.

The question of citizenship is essential; it goes so deep that it affects all Canadians. We cannot decide on a whim that we are going to change the Citizenship Act so quickly and with such little regard for the constitution as we would be doing with the expansion that the minister is asking for in order to get his amendments through.

For the sake of our democracy and our work as parliamentarians, we must have democratic control over our procedures and over the way in which they are used. Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Examination Regulations stipulates the following:

3. In the case of every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, the Minister shall, forthwith on receipt of two copies of the Bill from the Clerk of the House of Commons: (a) examine the Bill in order to determine whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;…

These examinations allow us to establish and keep our bills within a legal framework, so that we can be sure that the provisions are not going beyond the limits prescribed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The examinations are necessary and fundamental.

By asking standing committees to expand the scope of bills to include suggestions by ministers, the government is avoiding its responsibility to examine legislation as prescribed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Examination Regulations. With the amendments suggested by the minister, we are in a situation where a private member's bill will be expanded. This makes the bill lose its original nature and turns it into a departmental bill.

With the legal procedure associated with a government bill, we have a legal rationale that allows us to identify the content of any government bill. That is a principle of Parliament and a principle of our democratic roots in the House of Commons.

The constitutionality of private member's business is studied only at the Subcommittee on Private…

Scope of Private Members' Bills

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the question of privilege—which is not truly a question of privilege—raised by my colleague from Toronto Centre. The question has to do with the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which recommends to the House that it:

...be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) to expand the scope of the Bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces.

I want to share why I think this question should be ruled out of order. However, before I share my arguments, I would like to correct what has been said so far. When the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the member for York—Simcoe, spoke on April 25, 2013, he misled he House. In speaking about the amendment, he implied that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is:

...asking the House to debate it for a number of hours and decide whether we think it is within the scope [of the bill]...

As you know, Mr. Speaker, that is not at all the case. This report does not ask us to determine whether the proposed amendments are within the scope of the bill. On the contrary, as I will explain later on, the committee clearly showed that it knows the proposed amendments are outside the scope of the bill. The report asks the House to give the committee the power to expand the scope of the bill and not to make judgments about amendments that could be made in committee.

I must also add that the member for Toronto Centre clearly did not do his homework before he spoke prematurely on the concurrence of this report before a motion to concur even made it to the order paper. A committee may seek an instruction from the House to expand the scope of a bill. In the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien and Bosc are clear:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example...expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

That is exactly what the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is trying to do with its eighth report.

However, and this is the reason for my speech, there is a limit to the instruction that the House can give to a committee. I would like to quote from O'Brien and Bosc once again:

A motion of instruction will be ruled out of order if it does not relate to the content of the bill, if it goes beyond the scope of the bill (for example, by embodying a principle that is foreign to it...

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that you must intervene and rule that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's request for instruction is out of order. This request is far too broad and does not allow the House to determine if the committee is likely to include a principle that is foreign to the bill.

There is some precedent where motions of instruction were deemed to be in order and were debated in the House. However, in each of those instances, the instructions were far clearer than those sought by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration today. One example is from April 27, 2010, when the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan moved the following motion of instruction:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, that it have the power during its consideration of 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), to expand the scope of the Bill so that a grandchild born before 1985 with a female grandparent would receive the same entitlement to status as a grandchild of a male grandparent born in the same period.

This motion was very clear and was ruled to be in order with good reason. It gave the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development permission to expand the scope of the bill in question, while providing strict limits as to how the committee could do that. By voting on this motion, the House was assured that the committee would not include a principle that is foreign to it in the bill.

In contrast, the motion of instruction that we have before us is simply asking the House for the power to expand the scope of the bill so that it is not limited to just the Canadian Armed Forces. What does that mean exactly? What amendments does the committee want make to the bill so that it applies to more than just the Canadian Armed Forces?

As it currently stands, the bill allows permanent residents who are members of the Canadian Armed Forces to get their citizenship more quickly. By asking that the bill apply to more than just members of the Canadian Armed Forces, is the committee suggesting that it would like to amend the bill so that permanent residents who are working in professions that are not related to the Canadian Armed Forces can also get their citizenship more quickly?

It is not at all clear. How can the House decide on such a motion of instruction when it does not know how the committee will proceed or whether the committee will try to include a principle that is not foreign to it in the bill?

I would also like to add that, if the committee's motion of instruction were to be found in order, it would set a dangerous precedent. By allowing a standing committee to expand the scope of a bill without specific instructions, we would be going down a very dangerous path under the current circumstances. Given this majority government's tendency to use private members' business to forward their own agenda, private members' business would be used as a way for the government to get around the rules.

Catherine Dauvergne, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, appeared before the committee as an individual during the examination of Bill C-425. She could not have provided a better explanation of the danger associated with such solicitation of instructions. She said:

...such a profound change to our Citizenship Act such as the one the minister is proposing must not be done by a process like this, by a private member's bill. That process reduces the time allowed for debate and for this committee to do its work and it protects the changes that the minister is proposing. This is controlling democracy.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Examination Regulations states:

In the case of every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, the Minister shall, forthwith on receipt of two copies of the Bill from the Clerk of the House of Commons, (a) examine the Bill in order to determine whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...

By asking standing committees to broaden the scope of bills to include suggestions from ministers, the government is not fulfilling its responsibility to examine the bills, as stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Examination Regulations.

Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1), the constitutionality of private members' business is studied only by the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, before a bill is debated at second reading.

By trying to expand the scope of the bill after second reading, the government is avoiding the constitutional test and will therefore be able to amend private members' bills as it sees fit, instead of presenting those concepts in government bills that must pass the constitutional test of the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by urging you to pay particular attention to the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which the NDP feels should be ruled out of order.

Such a request for instruction is much too broad for the House to be able to ensure that the changes subsequently made by the committee will not include concepts that are foreign to the bill and will not violate the charter.

Giving such latitude to a standing committee will set a very dangerous precedent that this majority government will certainly use in a partisan and anti-democratic fashion.

Thank you for your attention. To help you with your study of this important issue, I will provide you with the evidence from the study of Bill C-425 conducted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I am convinced that, once you look at the evidence, you will also agree that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is out of order.

[Teresa Edwards]

No, that's not what I was referring to. I wasn't referring to being protected from Indian men. Michèle also made reference to how we're marginalized in the Indian Act, even currently, with issues such as status. I know that's not the matter at hand, but when we talk about protections.... When you have Indian status, that directly correlates with membership, benefits, housing, schooling—all of your treaty or band rights. Right now, even with the implementation of Bill C-31 and Bill C-3, we still have a situation that hasn't been rectified, where women and men with the exact same parents are not sitting with the same Indian status, thereby leading to their not having the same rights to pass on to their children and grandchildren.

Although it looks on the surface that it's addressed by Bill C-3, if you examine Sharon McIvor's case, which she's taking to the UN, you will see that she still does not have the same, as it were, “Cadillac of rights”, as her brother. They have the exact same parents, but for the fact that she is a woman, she has lesser rights. That has an impact when you are talking about their continuing to pass on those rights. Those were more the protections that I was looking at.

In 2013, half of the aboriginal women population are not married—80% of women are single mothers raising their own children alone. When they go to register their children for Indian status with their band, it's not up to their band but the registrar at Indian Affairs. The mother will indicate who the father is on the Indian birth registry to ensure that her child has status. When that form gets to the national registrar in Ottawa—one registrar—the office will strike it out as void if the father has not signed that birth registry. That's a practice that is currently under way. In many cases, the woman is not with the man. She could have been raped. It could have been a case of incest. She could have had a child with a man who is married. Of course he's not going to want to sign the birth registry. She is at the will of the man. Therefore, there's a negative assumption that the child is not native, thereby removing the mother's rights to be eligible for housing for possibly five children. She'll be allocated a house for herself, because the way that the funding agreements go, they will only count status Indians. That's what I refer to when I talk about women being further marginalized and having lack of protections within the Indian Act. It's more a result of the impositions of the Indian Act and the inequalities in government processes. It's not something aboriginal men are doing.

[Teresa Edwards]

For me, the idea isn't that I would not want the words “Indian residential school“ removed from the act. What I am cautious about is any history being taken from the Indian Act that demonstrates what occurred with Indian residential schools at a time when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is under way and in the process of making ongoing recommendations about implementing strategies that could heal the generations who currently exist.

I would hate to think that the Indian Act would be amended in a piecemeal fashion, striking out the section on Indian residential schools so that we could thereby look back, without an alternative in place, and say that never happened. We already have many members of Parliament and Canadians who say that was 100 years ago, when in fact it wasn't. The last school closed in 1996. This is a very real issue.

I respectfully submit that despite the MP’s personal experience, Michèle and I, as first nation women, have lived the personal experience that we have been advocating about for some 30 years, and we've been personally affected by Indian residential schools. We've been impacted by Bill C-3 and by Bill C-31. However, I would never propose that I have the solution or would never come forward to tinker with the Indian Act in a piecemeal fashion for my personal benefit when I know, even as a lawyer, that any case that goes forward to the Supreme Court of Canada is a huge risk because it's not only about my case but also about the 633 first nation communities and hundreds of thousands and millions of people who will be impacted by this legislation and by cases that go forward and are decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.

With all due respect, personal issues aside, we still need to proceed in a manner consistent with the UN declaration, in a manner consistent with how it's been set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

[Chief R. Donald Maracle]

It's really a resourcing question. We have a very successful revolving community housing loan fund. We mortgage the houses to our members. We currently have about $17 million in mortgages to our members.

The problem is with the various pieces of legislation that have been passed over the years: Bill C-31 in 1985 and now Bill C-3. The growth of our membership has quadrupled since 1985, and the resources have not kept pace with the growth in the community. Really, the Government of Canada doesn't have any growth funding to deal with growth pressures, oftentimes resulting from the very legislation that it passes of granting membership to additional people to cure the injustices of the Indian Act.

It is true we won a number of national awards. Also, we had an apprenticeship program in the nineties, where we trained 20 people to become licensed carpenters. Many of those people were able to carry on and set up very successful businesses, where they were able to build homes on the reserve through contracts, and off reserve. They're in the business, much like any other off-reserve builder building homes for non-natives and running very reputable companies and also employing a lot of our people.

There needs to be more training done in the area of the trades. We need electricians; we need plumbers. They're always building roads or installing sewers, or repairing them in the municipalities. There would be work opportunity there if there were proper apprenticeship programs set up in our community to train our people to fill those jobs.

Canada does not need to import people from the far ends of the earth. What it needs to do is focus more effort on training people who are unemployed in this country and first nations people to help fill some of those jobs. As I have indicated, 75% of our members live off reserve in various cities and towns. Our people have been engaged historically on building some of the most prominent buildings in the world, the highest skyscrapers. The Mohawk people were high-steel workers. There is plenty of opportunity through adequate training programs. I think they just need to be organized. You need to get people, find out about the labour market, and maybe find out more information on what the labour market need is out there, where the jobs are. You need to provide the training and then help our people relocate and maybe get established in some of these cities and towns where there are good-paying jobs. Our people do go where those jobs are.

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

I gather there have been a lot of efficiencies created since the process started. There was a staff of 55 dedicated solely to that function of registering Bill C-3 applicants. The department also augmented its call centre capability and capacity to ensure efficient client services.

We are anticipating the completion of 23,000 files by the end of March, which will bring us within our service standard to register applicants within six months.

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

We approved $20 million over five years to ensure that Bill C-3 applicants could be registered efficiently. That started on January 31 of this year.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

Now I'm going to shift gears here. My colleagues and I have a number of matters that were addressed in your speech that we'd like some further information on. I'm going to start, Minister, with the state of the implementation of gender equity in the Indian registration act, referring of course to Bill C-3. Could you give us an update in regard to that?

[Élisabeth Châtillon]

I'm sorry, that was for Bill C-3.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

In keeping with talking about legislation, I'm wondering if you could give us an update on the state of the implementation of Bill C-3.

[Chief Betty Ann Lavallée, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

It's an honour to be here on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people to present you with some priority issues of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

With me today is our new vice-chief, Dwight Dorey, who will be speaking to you concerning the Daniels case and subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867. My presentation to you will focus on remaining discrimination in the Indian Act, matrimonial real property, band membership, along with aboriginal citizenship, education, and the long-gun registry. There are many more issues that will need to be discussed at a later date, including health, economic development, housing, homelessness, language, and culture.

Since 1971, the congress has been at the forefront of the aboriginal people's movement in Canada, advocating for our constituency of forgotten peoples. We advocate for the rights and interests of status and non-status Indians living off reserve and Métis. The year 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of the founding of our organization. Despite the successes that have occurred over the last 40 years, the Canadian public continues to associate aboriginal issues with Indians living on reserves. The reality is that 80% of the ancestral aboriginal population now live off reserve, with 60% living in urban areas. This is the most significant demographic factor for policy makers, yet it's the one where the least action takes place because of jurisdictional issues.

On May 18, we were pleased to learn that Prime Minister Harper had changed the name of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. This was an important step, better to reflect the scope of the minister's responsibilities for all aboriginal peoples. This type of straightforward thinking and inclusive decision-making is what we need to make progress.

The Indian Act remains the principal expression of the federal government's jurisdictional policy over Indians and lands reserved for Indians under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867. The political and social reality affecting aboriginal peoples is based by and large on this outdated legislation. The Indian Act status and membership rules have a long history of impacting the lives of aboriginal peoples. For example, of the almost $10 billion per year that the federal government invests in aboriginal-specific programming, almost 90% goes to assist on-reserve status Indians. This outdated policy framework needs to be reshaped and recast to reflect the fact that the federal government has the responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity for all aboriginal peoples.

This was the central finding of the largest, most extensive inquiry undertaken in Canadian history, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. In 1996, it reported that the relationship between aboriginal peoples and non-aboriginal peoples needed to be fundamentally restructured. The facts of aboriginal life have changed, and it's time for policies and frameworks to reflect the new reality.

CAP is pleased that the government has reintroduced Bill S-2 concerning matrimonial real property. This legislation will address a longstanding gap and will better protect the rights of aboriginal people, particularly women living on reserve. For many years, we've been calling for an effective MRP regime on reserve. Aboriginal women on reserve face unfair and unconstitutional discrimination in the exercise of their right to a fair share of matrimonial real property after the breakup of a marriage or common-law relationship. We view the bill as a positive step to ensure that aboriginal women and children receive equitable distribution of matrimonial real property assets in the event of divorce, separation, family violence, or death.

The congress has never bought into the Indian Act, and we have a long history of fighting this legislation. Back in 1974, with financial assistance from our organization, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell was the first non-status woman to bring a challenge to the Indian Act. Today, our women continue to be discriminated against through the Indian Act, but through the brave work of people like Sharon McIvor, Sandra Lovelace Nicholas, as well as many others, we are taking this legislation apart piece by piece.

I'm a registered subsection 6(2) Indian. Under the law, my son is not entitled to be registered as an Indian. We are graded like cattle or grades of beef. It is unadulterated discrimination, and fighting this is the central priority for the congress.

In January of this year, Canada proclaimed into force Bill C-3, Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. This was a direct result of the McIvor decision, which took 20 years to move through the courts. Because this legislation is very narrow in scope, sex discrimination, unfortunately, remains in the status registration provisions. Not all descendants of the Indian women who lost status through marrying out have gained status back. The first generation was covered by Bill C-31 in 1985, the second generation through this year's Bill C-3, but further generations remain cut off from Indian status.

The only way to be sure that such discrimination is eliminated from the Indian Act is to place descendants of status Indian women on the same footing as descendants of Indian men. Today aboriginal women are not treated equally as transmitters of status. As a result of this discrimination, thousands of their descendants have been forgotten.

Another remaining problem relates to the post-1985 Indian Act registration rules and how they operate in cases of unstated paternity. In 1985 Canada went from a one-parent descendancy rule, which favoured Indian men, to a new system called the second generation cut-off rule. Now whether you were an Indian man or woman, mixed parenting is only allowed for one generation. After the second generation of mixed parenting, a person is no longer an Indian. Today, when a status mother does not disclose the father's identity, the child's registration can only be based on the mother's entitlement. From 1985 to 1999, this resulted in the downgrading or outright loss of Indian status to approximately 50,000 Indian children.

The new second-generation cut-off rule will result in a drastic reduction of the status Indian population over the course of a few generations. Status Indians, like many other Canadian citizens, fall in love and have children with people from other cultures. This common social occurrence, when paired with the second-generation cut-off rule, has the perverse result of depriving the children of these unions of either their Indian status or the ability to pass status to their own children.

It has been estimated that within 60 years only one-third of the descendants of the current status Indian population will be entitled to status. The number will continue to decline. Academics and demographers alike have argued that the Indian registration rules introduced in 1985 will lead to the legislative extinction of status Indians.

A clear solution to this problem would be for Canada to return to a one-parent descendancy rule for Indian status and apply it equally to men and women. However, everyone here can acknowledge that the capacity of courts to deal with these issues is very limited. CAP is seeking a political commitment to examine and address aboriginal citizenship, with all the associated broader questions.

Since the passage of Bill C-3 in December 2010, the federal government has launched the exploratory process. It is not a consultative process, which we like, and I'm pleased to say the government has not pre-determined or pre-defined the agenda or questions with regard to Indian registration, band membership, and aboriginal citizenship. CAP is currently engaged with the process and we're hosting dialogue sessions across Canada.

Section 74 of the Indian Act allows bands to elect chiefs and councils according to their own customs. Currently about 30% of bands have adopted their own custom codes. Under these rules a band can admit to membership people who do not have status. They can also deny membership to any status Indian except Indian women restored under paragraph 6(1)(c).

Despite this apparent opportunity to break away from the Indian Act, 30% of the bands have adopted membership rules that are more restrictive than the Indian Act itself. CAP was pleased when the Conservative government delivered on its promise to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Since 1977, section 67 has shielded bands from complaints of discrimination stemming from membership codes plus other issues.

In June of this year the transition period ended. We expect that many of the custom election codes will now be challenged under the Canadian Human Rights Act. My understanding is that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has not provided any resources to the bands to review and update their membership codes or to ensure they are in compliance with the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is really unfortunate, because there are some bands that are being very proactive in addressing this issue. I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

In regard to aboriginal citizenship, CAP takes the position that the right of aboriginal peoples to determine our own citizenship is an inherent right derived from the Creator and protected both under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our right to self-government was never distinguished.

We view the exploratory process as the beginning of a long process of questioning and thinking, and as we move towards self-determination and citizenship, we are being given the chance to come up with the solutions to long-lived problems we've had to face.

The possible self-government structures for urban aboriginal peoples are wide-ranging. CAP has been working on these challenging issues for many years and at the same time struggling with the reserve focus of federal government policies and programs. Federal and provincial wrangling has slowed progress for urban aboriginal populations.

With the resolution of the federal government's responsibility regarding Métis and non-status Indians, aboriginal and state relations will be very clear, and some of the on-reserve and off-reserve distinctions will be resolved.

My colleague Dwight will speak further to that.

The education of our children and youth is a priority of the first order for us. Aboriginal youth have the highest dropout rates, the lowest levels of literacy, and the lowest levels of skills development. The odds are better that our youth will end up in jail than that they will graduate from high school. It is education that will improve our economic situation and our lives. It is education that is integral to reducing poverty in our communities and eliminating our dependencies.

At the Summit on Aboriginal Education held in February, we were encouraged by the discussions about strengthening aboriginal success in education. The provincial and territorial ministers of education have recognized that in the next 15 years, aboriginal students will represent over 25% of the elementary student population in some provinces and territories. We encourage the Prime Minister to call a first ministers meeting on education at which an interjurisdictional commitment to improve school experiences for our students could be mobilized.

Last, I want to talk to you about the Canadian firearms registry. Currently, aboriginal firearms owners who are not compliant with the Firearms Act can incur criminal liability for unauthorized possession of non-restricted firearms under sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code. In the last couple of weeks, the government gave notice concerning the bill to abolish the long-gun registry.

CAP joins many other aboriginal organizations across Canada in calling for an end to the long-gun registry. We view the licensing and registration requirements imposed by the registry as an infringement on our right to hunt. Aboriginal hunters and harvesters are not part of the crime problem, and the registry is ineffective and wasteful. The infringement on aboriginal treaty rights to hunt, trap, or fish is not acceptable to our organization. CAP remains supportive of regulations requiring hunters and harvesters to secure an acquisition licence and to follow rules for the safe storage of firearms.

In conclusion, I wish to express our appreciation for the attention the Prime Minister has brought to aboriginal issues by meeting with national aboriginal leaders. In the days ahead, my colleague and I look forward to active engagement with various House of Commons standing committees that have an important role to play in moving the aboriginal agenda forward.

At this point I'll turn to my colleague, Vice-Chief Dwight Dorey, to speak on the issue of section 91.24.

[Michael Wernick]

In response to your first question, we can provide the lists of specific projects. For the fiscal year starting on April 1, there will be a list of schools, treatment plants and so on. We can provide you with very specific lists from our budget for next year.

As for housing, there may be a little more flexibility with regard to possibilities for the building season, but we'll do our best to provide you with that kind of list. We had a long list of projects that were ready to start under the Economic Action Plan. There have to be projects, including all the plans, characteristics and sites, which are approved by the community. That adds a little time because these are very important projects. They're going to discuss and decide on the details for each project, and that adds a little time. However, there are still projects that are in an advanced state across the country.

I believe the question you asked me about Bill C-3 is the same as the one raised by Mr. Rickford. We'll see how soon people register as Indians. It's true that, from the moment they're registered, they're eligible for Health Canada's programs and for our post-secondary student support program. We've sent our analysis to our colleagues. They're ready to receive it. These programs will not draw any distinction between a "Bill C-3 Indian" and other Indians.

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

Mr. Wernick, since your staff is extremely competent, I invite you to get hold of the Saturday, March 5 edition of La Presse. I know you can't engage in politics, but I'm inviting you to read the article by Michel Girard on the Harper government's sense of priorities. It concerns a number of things about Indian affairs that I find very interesting.

I don't need an answer today. You're going to cut $289 million. With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, he will no longer be able to talk about Canada's Economic Action Plan as of next week. The government created expectations with Canada's Economic Action Plan, particularly among the aboriginal communities, which learned late—and I mean very late—about the possibility that they could request new schools, housing, water mains and sewers.

I don't need the answer today; you can send it to me in writing. I'd like to know, for the Quebec region, how many schools will be built, altered and transformed using funds provided under the 2011-12 Estimates. How many water mains and sewers will be modified and transformed? How many houses will be built and in what communities? I need that information unless you can give it too me right now.

I have a question for you on Bill C-3. I've been told, and I'd like you to confirm for me whether that is the case, to watch out because Bill C-3 should have a specific effect. New people will become status Indians, but those status Indians will be living outside the communities, taking advantage of post-secondary education and education, and also health care. Can you confirm that for me? If so, have you informed your colleague the deputy minister of health? I get the impression he'll be paying the bill. In your case, have you set aside any budgets for, among other things, the post-secondary education of a lot of aboriginal students, who will now become status Indians or become status Indians again?

If you can't answer those questions, you can send me answers in writing.

[Michael Wernick]

We're trying to bring together the card issuance with the registry process. Bill C-3 is an opportunity to try that out with a specific target population to perfect our business process. If we can do it well for the Bill C-3 intake, we'll be able to do it for everybody over the next few years.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Because we are televised today, I might take this opportunity to say that I understand there is a special application form for Bill C-3 now available on the INAC website. This is available through the regional offices, Service Canada centres, or call centres. Do you have any information you'd like to put out there right now?

[Michael Wernick]

The minister referred to the bill. It's a significant accomplishment. It's also going to be a significant piece of work to implement it. We have some resources in place for the registration process, and we've set up a dedicated unit to deal with Bill C-3 claims, some of which are going to be fairly straightforward and some of which are going to be complex because of family history, genealogy, and documentation.

The latest numbers I have show that a little less than 4,000 people sent in some kind of application or request, even before the bill got royal assent. We will handle them. We're not going to send them back.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to the witnesses.

You worked through a number of different files. We'll take this opportunity to talk about a few things.

Could you tell me a little bit about the state of Bill C-3 implementation? I want to get a firmer sense of how many applications will be received, some of the activities on your website, and a description of the team you have put together that's dedicated to this Bill C-3 process.

[Michael Wernick]

Yes.

We have a fairly steady business at the registry, as long as there's an Indian Act and people have status defined by the Indian Act. People are born, die, marry, adopt, and so on, so there's a lot of business at the Indian registry. We'll also have new business because of the people enfranchised under Bill C-3. It was identified about a year and a half ago that a backlog was building up. Things were coming in faster than we could get them out. I'm very pleased to say that with some hard work and process engineering, that backlog has been eliminated.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I apologize for being a tad late. There were some countermanding instructions as to where I was supposed to be this morning, but I'm happy to be here.

Thank you for inviting me to discuss the 2010-11 supplemental estimates (C) of the department. These complement the recently tabled main estimates in the report on plans and priorities. I'd be pleased to speak to any of them.

This committee plays a valuable role in ensuring Canadians' tax dollars are used wisely and achieve the intended results. I welcome your review of my department's expenditures, which demonstrate that we are doing exactly that.

Through these estimates the department accesses the funds required to continue delivering on our government's commitment to improve the quality of life for first nations, Inuit, Métis, and northerners. Our progress has been noteworthy. My department is achieving concrete results in areas such as the construction of new schools and housing, women's rights, land claims and self-government, economic development, and safe drinking water.

I've witnessed this program first-hand. I've had the privilege of travelling across the country from coast to coast to coast meeting extraordinary Canadians. I've seen how our government's investments are making a meaningful difference in the lives of aboriginal people.

Take the example of the new Frenchman's Head elementary school in Ontario's Lac Seul First Nation, which I officially opened last November. Education is a priority for this government. Equipping children with a quality education is the best possible way to make sure they have the means to succeed. That school, by the way, took 14 months to build, from the time we made the announcement to the time they opened the school. It shows what can be done if the local first nation has a project that is shovel-ready.

Our government is committed to ensuring first nation children achieve the same educational outcomes as other Canadians. That's why we are collaborating with the Assembly of First Nations to establish a national panel that will lead a broad engagement process. The panel is mandated to advise on the development of options, including legislation, to improve elementary and secondary education outcomes for first nation children who live on reserve. We are working to ensure that students always come first.

I've also had the opportunity to initial several groundbreaking agreements that are empowering aboriginal communities.

Just last month I signed an agreement with Teslin Tlingit Council that recognizes its jurisdiction to administer, enforce, and adjudicate its own laws. This agreement represents a significant step in the implementation of first nation self-government in Yukon and nationally.

A few weeks earlier, in January, I travelled to Yellowknife to co-sign the Northwest Territories devolution agreement-in-principle, a historic development for the territory.

I was happy to participate in ceremonies marking major milestones reached in the Fort William First Nation boundary claim, as well as the Toronto Purchase and Brant Tract specific claims agreements with the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, both in Ontario.

I've also taken part in moving ceremonies that acknowledged past wrongs and set them right. I was honoured to be in Inukjuak to deliver, on behalf of the government, the high Arctic relocation apology. I visited Resolute and Grise Fiord as well, where I participated in the unveiling of monuments commemorating the lives and hardships of those who were relocated.

Another of our accomplishments is Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. It ensures that eligible grandchildren of women who lost status as a result of marrying non-Indian men are entitled to Indian status in accordance with the Indian Act.

Mr. Chairman, I am especially excited about some of the promising economic development activity taking place across the country.

In January my department was proud to co-host the second Métis economic development symposium in Vancouver. This was a follow-up to the very successful first symposium in December 2009. Along with Métis nation leaders and the aboriginal affairs ministers from the five westernmost provinces and industry leaders, we explored successful approaches to economic development. We also discussed practical ways to strengthen entrepreneurship among Métis women, because our government is committed to ensuring that Métis fully share in economic development opportunities across Canada.

I also took part in the alternative energy for B.C. first nations gathering in Vancouver last month. First nations in B.C. are involved in wind, solar, biomass, and hydro projects throughout the province.

We are making headway on important social priorities as well. Access to safe drinking water is a significant challenge for some first nation communities and one we are working hard with our partners to address. Our government has allocated approximately $2.5 billion for water and waste-water infrastructure in first nations since 2006.

We are determined that first nations will have access to the same quality of drinking water as other Canadian communities. I made that clear when I spoke to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples just two days ago about Bill S-11, an act respecting the safety of drinking water on first nation lands. This act will allow for the development of federal regulations for drinking water and waste water in first nation communities.

I'm pleased to announce today the reappointments of two treaty commissioners: the Honourable Bill McKnight as treaty commissioner for Saskatchewan, and James Brook Wilson as commissioner of the treaty relations commission of Manitoba. In addition to their appointments, the mandates of the Saskatchewan and Manitoba treaty relations commissions will be extended for another three-year term.

Tomorrow I will be in Saskatchewan to announce a new memorandum of understanding to promote active measures strategies focused on first nation labour market participation. Our government is joining forces with Saskatchewan first nations, tribal councils, the Government of Saskatchewan, provincial employers, and training institutions. Together, we're pledging to increase first nation participation in Saskatchewan's workforce and enhance employment outcomes for first nations.

Meeting the needs of northerners also remains a high priority. As committee members are aware, the cost of living north of 60 is very high, particularly in isolated communities. This includes the cost of food. We want to make sure that northerners, like other Canadians, have access to good-quality, nutritious food.

Yesterday I was in Iqaluit. We announced that the Nutrition North Canada program would re-list the items that had been de-listed as of last October until October 2012 to allow for two more sealift seasons. This will ease the transition for the retailers and make sure that there's a smooth transition through the supply chain, which was turning out to be a bit of an issue. That's a very significant development, but the program itself is still going kick in on April 1, just three weeks from now.

This new program will provide higher subsidies in eligible communities for nutritious perishable foods such as fruits, vegetables, bread, meats, milk, and eggs, along with reduced subsidies for less healthy items.

We saw the problems with this program, we said we were listening, and we made changes.

During my travels to the north I've had the opportunity to make a number of important announcements that support the development of a prosperous northern economy. The Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, also known as CanNor, is a key player in delivering on this priority, and we continue to take action across a variety of sectors to support a strong, diversified north that benefits northerners and Canadians.

A key sector in building a sustainable and dynamic northern economy is tourism. Attracting more visitors to the north will help create and build significant long-term business opportunities and create local jobs.

Since February 20 we've invested something over $5.5 million in tourism-related projects across the north to promote the region throughout Canada and around the world as a dynamic tourism destination. Those have been very well-received programs, and their statistics on tourism are very good, actually.

Northerners have many exciting developments to look forward to in the coming years. One important initiative for the north is the Nanisivik naval facility. This deepwater docking and refueling facility for Arctic offshore patrol ships and other Government of Canada vessels will be a valuable economic and security addition to the region. To date, a contract has been awarded for the facility design, and a site assessment is in progress. The construction of the on-site administration building to support military exercises is expected to be completed this year.

The Canadian high Arctic research station in Cambridge Bay is another big project that will be taking shape in the north in years to come. The station will advance Canada's knowledge in areas including economic development, sovereignty, the environment, and healthy communities for the benefit of northerners and all Canadians. A feasibility study is currently under way to establish the functions of the facility and outline the preliminary project costs and building schedule.

Mr. Chair, we need the committee's approval of these supplementary estimates to maintain this momentum. The department's spending levels for the 2010-11 year, which is drawing to a close, will be $8.3 billion. This will include $51 million in these supplementary estimates.

In addition to the items I've already noted, these supplementary funds will be used to address health and safety concerns in first nations communities through the emergency management assistance program; advance outstanding land claim and treaty issues in Yukon; enhance the northern regulatory system and implement the cumulative impact monitoring program in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut; and renew the Naskapi capital funding agreement and the Naskapi operations and maintenance funding transfer payment agreement. These initiatives, along with those from Budget 2010 and Canada's economic action plan, are essential.

I look forward to discussing these issues with you and I welcome your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Claudette Dumont-Smith]

I'm not a lawyer, but I know there are things that are being addressed with Bill C-3. There was a lot of inter-family conflict, and I think that was addressed and it's moving forward.

I don't know if that's what you're referring to. Maybe Kat can add to this.

[Prof. Jennifer Koshan]

I have a couple of thoughts as a result of what you've said. First of all, no one speaks with one voice. We have a huge diversity of aboriginal people across the country, so we need to recognize that aboriginal women are not going to speak with one voice, whether it's on Bill C-3 or on issues of violence against women. It's important to hear all of those different voices.

I know in politics sometimes compromises have to be made, so I understand the difficulty of the situation you are facing. But I think, again, there's a more fundamental systemic issue here, and that's the ongoing colonization of the aboriginal peoples of Canada through the Indian Act. So we're tinkering with that through Bill C-3. We're not addressing the fundamental systemic problem of that ongoing colonial document, and that needs to be addressed.

[Shelagh Day]

I want to talk very briefly about root causes. We've heard a lot of people say colonization. Remember that the colonizer was also a patriarch. Patriarchy is part of what colonization means. We're still doing it. When we talk about matrimonial property, when we talk about Bill C-3, which just went through and has not taken out all of the discrimination in the Indian Act, the government is still legislating, overtly, about aboriginal women in a way it doesn't legislate about any other group of women in the country. So we are still in the process of playing out the patriarchy of the colonizer. Aboriginal women and children are still suffering from it. And that's part of the violence and part of the gravest conditions.

[Chief Betsy Kennedy]

My name is Betsy Kennedy. I'm the Chief of War Lake First Nation. With me is Chief Francine Meeches of Swan Lake First Nation.

We have many notes here, I notice, and a lot of information, but we would like to speak to the family violence prevention programs, the missing and murdered women, and also the sexual exploitation of our girls and women in our communities.

To give you the history of the AMC women's committee, the chiefs sit on this committee. It works toward improving the situation of first nations women and ensuring that Manitoba first nations are involved in decision-making. This is comprised of chiefs and councillors in leadership roles in their communities.

The issue of family violence and intervention is one of our major concerns and takes up many of the lead initiatives. Bill C-3 is supposed to highlight this, but I think some of these things also pertain to what's happening in the communities and how these women are being exploited.

Bill S-4 deals with matrimonial and real properties. When women have to leave the communities because they're just not going to be able to stay on their reserves, they are coming into the city, and this is where many of them are being exploited. I mention this because I believe you wanted to know some of what happens here.

There's also our section 37, which we would like to see. I know this is going to go to the Commons. This has to do with the missing and murdered women of Manitoba and Canada. Following the directions of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the committee continues to advocate on the issues of missing and murdered women, as a disturbingly high number of women have gone missing and have never been found. Most are aboriginal. According to the Native Women's Association of Canada, approximately 580 aboriginal women have gone missing and have not been found across Canada; 84 are from Manitoba. The AMC has called upon the federal government to initiate a public inquiry into this number of missing and murdered women. There has also been an announcement by the federal government that the amount of $10 million is to be spent within the two years.

Also, in 2009 Grand Chief Evans developed an agreement with the RCMP to have a first nations community liaison worker, Constable Monique Cooper, to be located at the AMC office in Winnipeg. This was established when the parents, the mothers of these missing and murdered women, came to us. We had a working relationship with the RCMP, and now have a woman working exclusively at the AMC office. We would like to recognize that work, which is happening right now. To this day, in both southern and northern Manitoba, there has not been any word on these women to their parents that they've...or how far this was going. The AMC continues to work closely with the families of these missing and murdered women and with the RCMP and Winnipeg Police Service's missing persons unit.

There's also the issue of human trafficking. Since 2009 AMC has been actively addressing human trafficking. The grand chief and the women's committee continue to raise the issue for discussion at the chiefs assemblies.

I want to tell you that when we have our annual assembly, women's issues are being brought out to the forefront, and we do have the support of all our chiefs. We are very proud to say that they really recognize what we've been doing. In turn, these discussions bring awareness into our homes.

The next part will be on family violence. We sit on a committee on family violence and--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill S-3, An Act to implement conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Colombia, Greece and Turkey for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income--Chapter No. 15

Bill S-210, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act (involvement of Parliament)--Chapter No. 16

Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts--Chapter 17

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)--Chapter 18

Bill S-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (suicide bombings)--Chapter 19

Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody)--Chapter 20

Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products--Chapter 21

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act--Chapter 22

Bill C-28, An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act--Chapter 23

Bill C-58, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2011--Chapter 24

Bill C-47, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures--Chapter 25

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Canadian Council on Learning; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Public Safety.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lavallée, earlier we raised the issue of adopting and implementing Bill C-3, which has to do with matrimonial affairs. Larry told us a few things about it. Now, you startled me when you said that this would help the children be more secure.

Most of the community members who came to meet us expressed their concern regarding this almost crazy reflex that many people will have to require that their membership to first nations communities be recognized. They also discussed the growing population in the communities. This is a great and worrisome concern for the communities.

You are already short of funds with regard to help for children. How will the children be better protected? Could you explain this to us?

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

I was here last week, and I was before the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights this week, so this is my third committee appearance since last week.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to appear before the committee today.

This is, as you know, my second appearance before this committee, and while I'm happy to discuss the supplementary estimates (B) of my department, I'll also take this opportunity to touch on some important other issues.

In the four short months since my appointment as minister, we've seen some significant developments that underline the government's commitment to making real progress on the issues that matter to aboriginal peoples and northerners.

I was particularly proud that one my first actions as minister was to apologize for the relocation of Inuit from Inukjuak and Pond Inlet to Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay in the High Arctic in the 1950s, and for the hardship, suffering, and loss they experienced as a result of that relocation. Our government is working to renew our relationship with the Inuit, and to support social and economic development in the north as part of the northern strategy.

Also as part of the northern strategy, I was honoured to be in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, with the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health and minister responsible for the north, to announce the location of the new Canadian High Arctic Research Station in that community.

The Northern Strategy is, of course, only one component of our government's plan to improve the quality of life for aboriginal peoples and northerners. The main estimates, for the first time, included $61 million in funding for an important part of the government's Northern Strategy.

The Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CanNor, was created in August 2009 and is the first ever regional development agency for the north and the only federal agency headquartered in the north.

In little more than a year, CanNor has made great strides. The agency has established regional offices in all three territorial capitals and is developing its headquarters in Iqaluit in a new office facility being built by a local, Inuit-owned enterprise.

In May of this year, CanNor launched the Northern Projects Management Office, based in Yellowknife. This service works with the proponents of major development projects, federal departments, and regulators in the north to help improve the timeliness, predictability, and transparency of regulatory processes. It is a key part of the government's work to improve northern regulatory systems.

As you know, CanNor is the lead federal agency for the delivery of Canada's Economic Action Plan in the territories and its investments in the northern economy and northern communities have doubled as a consequence. To date, CanNor has supported 307 economic development projects in the north and has allocated over $66 million to strengthening the economies of the three territories. In this way, CanNor is not only fulfilling the vision of the government's Northern Strategy, but also is helping northerners and northern communities to manage the impacts of the global economic downturn.

The investments included in supplementary estimates (B) support this commitment and enable us to address our priorities. Take child and family services for example.

Earlier this year, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Canada, and Manitoba negotiated a framework to improve on-reserve child and family services. Included in the estimates is $17.6 million, which is part of a five-year commitment of $177 million to implement the framework in Manitoba. As I explained when I appeared before this committee last week, a similar framework was completed three years ago in Alberta, and the preliminary results are very promising.

The key to success, I believe, has been working in partnership with first nations groups and provincial governments. Manitoba is the sixth jurisdiction to start implementing the new preventive approach. This government hopes to complete frameworks in the four remaining provinces by 2013.

Also included in the supplementary estimates is $295 million for the funding of awards to claimants resulting from the independent assessment process and alternative dispute resolution related to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. The process is designed for former students who suffered serious physical or sexual abuse while attending an Indian residential school. The additional funds are needed because the number of claims filed and the average settlement per individual are higher than originally forecast.

Mr. Chairman, we are also working with first nations and provinces in the area of education.

As we all know, access to quality education is essential to long-term, sustainable improvement for communities, as well as personal success. Together, we've been working to ensure first nations children receive the education they require to prepare them for the future.

Since I've been minister, we've signed two more tripartite agreements with the provinces and first nations. There was a sub-regional agreement in Saskatchewan and another in Prince Edward Island. So there are now seven agreements in place across the country that give first nations communities greater control over education and, most importantly, first nations students a greater chance for success.

Settling claims is also important to ensuring that first nations have the resources they need to prosper. Through claim settlements, the relationship between Canada and first nations is strengthened, and first nations can access the lands and resources they need to allow their communities to prosper. For instance, in October, I was pleased to join community members to celebrate the final settlement of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation's Brant Tract and Toronto Purchase specific claims.

Included in the supplementary estimates is the department's request to re-profile $308 million from the previous fiscal year to fund specific claims settlements. This amount was originally set aside for specific claims during the last two fiscal years but was never spent. Re-profiling this money makes it available to fund specific claims settlements in the current fiscal year.

These initiatives are but a few examples of the concrete actions that support the department's goal of improving the quality of life of aboriginal peoples and northerners.

Canada's economic action plan invested a total of $1.4 billion over two years in programs for aboriginal peoples. This includes programs and initiatives led by many government departments. Significant amounts are going to skills development and training programs for aboriginal peoples. Most of this investment, however, is going to infrastructure projects in first nations communities: water and waste-water treatment facilities, schools, and housing.

The provision of safe drinking water, the effective treatment of waste water, and the protection of sources of drinking water in first nations communities are critical to ensuring the health and safety of first nations people. The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that significant progress is made in improving water conditions on reserves across Canada.

These investments are very much in keeping with our ongoing priorities. Furthermore, INAC currently has four bills before the House and Senate which seek to address these same priorities.

Bill S-11, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, will enable the Government of Canada to continue making tangible progress on its commitment to improving water conditions on reserve. This bill is currently being considered before the Senate.

Bill C-25, the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, will ensure clarity, consistency, and legal certainty with respect to land use planning and environmental assessment processes in Nunavut.

Bill S-4, the matrimonial real property act, proposes legislation to resolve the long-standing issue of on-reserve matrimonial real property.

Finally, Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, is an important piece of legislation that provides for movement toward the elimination of discrimination in the Indian Act.

Mr. Chairman, this government recognizes that money alone cannot address the issues facing northerners and aboriginal peoples. This is why we continue to seek and expand partnerships with groups that share our larger goal of ensuring that all Canadians, regardless of where they live, can participate in and contribute to this country's prosperity.

Every specific claim settlement, every tripartite agreement on education and on child and family services, and every aboriginal employment training partnership program brings us one step closer to this goal. I'm confident that the investments included in the supplementary estimates will lead to further progress.

Thank you. I'll do my best to answer any questions that members of the committee might have.

Aboriginal Affairs

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the exploratory process we will launch once Bill C-3 becomes law, assuming it does, it is an exercise that will be led by the national aboriginal organizations. They will set the terms of reference for the most part.

I do not understand where the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan is coming from on that.

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

I don't want to make you disclose any secrets. However, we know that the implementation of Bill C-3 is imminent. It will soon be passed by the Senate; that's clear. In our view, it's a matter of weeks.

The next budget is coming. Perhaps I should have put the question to the minister, but here it is. In preparation for that next budget, is the implementation of these tripartite agreements being taken into account in order to make requests? Have you prepared any items for the next budget taking into account the requests for implementation of these tripartite agreements?

Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first, my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, since coming to the House 10 years ago, has been a champion and an advocate on a great number of issues, certainly none more so than the rights of first nations women. It is an issue she continues to drive within caucus and in the chamber as well.

I was not in the House for the first part of the member's speech. Out of the ruling, I understood fully that this had been tied up for a great number of years. What has the response been on Bill C-3? Has Ms. McIvor had an opportunity to testify before the committee? What was her impression of the legislation being presented by the government?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the bill. I am supporting Bill C-3, but I am supporting it with considerable reluctance and certainly not with much enthusiasm.

There should be no doubt that Bill C-3 moves the agenda forward on addressing gender discrimination in the status provisions of the Indian Act, but it is only one very small partial step toward full equality for aboriginal women and their descendants.

The government has brought forward these amendments as a response to and because of the efforts of Sharon McIvor of British Columbia. In my previous remarks on Bill C-3, I paid homage to the other brave aboriginal women who have fought the battle for full equality and have pushed the courts to recognize discrimination under the law and subsequently pushed Parliament to remedy the injustice. I would like to do so again today.

These women are Mary Two Axe Early, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Yvonne Bédard, Sandra Lovelace and, as I mentioned earlier, Sharon McIvor. Yet in acknowledging these individuals, I feel great sadness for them that the battle for full equality is falling to yet another generation of aboriginal women. We can be sure it will be the battle for aboriginal women. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination and at some point we must take it upon ourselves as parliamentarians the responsibility to fully eradicate all gender discrimination in the Indian Act.

When Bill C-31 was passed in 1985, Parliament and the government of the day knew that the residual discrimination would remain. I want to read into the record some of the comments made. It is important that we know this because 25 years later we are poised to pass a bill that also leaves residual discrimination.

In April we heard in committee from Martin Reiher of the Department of Justice. He said Bill C-31:

—is a very focused answer to the McIvor decision, given the limited time we had to develop legislation in response to the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision of April 9, 2009. There are other issues that have been raised in litigation that are not dealt with by this bill at this time. Depending on subsequent court decisions, obviously, the government might have to consider how to respond to these other decisions.

I also want to read from Sharon McIvor, an increasing hero of mine, when she said to the committee in April:

—But when the act was changed in 1985, parliamentarians knew there was residual discrimination. [Former Minister] Crombie's records show that they understood that some of us would still suffer from the residual discrimination....yet they forced someone like me to take it through the courts and have the courts decide that it was discriminatory....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.

A final quote from April that I will cite is from Gwen Brodsky, who is counsel to Ms. McIvor. She said:

—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.

Earlier this year the Liberal Party tried to end the cycle and address all the remaining residual discrimination in the Indian Act's provisions concerning entitlement to status. When Bill C-3 came before the aboriginal affairs committee, we introduced amendments that would have granted descendants of status Indian women born prior to April 17, 1985, full status under the Indian Act, exactly what had also been given to the descendants of status Indian men.

These amendments, although passed by committee through the unanimous support of the opposition parties, were ruled inadmissible by the Speaker after Bill C-3 was returned to the House.

We need a comprehensive legislative remedy. The amendments were ruled out of order as being beyond the scope of Bill C-3, which reads “provides a new entitlement to Indian registration in response to the decision in McIvor v. Canada”.

Again, I want to emphasize what others have said about the need for a comprehensive remedy.

Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould said in April at committee:

With respect to discrimination in any form, I do not agree with it whatsoever. I believe that it would be the position of any reasonable person, as you say, to eradicate discrimination wherever and whenever possible in today's age.

Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, said again this year that if all discrimination was eliminated:

—then I would think that as aboriginal women, as an aboriginal women's organization, maybe part of our work would be done. We could move on to other things. But that would be really good to see if it took place in the very near while.

One last quote, although I have many comments, is by Betty Ann Lavellée, national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. In April of this year she said:

—I want to see any and all forms of discrimination end once and for all, so that our children are not having this same discussion 25 or 35 years from now.

It is unfortunate that the government chose to write Bill C-3 in a way that responds solely to the narrow reading of the B.C. Court of Appeal in the McIvor case without providing the option to Parliament to address further residual discrimination through the legislation.

This regrettable choice has forced all stakeholders and opposition parties to make an extremely difficult choice regarding Bill C-3. How can we say no to equality for some when saying no means equality for none? What we can do, and we have tried, is to improve the bill, but as I will try and explain, the government has made this impossible.

I would like to remind the House that the B.C. Court of Appeal was only able to rule on the gender discrimination in the Indian Act experienced by Sharon McIvor and her son. That was the case before the court, not the full gamut of gender discrimination under the act.

While the court acknowledged that other types of discrimination most likely existed, its decision in the McIvor case could not apply a remedy to those issues as well. Therefore, the court ruled narrowly in favour of McIvor and left it to those of us in Parliament to craft a more fulsome response. Let me repeat, it was the government that then decided what this response would look like.

The government could have chosen to provide a legislative remedy to the McIvor situation, while also leaving the door open for Parliament to expand the legislation through amendments in order to get rid of the residual discrimination. If it had conducted a fulsome consultation with aboriginal leadership, aboriginal women, women's groups and communities, it would have heard a resounding desire to end the discrimination once and for all. That is certainly what we heard at committee. Instead, Bill C-3 was introduced without any real consultation and in a matter that meant all amendments would be out of order.

This is how Bill C-3 came to be, a bill that takes one more step in the long and arduous battle for full equality for aboriginal women, a bill that would extend status to approximately 45,000 aboriginal women and their descendants, but a bill that will leave the fight for full equality once again yet to another generation. Very soon we will be voting on Bill C-3, but at some point, as parliamentarians must decide when we are going to right this wrong.

We are now faced with Sharon McIvor taking her case off to the UN. Sharon announced that she would file a complaint against Canada at the United Nations. She has contended that Canada continues to discriminate against aboriginal women and their descendants in the determination of eligibility for registration as an Indian.

As she said, in taking this case forward:

I contested this discrimination under the charter. It took 20 years in Canadian courts, and I achieved only partial success. Now I will seek full justice for Aboriginal women under international human rights law. Canada needs to be held to account for its intransigence in refusing to completely eliminate sex discrimination from the Indian Act and for decades of delay.

She went on to say:

Because neither Canadian courts nor Parliament have yet granted an adequate and effective remedy for the sex discrimination which has been a hallmark of the Indian Act for more than a hundred years, I will take my case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

I would contend that it is unfortunate and, perhaps some might describe, shameful that this case has yet to go to the UN human rights committee. It will undoubtedly result in a further rebuke to Canada in the international arena, something our country and the government does not need.

As I said at the beginning, I am supporting the bill. I am doing it with reluctance, not with much enthusiasm. I look forward to seeing it move through Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, in short, the answer is no. No, because there is a section in the Indian Act, section 6, that has unfortunately been there far too long. As long as section 6 is in place, there will always be some people who are not equal, and discrimination will persist.

Obviously, the easy solution would be to abolish section 6 right now. Then, anyone could declare that they are an aboriginal. We cannot go from one extreme to another, and I absolutely agree about that. However, we could work on getting there. Unfortunately, the governments have done nothing. I do not want to get too political here, but I have to mention, with all due respect to my Liberal colleague, that the aboriginals had to go to court. It seems as though it is always necessary to go to court to have a right recognized, or to prove that a situation is discriminatory even when it is very clear that it is. It is, and unfortunately it will continue to be, even after Bill C-3 is passed.

I agree that we should pass Bill C-3 and I agree with my colleague, but this government should find a way to abolish section 6 of the Indian Act as quickly as possible. To do so, it will have to find the means and, with all due respect, have the political will to put aboriginals on equal footing with the government for the implementation of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this very important bill to put an end to 25 years of injustice in the case of Ms. McIvor. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill, and I gather the NDP will as well, as will all members of the House, I imagine, given the urgency of the matter. We urgently need to rectify an illegality that has been committed against aboriginal women in Canada and Quebec for more than 30 years.

I am reluctantly voting in favour of the bill because there is a problem. We have met with Quebec Native Women and Ms. Audette who organized and participated in the Amun March. We have met with the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and its Chief, Mr. Picard. We have met with a number of aboriginal individuals, including Ellen Gabriel, who was the president of Quebec Native Women. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Michelle Audette, the newly elected president of Quebec Native Women. All these aboriginal women and men are quite preoccupied by the implementation of Bill C-3.

The purpose of this bill is to correct an injustice. I do not want to get into all the details, but some things need to be said. This bill is the result of a court challenge by an aboriginal woman, as usual. It is the women who were discriminated against, who still are today and who, unfortunately, will continue to be even after Bill C-3 is passed. I will come back to that in a few minutes.

Aboriginal women have decided to stand up and ensure that an injustice is corrected once and for all. The government waited and waited for a Supreme Court ruling requiring it to rectify the situation. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the case on appeal and it is therefore the ruling of the British Columbia Court of Appeal that applies. That ruling requires the Canadian government to rectify a situation that is unfair to aboriginal women in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, you chaired the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development—for too short a time, unfortunately. In reading the Indian Act, you realized that this legislation was fundamentally and completely discriminatory towards women. We must admit that when this act was implemented, the purpose was to assimilate aboriginals, period. I encourage anyone who doubts that to read a very well-written book that explains the three reports that led to the creation of the Indian Act. The book is called L'Impasse amérindienne, published by Septentrion in Quebec. Mr. Vaugeois, a renowned historian, studied the three reports, since 1878, that led to the creation of the Indian Act at the start of the 1900s. I do not want to go into too much history, but this is important. Before the implementation of the Indian Act, which aimed to warehouse—yes, I said “warehouse”—aboriginals on reserves, these aboriginals moved throughout the territory.

The reserves were created out of nothing. The aboriginal communities did not ask for them. Today, people think that the aboriginal communities asked for the creation of reserves. That is entirely untrue. The federal government fabricated the reserves entirely. We need to look at what is said in the act, but I do not want to take up too much time. Ever since the Indian Act came into force, it has had the ultimate goal of assimilating aboriginals into the majority. It could not be clearer. That is exactly what they wanted to do. That is exactly what aboriginal women fought against. They did not want anything to do with this process, because when the reserves were established, they shifted from a matriarchal situation, in which women were the elders, to assimilation. Women were hugely respected within aboriginal communities. As soon as the Indian Act came into force and the Indian reserve system was developed—I cannot stand the word “reserve”, but that that seems to be the word to use—we started to see the objective of assimilating aboriginals take shape.

How was that accomplished? It is not complicated. If we put 100 people on one square mile of land, they may get along, but if we put 1,000 there, it soon becomes impossible. That is exactly what is happening. That is precisely the problem we will have to face over the coming years when Bill C-3 is passed.

Why? Because as soon as the bill is passed the numbers we have show that in Quebec alone between 15,000 and 20,000 new people will move onto reserves. We are being told that there are between 45,000 and 50,000 across Canada, but I highly doubt that. Why am I so doubtful? Because, back in 1985—I do not want to go too far back—when the government passed Bill C-31, the Minister of Indian affairs responded to a question in the House of Commons by saying specifically that there were about 56,800 additional aboriginals. That was in 1985, not 100 years ago.

On December 31, 2000—10 years ago, and we have the numbers from 2000—more than 114,000 aboriginals were granted Indian status. Imagine what will happen with Bill C-3. That is the problem the Bloc sees. I hope that when the Minister of Indian Affairs appears before the committee, he will have more to say than that they have invested in water and housing. What I want to know, and what my colleagues want to know, is how much has been set aside for implementation of Bill C-3, which, as we know, will lead to at least 50,000 more aboriginals moving into reserves.

Let me share a specific example of what this means. In my riding, there is Timiskaming First Nation in Notre-Dame-du-Nord and Long Point First Nation in Winneway. Long Point First Nation is a settlement. They do not even have reserve status yet, but they predict that 100 additional aboriginals will come to Long Point First Nation and swell the ranks of an already exploding community.

Worse still, information that I have received in the past month suggests that over 1,000 aboriginals will join the Timiskaming First Nation in Notre-Dame-du-Nord, and this will have a considerable impact. Today, November 22, 2010, the Timiskaming first nation is already unable to meet its needs because it is facing serious challenges regarding education. Classrooms are full and it has to send students to Ontario. More importantly, however, it is not properly equipped. The government has not prepared it for the arrival of these new registrants.

Some say the impact will not be all that significant. The department wanted to reassure people, and I cannot say I blame the department. When it comes to this issue, we must avoid playing petty politics and claiming to be the best, the most caring, the most intelligent. We are on the verge of a crisis. Several aboriginal communities will face a major crisis because of the addition of these new registrants. I am not saying there will be a flood of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of new status Indians. Even if it is only 10, 20 or 30 more families, that is more than many aboriginal communities can handle, because they are not properly equipped for it.

The government is being asked to implement Bill C-3. There is no doubt the Bloc Québécois will closely follow the implementation of this bill, because it is very important for the aboriginal communities that will have to deal with the arrival of these new status Indians over the coming months and years. I know of some people who have been waiting for years to return to their communities. They should not be considered newcomers; rather, they are people who have been waiting since 1985. Ms. McIvor, the B.C. woman who fought to assert her rights all the way to the Supreme Court, has been waiting since 1985. She is now a grandmother, almost a great-grandmother. She wants her grandchildren to be recognized as status Indians.

We are trying to tell the government that it absolutely must take action to deal with the arrival of these new status aboriginals, if that is indeed the right term, because personally, I think they have always been aboriginal people, even though many lived off-reserve in big cities. Now they want to return to their communities. It is extremely important that the government be prepared to deal with this problem.

We must not, in an attempt to delay applications, establish a system as complicated as the one used to implement Bill C-31 in 1985. We must simplify this process as much as possible. I agree wholeheartedly that Indian status should not be given to those who do not have a right to it. A minimum of control must be applied. I repeat, “a minimum of control”.

We must ensure that the aboriginal people who are given status are those who have the right to it. If we think that Bill C-3 will put an end to all discrimination, we are sadly mistaken. We have just barely scratched the surface of this issue. This bill will likely mean that a minimum of 50,000 new aboriginal people will be registered, but there will be just as many remaining who are still unable to register, and other cases have already been brought before the courts. According to the most recent statistics, 19 cases related to discrimination that go further than McIvor are still pending . These cases will likely be won because they are based on the same legal argument, namely, discrimination against women.

We are of the opinion that the government should have accepted our amendments. The Chair ruled that our amendments were out of order and that there would be no more discussion. We submitted our arguments and they were rejected. We respect democracy. We submitted Bill C-3, as it was presented to the House at third reading, to Quebec Native Women and the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador.

Last July, at the annual meeting of the Assembly of First Nations held in Winnipeg, there was a presentation on this bill and we were asked to vote in favour of it. Therefore, we will vote for C-3 to at least close one door so that some of the discrimination against women is eliminated.

We are dreaming in colour if we believe that Bill C-3 will put an end, once and for all, to the problems of the acceptance of aboriginal peoples in communities. That is not the case. Michèle Audet, the new president of Quebec Native Women, gave us a number of examples, and we have received letters. I will not go into the details, but there are other cases pending and there will be other debates before the courts.

If I could recommend one thing, it would be to ask the government to let aboriginal men and women who wish to register do so. It is the infamous section 6 of the Indian Act that is clearly discriminatory. I believe that section 6 maintains a form of discrimination against a segment of the population—aboriginal women and their children—that is unacceptable in 2010. For those listening, it is not complicated: an aboriginal woman who marries a white man has fewer rights than an aboriginal man who marries a white woman. That is exactly what will be perpetuated even if we adopt bill C-3.

In closing, members must try to not play politics with this bill, as was done in committee. We all agree that it must be passed quickly. The bill will pass, of course, but the main problem will be implementing it.

I call upon the government to be extremely prudent and presume that those who apply for Indian status after this bill is passed—which I maintain will not put an end to discrimination—will be acting in good faith. Nevertheless, we hope that this bill is a step in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary and to the hon. member. I believe that there is no room for playing politics nor for paying compliments in this matter. I believe that there is a considerable amount of work to be done. I will come back to that a little later when I speak to Bill C-3.

I know the name of my NDP colleague but I cannot pronounce the name of her riding. I think it is Vancouver and Cowichan, but I do not want to massacre it. I want to get to the question.

A minimum of 45,000 to 50,000 additional registrations are expected. I know the number is huge. The McIvor case came from British Columbia. I am wondering whether even British Columbia is prepared to deal with the tidal wave that will hit once this bill passes in the next few hours. I am concerned and I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-3, the short title of which is gender equity in Indian registration act.

As others in the House have pointed out, it would have been wonderful if this had been a gender equity in Indian registration act, but instead it is a narrowly focused piece of legislation coming as a result of a court decision in my own province of British Columbia.

I will give the House a bit of history on this.

Sharon McIvor filed a complaint about gender discrimination. The initial court decision was appealed and in the appeal court the scope of the original decision was significantly narrowed. As a result of missing some deadlines, the government had to apply to the Court of Appeal for an extension. The court imposed a new timeline and said:

Parliament, of course, is the master of its own procedure, and we do not in any way wish to interfere with its processes. The Court recognizes that there are many issues that must be dealt with in Parliament. We would remind the Attorney General, however, that a final determination by the courts that provisions of the Indian Act violate constitutional rights is a serious matter that must be dealt with expeditiously. We would also observe that while efforts of Members of Parliament to improve provisions of the Indian Act not touched by our decision are laudable, those efforts should not be allowed to unduly delay the passage of legislation that deals with the specific issues that this Court has identified as violating the Charter.

That succinctly summarizes our dilemma here. What we have before us is legislation that does not deal with all of the gender inequities in the current Indian Act.

We heard from many witnesses at committee who talked about the ongoing discrimination that exists today. A number of suggestions were made to the government about how it might handle this and how it might broaden the scope of the legislation but it refused. It just focused narrowly on the court decision.

What we are left with are mostly women, on a case by case basis, having to take their gender discrimination issues to court for a ruling, which is a lengthy and expensive process, only to have the government subsequently amend another piece of the Indian Act.

All of us in the House are aware of the ongoing gender discrimination. However, in this particular situation, we are being forced to decide whether we disadvantage 45,000 people who could regain status under this narrow piece of legislation, or we tell them they need to wait for possibly a few more decades. Faced with this tough decision, a number of us will hold our noses and support the legislation knowing that it does not deal with all of the discrimination that still exists.

I want to read on a couple of letters that I received that indicate some of the dilemmas we are faced with.

The Quebec Native Women's Association wrote a letter on July 14, 2010, saying that it “would like to reiterate its support for the adoption of Bill C-3 considering that according to estimates by INAC there will be approximately 45,000 individuals that will gain Indian status with the passing of this bill. QNW believes that Bill C-3 should be adopted as soon as possible in order to limit the consequences of discrimination experienced for too long by those who are affected by this bill. However, it is important to note that QNW remains dissatisfied with the bill in its current form and asks the federal government for guarantees that once the bill is adopted, the concerns and recommendations expressed by aboriginal organizations and their communities on Bill C-3 will be properly addressed. QNW recommends the creation of a special committee with a mandate to find solutions and tackle the outstanding issues relating to registration, membership, citizenship and other discriminatory practices in the Indian Act that go beyond the specific measures of the McIvor decision”.

That aptly outlines what the next step should be.

It is great to have an exploratory process, or whatever the government of the day is calling it, but we need to have a full and open partnership and consultation that deals with these issues of citizenship.

In another letter I received on June 14 from the NDP Aboriginal Commission, it says that it also shares a profound objection to the federal government's refusal to end the fundamental discrimination of the Indian Act by continuing to assert a presumed authority over first nations' citizenship, membership and identify.

It goes on to say that NDPAC believes that it would be an additional injustice to deny those who have been the victims of gender discrimination under the Indian Act their right to status. An estimated 45,000 people would suffer direct harm if Bill C-3 does not pass.

It goes on to say that, in addition, children being born today are denied registration by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and denied their rights as first nations citizens as a result of the existing legislative gap. It says that this result plays into the hands of those who continue to pursue the policy of assimilation by allowing the government to refuse to recognize the constitutional rights of first nations people.

It also says that this situation continues the enormous injustice of earlier amendments to the Indian Act known as Bill C-31, 1985, which is expected to lead to the complete eradication of status Indians within only a few generations.The last words in the letter refer to the second generation cut-off. We know that is a piece of the Indian Act that has never been dealt with.

I want to briefly talk about how we got to this point.

Other members have spoken about the very long history of discrimination that has been in this country. It actually goes back to 1868 with the first post-Confederation statute establishing entitlement to the Indian status was enacted. This was in the Court of Appeal decision. The one piece that it was specifically referring to that was discriminatory against women reads:

All women lawfully married to any of the persons included in the several classes hereinbefore designated; the children issue of such marriages, and their descendants.

The early legislation then treated Indian men and women differently in that an Indian man could confer status on his non-Indian wife through marriage, while an Indian woman could not confer status on her non-Indian husband.

In 1869, the first legislation that deprived Indian women of their status upon marriage to non-Indians was passed. Sadly, this has been going on for so long and for so many generations.

It goes on to talk about the fact that this new legislation did not reflect the aboriginal traditions of all first nations. To some extent, it may be the product of the Victorian wars of Europe transplanted into Canada.

It continues on to say:

The legislation largely parallels contemporary views of the legal status of women in both English common law and French civil law. On the status of a woman dependant on the status of her husband upon marriage, she ceased in many respects, for legal purposes, to be a separate person in her own right.

As I said, we saw that perpetuated for generations.

In 1951 there were some slight changes. However, from 1951 onward, where an Indian man married a non-Indian woman, any child they had was an Indian. If, however, the Indian man's mother was also non-Indian prior to marriage, the child would cease to have Indian status upon attaining the age of 21 under the double-mother rule. The government introduced another aspect to discriminate against women.

Finally, in 1985, after complaints to the Untied Nations, there was a change in the legislation that did change some of the discriminatory aspects of the Indian Act but left many others in place, which ultimately resulted in the Sharon McIvor decision. Of course, Sharon and her family have suffered for decades because they were denied what they were constitutionally entitled to.

This has been a long-standing issue and we cannot claim in this House that we were not aware of the impact it was having on first nations' women and their male and female children. Back on December 22, 1982, there was an order of reference for a special committee on the Indian self-government task force. In that task force there were some areas outlined for further study. This is a reminder that this is not new information for this House.

In the areas for further study, the subcommittee was asked to: give attention to the elimination of the entire concept of enfranchisement; that the Indian Act be reviewed so as to reinforce group rights and to bring the act in line with international covenants; that the traditional practices, such as marriage, adoption, et cetera, should not be restricted or discriminated against by the Indian Act; and that the means for band control of membership criteria, process decisions and appeals in accordance with international covenants be instituted.

It is quite disillusioning that it takes so long for this House, under various governments of various political stripes, to deal with the ongoing discrimination that is inherent in the Indian Act.

One of the things that has been touched on here is the resources. I will turn to a couple of documents about why this is such a concern. In a briefing note from April 25, 2006, dealing with registration as an Indian under the Indian Act, Bill C-31, it talks about the increase in the first nations status population as a result of Bill C-31. It says that an increase of 402,940 status Indians occurred between 1984 and 2006, which is over 100% increase of status population as a result of Bill C-31.

The reason I mention that number is that we already have some past experience in this House about when legislation has been passed and inadequately resourced, and the kinds of projected increases as a result of Bill C-31 and the impact it has had on housing, health care, education, the water systems and the infrastructure. They simply have not been accommodated based on the increases in population as a result of that act.

October 1, 2009, when the assistant deputy minister appeared before the House, in her presentation she acknowledged the demographic and program implications. She said:

I'd like to talk for a moment about the implications of the McIvor decision. Demographic research is still ongoing to determine how many people may be newly entitled to registration...and while preliminary indications were between 20,000 and 40,000, we now believe it will be more in the neighbourhood of 40,000....

Of course there will be budgetary implications...with these potential new registrants, primarily involving health benefits and post-secondary education assistance.

What she did not touch on was housing, water, infrastructure and all the other aspects of maintaining programs and services on reserve, and whether people would even be able to return to the reserve if they wished to.

On July 2008, the First Nations Registration (Status) and Membership Research Report was prepared by the joint AFN-INAC working group. Once again, the government was fully aware of the implications on resources. This report outlined some of the serious problems that arose from the 1985 decision and why we continue to talk about the importance of resources.

The fact that there is a study going on is not good enough. We already know there will be an increase. According to this joint AFN-INAC working group, the increase in the registered Indian population as a result of the 1985 Indian Act amendments had major impacts on federal programming and expenditures, as well as for band governments now required to provide additional programming, facilities and services to newly reinstated individuals.

It goes on to say that band governments, first nations and aboriginal organizations stress that the increase in funding was not adequate to meet the needs created by the 1985 amendments as additional demands had been placed on already underfunded programs. As a result of the inadequate financial resources to accommodate reinstated individuals, many bands had difficulties in accepting new members and in providing them access to on-reserve services and programs.

These pressures, coupled with the socio-cultural implications of classes of Indians created by the 1985 reforms contributed to community conflict which continues to challenge community cohesion even in the present day.

We already know from past experience that we need to take a very serious look at implementation, and that what we heard around implementation so far has left us with very grave concerns.

In the time remaining, I want to touch briefly on citizenship because this goes to the heart of what we are talking about today. What we have done is narrowly dealt with a court decision while leaving all the other questions around citizenship outstanding.

The National Centre for First Nations Governance had a quote on what developing citizenship laws look like. It says:

Developing citizenship laws are an act of self determination. When a First Nation creates its own rules for identifying who is a citizen, it is taking a large step away from the control of the Indian Act and towards something of its own design. The development of citizenship laws is a significant step for First Nations in the implementation of self-governance and the creation of culturally relevant institutions that support Nation rebuilding.

It goes on to talk about criteria and objectives and those kinds of things. I think it is an important statement around citizenship, and it has been at the heart of why so many people have disagreed with the government approach on Bill C-3.

In the “First Nations Registration (Status) and Membership Research Report” of July 2008, there was a whole section on citizenship. I want to touch on the principles for change that were outlined in this joint report. It says that focus group participants were in agreement with the following principles: blood quantum cannot be the basis for defining membership; first nations need to define their terminology, identity, citizenship, membership, Indian status; the principles of international law, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, can provide a guide for discussion of first nations citizenship; reforms must be consistent and supportive of first nations' right to self-determination; processes should be inclusive, gender sensitive and linked to culture and traditions; the federal government's role should be limited to providing support to first nations and rectifying the damage caused by its legislation not redefining Indians.

Those were the principles that were in this joint task force working group. We have not seen those principles rolled out when we are talking about defining status. Those are key principles that should underlie any respectful consultation and discussion about who is a citizen.

It goes on to say that the elders consider it important that barriers for change be addressed by revitalizing traditional laws to guide change. The report outlines as well a couple of other key points. One was independent conflict resolution mechanisms. The participants recommended that AFN take steps to initiate research and policy work with senior levels of government leading to the establishment of mechanisms for mediation or arbitration on issues related to Indian status, citizenship and membership.

The report goes on to say that members of Parliament, political parties, standing committees and so on need to be educated on these issues from a first nations perspective.

There is much more in this report, which I simply do not have time to touch on.

At the heart of this matter, although we will be supporting Bill C-3, is that it simply does not address the much larger issues that are facing first nations communities. In order to truly deal with the colonialist aspect of the Indian Act, first nations need to be front and centre in the consultation process, in the decision-making process and in the implementation around who is a citizen.

We need a very clear recognition about the resource implications. In my question to my colleague at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I talked about the backlogs that currently exist in the entitlement unit. We can see from those numbers, from the 2006 cost drivers project, that we are looking at a minimum of five years to clear the backlog that was in place at that time. How are those units going to deal with up to 45,000 new applicants? We cannot ask people to wait another 10, 15 or 20 years to determine if they are eligible for status.

It would be extremely important that we have a very clear statement from the government about the actual resources that are going to be in place once this legislation is in effect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for so clearly outlining the challenges and struggles that many parliamentarians felt in dealing with Bill C-3, which we commonly call the McIvor bill.

The member raised the issue around the resources for implementation. A cost drivers report from 2006 talks about some of the challenges around processing information.

The report says the following:

Cost Drivers for Effective Service Standards

The Entitlement Unit currently has a backlog of 7,300 Applicants, which is approximately a 2 year waiting time....It will be necessary to have 14 Officers working on Entitlement applications for the next five years to completely eliminate the backlog and bring the turnaround time to approximately three months, which is comparable to other services.

There are more numbers like this in this cost drivers report. It talks about the fact that the processing time for applications is simply unacceptable. In some cases, people are waiting up to 10 years if they disagree with the decision as to their entitlement status.

I wonder if the member could comment more fully on how critical it is to see up front the kinds of resources that will be put in place to ensure timely processing for people who are applying for newly reinstated Indian status.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-3.

I first want to congratulate Sharon McIvor who fought for 25 years. It is unimaginable to us that she would fight for 25 years for justice and equality, but that has been her struggle. Her case was launched in the late 1980s. Before her, we had women like Mary Two Axe Early, Ms. Sandra Lovelace and Ms. Corbiere-Lavell, all who fought these battles for equality and justice for aboriginal women.

It is unseemly that it takes a generation sometimes to address an issue of inequality, something that could be so glaring that we all can recognize it. However, our system did not allow that to happen.

I said this in my opening speech when we talked about Bill C-3. I really do not care what government was in place at the time. There is something wrong with the system when it takes 25 years to achieve some type of equality or equity for individuals, and in this case many individuals.

Sharon McIvor court case was won at the B.C. Supreme Court. It was at that time a very broad decision that affected many areas of the Indian Act in terms of giving rise to residual discrimination, sex discrimination, gender discrimination.

The Government of Canada appealed that decision to the B.C. Court of Appeal. The B.C. Court of Appeal ruled much more narrowly on the facts and only affected certain sections of the Indian Act.

When the decision came out, the government tried in some way, shape or form to engage first nations people through something called an engagement process. It did not call it a consultation process because a consultation process gave rise to various legal parameters or certain expectations. It called them exploratory processes on something as fundamental as discrimination, as equality. The government did not engage in a consultation process, but rather in an exploratory process.

When the bill came out, it was a disappointment for many aboriginal women in our country and for many aboriginal groups that testified at committee. They said that the government had an opportunity to end sex discrimination under the Indian Act once and for all, but it did not do it. Instead Bill C-3 is very narrowly scoped and only speaks to what the court ordered the government to do.

The court ordered the government to deal with two particular clauses and that is all the government responded to, not saying that the government did not have it in its power or did not have the authority to scope the bill in such a way to end sex discrimination once and for all.

Some of those who testified at committee said that in fact it gave rise to other issues of inequality, where a woman for example would have to discuss the paternity of her child, whereas the same would not take place for a male.

Even though the bill narrowly speaks to the B.C. Court of Appeal decision, there are concerns with Bill C-3. Are they that substantive? Perhaps we should let Sharon McIvor speak, the lady who fought this for 25 years. She does not like Bill C-3. She does not feel the bill responds to the questions that she put to the court as a complainant. She now has taken her fight, where? To the United Nations. She is launching a complaint against Canada, saying that Canada has not responded adequately to the issues that were raised in the court case and Canada has not responded adequately with Bill C-3 in terms of ending gender discrimination once and for all.

When it comes to the person who fought for 25 years, we must be sensitive to her opinion and give some credence to the fact that she is not happy with the government's approach to Bill C-3.

Some will ask if the title of the bill accurately reflects the intent of the bill, which is to provide equity. Many would argue that it tries to achieve that objective, but it would be wrong for the House to think the legislation would resolve all of the issues of inequity based on sex. Now we are at a crossroads.

We get up here at third reading debate and we hash it out, me for 15 or 20 minutes, the parliamentary secretary for 15 or 20 minutes, and somebody else in the other party for 10 or 15 minutes as if we are going to accomplish anything. We are faced with the decision now of whether we should support this bill as it is.

It is not the best bill in the world. We know that. We know that it was not arrived at properly by the government. We know that there are many dissenting voices out there. There are those, too, who believe the piecemeal approach is not the proper way to go forward.

Jennifer Lynch, the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said:

The Committee has already heard that the Indian Act has had discriminatory effects, including residual gender-based discrimination.

A case-by-case, section-by-section approach to resolving discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act will be costly, confrontational and time-consuming.

Moreover, the Act places the burden on complainants who do not necessarily have access to legal resources.

The approach by the government is not what one would prefer. It is narrow, not broad, and it does not end all gender discrimination under the Indian Act.

The government says that it does speak to and has spurred debate around other fundamental issues that the bill does not specifically raise. I tend to agree that in some regard the bill does not raise these issues, but they are there in the public purview. They are a matter of debate. Those issues of jurisdiction, of citizenship, and of who determines membership must be talked about. They must be acted upon.

As one of what some people call the “enlightened” countries in the world, we have one of the staunchest pieces of colonial architecture still in place, and it is called the Indian Act. A law in this place, in this House, determines if one is an Indian or not. Issues of culture, descendancy, self-identification, and self-governance do not determine it. We in this House actually determine who is a status Indian, the identity of a person. It could not be more outdated. We know that fundamental change has to come.

The government asks how we will deal with this fundamental change. Again, it is not going to be a consultation. It is going to be an “exploratory process”, as I heard the parliamentary secretary say. We should be thoughtful. We should not rush it.

God forbid we would rush it when this discrimination has existed for generations and it takes a single individual a generation to resolve even some aspects of it. I know we cannot rush it, but we have to give it some prominence. We have to be able to say that the government is sincere in terms of its approach.

Consider what “exploratory” says to a citizen out there, to a first nations person who is just looking at what some of the issues might be. I am sure our relationship with first nations and aboriginal people in this country has given rise to enough issues that we do not have to basically explore them anymore. We have to sit at the table and do something about them.

That is what the apology was supposed to be about in 2008. It was supposed to be about a renewed relationship, a post-apology approach to aboriginal issues in this country that we should try to resolve.

We do not see much of a difference in the government's approach. It is the same old business as usual. Deal with what the courts told us to deal with and only that. Other substantive issues that require change that will affect the well-being of first nations people for generations to come we will talk out in something called an exploratory process.

To me, the government has the ability to go beyond that, to truly engage, to truly consult. I respectfully would ask the government to engage aboriginal people in a substantive way. To me, this exploratory process seems to be just something we put out there so that we could get the support of first nations, or to at least get Bill C-3 through the House.

The minister in public says that we will not touch this exploratory process until Bill C-3 passes in the House.

We could be doing a lot of work prior to this bill actually receiving assent in the House, then in the Senate, and being signed off by the Governor General.

We also need to raise issues around implementation. That was touched on by the hon. member opposite. We asked if the department was ready. We asked if the register of Indians was ready. The government really did not answer those questions satisfactorily.

We asked other questions. Do we have an expedited process for these people who have been waiting so long for registration? Do we have an expedited process to make sure they are not bogged down in bureaucracy for years and years, having faced this gender and sex discrimination for these decades and generations? The government cannot tell us if in fact it has an expedited process, or a way to approach this, that will be acceptable to people.

I am sure many in the House who have first nations in their ridings get letters all the time from people complaining about the process. I received an email from one person who has been dealing with the register of Indians for 20 years about getting status. It is unacceptable.

While the government is touting equality in the House under Bill C-3, it must also put that into practice when it comes to implementation. The onus is going to be on individuals to apply, to provide some very detailed and personal information. It is only incumbent upon the government to make sure there is a process that people feel is fair and they have some confidence in.

We also want to talk about what the impacts are. Mr. Clatworthy, a noted demographer, said that approximately 45,000 may be eligible for registration. That is not to say that they are all going to register on one day or indeed get it in one day, one week, one year, or even two years.

The government said some months ago that it did not have figures. It could not tell us how much it was going to cost. It could not say how much of an impact it was going to have on a band, or a council, or a first nations government. It could not say how much it was going to cost. It could not say how many people would actually pick up for non-insured health benefits or post-secondary education as two programs they would be eligible for without a shadow of a doubt.

The government has not thought out the implementation of it, and I do not believe it has thought out the impacts of it. That, to me, speaks to an issue of sincerity. It does not do just do what it is forced to do. It goes beyond that and makes sure that once something comes into law, it has the means and resources to effectively deal with it.

Otherwise, what will it be like for a first nations woman or her children who can now get status when she finds out that she will be bogged down in bureaucratic red tape at the registration office, or for the new member of a band that does not have the resources to deal with those programs and benefits that the new member should receive as a registered Indian? That will not speak very highly of the government, which touts one thing in the House but does something different outside of it.

At the end of the day, there is a process in the House that I am not necessarily totally comfortable with, but we are part of it. We cannot change the bill. We have to live with what we have. It is not great, but we have to live with what we have.

We will be forced to vote on this particular bill. We may be grimacing or not quite happy doing so, but we may have to support it. That is what we are caught in so many times in the House.

With all sincerity, I believe the government sometimes designs things in this manner. To me, it does not speak well of a government when it designs things in a manner that puts parliamentarians in a very difficult position.

We tried to make amendments to the bill. We did everything in our power to amend the bill, first as a committee when it was referred to committee, and then as parliamentarians. We tried to make it more palatable to all of us here in the House, to make it more palatable to people like Sharon McIvor and other women and other families out there who want to end sex discrimination once and for all. The government shut us down and would not allow us to do it.

The procedure in the House is that we have to have consent many times in order for amendments to be made to a specific piece of legislation. When we brought those amendments forward, the government fought against them and said it did not want to broaden the scope of the bill. It only wanted to deal with what it was told to deal with by the B.C. Court of Appeal. That approach speaks volumes about a government that talks about equity but does something different.

In closing, I want to again thank the women and their families who have given so much of themselves and their lives to fight for equality in this country. Hopefully in the future we as a Parliament can be more open and more respectful to them and their needs in their fight for justice and equality.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague works very hard in his community. We have had a number of discussions about issues relative to aboriginal peoples. I look forward to working with him more to solve some of the problems that we see in each of our communities.

The question he has asked is how this will affect the number of registered Indians in our country. INAC chose to engage the services of Stewart Clatworthy, who is considered one of Canada's leading experts in aboriginal demography. He undertook a study to look at what numbers might be produced as a result of the changes brought about by McIvor. It is estimated that at this point, there may be up to 45,000 people who will become registered Indians, following any passage of Bill C-3 to address the McIvor issue.

How will we address costs relative to an additional 45,000 registered Indians? The minister and the government have compiled an internal financial impact working group to study this issue, to ensure that we are prepared for any cost consequences, so we get this right in the end. It has been working already at resolving the cost that may be anticipated by the addition of 45,000 new status Indians. We will wait for the group's work to be completed and come up with a number when that is done.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to express my support for Bill C-3, which we call the gender equity in Indian registration act. The legislation now before us represents an effective response to a ruling of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. The court ruled that certain registration sections of the Indian Act are discriminatory under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Rather than declare these provisions of the Indian Act to be immediately null and void, the court temporarily suspended the effect of its decision to allow Parliament to amend them. Should Parliament fail to amend these sections of the Indian Act before the suspension expires, which is now set to happen in January 2011, the court's ruling would take full effect. This would mean individuals residing in British Columbia or affiliated with B.C. bands could not be registered. As parliamentarians, we can play a central role in preventing this from occurring.

As I said, rather than declare these provisions of the Indian Act to be immediately null and void, the court temporarily suspended the effect of its decision to allow for Parliament to amend them. Should Parliament fail to amend these sections of the Indian Act before the suspension expires, which is now set to happen in January 2011, the court's ruling would take full effect. This would mean that individuals residing in British Columbia or affiliated with B.C. bands could not be registered. As parliamentarians, we can play a central role in preventing this from occurring.

To fully appreciate the advantages of Bill C-3, one must have at least a basic grasp of previous revisions of the Indian Act. I would like to take just a few minutes to remind my hon. colleagues of this historical context.

As my hon. colleagues recognize, the Indian Act provides the main framework for the relationship between registered Indians and Canada. Now more than 130 years old, the Indian Act has been amended many times. The heart of the ruling by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia touches on a series of amendments dating from the mid-1980s. The inspiration for these amendments was the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, along with a commitment by the Government of Canada to eliminate discriminatory aspects of federal legislation.

To accomplish this goal, the government of the day launched a comprehensive effort to amend the Indian Act. The discriminatory nature of the Indian Act was never in doubt. At the time, the legislation stipulated that a woman with Indian status would automatically lose her status if she married a man without status. A man with status, however, would retain status regardless of whom he married.

After considerable research, analysis, engagement, discussion and debate, Parliament endorsed a series of amendments in 1985, popularly known as Bill C-31. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia focused on the 1985 amendments and their effects on issues of status, entitlement and registration.

At issue are subsections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Indian Act. Subsection 6(1) includes a provision whereby Indian women who lost their status through marriage before 1985 can regain it, while the children of these women became entitled to first-time registration under subsection 6(2).

The new subsections significantly improved the Indian Act, and Bill C-31 soon became law.

At issue are subsections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Indian Act. The former includes a provision for Indian women who lost status through marriage before 1985 to regain it, while the children of these women became entitled to first-time registration in accordance with subsection 6(2).

The new subsections significantly improved the Indian Act and Bill C-31 soon became law. Although the amended Indian Act eliminated gender discrimination for the future, it did not solve the lingering effects of certain past gender discrimination. The descendants of an Indian brother and sister who had each married non-Indian spouses were still treated differently. Even though an Indian woman who had married a non-Indian could regain her status after 1985, her children would be eligible for registration under subsection 6(2), not under subsection 6(1), while their cousins, the children of an Indian man who had married an non-Indian woman before 1985, would be eligible for registration under subsection 6(1).

This also affects subsequent generations, because someone with subsection 6(2) status must parent with another person with Indian status in order to have a child who will be eligible for registration.

If a child has a parent with subsection 6(2) status and the other parent does not have status, the child will not be eligible for registration. So the grandchildren of women who regain status through subsection 6(1) would not be eligible for registration unless both their parents were registered Indians.

In contrast to this, the grandchildren of the Indian man and his non-Indian wife would be eligible for Indian registration even if they did not have two status Indian parents.

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia acknowledged that the 1985 legislation was a bona fide attempt to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex. At the same time it concluded that there was unequal treatment that needed to be rectified by Parliament through amendments to the Indian Act.

Rather than immediately striking down the offending sections of the Indian Act, the court called on the Government of Canada to implement a solution within a specified period, which has been extended to January 2011.

As soon as the Court rendered a decision in the McIvor case, the Government of Canada took action to identify and implement an effective solution, which became Bill C-3. The legislation now before us is the product of comprehensive study and engagement with first nations and other aboriginal groups.

Led by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the process began with the publication of a discussion paper outlining the issue and describing potential amendments to the Indian Act. The next step of the process involved a series of 12 engagement sessions staged across Canada. Three national aboriginal organizations, being the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the National Association of Friendship Centres, also co-sponsored one session each. A total of approximately 900 people participated in the sessions and INAC officials received more than 150 written submissions.

Based on the views expressed, federal legislation was drafted and introduced as Bill C-3 in March of this year. The House referred Bill C-3 to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for further study. The committee amended the bill, including a very broad amendment that significantly altered the bill and a corresponding amendment to the short title. Both of these amendments were subsequently struck from the bill as a result of a ruling that they were outside the scope of the bill.

The committee also removed one of the clauses of the bill and added a provision requiring the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to review and report on the impacts of Bill C-3 within two years following passage of the bill.

I was pleased to see that clause 9 was restored at report stage. Clause 9 is an important provision that protects not only the Crown, but also first nations from claims for compensation based on previous decisions regarding registration that were made in good faith.

Another government amendment at report stage made technical changes to clarify language in the provision requiring a report to Parliament.

With these changes, Bill C-3 fully deserves the support of the House.

We must do our utmost to ensure that the laws of Canada are charter compliant. This was reinforced by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia when granting an extension to provide more time for this important legislation to be passed by Parliament. The court stated:

We would also observe that while efforts of Members of Parliament to improve provisions of the Indian Act not touched by our decision are laudable, those efforts should not be allowed to unduly delay the passage of legislation that deals with the specific issues that this Court has identified as violating the Charter.

As individuals elected to represent Canadians and to uphold the law, it is our duty to act in the interest of justice. Concerns for equality and justice lie at the core of Bill C-3. In a tangible sense, a vote for the proposed legislation is also an expression of support for the notion that all Canadians are equal before the law.

The McIvor decision, along with the engagement sessions held last year, has touched off a healthy debate in this country about the Indian Act and a host of topics related to Indian identity. While this debate illustrates that our democracy is alive and well, this is a broader discussion about registration, membership and citizenship. That is why an exploratory process will be launched to explore outstanding issues not addressed in Bill C-3 once the bill is passed.

The legislation now before us aims to address a specific problem identified by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. Rather than discuss how well Bill C-3 would resolve this problem, however, many commentators have chosen to propose ways to overhaul the Indian registration regime or to replace the Indian Act in its entirety. The free exchange of ideas is always welcome, of course, but I encourage members of the House to focus on the specific merits of Bill C-3 as they respond directly to the court's decision.

The Government of Canada recognizes that opportunities exist to develop solutions to ongoing problems related to status, registration and citizenship. However, progress on these complex issues cannot be achieved in isolation or overnight without first passing Bill C-3.

As my hon. colleague no doubt recall, when Bill C-3 was introduced in this House, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced that an exploratory process would be launched to explore broader issues related to the Indian Act.

The process will feature close collaboration with national aboriginal organizations and various first nations groups. In fact, the government has already invited proposals from the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the National Association of Friendship Centres, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Métis National Council on the exploratory process.

Given the number of groups involved and the complex nature of topics, such as band membership, Indian registration and concepts of citizenship, a thorough discussion and analysis of these issues will take time. Given the importance of these topics, the process must not be rushed.

In the meantime, the court's January deadline draws steadily closer. The exploration of the broader issues of registration, membership and citizenship is important, however, this must not come at the expense of passing legislation that will eliminate the specific cause of gender discrimination as identified by the court of appeal for British Columbia.

Bill C-3 focuses solely on this purpose. From the outset, the goal has been to respond effectively to the court's ruling prior to the deadline. While this objective remains of primary importance, the proposed legislation would also have a number of other positive impacts.

As the members of this House are aware, discrimination is one of the barriers that prevents many first nations peoples from participating fully in Canada's prosperity. And Canada will never achieve its full potential until all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, can contribute to this country's social, cultural and economic fabric. The only way to eliminate the barrier of discrimination is to systematically address underlying causes, for example, by amending the sections of the Indian Act specifically identified by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.

As the members of the House recognize, discrimination is one of the barriers that prevents many first nations peoples from participating fully in Canada's prosperity. Canada will never realize its full potential until all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, can contribute to the social, cultural and economic fabric of our country. The only way to eliminate the barrier of discrimination is to systematically address underlying causes, such as by amending the sections of the Indian Act specifically identified by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.

Support for Bill C-3 would also strengthen the relationship between Canada and first nations peoples. In recent years the Government of Canada has worked alongside national aboriginal organizations and first nations groups to address a long list of issues, such as drinking water, education and child and family services, among others.

This collaborative, open and honest approach has fostered mutual respect and trust. It has also fostered significant progress on each one of these issues.

Bill C-3 offers an opportunity to further this momentum. Support for Bill C-3 sends a simple, explicit message: Canada will not tolerate unjust discrimination against first nations peoples.

More than 20 years ago our country enacted a landmark piece of legislation that speaks volumes about Canadian values. The Canadian of Rights and Freedoms has since become a cornerstone of our democracy, a practical instrument that protects even the most vulnerable of our citizens.

As the court has reminded us, Bill C-3 deals with the specific issues that violate the Charter, according to the court. That is why I encourage all of my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-3.

As the court has reminded us, Bill C-3 deals with the specific issues that it has identified as violating the charter. On that basis, I encourage all of my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-3.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

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 third time and passed.

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, let me make an undertaking to my colleague, the House leader of the official opposition, to make enquiries into that and respond to him in short order.

The House will continue today with the opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will continue debate, and I know the NDP will be excited about this, on Bill C-10, Senate term limits; Bill C-19, regarding political loans; followed by Bill S-3, tax conventions implementation.

On Monday and Tuesday of next week, we will call Bill S-3, tax conventions implementation; Bill C-3, gender equity in Indian registration; Bill C-28, fighting Internet and wireless spam; Bill C-22, protecting children; Bill C-29, safeguarding personal information; and Bill C-30, response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Shoker.

On Wednesday and Friday we will call Bill C-41, strengthening military justice; and Bill C-43, RCMP labour modernization.

Thursday will be an allotted day. I believe this allotted day will go to the Bloc Québécois.

With respect to a take note debate, there have been discussions amongst the parties. There have not been a lot of take note debates. Two weeks ago we had one on veterans issues. I believe next week we will be having one on the issue of pensions, which I know is a concern for all of us, but particularly this was brought forward by the House leader for the official opposition. I believe we are looking at Tuesday night for that.

I appreciate the co-operation we have had from all parties. This gives members an opportunity to bring issues relevant to their constituents forward in the House.

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the NDP opposition motion.

Pursuant to any order adopted by the House earlier today, the vote on that opposition motion will take place on Tuesday, November 16 at the end of government orders.

Tomorrow the House will have the occasion to debate at second reading Bill C-32, Copyright Modernization Act, and the backup bill, should debate conclude at second reading, will be Bill S-9, Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act, which I know is a key priority of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Next week, as the member opposite said, is a constituency week. I encourage all members to remember and recognize the sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed forces, on November 11.

When we return on Monday, November 15, we will call a number of bills, including Bill C-3, Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, Bill C-31, Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act, Bill C-35, Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, Bill C-20, An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, Bill C-28, Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, Bill C-22, Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act and Bill C-48, Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. We would also consider calling other bills that may have returned from committee by the time we return.

Thursday, November 18, shall be the next allotted day.

In closing, I wish all members a productive constituency week.

Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to 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).

The Bloc Québécois had indicated its support for studying Bill C-3 in committee. Since the bill would allow people who suffered discrimination because of Bill C-31 passed in 1985 to reconnect with their origins, we felt it deserved further study. As I just mentioned, Bill C-3 would repair the injustices created by Bill C-31 some 25 years ago. In other words, the federal government waited a quarter of a century to repair the injustices it had created itself. Even then, it had to be forced by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia ruling in the McIvor case. Thus we cannot talk about Bill C-3 without recalling how this aboriginal mother had to fight to have her rights and those of her children recognized. Sharon McIvor kept up her fight for many long years. Without her and her struggle, we would not be discussing this bill here today in the House.

To understand the implications of Bill C-3, we need to turn back the clock just a bit. Injustices against aboriginal women are nothing new. In 1876, the Indian Act stipulated that an aboriginal woman lost her rights and stopped being an Indian under the act if she married a non-aboriginal man. Obviously, an aboriginal man who married a non-aboriginal woman did not lose his Indian status. Aboriginal women have experienced a great deal of discrimination with regard to their race, gender and marital status. The Indian Act has contributed to marginalizing women and diminishing their social and political role in the communities. Since this legislation has a direct impact on lineage, the children of these women have also been discriminated against.

In 1951, the Indian Act was amended, but again, a woman who married a non-Indian could not be registered in the new federal register of status Indians and therefore could not enjoy the rights that such status entailed. In 1985, following changes to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Bill C-31 was introduced to close the loophole in the Indian Act, but women's children still did not have the same rights as men's children.

Those who are paying close attention will have noticed that more than 100 years after the Indian Act was created, the rights of aboriginal women's children were still not guaranteed. It would take another 25 years for the federal government to introduce a bill to recognize the Indian status of people who had been discriminated against in the past. Were it not for Ms. McIvor's legal journey, the government might never have introduced Bill C-3, which we are discussing today, as a response to this discrimination. Many will say that this bill does not go far enough.

One such person is Michèle Taina Audette, another mother and a representative of the AMUN March, whose battle continues. I will read an excerpt from her testimony at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development:

In my opinion, Bill C-3...merely complies with the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in McIvor v. Canada...[and] the department is using this bill to do as little as possible about the problem...there may be serious problems as a result in the short, medium and long terms...Let us put an end, once and for all, to the discrimination that has existed for too long a time already...Aboriginal women continue to be victims of discrimination based on gender....

Bill C-3 would recognize the Indian status of people who have so far not been recognized as Indian and could therefore not benefit from the rights enjoyed by status Indians, such as the right to live on a reserve and to vote in band council elections.

Bill C-3, which was introduced thanks to Sharon McIvor's efforts, corrects these injustices, but it does not go far enough, because it allows certain other injustices to persist. That is why the Bloc Québécois proposed several amendments, all of which were deemed inadmissible.

People will have no trouble understanding that the Bloc Québécois believes strongly in nation-to-nation negotiation. That is why we have always consulted with our aboriginal partners in Quebec when preparing to vote on bills that affect them.

This time is no exception. The Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and Quebec Native Women were among those who felt that Bill C-3 failed to correct certain injustices, so that is why we initially decided to vote against the bill.

Sleeping on issues like this helps, and so does thinking about it over the summer. This summer, members of various Quebec aboriginal groups and associations discussed this matter at length. They decided that it would be better to accept the federal government's offer, so they asked us to apply a “bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” philosophy. The Bloc Québécois will therefore vote in favour of Bill C-3. I think this is a good time to share the words of Ellen Gabriel. Here is what she told the committee:

...for membership, you have to be a status Indian. That doesn't necessarily mean that if you have status, you have membership. That's been the problem for a lot of indigenous women who regained their status in 1985 but who are not allowed to live in their communities, to be buried in their communities, or to own land that their parents give to them... If this bill is going to be passed...then we need some guarantees that band councils will also respect it.

Ellen Gabriel is the president of Quebec Native Women.

I must stress that the federal government promised to establish an exploratory process. It committed to working with aboriginal organizations to establish an “inclusive process for the purpose of information gathering and the identification of the broader issues for discussion surrounding Indian registration, band membership and First Nations citizenship.” The government's intention is not very clear, and neither are the objectives of this exercise. Will it be a proper consultation, for the purpose of amending the Indian Act to bring it into line with the expectations of aboriginals? Will the issue of registration, band membership and citizenship be resolved? This exploratory process will take place before the implementation of Bill C-21, which would repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and which would apply to reserves as of June 2011. So it is important to use these consultations to identify the problems with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to the Indian register.

Another problem with the enforcement of Bill C-3 is that the federal government did not do its homework and has not estimated the cost of adding people to the Indian register. The Bloc Québécois does think that we should register new Indians, but not at the expense of those who are already registered. In other words, the federal government will have to increase funding for first nations to ensure that the needs of new registered Indians are met, while still meeting the needs of those who are already registered.

In conclusion, I want to remind all members in this House that they have a duty to ensure justice and fairness for aboriginal women and their children, and I urge members to support Bill C-3. I would also like to remind the federal government that, although it stated its intention in the latest throne speech, it has still not endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is shameful.

The House resumed from May 25 consideration of 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), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I did want to stand in my place and correct the record.

Earlier today, in answering a question, I neglected to mention the good work of the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification as a woman serving in this cabinet. As well, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the hon. Marjory LeBreton, makes a very powerful and substantial contribution to this government.

I am also pleased to report that the four House leaders are working well together. We have got off to a very good start.

Today is an opposition day for the Bloc Québécois and we will continue to debate on that for the rest of the day.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on second reading of Bill C-46, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement; followed by Bill S-9, the tackling auto theft and property crime legislation.

On Monday and Tuesday we will begin with Bill S-9, on tackling auto theft and property crime; followed by Bill C-46, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement; report stage of Bill C-3, gender equity in Indian registration; Bill C-42, strengthening aviation security; Bill C-29, safeguarding Canadians' personal information; Bill C-30, on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v. Shoker; Bill C-41, strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada; and Bill S-2, protecting victims from sex offenders.

On Wednesday we will begin debate on Bill C-49, the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act. If debate on Bill C-49 concludes, we will continue with the business that I outlined on Monday and Tuesday.

The House leader for the official opposition also requested to know about the second budget bill, for the fall. We have begun debate on that. We have already adopted the ways and means motion, but we certainly will be calling it again before the November Remembrance Day break week for constituents. That is obviously an important piece of legislation that we look forward to having the opportunity to debate in this place.

I also neglected to mention the hard work of another member of the priorities and planning committee, the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

[Chief Guy Lonechild, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to all members and of course a special recognition for MP Kelly Block from Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar. Good morning.

She got us here. She invited us. So thank you very much.

I'm joined by Chief Marie-Anne Day Walker-Pelletier. My name is Chief Guy Lonechild, from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. As chief of the FSIN I represent 74 first nations in Saskatchewan. Our organization is committed to honouring the spirit and intent of the treaties. This means promoting, protecting, and implementing our rights under treaty.

It has been almost a decade since the FSIN last presented to this committee during a pre-budget submission consultation. The last time was October 30, 2001. Unfortunately, not a whole lot has changed from ten years ago. Although some gains have been made, the disparity between first nations and other Canadians remains virtually unchanged in many areas. I'm going to highlight only the most important priority areas where all levels of government should focus their resources to effect positive change.

First nations education is a prerequisite to all other issues on the agenda. It is key to improving the overall economic and social wellbeing of first nations. However, a majority of first nations people in Saskatchewan are failing to utilize education as a foundation for building better lives for themselves, their families, and communities.

Only about one-half of the aboriginal adult population in Saskatchewan has a high school diploma, at 51% compared to 72% of the non-aboriginal population in the province. The situation is worse on reserve, where only 46% of residents have graduated from high school.

Saskatchewan first nations have outstanding capacity for delivering improved education services to first nations. There's no other region in Canada that can clearly demonstrate a more comprehensive educational infrastructure, which has been built over the last 30 years of experience and capacity. The FSIN is committed to addressing the issues preventing first nations living on and off reserve in Saskatchewan from achieving a level of education comparable to the rest of Canadians.

What is required for us to tackle these longstanding issues is a new partnership with the federal and provincial governments in the area of education. What happens in Saskatchewan can be a model for the rest of Canada.

The federal government is cognizant of the need to collaborate on education. In the 2010 Speech from the Throne, a commitment was made by the federal government to work hand in hand with aboriginal communities and provinces and territories to reform and strengthen education, and to support student success and provide greater hope and opportunity. I expect a similar commitment from the throne this year, accompanied by financial support.

Currently the FSIN is advancing two important initiatives targeted at significantly improving the substance and quantity of the first nations educational attainment. These include a trilateral task force and a youth action plan with the FSIN as an equal partner in the development, design, and delivery of first nations education in Saskatchewan. It will address major issues such as comparable funding and incorporating language and curriculum into the education system, both on and off reserve.

As mentioned in our written brief, we urge you to provide support for first nations education by providing capacity funding for the urgent work of the education task force and providing a level of funding for first nations schools comparable to that of the province.

Although we couldn't go into detail in this verbal briefing, we also need support for an aboriginal youth employment strategy in Saskatchewan and additional financial support for the restructuring of First Nations University of Canada. Increasing funding for the post-secondary student support program is also necessary.

On March 3, 2010, the Minister of Indian Affairs introduced 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. Bill C-3 proposes to make the grandchildren of women who lost status as a result of marrying non-Indian men eligible for registration for Indian status in accordance with the Indian Act. The proposed amendments do not extend to other situations. Approximately 40,000 people nationwide would become eligible. Additional funding will need to be provided to first nations for this increase to the population, as this will affect housing, health, education, and social assistance for first nations.

In July 2009 the FSIN created the chiefs' task force on citizenship to develop a first nations citizenship framework to support the first nations legislating their own citizenship act. The treaty governance office and the chiefs' task force on citizenship developed a proposal to which INAC has not yet responded. The work of the task force must continue, so we are asking for support on this.

Finally, INAC is not consulting on Bill C-3, promising only to provide an engagement process after Bill C-3 is passed.

Chief Marie-Anne Day Walker-Pelletier insists that first nations have a right to self-government. A fundamental part of this is determining the criteria of their own citizens. INAC has established a financial impacts working group to analyze and make recommendations on how to address the financial requirements and the impact of additional registrations on first nations and the department.

We have not had full disclosure from this committee. We will file an access to information request to get full disclosure. Canada and INAC should not be setting our Indian governments up for failure. On a matter of citizenship, the first nations' agenda is far ahead of INAC's, which is simply to plug one more small hole in a sinking ship called the Indian Act.

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

I don't have much more to add, but I would like to explain something to the parliamentary secretary. Our committee has delegated the responsibility of establishing the procedure and the agenda to the subcommittee ever since it was created. When we come back before the committee, the agenda is presented. The committee as a whole may decide to review the agenda. Not all committees operate in the same way, but the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development decided that the large 12-member committee should not sit all the time and that the subcommittee would be responsible for pruning down the daily routine and preparing the meetings in order to save time.

For example, if we adopt—we have since adopted it—Mr. Lévesque's motion, the subcommittee will set the number of meetings and make a recommendation. It will probably also ask the members of the committee if they want to call witnesses and to let the subcommittee know as soon as possible. It would be the same procedure for all the other motions. With all due respect, that is why I find the parliamentary secretary's motion premature. So I encourage her to withdraw it, even if we discuss it in subcommittee. Otherwise, we would certainly not be able to support the motion if we had to vote. It would be a shame to start our work with the parliamentary secretary by defeating her motion. I urge her to withdraw this motion and present it to the subcommittee, which will be sitting in a few minutes.

To conclude, Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that it has been like this since 2006. The subcommittee is made up of representatives from each political party.The subcommittee decided that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would be present to provide us with information that will allow us to move our work forward. Initially, there was only the chair of the committee, the two vice chairs and a representative—in this committee's case—from the Bloc Québécois. We wanted to be more open and allow the parliamentary secretary to be present without the right to vote in order to get information and get things done faster.

Let's take Bill C-3 for example. We ask the parliamentary secretary to check with the minister when he'll be available to appear before us and so on. That way, we save a lot of time. For us, the subcommittee is like a working committee that reports to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It saves us a huge amount of time.

[Shelagh Day]

Thank you very much.

Maybe I could add just one very brief comment about Bill C-3. As it stands at the moment, Bill C-3 still leaves out many hundreds--and perhaps thousands--of aboriginal women and their descendants, purely because of the sex discrimination in the Indian Act that for decades has preferred the male line of descent over the matrilineal line of descent.

So it is a very strong appeal to you to fix this problem once and for all and actually include the Indian women and their descendants who have been discriminated against. I thank you for raising the question, because it's extraordinarily important, and Canada has the chance now to get this one right. It would be wonderful if Parliament would do that.

[Laura Holland]

I'm going to ask Shelagh to talk about the law specifically, but what I can tell you is about the lived experience and the effects it has on aboriginal women. Real matrimonial property rights are something aboriginal women have been dealing with for decades, if not centuries. To put it realistically, the issue has always been a problem.

It's almost impossible for a woman to leave an abusive or violent relationship or to leave a man who is violent or sexually violent towards her children. When she does leave, she is leaving a reserve and going to another reserve or a town or a city to live in poverty, and then the whole cycle of women living in poverty starts all over again. We think this is something that needs to be remedied, and it needs to be taken care of right away.

Bill C-3is Sharon McIvor's bill. I can tell you how it affects my life today. One of my grandparents was what we call disenfranchised in 1947 so he could actually go to work and have a paying job off reserve. He said he wasn't an animal and he didn't deserve to be penned up like one. He wanted to be able to travel and vote, so he was disenfranchised and he lost his Indian status.

I got mine back in 1986 under Bill C-31, as did my daughters. But my sons' father is white. My sons have the life experience of aboriginal men. They have the life experience of aboriginal men who have lived in poverty most of their lives, and they do not have status and have no chance of getting status the way it is right now, even with the way Bill C-3 stands today. It's still discriminatory against my children and me.

[Grand Chief Anne Archambault]

Thank your for your question, Ms. Demers.

You referred to the silence that prevails with respect to violence against women. But the Aboriginal Women's Association was created several years ago. Mary Two-Axe Early, who lobbied in favour of Bill C-31, did a lot of advocacy work towards combating violence against women and poverty quite a few years ago. Naturally, a lot of Quebec and Canadian media seize on these issues. But there are few Aboriginal journalists. For a number of years now, we have been denouncing violence and women's poverty. Mary Two-Axe Early and Evelyn O'Bomsawin, the two founders of the Quebec Aboriginal Women's Association were engaged in that work. In fact, they took me by the hand and showed me how to continue the struggle.

In public, people say that Indians drink and take drugs. We are speaking out against this in whatever way we can, but our demands seem to fall on death ears.

As regards the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, my view is that this document is written in simple terms and tells the truth about Aboriginal peoples, particularly the article dealing with women and children. From the very beginning, we have been victims of discrimination. We are also victimized by the poverty imposed on us. We are trying to extricate ourselves from this cycle of victimization, but we have neither the means nor the budget to do so. Using the little we have to work with, we are trying to make our voices heard.

Yesterday we met with parliamentarians, including one senator. We are at the point now where we are prepared to do anything and everything. Our quest is one that began a long time ago. Many women have been living through this for many years. There was Bill C-31, and then there was Bill C-3, some of which is discriminatory, and there are also a number of other articles in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Renée Brassard, Assistant professor, School of Social Work, Université Laval, As an Individual]

Good morning, my name is Renée Brassard. I teach at the School of Social Work, but I am a criminologist by training.

Today my comments will be quite brief, because some of the points I intended to address have already been made by the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador. I have jotted down a few comments and will limit myself to those. I have also tabled a summary of recommendations with the committee and you will see what I had in mind in so doing.

It is a well-known fact that violence against Aboriginal women in both Canada and Quebec is one of the direct consequences of colonialism and a history punctuated by government policies that have resulted in cultural erosion, the ongoing breakdown of family and other relationships, and poverty and underdevelopment which persists to this day.

I would like to draw the attention of committee members to the fact that, over the last two decades, several Canadian commissions of inquiry, expert reports and studies have all reiterated the fact that Aboriginal women constitute the segment of the population most affected by violence in Canada. It is also acknowledged that violence against Aboriginal women is an endemic problem. So, this is not something that is receding. Quite the contrary, it is a persistent problem which is growing worse.

That violence can take several different forms, as you so aptly pointed out, Madam Chair. The forms of violence faced by Aboriginal women are many: physical, sexual, psychological, systemic, institutional, legislative—as we see at present with the discussions on Bill C-3—communal, and also spiritual. By “communal” violence, I mean abuse of authority against Aboriginal women in communities all across Canada, whereas spiritual violence refers to the loss of traditional values and the destruction of individual cultural or religious beliefs.

The current state of knowledge regarding violence against Aboriginal women in Canada is such that we now know that different factors that are still in play conspire to keep Aboriginal women in Canada in these sad circumstances and allow the violence that afflicts them to be perpetuated. What I wanted to specifically address are the main factors which encourage or allow the violent situations facing Aboriginal women in Canada to occur and recur. Of these factors, I would like to mention these in particular: a lack of political will at the federal, provincial and local levels; the lack of autonomy of Aboriginal communities in terms of directing their own development; a system of economic and legislative dependency which keeps the Aboriginal communities in a state of underdevelopment and gives rise to social inequality and multiple forms of discrimination; limited access to power by Aboriginal women; the presence—obviously—of a vicious cycle of violence because of the relational proximity within the communities, complete silence on this issue and an attitude of resignation in relation to the violence; and, finally, inadequate social responses, which have been recognized over and over again in a variety of reports as being ineffective and culturally inappropriate.

When I refer to social responses to violence against Aboriginal women, I am obviously referring to piecemeal interventions, a lack of resources for Aboriginal men—we tend to prefer incarcerating Aboriginal men, rather than helping them to heal and be rehabilitated—and, Madam Chair, the criminalization and overrepresentation of Aboriginals in our prison institutions. I'm sure you also know that Canada is one of the countries that jails more Aboriginal people than any other country in the world, compared to societies such as Australia, New Zealand and the United States.

If we want to stop violence against Aboriginal women in Canada, it is necessary to acknowledge the valuable potential solutions and recommendations that can be found in the major studies carried out in Canada in the last two decades, and which are underused even now. The report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People, which does suggest potential solutions, should also be revisited.

Furthermore, I think it is important to point out that this work, which was often carried out under the auspices of several Aboriginal organizations in Canada, has the merit of having given a voice to many Aboriginal women, as well as many different Aboriginal groups in Canada with respect to violence against women, children, men and a whole people. As a means of guiding the committee's work, I have gathered together here a number of recommendations which warrant your attention.

In closing, in light of these facts, we urge the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women to take full advantage of whatever flexibility it has to ensure that these recommendations are actually implemented, in order to foster the well-being of women, men and all Aboriginal communities in Canada.

Thank you.

[Ellen Gabriel]

I was going to throw it in there. One of the challenges we face with regard to matrimonial real property is that there is a housing shortage in the community, so it's difficult to start a business. The other thing is that a judge will have to look at matrimonial real property and know the Indian Act. How many civil court judges know the Indian Act? If they don't know it, how is the community supposed to filter through this?

The other issue is that in remote communities, those women do not have access to legal aid, as we do closer to cities like Montreal or Quebec City. So there's a vacuum with regard to their access to justice. The bill does not address that particular section and that reality of aboriginal women.

There was a lack of adequate consultation. We had a month and a half to consult. I think most Canadians, if there are going to be legislative changes in Canada, are granted a year. There was a 500-page report from Wendy Grant-John, who was the minister's appointed representative. There were hardly any, if any, recommendations from that report: 500 pages and nothing in it talks about what the communities were saying.

I think the problem we have among ourselves is a lot of our communities don't even know what MRP is. They don't know the details involved in MRP. From what I've heard, they're asking for the rejection of this MRP bill, which we don't want to happen. We want the MRP bill to pass with amendments, just as we want Bill C-3 to pass with amendments, but the government is not listening. They're not accommodating our concerns.

Consultation...it's not just about our opinions. It's about accommodating our concerns. It's about a dialogue. It's about a partnership. That has not happened in any of the engagement sessions I have been involved in, nor the brief consultations there were on MRP.

For fee simple, yes, we have certificates of possession. Yes, we have these tiny pieces of land that are reserved for our benefit and use. I think what has not been discussed for our communities is that we want to be able to have the same kinds of economic opportunities that other people have. If we're to put up our land as collateral and we lose that land, it's taking what little we do have from our communities.

I know Mr. Jules is travelling right across Canada. For me, it's just another form of the white paper policy that was rejected in the 1970s. It's not adequate. You can't take what happens in the rest of Canada and put it in our communities. It doesn't work.

We want to have protection for our land, for future generations and for the present generation. Fee simple is not the best idea, I think, to help economic development. We need access to our land, to our resources. We need to sit down and dialogue with government. We should not have this “talk down” or “talking at”.

The government deals with the issues of aboriginal people in a very archaic, paternalistic way. It's 2010, for goodness' sake. We know all about your culture, but it's as if our culture is irrelevant: “It's going to be put in a museum, so you should be happy. That's how we're going to protect your culture.” It just doesn't work.

Thank you.

[Michael Wernick]

On the first one, my understanding would be the Powley program the minister referred to sunsetted so we couldn't get it in the main estimates. It was renewed. Cabinet took the decision. It was approved by Treasury Board and it has shown up in supplementary estimates. That is typically what happens with sunsetters. It's not always helpful to Parliament to understand the flow of that, but that's what's happened on that one.

On Bill C-3, the minister explained that since we didn't know whether the bill would pass, when it would pass, and in what form it would pass it wouldn't be possible to get money appropriated or ask for money to be appropriated relative to the cost of implementing Bill C-3. Depending on how the bill goes, there could be very different numbers of people entitled to registration.

We have the expert panel presided over by Mr. Emerson, and we would expect to go to cabinet this fall based on the final form of the bill, if it passes, and some work on its likely cost. We have put a lot of that out there, and there are really only two areas likely to experience immediate pressure, because we expect about 95% of the people who will be enfranchised to be off reserve on day one, so they would be eligible for Health Canada's health benefits program, and we can do the ballpark of how many people multiplied by typical use of that program. The other would be our own post-secondary program that Ms. Crowder was asking about.

Other than that, you have to make some assumptions about whether people will ever want to move back to their reserve communities or not.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Todd Russell]

I really appreciate that, sir.

My last question deals with the Office of the Federal Interlocutor. In the main estimates there was a huge decrease, and then in supplementary estimates A there seemed to be a replenishing of the funds at OFI. Can you explain just what's happening there?

My final question is about Bill C-3. If Bill C-3 were to go forward, have any moneys whatsoever been budgeted for the possibility of new entrants, even based on Mr. Clatworthy's sense of when people might come on stream?

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

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming before us today. It's probably no surprise to you that I have a number of questions.

Just around Jordan's Principle, on pages 11 and 25 in the plans and priorities your department mentions its ongoing commitment to implementing Jordan's Principle, but I can't tell how much money is earmarked for it. You may not be able to tell me that today; I just wondered whether somebody could tell me how much money is earmarked for the implementation of Jordan's Principle.

I want to follow up on the status piece that Mr. Lemay asked about. Page 26 of the report on plans and priorities—and it may be that I'm not understanding this—talks under “Managing Individual Affairs” about the process around status. There is a significant increase in that line item over last fiscal year on page 15-8 in the main estimates. There is a substantial difference from last year, a substantial increase.

I know that the fate of Bill C-3 is unknown, but it's not only the money for people who may increase the number with status; it's also money for the department in terms of dealing with a potential increased registration process.

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

Thank you.

Here is a trick question. Were Bill C-3 to be passed—which would be unfortunate, in my view—would the funds be available? It is estimated that 40,000 to 45,000 more people would be integrated. I do not see any administration funding anywhere in the supplementary estimates. Has money been allocated for that?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I'm glad to see that none of your committee members yelled “Debate” when you mentioned how the chair looked. I thought it was obviously a sign of respect for the chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome this opportunity to bring committee members up to date on activities within my portfolio.

With me today are Michael Wernick, Deputy Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and Nicole Jauvin, President of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency.

The main estimates before this committee reflect the resources we are asking Parliament to appropriate, to fulfill the many responsibilities of my mandate as minister. You mentioned that the other supplementaries are also included in this discussion. I'd be very pleased to answer questions on these estimates following my opening remarks.

However, I would like to first talk about the key issues on which I want to focus in the next 12 months. Many of these you will recognize as they are a continuation of our long-term agenda to make tangible improvements to the quality of life for aboriginal and northern peoples and communities. As the Speech from the Throne and budget 2010 reinforced, our government remains committed to building a stronger, healthier relationship with aboriginal people and to realizing the vast potential of Canada's north. We're focusing our efforts on achieving a real and measurable difference in the lives of aboriginal people and northerners.

And we are making steady progress.

A special acceleration of these efforts came from Canada's economic action plan. Our government earmarked $1.9 billion over two years for investment in aboriginal skills and training, in housing and infrastructure, and in support of the northern strategy. I've been pleased to table quarterly progress reports on these investments, most recently in March of this year. All these reports are available on my department's website.

As members of this committee will know, my mandate is a broad one. Today I would like to divide my remarks into two parts. Let me discuss aboriginal issues first. Our activities in the past are a good indication of where we intend to concentrate our efforts in the future.

We are pursuing a busy legislative agenda. For instance, I strongly encourage all parties to support Bill C-3. Without this important legislation, the key section of the Indian Act dealing with entitlement to registration will cease to have legal effect in British Columbia. This could have serious consequences. Approximately 3,000 people per year will be denied their basic right to register for Indian status and to access associated benefits if we don't pass that bill—as well as the many other thousands of people across the country who could access it as well.

Bill S-4, proposed legislation to resolve the longstanding issue of on-reserve matrimonial real property, is being considered in the Senate, and I will be speaking fairly soon in the Senate committee as well.

Bill C-24, introduced on May 12, proposes to facilitate the development of major commercial real estate on reserve land. I thank many committee members for speaking to me about that, and I appreciate your support for that bill.

Bill C-25, also introduced on May 12, would ensure clarity, consistency, and legal certainty with respect to land use, planning, and environmental processes in Nunavut.

Just yesterday we introduced Bill S-11, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which would enable the Government of Canada to continue making tangible progress on its commitment to improving water conditions on reserve.

I would like to thank the committee members for their work and encourage their cooperation and support in moving these important legislative initiatives forward.

We are also working hand in hand with aboriginal communities and the provinces and territories to reform and strengthen child and family services and education. Building on that, budget 2010 commits $53 million over two years to ensure further progress toward a prevention-based approach to child and family services for first nation children and parents.

It's obvious these investments are very necessary. The aboriginal population in Canada is young. It's growing. For example, the population of first nations on reserve has a higher proportion of youth under 24 than the population of Canada as a whole. Certainly, Inuit population growth is even higher.

An increasingly young population creates a growing demand for education, social development, and community infrastructure, and these vital investments play an important role in building strong communities and enabling aboriginal people to reach their full potential.

That's why budget 2010 provides $30 million over two years to support an implementation-ready tripartite K to 12 education agreement. I am pleased to report further progress to develop tripartite partnerships in education. In February, a memorandum of understanding was signed by the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs of Alberta, the Government of Alberta, and the Government of Canada, ensuring that first nations students receive comparable instruction and obtain comparable results whether the classroom is located on or off reserve.

Aboriginal leadership, including National Chief Shawn Atleo, has identified economic development as a key driver toward greater independence and self-reliance. This government agrees. Investments in economic development enable aboriginal people and northerners to achieve a better quality of life through economic participation built on strong foundations of governance, human capital, and infrastructure. After all, the best social policy is to create a strong economy.

In addition to expenditures for basic services, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada promotes economic development in aboriginal communities and business opportunities, both on and off reserve. My department also negotiates and oversees the implementation of comprehensive and specific claim settlements, including the implementation of practical forms of self-government.

Let me turn now to my northern mandate.

Our government is moving forward with the implementation of the northern strategy. We are making significant progress in creating a world-class high Arctic research station. Twenty partners across Canada's Arctic have seen their science and research facilities improved thanks to our Arctic research infrastructure fund.

Furthermore, we are actively reforming the northern regulatory regime to ensure that the resources in the region and their potential can be developed, while securing a better process to protect the environment. On May 3 I announced our government's action plan to improve the north's regulatory regimes, which builds on progress we have seen to date and takes important strides to make regulatory frameworks strong, effective, efficient, and predictable. We are working to give northerners a greater say over their own future and taking steps to pave the way to successful devolution.

Budget 2010 laid out our vision and investments under year two of Canada's economic action plan. Strategic investments valued at more than $100 million over two years will improve the business climate and address key health care challenges in the north.

Of course, one of the perpetual challenges of life in the north is access to healthy food. To help northerners meet this challenge, just last week I announced a new northern food retail subsidy program I call “Nutrition North”. This new program will make healthy food more accessible and affordable to people in isolated northern communities. Northerners helped us to design that. A lot of consultation went into this, and northerners will help oversee its implementation through an advisory board.

The main estimates for the first time include $61 million in funding for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, or CanNor. CanNor was created in August 2009 and is the first-ever regional development agency for the north and the only federal agency headquartered in the north. Its specific mandate is to coordinate and deliver federal economic development activities tailored to the unique needs of northern Canada and is an important achievement of our northern strategy.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to our main estimates, the $7.3 billion that is allocated to programs and services at INAC reflects a net increase of about $367 million. That's a 5.3% increase over last year. With the addition of the supplementary estimates (A) for my department, tabled in the House on May 25, INAC's budget for 2010-11 will reach approximately $7.5 billion.

Mr. Chair, these expenditures reflect our government's commitment to address the essential needs of Métis, Inuit, first nations peoples and northerners.

The main estimates will advance these goals by taking timely, targeted action in areas such as housing, education, self-governance, and land claims. Working collaboratively with aboriginal people and northerners, these investments will make a difference and help secure a prosperous future.

I'm honoured that Prime Minister Harper has entrusted me with this important mandate, and I look forward to maintaining a very constructive relationship with your members as we continue to advance what I think is a very ambitious agenda both in Parliament and here in committee.

Thank you very much.

Motions in Amendment

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour today to stand up for Bill C-3.

I first want to thank the chair of the committee for getting the bill to us. I know there was a difficult time in committee. The chair, the member for Simcoe North, did an excellent job. I know the committee brought many amendments forward that the chair overruled, and the committee members then overruled him. However, fortunately the chair overruled them. So the chair was right, and I appreciate the hard work that the chair is doing on the committee.

I have been here all morning. I am not fortunate enough to be on the committee, but I heard a number of questions and I would like to take the time left to answer them.

I was here studying the main estimates for my own committee meeting this afternoons at the Standing Committee on Finance. I am looking forward to talking with the witnesses from the finance department and CRA on their estimates. The question is why is Bill C-3 not financed in the main estimates?

For those in the House who should know, the staff began to work on the main estimates back in the fall of 2009. They go through a number of processes before they get to the main book that we have now.

The fact is that it is very premature to have the proposed law before us in the main estimates. I would expect that when the bill passes, there will be some financial implications. These are dealt with in either the supplementary estimates (A), (B) or (C). That is why we have supplementary estimates in this place, so that when things change, when the government makes a decision, when this Parliament makes a decision, they are able to add those costs through the supplementary estimates process.

That is why each and every one of us should pay attention to the supplementary estimates. Then we will know where we are spending taxpayers' money. In this case, I think this is an excellent project for us to be spending money on in the upcoming estimates.

Another question that needs to be asked is, if there is legislative vacuum in British Columbia because of delays in passing the bill, what will be the consequences and how may individuals will be affected? That is a good question, and I am not sure how many on the opposition benches asked this question. However, the answer is that we need this bill passed by July 5 to address the court's ruling. Without it, no one living in the province of British Columbia or anyone affiliated with first nations in that province would be a registered status Indian. Based on our analysis over the last few years, there will be 2,500 to 3,000 people newly registered status Indians per year in British Columbia.

Therefore, it would be silly for us not to move ahead and meet the court's deadline, because of the change required by the court's ruling in British Columbia.

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

Madam Speaker, I would have liked my colleague to have heard all the debate and also attended the meetings of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. However, I know that she is very busy.

I will tell her why we will vote against Bill C-3. Not only does it fail to end discrimination but it will maintain systemic discrimination—systemic, meaning part of the system—and ensure that 100,000 aboriginal people, for the most part women, will not be entitled to Indian status. That is the problem: they are women, and because they are women this is not a serious matter, and registering them is not a requirement. That is what we are fighting for. What is fairly surprising is that even Ms. McIvor, who began this debate, is telling us to not vote for this bill because it will not solve the problem.

I would like to know why the member's government, which had the opportunity to end this discrimination, which had the chance to abolish this discrimination, did not do so when it introduced Bill C-3?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, as the only elected Métis woman in the House of Commons, I am very proud to say today that I fully support Bill C-3, the gender equity in Indian registration act. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak at report stage of this proposed legislation.

To appreciate the logic behind Bill C-3, one must first understand the problem it will fix.

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

The court suspended the effect of its declaration until April 6, 2010, and has since extended that deadline to July 5. If no solution is in place at that time, paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) of the Indian Act, dealing with entitlement to registration, will, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist in the province of British Columbia. This legislative gap would prevent the registration of individuals associated with British Columbia bands.

Bill C-3 would amend the Indian Act to eliminate the language that gives rise to the gender discrimination identified in section 6. Let me explain how the proposed amendments would affect the rules that determine entitlement to Indian status here in Canada.

Essentially, Sharon McIvor, the plaintiff in the original case, alleged that the 1985 amendments to the registration provisions of the Indian Act, still known today as Bill C-31, constitute gender discrimination as defined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ms. McIvor, an Indian woman, married and had a son with a non-Indian man. Her son went on to marry and have children with a non-Indian woman. Under the Indian Act, however, those children, Ms. McIvor's grandchildren, are not eligible to become status Indians.

Part of the problem stems from a series of amendments to the Indian Act that were introduced in Bill C-31 and enacted back in 1985. These amendments tried to end the discrimination experienced by specific groups. In its decision, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia stated that Bill C-31 “represents a bona fide attempt to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex”.

However, the approach adopted in Bill C-31 inadvertently introduced a new level of complexity. Allow me to cite two specific examples.

The first involves something known as the double mother rule under the pre-1985 legislation. The rule applied to the legitimate children of an Indian man and non-Indian woman. If the male son of that union married a non-Indian woman, their children lost status at age 21.

The second example involves the case of an Indian woman who marries a non-Indian man. Prior to 1985, the woman lost her status, and the children of that marriage could not register at all.

Bill C-31 addressed these situations in two ways. Subsection 6(1) enabled Indian women who lost status through marriage to regain it, while subsection 6(2) enabled the children of these women to register.

While this approach eliminated gender-based discrimination in the first generation, it created issues for people in subsequent generations. At least part of the reason for this is that the amendments stipulated that if someone who was registered under subsection 6(2) was a parent with a non-Indian spouse, their children would not be eligible for registration.

To appreciate how this approach leads to gender-based discrimination, we must return to the decision of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia in comparing the situation of Sharon McIvor to that of her brother. The brother's children would maintain Indian status under subsection 6(1) of the amended Indian Act. However, Ms. McIvor's son acquired status under subsection 6(2), and when Ms. McIvor's son became a parent with a non-Indian woman, their children were not entitled to registration. This shows that the consequences of two successive generations involving marriage to a non-Indian differ, in that one started from a male line and another from a female line.

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia took issue with the fact that Bill C-31, in eliminating the double mother rule, granted lifetime status to the grandchildren of two successive generations of mixed marriage in the male line, but did not grant the same entitlement in the female line.

The legislation now before us proposes to change the provision used to confer Indian status on the children of women such as Ms. McIvor's. Instead of through subsection 6(2), these children would acquire status through subsection 6(1). This would eliminate the gender-based discrimination identified by the court, and I cannot imagine why anyone would not want to see this pass.

It is also important to recognize that Bill C-3 makes no attempt to address other issues related to registration as an Indian. The bill offers a solution to the issues identified by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, and does so in a narrow fashion to respect the deadline established by the court. All of us in this House can appreciate the need to act quickly to respond to the court's ruling and to provide new entitlement to registration in a timely manner.

I am convinced this is a wise approach. As parliamentarians, we face a tight deadline, as the court directed us to act prior to July 5, 2010.

Bill C-3 represents a progressive step by a country committed to the ideals of justice and equality. I strongly encourage my hon. colleagues to support it, and I want to mention, as a woman who has seen this time and time again, that it is high time that we provide aboriginal women with the same rights as male aboriginals in today's society. This is long overdue. It is the right thing to do. I cannot understand why other members of the House do not understand how right this is to complete, and why they are continually objecting to our making right, once and for all, what was so wrong.

I implore members of the House to vote for the bill. It is the right thing to do, not only for aboriginal people, but also for aboriginal women in particular, who, for far too long, have suffered and not been given the same rights as their male counterparts.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about the important balance we are trying to strike here. The government acknowledges that there are broader issues. We have heard from members on both sides of the House that this is an ongoing discussion that needs to take place. However, there is a pressing and substantial deadline that we need to deal with, not just with respect to the court's decision but also with respect to the benefactors of this ruling.

I am wondering if the member could comment on the importance of moving forward with Bill C-3 as a first step and at the same time an exploratory process put in place to deal with these broader issues.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments this afternoon on Bill C-3.

I would like to turn our attention to the potential consequences if the House does not pass the bill. We heard earlier today that there would be dire consequences. We not only have potentially 45,000 persons who would be eligible to gain registration under the Indian Act, but, if we do not hit that July 5 deadline, we have a problem in the province of British Columbia where it is registering anywhere from 2,500 to 3,000 new status Indians each and every year. I wonder if the member might comment on the difficulties that would pose, particularly in terms of upholding the important nature of status and citizenship, not only for the individuals but for the communities as a whole.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to voice my support for Bill C-3, the gender equality and Indian registration act.

The rationale behind Bill C-3 originates in a decision rendered last year by the B.C. Court of Appeal. The decision in the case of McIvor v. Canada states that a key section of the Indian Act is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is, therefore, unconstitutional. The court found that two paragraphs of section 6, the section that spells out rules related to status entitlement and registration, constitute discrimination as defined by the charter. Indian status is a concept enshrined in law. Canadians with Indian status enjoy specific rights and entitlements.

As we know, the B.C. Court of Appeal suspended the effects of its ruling for one year to grant the Government of Canada time to develop and implement an appropriate and effective legislative solution. That is why the government moved promptly to develop an appropriate solution.

After engaging with aboriginal organizations to both provide information and seek input on a legislative solution, the proposed legislation was developed and introduced.

Given that the bill addresses an issue of gender discrimination and the potentially serious consequences if it does not pass and a legal vacuum results in British Columbia, I would encourage members on all sides of this House to support the passage of this bill.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the government has been diligent in moving forward with legislative amendments without any undue delays in the process. As a result, it responded favourably to the government's request for a short extension in the deadline for the implementation of this decision.

As the previous speaker noted, this bill would address the specific inequality identified by the court. The extension offers us, as parliamentarians, an opportunity to pass this bill before summer adjournment. We all agree that there are larger issues that need to be discussed, which is why, when the bill was introduced, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development also introduced the establishment of a joint process to be developed in conjunction with various national aboriginal organizations and the participation of first nation groups and individuals across the country on the broader issues related to the question of registration, membership, important treaty realities and cultural perspectives.

However, that is a separate process that should not distract us from the need to pass this bill to address the specific cause of gender discrimination identified by the Court of Appeal.

We all know that discrimination is one of the obstacles that prevent many aboriginal peoples from participating fully in the prosperity of this nation. By removing this particular obstacle, first nations would have more opportunity to contribute socially, economically and culturally to this nation.

Bill C-3 would also complement actions and initiatives taken by the Government of Canada in recent years to improve the quality of life for first nations, including actions addressing the quality of drinking water in first nation communities, the backlog of unresolved specific claims and the modernization of on-reserve child and family services and education systems, to name but a few.

In each case, the Government of Canada worked in partnership with aboriginal groups to design and implement an effective strategy. This growing partnership is tremendously valuable. It inspires the mutual trust needed to make progress on additional issues. The engagement process used to develop Bill C-3, including the series of meetings staged by national aboriginal organizations and attended by hundreds of people, furthered this collaborative spirit. The engagement process also identified the need to explore broader issues of status membership as citizenship beyond the scope of Bill C-3.

The Government of Canada believes that this broader process must include opportunities for individuals, leaders and organizations to express their views and ideas. Given the deadline imposed by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, however, the endorsement of Bill C-3 must proceed on its own merit. At the same time, discussions have already begun with the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the National Association of Friendship Centres, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Métis National Council about how the exploratory process would unfold.

All organizations, along with the Government of Canada, are willing to collaborate on a process designed to gather the views of individuals, communities and leaders on issues related to band membership, Indian registration and citizenship.

Recognizing the complex and sensitive nature of these concepts, the Government of Canada has made no assumptions about the range of activities that will be included in the exploratory process. Initial discussions indicate that the process would likely benefit from a wide variety of information gathering activities and technologies.

To encourage aboriginals to share their views, for instance, the process might feature digital communication technologies. As discussions about the exploratory process continue, it is vital that Canada respond effectively to the ruling of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. Bill C-3 offers an appropriate response. The proposed legislation along with the exploratory process, strengthened the relationship between Canada and aboriginal peoples.

For all those reasons, Bill C-3 fully deserves the support of all members of the House and I encourage all members to join together with me in endorsing Bill C-3.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the minister indicated earlier, as part of the overall process with respect to Bill C-3 the Department of Indian Affairs had a consultative process with some first nations individuals and organizations. It is really important that we understand they are looking for something much broader. That consultative process will continue once we pass this bill.

It is important to recognize that we will be able to work with first nations on this issue of discrimination and other larger issues particularly around registration.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague introduced the idea that there was in fact engagement with aboriginal groups prior to the introduction of Bill C-3. Could he just add a few comments on that part of the discussion?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today at report stage of Bill C-3, the gender equity in Indian registration act.

As my fellow members are well aware, Bill C-3 proposes to amend the Indian Act and to eliminate a significant and long-standing case of gender discrimination. To appreciate the logic behind the proposed legislation, however, we must understand the problem that Bill C-3 aims to fix.

Last year, the court of appeal for British Columbia issued a decision in McIvor v. Canada, which is now known commonly as the McIvor decision. 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 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court initially suspended the effect of the declaration until April 6, later granting a short extension until July 5 of this year. In other words, if no solution is in place in just a little over a month, paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) of the Indian Act dealing with an individual's entitlement to registration for Indian status, for all intents and purposes, will cease to exist in the province of British Columbia. This would create uncertainty and, most important, this legislative gap would prevent the registration of individuals associated with bands in that province.

Even though we have been granted a brief extension on the implementation of the court's decision in McIvor v. Canada, we must continue to work toward resolving the issue now. This extension should not be perceived as an opportunity to delay the process of Bill C-3 as this bill would rectify a long-standing case of gender discrimination. 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.

The impact of this bill would be important. We expect 45,000 people to be newly entitled to register as status Indians as a result of Bill C-3. In anticipation of the influx of requests, the Indian registration program has developed an implementation strategy to effectively deal with the new applications for registration under the Indian Act in accordance with the 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.

As I mentioned earlier, it is important to recognize that Bill C-3 offers a solution to the specific issues identified by the court of appeal for British Columbia and does so in a tightly-focused fashion in order to respect the looming deadline. We can all appreciate the need to act quickly to respond to the court's ruling and provide new entitlement to registration in a timely manner.

I am convinced that this is a wise approach. As parliamentarians, we know the importance being placed on us by the British Columbia Court of Appeal to provide a legislative solution to a recognized case of gender discrimination. As a compact piece of legislation, it is my hope that Bill C-3 can make swift progress through Parliament.

The proposed legislation has much to recommend. It proposes a timely and direct response to the ruling of British Columbia Court of Appeal. In addition, it would eliminate 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.

I urge all members to join me in support of Bill C-3.

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

Madam Speaker, you will understand that I cannot agree with the minister because, on the pretext that the court asks one thing of it, the government does only that one thing. What I find revolting is that discrimination will not be eliminated. We know it exists. We know it will continue to exist with Bill C-3 if it is unfortunately passed, and we are told that there will be a consultative, exploratory process and so forth. We know, as does the minister, what the problem is. There is discrimination and it will continue to occur.

We are told that if the bill were adopted with the amendments presented in committee, there possibly may be no more Métis. It is true that there would no longer be any Métis because they would be considered Indians. The problem for the minister is that if Bill C-3 is not adopted by this House, what would the government's position be?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, and explain why I am encouraging all members to join me in supporting it and the amendments we have before us today.

I believe all of us in the House stand opposed to discrimination based on gender. Obviously, the Court of Appeal in British Columbia has identified some specific clauses in the Indian Act that are discriminatory under the charter of rights. If we do not fix those clauses before the July deadline, there would be a period of limbo where the courts have said that the Indian Act would not apply, but we do not have a new act to bring it into line. Children born after that date would not be able to be registered, which would be a shame. Admittedly, there are many other issues to be dealt with. We have to deal with issues that came up during our consultation process.

It is important for people to understand that these changes are not being made in a vacuum. These changes are not being made willy-nilly. This is being done after extensive consultation. There was, if not a white paper, certainly a discussion paper that was circulated based on the Court of Appeal ruling. That ruling was quite specific about the changes in the clauses that were contrary to the charter of rights. The court was very specific about what we should do about that and said that we needed to move quickly. The court gave us a year to do that, in order to fix the gap that would occur in the legislation if we did not do that.

There were broad consultations. Consultations were done with national organizations. They were done at the regional levels. They were done on the Internet. People could make proposals, identify other issues, identify steps to move forward and so on.

While everyone wants to fix the problem of gender inequality, it became clear over the last year during that consultative period that there is no consensus in first nation country on how far we should go or what the next steps should be or all the other issues. Those issues include everything from membership, who can vote, who can run for office, who determines citizenship on a first nation, how treaty first nations are dealt with, how self-governing first nations are dealt with, whether people under the Indian Act are different, separate. On and on the questions went. It became clear that there is no consensus on just fixing it, as I hear sometimes from the opposition. It is not as easy as fixing it if we are serious about consultation.

We had extensive consultations and it became clear that we needed a process that engaged people at a more serious level on the other bigger issues of the day. It is not a matter of simply throwing in an all-encompassing amendment, the amendment that came forward in committee, which was ruled by the chairman to be outside the scope of the bill, overruled by the majority on the committee, and came back to the House. The Speaker himself had to rule on it that yes indeed it was an inappropriate amendment. However, that is committee life and that is life in a minority Parliament. The reality is that the House agrees that we are dealing with the issue of discrimination against aboriginal women in this case, and what we can do about it based on the Court of Appeal decision.

We have taken a measured approach in dealing with this. We have expanded it slightly in order to make it equal among family members. We have not only followed the spirit, but we have followed the ruling that came down from the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court refused to hear any appeals to that ruling. In other words that was the ruling and we had to deal with it. We cannot go to the Supreme Court on this. We have to deal with it and we have to do it quickly.

We came up with the suggestion of not only fixing the gender inequality identified by the court, but also in freely acknowledging and recognizing there are other issues, that we need another exploratory process. We have been working hand in hand with the national aboriginal organizations and other interested bodies to determine what they would like it to look like, how extensive they want the consultation and exploratory talks to be.

I mentioned last week what came back to us is that we need more representation at the regional level. That makes some sense, because there are regional differences. We do not want to chat only with the national organizations when there are regional differences that need to be addressed in these exploratory talks.

We have also struck an expert panel to discuss what the costs will be. Everybody is taking a guess at how many people will sign up, how many people will want to move back to reserve if they currently live off reserve and how many people will be affected by this. We have an expert panel of not only demographic experts but also experts who have been through the Bill C-31 experience and people who can make sure the costs and implications will all be part of the mix.

We could speculate and pull numbers out of the air, but it would be much better to have an expert panel with first nation representation on it to give us ideas of what the implications are and what their experiences are. When I was in Atlantic Canada about a month ago, first nation representatives mentioned that they had certain experiences on Bill C-31. I said that was exactly what we needed to hear. I told them to tell us exactly what the implications are, because we want to know. I do not want to sit here in the rarefied air in Ottawa and say that I have all the answers.

It is clear that we have to work with first nations. When we work with first nations, it means that we work hand in hand. We explore the next steps. We do not come down by fiat. Those days are long gone. We work in partnership with first nations and aboriginal people to find out the next steps and where they would like to go.

That is exactly what we are doing. The exploratory talks are being developed hand in hand with first nations people who tell us what they think should be involved, what issues should be on the table, how they would like to proceed, how much could be done electronically through the web, how much could be done in face-to-face meetings and so on.

We want to be complete. We want to be open to the ideas that first nations will be presenting to us. Even the process itself needs to be developed by working hand in hand with first nations so that they do not come back later and ask who dreamt up this consultation process. We want them to be satisfied. That is why there is a genuine effort to make sure that the exploratory talks are worked on closely. They are being worked on as we speak in order to make sure that they are as complete as possible.

I point out the problem with rolling the dice and throwing them on the table because that is exactly what I felt happened in committee in the study of this bill. A proposed amendment came forward. It was ultimately ruled by the Speaker of the House to be outside the gamut of this bill. It should not have been brought, but they have the numbers to force it through in committee. It would have more than doubled the number of status first nations people in this country.

It would have eliminated the Métis completely. The Métis would have been toast if that amendment had gone through. It would have doubled the number with no idea of the costs and implications on membership, voting, who can run for office and how they would handle more than a doubling of the number of status first nations in this country.

To me, it is irresponsible to throw that amendment on the table without any consultation with first nations. First nations have never asked me for that amendment. I have never been given that amendment in the exploratory talks we had previously or in the discussion paper. It has never been given to me by any national organization at all. We need to work closely and hand in hand with first nations groups so that we do not surprise them in committee with an amendment.

What we have is a measured approach on the bill itself, which addresses the needs of the court. We were ordered to do so by the court and we are happy to comply. We also have a measured approach on a process that engages first nations meaningfully at regional, local and national levels so that we get the best information and advice on how to move forward.

If we do that today, if we pass the bill, fix the gap, address the court case and then work with honour with first nations to get to the next steps, we will have done a good thing for first nations and for relationships between us going forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague and the minister. I am a bit shocked at how they are passing the buck.

In 1985, amendments were made to a law that had been passed and implemented several years earlier. Unfortunately, aboriginal people did not like those amendments, because the discrimination against aboriginal women continued. Ms. McIvor went to court and took her case as far as the B.C. Court of Appeal. With Bill C-3, the government is trying to perpetuate systematic discrimination that will not be addressed, despite the McIvor decision.

I do not believe in the exploratory process the government wants to put in place to perhaps resolve this issue one day, if possible. Does my colleague really believe that exploratory talks can accomplish something if Bill C-3 should unfortunately be passed?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to pay tribute to the women here today from the AMUN March and Ellen Gabriel, and to highlight the problems with Bill C-3. Today we are debating, at report stage, a couple of amendments to Bill C-3, one which we support and the second which we do not.

The member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue asked a very good question during this debate that the government could not answer. He asked why there are no Indian women's organizations in favour of Bill C-3, when of course the whole benefit of such a bill is aimed at first nations women. The government speaker who introduced the bill could not answer the question.

The government member who just spoke talked about working in partnership with aboriginal groups and that Bill C-3 furthered this collaborative process. How could the government have possibly worked with aboriginal groups and further the process when all the aboriginal groups that came before committee were against the bill as written? There were all sorts of major amendments needed that the aboriginal groups brought forward. How could the member have the nerve to get up and say that the government worked in partnership with aboriginal groups, and that Bill C-3 furthered this collaborative process? It is beyond imagination when so many witnesses spoke about the inadequacies in the bill, simple inadequacies that could have easily been rectified by the government had it done a comprehensive removal of discrimination against aboriginal women in the bill.

Another point the government has not explained or answered was why there was no money put in the budget to cover people who will be registered? Conservatives said people may register at different rates, but they are predicting 45,000 people will register. There are enormous costs to that. Imagine if children went to their parents and said they are going to university and the parents are paying. Without any outline of costs, it just does not make any sense at all in a good government planning process. Those costs should have been estimated and put into the budget.

At least two speakers from the government side have said that it was urgent to get the bill through quickly. The courts determined a July 5 deadline. The government has put up a number of speakers saying the same thing over and over again. We will see the test of how serious the government is about getting it through if the debate continues after question period. If it just puts speakers up now so the bill does not get finished before question period and then it changes to another bill, we will see how serious the government is when speaker after speaker has said how urgent it was to get this through quickly as per order of the courts.

Today we are debating two amendments. The first one is an administrative amendment which may broaden the scope slightly and we are totally supportive of that amendment.

However, the second amendment restores clause 9 and puts it back in. Based on what we heard at committee and the reasons brought forward through this debate by my colleagues, we definitely disagree with that.

A very important point was brought forward that this bill bringing justice forward for some aboriginal women would never have come here, as we have said at length, were it not for the funding cuts to the court challenges program. Now the government has ended that program. How are similar forms of justice going to be continued in Canada to make the system better not only for aboriginal women but for all Canadians who would have otherwise used the court challenges program?

What about the Law Reform Commission, which the Conservatives also closed? Aboriginal groups in my community were in the middle of processes under the Law Reform Commission which would have made the laws of Canada better. The government stopped funding the Law Reform Commission of Canada as well.

The minister suggested, and I am delighted that the minister is taking great interest in this bill and can hear this, that if clause 9 is not put back in, then people could indiscriminately sue first nations. There are over 640 of them in the country, I believe, and I am wondering why I have not received letters from a majority suggesting that it was important to put clause 9 back. In fact, I have not received one letter, but if the minister has some I would appreciate his passing them on to help convince me of the importance of this to first nations.

I cannot imagine the federal government saying to first nations people that are not legally status Indians, that, “Oh, yes, you are a status Indian, we have to give you”—I think the example the minister used was—“a house” or whatever, virtually breaking the law and giving out benefits they are not entitled to. No court would ever pass that. As it was the federal government that made the mistake, of course first nations would then sue the federal government if such a situation were ever to occur.

I have not received a groundswell of support from first nations people saying that it is very important to include clause 9 to protect them, and I am certainly not convinced at this time.

The purpose of committee work in Parliament is to study bills in depth, to bring forward witnesses whose expertise is in those areas, to give committee and parliamentarians enlightenment on how they should proceed, and to take advice from those committees. Hopefully, that is how the committee system works and how it should work. It should edify legislation-making in Canada.

I am going to comment on two things we heard at committee with respect to this particular bill, and perhaps the lack of listening to those two things by Parliament. The first thing we heard, and of course we have heard it over and over again during the debate on Bill C-3 and also through the debate on the amendments, is that the bill is not comprehensive, that there are all sorts of first nations women who are still discriminated against.

The second thing we heard is that we should remove clause 9. Once again, the committee has reacted to what it heard and removed clause 9. Unless we ignore everything we heard at committee, we cannot just proceed with Bill C-3 as it is, because it does not at all reflect, and it is amazing, the overwhelming, preponderance of witnesses who came forward to say it was inadequate. It could simply be altered to include, so that no aboriginal women are discriminated against.

I appreciate that the minister has put forward a consultation process, but on the particular items of removing discrimination, as the witnesses said, this is not rocket science, either there is discrimination or there is not. There is no need for an investigation, discussion, collaboration or hearings. The discrimination against aboriginal women could just be removed.

One of the Conservative speakers recently said that this bill is precise, compact and focused. That is the problem. It is focused on a few of the aboriginal women who have been discriminated against, but it is not focused on all the other women, as was stated in committee.

The government could easily rectify that situation by making a couple of technical changes so that aboriginal women are not discriminated against. Then it could go on with its collaboration hearings to deal with a number of the other issues that the minister has rightfully brought forward, relating to membership, the costs that will have to be provided to first nations, et cetera.

I am surprised the bill came forward with such limited clauses related to removing discrimination, if indeed all the collaboration that we heard about occurred before this bill was brought in. Quite often we have had witnesses before our committee who were disappointed that there was not enough consultation with first nations. Obviously the consultation would have raised these problems and it could have been put into the bill before it came to committee.

The government could have moved amendments after the bill came to committee, when it was seen that a majority of people wanted amendments to remove discrimination completely against all aboriginal women.

We do not agree with putting clause 9 back. That is the position of our party on these amendments.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for so properly putting into context the fact that there are many other issues. The government has been clear from the beginning. We have indicated that this is not the end of the discussions. This is really the beginning of exploratory talks.

In answer to the question from the hon. member previous, the budget has not been set for these exploratory talks because we need to work with first nations to find out exactly what they want to do. Over the last few days there have been increased discussions on the role of the regional organizations as opposed to just the national organizations. These are important issues at the local and regional levels and we have to ensure they are properly engaged. I said at committee that it was not the government's intention to say this is the way it is going to be, or this is the way we consult here, or whether it is a white paper, and these are the only things we are prepared to talk about.

We must admit that there are more issues on the table. We must do more. Let us have exploratory talks and keep them quite open so that aboriginal leaders, whether they be regional, local or national, have a chance to talk about the issues that the hon. member described, many of which are as important, or more important in some cases, than Bill C-3 itself.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago the member and I were in Edmonton at the Esquao Awards. We had an opportunity to speak with many aboriginal women leaders. As a member of Parliament, along with my colleagues from all parties, I am really pleased that I had this great opportunity to meet with those leaders in the aboriginal community.

The key point is the government acknowledges that there are broader issues above and beyond the issues addressed in Bill C-3. As a result, the government will be establishing a broader process to explore these issues in first nations and other aboriginal organizations, groups and individuals. Similar to the opportunities we had in Edmonton at the awards ceremony, we look at those opportunities to determine what the needs are for individual groups and organizations.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in support of Bill C-3, the gender equity in Indian registration act, and the amendments before us today.

As stated previously by my fellow members, the legislation we are now considering is a timely and direct response to the ruling of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in McIvor v. Canada. We are aware that there are a number of other issues that have been raised in the context of Bill C-3. However, given the short time frame and the interests of avoiding a legislative void in British Columbia, we are seeking to implement changes that directly respond to the court's decision.

Bill C-3 offers a solution to the specific issues of gender discrimination identified by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the Indian Act. As I mentioned, we are aware of broader considerations of registration and membership. Our government has been working in collaboration with the people directly affected by these issues.

Last year, following a thorough review and analysis of the court's decision, officials from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 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 to solicit feedback. Hundreds of participants came to the engagement sessions and many written submissions were received.

Several common themes emerged. Many people expressed concerns about the associated issues of registration, membership and citizenship. We appreciate the fact that these broader issues need to be considered and discussed. These are complex questions and there is a diversity of views among first nations. Therefore, we will be undertaking a collaborative process with national aboriginal organizations to plan, organize and implement forums and activities that will focus on the gathering of information and identifying significant issues for discussion.

This separate exploratory process will allow for an examination of the broader concerns. The Government of Canada believes that this process should be collaborative and thorough. The wide array of views on status, membership and citizenship must be shared and carefully considered. These issues cannot be addressed in isolation without the input of our aboriginal people and they certainly cannot be addressed in a rushed manner.

The findings of the exploratory process will be considered as we work on next steps regarding further initiatives on these issues. However, as important as this work might be, it cannot take precedence over 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 the deadline have been the driving force behind Bill C-3. The proposed legislation has been devised to answer a very specific requirement. Therefore, it is precise, compact and focused.

Another beneficial aspect of Bill C-3 is that it complements actions and initiatives taken by the Government of Canada in recent years. In essence, a new spirit of effective collaboration now permeates the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

Collaboration has been a defining characteristic of a long list of recent initiatives to improve the quality of drinking water in first nation communities, to eliminate the backlog of unresolved specific claims and to modernize on-reserve child and family services and education, to name but a few. In each case, the Government of Canada worked in partnership with aboriginal groups to design and implement an effective strategy.

This growing partnership is tremendously valuable. It inspires the mutual trust needed to make progress across a whole spectrum of issues. The engagement process used to develop Bill C-3 furthered this collaborative spirit.

As discussions about the exploratory process continue, it is vital that Canada respond effectively to the ruling of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Bill C-3 offers an appropriate response. The rationale and intention that has inspired the proposed legislation are sound and they are worthy of our support.

Bill C-3 would have a positive effect on all Canadians, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal. It would complement the collaborative approach adopted by the Government of Canada on many issues that affect the lives of aboriginal peoples. The proposed legislation, along with the exploratory process, will strengthen the relationship between Canada and first nations.

Bill C-3 represents a timely and appropriate response to the ruling of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. 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 the timely passage of Bill C-3.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that my hon. colleague says the government must respond to the B.C. Court of Appeal decision. I take it that the government's position is that if Bill C-3 does not go through, it will have to provide alternative legislation in order to comply with the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision.

The member also says we have to meet the deadline because of the huge impact it is going to have on first nations people who might be eligible to register in B.C. However, if we talk to the member for Simcoe North about the financial implications of this bill, we do not know how many people are actually going to register. We cannot quantify that. We do not know if it is going to be one or 45,000. We do not know if it is going to be one or 3,000.

The government does not know if it is punched or bored on this particular bill. I wish it would get its story straight so that Canadians and first nations people could at least have a clear understanding of where the government is with this.

I ask the member, what is the interaction between repealed section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and clause 9 of the bill? I ask because government seems to say, on the one hand, that because of Bill C-21 aboriginal people can go to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, but the government, on the other hand, denies them at every turn and wants to limit its liabilities with clause 9.

I would ask the member what the interaction is between those two different provisions.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to point out that this is good legislation on an issue that goes back more than 100 years. This government is trying to address this very concern now, and I hope the opposition takes this legislation forward. I also hope that once the bill is passed, the government will address, in talking with its stakeholders, the further situations this gender equity in Indian registration bill does not currently meet.

I want to state at the outset that I will be speaking in support of Bill C-3, the gender equity in Indian registration bill. With the amendments before us, this bill is an important piece of legislation that must be passed without further delay. Bill C-3 proposes to amend the Indian Act and eliminate a cause of gender discrimination that has had a negative impact on first nations for far too long.

The bill now before us responds directly to a decision rendered last year by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia that two paragraphs in section 6 of the Indian Act are contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In order to allow Parliament to take action to resolve the issue, the court suspended the effect of its decision until April 6 and, subsequently, granted the government an extension until July 5 of this year. Time is running out for the House to act.

The solution proposed in Bill C-3 is to amend the Indian Act to remove the distinction between male and female lines that the court ruled was discriminatory. If passed, Bill C-3 will ensure that the eligible grandchildren of women who lost their Indian status as a result of marrying non-Indian men would become entitled to Indian status in accordance with the Indian Act.

First nations, like all Canadians, recognize the connection between equality and prosperity, and rightfully expect to be treated fairly before the law. Bill C-3 would be another step in this direction.

As my hon. colleague surely recognizes, the Indian Act defines much of the legal relationship between Canada and first nations. Clearly the process of identifying, analyzing and proposing potential reforms to the Indian Act must necessarily be done in close collaboration with first nations and individual stakeholders, but this process will take time. The Government of Canada fully recognizes that more consideration is required of the broader issues of registration, membership and citizenship. Accordingly, over the next few months, our government will be collaborating with first nations and other aboriginal organizations in setting up an exploratory process for a separate and distinct process of legislation on these broader issues.

If we fail to meet the July 5 deadline set by the Court of Appeal, a key section of the Indian Act, the one that spells out rules relating to the entitlement of registration, also known as Indian status, will cease to have legal effect in British Columbia. This could have very serious consequences. As the members of the House 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, this would result in a legislative gap that would prevent the registration of individuals associated with the British Colombia bands.

The legislation now before us proposes to avert these consequences by amending certain registration provisions in the Indian Act. Bill C-3 addresses the root of the problem by removing the language that the court ruled unconstitutional. In the larger context, Bill C-3 is another contribution by Parliament to help strengthen and modernize the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in this country.

Bill S-4, our government's proposed legislation to resolve the long-standing issue of on-reserve matrimonial real property, currently before the Senate, and the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, are two prime examples of recent contributions by this House to reinforce and transform that relationship.

Bill C-3 is similar to the repeal of section 67, in that it addresses issues of rights and equality. At the same time, Bill C-3 is different in that it responds directly to a court ruling, whereas the repeal of section 67 was driven by recommendations made by several national and international groups, including the Canadian Human Rights Commission, two parliamentary committees and the United Nations.

What is most striking, however, is that the repeal of section 67 and the legislation now before us both strive to strengthen the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people by protecting individual rights and promoting equality. It is in the context of these accomplishments, I believe, that we must endorse Bill C-3. Canadians rightfully expect that the law should keep pace with current aspirations, needs and attitudes.

I would remind my hon. colleagues that as parliamentarians, we are required by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia to take action to ensure that legislative amendments are in place to address gender discrimination in certain registration provisions of the Indian Act. How to address other sources of possible gender discrimination in the Indian Act is an issue that can be looked at during an exploratory process in partnership with our aboriginal groups.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the good minister attempt to demonstrate a little paternalism toward aboriginal women. I have a brief question. Can my colleague tell us whether this form of discrimination will end should Bill C-3 unfortunately be adopted? Also, should Bill C-3 unfortunately be adopted as written, what sort of discrimination will aboriginal women still be subjected to?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak at report stage of Bill C-3. I, too, want to acknowledge the efforts and the presence in the House of the AMUN walkers and the president of the Quebec Native Women's Association. The fact that they took the time to come to the House today to hear the debate on this bill at report stage underlines the importance of the outcome of this legislation to them.

Many of my colleagues know that for generation after generation individual aboriginal women, like Sandra Lovelace, Jeanette Corbiere Lavell and Sharon McIvor, have had to take the government to court to gain entitlement to their status, status that was denied them only because they descended from a status woman rather than a status man. We know that gender discrimination has existed in the Indian Act since its enactment.

The Conservative government introduced the legislation that we are looking at here today, Bill C-3, that would continue to leave residual gender discrimination in the Indian Act, forcing another generation of aboriginal women to fight for their rights and, as my colleague from the Bloc said, to fight for their rights without having the opportunities of the court challenges program.

We have heard a near unanimous call from aboriginal women's organizations, individual aboriginal women, including Sharon McIvor, aboriginal governments and chiefs, academics and national organizations, such as the Canadian Bar Association and LEAF, to amend or otherwise rewrite Bill C-3 to comprehensively and meaningfully end sex discrimination under the Indian Act.

We have heard a lot of conversation about the deadline but we have also heard that the courts allowed for the deadline to be extended further than the date that we are currently dealing with. For whatever reason, the government has chosen not to go back to them to extend that deadline. The government has chosen instead to deny repeated attempts to introduce comprehensive legislation that would, once and for all, end gender discrimination by the Indian Act. It has appealed the 2007 decision of the B.C. Supreme Court in the case of McIvor v. Canada. It voted against a debate on a motion that would broaden the scope of Bill C-3. It voted against amendments in committee that would guarantee full gender equality. It challenged these amendments in the House, despite the testimony of witnesses and the unanimous support of the opposition parties. It also attempted, as we are discussing here today, to reintroduce clause 9 of Bill C-3, which we were asked to eliminate in committee by all witnesses.

What does denial of status mean? I will quote from a LEAF submission. It states:

Denial of status perpetuates stereotypes against Indian women that have been entrenched in law since 1867; that they are less worthy, less Aboriginal and less able to transmit their Aboriginality to their children simply because they are women.

We actually heard poignant testimony at committee from women who talked about the personal impact it had on them, their children and their families.

Bill C-3 leaves intact significant areas of sex discrimination. It continues to perpetuate sex-based hierarchy for the transmission of status. Grandchildren who trace their aboriginal descent through the maternal line would continue to be denied status if they were born prior to September 1951. It would also continue to perpetuate inequalities between siblings within the same family, again based on their date of birth. The proposed amendment is restricted to the grandchildren of women who lost their status due to marrying non-Indian men but it does not deal with situations where marriage is not involved in cases of unconfirmed paternity or where Indian women co-parented with non-status men. It continues to perpetuate the discrimination.

We have no difficulty supporting report stage Motion No. 1. It reminds me and it brings back the nightmares of Nisga'a but, nonetheless, we have no problem supporting it.

Motion No. 2, unfortunately, gives us great difficulty. We have heard much argument about the challenges of clause 9. I understand the minister talked about it as being for greater certainty. However, I want to read into the record two submissions, one of which was referred to in part by the Canadian Bar Association. It states:

Section 9 is a concern, as it would remove the right of anyone to sue the federal government for not providing them with status as a result of the gender discrimination addressed by the Bill. If the federal government can be presumed to have been aware that Bill C-31 was not consistent with the Charter as far back as 1985, and did not act for over twenty years until the McIvor decision reached the BC Court of Appeal, the CBA Section is concerned with the justice of such a “no liability” provision. Further, we caution that including such a provision could make the Bill vulnerable to further Charter challenges.

I also want to quote from the Congress of Aboriginal People. It is unusual to hear criticism from the Congress of Aboriginal People. It states:

This section is an insult to Indian women and their descendants all over this country. Not only was Canada forced to make amendments to address gender inequality after fighting against the McIvor case for over 20 years; and not only has Canada proposed a very minimalist amendment; now Canada wants to ensure that it does not have to compensate the victims of gender discrimination? The court record provides more than enough evidence that Canada was well aware that it was discriminating against the descendants of Indian women.

I will not go on at length. We have heard members opposite say that this would provide equality and fairness. I want to end by saying that we heard from one of the members across the way that all citizens are equal before the law but not under this law. Under this legislation, some women would be more equal than others. Of particular concern to me is that some aboriginal children, their descendants, their grandchildren and their grandchildren's children would be more equal under the law.

I will conclude with a comment by Sharon McIvor who has been fighting this battle for many years, who has taken it to court after court and who has turned her life over to fighting on behalf of herself, her son and his children. She said in committee:

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.

I submit that it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to do what is right and ensure that gender discrimination for women and their descendants is not perpetuated in this country.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted this morning to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-3, the gender equity in Indian registration act, at report stage, and to remind all members that there are two goals this legislation now before us is set to achieve.

First, Bill C-3 would eliminate a cause of gender discrimination in the Indian Act. Second, it represents a timely and direct response to the ruling of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

We are well aware that there are a number of broader issues related to the question of registration and membership. We heard that intently, during the course of our committee hearings, in testimony from a good margin of witnesses.

However, given the short timeframe and an interest in avoiding a legislative void in British Columbia, we are seeking to implement changes that directly respond to the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision. Bill C-3 offers a solution to the specific issues identified by the Court of Appeal by amending the Indian Act to address the gender discrimination identified by the court.

As I mentioned, we are quite aware of the broader issues of registration and membership, because the consultations prior to the tabling of this legislation involved collaboration with the people who are most greatly affected by it.

Last year, following a thorough review and analysis of the court's decision, officials from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 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 to solicit feedback. Hundreds of participants came to the engagement sessions, and many written submissions were received. Several common themes quickly emerged.

Many people expressed concerns about the broader issues of registration, membership, and citizenship. We appreciate the fact that these broader issues are complex. We saw in committee that even among first nations representatives and leadership there is a diversity of views. One could not conclude that there is even a singular consensus within the population or the community itself.

For these reasons, we will be undertaking a collaborative process with national aboriginal organizations to plan, organize, and implement forums and activities that will focus on gathering information and on identifying more fully those broader issues for discussion.

I would like to quote the first witness we had at the committee hearings on this bill. We heard from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He said, “We know that broader reform of these matters cannot be developed overnight” or “in isolation”. He went on to say, “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 McIvor engagement process.

It is that kind of engagement that has given rise to some of the discussion, a two-part discussion, on first, putting legislation in place that addresses the decision by the British Columbia Court of Appeal, and second, on acknowledging and understanding that there is more to be done. Members here this morning have alluded to it. There is much more to be done on the issues of registration and citizenship.

The Government of Canada believes that this separate exploratory process should be collaborative and thorough. The wide array of views on status, membership, and citizenship must be shared and considered carefully. These are issues that cannot be discussed in isolation, as I have said.

However, as important as this work might be, it cannot take precedence over Bill C-3. We must not lose sight of the fact that the legislation now before us responds to a specific court ruling and a prescribed deadline. The ruling and deadline inform the design of Bill C-3. It is for this reason alone that the proposed legislation is precise, compact, and focused.

Let me remind the members of the House of the deadline we are working towards. On March 9, 2010, the government sought an extension of the British Columbia Court of Appeal's declaration of invalidity to avoid a legislative gap in British Columbia. That extension was granted on April 1, 2010, and it extended the original deadline out to July 5, 2010.

We are about six weeks away from the deadline on which there would, in fact, be a legislative gap or void on the issue of registration, particularly and specifically in British Columbia. That could potentially mean upwards of 2,500 to 3,000 registrations per year in British Columbia alone. People who would otherwise, and should, have access to registration would be denied it if this bill, in its limited and prescriptive way, is not passed. That would be the effect. There would be no ability to register those new registrants in the province of British Columbia.

As I have said, if no solution is in place, paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) of the Indian Act, which deal with an individual's entitlement to registration, commonly referred to as Indian status, will for all intents and purposes cease to exist in the province of British Columbia. This would create uncertainty. Most importantly, this legislative gap would prevent the registration of individuals associated with British Columbia bands.

The positive impact of Bill C-3 should not be overlooked. Based on demographic estimates undertaken by Stewart Clatworthy, a leading expert in the field of aboriginal demography, the proposed legislation would entitle upwards of 45,000 people to have access to register under the Indian Act. That would essentially equate to 45,000 new people in our country having access, as other status Indians have, to non-insured health benefits, post-secondary education funding, and things that they are at the cusp of being able to receive. They can only do so if this bill is passed.

We all know that discrimination is one of those obstacles that prevent many aboriginal people from participating fully in the prosperity of our nation. With the removal of these obstacles, aboriginal people will have more opportunity to contribute socially, economically, and culturally to our country. That is good news for all Canadians.

Bill C-3 represents a timely and appropriate response to the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling. It proposes to eliminate a cause of unjust discrimination and to ensure that Canada's legal system continues to evolve alongside the needs of aboriginal peoples. I would urge all members to join me in supporting the timely passage of Bill C-3 and the amendments before us today.

We have discussed some amendments this morning. There are two motions. The first motion on clause 3.1 addresses some specific items related to ensuring that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is responsible for reporting to Parliament within two years of the amendment coming into force. That is the reporting provision.

There has been some debate on clause 9 this morning. I would simply remind members that it is not only the Government of Canada that would be seeking to uphold this legal principle so that it would not be facing untoward legal action. It is also for first nations communities and governments. They too could be in a position of having to face that kind of action and would not be in a position to do it.

This is a legal principle that should be upheld. Clause 9 makes it clear that this would be the case.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona is absolutely correct. We have seen, even without any increase in the number of people with status, that since 1995 there has been a 2% funding cap on Indian and northern affairs funding and a 3% funding cap on first nations non-insured health benefits. The status population growth in bands has far outstripped that funding.

It was very troubling to see in the estimates tabled in the House that even though the government was fully aware that Bill C-3 would be coming forward, with its own numbers saying that there would be an increase of up to 45,000 people, there was absolutely no additional funding to deal with that increase.

In addition to that, we know that there are many other issues facing band councils. They are already squeezed for money. With the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, we know that band councils are going to be facing increased pressure from their own members, because claims can be filed against them under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Of course, bands have a limited ability to increase access to things such as housing, education, clean water, and health benefits.

One of the things we also notice is that the living index in first nations communities is down at the level of third world countries, and their ability to deal with this increased population is simply not there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not attempting to equivocate. We will not be supporting the amendment.

The member knows full well that I am from British Columbia and how very difficult this decision has been for me and my colleagues.

We fully recognize that up to 45,000 people across this country could gain status as a result of Bill C-3. We also have a responsibility, as parliamentarians, when a bill comes before us, to examine the full implications of that piece of legislation. When it comes to clause 9, I am not sure that we understand the full implications of this piece of legislation. I raised the issue on the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I am not sure that we really understand, in this new environment we are operating in, what the implications of clause 9 would be, whether there would be remedies available, and whether the Canadian Human Rights Commission could actually hear these cases and determine awards.

I am very concerned about what would happen in British Columbia, where paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) will have no force and effect if this legislation is defeated. Perhaps the government will use this as an opportunity to bring back a more reasonable piece of legislation, which, of course, it has the full ability to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the amendments that the government has brought forward. I want to make a couple of points to put this in context.

First, I want to acknowledge the women who took part in the AMUN March to Ottawa who are here today, along with Ellen Gabriel from the Quebec Native Women's Association.

What we have before us is a very troubling response to a very complex situation. The government, and I say this quite cynically, has called Bill C-3 the gender equity in Indian registration act. As we have heard from other members, the bill does not deal with the full range of gender discrimination that still exists under the Indian Act. We have a much broader and more complex problem with citizenship and status. Many Canadians are not aware that there is a difference between citizenship and status, and I want to highlight a couple of points on that.

We have heard about the urgency of this matter. I want to point to the ruling by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. The court did allow an extension when the government asked for it until July, but it also indicated that under the circumstances it might well have acceded to a request for a longer suspension had it been sought. The government said this was urgent, that we had to get on with this right away instead of following the appropriate process. That simply is not true. The court indicated that it would allow the time required to do the kind of job that is needed.

I want to cite article 33 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live.

Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.

Under the Indian Act, status is imposed by the state. The state determines who is an Indian. Leading up to 1985 women were discriminated against for marrying white men. We have seen decades of fighting. A bill in 1985 introduced some changes, but the changes created all kinds of problems, which is why we now have Bill C-3 before us. From 1985 to the present we have seen a number of court cases. Ms. McIvor's is the one that prompted Bill C-3. There are 14 other outstanding court cases.

The first nations registration status of membership research report, which is from where I cited the United Nations declaration, also indicated the generations that this has been ongoing. The 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report acknowledged that the Indian Act and other such legislation and policies have had a detrimental impact on aboriginal people, resulting in the muting of the collective consciousness in respect of aboriginal nationhood and citizenship in an aboriginal nation. According to RCAP, citizenship is not vested in the Indian Act band but rather in the aboriginal nation, and calls for the reconstitution of aboriginal nations and nation governments that would in turn determine criteria for citizenship.

We are not dealing with the much larger issue. As long as we continue to deal with status on a piecemeal basis, many women and men are being forced into the courts to get the government to deal with this and we are going to continue to have this kind of conflictual discussion. The government had an opportunity to do a far better job than it has done on this.

I want to specifically reference the amendments that have been proposed, but specifically the one with respect to clause 9. Others have quoted from a number of witnesses and I want to touch on a couple.

When the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission came before us at committee, she said two really important things. She said that the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act would allow women and men to take these discriminatory status provisions to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In her testimony, the commissioner indicated:

My key message to you today is that this is by no means definite. The Commission’s ability to redress allegations of discrimination under the Indian Act remains uncertain.

Even the Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission questions whether the remedy proposed is possible.

In addition, during questions and answers later when she was asked specifically about clause 9 and the impact it may have on the Canadian Human Rights Commission to bring forward a remedy if discrimination was found, she indicated that she was uncertain about the impact of clause 9. Therefore, that remedy may simply not be available.

I also want to reference the national aboriginal law section in the Canadian Bar Association's briefing note of April 2010, which said:

Section 9 is a concern, as it would remove the right of anyone to sue the federal government for not providing them with status as a result of the gender discrimination addressed by the Bill. If the federal government can be presumed to have been aware that Bill C-31 was not consistent with the Charter as far back as 1985, and did not act for over twenty years until the McIvor decision reached the BC Court of Appeal, the CBA Section is concerned with the justice of such a “no liability” provision. Further, we caution that including such a provision could make the Bill vulnerable to further Charter challenges.

There are two points on that. Nobody is clear what the repeal of section 67 means in the context of what clause 9 would do. The government has indicated that Bill C-31, back in 1985, had a similar liability clause. It has argued that in Bill C-31 in 1985 that clause has not prevented first nations from taking their cases to court. However, we are in a completely different context in 2010 because we now have the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

This question around what clause 9 would mean in this new context has not been analyzed and nobody has been able to give a clear answer about whether first nations would still have any remedy, whether they would be able to continue with the practices that have happened since 1985 in terms of bringing court cases forward and seeking remedies. We are in a different context and I do not believe there has been the kind of analysis that would indicate the impact on that.

The other issue is that the government has claimed that part of the reason for clause 9 is to protect first nations chiefs and councils from any liability issues. If that is the case, then why was clause 9 or a similar clause not brought forward that protected chiefs and councils but still left the government open for redress?

The Canadian Bar Association raised the issue of whether the government was aware that there was ongoing gender discrimination. In the 1988 fifth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development it outlined that there were numerous issues of gender discrimination still in the act. They are clearly outlined. Whether it was unstated paternity or children born prior to 1951, there were all kinds of gender discrimination issues.

This report was tabled in the House, so clearly the government and successive governments were well aware that there was residual gender discrimination in the Indian Act. Therefore, it would be hard to claim that the government was not aware. This has been brought up in any number of other venues.

This is outside the scope of the amendments, but a very troubling question around funding continues to be unanswered. We know that with a 2% funding cap imposed in 1995, continuing increases in population and new people coming on as a result of changed status, it is very difficult for bands to manage their funding with increased populations. It seems unreasonable to put forward legislation that does not have the financial resources attached to it.

There are a number of unanswered questions that remain before us when we consider the amendments before the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-3, which is coming back with amendments at report stage.

I will quickly move on to these amendments after I draw the attention of the House to the presence today on Parliament Hill of the group of women participating in the Amun march. These women, who left a few days ago from Wendake, near Quebec City, took a break from their walk to come here today and support the opposition parties' demands that this bill go no further and that we vote against the amendments presented.

I would also like to draw the attention of members to the presence today on the Hill of the President of Quebec Native Women Inc., Ms. Gabriel. I believe that it is important to point out that, under the Indian Act—and I will come back to this as it is extremely important—women are victims of discrimination and have been ever since the Indian Act was adopted.

Women have always had to suffer the consequences of the government's actions. It is women who have always been excluded from band councils, from bands and from being registered, and they will continue to be excluded if this bill is passed as is.

Let us deal with the amendments immediately. There are two: Motion No. 1 and Motion No. 2. Motion No. 1 does not present a problem. It is straightforward, and no one can disagree with it. The government finally realized that we were right to ask that it report on its progress in implementing Bill C-3 if it were unfortunately—and I use that word advisedly—passed as is. We will support this amendment, as it does not represent a major change.

But we cannot support Motion No. 2, which we need to read and understand:

...no person or body has a right to claim or receive any compensation, damages or indemnity from Her Majesty in right of Canada, any employee or agent of Her Majesty...for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith...

I said a couple of minutes ago that women would continue to be hurt if this amendment were adopted. Its wording implies that women have not been deliberately hurt. Yet that is exactly what has happened under the Indian Act: women have been deliberately hurt by successive governments since 1876. And things have not gotten any better since 1985.

I will digress for a moment, because I will have a chance to speak again when the bill comes back for third reading. We had introduced amendments and had accepted the Liberal amendment, but the Speaker unfortunately decided that that amendment could not be adopted, so the bill remains unchanged.

If this bill is passed as is, it will solve only a very small problem. I recognize that this problem does affect thousands of aboriginal people in British Columbia, but more than 100,000 aboriginal women and their children will continue to be hurt if the bill is passed as is.

What did the B.C. Court of Appeal tell us in the McIvor decision? It told us that it was our duty as politicians to review this law, which is unfair and unacceptable in 2010 and which perpetuates and will continue to perpetuate systemic discrimination against aboriginal women.

That is exactly what we did. We heard from witnesses, we heard from organizations like the Native Women's Association of Canada and Quebec Native Women Inc., we met with individual aboriginal women like Ms. Palmater and Ms. McIvor, and we also heard from organizations like the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association, and the Assembly of First Nations. Every single one of them told us that amendments were needed to eliminate the discrimination once and for all.

We had a historic opportunity to put an end to the discrimination that exists and will continue to exist if this bill passes. No one is in favour of this bill.

The Aboriginal Women's Action Network has said that Bill C-3 maintains the discrimination against aboriginal women because they will still be required to declare the father of their child. That makes no sense, and that is not the practice anywhere else in Canada. Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that no one can be discriminated against based on sex, religion, national or ethnic origin, and so on. It is strange that this does not apply to aboriginals, and especially not to aboriginal women.

Aboriginal women will be forced to continue to declare who is the father of their child, if they want their child to be registered. If they do not declare a father, it will be assumed that the father is white. Is this 2010 or 1876? This bill is setting us back 30 years.

We have an opportunity to fix the problem by voting against this bill. The opposition parties must vote against this bill. That is the beauty of a minority government: the opposition holds the power. We can vote against this bill and ensure that it is not passed. The government will say that it is urgent, and that the court gave it until July to pass this legislation; otherwise, some Indians cannot be registered.

I am asking Indians if they are willing to wait another year so that we can address this discrimination once and for all. If we vote against this bill, the government will be forced to introduce another one. We have said it loud and clear: we want to finally address the discrimination that aboriginal women are victims of.

It is unacceptable that this type of discrimination still exists in 2010. The icing on the cake is that the government is saying that Ms. McIvor's case must be remedied once and for all because the British Columbia Court of Appeal has told it to do so.

In an open letter to everyone, Ms. McIvor has asked us to vote against Bill C-3 because it will not put an end to gender discrimination. I will read it in English, since that will be easier and clearer for the members across the way.

Ms. McIvor said that Bill C-3 will not end sex discrimination in the statute's registration provisions under the Indian Act.

That could not be more clear. If I were allowed, I could speak all day long about the discrimination that aboriginal women continue to be subjected to. Bill C-3 will not put an end to this discrimination. That is why we will vote in favour of Motion No. 1 and ensure that the government can report. But will we vote against this bill at report stage in order to rescind section 9.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue raised a very good point. It seems that once Bill C-3 goes through—and there are problems with it, as the government and all witness have acknowledged—the onus will be on individual first nations women or first nations organizations to lodge a complaint. The onus will be on them to fight it and to find the resources, and the Conservative government has cut off a valued avenue of support for those who seek such redress.

Therefore, the government offers a remedy on the one hand, but says that it will deny people access to that remedy at every opportunity. It will deny them access to funds and deny them any type of remedy at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The government is being two-faced: it offers a remedy on the one hand, but denies people any access to it on the other hand. The court challenges program is just another example of this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Labrador. There is a small detail worth mentioning and I may get a chance to come back to it. Ms. McIvor, who was at the origin of the bill, could have benefited from the court challenges program, but that program was abolished by the Conservatives. It is not complicated. Today, aboriginal women can no longer benefit from the court challenges program. Bill C-3 hurts these women and it will continue to hurt them.

I have a question for my colleague. Where does he propose that aboriginal women—who will continue to be hurt if this bill is adopted as is—find help to continue defending their rights?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would say there was a similar clause about the same time the charter came into being in 1985. It did not stop certain challenges at that particular time; it did not provide the clarity the member speaks of.

I would say that the greatest clarity we can have in this House and the greatest clarity we can provide to first nations women across this country is to end gender discrimination once and for all. We have the ability as parliamentarians to do it. The government can withdraw Bill C-3 and come back with something that makes sense and puts this debate to bed once and for all.

Why do we want another generation to have to fight sections of Bill C-31 and the residual discrimination that will continue to exist under the Indian Act?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first, I acknowledge four women with the AMUN March . They are marching 500 kilometres from Wendake to Ottawa. These brave women are opposed to Bill C-3. They are demonstrating by their actions just how opposed they are and how they continue to fight for equality for aboriginal women in our country, a fight that has been taken up by people like Mary Two-Axe Early, Ms. Lavell, Ms. Lovelace and Ms. McIvor. The struggle of Ms. McIvor is why we are in the House this morning debating Bill C-3 and, specifically, amendments to it.

However, let us take a very brief moment to find out how we got here. This is a 25 year struggle by aboriginal women for equality. They have gone through the court system. The courts have ruled in their favour, not once but twice, at the B.C. Supreme Court and at the B.C. Court of Appeal.

The government says that it only wants to respond to the B.C. Court of Appeal in the narrowest possible terms. The government had it in its craw, it had the will, to introduce a bill that would speak to the broader issues of discrimination. If it were sincere about discrimination under the Indian Act, it could have taken the measures to broaden the scope of the bill and to once and for all end all gender inequality and sex discrimination under the Indian Act. The Conservative government chose to make it very narrow.

The member opposite said as much. He said that we were one step closer. By his own admission, we are not there yet to end gender discrimination under the Indian Act. Therefore, the government could have taken the steps to do it but it did not.

The member went on to say, and I want to respond to some of what he said, that this was a situation of such urgency. The parliamentary secretary said in committee on April 27, when we put in a provision about reporting to Parliament, that the concern was after two years we just would really be getting going in terms of some of the registration numbers.

The parliamentary secretary by his own admission seems to feel, speaking on behalf of the government, that even if the bill passed, there would only be a negligible impact upon the new numbers that would come forward.

Therefore, the government, by its own admission, has said to each and every one of us that on the one hand it is so urgent, yet on the other hand it does not really know if it will have much of an impact at all. Where is the government when it comes to this bill.

To be quite honest, I think the government likes to play a charade on people. It loves to stand up for individual rights or gender equality, but it is not willing to put the heart or soul in to this to ensure it is done once and for all.

When it comes to Bill C-3, contrary to what the member opposite has said, every witness said that Bill C-3 was not adequate. It did not respond to all the issues of gender discrimination under the Indian Act. When asked, all the witnesses said that if they had the opportunity, they would definitely want the bill amended to ensure that once and for all there was no gender discrimination under the Indian Act.

We tried everything in the House. We put a motion before the House to try to expand the scope of the bill. The government shot it down. We tried to bring amendments forward and they were ruled out of order. Now we are debating amendments at report stage.

I will give an example of what some of the witnesses said, in particular the Quebec Native Women. They said:

—while Quebec Native Women recognizes the need to amend the archaic nature of the Indian Act, Quebec Native Women, as stated earlier, deplores the restrictive vision of the federal government based solely on a patchwork remedy to the specific problem of discrimination brought to light in the McIvor case...

Another quote is:

LEAF supports this demand to remove all vestiges of sex discrimination from the status provisions, and submits that the elimination of residual sex discrimination under the Indian Act best meets the federal government’s constitutional obligations to achieve substantive equality for Aboriginal women and Canada’s obligations under international law.

Sharon McIvor, Pam Palmater, an individual who came before us, CAP and the Assembly of First Nations all said the same thing. They were in unanimity when it came to this point.

I will speak to clause 9, which is one of the proposed amendments by the government. Interestingly, the government never spoke to the specific amendments it proposed. The member went on in some rhetorical terms about how the government stood up for the individual rights of women, and all that sort of thing.

However, when it comes to clause 9, we again hear two stories. The government officials came before us and said that clause 9 was a bit innocuous, that it really did not do much, that it was for greater certainty. Yet when the parliamentary secretary spoke at committee, he said that Bill C-3 could not pass if we clause 9 was not in it. When the vote comes, if clause 9 fails, we will see what the government will do.

Chief David Walkem of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs says that we should strike clause 9. On April 20, at committee, he said:

—we're recommending is to strike clause 9 to allow Indian women and their descendants who lost status due to the discriminatory operation of the Indian Act to pursue, through the courts or other negotiation, restitution or compensation for the losses their families suffered as a result of the historical discrimination imposed on them by this legislation, similar to the process followed for people who went to residential schools.

On Tuesday, April 13, CAP, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, said this about clause 9:

This section is an insult to Indian women and their descendants all over this country. Not only was Canada forced to make amendments to address gender inequality after fighting against the McIvor case for over 20 years; and not only has Canada proposed a very minimalist amendment; now Canada wants to ensure that it does not have to compensate the victims of gender discrimination?

It goes on to say that it cannot now be said that Canada did not knowingly discriminate against Indian women and their descendants.

This is what Dr. Pam Palmater had to say on April 20:

Clause 9 is an offence to Indian women and their descendants who have already waited more than 25 years for justice. It is also counter to both the spirit and the intent of the Charter of Rights.

The Canadian Bar Association said:

Section 9 is a concern, as it would remove the right of anyone to sue the federal government for not providing them with status as a result of the gender discrimination addressed by the Bill. If the federal government can be presumed to have been aware that Bill C-31 was not consistent with the Charter as far back as 1985, and did not act for over twenty years until the McIvor decision reached the BC Court of Appeal, the CBA Section is concerned with the justice of such a “no liability” provision. Further, we caution that including such a provision could make the Bill vulnerable to further Charter challenges.

Again, almost every witness who came before us was opposed to clause 9.

Then the government brings up the wonderful example of the repeal of section 67 of Bill C-21 passed in 2008. It said that this was a wonderful thing, that now complaints could be brought against the government and against Indian Act bands.

Guess what? It has said that there is a remedy for first nations women use the Canadian Human Rights Act as a vehicle. Over 30 complaints have been launched against the federal government by aboriginal people, first nations people, and the Government of Canada has gone before the Canadian Human Rights Commission and said that it has no jurisdiction and that it cannot provide a remedy because it does not provide a service.

Therefore, it tells us that we have a remedy on one hand and tries to deny us that remedy on the other hand. It is hypocritical.

Clause 9 is a no go. We will not support it and we hope all our colleagues in the House will join us. Certainly I know that in committee all of the opposition parties voted to not include clause 9 in the bill.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I will not refer to the 2009 economic action plan, as usual.

I appreciate the member's participation in the debate. I point out the origins of today's discussion and debate. It centres around a decision from the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision therein compelled Parliament to respond to a very specific set of circumstances, which gave rise to discrimination.

There is no dispute that there continues to be groups who want to debate and discuss this issue. Our responsibility, as a government, is to address what the court laid out in its decision, and Bill C-3 does that. The exploratory process will further engage the stakeholders in an effort to understand what solutions can be brought forward in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will have a chance to say more about this a little later when it is my turn to talk about Bill C-3, but for now, I have a problem I want to point out to my colleague opposite.

Neither Sharon McIvor, nor the Aboriginal Women's Action Network, nor Quebec Native Women Inc., nor the Native Women's Association of Canada are in favour of Bill C-3 as it currently stands. The government says it wants to reduce discrimination, but I do not see how simply responding to the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision will reduce discrimination. Our amendments would have put an end to discrimination once and for all.

I know we do not have a lot of time. Is my colleague aware of a single native women's association that is favour of Bill C-3?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the exercise we went through at committee and the process before this issue was discussed and debated at committee and now in this House, dealt with a myriad of issues that we needed to understand better as a Parliament. In particular, we heard from stakeholders that, in moving forward, once this Parliament had dealt with the specific concerns that the court raised in its ruling, which Bill C-3 would achieve, it sounds like we may not have heard the same things but what I heard from a number of stakeholders, including first nations leadership, was that there was a need for some kind of reconciliation around a couple of key issues, namely status, membership and citizenship.

That is why we will be going through an exploratory process moving forward in an effort to get to the bottom of a number of other issues and concerns as a result of any changes that are being proposed in this bill.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments and for his participation in the committee but I have a couple of questions.

First, he made a very good point about removing discrimination against women in the Indian act but witness after witness explained that this would only remove some of the discrimination. The government was implored by witnesses and by members of the opposition to actually deal with the rest of the discrimination and not just eliminate a small part of the discrimination against Indian women. Why will it not make those changes to the act?

Second, he did not talk about the report stage amendments that we are debating. Could he talk about them?

Third, why is there no money in the estimates to deal with the financial ramifications of Bill C-3?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-3, the gender equity and Indian registration act and I encourage all members of the House to join me in supporting it.

As we debate amendments to this bill today, we must remember that Bill C-3 is time-sensitive. This bill is a prompt and direct response to the ruling of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia in McIvor v. Canada.

As all members are well aware, last year the Court of Appeal of British Columbia 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.

Without legislation to address the court's ruling, section 6 of the Indian Act would become invalid, meaning that any and all new registrations would be put on hold for the duration of the invalidity. This legislative gap would affect eligible residents of British Columbia and those affiliated with British Columbia first nations. To be clear, in British Columbia over the last few years there have been between 2,500 and 3,000 newly registered people per year. Clearly, the situation is not acceptable.

According to the court's ruling, Parliament was given 12 months to provide a legislative response. The court subsequently granted an extension until July 5. The time to act is now. If we fail to meet this deadline, a key section of the Indian Act, the one that spells out the rules related to entitlement to registration, also known as Indian status, will cease to have legal effect in British Columbia. As I have stated, this legislative gap could have serious consequences.

The legislation now before us proposes to avert these consequences by amending certain registration provisions of the Indian Act. What would it do? Bill C-3 would eliminate a cause of gender discrimination in the Indian Act by removing the language the court ruled unconstitutional. In doing so, we take another important step in support of justice and equality.

I believe that every member of this House stands opposed to discrimination based on gender. Bill C-3 would take Canada one significant step closer to achieving gender equality. The debate is about the ongoing effort to eliminate gender discrimination while respecting the responsibility placed on us as parliamentarians to provide a timely and appropriate response to the ruling by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia.

As a modern and enlightened nation, Canada champions justice and equality for all. Canadians recognize that discrimination weakens the fabric of society and that it erodes the public's faith in the justice system. That is why I am pleased to support this legislation to address the gender discrimination in the Indian Act that was identified in the court's decision.

Members of this House have demonstrated by way of example time and time again their willingness to address issues related to individual rights. In 2008, for example, Parliament supported the repeal of section 67 of the Canada Human Rights Act. Section 67 shielded decisions or actions taken in accordance with the Indian Act from human rights complaints. To rectify this situation, members of this House supported legislation to repeal section 67. This is an important and relevant example for the purposes of this debate.

Bill C-3 has much in common with the legislation that repealed section 67. Both strive to protect individual rights and promote equality.

The truth is that addressing issues such as gender discrimination in certain registration provisions in the Indian Act would have a positive impact on Canada as a whole, as did the repealing of section 67.

Bill C-3 is a progressive, responsive and measured response to the court's decision. It is rooted in the principle that all citizens should be equal before the law. What is more important, or as important, Bill C-3 represents a timely and appropriate response to the ruling by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. It proposes to eliminate a cause of unjust discrimination and ensure that Canada's legal system evolves alongside the needs of first nations peoples.

For too long, first nations people have struggled to participate fully in the prosperity of this nation due to a series of obstacles. With the removal of these obstacles, first nations peoples would have greater opportunities to contribute socially, economically and culturally to this country and to their communities in their respective regions. Parliament, of course, plays a key role in this process.

Putting an end to discrimination against first nations women is advantageous for all communities and that is why I am urging all members of this House to join me in supporting Bill C-3 and the amendments before us today.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There are two motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-3.

Motion Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voting patterns for the motions are available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, we will continue today with Bill S-3, the tax convention bill, followed by Bill C-15, nuclear liability. It would be by intention to call these two bills tomorrow if they are not completed today.

Might I add that, thankfully, as my hon. colleague noted, next week is a constituency work week.

When the House returns on May 25, it is my intention to call Bill C-3, gender equity in Indian registration, which will be at the report stage. Following Bill C-3 will be Bill C-20, the National Capital Act, and Bill C-10, Senate term limits.

My hon. colleague asked about the committee of the whole. I would inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) I would like to designate May 27 for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates of the Department of National Defence and May 31 for the Department of Natural Resources.

Friday, May 28 shall be an allotted day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Members may know that this afternoon, after question period, the Speaker did rule on the point of order that was put forward by the parliamentary secretary to the House leader--I think I have that right--in respect to the admissibility of amendments to Bill C-3.

The Speaker upheld the original ruling from this committee and ruled that the first amendment, which was to paragraph 6(1)(a), is inadmissible.

The second amendment pertained to the amendment to the short title. You'll remember that a short title can only be changed if amendments made to the scope of the bill compel a change in the language. In that the first amendment was ruled by the Speaker to be inadmissible, similarly the amendment to the short title was also inadmissible.

Members, where that puts the bill is that the Speaker has sent the bill to be reprinted without the amendments.

As a footnote, the removal of clause 9, which was agreed to by this committee, remains. That was admissible. Committees have the power to not agree with certain clauses of the bill, so that stays.

The House will now consider Bill C-3 at report stage, and the parties have the opportunity to propose amendments at report stage. As to when those amendments will be heard, that will be a discussion of the House leaders, I'm sure.

Unless there are any questions, we'll leave it at that and proceed with our witness.

Welcome, Mr. Eggertson. As we discussed, you have approximately 10 minutes, and then we go to questions from members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the 16th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

On the agenda is our study, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), of northern territories economic development: barriers and solutions.

I want to welcome our witness this afternoon, Mr. Bill Eggertson.

Mr. Eggertson comes from the Canadian Association for Renewable Energies.

Members, we only have the one witness today. It was not through a lack of trying; you will know we usually try to have a full panel. This has been partly because our schedule has been somewhat irregular these last two weeks, with the completion of work on Bill C-3 and the study on the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

We have our first hour today with Mr. Eggertson. At that point we'll go in camera for our second hour, when we'll be talking about the instructions for the report on AHF.

Mr. Bagnell, you have a point of order.

Admissibility of Amendments to Bill C-3—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on April 29, 2010 concerning amendments contained in the report from the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on 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).

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this important matter as well as the hon. members for Labrador, Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Yukon for their comments.

In presenting his point of order, the parliamentary secretary argued that two of the amendments to Bill C-3 contained in the first report from the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, tabled on April 29, 2010, were beyond the scope of the bill as approved by the House at second reading.

The first motion presented by the member for Labrador during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill reads as follows:

That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 1 the following:

(a.1) that person was born prior to April 17, 1985 and is a direct descendant of the person referred to in paragraph (a) or of a person referred to in paragraph 11(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) as they read immediately prior to April 17, 1985;

As reported by the parliamentary secretary, this motion was ruled out of order by the chair on the basis that it went beyond the scope of the bill as approved by the House at the second reading stage. The ruling was appealed and overturned by a majority vote and the amendment was subsequently adopted by a similar vote.

In respect of the second amendment under dispute concerning the short title of the bill, the parliamentary secretary argued that it had only been allowed to proceed because of the adoption of the first amendment. He noted that in the absence of any amendment requiring it, no motion to amend a bill's title was admissible under our rules.

The member for Labrador argued that the court ruling in which the bill responded identified discriminatory provisions related to registration in the Indian Act beyond those specific to the McIvor case. He stated that in its ruling the court of appeal pointed out that there may be other parts of the act that caused gender discrimination. He also drew to the attention of the House that there existed considerable latitude for the government to respond to the court's decision. In doing so, he cited a number of examples where legislation had gone well beyond the modifications to the law required by court decisions. He concluded that the amendment in question was entirely consistent with bills responding to court rulings.

The Chair has carefully examined Bill C-3, the Committee’s report as well as the proceedings in the Committee dealing with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

As has been frequently noted, the Speaker’s involvement in committee matters is limited except in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority. The adoption of amendments that are beyond the scope of a bill is such a case.

I would like to remind the House that the Speaker's role in these matters is limited strictly to determining the procedural issue that has been raised. While some members may be of the opinion that a different bill, perhaps broader in scope, ought to have been introduced, I must base my decision on the bill that actually was introduced and approved by the House at second reading.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 766, states:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the present case, in order to determine the scope of the bill, we need to put this legislative measure in its unique context. Bill C-3 was drafted in response to a ruling of the court of appeal for British Columbia, which struck down certain provisions of the Indian Act based on unequal treatment with respect to registration accorded to the descendants of some Indian women arising out of earlier amendments to the Indian Act made in 1985. The bill seeks to redress the specific inequality identified by the court. As such, it is of extremely narrow scope. It removes gender discrimination arising from transitional effects of the 1985 amendments as they relate to a particular family structure.

The amendment, adding a new sub-paragraph a.1 to the conditions of registration in section 6 of the Indian Act, deals with all persons born prior to April 17, 1985 who are descended from those registered under the Indian Act, or entitled to be so registered, prior to that date. Individuals, whose status is not affected in any way by Bill C-3 as adopted at second reading, would have a different status as a result of this amendment. It may be that the amendment seeks to redress an inequality arising out of the Indian Act, but it is not addressing the specific inequality identified by the Court and initially targeted by Bill C-3. Consequently, the amendment exceeds the scope of the bill as set by the House at second reading and is therefore inadmissible.

The second amendment, changing the short title of the bill, is dependent on the broadening of scope resulting from the first inadmissible amendment. As such, in the absence of any other amendment requiring a change to the original short title, it too is inadmissible.

I therefore rule that the amendment to clause 2 of Bill C-3 and the amendment to the short title are null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. In addition, I am ordering a reprint of Bill C-3 be published to replace the reprint ordered by the committee.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Admissibility of Amendments to Bill C-3

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. If possible, I would like to add to what my colleague just said.

The member from Labrador presented this very important amendment. We are asking the Chair to accept this amendment, which is very important to the development and the future of aboriginal communities.

If I may, I would like to talk about something important. Two days ago, a group of about 100 aboriginal women left Wendake, a Huron community near Quebec City, headed for Parliament. They will stop in Trois-Rivières, Montreal and Gatineau, before arriving here on June 1. They are marching to speak out against Bill C-3. Why? Because this bill does not do enough—that is what they told us in committee—and because Bill C-3 will continue to allow the systematic discrimination that aboriginal women have been subjected to since 1876.

When I spoke in this House after Bill C-3 was introduced, I told the government that it could expect amendments to this bill, because it was very important to listen to what the aboriginal peoples had to tell us. We did our job.

There are things in life that I do not understand, and this is one of them. We, the politicians, are criticized for not doing our job. But when we do our job, we are told that we did it too well. Something is wrong here. It is true that Bill C-3 is a response to the McIvor decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, but it is important to read this decision in its entirety, which the legislator, the Conservative Party, does not seem to have done.

I wonder why the Conservative Party did not read the full decision. Because if it had, it would have realized that the judges of the British Columbia Court of Appeal say that this is the issue before them and that they are going to rule on it. They rule that Ms. McIvor has been the victim of discrimination under section 15 of the charter since 1985. Therefore, the problem has to be addressed. The judges add, however, that the discrimination against aboriginal communities and specifically against aboriginal women under sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the act will continue unless the government puts an end to this discrimination. I am not the one who said this; it was the judges of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. That is what we did, and my colleague from Labrador proposed amendment No. 1, which is extremely important and would put an end to this discrimination.

I believe that you have the power to accept this amendment. I will not repeat my colleague's arguments, which are very solid and which I agree with completely. As my anglophone colleagues would say, I concur with my colleague. I concur with his legal arguments. It seems clear to me as well that you can go as far as we were asked to go thanks to amendment No. 1.

But it gets worse, Mr. Speaker. If you rejected this amendment, what would happen? Women would no longer have any recourse and would have to keep on going to court. But the Conservative Party, in its wisdom, closed the door to potential court action by cutting funding for the court challenges program, which Ms. McIvor had used to stand up for her rights.

So what will happen? If this amendment is not accepted, not only will aboriginal women continue to be discriminated against, but the government will be taken to court again, and it will be another 20 years before we end this debate.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to respond to the point of order raised on Thursday, April 29, 2010 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning two amendments to Bill C-3 adopted by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

The parliamentary secretary shared in his opinion that these two amendments should be ruled out of order because he felt they went beyond the scope of the bill.

Given the significance and profound issues; that is, sex discrimination and gender equality, that have prompted the introduction of Bill C-3, I feel it is vitally important to present counter arguments before you give your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

First, I would like to quote from the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms. At page 205 it states in subarticle 689(2):

The committee may so change the provisions of the bill that when it is reported to the House it is in substance a bill other than that which was referred. A committee may negative every clause and substitute new clauses, if relevant to the bill as read a second time.

Article 694 on page 206 states:

Amendments may be made in every part of a bill, whether in the title, preamble, clauses or schedules; clauses may be omitted; new clauses and schedules may be added.

Beauchesne's sixth edition also states on page 205 in subarticle 689(3):

The objects (also referred to as the principle or scope) of a bill are stated in its long title, which should cover everything contained in the bill as it was introduced.

The long title of Bill C-3 as listed on the bill's cover page under the number assigned to the bill is “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). Therefore, the principle and/or scope defined in this title is to respond to the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal. To understand what “to respond” means in the context of this legislation, it is necessary to return to the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal that is referenced in this legislation.

The court ruled that two 1985 amendments to the Indian Act failed to eliminate gender discrimination in the second and subsequent generations. Paragraph 161 of the ruling states:

Sections 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) of the Indian Act violate the Charter to the extent that they grant individuals to whom the Double Mother Rule applied greater rights than they would have had under s. 12(1)(a)(iv) of the former legislation. Accordingly, I would declare ss. 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) to be of no force and effect, pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. I would suspend the declaration for a period of 1 year, to allow Parliament time to amend the legislation to make it constitutional.

Nowhere in its ruling did the court prescribe a remedy to the Government of Canada. In fact, in paragraph 160 it states:

In the end, the decision as to how the inequality should be remedied is one for Parliament.

Although the court arrived at a narrow constitutional finding based on the specific facts of the McIvor case, it accepted the broad harms suffered by aboriginal women and their descendants because of non-entitlement to Indian status. In fact, the Court of Appeal left open the possibility of future equality challenges to the status provisions.

More important, previous precedent exists to support the notion that the court's ruling in McIvor v. Canada does not create a rigid constitutional template. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed the role of Parliament to build on a court's ruling, particularly where the judicial scheme can be improved by the legislature.

In its decision in R. v. O'Connor in 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada laid down a procedure for the disclosure of confidential records of sexual assault complainants which purported to balance the equality rights of complainants and the rights of accused to full answer and defence.

In 1997 Parliament enacted amendments to the Criminal Code which differed from the procedure delineated by the court and which ostensibly went further to protect women's equality rights and protect their confidential records from disclosure to those accused of sexually assaulting them.

In upholding the new legislation in R. v. Mills in 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized the importance of Parliament building on the court's earlier decision in O'Connor. In this case the government chose a more expansive legislative remedy than that suggested in the O'Connor ruling after hearing from women's organizations and others.

Another example is the case of M. v. H. in 1999, which involved a section 15 charter challenge to the definition of spouse under the Ontario Family Law Act. The remedy ordered by the Supreme Court impacted only the definition of spouse in the Ontario Family Law Act, but the government of Ontario introduced omnibus legislation to change the definition of spouse in all provincial statues. Further, the federal government, which was not even a party in M. v. H., brought in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act in 2000 to respond to the court's ruling.

There are other examples. These precedents confirm that the governmental response to a court ruling can clearly include the implications of the decision but is not restricted by it. Therefore, we argue that the amendments to Bill C-3 are admissible.

I would like to reiterate that the B.C. Court of Appeal did not order a specific remedy in its ruling, and instead ordered a declaration of invalidity. The purpose of a declaration of invalidity is to give the legislature the scope and flexibility to respond to a declaration of constitutional invalidity in the most appropriate way, after the democratic process of hearing the submissions of those most impacted.

Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg explains in chapter 36 of his text, Constitutional Law of Canada, that in many cases where the court has found a law to be unconstitutional, the court would prefer the legislature to design the appropriate remedy.

This is exactly what has happened in McIvor v. Canada. The B.C. Court of Appeal left it to Parliament to determine an appropriate remedy. The government introduced Bill C-3. The committee then heard unanimous testimony that residual gender discrimination would remain under the status provisions of the Indian Act if Bill C-3 were not amended. All witnesses encouraged the committee to amend the bill in order to eliminate all residual discrimination.

The amendment I introduced in committee to clause 2, which was fully supported by all opposition parties, is a response to this testimony. It will once and for all eliminate this residual discrimination and ensure that the Government of Canada lives up to its responsibilities concerning gender equality.

Based on this precedent and the broad implications of the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling in McIvor v. Canada, which is referenced in the long title of Bill C-3, I would argue that the amendment I introduced to clause 2 should be considered one of many possible responses to the court's ruling, and as such should be considered admissible. If this amendment is admissible, the parliamentary secretary's challenge to the admissibility of the amendment to the title should also be dismissed.

In Bill C-3, the Conservative government has introduced a piece of legislation that purposefully leaves gender discrimination in the Indian Act's provisions on status entitlement. If we know, which we do, that gender inequality or sex discrimination exists, as parliamentarians we have an obligation to remedy it. Common sense as well as unanimous testimony of witnesses at committee dictate that this is wholly unacceptable. My amendment responds to this fact and, as I have argued, is fully within the scope of Bill C-3.

I respectfully ask, given that generation after generation has fought for this equality, these arguments be given great consideration, as I am confident they will. Let us once and for all end sex discrimination that exists under the Indian Act.

First Nations

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

Mr. Speaker, the Amun march is continuing today. Aboriginal women left Wendake, near Quebec City, for Ottawa and will be passing through Trois-Rivières, Montréal, Laval and Gatineau, and arriving at Parliament on June 1.

This 500 km march is a protest against the injustices suffered by aboriginal women because of the Indian Act, in spite of Bill C-3, which does not correct all the discrimination that they experience.

The purpose of the march is to heighten public awareness and, above all, to send a clear message to the government: no to discrimination against first nations women. They must be allowed to pass their Indian status to their child without being required to divulge the father's name and they must retain their rights even if they marry a non-native, and thus avoid expulsion from their community.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I salute the courage and determination of these women and we wish them a safe journey.

Admissibility of Amendments to Bill C-3

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to echo the sentiments of the member for Wascana.This is a complicated matter and given the fact that Bill C-3 is not on the House agenda for next week, I would like an opportunity for the NDP to consider the government's position on this matter of scope, and to prepare a response once we have been able to consider all of the points that the member raised.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the admissibility of two amendments made in committee to 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).

Without commenting on the merits of those amendments, I submit that they are beyond the scope of the bill and should be ruled out of order.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Citation 698(1) of the sixth edition of Beauchesne states that an amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill or beyond its scope. This issue has arisen on many occasions.

In a ruling on April 28, 1992, Speaker Fraser elaborated on the admissibility of amendments to bills referred to in committees after second reading:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.

The Speaker does not get involved in committee issues except in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, such as an amendment that is beyond the scope of a bill. In such cases, the Speaker is responsible for ruling on the admissibility of such amendments after the bill has been reported to the House. This is because the motion to refer the bill to committee after second reading establishes the principle and the scope of the bill. As a result, a committee report that is not consistent with that motion must be corrected.

On March 11, 2010, Bill C-3 was introduced. The bill's long title is 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). The court ruled that two 1985 amendments to the Indian Act failed to eliminate gender discrimination in the second and subsequent generations. Those amendments provided a way for Indian women who had lost status through marriage to regain it and made it possible for the children of those women to be registered.

On March 29, 2010, the House of Commons unanimously adopted Bill C-3 at second reading and referred it to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

On April 23, 2010, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan gave notice of a motion of instruction to the committee, which stated that it has the power to expand the scope of Bill C-3 so that a grandchild born before 1985 with a female grandparent would receive the same entitlement to status as a grandchild of a male grandparent born in the same period. This motion clearly indicates that the opposition was aware that changing the provisions of the bill with respect to a grandchild born before 1985 would be beyond the scope of the bill.

On April 27, 2010, the member for Labrador moved the following amendment in committee, which stated:

That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 1 the following:

(a.1) that person was born prior to April 17, 1985 and is a direct descendant of the person referred to in paragraph (a) or of a person referred to in paragraph 11(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) as they read immediately prior to April 17, 1985;

Government counsel indicated in committee that:

...this amendment would take a radically different approach than the approach that is taken in Bill C-3. [Bill C-3] would amend 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act, which basically was the provision allowing the registration after 1985 of all the individuals who were previously entitled to registration. The [proposed] amendment would allow any person born before April 17, 1985 to be registered under section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act if that person was able to identify an ancestor that was at the time of his or her death entitled to be registered, which obviously increases significantly the number of persons entitled to registration under the Indian Act.

The chair agreed with the advice of government counsel and ruled that the amendment was beyond the scope of Bill C-3 and was therefore inadmissible. The chair asked the committee procedural clerk to provide the committee with further detail on the ruling. The procedural clerk stated that the amendment exceeded the scope of the bill as it was approved in the House.

The member for Labrador acknowledged in committee that the amendment exceeded the scope of the court's decision by adding a new entitlement to registration by stating:

[The amendment is] not as reflective, maybe, as what was in the B.C. Court of Appeal's ruling, which was much narrower...It just expands the category of eligibility--

Notwithstanding the advice of government counsel, House staff and the acknowledgement of the member for Labrador, the opposition members of the committee voted to overturn the chair's ruling and adopted the amendment. The committee also made a change to the short title of the bill. The bill as introduced had a short title which stated: “This Act may be cited as the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act”. The opposition members of the committee voted to change the short title of the bill to read: “This act may be cited as the act amending certain definitions and registration provisions of the Indian Act”.

The chair ruled that this change was admissible because of the first amendment that I described. However, the chair emphasized that if the opposition members of the committee had not overturned his ruling that the first amendment I described was inadmissible, the amendment to clause 1 would also have been inadmissible. In this regard, page 770 and 771 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

The title may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment.

The change to the title of the bill is a further recognition that the first amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. Precedents clearly support the inadmissibility of these changes.

On February 27, 2007, in the case of Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers), the Speaker ruled:

Given the very narrow scope of Bill C-257, any amendment to the bill must stay within the very limited parameters set by the provisions of the Canada Labour Code that are amended by the bill...Therefore, on strictly procedural grounds, the Chair must conclude that the ruling of the chair of the committee was correct: these last two amendments do go beyond the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading and are therefore inadmissible.

Bill C-257 and Bill C-3 both have a particularly narrow scope that responds to narrow policy circumstances. As a result, the ruling on Bill C-257 would equally apply to Bill C-3.

I also cite a January 29, 2008, ruling with respect to an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In that case, the committee decided not to adopt an amendment that would have been beyond the scope of the bill.

In responding to a letter from a member, the Speaker agreed with the committee decision and stated that the amendment would have been beyond the scope of the bill and therefore would have been inadmissible. The Speaker stated:

The amendment was ruled inadmissible by the committee chair on the grounds that it was beyond the scope of the bill...because it simply expanded the appeal provision already contained in the bill...in my opinion, the amendment was indeed inadmissible--

The April 23, 2010 motion proposing an instruction to the committee to expand the scope of the bill as well as the testimony of government counsel, House staff, the member for Labrador, and the committee chair's ruling all indicate that the amendment to Bill C-3 is beyond the scope of the bill and therefore should be ruled out of order.

Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be so, I submit that the amendment to the short title would also need to be ruled out of order since it would no longer correspond to the provisions of the bill.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

The report is in relation to 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).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House, with amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All right. Thank you both for clearing that up.

Thank you, Mr. Russell, for your proposed amendment under clause 2.

I would like to give the ruling now on this particular amendment.

Bill C-3 amends the Indian Act by specifying a new right of registration in response to the McIvor v. Canada case. The amendment seeks to amend the act by specifying an additional right for children born prior to April 17, 1985 of a parent registered under paragraph 6(1) (a) or subsection 11(1) as it read before April 17, 1985.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, reads on page 766 as follows: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” Therefore, in the opinion of the chair the introduction of the additional entitlement to registration under this amendment is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-3 and is therefore inadmissible.

Members, we'll have to move on to the next—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Russell.

I'm sure the admissibility question is going to be considerable, as most members would acknowledge, particularly on the Bill C-3 amendments that have been proposed. However, on the amendment proposed by Mr. Russell that's in front of us, before I get to the ruling, I just want to ask about this, because it would have implications if this amendment were adopted for this bill. It would in fact have more far-reaching implications, including the other amendments that are before us today. In lay terms, it would engulf many of the other amendments that have been proposed and would be considered by the committee.

So I'd like to ask Mr. Reiher if he could, in this particular instance, speak to the implications that this amendment would have, not just in respect to the amendments we have in front of us, but even to the very structure of Bill C-3 and what it proposes.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand that each committee member has been provided a copy of the proposed amendment.

I move that Bill C-3, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 1 the following:

(a.1) that person was born prior to April 17, 1985 and is a direct descendant of the person referred to in paragraph (a) or of a person referred to in paragraph 11(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) as they read immediately prior to April 17, 1985;

In proposing this particular amendment, we certainly consulted with those who had been before the committee and those who could provide some advice or some clarity on this particular amendment. This particular amendment proposes to respond to the vast majority of the witnesses, if not all of the witnesses, who indicated that there would be residual discrimination based on what was in Bill C-3. So finding an amendment that satisfies the grievances of those who appeared before us and trying to be all-encompassing when it comes to removing a residual discrimination, this is the amendment we came up with.

The effect of our amendment is to make entitlement to paragraph 6(1)(a) status totally non-discriminatory. That would be the effect, the basic impact, of this particular amendment.

Some will say, and probably rightly so, that this is more reflective of what was in the Supreme Court of B.C.'s ruling and not as reflective, maybe, of what was in the B.C. Court of Appeal's ruling, which was much narrower. But we've always made the argument that in fact the government had the ability to respond in the way it so chose to respond to the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision. So we feel that this is a way to respond effectively and efficiently to the pleas of witnesses, particularly Sharon McIvor, who came before this committee and whose long battle and whose court case has helped lay before us Bill C-3.

That's what I will say to this particular amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good afternoon, members. Welcome back to our consideration of Bill C-3, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 29: 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).

Members, we're back under, as we had planned, the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. We welcome back Martin Reiher of the Department of Justice and Mr. Roy Gray from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who are here, really, for consultation purposes. We're not expecting any presentations.

Members, you'll recall at our last meeting I did indicate that we were going to pursue another line of consideration around the issue of the unstated paternity and illegitimate children issue. That issue did not come forward, as we've seen at least thus far, from any of the amendments that had been proposed. My preference would be just to proceed directly to clause-by-clause consideration, so we'll leave that for another time.

We haven't done this too often, but it's great to be back here considering clause-by-clause analysis of the bill. You actually have the agenda in front of you. I'll confirm or affirm that all of the amendments that have been proposed by the various members have been received by the committee. Of course that doesn't preclude the possibility of further amendments while we take up consideration of this bill.

We will proceed with the clause 2 amendments.

(On clause 2)

I'd like to first start by inviting the sponsor of the bill to move his amendment and speak to it if he wishes, and then we'll proceed from there.

Bill C-3--Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act

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

Madam Speaker, the member must recognize that the government has a process in place to deal with legislation. I am not the minister but I can assure the member that the question that has been posed is above and beyond the scope of Bill C-3, which is what we are debating here today. I am not the one to answer that question.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talked about the government's genuine effort to fill a legislative gap. If Bill C-3 were not passed, there would still be a legislative gap. Would the government be as sincere within that particular scenario in terms of bringing forward another bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to this motion moved by the NDP member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I would like to clarify something in the last question and comment period. I was not in the 2006-08 Parliament, so that would explain why I was not on the aboriginal affairs committee of that Parliament. I do have a long history with the committee dating back to 1994 and right up until 2006, and then in this current Parliament.

I witnessed the unintended consequences of the 1985 legislation up close and personal because 1994 was not that far removed from 1985. We are now a full generation beyond that, it being 25 years since the 1985 amendments. We are into another attempt to address some of the issues that flow from the whole question of registration. This is a complex and complicated area. The whole question of identity is tied up in questions of registration which fall under the Indian Act, questions of membership which are determined for 230 of the 634 first nations by the first nations themselves, and an allowance for all of them to adopt a membership code if they so desire, and we have questions of citizenship.

From a number of witnesses we heard from on the first nations side at committee, there was a broad statement that became fairly generalized, which was that first nations have the inherent right to determine their membership. I think it would be presumptuous of us to go too far into that discussion during the discussion of Bill C-3. However, it is very germane to the parallel process that we wish to put in place and which has had buy-in from the national aboriginal organizations. We wish to put in place an exploratory process to look at citizenship, membership and registration considerations with a view to further changes that could be adopted above and beyond Bill C-3.

This is a backdrop to what we know we have. We have an archaic Indian Act. Archaic as it might be, we have modern-day treaties that have been negotiated, every point gone through with a fine-toothed comb by legal counsel, and when all is said and done, lo and behold, we find most often that section 6, the portion of the Indian Act dealing with registration, is the only part of the Indian Act that remains intact and built into that modern treaty. The reason for that quite simply is it is such a complex thing to get rid of, it is easier to adopt it.

That is not where the pressure is coming from to make the changes, such as what is being proposed under Bill C-3. That came from the court case of Sharon McIvor in British Columbia.

The Government of Canada is responding to a long debated, long discussed, long considered question about transmission of status to grandchildren where there is a difference in transmission of status between a male Indian who married out and a female Indian who married out. That is where the bill is coming from.

The court recognized that there is no way to address all of the issues without impacting on the people who have been living under the old provisions of registration, citizenship and membership all these years. This then becomes part of the balancing act. The broad, sweeping statements that have been made this morning on this issue have conveniently omitted or forgotten about the other side of the ledger. There are a lot of implications, ramifications and potential unintended consequences that flow from anything beyond the government travelling down the road where it has a court mandate. We should not do that without a full process to look at all of this. That is why we put in place a parallel process called the exploratory process. Until today, I thought that everybody was comfortable with that.

This is an interim step in everyone's mind. It does affect 45,000 potential new entrants across the country. There are some practical implications of 45,000 new applicants. The Registrar of Indians will have to gear up, hire more people, create a whole new regime in order to take a large number of new applications. I cannot imagine the implications for the registrar if we were to go beyond that. I fail to see why this interim step is being viewed with negativity. We know from a lot of ad hoc evidence that there are a lot of people who are very interested in being new entrants. The number of calls that are being made to the department and general conversations indicate that this has really engaged a lot of people.

A witness who came before committee made a statement which was very incisive. She said that we probably would not be debating this bill and that it would not be controversial except for one thing, that there is money involved. I think she hit the nail on the head. We are talking about government certification of ethnicity that has financial consequences in the way of benefits. That is another way to look at this.

We have to be realistic in that this is a complicated issue for the public. The public may not understand why there is so much discussion about what basically amounts to an official designation, but that is what it is all about in terms of some consequences. We want to make sure that we are not endorsing amendments that are of concern regarding unintended consequences which we cannot predict reliably. I would remind the opposition members of this.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission attended our committee meetings with a high degree of interest. Members will recall that the last Parliament adopted the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which I had been advocating since approximately 1994 in this place, to delete section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That section exempted first nations people living on reserve from the provisions of the act. In other words, there were Canadians to whom the Canadian Human Rights Act did not apply and who were pre-empted and prevented from appealing to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

As of July next year, there is a phase-in and under the new legislation that provision is removed. There is an expectation the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be involved in the future in questions of registration in some cases. There is no clarity at this point as to whether it would be some or all, or potentially none, but I cannot imagine that somehow. That is another downstream consequence where we cannot predict exactly where we are going on this train. It is clear there are changes coming, but it is not clear at all what the ramifications will be.

We encouraged the participation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The commission is encouraged by its participation that it will be able to deal with this. It has set up a committee within the Canadian Human Rights Commission in order to ensure that it is proactively looking at this whole question of registration and any complaints that may flow from it.

Clause 9 in Bill C-3 is very important from the standpoint regarding any implications financially that flow from people being denied status between 1951 and 1985, and who are empowered by Bill C-3 as we have presented it. There would be no liability attached to either the Crown or to the first nations in terms of those individuals being able to seek compensation for their lack of membership during that time frame.

This is not something that has been talked about much this morning, but it is one that was criticized. I think it protects probably the first nations entities more so than the Crown. It is in there for clarity, but it is important clarity and I wanted to mention it.

The legislation we now have before us proposes to achieve two goals: first, to eliminate a cause of gender discrimination in the Indian Act; and second, to provide a timely and direct response to the ruling of the B.C. Court of Appeal.

We are aware of a number of broader issues related to the question of registration and membership. However, given the short timeframe and in the interest of avoiding a legislative void in British Columbia, we are seeking to implement changes that directly respond to the British Columbia Court of Appeal's decision.

Bill C-3 does offer a solution to these specific issues by amending the Indian Act to address the gender discrimination identified by the court. We are aware of broader questions of registration and membership because our government has been acting in collaboration with the people directly affected by the issues at play.

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. As I have said, there was a lot of feedback but there is also a lot of interest in new entrants wanting to register. They are simply waiting at this point for this bill to go through.

Hundreds of participants came to the engagement sessions and many submissions were received. There were some common themes during the sessions. Many people expressed their concerns about the broader issues of registration, membership and citizenship. These concerns need to be considered and discussed. These broader issues are, as I and others have said, complex and there is a diversity of views among first nations.

For that reason, we will be undertaking a collaborative process with national aboriginal organizations to plan, organize and implement forums and activities that will focus on the gathering of information and identifying broader issues for discussion. This exploratory process, the terms of reference and the mandate are things that will be put together collaboratively. This is not a top-down exercise. I think it is a very enlightened way to approach a very complicated and complex issue.

It is the appropriate thing to do and it should begin promptly but it cannot begin promptly if we do not have an interim step in place, and the interim step is passing this legislation. That is what is was predicated on and that is what will commence it. The wide array of views on status, membership and citizenship must be shared and carefully considered. They cannot be viewed in isolation and they cannot be addressed in a rushed manner.

This will be a process that will inform the government on the next steps. As important as this work is and will be, it cannot take precedence over Bill C-3. Bill C-3 responds to a specific court ruling and prescribed deadline. I can say with certainty that the proposed legislation is precise, compact and focused. Unlike the debate and discussion this morning, the bill is precise, compact and focused.

I will remind members that we are working on a deadline and we need to meet that deadline. The decision to grant that deadline was rendered on April 1 of this year and it takes us through to July 5. We need to get this done in this spring session. We have an opportunity to process Bill C-3.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and to support my colleague's motion to ask the House to direct the committee to expand the scope of Bill C-3.

This is a very complex piece of legislation. We have heard much discussion on it already and I am not prepared to go into the substantive issues of the legislation today, but want to speak more to the process.

We have heard much about the urgency of the bill, the fact that we have to do it because the clock is running out. I want to read into the record a quote from the B.C. Court of Appeal which granted an extension until July 5, 2010. It said:

Under the circumstances, we might well have acceded to a request for a longer suspension of our declaration had it been sought. The Attorney General’s factum, however, sought only a 12-month suspension of any declaration of invalidity.

Therefore, we know that the court is likely to grant a further extension if a comprehensive redrafting of the bill was to take place. The decision, and I am emphasizing what my colleague said, to prorogue Parliament further undermined the effort to move the bill along.

We have heard much about the discussion. We have heard the parliamentary secretary say earlier that allowing the scope of Bill C-3 to expand will create “unintended consequences”. I would submit that refusing to allow the committee to address residual discrimination as instructed by most of the witnesses, the government is knowingly creating intended consequences which means gender discrimination.

What the bill means, and I have said it in committee and I will say it here, is that it will create a situation where some aboriginal women will be more equal than others and in a country like ours and a country that purports to respect the charter and respect human rights, this is simply not acceptable.

The member opposite, I think, said, “Equality is difficult to achieve”. I would submit that equality is not difficult to achieve. There are amendments that might be made to the bill that would, in fact, extend equality to all aboriginal women in this country. It only requires the political will of members opposite to ensure that it happens.

The government never really considered a comprehensive remedy to all the gender discrimination concerning status entitlement. First, it appealed the original decision of the B.C. Supreme Court, which called for a broader solution. Then when responding to the 2009 B.C. Court of Appeal, it did not consider a comprehensive solution and put forward several solutions in a limited engagement process that would knowingly leave residual discrimination. Finally, when introducing Bill C-3, it crafted it in such a narrow way that it does not allow the committee to consider comprehensive amendments.

I want to speak to the issue of status and why it is so important for aboriginal women. I am quoting in part from the submission put forward by LEAF. It states:

Denial of status and the corresponding lack of acceptance in one’s community and degraded sense of identity and self-worth, is an independent harm. It is also legislatively connected to the denial of band membership. Under the Indian Act band membership rules...and under the majority of membership codes of First Nations who have assumed control over membership, lack of status results in exclusion from band membership and from having the right to reside in one’s home community/territory. This means that non-status women and children cannot live in their home community. They are treated as “outsiders”. They are unable to practice and transmit their culture and language within the community, and their children’s aboriginal culture and language cannot be nurtured within the community.

I would say that that is very important. In fact, the B.C. Court of Appeal judge acknowledged that when he said:

--I am of the view that the trial judge was correct in accepting that intangible benefits do flow from the right to Indian status.

I think it is important for all aboriginal women and children to have the opportunity to be treated equally by the Government of Canada within their own bands. We have heard much of the exploratory process. The exploratory process or, what I would prefer, a consultation process has a whole host of issues that it can deal with but need not deal with. There is no other group in this country that we would go on an exploratory process to see whether they are equal in our country.

All aboriginal women should be recognized as equal within their own communities before the government of this great country that we live in. I see this as a real effort to diminish aboriginal people. I see the title of this bill, an act to promote gender equality, as misleading and, repeating what we have said over here many times, contributing to what I see as a culture of deceit. This is not what this bill is all about. It is, in fact, creating a situation where some women will be more equal than others.

I would submit to members on both sides of the House that we do the right thing, that we take this motion seriously, that we direct the committee to look at the bill to the fullest possibility, and expand it so that all aboriginal women and their children will have the opportunities, rights and sense of community to which they are entitled. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to ensure that this happens.

In concluding my remarks, I plead with all members of the House to look at gender equality in its truest sense of the word for all aboriginal women. Some are not more equal than others.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work here. Measures have been identified in all goodwill and in context by the witnesses we have seen in this very short time period since the committee has had this bill in front of it. It has become very clear to me and I am sure to all members that the only way forward to address these other measures is a more expansive discussion with aboriginal leadership.

We saw in committee that there is not really a consensus, even among some of the different voices we heard. From individuals to aboriginal leadership, for example, there are many questions, and they do need to be addressed. That is why the government has proposed an exploratory process to do that.

However, in terms of the member's question, I thought he might be interested to know that before one can really answer that question, we have to have some comprehension of the history of how registration has evolved in our country since 1951.

In 1951 a registration process was put in place by the government of the day that would allow and confer status to first nations people across the country. In 1985, 34 years later, Bill C-31 was brought forward. That bill obviously did not foresee some of the gaps that came to be understood by what we are talking about today in Bill C-3. However, for all the right reasons, Parliament passed the bill. It put Bill C-31 in place in 1985 to bring registration into balance.

While members may point to certain aspects of the registration provisions that still put one class in a different class of registration from others, we can conclude, going forward from 1985, that men and women are treated in the same way. There is an equality of treatment under the Indian Act going forward from 1985. It is this transition period between 1951 and 1985 that is the subject of our work.

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

Madam Speaker, I could ask my question in a more far-reaching manner. Members of the opposition have made very broad statements in the House today, talking about a one-size-fits-all solution under a bill. Presumably they see the vehicle as being changes to Bill C-3.

If we were to remove all impediments and concerns about the scope of the bill in terms of registration, membership and citizenship complexities and ramifications that are of great concern to first nations, and if we were to think only about some of the statements made by the members opposite, would there be a one-size-fits-all solution that would have any form of consensus agreement from the very people who are most affected by this, namely the residents and people in our aboriginal communities and potential new applicants?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan who, I must say, makes a tremendous contribution to our committee work through her knowledge and experience that she lends each and every day that we are in committee.

Today we are dealing with a very complex question, as I am sure hon. members know. It is a question that has peaked our interest these last few weeks and has been an ongoing claim before the court,s particularly from Ms. McIvor, but there are others as well who wish to address some of these provisions of the Indian Act that raise difficult questions relating to membership and registration.

Last month our government was proud to introduce Bill C-3, the gender equity in Indian registration act. The primary objective of the legislation is to remove a cause of gender discrimination under the act.

The second objective is to meet the deadline imposed upon Parliament in a ruling of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. That is an important point because initially the court gave Parliament until April 6 to correct this. It ruled certain sections of the Indian Act invalid, discriminatory and having no effect, but allowed Parliament one year. It then understood, as we resumed the session early in March and that provided Parliament was getting to work on these amendments, that it would see to it to give us an additional three months.

We all realize that there is a time limit and we need to get the bill through the House to at least address the critical issue that the Court of Appeal identified for us.

Rather than have its decision take effect right away, the court suspended the effects of the decision until this year and required us to enact effective legislation to solve the problem. The court has given us until July 5, but if we fail to meet this deadline, a key section of the Indian Act, which is the one that spells out the rules related to entitlement to registration, also known as Indian status, will cease to have legal effect in British Columbia.

This takes us right back to the question I just asked the hon. member for Halifax. The consequences are the area of question, the almost limbo that it would put the whole essence of registration in British Columbia, but it also calls into question the fact that paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) that would be reinstated under Bill C-3, if they are not reinstated it would not take too long I would suspect before other decisions would come forward in other provinces that would throw those registration provisions into question. Should the two paragraphs of section 6 cease to have legal effect, it would lead to uncertainty and would produce a legislative gap that would prevent the registration of individuals associated with British Columbia bands.

In many ways, this is the crux of our approach to Bill C-3. It is essential that we respond as directed by the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal and also that we implement this response, which is Bill C-3, with extremely tight timelines, as I have just described.

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.

I believe that every member of the House stands opposed to discrimination based on gender, of that we are all well aware and it is clear. Despite this conviction, however, I expect that all members appreciate that equality between men and women is difficult achieve. Bill C-3 would take Canada one significant step closer to this important goal. This issue is all about the ongoing effort to eliminate gender discrimination, and it is ongoing, as I will describe.

The government's approach has always been to act in collaboration with the people directly affected by these issues at play. Bill C-3 is no exception. Last year, following a thorough review and analysis of the court's decision, departmental officials had technical briefings with representatives of five 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 to 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.

Several common themes emerged during the sessions and in the written submissions. Many people were expressing concerns about broader issues of registration, membership and citizenship. We know that the broader reform on these matters cannot be developed overnight or in isolation, least of all just within the context of a parliamentary committee with a short timeframe.

Based on the views expressed during that engagement process, we have announced that these broader issues will be considered in another exploratory process, a process that will extend beyond the scope of this bill before us and that will be taking place over the next few months.

I think all members should recognize that this is something that came directly from those who were involved and participated in the consultations in advance of Bill C-3. This is not something that was just picked out of the air as a way to create a more expeditious route for the adoption of Bill C-3. This is something that was recognized, suggested and recommended by the leadership of various aboriginal groups right across the country.

This will be done in partnership with national aboriginal organizations. It will involve the participation of first nations groups, organizations and individuals at all levels. The findings of the exploratory process will inform the government's next steps regarding initiatives on these issues.

Far from being conclusive, Bill C-3, by its very nature, recognizes that it will solve the question and the problem of the case of McIvor v. Canada that was before the B.C. Court of Appeal. It was necessarily narrow and concise in its scope so as to solve that problem but to not give up on the question of moving forward to address some of these other issues around membership and citizenship.

I am confident that the exploratory process will provide an opportunity for a comprehensive discussion and assessment of these broader issues. This work, however, as I pointed out, will be done separately from the legislation. It allows us to focus our attention on the legislation that is now before us and the solution that it offers to the specific concerns that were identified by the B.C. Court of Appeal.

As important as this work might be, it cannot take precedence over Bill C-3. It must not lose sight of the fact that the legislation now before Parliament responds to a very specific court ruling and a prescribed deadline, as I said earlier, of July 5. The ruling and the deadline informed the very design of Bill C-3 and it is for this reason alone that the proposed legislation is, as I say, very precise, very compact and focused.

Not for one minute have any of the members, certainly not the members around our committee, suggested otherwise, that there are not other issues that need to be dealt with. As a matter of fact, none of the committee members, although I cannot speak for all of them, would have been surprised by what we heard from the witnesses. The member for Labrador commented earlier this morning about what we heard from the witnesses. He is absolutely correct. None of us were surprised by that because we knew, even through the consultation process, that these discriminatory issues existed and needed to be dealt with. However, we also had the urgency of the McIvor question, something the court handed to us that we had to deal with urgently.

As Bill C-3 proceeds through the process, we must and will continue to work in partnership with first nations and other aboriginal groups and organizations to identify and discuss these critical issues. This is a process we have talked about that will remain separate, and we will proceed on that basis.

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 British Colombia Court of Appeal'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. In essence, Bill C-3 represents a forward step by a country committed to the ideals of justice and equality.

I know there have been a number of comments and discussions by members in questions and comments and, through the course of this debate, it has been identified that there are other areas of membership and registration that members and the government should be considering in terms of making the Indian Act more responsive to these gaps and questions that continue to be raised by aboriginal leaders and individuals across the country.

I would encourage members, certainly those members on committee, to read, if they have not already read it, the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision to see what the appeal judge said in respect of why the Court of Appeal narrowed the scope of that decision, because it had some justification to do that. It was looking at Bill C-31, which was passed in 1985. This legislation, at that time, had been around for 24 years, and because it had been in place for such a long time, people, in this particular case aboriginal people, had become acclimatized to the provisions of that bill. Families and aboriginal organizations had each made decisions based upon that legislative regime that existed.

When a Parliament comes along and decides to change and amend the very regime by which people had made decisions and existed in the course of 24 years in this case, there is no question that one can look back and say that yes, some discrimination occurred there. The court clearly has upheld that assertion that there was discrimination there.

However, once we go back and amend it, we need to be careful, because what we might also be doing by conferring rights and privileges to one group of people is upsetting the equality and certainty that existed among those families that were there.

It is a rather interesting principle to get one's head around, but I would like to read one section of the decision that I think squarely hits the nail on the head. In this case, the Appeal Court judge is talking about Bill C-31. It reads as follows:

The legislation at issue has now been in force for 24 years. People have made decisions and planned their lives on the basis that the law as it was enacted in 1985 governs the question of whether or not they have Indian status. The length of time that the law has remained in force may, unfortunately, make the consequences of amendment more serious than they would have been in the few years after the legislation took effect.

Contextual factors, including the reliance that people have placed on the existing state of the law, may affect the options currently available to the Federal government in remedying the Charter violation. It may be that some of the options that were available in 1985 are no longer practical.

That gives us a sense of the difficulty that we have with amendments to the scope of Bill C-3.

Members will know that Bill C-3 was passed at second reading, and by our own procedural rules we are not allowed to expand its scope. Indeed, that is the very reason we are here today: we are discussing the question as to whether the House would consent to allowing the committee to expand the scope of the bill.

This is a question that deserves serious consideration. We have to tread very carefully. Committee members know that the kinds of issues brought to us by the witnesses we heard are legitimate. As the member for North Vancouver mentioned, there is far from being a consensus of opinion. There are differences in what we heard in terms of how some of the registration provisions would be implemented, particularly at the community level.

The member for Labrador mentioned, for example, the remarks of one of our witnesses, Pam Palmater, who is from Ryerson University. I must say that Ryerson is my alma mater as well; I had to throw that in.

Ms. Palmater was very clear. She brought a different perspective to our committee because she spoke as an aboriginal person who did not have status and lived off reserve. She had a perspective different from what we heard from people who came from a different experience, having lived on reserve all their lives.

There is no doubt that anyone would be challenged in trying to understand some of the intricacies in the bill, but what remains clear is that we have a mission in front of us to carry on.

As I outlined, the first thing we need to do is address the issue that the British Columbia Court of Appeal put in front of us in regard to the weaknesses in Bill C-31 as they apply to the McIvor v. Canada case. That is before us and that is what Bill C-3 does.

We recognize that there are other issues. That is the exploratory process that we now need to put in place. We need to bring some certainty to the registration provisions, sections 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c), so that we have a position that people can depend on going forward. We need to continue to work with aboriginal groups right across the country to refine some of the citizenship and membership questions.

I will leave it at that. I invite questions from members. Some members will actually be working together in committee this very afternoon on this question, and I know the discussion will continue.

I must say that it has been a fruitful discussion. This is an issue that we do not always get a chance to talk about, particularly here in the House. It is a rare occasion when we can have such a full debate on a question that is very important to aboriginal people right across the country.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. He is the chair of the committee and welcomed me warmly.

Yes, I agree. I get it; I know what this means. We were going to strike this down. The government needs to act. We need a new provision. That all makes complete sense to me. We need to act. I am in agreement with the member on that point, but here we go. Time me: “(c.2) that person is a child born after September 4, 1951 and before April 17, 1985 of a parent entitled to be registered under section 6(1)(c.1)”. Done, there it is. That is actually all we need to do to make this better.

I am all for an exploratory session on many of the things that need to change about the Indian Act, but if we are going to vote on Bill C-3, why can this piece not be in there to effectively address gender discrimination in the act? It is not onerous. It is not really time consuming. How long did that take me, 30 seconds?

We know what the answer is. I do not understand what is happening. It is to be stubborn and to have one's head in the sand not to see the opportunity to at least do this.

Note that we do not have a motion about section 9. Note that we do not have a motion about addressing the lack of funding that would be necessary to process applications. We do not have motions about those things. Let us have an exploratory process about those things. I do not even know if section 9 would stand up to a charter challenge, to be frank.

We are just talking about one simple tiny passage that could change everything and prevent what would be more injustice for women under the Indian Act and exacerbate the historical injustice they have already faced.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I recall that the member spent one session in committee when we heard from witnesses on this important bill.

I would like to ask her to think about the question pertaining particularly to sections 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c). These are provisions that were actually ruled by the B.C. Court of Appeal as being discriminatory and essentially were suspended for a year. The member will know we have an extra three months to correct that.

If those two sections are not reinstated in the Indian Act, as has been suggested through Bill C-3, it leaves the whole question of registration particularly in British Columbia, but it would also have ramifications for registration across the country insofar as there are other claims before the court. Presumably, if this is not corrected, it will accelerate some of the same claims in other jurisdictions across the country. It leaves a serious void.

Would the member not agree, notwithstanding some of the valid comments today in terms of the continuing issues and concerns with membership and registration, that we owe it to first nations at least to move forward with this legislation, cure this problem that the B.C. Court of Appeal has put in front of us and then move on to deal with the other issues through the exploratory process?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to expand the scope of Bill C-3 so that a grandchild born before 1985 with a female grandparent would receive the same entitlement to status as a grandchild of a male grandparent born in the same period.

There are a few problems with Bill C-3. For example, it attempts in section 9 to take away the right to sue. It is a bit problematic. Some witnesses came forward and said we really need to look at this section again.

Quite a number of witnesses are concerned about the fact that there may not be resources to process applications in a timely way. We saw that when Bill C-31 was enacted. That is another area where there is a bit of a problem, and we need to look at it.

The motion we are speaking to deals directly with the fact that under Bill C-3 there is still gender discrimination, despite the government's attempt to address gender discrimination as a response to the McIvor decision. The Assembly of First Nations made a good comment specifically about this. It said that this legislation would defer discrimination to one or two generations later. It would entrench differential treatment of women.

The AFN is also concerned with other problems, like increased financial pressure, the creation of divisions within some communities and families, and declining status.

Let me get back to the motion before us. The AFN has been very clear that Bill C-3 would not adequately deal with the differential treatment of women.

Permit me to give the House a quick overview of this situation.

This stems from a case that Sharon McIvor brought forward. Ms. McIvor was born in 1948 and was not a registered Indian. She married a non-Indian in 1970. Ms. McIvor did not believe she was entitled to status under the Indian Act, but regardless she would have lost her right to status under the Indian Act when she married a non-Indian.

When Bill C-31 came into force in 1985, Ms. McIvor applied for Indian status on behalf of herself and her children. This was an incredibly long process, but after many years she obtained Indian status. But her son Jacob Grismer was not able to pass his status on to his children because his wife was not a status Indian. Mr. Grismer and Ms. McIvor challenged the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act on the basis that the status provisions contained residual discrimination based on sex. They won their case at the B.C. Court of Appeal.

Even though they won their case, we still find ourselves standing here in the House of Commons debating what is essentially the same issue, residual discrimination based on sex.

Let us look at the government's response to the McIvor decision.

A really good presentation was done at committee by the Canadian Bar Association. It encapsulated the government's response.

The federal government scheduled several sessions with national and regional aboriginal organizations. It accepted written comments prior to the introduction of Bill C-3.

The government has now come up with this bill. There are quite few pieces, but the main amendment proposes the addition of section 6.(1)(c.1) to the Indian Act. It would provide status to any individual whose mother lost Indian status upon marrying a non-Indian man, whose father is a non-Indian, who was born after the mother lost Indian status before April 17, 1985 unless the individual's parents married each other prior to that date, and who had a child with a non-Indian on or after September 4, 1951.

The CBA pointed out, and it is a bit puzzling, that a woman would have to have a child for this to be triggered. It seems there is a bit of discrimination here based on family status because a woman would actually have to have a child to fall under this section of the act. This is a bit odd to say the least.

To look at what this actually does and what this actually means, we can go back to the CBA brief. It put together an excellent chart. Conceptually, this might be a hard thing to think about and navigate in the mind to understand what this means in reality. But it is not actually rocket science. It is pretty clear if we can wrap our heads around the concepts.

The CBA has put together this beautiful chart listing this proposed amendment by Bill C-3. It has two examples: Sharon McIvor, married to a non-Indian man, and a hypothetical brother who is married to a non-Indian woman. If we follow this chart down and see what happens to their children and grandchildren and whether or not they have status, with these changes proposed in Bill C-3, the bulk of the situations would be actually the same. That is great. There would not be any discrimination.

Her son, married to a non-Indian woman, has status. The son of the hypothetical brother married to a non-Indian woman has status. That is great. They are all on par there. Sharon's grandchild, born after 1985, has status. That is great. The hypothetical brother's grandchild, born after 1985, has status. Again, everything is on the up and up.

This is where it comes a bit off the rails. For Sharon McIvor's grandchild, born before 1985, there is no status and therefore continuing discrimination. However, the hypothetical brother has a grandchild born before 1985 too and that grandchild has status. We are not talking about strange, adverse effects, discrimination that is hard to figure out or differential impact. We are not talking about hidden discrimination. This is overt. If we follow the lineage, the grandchild of the brother gets status while the grandchild of the sister does not. It is pretty straightforward if we think about it that way.

I would like to read from a submission of the Grand Council of the Waban-Aki Nation. They put together a great submission about the siblings rule and give a different situation. We have Sharon McIvor, and they talk about a woman named Susan Yantha. Susan Yantha was born in 1954 from a common-law union between Clément O'bumsawin, an Abenaki affiliated with the community of Odanak, and Anita Paradis, a non-Indian. At the time of Susan's birth, the Indian registration rules did not allow for the registration of “illegitimate” daughters of an Indian father and a non-Indian mother.

At the beginning of the 1970s, Susan married a non-Indian with whom she had a daughter, Tammy. Born from non-status parents, Tammy obviously had no right to be registered in the Indian register at the time of her birth.

In 1985, the federal government adopted Bill C-31 in a stated effort to eliminate discriminatory registration rules from the Indian Act. Pursuant to the new rules, Susan only had a right to section 6(2) “non-transmissible status” because she only had one Indian parent, her father. As a result, her daughter Tammy had no right to be registered. It goes without saying that Tammy's daughter, now aged four, has no right to be registered either.

Let us compare Susan's situation and that of her descendants to that of a hypothetical brother of hers, born in the same circumstances, and the situation of his descendants. That brother, whom we will call Arthur, would have had the right to be registered at the time of his birth. While the Indian registration rules did not allow for the registration of “illegitimate” daughters of an Indian father and non-Indian mother, they did allow for the registration of their “illegitimate” sons.

If Arthur had married a non-Indian, as Susan did, his wife would have acquired Indian status by marriage. Had Arthur and his wife had a child at the same time as Tammy was born, that child would have had the right to Indian status as a legitimate child of a status male, but would have lost that status upon reaching the age of 21 years because of the double mother rule.

With Bill C-31, Arthur, his wife and their child would have each been conferred transmissible 6(1) status in 1985, the goal of Bill C-31 being also to preserve the “vested” rights of those who had Indian status at the time the new rules were introduced. As to Arthur's child, his status would have not only been preserved but also enhanced, since under the new rules he would have enjoyed status indefinitely, not only until the age of 21, and could have passed on his status.

As a result, the child of the child of Arthur, or Arthur's grandchild, would have the right to non-transmissible section 6(2) status. This blatantly discriminatory treatment was described by the Minister of Indian Affairs in a letter written to Susan Yantha in 2002. As I said, that was a submission of the Grand Council of the Waban-Aki Nation.

It is pretty obvious there is discrimination. Also, to be blunt, it is obvious there is a solution and it is right in front of us. There have not been changes to the Indian Act concerning this issue since 1985. This is the golden opportunity, in 2010, to make sure the act does not discriminate against any women who fall under the Indian Act. The solution that has been brought forward by government is so narrow in its scope that all it does is address the injustice in which Sharon McIvor found herself. What we are going to have to deal with 25 years from now is the injustice that the next Sharon McIvor in a different situation will have experienced.

I would like to talk about solutions. My colleague from Labrador talked about how at committee witness after witness has come forward and has said that they know how to fix this. Witness after witness has said that there are some problems with funding and how to process applications and there is a problem with section 9, but at the very least, can we at least get the discrimination piece right?

There was a submission made by LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. It has followed this case through its entire history. It made a submission to committee. LEAF confirms its support for an amendment that will achieve the goal of eliminating all forms of discrimination against aboriginal women and their descendants. LEAF submits that the committee has the jurisdiction to propose amendments to the bill to achieve this end and believes the committee has jurisdiction because the bill is very broad in its scope. LEAF stated, “It is an act 'to promote gender equity in Indian registration' by 'responding' to the BCCA”--B.C. Court of Appeal--“decision in McIvor. The response by government can and should be comprehensive and should fully eradicate any vestige of inequality in the determination of Indian status”.

That is pretty straightforward. LEAF does have a legal eye and calls into question whether or not the committee has the jurisdiction to deal with this issue. It is important that LEAF raised this. It says that if it does have the jurisdiction then this is what the committee should do, but of course, it talks as well about if there is not the jurisdiction. In the event that the committee determines it is beyond its scope to propose amendments to fully eliminate sex discrimination, LEAF submits that consistent with the submissions made by aboriginal women and their organizations, the bill should be withdrawn and a new bill which fully redresses the discrimination suffered by aboriginal women should be introduced.

I find that very interesting. I am in agreement with the idea that the committee does have the jurisdiction to amend it. We can amend, but if the committee finds it does not have that power, then why are we only responding to the very narrow situation in which Sharon McIvor found herself? Why are we waiting for the next court challenge to come down the pike to deal with the residual discrimination in the act?

On that note, Dr. Pamela Palmater, a Mi'kmaq woman from New Brunswick and also the chair of Ryerson University's study of indigenous governments made a submission to the committee. I would like to read part of her submission about the conclusion. She said:

Part of the problem with Bill C-3 is how to respect gender equality in practice and not just the law. Delayed equality is not full equality. Canada fought the McIvor case for over 20 years and now proposes a minimal amendment that would require another person like Sharon McIvor to spend another 25 years to seek gender equality on essentially the same facts. An undefined joint process that does not have a specific mandate, clear objectives or identified funding for widespread participation does not provide any real comfort that gender discrimination, or any discrimination, will be addressed any time soon.

On that point, we have heard from the parliamentary secretary several times about this process to which Ms. Palmater referred. There is nothing bad about this further exploration process. That is fabulous. Let us explore away. Let us come up with great ideas. Let us be visionary and think about the future.

We do not need to actually envision the future when it comes to this bill. We do not actually need to pull in the best ideas on how to make this bill better because they are already here. All of the best ideas were put forward in committee about how to actually address gender discrimination under this section of the Indian Act. It is stunning to me that we are not seizing this opportunity.

I had the pleasure of sitting in on committee either last week or two weeks ago when the Canadian Bar Association appeared. I read its recommendation. It even drafted the section for us on how we could make the bill better and stronger. Of course, when it made its submission and I saw the writing in black and white about how to change the act, I thought it was a great idea, that those CBA folks are pretty smart and thank goodness they came because now we are going to fix the bill. I certainly was wrong and I am surprised because I find it mind-boggling that we would not actually bring in that provision.

I want to read the end of Ms. Palmater's submission to the House:

Let's try to get it right this time - my children are counting on you to uphold Canada's commitment to gender equality and human rights both in the letter and in spirit.

That says a lot. Those are very heartfelt words from Ms. Palmater about what we need to do.

In conclusion, I strongly support this motion by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I am thrilled she brought it forward and applaud her for doing so. It was the smart thing to do and the right thing to do. I am completely baffled as to why we are not actually implementing the recommendations.

As my colleague from Labrador said, every single person who came forward in committee said this has to change and we can seize the moment and address gender discrimination. We are not doing it and I stand here wondering why. I hope my colleague is successful in this motion.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the members for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Labrador for their excellent speeches regarding Bill C-3.

I want to ask a question dealing with the government's motivation for acting the way it is at committee. I think the last member who spoke got into that a little bit.

The question is, why would a government not seize the opportunity to deal with the whole area of discrimination, rather than focusing the bill on just the very minimum that it has to as a result of the court decision? It seems to me, as several members have mentioned already, that this issue is going to be around and is going to come back 10 or 20 years from now, and we are going to have deal with it then anyway, so why not deal with this issue properly and correctly in the initial period that we are in right now, while it is before committee?

We have heard from the witnesses. We know what the witnesses have said. Why do we not deal with this correctly today?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to invite the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to reread the speech I gave in the House when Bill C-3 was first introduced. I had said that we would study it in committee and that we would determine what could be done. I also said that we would support Bill C-3 so that it would be sent to committee, and then we would determine how it could be adapted to the situation in 2010. And that is exactly what we did.

I have nothing against the exploratory process that the parliamentary secretary is talking about to look at how a band council establishes rules for admitting members into its community. However, the exploratory process would work better once the current discrimination is eliminated from the Indian Act. Neither my colleague nor I are wrong, it is just that we are talking about different provisions.

We need to eliminate the discrimination contained in section 6 once and for all. This discrimination will continue to exist if we do not act. And then we can talk about the exploratory process. First nations should sit down and discuss their idea of a band, how they admit members to their community and who is part of that community. We cannot do it the other way around.

With all due respect for my colleague, if we do not resolve the issue of discrimination, it will not go away. They can do what they want, but nothing will have been resolved, and I would bet the parliamentary secretary anything that the exploratory process will be doomed from the outset.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House about the motion by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I quite enjoy working with the hon. member on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. When she decided to move this motion, she was well aware, as were we, that the bill does not go as far as aboriginal women want.

If I may, I would like to give a bit of background. British Columbia's Court of Appeal handed down a judgment last year. This ruling gave the Government of Canada one year to remove the discriminatory provision that kept Sharon McIvor from registering her grandsons as Indians. For the benefit of those listening, there is no law in Canada that is more discriminatory than the Indian Act. This law upholds a completely unacceptable form of discrimination against aboriginal women.

To make things perfectly clear, when someone is born, they are registered in a church or with the civil registrar, and this person obtains rights at birth. It is quite amazing that under the Indian Act, an Indian can lose his or her rights at birth. Allow me to explain. If an aboriginal woman marries a white man, this woman's children lose their rights at birth. But when an aboriginal man, an Indian, marries a white woman, his children have the rights set out in the Indian Act. That summarizes a very complex debate. This discrimination has existed since 1876.

In 1951, the Indian Act set out some parameters and two subsections were included, notably subsections 6(1) and 6(2). Under these two subsections, an Indian can be registered or given status at birth. That makes no sense. The current law treats women so unequally that I am surprised we are still debating it in Canada in 2010.

That is exactly what happened in the present case. It took a certain woman to wake up one day and say “enough is enough”, and decide to go to court to assert her rights. That woman was Sharon McIvor and that is what she did in 1985, because in 1981 the Liberal government of the day had introduced the famous Bill C-31, which was passed and which perpetuated the discrimination. Although it eliminated part of it, it maintained other aspects of the discrimination.

It is quite remarkable, because under the Indian Act, each Indian child that is born must be registered as an Indian in order to have the right to live or continue to live as an Indian.

What is quite remarkable is that the government has given itself the right to decide whether to register an Indian boy or girl. In the matter before us, Indian girls have far fewer rights than Indian boys when they are born. That is precisely how things work right now and how they will remain if Bill C-3, which was examined in committee, passes in its current form.

Under subsection 7(1) of the Indian Act, it is up to the government to decide whether an individual, male or female, is an Indian and whether that person is entitled to that status, as set out in subsections 6(1) and 6(2). Those two subsections in the Indian Act are discriminatory and this discrimination has been perpetuated for 25 years.

Thanks to the court challenges program, Ms. McIvor received the financial support she needed to take her case to court and stand up for herself. She won recognition that she had the right to register her grandchildren, both her grandson and granddaughter. What is quite remarkable is that if not for the court challenges program—Ms. McIvor was one of the last people to use it—we probably never would have been debating this issue, for it is very complicated.

Lawyers for Ms. McIvor told the committee that they had studied the matter for 12 to 24 months in order to mount a defence before the courts. This case has been in the courts since 1985 and has moved through all levels, from the British Columbia Supreme Court to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which handed down a decision last year.

When a court rules on an issue, it rules only on that issue. It cannot address anything other than the issue brought before it, at the risk of having its decision overturned by the provincial court of appeal or supreme court because it went too far.

The court was asked whether Ms. McIvor could pass on Indian status to her grandchildren. The answer is very limited. You have to read the decision and I do not believe that my Conservative friends have done so. The government did not read the decision before introducing Bill C-3. Had they read it carefully, they would have realized that the judge said, in short, that he did not believe that the discrimination complained of by Ms. McIvor would be perpetuated for other aboriginal women, but that he was not called on to settle the matter, which is a political one.

As far as I know, in this place, we are in the business of politics. The matter has arrived in the House. How did it get here? The government did not have a choice. It promised to introduce a bill to amend the Indian Act to eliminate the type of discrimination that Ms. McIvor suffered. The government says that it is required only to introduce a bill to that end. By introducing a bill that deals solely with that issue, the government has taken a very narrow view.

Since the committee is examining the bill, it has asked witnesses to testify. Every single one of the witnesses told us the same thing: if we are going to do it, we must do it right. This means that if we are trying to deal with and resolve the issue of discrimination, we must solve this problem once and for all.

This issue affects aboriginal women across Canada. If this bill is passed as is, these women will continue to be the victims of discrimination and will have to go before the courts. They will also not have access to the court challenges program, so that they can be on equal footing with the government. The government is both judge and judged here. It does not want to solve this problem, and that is clear.

Why not? Because there would be too many status Indians. Bluntly put, the sole purpose of the Indian Act was to assimilate all aboriginals. Is that clear enough? That is what it was for. All you have to do is deprive women of their rights. As far as I know, unless something has changed recently, it is still women who give birth to children, and it is through women that values and Indian status are transmitted. Therefore, it is through women that the right to Indian status can be taken away, and that the problem can slowly be solved. Solving the problem means assimilating aboriginals. That is what the Indian Act was for, and it still is today.

It is 2010 and the situation has not changed. Bill C-3 does not solve the problem. That is what the Native Women's Association of Canada and Femmes Autochtones du Québec told us. The Canadian Bar Association and lawyers' associations from across Canada came to talk to us, and so did aboriginal chiefs. Last week, we heard from Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, Alberta and British Columbia. Everyone had the same thing to say, and that is that Bill C-3 would not solve the problem.

Our position is that if we are going to solve the problem, we should solve it for good. We need to eliminate the discrimination that exists, and to do that, we have to go further than the bill requires. That is exactly what the Court of Appeal for British Columbia told us. It said we should do our jobs as politicians and eliminate the discrimination while we were at it. The bill has to go further and eliminate once and for all the discrimination aboriginal women face.

But the government says that there will be far too many Indians, that the Indian population is expected to increase by 40,000 to 45,000 with Bill C-3, that this makes no sense, that there are already far too many Indians, that it will cost far too much and that assimilation is the answer. That is what we must speak out against in the House.

In a roundabout way, the government is trying to avoid facing up to its responsibilities, which would mean recognizing aboriginal peoples. The government must recognize that aboriginal nations have the right to exist, and it must give them the means to continue to exist. That is what scares it the most. I have a binder here, but we have notes and documents. We have everything we need to solve the problem once and for all.

Even departmental officials who appeared before us are saying that Bill C-3 will not solve the problem. It is true that this will cost more. We have to be honest. It is quite clear that if we allow the amendments to be made to this bill, more Indians will be registered in Canada.

What is wrong with that? It is high time we recognized that these aboriginals have the right to live. Our country does not like discrimination, or so it seems. Our country is democratic. Canada boasts about being a country where discrimination does not exist. Canada is one of the few countries that keeps its aboriginals, its first nations in an unprecedented state of dependence and discrimination. That is the problem and it will only perpetuate if we do not do our job.

Now we are being criticized for doing our job too well. It would be easy to pass Bill C-3 as is and resolve a small problem, but this small problem will persist. We are resolving the problem in British Columbia with Bill C-3, but that is all we are doing. Some 14 similar cases are pending in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan. The problem will certainly resurface if we do not deal with it once and for all.

All the witnesses, including the Waban-Aki and Odanak people, have said the same thing. Aboriginal women have told us that they have been receiving all sorts of requests and that they were going to set out on a mission and continue to fight.

I hope that first nations people have the right to live in this country without fear of assimilation. What is going to happen? It is very clear that the purpose of this bill is to keep discrimination in place and work toward one single goal: the assimilation of first peoples. That is unacceptable.

We figured that as long as we were doing the work, we should do it properly, so that is exactly what we did. This afternoon, we will present amendments to bring the bill into line with what the first nations people who came before us want. Every single witness we heard from expected us to do our job.

Bill C-3 talks about an exploratory process. I have never seen a bigger pack of lies. The government says that it launched an exploratory process, but what is there to explore? We already know what the problem is.

Once we pass Bill C-3, we will still have to review the whole band council process for registering aboriginals who want to be registered by their band council.

I want to make one final point for those listening. Some of us are doing our jobs properly. We are doing what all of the people who spoke to the committee want us to do. The government needs to understand that it must comply. It does not have a choice. If it does not do what this country's first peoples want it to do, the battle will go on. While people are fighting just to be recognized as aboriginals, they will not be addressing drug and housing problems, not to mention all of the other issues that first peoples are struggling with.

That is why we have to take this as far as first nations have asked us to and eliminate the discrimination in the Indian Act once and for all.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has certainly spoken passionately in this House before on these issues and before committee.

No doubt that when we looked at Bill C-3, there were doubts as to whether it would resolve all aspects of gender discrimination. Certainly our fears were brought to light. All of the witnesses said that there would be continuing discrimination. I tend to agree with the witnesses, legal experts, individuals and aboriginal organizations, who came before us.

One thing that quickly came to all of us once we examined the bill even from a preliminary perspective was that the Conservative government had taken pains to very deliberately scope this bill in the narrowest possible terms. It seems to me that this was a very conscious decision to scope it very narrowly so that it would apply to the bare minimum that it had to apply to. There was nothing stopping the government from scoping this bill in a much broader way, in being more inclusive and to once and for all get rid of the sex discrimination. There was nothing stopping the government from making that choice. Instead the government chose to scope it very narrowly and we are left with the dilemma that we are trying to resolve here today and in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's remarks. I have a question for him, but I want to preface it.

A committee's job is to make sure that a bill respects the will of Parliament. Unfortunately, Bill C-3, as written, only reflects a single British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling that dealt with one specific issue: can Ms. McIvor and her grandchildren—her grandson—be recognized and registered as Indians?

In reviewing Bill C-3, we realized that it did not go far enough and did not solve the problem of discrimination against women. I will come back to that in a few minutes when it is my turn to speak to my colleague's motion.

In the member for Labrador's opinion, if we do nothing more than pass Bill C-3, how many aboriginal women will experience the same kind of discrimination over the coming years?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member's comments on the motion before the House today, I want to ask him to consider the balance that the committee has to deal with.

On one hand, we have the imperative of House procedure, which requires us to work within the scope that the House has referred the bill to committee. On the other hand, we have the urgency of moving forward on a bill that would in fact reinstate the registration provisions of the Indian Act, which would allow, as was suggested here, some 45,000 potential registrants, waiting at the bay, to achieve status. Those people are waiting.

Would he not agree and could he not consider that Bill C-3 is in fact an interim step? It is a step in the right direction of moving us to where we need to go and that is exactly what this exploratory process that has been committed to by the government will give us. Bill C-3 is by no means a be-all and end-all in terms of addressing all of the issues that the witnesses advanced in committee.

I put it to the member. Aside from his comments, would he not consider that there is some urgency in getting this bill passed even though it recognizes there are still some issues to deal with?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there is always this shot, “You were in government”. I do not care what government was in place, quite frankly. No government has the right to perpetuate discrimination. One may want to take a shot, but that is fine because I will never stand for it, if I can help it, at all. I do not care if it was a Liberal government, a Conservative government or a provincial NDP government. It makes no difference. If we see there is discrimination, we have an obligation to try to eradicate it.

We are all sometimes presented with these opportunities and at times are judged by not meeting the challenge that has been presented. I would hate to think, with the opportunity we have now, that we will not rise to the challenge. Maybe we all will have an opportunity to vote on Bill C-3 and we will see where we stand.

The government estimates that those who may be eligible to register is 45,000, but if this particular bill does not go through, it only affects the people in B.C. where certain provisions of the Indian Act have been struck down. Some estimate that could be up to 3,000 a year, although other experts say that the number impacted would be far less than that because there would still be provisions under the Indian Act by which they could register.

There are also arguments that many who are eligible to register, because of the amendments in 1985, have done so in the last 25 years. The essential point is how do we once and for all eradicate the Indian Act of sex discrimination.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in favour of the motion put before this House by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I thank her for taking the opportunity to do that and for giving us an opportunity to debate an issue during what really is an historic time not only within the House but within our committee and the country.

Significant changes to the Indian Act do not happen often. The last time that such significant amendments were being debated was in 1985, 25 years ago. Those particular amendments came about because of huge and momentous court battles and struggles before the United Nations by some very courageous women, women like Corbiere-Lavell, who is now the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, and Sandra Lovelace, who is now a senator.

Subsequent to 1985, another 25 year legal battle took place to once and for all get rid of sex discrimination within the Indian Act. We as parliamentarians are at an historic crossroads where we have an opportunity, once and for all, to rid the very archaic and parochial Indian Act of all sex discrimination.

This motion says that we should instruct the committee to allow the committee to go beyond the scope of the bill to make significant amendments. Why would we do this? We would do it because every witness who appeared before committee said that there would be residual discrimination. Government witnesses tacitly said that this was so. They never explicitly said so, but there was a tacit assumption on the part of even the government's own witnesses, such as lawyers from the Department of Justice and those who work within the Department of Indian Affairs, that there would be residual discrimination.

Beyond those particular witnesses, national organizations, such as the Assembly of First Nations, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the National Association of Friendship Centres, put forward possible amendments to the bill at committee and encouraged us to once and for all get rid of sex discrimination. Each of them in their submissions said that there would be ongoing sex discrimination under the Indian Act.

Regional organizations, such as the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and the Quebec Native Women Inc., also made presentations. I will go through some of their specific comments as we debate this in the House.

Legal organizations also came before us, such as the Canadian Bar Association, which represents over 30,000 legal minds in this country, and the Bureau du Québec. These organizations also said that there would be ongoing residual discrimination.

We also heard from individuals, experts, people with their doctorates in the Indian Act and people like Pam Palmater, who came with not only a professional opinion but one also imbued from her studies and from what she had learned throughout her time and in her own family. She brought a personal experience to this issue and she said that there would be residual discrimination.

The person who has waged battle for equality for the last 25 years, Sharon McIvor, came before committee and said that even with Bill C-3, even with what the government has presented to this House and what we are now debating in committee, there will be no true equality under the Indian Act for her and her grandchildren as compared to those in the male line. She also said that there will be continuing gender discrimination.

With all of that evidence in front of the government, why would it want to continue sex discrimination? Why would it not want to now take the opportunity to rid the Indian Act of gender inequality? Why would we as parliamentarians not rise to the task to end gender inequality when we see it and when we know it exists by virtually everyone's admission? The government sometimes talks a good talk about gender equality for women but we do not see it walk the walk. We do not see it step up to the plate.

I will go through what some of the witnesses told us, sometimes through written submissions. I will quote the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund because it lists out three specific examples where gender discrimination will continue to exist, even with Bill C-3. It said, “Aboriginal women and their descendants who regain status under Bill C-3 are not entitled to equal status with their male counterparts. Descendants of women born before 1951 will not be entitled to status, whereas descendants of men born before 1951 are entitled to status. Descendants of women in common-law or other non-marital unions with non-status men are not entitled to status”.

It goes on to say, “Bill C-3 does not address the existing Indian Act policy, pursuant to which all cases of unconfirmed paternity are presumed to be non-status. In response to Bill C-3, individual aboriginal women, aboriginal women's organizations, aboriginal governments and chiefs, including the Assembly of First Nations and legal experts, have demanded the eradication of all sex discrimination under the Indian Act”.

It emphasized the point right in B.C where some of the members opposite like to say that this will have the greatest impact because the B.C. Court of Appeal did apply specifically to the Province of B.C., but the proposes amendments under Bill C-3 would apply across the country.

The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, when it appeared before the committee, said that Bill C-3, Canada's response to the B.C. Court of Appeal decision in McIvor v. Canada, was a limited approach which continues discrimination under the Indian Act against indigenous women and their descendants. It went on to say that we should make a number of amendments to eradicate sex discrimination and gender discrimination from the Indian Act, and it lists them.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, a national organization, also came to the committee and admitted that there would still be gender discrimination under the Indian Act. It said that it wanted to make some changes. One of them was that, as an interim measure, Canada should amend section 6.1(a) of the Indian Act to include the following words, “Or was born prior to April 17, 1985 and was a direct descendant of such a person to Section 61(a) of the Indian Act”.

That is not in Bill C-3. That is in direct contrast to what is in Bill C-3. This would broaden it and get rid of many forms of discrimination. Of course, there were others dealing with other issues, but it was the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples that made that particular submission.

Members of the Quebec Native Women Inc. came to us and said that while they recognized the need to amend the archaic nature of the Indian Act, which is of itself discriminatory, they deplore the restrictive vision of the federal government focusing solely on a patchwork remedy to the specific problem of discrimination brought to light in the McIvor case. They went on to say:

This is a missed opportunity for the Government of Canada to finally eradicate the historical and institutionalized forms of discrimination that Aboriginal women and their descendants have been subjected to under the Indian Act since 1876. The Government’s proposal to amend the Indian Act will indeed cause further destructive divisions within families.

I mentioned earlier that individuals came before the committee presenting testimony. One was Pam Palmater who has a unique family situation with various parentage for various kids within her family and she outlined it to the committee. Under Bill C-3 they would be treated differently. There will be different status for different children just because their grandmother was a woman. They do not come from a paternal line, but from a maternal line, and she outlined that very clearly. She also wrote to the committee. She was quite succinct, but this is how she summed it up:

Canada has introduced a minimalist amendment to the Act and is seeking to deny compensation to those Indian women and their descendants who were wrongfully denied their identities,--

She went on to say:

The Court of Appeal in McIvor found the discrimination to be newly created in 1985 and not prior to the coming into force of the Charter.

So she is also bringing in the issue of the charter that came into force after Bill C-31 and the type of remedy that would be available to people admitting that there was discrimination between 1985 and the present.

She said and I am paraphrasing, to not once and for all get rid of the discrimination is to perpetuate the very negative stereotypes against Indian women that McIvor and others fought against, that they are less worthy, less aboriginal and less able to transmit their aboriginality to their children simply by virtue of being aboriginal women.

She went on to make a further argument that they must be allowed the opportunity to bring forward a charter challenge based on the discrimination that existed since 1985 to the present even with Bill C-3 brought in because we know there will be residual forms of discrimination.

Then we had presentations by the Canadian Bar Association. It has a section entitled “Continuing Discrimination”. It said:

Unfortunately, Bill C-3 would not completely eliminate discrimination from the registration provisions of the Indian Act. The proposals do not address discriminatory aspects of the “second generation cut-off rule” enacted in 1985, which the parties and the court studiously avoided in the McIvor case. Perhaps more important, Bill C-3 would not sufficiently address the source of discrimination identified by the BC Court of Appeal; sections 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) violate the Charter to the extent that they grant individuals to whom the “Double Mother Rule” applied greater rights than they would have had under the former legislation.

I have only taken excerpts from certain presentations by witnesses that were made before the aboriginal affairs committee, but I believe this whole debate comes down to the motion. Why not allow the committee to have its scope broadened on the bill and to allow us to make the amendments?

There are probably going to be amendments introduced even later today in committee and someone will rule whether they are in order or they are not in order. We will vote subsequently to that, but why not give the committee the opportunity and the latitude to introduce amendments based on what witnesses have brought before the committee to once and for all end gender discrimination? Why would the government not want that to happen?

I understand that this motion, brought before the House, will give the committee more latitude, more of a breadth of opportunity to make amendments that bring gender equality to all aboriginal women when it comes to provisions of the Indian Act.

Why would the government want to deny us that simple opportunity? Then we can take the time in committee to propose those amendments and once and for all get rid of gender discrimination. Why would the government want to perpetuate gender discrimination when it has the opportunity to eradicate it?

In 2010 we have as parliamentarians, almost at any age I suppose, these opportunities and we should take them and not deny them.

This is all we are asking the government to do. We think it is a sensible approach. The government talks about its extension from the B.C. Court of Appeal where the court granted one year and now it is going until the first week in July. The B.C. Court of Appeal said in its decision that if the government wanted more time, because it knows how significant these issues are and how complex they can be, it would have granted that time to the government.

However, the government talks about the deadline, but when its lawyers come before the committee, the government admits that it really did not have any legal obligation to even bring in Bill C-3. If Bill C-3 falls, who says it will bring in another bill.

If the government is true to its words, true to what it says, it will eliminate gender discrimination. But if Bill C-3 fails, I would ask the government, is it going to bring in another bill to deal with all of the sex discrimination that exists under the Indian Act? If it will not, why would it not? If it has taken the opportunity and made all these arguments about Bill C-3, I would think that the government would live up to its own rhetoric and bring in another bill in a very quick timeframe to deal with the residual discrimination.

It cannot use all of the arguments and rationale for bringing in Bill C-3, then have it fail and say it is not going to bring in another bill. I do not think the government can have it both ways.

I would say to the aboriginal caucus members of the Conservative Party of Canada to fight within their party for the change that is required. They should fight within their party to ensure that the committee can do its work today and for the aboriginal women who have fought so hard for many generations, or else what is an aboriginal committee or a caucus for if they do not fight those battles within their own party.

This is a historic time. It is an opportunity for us all to join together as parliamentarians and end gender discrimination and sex discrimination under the Indian Act once and for all. There is nothing that stands in our way. The House has been given an opportunity to vote on the motion that will allow the committee to do its work and the committee to respond to the witnesses that came before us. If we cannot respond to the witnesses who come before us in committee, what is the use of committees?

We hear witnesses because they are supposed to be able to influence us to make the appropriate changes. There has been unanimity from witnesses who came before us to make changes to end gender discrimination. Why would we not allow the committee the opportunity to do just that?

I am glad to speak to this motion. I invite questions. In speaking here today I want to honour those like Sharon McIvor and other women who have stood with her and indeed many Canadians who have stood with her for the last 25 years to once and for all get rid of gender discrimination. It is the right thing to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Medicine Hat sat on the committee for Indian Affairs and Northern Development and we listened to witnesses for a considerable length of time on Bill C-3. What we heard were contradictory positions and a lack of consensus. People were reluctant to express points of view in terms of possible amendments to the bill because of their concern regarding unintended consequences. We also heard that unaddressed issues will flow from Bill C-3. We have been very straightforward about that, which is why we are launching the exploratory process.

My question is very straightforward. How many new eligibilities will there be across the country as a consequence of the passage of the bill, and what are the consequences of not having Bill C-3 in place?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure most members are aware, in April 2009, the Court of Appeal in British Columbia ruled on the McIvor case, McIvor v. Canada, and certain registration provisions under the Indian Act were unconstitutional and violated equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. The court suspended the declaration for 12 months to April 6, 2010 to give Parliament time to pass this act. In fact, the court extended it further to July 5.

As part of our process, we are trying to ensure that we meet the requirements of the B.C. Court of Appeal to continue on with our process to ensure that those who have been discriminated against will no longer be discriminated against under the new provision under Bill C-3.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this Bill C-3 is a very important bill for the first nations people of British Columbia. In fact it will allow eligible grandchildren of women who have lost status, as a result of marrying non-Indian men, to be entitled to registration of Indian status in accordance with the gender act.

This is a really important process that we need to go through. We need to make sure we reach that decision prior to the court's extension date of July 5 of this year. We have also engaged in a process where all first nations people will be able to come and discuss these issues over the next period of time, so we can get their input on registration and citizenship.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. members in the House that in fact our government has gone a long way in trying to promote equality against gender discrimination.

In budget 2009 and budget 2010, we have brought forward hundreds of millions of dollars that will help people right across this country, including the aboriginal and first nations people.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that our government has moved forward to try to bring some resolution to this court challenge and order by the B.C. Court of Appeal. Bill C-3 in fact does that. I believe this will help end discrimination. If we do not do this, that will make sure the first nations and aboriginal people in B.C. will not be able to register anyone else.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what my colleague said before the Conservatives decided to move a motion to adjourn the debate. That motion was absurd; it would have prevented us from continuing an extremely important debate on discrimination against women.

Contrary to what the member for Medicine Hat said, the committee realized during its study of Bill C-3 that the bill would fix nothing. It is just a band-aid solution for a much bigger problem. We have a unique opportunity during this session of Parliament to deal with the issue once and for all. If we do not deal with it now, it will come up again over the next 25 years.

I would like my colleague to comment on the problem. Ms. McIvor received financial support from the court challenges program to take her case to court. Does my colleague agree that if we adjourn the debate and move on, the issue will come before the courts yet again? Does the hon. member agree that we should reinstate the court challenges program that the Conservatives eliminated?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

I will speak against the motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. Bill C-3, the gender equality IN Indian registration Act, proposes to end a cause of gender discrimination in certain registration provisions of the Indian Act. I believe it is essential to note that the central objective of this bill is ultimately one of gender equality.

At issue are some of the rules that govern registration as an Indian, which is often referred to as Indian status, specifically, what criteria the Government of Canada should use to determine who can be registered as an Indian. Today, of course, the term Indian is rarely used to refer to an individual, although terms, such as status Indian and Indian register, remain important legal concepts.

To use the word today is by no means intended to be derogatory or disrespectful. My intent here is to summarize the complex issues. This bill directly responds to a decision rendered last year by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. The court ruled that two paragraphs in section 6 of the Indian Act are contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court suspended the effect of the decision until July 5 of this year so that Parliament could take action to resolve the issue. The solution proposed in Bill C-3 is to amend the Indian Act to remove the discrimination between male and female lines that the court ruled is discriminatory.

However, if no legislative solution is in place by this date, no new registrations in the province of British Columbia can be made for the duration and validity of those provisions.

We must also bear in mind that gender discrimination in the current version of the Indian Act has a negative impact, not only on first nations peoples but on all Canadians.

I am reminded of what Her Excellency the Governor General, the Right Hon. Michaëlle Jean, said in the 2008 Speech from the Throne. She said:

Canada is built on a promise of opportunity, the chance to work hard, raise a family and make a better life. Today, it is more important than ever to deliver on this promise, and ensure that all Canadians share in the promise of this land, regardless of cultural background, gender, age, disability or official language. This Government will break down barriers that prevent Canadians from reaching their potential.

When the B.C. Court of Appeal handed down its ruling, the Government of Canada reviewed and analyzed it thoroughly. In June of last year, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced that the federal government would not appeal the ruling and that it would proceed with amendments to the Indian Act as ordered by the court. In August, the minister announced the federal government's engagement plan to provide information and seek input on a legislative solution.

In the same month, the engagement process got under way with the publication and distribution of a discussion paper. The discussion paper provided an overview of the issues at play, described a previous effort to amend the Indian Act to remove discriminatory provisions and outlined the Government of Canada's proposed legislative solution. The engagement process enabled interested parties to provide feedback on the proposed legislative approach, including submitting written comments to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada or by attending one of the engagement sessions held last fall throughout Canada.

The discussion paper was designed to focus and inform the engagement process. Department officials also provided technical briefings to officials of five national aboriginal organizations: the Assembly of First Nations, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the National Association of Friendship Centres and the Métis National Council.

The engagement sessions were held from early September through early November. National aboriginal organizations co-sponsored three of the sessions and department officials worked with regional aboriginal organizations to conduct another 12 sessions. Overall, a total of approximately 900 people participated in the engagement sessions held across Canada and more than 150 submissions were received by mid-November.

The process generated a great deal of discussion and a wide range of views and opinions were expressed. Concerns raised most often related to the potential financial implications for first nations and possible impact on treaty rights. In addition, many people expressed concerns about broader issues associated with Indian Act rules regarding registration, membership and citizenship.

During these engagement sessions, while many people expressed support for actions intended to eliminate gender discrimination in the Indian Act, many also called for much larger reforms.

As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has made clear, however, Bill C-3 responds directly to the court's ruling by proposing amendments to certain registration provisions in the Indian Act. As the minister has announced, a separate exploratory process is being put in place with the involvement of first nations and aboriginal organizations to examine the broader issues raised during the engagement process.

Over the next few months the government will be collaborating with first nations and other aboriginal organizations in setting up this exploratory process as a separate and distinct process to the legislation on the broader issues associated with registration, membership and citizenship as was requested during the engagement process. Specifically, this will be done in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Métis National Council and the National Association of Friendship Centres.

All organizations, along with the Government of Canada, are willing to work together on a process designed to gather the views of individuals, communities and leaders.

Bill C-3 complements the partnership approach adopted by the Government of Canada on many issues that affect the lives of aboriginal peoples. Proposed legislation, along with the exploratory process, strengthens the relationship between Canada and aboriginal peoples.

I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say how disappointed I am in terms of this motion.

The government has been very straightforward. The committee has been very straightforward. We have offered departmental officials to talk about this whole bill, the amendments and the possibilities. We have had very good witnesses. We have had people say that we really need to get on with Bill C-3. Anything that members might want to do in the way of amendments will have unintended consequences. I have had conversations with representatives from national aboriginal organizations. We have offered an exploratory process that would go beyond this bill, as a parallel process that would basically take very considerable time to accomplish.

We are not trying to disguise our behaviour or anything flowing from the McIvor case. The bill is a direct response to a Supreme Court of British Columbia decision, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else can be addressed through the exploratory process.

I would just like to put that on the record because we certainly have a different set of talking points suddenly coming from the opposition.

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

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, that it have the power during its consideration of 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), to expand the scope of the Bill so that a grandchild born before 1985 with a female grandparent would receive the same entitlement to status as a grandchild of a male grandparent born in the same period.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to two references in O'Brien and Bosc to support this motion. One is on page 752 of the English edition and it deals with a motion to instruct a committee. It states:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills...A committee that so wishes may also seek instruction from the House.

The House may give instructions to a Committee of the Whole or indeed to any of its committees. More than one motion of instruction may be proposed in relation to the same bill, but each such motion must be moved separately. Motions of instruction respecting bills are permissive rather than mandatory in that it is left to the committee to decide whether or not to exercise the powers given to it by the House.

It is clear from that reference that the House can instruct a committee on the scope of the bill. The second reference is from page 994 of the English edition of O'Brien and Bosc. It states:

Once a committee has begun a study, the House may also give it additional direction, known as “instructions”. They are sometimes mandatory, but are usually permissive. A mandatory instruction orders a committee to consider a specific matter or to conduct its study in a particular way. A permissive instruction gives the committee the power to do something that it could not otherwise do, but does not require it to exercise that power. Committees may, if they wish, request an instruction from the House by presenting a report to it.

The reason that I believe that this motion is necessary is because we have before the House Bill C-3, which is a result of a B.C. Supreme Court decision that responded very narrowly. We have heard from numerous witnesses and from briefs before the aboriginal affairs committee the fact that there still is residual discrimination left over as a result of this very narrow definition.

Procedurally, we know that a committee by itself cannot expand the scope of the bill; however, there are two ways to expand the scope of the bill. One is for the House to give instruction, and again, I want to reiterate this is permissive so it is up to the committee to determine whether it would take this instruction, and the second way is for the government itself to expand the scope of the bill. To date, the government has not chosen to expand the scope of the bill, so I am requesting support of the House to give permissive instructions to the committee to allow it to expand the scope of the bill.

I want to talk a little bit about why this is important. In 1988, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development tabled a report in the House that outlined residual discrimination that was left over from the 1985 Bill C-31, which was a bill that recognized the fact that women who married non-aboriginal men could regain status in some way. But Bill C-31 still left discriminatory practices in place. The fifth report from 1988 acknowledged a number of areas where there was still discrimination. On page 30, it said:

In 1985 over 50% of all children born to status Indian mothers were born out of wedlock.All these children are now automatically registered as 6.(2) if there is no signed acknowledgment of paternity.

This is the issue concerning non-stated paternity. We heard from witnesses at committee that non-stated paternity often will discriminate against women who for a variety of reasons are unwilling to state the paternity. There were remedies suggested in this report which have not been acted on, which included having women sign an affidavit.

Further on in the report, it said:

One of the most frequently cited examples of residual sex discrimination has been the discriminatory treatment of reinstated “12(1)(b)” women in terms of the rights of their children, grandchildren and non-Indian or non-status spouses under the amended Indian Act relative to the rights held by the descendants and non-Indian spouses of Indian men who “married out” before April 17, 1985. The rights concerned involved entitlement to Indian status, entitlement to band membership and reserve residency. The other frequently cited example is the sexually discriminatory treatment of illegitimate children born before April 17, 1985 of male status Indians and non-status women in regard to entitlement to status and band membership.

Further on in the report, there are a number of other examples of residual sex discrimination, which were brought to the attention of the committee. One of them required an unmarried Indian woman to name the father of her children, which I have already talked about. Later in the report, on page 36, it talked about the complexity of the act. It said:

The registration entitlement provisions have become increasingly complex since the first consolidated Indian Act in 1876. Unfortunately, the 1985 amendments continue this tradition. The entitlement provisions respecting registration and band membership now constitute a complex set of rules expressed in highly technical language. The entitlement of a particular individual is dependent upon the entitlement of his or her parents and/or grandparents under the present Act. In the case of individuals applying for reinstatement or first time registration because of discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act, an intimate knowledge of previous versions of the Act is also required. In short, these provisions cannot be easily understood by laypersons including the many people affected by the Indian Act.

Bill C-3 does nothing to alleviate those problems that were identified.

I will turn to modern-day times. The report was from 1988 and there have been no amendments to the Indian Act that have dealt with that residual discrimination until this date. A couple of decades have gone by where women and their offspring continue to be treated differently than men.

On April 22 the Canadian Human Rights Commission appeared before the committee. Its terminology was slightly different. It talked about alleged residual discrimination, but it outlined a couple of important points. It talked about family status because that is still alleged residual discrimination under the current Bill C-3. The CHRC official stated:

Family status is a very broad ground so I will provide a definition. Family status refers to the inter-relationship that arises from bonds of marriage, kinship or legal adoption, including the ancestral relationship, whether legitimate, illegitimate, or by adoption. It also includes the relationships between spouses, siblings, in-laws, uncles or aunts, and nephews or nieces, and cousins.

We have examples of that residual discrimination that is still going on between siblings. I am going to come back to that case in a moment. Dr. Palmater, when she appeared before the committee, outlined that family discrimination still exists within her own family.

Later in the testimony, the Human Rights Commission talked about a couple of key points, which other members of the committee are going to be speaking to today. The HRC official said:

My key message to you today is that this is by no means definite. The Commission’s ability to redress allegations of discrimination under the Indian Act remains uncertain...The Attorney General of Canada has given notice that it will be challenging the Commission’s jurisdiction, claiming that determination of status by the registrar is not a service under section 5 of the CHRA...Therefore, if a court were to find that the determination of status is not a service, the Commission would no longer have the authority to accept complaints related to Indian status. By extension, this could raise similar questions as to whether or not the determination of band membership is a service.

That aspect is important. What the committee certainly heard was not an acknowledgement of residual discrimination but a tacit admission. The government and the department have indicated that one remedy for people would be to go before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, but the CHRC clearly indicated that this may not be a remedy. It may well be that we could wait a few more decades before this residual discrimination is addressed.

In its closing remarks, the Canadian Human Rights Commission stated:

The Committee has already heard that the Indian Act has had discriminatory effects, including residual gender-based discrimination. A case-by-case, section-by-section approach to resolving discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act will be costly, confrontational and time-consuming. Moreover, the Act places the burden on complainants who do not necessarily have access to legal resources.

Again, testimony before the committee indicated that there are currently 14 court cases in the works regarding various complaints concerning status provisions in the Indian Act.

We know that in the case of Ms. McIvor it was 20 years before she was able to have her case finally resolved. The resolution was not the one Ms. McIvor had hoped for.

Again, this is all part of the argument that it is critical to take this opportunity now that we are opening up the Indian Act to look at the status provisions and deal with all aspects of the sexual discrimination still present in the act.

In its testimony at committee, the Canadian Bar Association highlighted a number of areas. One was as follows:

There are many people registered under section 6(2) who were registered post-1985 because they were not registered earlier for reasons other than gender discrimination. One of those reasons had to do with adoption. In the 1960s and 70s, numerous First Nation children were adopted out but were not registered as Indians. After 1985, they were registered as Indians but under section 6(2). In many of those cases, their mothers still had status at the time of the children’s birth and so after 1985 were reinstated because they were entitled to be registered at their birth but were not. However, they were given the same lesser status--namely section 6(2). Bill C-3 would not provide any benefit to those people who were given section 6(2) status for reasons different from the McIvor case. Unless a person meets all of the criteria, they are left out.

This is another case of that residual discrimination.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission talked about family status being one of the areas where there is potential for discrimination. The Canadian Bar Association identified that and said:

This raises a potential concern for “family status” discrimination, in that some people will only be “bumped up” from section 6(2) to 6(1) status if they parent a child. This may affect people whose band membership code denies membership to Indians registered under section 6(2) and also in communities where there is a certain stigma associated with having section 6(2) status rather than section 6(1).

These various categories continue to promote a lack of harmony and conflicting relationships. This is an opportunity for the House to deal with that.

The Canadian Bar Association also dealt with section 9 and said that section 9 is a concern as it would remove the right of people to sue the federal government for not providing them the status as a result of the gender discrimination addressed by the bill. The association cautioned that this would make the bill vulnerable to further court challenges.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission identified the fact that it may also limit its ability to provide a remedy if section 9 of the bill stands. Later on in its brief, the commission talked about continuing discrimination:

Unfortunately, Bill C-3 would not completely eliminate discrimination from the registration provisions of the Indian Act. The proposals do not address discriminatory aspects of the “second generation cut-off rule” enacted in 1985, which the parties and the court studiously avoided in the McIvor case.

Perhaps more important, Bill C-3 would not sufficiently address the source of discrimination identified by the B.C. Court of Appeal; sections 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) violate the Charter to the extent that they grant individuals to whom the “Double Mother Rule” applied greater rights than they would have had under the former legislation. The...Double Mother re-instates would still have “better status” than those in the comparator group, even following the proposed amendments in Bill C-3.

That is a serious concern, that even in a McIvor-like situation we are going to continue to perpetuate that kind of discrimination.

I mentioned that I wanted to talk briefly about Dr. Palmater's presentation to the committee on April 20. This is an example of that ongoing family discrimination which Bill C-3 does not address. She talked about her own family and said:

I have one sister who was adopted, three who were born pre-1951, and three who are illegitimate. This will mean very different things for us under Bill C-3 or for any limited gender discrimination remedy.

What she is talking about is that because of the birthdates of her siblings and legitimacy versus illegitimacy, people will have either no status or different status even with the changes under Bill C-3.

In this day and age when we acknowledge there are discriminatory practices still inherent, why would we not take this opportunity to address those? Why would we leave people hanging out there for possibly a couple more decades? I need to remind the House that some of these people who would be impacted are getting older and they simply may run out of time to have their particular cases addressed.

I want to reference briefly the Lovelace case. Dr. Palmater argued in her presentation that the government could have expanded the scope of the bill. It did not need to narrowly address the B.C. Supreme Court decision. She said:

When Canada responded to the Lovelace case with Bill C-31 in 1985, it did not limit the amendment to the reinstatement of section 12(1)(b) women, it also amended the Act to allow bands to control their own membership; changed the legal presumption for unstated paternity from a default of Indian paternity (unless protested) to a presumption of non-Indian paternity and reinstated other categories of previously enfranchised Indians. Canada is no more limited in its ability to amend the Act now, than it was in 1985.

Not only does Bill C-3 not address all of the gender discrimination in the registration provisions of the Indian Act, but it does not even entirely address the limited form of discrimination found in the Court of Appeal in McIvor between double mother clause and section 12(1)(b) reinstates and their descendants.

The Court of Appeal in McIvor specifically stated that it would not draft the legislation. Canada is therefore left with the responsibility to do so in a manner which respects gender equality. There was nothing in the Court of Appeal case to prevent Canada from addressing the larger issue of gender discrimination as between sections 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c).

Later in Dr. Palmater's presentation she outlined a number of suggestions for amendments to the act that would address residual sex discrimination. I will not go through all of the proposed amendments. It is clear from the number of people who appeared before committee that there are serious problems.

A matter of concern for the committee is that as part of the rules of this House, if this bill should be defeated, the government would be under no obligation to respond to the court of appeal decision, nor could it reintroduce a bill substantially similar to the bill that is before the House. That presents a challenge for the House in terms of our ability to deal with that residual discrimination.

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs appeared before the committee. This issue is of particular concern in British Columbia because it was the B.C. Supreme Court that struck down sections 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) as of April 6. The B.C. people who could gain status will be directly impacted by this piece of legislation.

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs requested a couple of things, that the act be amended to also include those who were born before September 4, 1951 and those who lost status not due to the fact that their mother and grandmother lost status through marriage but those children born outside of a marriage who lost status because a registrar universally deemed them to have a non-status father. As I mentioned earlier, that touches on unstated paternity. The union called for the deletion of clause 9 which limits government liability.

The Waban-Aki Nation has a current court case which specifically relates to the difference between how siblings are treated. The Waban-Aki Nation, in its presentation, talked about the siblings rule.

Susan Yantha was born in 1954. At the time of her birth the Indian registration rules did not allow for the registration of illegitimate daughters of an Indian father and a non-Indian mother. There is an analysis comparing her with a hypothetical brother. The brother, whom we will call Arthur, would have had the right to be registered at the time of his birth since the Indian registration rules, which did not allow for the registration of illegitimate daughters of an Indian father and a non-Indian mother, did allow for the registration of their illegitimate sons. Although there were some changes, it did not fully address the way that different siblings could pass on status to their children.

When the Court of Appeal heard the government application for extension, it was cognizant of the fact that it was desirable for government to consult with first nations before proceeding with amendments to the legislation. It indicated that under the circumstances, it might well have acceded to a request for a longer suspension of its declaration had it been sought.

It is clear that had the government sought it, the courts would have agreed to give a longer period of time so that legislation could be drafted which appropriately addressed the residual discrimination that was outstanding.

I would urge this House to support this motion, pass on permissive instructions to the committee to allow it to expand the scope of the bill, and take an opportunity to address meaningfully the residual discrimination.

[Jennifer Lynch]

I'll give an example generically and then I can move to Bill C-3 as well.

That means we do not receive complaints.... Let me put it in a positive light. We have jurisdiction over complaints if they are based on one of our 11 enumerated grounds--religion, age, sex, family status, etc.---and the alleged act of discrimination must have happened in an employment setting or a service setting.

For example, let's take the banks. If I'm a bank employee and I feel I didn't get a promotion or what have you, I could complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If I'm a customer of the bank and I go to the bank and I feel that for some reason they kept me waiting too long in line because of my colour or whatever, I could complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

If I am a woman working in the trucking industry and I'm experiencing what I believe to be discrimination, I can complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, because we have jurisdiction over employment and services being provided.

But if you own the ABC motel and refuse people of a certain group, that doesn't come to us. It's a service, but it's not under our jurisdiction. That's what a service is.

When we get to the specifics in the world of status and funding, this is where we're getting challenges from the Attorney General that these are not services. I'll give you an example for a service.

Three complaints that we've sent to the tribunal recently are McIvor-like complaints--two brothers and a sister--and the Attorney General of Canada has filed a preliminary motion to stay the tribunal proceedings until Bill C-3 has been passed. The Attorney General has given notice that it will be challenging whether the determination of Indian status is a service within the meaning of section 5 of the CHRA. That's one. Now, in these three cases, they would all receive Indian status as a result of Bill C-3, hence the request for a stay. That's one kind of service.

We have another case before the tribunal as to whether funding is a service, funding by the federal government. It relates to aboriginal children in foster care. It's known as the Child and Family Services case. It's alleged that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada discriminates against aboriginal children in the provision of a service by inadequately funding child welfare services, and that the funding formula results in underfunding of services to keep families together and over-funding of services to put children in foster care.

Again, the argument will be made that this is not a service, that funding is not a service. Actually, on this whole definition of service, the courts have been quite broad in defining government services as service; however, there could be a narrowing. This is what we are waiting to find out through the courts.

[Valerie Phillips]

I think that's unclear, but my instinct would be that it's unlikely, unless the bill itself is found to be discriminatory.

There have been people before you who have raised flags about family status discrimination, for example, as a possibility in the act, so there is a question whether Bill C-3 contains discriminatory provisions.

But as to whether it could be challenged for not correcting full discrimination, I don't think so. If it's not in compliance with the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling, there may be some legal remedy there.

[Valerie Phillips, Legal Counsel, Canadian Human Rights Commission]

May I clarify if you are asking whether Bill C-3 itself would be challenged for failing to remedy all of the residual discrimination?

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

Would it be reasonable to assume there could be things flowing from this Bill C-3 that would fall under a provincial human rights act as opposed to the federal?

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

It's a very nice area--my compliments.

I want to go to Mr. Russell's comments about clause 9 of Bill C-3, because I think they were a mischaracterization almost in their entirety. It's a very narrow clause, which, when you read it, is quite clear.

It's talking only about monetary compensation from things that flow from Bill C-3, only in respect to membership, and it protects not just Her Majesty, but band councils. If band councils look at the ramifications of Bill C-3, they'll see that they're wide open, as open as the government, and this would be a huge concern.

In terms of this kind of prohibition of compensation, Bill C-31 had exactly the same thing. It was not controversial. It didn't pre-empt any of the legal challenges.

The legal challenges under the changes to the Indian Act proposed by Bill C-3 for the most part would still be eminently challengeable; it's only on this monetary compensation business, dating back essentially to 1985, that this is a question. I just wanted to clarify that.

In the same vein, I was struck by your testimony when you said, I think, that the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission was not really the issue here but the remedies available under the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Now, was that statement in respect to clause 9 or was that a general statement? What did you actually mean by that?

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

I want to read you something. I am not sure whether you are able to study this proposed amendment. The problem, and you agree with me, has to do with section 6 of the act. I do not need an answer today, but I would like one by 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. That should be enough time. We have to make our amendments.

It is being proposed that section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act be amended by adding: “or was born prior to April 17, 1985, and was a direct descendant of such a person.” That is the first point.

As for the second point, clause 2 of Bill C-3 seeks to amend section 6. I would agree that it is complex. Subparagraph 6(3)(c.1)(iv) would read as follows:

(iv) had or adopted a child, on or after September 4, 1951, with a person who was not entitled to be registered on the day on which the child was born or adopted;

If that subsection were removed, do you think it would reduce or, at the very least, eliminate a great deal of residual discrimination? That was raised in your excellent presentation, which I fully accept. I do not need an answer until 4:30 tomorrow afternoon.

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

Very well.

So, unless I am mistaken, even though you are not experts, after reading the bill once and reviewing it in general terms, it is clear to you that discrimination will continue if this bill is passed as is.

[Jennifer Lynch]

Let me clarify that when we were called to appear we prepared by reviewing Bill C-3. We are not experts in the area, wo when you talked to me about an in-depth study, I read into it that you meant an in-depth study to develop an expertise in the area.

We're not experts. We've been following the proceedings and have seen that there's a consensus. That's what my opening remarks referred to.

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

I am trying to understand because in your document, you wrote, “My key message to you today is that this is by no means definite”. When you say “this is by no means definite”, it means that residual discrimination not covered by Bill C-3 will continue to take place. Has someone studied that on your end?

[Jennifer Lynch]

We have not performed an in-depth study of Bill C-3.

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

Thank you.

I apologize. I did not mean any disrespect. I was a bit late because the Olympic athletes are here, and being involved in the Olympic movement, I wanted to greet them.

That said, thank you for being here. I have some very specific questions for you. Did you do an in-depth study of Bill C-3?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

We've had lots of arguments about section 67 around this table, and a lot of debate, and the government says what a wonderful thing it is because now we'll open up this avenue for remedy for first nations people. But every time a first nations person brings a complaint against the government or the crown before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, they say the Canadian Human Rights Commission has no jurisdiction to hear that complaint against the federal government, because we don't provide a service.

So basically all the federal government has done to this point is limit the complaints against, maybe, a band. They're trying to insulate themselves against a Canadian human rights complaint and only allow people who bring that complaint to basically lodge it against a band. It seems that they're trying to do the same thing under clause 9 of Bill C-3. That's what it seems like to me.

[Jennifer Lynch]

May I put this in a bit of context to begin with?

If Bill C-3 is passed, the commission can continue to receive complaints regarding the Indian status provision. These could include the alleged residual discrimination referenced by witnesses before this committee, due to the historical preference given to men under the Indian Act.

We have a section in our act, paragraph 41(b), that allows us to refer a matter back to a process under another act of Parliament, which in this case is the Indian Act. Therefore, if the facts of the complaint suggest that a complainant could gain status as a result of Bill C-3, the commission may require a complainant to reapply for Indian status under the new rules, as a start.

Now, if after being dealt with under the Indian Act the complainant still believes the results of the status provision are discriminatory, he or she could return to the commission. We then look... At the current time, we would expect that the Attorney General might argue that this is not a service within the meaning of the act, and if a court decides that, it would mean that complaints could not be brought to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Let's say that a complaint does get to the tribunal, and the tribunal is thinking of awarding a remedy. That was the lead-in part of your question--had we looked at clause 9? We do have a concern that clause 9 would likely limit persons who benefit from Bill C-3 from successfully being awarded remedies at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

It would also likely limit compensation in mediated settlements, because it would be used.... You can well imagine that, wherever we can, we engage parties in dialogue to help processes of settlement. In any kind of a mediation, if there is a section such as this, no doubt the respondent would say that they're not going to agree to remedies because there's this clause 9. In law, they don't have to.

The remedies the tribunal could.... I don't know if you'd like me to tell you about the sorts of remedies the tribunal could order, but--

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Okay. Now, a number of witnesses have come before us and said that there is a relationship between this particular clause and, I guess, the government's position that.... First of all, as I understand it, clause 9 saves harmless the government from anybody suing or going after them for compensation or any residual discrimination that had arisen basically from 1985 until the passage of Bill C-3.

This generally seems to be what I understand that clause to do: “You can't sue us because we didn't really know what the hell was going on, and we didn't really acknowledge any residual discrimination, so you can't come back now after the fact, after we pass Bill C-3, and sue us for damages”.

But the government has said that maybe they can launch a complaint with the Human Rights commission, and then the witnesses say that the government fights the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to hear any such complaints, so really, there is no avenue for any individual to seek a remedy or a ruling that they have been discriminated against and that they should be compensated in some way, shape, or form.

Is that a fair assessment of the situation?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to each of you. It's always good to have you in front of our committee. I thank you for the work you do on behalf of all Canadians.

Has the commission had an opportunity to look at clause 9 of Bill C-3?

[Jennifer Lynch, Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the committee's review of Bill C-3, an act to promote gender equality in the registration provisions of the Indian Act.

I would like to acknowledge that I meet you here today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

You've already introduced my colleagues who are joining me here today. We've brought these particular colleagues because they are those who specialize in our aboriginal work and aboriginal initiatives.

Many witnesses have spoken to you concerning Bill C-3, and there appears to be consensus that the bill is a narrow legislative response to a narrow order.

In our view, the best value that the commission can bring to you as a witness is to provide you with information on the extent to which our complaint process can be used to redress allegations of discrimination under the Indian Act.

I will begin with a brief description of our role and mandate.

The Canadian Human Rights Act is 33 years old. The act established the Canadian Human Rights Commission and provides the commission with the mandate to receive and process complaints of discrimination in employment or services. The act also directs the commission to engage in any other activities that will give effect to the purpose of the act.

The purpose of the act is found in section 2, and the drafters showed enormous insight when they wrote this clause, which reads that the purpose of the act is to give effect to the principle that every individual should have the right, equal with others, to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have, free from discrimination.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is part of the larger Canadian human rights system. Every province and territory has its own form of a commission or tribunal. Our mandate is quite specific. There are 11 grounds of discrimination under the CHRA. The grounds most relevant to Bill C-3 and our discussion today are sex, age, marital status, including common-law, and family status.

Family status is a very broad ground, so I will provide a definition. Family status refers to the interrelationship that arises from bonds of marriage, kinship, or legal adoption, including the ancestral relationship, whether legitimate, illegitimate, or by adoption. It also includes the relationships between spouses, siblings, in-laws, uncles or aunts, nephews or nieces, and cousins.

The organizations under our mandate include all federal departments and agencies, plus corporations operating in federally regulated industries such as transportation, banking, and telecommunications. This means that anyone who feels that they have experienced discrimination on one of the enumerated grounds while working as an employee, or while receiving services from one of these organizations, can file a complaint with the commission.

The commission receives, screens, and processes complaints. We do not decide complaints beyond deciding whether to dismiss them or refer them for conciliation or to the fully independent Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for further inquiry and a hearing.

To give effect to the principle of section 2 of the act, the commission also works to promote and advance human rights in Canada. We perform an education and outreach function. We collaborate with workplaces to help influence a shift towards a culture of human rights, integrating human rights into daily practice. We develop research, policies and tools. And we provide advice to Parliament. An example of such advice is our 2005 special report to Parliament, A Matter of Rights, where we called for the repeal of section 67.

With that background, I turn now to the commission's ability to redress allegations of discrimination under the Indian Act.

For three decades, we had no such jurisdiction. That was changed upon the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 2008. As you are all aware, section 67 restricted the ability of people living or working in communities operating under the Indian Act to file complaints of discrimination if the discrimination they were complaining about was related to that act. This section was included as a temporary measure in an effort to not disrupt discussions on reforming the Indian Act.

The repeal finally gave more than 700,000 aboriginal persons living under the Indian Act full access to human rights protection in Canada. A three-year transition period built into the repeal legislation means that complaints against first nations governments can only be filed starting in June 2011. However, the right to file complaints against the federal government came into effect with repeal.

We are now receiving complaints related to the federal government's administration of programs and services under the Indian Act. This has provided us with some early experience in dealing with such complaints.

Some testimony heard by this committee has pointed to the commission's complaint process as an available mechanism to remedy discrimination under the Indian Act, including any possible residual discrimination not covered by Bill C-3. My key message to you today is that this is by no means definite. The commission's ability to redress allegations of discrimination under the Indian Act remains uncertain.

Since the passage of the section 67 repeal, we have received challenges to the commission's jurisdiction in this area. For example, the commission has received several complaints related to Indian status. Three of these are similar to the McIvor case, in that they each involve Indian status and raise questions of residual discrimination following the passage of Bill C-31. We have referred all three complaints to the tribunal.

The Attorney General of Canada has given notice that it will be challenging the commission's jurisdiction, claiming that determination of status by the registrar is not a service under section 5 of the CHRA.

As l mentioned earlier, the Canadian Human Rights Act provides complaint processes only for discrimination based on employment or service. Therefore, if a court were to find that the determination of status is not a service, the commission would no longer have the authority to accept complaints related to Indian status.

By extension, this could raise similar questions as to whether or not the determination of band membership is a service. The commission is intervening in a current case before the tribunal, in the public interest, to put forward a legal analysis that indeed the determination of status is a service.

Of course, the commission cannot make the ultimate decision around what is within our jurisdiction, nor should my remarks be taken as indicating one outcome or another. It is to be expected that an issue of this complexity and importance could proceed from the tribunal to the Federal Court's trial and appeal divisions, and possibly to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In closing, I would like to make two other points.

The first is that the commission supports a comprehensive review of the Indian Act until an approach to governance that recognizes first nations' inherent right to self-government is in place, for a number of reasons.

The committee has already heard that the Indian Act has had discriminatory effects, including residual gender-based discrimination. A case-by-case, section-by-section approach to resolving discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act will be costly, confrontational and time-consuming.

Moreover, the act places the burden on complainants, who do not necessarily have access to legal resources.

Were it not for the courage, persistence, and resolve of people like Ms. Sharon McIvor, many of these long-standing issues would never be addressed.

This piecemeal approach has limited impact, particularly when large numbers of people are affected. The commission supports a proactive, systematic approach, one that would include full participation of aboriginal people, build upon existing knowledge, and lead to timely and effective change. The commission recognizes that this will take time.

My second and final point is that the commission is very interested in the government's announced plan for an exploratory process and looks forward to learning more about its scope and objectives. The commission is prepared to assist in any way it can within its jurisdiction and area of expertise.

I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good afternoon, members, guests and witnesses.

Welcome to the 11th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Monday, March 29, 2010, we have on the agenda today consideration of 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).

This afternoon we welcome the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We have with us Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch; Deputy Chief Commissioner David Langtry; Valerie Phillips, legal counsel; and Michael Smith, senior policy analyst. I know that Mr. Smith has joined us for the last several meetings, and we appreciate the attention of the commission.

Members, we have one hour for this first section. As you saw in our notice, after our first hour, we'll be taking up further consideration of this bill.

Ms. Lynch, I know that you have probably done this before and know that we begin with a 10-minute presentation, after which we'll go to questions from members. At this committee, we do a seven-minute question-and-answer round.

Welcome to our committee. Please begin.

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

First of all, I am honoured to meet you. We have with us the grand chiefs of the First Nations of Ontario, Saskatchewan and part of the Six Nations from British Columbia. The majority of aboriginal peoples in Canada are probably represented here.

I have a general question and, if I have time, I will ask a more specific one. You are all chiefs involved in your communities. I know that, because I meet you on occasion during first nations' assemblies. What was your reaction to the government's tabling of Bill C-3? I am aware that there were very few consultations in the legal sense, regarding the decisions of the Supreme Court. Can one of you quickly tell me how you reacted to the tabling of this bill?

[Daniel Nolett]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would first like to point out that the Abenaki nation has been active in trying to have the legislation amended. We brought a case before the Superior Court in March 2009. Representatives of the Abenaki nation also intervened in the McIvor case to fight discrimination under the Indian Act.

I agree with those who have already spoken that Bill C-3, in its current form, maintains certain discriminatory aspects that have not been changed. This afternoon, I would like to bring two specific cases to your attention. You have received documents and tables that illustrate these cases of discrimination.

First, there is the rule concerning brothers and sisters, which is represented by the case of Susan and Tammy Yantha. This is in the document. Bill C-3 does not resolve this kind of problem. In 1951, when the registry was created, only the sons were granted Indian status in cases where an Indian man fathered children outside marriage with a non-Indian woman.

In 1985, because of the changes brought in with Bill C-31, the daughters from that kind of union were able to obtain status under subsection 6(2). As you can see in the table, the first generation, that is, the Indian man and the non-Indian wife, came under the 1951 legislation. In the second generation, Susan Yantha's father was an Indian, but her mother was not. So if Ms. Yantha had had a brother, he would have been granted status under subsection 6(1). In 1985, Ms. Yantha obtained her status under subsection 6(2). Her daughter, Tammy Yantha, who is the third generation, still does not have her status, whereas if Susan had had a brother, his children would have their status under subsection 6(1). The current legislation, Bill C-3, does not grant status to the children of Susan Yantha. The bill ignores those cases.

Let us come back to the other example, which is directly related to McIvor; it involves cousins. This case involves Kim Arseneault who is a member of the Wôlinak first nation and part of the third generation.

In 1985, her grandmother regained her status under Bill C-31. She had lost her status because she married and had children with a non-Indian. In 1985, she regained her status on the basis of subsection 6(1). One of her children was Kim's mother, who was born in the 1950s and gave birth to Kim before 1985.

A careful analysis of Bill C-3—I understand that this can be complicated, but the table we have provided will help you follow—shows that Kim will regain her status under subsection 6(2). But if Kim were descended from a man, she would have status under subsection 6(1), like all the third-generation children.

Because Kim is a third-generation descendant of a woman and was born before 1985, in accordance with the amendments, she would recover her Indian status under subsection 6(1). With Bill C-3, owing to gender discrimination, Kim will regain her status only under subsection 6(2).

[Michèle Taina Audette, Representative, Marche Amun, Grand Council of the Waban-Aki Nation]

Thank you very much. I would personally like to sincerely thank the Abenaki Nation for having thought about a great project, the Marche Amun. I would like to greet everyone here this afternoon.

In my opinion, Bill C-3, which merely complies with the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in McIver versus Canada, only goes a small way toward eliminating the discriminatory aspects of the Indian registration rules. Moreover, I think that the department is using this bill to do as little as possible about the problem. The department is moving too quickly, and there may be serious problems as a result in the short, medium and long terms.

The members around this table have an incredible opportunity, and you should use it to entirely eliminate all the discriminatory aspects of the Indian Act. It is particularly fortunate that the BC Court of Appeal ruling in a way prevents you from correcting those flaws. I urge you to help me, to help us, those taking part in the Marche Amun, to write a new page in the history of the First Nations and the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Let us put an end, once and for all, to the discrimination that has existed for too long a time already.

In history, gender-based discrimination was brought in, without our asking for it, in 1868. Legislative provisions passed at that time provided that Indian status could be passed down only through the male line. You know how it works: when an aboriginal man married a non-aboriginal woman, she became an Indian and so did her children. But when a woman, such as my mother and our grandmothers, married a non-aboriginal man or an aboriginal man without status, she lost her aboriginal and treaty rights. So did her children. In the language of the Indian Act, she would lose her status and also be evicted from her community and her territory.

It is sad to see that women are still paying the price in 2010, as we speak. Aboriginal women continue to be victims of discrimination based on gender—this is the case of Kim Arseneault, whom my colleague will introduce to you in a few minutes—and that discrimination exists in a number of areas.

Such discrimination violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as Ms. Gabriel mentioned. I would add to that certain conventions that Canada has signed and is not adhering to: the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Men, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and, in particular, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Yes, Mr. Lemay, there are many people working hard to come to speak with you today.

On May 4, a symbolic event will begin. A group of women will be walking 500 kilometres from Wendake to Ottawa, to Parliament Hill, to deliver a message to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Strahl.

Each day, we will be repeating the same message to everyone in Quebec, to all Quebeckers, and also to Canadians. We want to say that Canada is bringing in legislation to reinforce—and I mean reinforce—gender inequality, and we are demanding that Canada eliminate that kind of discrimination.

As to the obligation to reveal the name of the father of our children when they are born, it is not something that is imposed on any Canadian women. If she brings her child to the emergency department of the hospital, no one will ever ask her to prove the identity of the father before looking after her child. That is what has been happening to us in our communities since 1985. Then there is the right of women and their children to obtain Indian status. Those categories must be eliminated.

I would also remind you that there is ongoing discrimination with respect to band membership for these women and their children. Suppose that certain communities have restrictive membership rules. If Bill C-3 is passed, women and children in that situation will not be able to go back to those communities. In addition, the government has refused to allocate more money for the increase in the registration for Indian status. Women are once again paying the price. They are still suffering from the harm done in 1985. Bill C-3 will create or recreate the same reprisals that have taken place since then.

What breaks my heart, as the mother of five children—including one that is more Indian than I am, one that has no status, and that really illustrates the situation—is that Ottawa always has the exclusive right to determine who is an Indian and who is not. I am 38, even though the act considers me to be 17. I think that there are people in the communities who can make this determination.

In closing, I want to say that if Bill C-3 is passed as it stands, the discrimination will continue. It will continue and I do not want to be a party to that. And I would ask that the respected members of this committee refuse as well to be a party to this injustice.

On behalf of myself and my children, I want to say that you have an opportunity to make a difference. Please do the right thing.

Thank you.

[Grand Chief Lucien Wabanonik, Grand Chief, Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving us a bit more time. I'm sure you understand that this is an extremely sensitive issue for our people and our nations. We appreciate your flexibility with regard to the time allotted to us.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, on November 24, 2009, in the wake of the short engagement process set up as part of the initiative seeking to modify the registration program with the Indian Registrar, Chief Ghislain Picard of the AFNQ wrote to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to suggest that he extend the suspension period of the declaration of invalidity handed down by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia on April 6, 2009.

The chiefs of the first nations of Quebec and Labrador were summoned to a brief meeting on November 4, 2009, with government officials who clearly did not have a proper grasp of the issue. In Chief Picard's opinion, this meeting did not fulfil the Government of Canada's duty to consult with the first nations, because consultation is really what we are talking about here.

The federal government was supposed to consult us on this important issue. However it would appear that the period granted to Parliament for such an important matter is somewhat artificial. It would seem to be in the government's interest to use certain bogus constraints to shirk its responsibility for eliminating all discriminatory distinctions contained in the registration rules for Indians and for formulating, in collaboration with the first nations, a plan designed to implement these modifications.

In any case, the new deadline of June 5, 2010 should not be used as an excuse to only partially eliminate one single discriminatory distinction among those that still exist in the Indian Act or to refuse to prepare for, in conjunction with the first nations, the many effects that the changes to the registration rules will have. But at the same time, we believe that the eight remaining weeks between now and when the House rises should be sufficient to allow Parliament to improve 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), as concerns the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We believe that these eight weeks should be sufficient to allow the government to reach an agreement with us concerning an implementation plan designed to manage the influx of new arrivals in our communities. Furthermore, if, despite the good faith and efforts of all the parties involved, eight weeks turns out to be insufficient, the government should take advantage, in a timely fashion, of the openness shown by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in its April 1 ruling, and request another extension of the suspension period of the declaration of invalidity.

If Canada is truly the champion of justice and fairness for all, then Parliament must make the necessary changes to Bill C-3 to ensure that the brothers and sisters rule is eliminated from the registration rules, along with the distinction that was ruled illegal in the McIvor decision.

During the brief encounter between the chiefs of Quebec and Labrador and the department officials as part of the engagement process, it was impossible to obtain any kind of information on what the government, thanks to its recent experience with Bill C-31, intends to do to mitigate the problems caused by the application of the proposed changes to the registration rules. We concluded that the minister had not yet addressed the question when drafting of Bill C-3 began last fall.

The implementation of Bill C-3 will create many problems, including problems accessing information for people targeted by the bill; problems arising from changes made to the registration rules and benefits accompanying Indian status; problems linked to the registration process and deadline; social and political problems integrating new entrants into first nations communities, on or off reserve; potential problems due to a limited job market, cultural differences or simply natural hostility in the face of an imposed decision; and finally, problems linked to the financial and other capacities required to integrate new entrants into the reserves and provide them with the programs and services to which they are entitled.

It is thus essential that the Department of Indian Affairs agrees with the first nations on a road map for implementing the amendments to registration rules before Bill C-3 is adopted. This committee can ensure that the government does so. It is equally essential that a provision requiring the ministers to regularly report to Parliament on the issue of the implementation of the amendments to the registration rules is added to Bill C-3, with the specific issues this report must cover outlined there.

The first nations of Quebec and Labrador hope over time that not only are all discriminatory distinctions eliminated from the Indian registration rules, but that these rules are no longer needed. The first nations hope to recover the complete authority in matters of membership they enjoyed before the middle of the 19th century. This presupposes the political and economic autonomy of first nations favoured by the recognition of our traditional rights and by the treaty process. It is only once these objectives are attained that article 33 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be fully fulfilled. Indigenous people have the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.

For the time being, the first nations of Quebec and Labrador ask the committee to take the first two following measures and to encourage the government to take the third: one, improve Bill C-3 to eliminate all Indian registration rules that create discriminatory distinction; two, introduce a provision into Bill C-3 obliging the government to report to Parliament on the implementation and the amendments of the registration rules; three, create with first nations a plan to implement the amendments to the Indian registration rules introduced with Bill C-3.

That finalizes my presentation, Mr. Chair. Thank you for listening.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll soon be making a proposal—I'll wait for my Liberal colleagues first—that the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill be postponed to next Tuesday. I'll explain why later. I realize there are many people with us now and that is something I regret. I respect the witnesses, and they have only five minutes to make a statement concerning a bill that is key to their future, not ours, theirs.

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, this process is beginning to weigh on me. I would like the witnesses to have the time they need to explain their positions. If ever we do not have time to ask them questions, we could continue Thursday during the first hour. The witnesses are here and I know that some of them have worked very hard to prepare for today. This is probably one of the most important bills we have debated, along with Bill C-8, An Act respecting Family Homes situated on First Nation Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, and Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. So I think we can take another day or two. I'm ready to listen to the people here today; we have until 6:30 p.m. If we're not finished, then we can continue Thursday afternoon. Five minutes is not enough to discuss section 6 of this 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).

Mr. Chair, I am not questioning your good faith. I know you want to do the right thing. I have the utmost respect for that, but there are essential aspects. The members of the committee have questions and so do the witnesses. It is their future that is at stake here, and I say this with all due respect.

[Renée Dupuis]

I wanted to tell you that we have taken note of the amendment you suggest. As regards the type of amendment we consider necessary, it seems important to us, if we want to take action on the judgment, that the amendment ensure consistency in the act and that it isn't a literal response to Ms. McIvor's personal situation. Otherwise, rather than talking about Bill C-3, An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration, we'd be talking about Bill C-McIvor. However, we believe that a Bill C-McIvor would create a new discrimination and would not resolve other existing discriminations.

We could come back once we've analyzed your amendment.

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

I'm going to try to be precise. First, I want to thank Ms. Dupuis, the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association and Ms. Hodgson-Smith.

I thank the people from the Barreau du Québec, who have made us aware of a problem. We are going to re-examine clause 9. I also very much appreciate the position of the Canadian Bar Association.

I'm going to read you the text of an amendment. I don't need a response from the Barreau du Québec or the Canadian Bar Association today. However, if possible, I would like you to send us a written opinion on a possible amendment.

Do you believe, as I do, that, if we pass Bill C-3 as it stands, the discrimination against aboriginal women will continue? We won't have resolved the discrimination problem and it will continue. Do you agree with me? That's perfect.

Now I'm speaking to the representatives of the Canadian Bar Association. If we amended paragraph 6(1)(a) to read: “or if that person was born before April 17, 1985 or was a direct descendant of such and such a person”, do you believe that might solve the discrimination problem? That's what I understand from your recommendation, which appears on page 9 in French and in English, with regard to the amendment to Bill C-3.

Do we agree? If possible, I would like you to analyze that. I'm not asking you for an immediate answer, quite obviously. However, would your recommendation be consistent with my recommendation or our possible recommended amendment?

I will close by putting another question to the representatives of the Canadian Bar Association. I wonder why you are proposing an amendment. You propose to delete the proposed addition of subparagraph 6(1)(c.1)(iv) to the Indian Act, and you then propose a number of interesting criteria. Wouldn't it be better to simply stick to your last recommendation?

There, I hope I didn't lose you, but I would like to hear what you have to say on the subject.

[Renée Dupuis, Lawyer, Barreau du Québec]

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr. Chairman.

The Barreau du Québec's specific comments on Bill C-3 in response to the McIvor judgment concern a certain number of clauses, but the two main clauses concern the proposed paragraph 6(1)(c.1) and clause 9 of the bill. We have noted that there may be problems of concordance in clause 2(1) of the bill, that is to say that, in the French version, “une personne” is replaced by “toute personne”. And, from a reading of the present act using this new wording, we believe there are problems of concordance that must be reviewed. We therefore suggest that concordance is assured for this expression in all other sections of the Indian Act.

With respect to clause 2(2), we note that the proposed amendment restates the present test, in both the English and French versions, and we wondered about the purpose of this clause. In a very substantial manner, in paragraph 6(1)(c.1) which would be added to the Indian Act and which, according to the objective pursued by the government, is to serve to eliminate the discrimination identified by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, we note that this new paragraph concerns the children of a marriage born before April 17, 1985, which introduces a distinction between children born before and after that date. In addition, the amendment concerns only the children of a union formalized by marriage. The bill does not correct the discrimination against children born outside marriage prior to 1985, more particularly children born outside marriage to an Indian father and a non-Indian mother, depending whether they are boys with status under subsection 6(1) or girls with lesser status under subsection 6(2).

The Barreau also wonders about the proposed subparagraph 6(1)(c.1)(iv), which, to obtain enhanced status, appears to require that a child must be, himself or herself, a parent. We believe that this element should not be added as a condition for change of status, since introducing this condition creates discrimination between the members of a single group depending on whether or not they have had children. Whether or not a person has had children should not be a condition for enhanced status. In fact, the proposed subparagraph 6(1)(c.1)(iv) merely enhances the status of children who already have children. The Barreau du Québec suggests that the question of grandchildren be handled separately. We submit that the bill should offer the option of granting status in accordance with the provisions of subsection 6(1) to all children, whether or not they are parents.

Furthermore, the Barreau—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order.

We'll start the second round.

Welcome to all the witnesses.

On the study of Bill C-3 we have three presentations. In order to get through questions--I don't know if we have given you this in advance--if you could shorten your presentations to seven and a half minutes as opposed to ten, that would be helpful. It would at least give us time to get through one round of questions. I hope that's not too great an imposition.

We'll begin with

Ms. Nicole Dufour and Ms. Renée Dupuis, from the Barreau du Québec. Go ahead, please.

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

As members of this committee know, the AFN represents 630-plus first nations communities through our national chief and our regional chiefs. In terms of developing consensus, I don't think anybody would dispute eradicating, with respect to Bill C-3, the discrimination.

Also, I don't think there is a first nations community across this country that would dispute an acknowledgement of their inherent right to determine what's best for their communities and to be provided with the mechanisms, legislative or otherwise, to actually move down that process of nation building, to determine for oneself, as an autonomous nation, what is most appropriate based on their cultural traditions and values for their own individual community. The Assembly of First Nations, in terms of that dialogue, I believe would be all for it.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much.

It's great to be able to speak with you here today.

I think it's important, first of all, that our committee hear that Bill C-3 indeed will be addressing the McIvor case. This is, I think, one aspect of it, but again the major discussion seems to be, right now, about where we're going in the future as far as the exploratory process is concerned.

You had mentioned earlier how it was so important that this be rooted in the community. That perhaps comes from Megan's questions earlier, when she talked about consensus. I'd like to go back to what John was talking about, regarding some of the resistance that is sometimes felt.

I wonder if you could start by explaining the mechanisms the AFN has to get consensus among its various aboriginal communities.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

When I asked government officials about whether they had done projections on, for instance, costs--it's not always the most savoury type of discussion, but it's a realistic one, isn't it--they hadn't done them for long- or short-term health benefits, post-secondary education, or the implications for communities when it comes to providing services or housing. So the government really needs to get on with doing its work, even in light of Bill C-3.

On the exploratory process again, you don't like the word exploratory. I believe I heard you say you think we've done enough of this exploration, so where would you like to see it go?

Sometimes people see this talk we're often engaged in as a way to deflect dealing head-on with some very crucial issues. I mean, it might be nice to explore, to talk for two years, but at the end of that, people need to see something delivered at their community level as well. What do you see being delivered at the end of this process?

I'm not that confident in this process, let me tell you that. I'd have to see a hell of a lot more meat on the bones before I'd give the government a thumbs-up on this.

At any rate, I'd like to see what your vision for this process might look like.

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

Karen can correct me if I'm wrong, but no, we haven't done that substantive analysis. Doing that analysis requires going into a community to understand the particular circumstances of that community. That's a long process, but it's an important process.

I can speak on behalf of my own first nation. We are a nation of some 930 members, and the implications, as a result of Bill C-3 in its current form, are that more than 500 people would be coming back into our community. I'm not questioning those numbers except from my perspective as a council person in my own community, knowing that we are facing a potentially large number of registrants. That's not a bad thing. They simply need to be provided for in an appropriate way.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to follow up, when it comes to Bill C-3, we have projections from Mr. Clatworthy, who has been hired by the department, on the impacts of roughly 45,000, and on how they are dispersed between on-reserve and off-reserve. I'm just wondering whether the AFN has done any analysis on that, so that we could have a comparator. I'm not doubting his numbers, but it would be nice to see if there was a comparator.

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

This is a really important question, and one that I hope I'll be able to provide an answer to that makes clear the distinction between what you're asking--between Bill C-3 and the exploratory process.

I do not necessarily see the two as existing in isolation. I view Bill C-3 and the amendments to the Indian Act and the rectification of discrimination as it is right now, and potentially as it could be to rectify all gender discrimination, as a step forward certainly. I do recognize and applaud the government's commitment to engage in an exploratory process around the issue of citizenship.

Again I have to go back to my comments that citizenship and status are not related. They are fundamentally different. As you reference with respect to modern arrangements or modern agreements that have been negotiated by first nations, yes, within a chapter there is a provision that welcomes as members those persons who are eligible to be registered under the Indian Act within their agreement that has been negotiated in a modern context.

That's not to say that the recognition, or that clause in the agreement, will not be dispensed with or disbanded when our nations are on this process of nation-building and becoming more self-governing and implementing their agreement in a really meaningful way on the ground that acknowledges where their citizens want to go, that the requirement of having the recognition of people eligible to be registered as a requirement for eligibility to benefit from a treaty or otherwise will dissipate and it will not need to exist anymore because our nations are on that path, as you reference, with respect to developing our own systems of governance and becoming self-determining. That, in my opinion, goes well beyond any determination of who and what one is under a piece of legislation.

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

I think we all recognize that this is a complicated picture. I was struck by a couple of things you said. You said something along the lines that you should think of yourselves as citizens rather than as Indian Act registrants. There's some confusion between registration and membership, and you focused quite a bit on governance and how changes on that front would be very critical.

I'd like to reassure you that the government does recognize that governance and capacity are directions that are vitally important. We want to get there too. Doing so is in everybody's best interests.

Specific to Bill C-3, I think it's important I get on the record that Bill C-3, of course, would not preclude further legislation. At the same time, I heard you loud and clear when you said that long-term solutions do not lie in further tinkering with the Indian Act. That puts us in quite a dilemma here, in a sense, because Bill C-3 is designed to address a very specific case, the McIvor case.

We know there are further legal actions dealing with registration that are in the system, but I'm also struck that we have negotiated agreements between the Government of Canada and first nations in various parts of Canada. Many of those were with first nations that obviously had significant governance and capacity. That's why they were involved in those discussions. Sometimes “significant” would be an understatement; “very well capacitated” might be better. Whenever we have those agreements, they tend to include as one of the provisions the fact that only those people who fit into the Indian Act registration classifications are eligible for membership or citizenship.

In order to square the circle here, to get to where you would like to get, is not passage of Bill C-3 and adoption of the exploratory process a reasonable and practical direction to try to move us forward?

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

Right. The second generation cut-off that will ultimately result is not something that will be addressed within the scope of this particular bill. I certainly recognize that as a result of Bill C-3 in its current form, there is going to be an influx of potential persons who are eligible to be registered. The government has indicated or estimated that there will be in the range of 45,000.

That certainly can--and will, as it did in 1985--pose problems for first nations communities that have to administer programs and services to their citizens. As I said in my opening comments, I have said, and we at the Assembly of First Nations and our chiefs have said clearly, that there is a need to ensure there are adequate resources to enable our first nations communities to address the potential influx of new registrants resulting from the bill in its current form or the potential influx of people resulting from an amendment to the bill.

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

Thank you for the question.

I recognize that there is a divergence of opinion among first nations leadership and first nations generally across the country. As I indicated in my statement, I believe that any discrimination should be eradicated in this day and age.

The question of consultation is somewhat difficult for me to address, because there is some assumption that there is a need for consultation to amend the Indian Act. I'm not saying there isn't, but as a lawyer, I look at consultation and accommodation in the legal context of aboriginal title and rights. In this case, with respect to the government changing the Indian Act, there is also a form of consultation. The Indian Act is an antiquated piece of legislation. It certainly is complicated, and there are varying degrees with respect to engagement with first nations on issues that seek to amend it.

There have been a lot of changes to the Indian Act over the years. Making fundamental changes, which are driven by first nations, to enter into a treaty or to negotiate a self-government arrangement requires a referendum within a community. In this particular case, with respect to Bill C-3 to get rid of discrimination, there is a different form of consultation.

I recognize that there have been engagements across the country with respect to Bill C-3 and citizenship, but the broader and more important discussion that the first nations leadership across the country has raised is around that citizenship issue and how to be respectful of first nations ability to determine for themselves who they are and who their citizens will be.

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

I'm going to speak to Chief Wilson-Raybould.

Grand Chief, thank you for being here with us. I agree with my colleague in recognizing Grand Chief Atleo and Chief Lonechild.

As you will see, I am very precise. I'm speaking to the lawyer. We have begun our proceedings, and I will ask you to examine one point. I don't need an answer today. I'm also speaking to Grand Chief Atleo, who I know will listen closely.

This is a draft amendment that we are going to try to introduce. I would like paragraph 6(1)(a) to be amended to read: “or if that person was born prior to April 17, 1985 and was a direct descendant of such and such a person.”

In my opinion, and I'm not the only one to think this, that is the only way to prevent the perpetuation of the discrimination you suffer and will continue to suffer if Bill C-3 is passed in its present form. I would like you to consider this amendment, to look at it and to send your comments to the committee. I already know that the government will probably not agree because this may go too far, but we can debate that here amongst ourselves. I would like to know whether the First Nations would be satisfied with that amendment. That was my first comment.

Furthermore, I don't believe—and I say this sincerely—in the exploratory process they want to put in place. In 20 years, this still will not be resolved. I would like you to talk to me about possible amendments. I'm not saying they can be introduced immediately.

Discrimination and registration are two completely separate things. I think we can address discrimination, or at least in part. However, with regard to registration, section 11 of the Indian Act should be amended. I would like to hear your comments on that subject. I think we can do part of the job with section 6, but as for section 11, that is to say registration... I don't think we need to explain section 11 to you. That concerns the power of the communities to register their members.

I would like to have your comments on that subject.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Yes. I think most of us would agree that we shouldn't have to wait another 20 or 25 years consuming another generation to get from Bill C-31 in 1985, to Bill C-3 in 2010, to some other bill 25 years from now.

In terms of the exploratory process, I understand that much of your comment was taken up with issues of self-determination, self-government--i.e., we shall determine who we are, we know who we are, we just want the means to be able to determine that in our own fashion. And I certainly agree with that.

These exploratory talks.... Very interestingly, I watched a documentary, Talking Around the Table, just last night, which featured Chief Wilson. I'm sure you're very familiar with him.

At any rate, I think it was a lesson to me. I mean, substantive talks were offered at that particular time: three first ministers' conferences with all the premiers, the Prime Minister, Trudeau at the time, and then Mr. Mulroney. But at the end of the day, many would say that they didn't advance that far.

How confident are you that these exploratory talks are going to shed more light or to imbue the process with something that's deliverable for first nations people? What would it take, in your view, for these to work? What would the process look like? What kind of resources would you require? You know--

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

What I hear you saying, what I've heard other witnesses say, what I'm reading in some of the literature, and what I believe even the government itself may acknowledge, is that gender discrimination will continue to exist under the Indian Act, even with the passage of Bill C-3. Is that a fair statement to make?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Chief Wilson-Raybould, and Ms. Campbell. I also want to acknowledge the national chief, who is with us today.

Chief Lonechild, it's good to have you with us as well, and of course all of those who are listening in.

When I listened to your comments, certainly I found little to disagree with, but I'd like to clarify a number of points that you raised.

Do you feel that Bill C-3 adequately responds to the McIvor decision at the B.C. Court of Appeal? I think our first bit of business is to make sure that the government has adequately responded to that particular decision.

In your view, after having had a look at it--and believe me, I'm no lawyer, and all these different categories sometimes can get a bit challenging--and from your analysis of it, does the bill that we have in front of us adequately respond to the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision?

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Assembly of First Nations, I would like to thank you, Chair, and the members of the committee for welcoming me here today to speak on behalf of Bill C-3.

I would like to acknowledge Karen Campbell, who is from our offices, and acknowledge as well the national chief and my fellow colleague, Regional Chief Guy Lonechild.

I'll briefly introduce myself. My name is Puglaas--Jody Wilson-Raybould--and I come from the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk people of northern Vancouver Island. I am registered under subsection 6(1) of the Indian Act, and I am a member of the We Wai Kai Nation, formerly known as the Cape Mudge Indian Band. I am on council for my home first nation and I am the regional chief for the AFN from British Columbia. For the AFN I co-lead the portfolio on supporting first nations governments, and within that portfolio is the subset of citizenship and nation building.

I know this committee has already heard a lot of the background information with respect to McIvor, and I was pleased to see that Sharon herself appeared here two days ago, so I won't go over that background information. What I wish to provide to the committee today are some general observations on what it means to belong to a first nations community and a vision for the future of first nations that goes beyond the determination of status and membership under the Indian Act to one that recognizes the authority of our first nations across Canada to determine our own citizenship and our rights and responsibilities from that citizenship.

Since the original trial decision in McIvor, I have heard from a number of first nations people, both men and women, who are genuinely excited about the prospect of becoming registered under the Indian Act as a result of the proposed amendments. At one level this is about correcting discrimination, but at a more fundamental level it is about belonging and about association with a group. For policy-makers and administrators, the issue of increasing members might be viewed simply in terms of budget pressures, service provision, and access to resources; at its core, however, this is about community, and this is powerful. Our people are our greatest resource.

As it was in the 1980s regarding Bill C-31, it is a shame that the debate over registration sometimes solely becomes focused on scarce and limited financial resources and tax exemptions rather than the benefits of inclusiveness and self-determination.

In British Columbia, as in other parts of the country, our nations are developing our own models of citizenship. The nation decides who is a part of that nation, who is a citizen, notwithstanding the legacy of the Indian Act and membership. In the context of modern claims, the determination of citizenship is a fundamental conversation that results in the collective setting the rules and the individual electing to be a citizen or not. Citizens are beneficiaries of treaties and can participate in the political institutions created through the treaty or agreement, but--and more importantly, for the collective--in exchange they are subject to the obligations of citizenship.

In announcing the proposed amendments to the Indian Act, Minister Strahl also announced an exploratory process centred around registration, membership, and citizenship issues. I congratulate the minister on this initial step and commitment, but we can go further.

A discussion of citizenship within the broad context of nation building would be evidence of a fundamental shift in the relationship between our nations and the crown, consistent with the spirit of intent of our historic treaties, and necessary to conclude modern land claims arrangements with nations that enjoy unextinguished aboriginal title and rights. It reflects the beginning of a healthier and more mature relationship between our peoples and the crown, not only with respect to the determination of citizenship outside of the Indian Act, but also to govern through our own institutions of government, with appropriate jurisdiction and authority outside of the Indian Act. This discussion necessitates going beyond exploration and information-gathering on a wide range of issues.

There are many opportunities for first nations in this country, but there are necessary prerequisites before our nations will fully realize these opportunities.

First and foremost, there is a need for appropriate governance, which includes, of course, the determination of citizenship. There is also a need for fair access to lands and resources so that our first nations economies will be viable, with adequate own-source revenue generation, power to support critical aspects of our governance, and the provision of programs and services.

In addition to appropriate governance and lands and resource settlements, we of course need well-educated and healthy citizens. Our citizens, perhaps more than any other Canadians, are required to participate in decision-making around our own very existence and future.

Given the colonial legacy with Canada and before significant and fundamental change can occur in our communities, there is a requirement for public votes and referendums. To put it another way, to become fully decolonized we need to vote in favour of change, so we need a citizenry that can not only participate in the workforce and become active contributors to our own society and Canadian society generally, but also a citizenry that can engage in a serious conversation about social change and be part of that change. Ultimately, it will be our people's recognition of themselves as citizens of their nations and not as Indian Act registrants or members of bands that will mark the transformation of our nations.

This, of course, poses many challenges, not the least from those leaders and those in our communities who have internalized the Indian Act's identity and are overshadowed by the administrative determinism established through this colonial ordinance. Stated another way, for some first nations people, their identity has become intertwined with the colonial definition of “Indian” under the law-invested statutory rights.

Turning to Bill C-3, the AFN supports any amendments to the Indian Act that would rid it of discrimination. Discrimination in any nature or form is not acceptable, this notwithstanding that many of the chiefs and the communities they represent have not gone through the process to establish citizenship rules beyond the Indian Act or Indian Act membership codes, and are very concerned about the potential financial implications of implementing Bill C-3.

It will be essential that adequate resources be made available to first nations to avoid any further hardship in first nations communities and for our citizens, regardless of where they reside. There must be a realistic picture regarding additional funding requirements on the ground.

The McIvor case was started by our people. Sharon was supported by our people, and we continue to support the efforts of all our people to end discrimination wherever it may be found. I am fully aware that other witnesses before me have called to end all discrimination that exists under the Indian Act and would like the committee to broaden the scope of the bill. We support these aspirations. I am also advised that any expansion of the bill's purpose to go beyond addressing gender discrimination would probably require a new bill to be introduced, thereby delaying the rectification of gender discrimination. At the very least, if the committee is not able to go beyond gender discrimination issues in this bill, this committee, I respectfully submit, should assure itself that the amendments are being made to address all gender discrimination issues in the Indian Act and not just those applied in the case of Sharon McIvor.

In closing, long-term solutions do not lie in further tinkering with the Indian Act. Our nations have an inherent right to determine who is and who is not a citizen of our nation in accordance with our own laws, customs, and traditions. This is fundamental to self-governance. The real and ultimate solution to addressing ongoing discrimination in the Indian Act lies with full recognition of first nations' jurisdiction over our own citizenship. The contribution that will be made by our full citizenry, when legally recognized through appropriate citizenship processes and in part supported by interim legislation such as Bill C-3, will be profound. While some registrants or citizens of our nations may be somewhat apprehensive to return, and in some cases may initially be made to feel unwelcome by those who have an interest to exclude them, we must not forget that we are family. We will have connections and we have potential for making great contributions to our nations.

The excitement in the eyes of those who identify with being part of our nations but who, through no fault of their own, have been excluded legally from their inheritance is empowering, and it is a sign of better times to come as our nations take full control of our lives and our future. It starts with determining who we are.

Finally, Parliament is in a unique position to work in partnership with first nations to undertake a comprehensive review of the Indian Act and its related policies and regulations, to examine their intrusion into first nations jurisdiction, and to put forward mechanisms for recognition of, and staged and supported implementation of, first nations jurisdiction. We hope that you will support this critical work of supporting first nations governments.

I will end as I began: this is part of a broader process that we recommend around indigenous nation building and rebuilding.

Thank you for your time. Gilakasla.

I would happy to answer questions from the committee. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen members, witnesses and guests.

We are starting the ninth meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. On the agenda, pursuant to the 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).

This afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, we welcome our continuing consideration of Bill C-3.

We welcome the Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations for British Columbia, Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould. With her is Karen Campbell, who is the senior policy analyst, strategic policy, planning and law.

You've probably done this before, so you know the drill.

Have you done it before?

[Betty Ann Lavallée]

You're correct. We're prepared to support Bill C-3, based on the fact that we have been told there will be a supporting process that will give us the opportunity to have input from the ground up. We only had measured input on this document because of the timeframe and the amount of funding. But we believe that with this parallel process we can go a long way toward not just resolving the issue of citizenship, but through working with our other national political organizations, reconstituting our historical nations in the hope that some day we won't be having this discussion again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We're just about wrapped up. I have one summary question for Ms. Lavallée, just so we completely understand where we're at in the process. I heard some measured support for the initiative here, but later there was a qualification that really rejected many of the proposals in the bill.

Are you in a position to see that the measures proposed by Bill C-3, recognizing that they're not a complete fix, but if they take us part of the way to realizing the inequities in the Indian Act and the fact that this other process in front of us will explore many of the other concerns...? I think even the bill anticipates that there are other issues around registration and membership that need to be addressed. Is CAP giving tentative support for these measures on the basis that this other process will continue that evolution?

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

Okay, great.

Ms. Lavallée, I just want to point out something for everybody. In the recent court of appeal extension consideration, the court actually pointed out that:

Under the circumstances, we might well have acceded to a request for a longer suspension of our declaration had it been sought. The Attorney General's factum, however, sought only a 12-month suspension of any declaration of invalidity.

So in fact we could have had the time to do the appropriate work to address broader discriminatory measures, if the government, or in this case the Attorney General, had only asked for an extension. I just wanted to set that out, because people are saying we had to act within the 12 months when in fact the courts might have considered a much longer time, because they recognized that it was desirable for government to consult with first nations people before proceeding with amendments to the legislation. So it was possible that we could have actually done a much better job of this, by the court's own statement. I just wanted to put that on the record.

I want to turn to your discussion paper and thank you, because I understand that members did receive this. You pointed out a couple of important things in here and I want to refer to the Powley decision. In here you state that the Supreme Court “has already stated in Powley that Métis identity cannot be determined by blood quantum. It seems no more appropriate for Indians as a means of identification than it is for Métis.” That's on page 14, just before the conclusion under the heading “True Partnership for Change”.

I think that's a valid point, because one of the things we've heard fairly consistently from witnesses is that it really isn't up to the government to be determining this with some arbitrary criteria. I thought this was an interesting section of the paper, because not only did you identify some discriminatory practices that are still in place, but you also identified the very issues around blood quantum and who gets to determine citizenship. I just want to acknowledge that it was a really important point you raised around who is determining citizenship and why is there this arbitrary blood quantum. As you well know, many of the nations say, “Butt out. It's up to us to determine who has citizenship”. So I'd like you to comment on that.

Then I also want you to comment on your recommendation. I just want to be clear. You're suggesting that we actually abandon what's in Bill C-3. There is the person in the first part and the second part and third part. Instead, you are suggesting that we take the original 1985 bill and take paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act and insert the words, “or was born prior to April 17th, 1985, and was a direct descendant of such a person”. So you're suggesting that we abandon subparagraphs 6(1)(c)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and everything else, and just use your proposed amendment. That's what you're saying. So do away with all these other qualifiers that they've put in here.

I think you've already acknowledged that it won't deal with the broader discrimination. It won't deal with every case of discrimination, but in your view—

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

I am going to jump in.

I would like to settle one issue right away. I don't think extensive consultations are needed on Bill C-3. And my reason for believing that is simple. The question is whether this bill is discriminatory or not and whether the Indian Act is discriminatory or not. And the answer is yes.

Even if I went all across Canada to meet with the 78 communities, they would all tell me, just as Ms. McIvor has, that this bill is discriminatory and will perpetuate discrimination. Once that has been established, we have a problem.

I did not understand your amendments. With all due respect, Ms. Lavallée, you were speaking quickly when you discussed the amendments you are recommending to Bill C-3.

Could you tell me which clause of the bill you would like to see amended?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I just want to follow up with my colleague Larry.

I think we fundamentally agree with your premise about reconstituting nations, that it's an issue of citizenship. It's a principle that has been certainly affirmed under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we hope will be affirmed by our country at some point.

I think there's also some understanding that the Indian Act itself is a discriminatory piece of legislation. We know that. Bill C-3 does not speak to scrapping the Indian Act. What Bill C-3 speaks to is facets of discrimination that exist within this discriminatory piece of legislation. CAP was an intervenor supporting Sharon McIvor and her arguments that were made, as I understand it.

So if we could end the gender discrimination under the Indian Act with amendments to Bill C-3, would that be something you could agree with? If we could end the gender discrimination under the Indian Act by amending Bill C-3, in that framework, is that something CAP could agree with?

[Betty Ann Lavallée]

Well, not just urban--isolated, rural, remote.

It's going to put a demand on our provincial territory organizations to be able to deliver programs and services throughout the provincial areas and to be able to provide the basic needs in some cases.

The reality is it doesn't matter what amendments you make to Bill C-3, it's not going to change the discriminatory provisions of Bill C-3. This is not an issue of labelling people. This is an issue of reconstituting nations. Bill C-3 is only going to be a temporary measure, because discrimination has occurred under the Indian Act, under the restoration provisions, since the Indian Act was conceived. You've got a hundred or more years of history to undo.

The fact of the matter is, again, we have people sitting in Ottawa and in courts making decisions without actually going out to grassroots people and asking them what they want. That goes against what the Supreme Court of Canada has consistently said. You have to consult and accommodate the peoples in the community.

We don't want another Indian Act. We want to see our nations--historical nations, our 73 nations--reconstituted, where you're a member of the nation.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're doing a good job, as always.

Thank you all for coming.

Good to see you again, Ms. Lavallée.

Conrad, good to see you. As the former president of a friendship centre, you know I carry your case here in Ottawa a lot. It's amazing that you continue to do what you do, considering your budgets have been frozen for, I don't know, 17 years or something. It will be great to get you some more money.

I'm assuming that we have a continued agreement this afternoon, basically, with the premise that Bill C-3 would enfranchise maybe 45,000 more people. But there are really a couple of hundred thousand who are gender-discriminated because of the gender of one of their parents or grandparents--a relative. If possible, you would like us to amend to include everyone so there's no gender discrimination. It's a fairly simple right.

In fact, Ms. Lavallée, you gave some of the steps that need to be added to do that. My question for you is if there were a couple of hundred more status Indians in Canada created because of this amended bill, what effect would that have on your organization, if any?

[Karen Green]

Yes, I just wanted to say that status membership is a legal construct created by the Indian Act. We're trying to deal with a citizenship issue--who are the citizens of our nations?--through language that's very difficult and divisive. It is a very imperfect instrument for trying to have this conversation. Does it mean that we should be immobilized? No, but it may not be the best way to have the conversation. What has happened, even among ourselves, is that all of these distinctions have been created because of this law.

We're trying to move forward. We know what happened with Bill C-31. We know what might happen with Bill C-3. And we have to find a way to move forward so that we can live without those distinctions in our minds, because they have been divisive. They haven't served any purpose other than to streamline, for funding purposes, who's an Indian and who isn't.

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell]

I would like to go to back to prior to 1876, when our people, our chiefs, and the leadership at the time had the right to determine who their people were and who their citizens were. We could recognize that. They signed treaties as sovereign nations, with all the applicable rights that go along with being a nation, including the right to determine their citizens and the right to their language, history, and culture. You know, that should be there and recognized. It was changed without our participation.

You said that it wasn't until 1970, but even in 1970 we did it, because we had become aware of Canadian human rights legislation and the Canadian Bill of Rights. We found out about these things as we went into the education system, and we realized that something, perhaps, could be done. We didn't all necessarily become lawyers, but I think we stepped into our traditional role of taking that step to protect our communities. You put yourself in a position so that if it's your path, your direction from the creator, this is what you have to do.

I think that is happening again. Our women are determined to ensure that our people continue to exist. The way Bill C-31 is right now--and I think Bill C-3 will just slow that process down--will still result in the same mistake, which is no more status Indian members on some of our reserves. I don't think we want to go through that whole process again, so maybe now is the opportunity to do something about it.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. It's great to have you with us, Ms. Lavell and Ms. Green. It's always a pleasure. And I do want to acknowledge your long journey as well, and the contributions and struggles you have made in the cause for equality.

A couple of questions are arising from what you have said. Would it be fair for me to say that NWAC, which is also studying Bill C-3, acknowledges that there would be continued gender inequality or discrimination under the Indian Act? Would that be a fair statement?

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, President, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Meegwetch, Honourable Chair.

[Witness speaks in Ojibway]

My Anishinabe name is North Star, and I'm from the Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve on Manitoulin Island. I would also like to acknowledge the territory of the Algonquin people.

Having said that, I would just like to take a minute and recognize your invitation for us to be one of the first presenters here. We recognize and appreciate that. Generally, we're usually at the end, but we do get the last word in at times.

While Sharon is here, I'd also like to say that we are thankful to her for all of her efforts. It is through her energy and determination and many times her own funding that we were able to see Bill C-3 come into being. It was through her sheer will this has come about. We recognize this and support her. She will be one of our achievers when we look back at our aboriginal history, along with all of the other ones she talked about who've gone on.

I think this is a really important time in our history. Having said that, I want to share with you that thanks to her, I have five grandchildren, two of whom have full status. My oldest grandson, Nigani, has full status, as does my oldest granddaughter, Autumn Sky. However, my three little ones, Kyana, Eva, Ulbriana, do not have recognition as members of my community right now. But hopefully we will be able to see this happen and I will be able to tell them that they are full members of my community, their grandmother's community, that they will be recognized and will be able to learn our language, learn our history, learn our ceremonies, and learn our culture, because that is who we are and it is very important.

This is the underlying issue in what we're talking about here. If any of you feel that connection to your homes, your homeland, if it's Canada or elsewhere, you know how important it is, and that's what we feel about our communities. Marriage should not have anything to do with it. I would just like to state that from the very beginning.

Just as a little side point, paragraph 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act did not come from us as aboriginal people. That was imposed on us from you know where. We would really like the opportunity to return to our traditions, to who we are as a people, our practices and customs, including having that respect and recognition for our women, remembering that it is our women who will ensure our future generations. That is our responsibility, to ensure that our nations will be here tomorrow and for many generations to come.

Right now, there have been studies done that show that in three years' time, one reserve in Ontario, the Scugog First Nation, will have its last status Indian born in 2013. Now what's going to happen to that first nation? If we continue the way we are going, that is what's going to happen to many others. I don't think any of us in Canada, whether aboriginal or not, will allow that to happen. We recognize that Canada is a great country.

I also want to say that the Native Women's Association of Canada consists of provincial and territorial organizations right across the country and we represent first nations, Métis, and Inuit women. We were created and we support the issue we are talking about here today.

As I said to Sharon, we do support all the work she has done, and we will continue to support her work in bringing about equity to eliminate any of that ongoing discrimination that is present within the current bill. I hope it will not be present in the next piece of legislation that comes about. I think all of you here, with our support--and our little push, perhaps--will make sure that for my grandchildren, the three I was telling you about, their recognition back into my community will have meaning. It will mean something to them. They can say that they have full recognition equal to their cousins, cousins who are descended from a male ancestor.

Right now that is not there, but hopefully we will be able to see that. It will be up to you to ensure that those three little girls will have just as many rights, that they are not lesser than, or that they will not be excluded.

I understand that's what Sharon is talking about. There should not be any more discrimination within legislation.

I was going to take you back through our history, but I'll make it brief. I know that time is going, and Sharon has already covered many of the definitions and all the descriptions.

I will just tell you that from 1876 to 1970, no one challenged the Indian Act. It was just a given. I guess that right, for us, to make changes in the legislation that was affecting us just was not there. We did try in 1970--I tried--and, as Sharon pointed out, lost by one vote. The time was just not right. We had most of the aboriginal organizations, especially the National Indian Brotherhood at the time, who opposed us. We lost by one vote.

Had the time been different, or had it happened now, I don't think the story would be the same. We are changing, and the time is right for us all to work together to bring about true equity, true justice, for all of us as Canadians and as aboriginal people within our community.

I was also going to say to you that because we didn't have a voice in the early seventies, we created our aboriginal women's organizations. Mind you, this is just recognizing the role we had. We actually brought it forward, and thank goodness, because we will not stop our struggle to achieve this equity until we follow the teachings of our grandfathers and our grandmothers--that is, to recognize that our children are gifts from the Creator. As mothers, as grandmothers, as great-grandmothers, we have the responsibility to care for them, to nurture them, to ensure that they have the rights and the benefits so they can grow into strong, wise, and protecting people. They will be our future. I think we can do it if we do look at this legislation.

Now, if we look at definitions within Bill C-3, it is contentious. I know there is a lot of work to be done. But I would just like to share with you my recent association and work with the Anishinabek Nation in Ontario. I was the commissioner on citizenship there, and we drafted our own citizenship law. It was unanimous in all the communities. We recognized that as long as you had one parent who was Anishinabek--within our description of Anishinabek Nation--you would be entitled to recognition and membership as citizens within the Anishinabek Nation. That would be within our own citizenship law.

It is workable because of the attitude right now—what is happening within government, in the throne speech, with the Prime Minister mentioning that Canada is looking at endorsing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This would be a great opportunity to also work with us as aboriginal peoples, as aboriginal nations, so that we can determine who our citizens are. That is our right as a nation and it would be much easier on the rest of the government if we had that right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I call the meeting to order.

We are resuming consideration of Bill C-3, an act to promote gender equity in Indian registration. We're delighted to have with us Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, who is the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada. She is joined by Karen Green, the executive director.

Because we have a full hour, we will proceed directly to Ms. Lavell's presentation.

You've done this before, of course, and it's great to have you back at our committee. You may make a ten-minute presentation, Ms. Lavell, and then we'll go to questions from members.

Ms. Lavell.

[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.

Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières. An Indian woman who marries a white man loses all her rights. This means that she is no longer a band member and she is thrown out of the band. She has to leave the area and generally, she and her children are literally—and I do mean literally—removed forcibly from the reserve. That has happened. Therefore, she is no longer an Indian within the meaning of the Indian Act. She cannot own property on the reserve. She and her husband cannot own a house. They are expelled from the reserve.

That has happened in Quebec. It has actually started happening again with the Mohawks. It has happened in a number of other communities. There is a shortage of land. If a woman is not an Indian under the law, she is turned out. She loses her rights, her children lose all their rights under the Indian Act, that is, the right to be recognized. What is worse, they lose their culture. When you are expelled you have no rights. You are on the outside.

You would not believe that this could happen in Canada. However, that is exactly what has happened to aboriginal women over the past century and it is unacceptable. Women had power because tradition was passed on by women, by mothers. Overnight, they had their rights trampled on. This was confirmed in 1951 and in 1985. Let us hope that this is not the case when we have finished studying Bill C-3.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

Quite humbly, I must say that I do not know who would be entitled. That will be a priority issue when the committee begins its study of Bill C-3 and its application.

Women's rights were compromised by Bill C-31 in 1986 and especially by the 1951 Indian Act. We must not let that happen again. The problem started in 1951. I know, that is an important year—it is the year I was born—but that year some problems made their way into the Indian Act, and governments have been trying to fix those problems ever since. I hope that this government will find the resources and give aboriginal peoples a chance to make progress. Many aboriginal people will go back to the reserves. These are people who have always wanted to go back but cannot because the reserves do not have adequate funding to accept them. Let us hope that Bill C-3 will make it possible for people to go back to the reserves.

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

I said “le yâble” not “le diable”. That would be too easy to translate. So this was a very exceptional situation and the problem was still not fixed. Not only was the problem not fixed, but others were created. Basically, bands were given control over the status of their members. Bill C-31 gave bands some powers, but you had to belong to one.

So why would you want to register as an Indian? This is an extremely important concept. Indian registration is indeed the first step in gaining not only Indian status, but also peer recognition in the community. Membership is a very important concept, as it entitles individuals to live on reserve, participate in political processes such as the election of band chiefs, own property on reserve and share band resources. It permits recognition of one's origins and the practice of one's culture. And that is the problem.

Bill C-31 was passed in 1985 and that is when the problems began. Ms. McIvor is one of its victims. It is the reason we are discussing this in Parliament. She went to the courts. She found, she still finds and I hope that she will always find the double standard to be discriminatory. I do not want to go into technical details, but the double standard is found in subsections 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3) of the Indian Act. To sum up, nothing changed. If an Indian woman marries a white, she loses all her rights. Bill C-31 did not fix this problem. It upheld it. However, a limit was set. If the woman was born before 1951, she had the right to Indian status. If she was born after 1951, she did not have that right.

So what happened? Ms. McIvor took it to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. As we speak, a dozen or so of these complaints are before the courts in various jurisdictions across Canada, including one or two similar cases currently before Quebec courts. The fundamental argument is that we must put an end to the discrimination that exists when an Indian woman marries a non-Indian man. The operative word is “marriage”. Indeed, in the Indian Act, there is no mention of couples. So under that piece of legislation, if a couple lives together without being married, any children born to the couple are illegitimate. Bill C-3, which we are debating here today, does not address that issue. It always talks about marriage.

As soon as an Indian woman marries a non-Indian man, she loses all her rights. She will not get them back under Bill C-3.

So Ms. McIvor took her case to the British Columbia Supreme Court, which ruled in her favour. The federal government appealed the decision before the Federal Court, and the case was then heard by the Federal Court of Appeal.

On April 6, 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that section 6 of the Indian Act is discriminatory and that the government had to take steps to correct the situation. That is why we are currently examining the Sharon McIvor bill, that is, Bill C-3, to amend the Indian Act.

The problem is that it does not correct the situation. In 1985, regarding the changes proposed by Bill C-31, the government was asked how many new aboriginal people would be registered. It estimated that approximately 56,800 people would become new members of aboriginal communities.

Unfortunately for the government, on December 31, 2000, 114,000 people obtained Indian status, which helped stop assimilation. In the event this bill is passed, how many new aboriginal people will be registered? The government is unable to answer that question.

The worst answer came from departmental officials. For now, INAC estimates there will be roughly 40,000 or 45,000 new people, but the majority probably live off reserve. It is the “but” that is important here. Even if Indian status is given to new people who live off reserve, they will probably be assimilated, like many aboriginals living off reserve and in big cities.

Today, the question is whether there is enough money to include these new people. We do not know and that is worrisome. The federal government has frozen the annual budget increase for aboriginal people at 2%. There will be a serious problem when Bill C-3 comes into force.

We will see the reaction of aboriginals appearing before committee. The Bloc Québécois will ask that it be mostly women because they are the ones being discriminated against. With all due respect, the men have not lost anything. Initially, large band councils were headed by women. The Indian Act put an end to the passing on of tradition by women.

I will stop here, but if the House gave me permission to continue for another 10 minutes, I would be very happy.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill C-3. It brings back memories. Already when you were the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, we started discussing this bill or at least the imminent emergence of a bill to amend section 6 of the Indian Act, an act that is probably by far the most discriminatory legislation that Canada passed all last century.

I would like to acknowledge the outstanding job done on this bill by our researcher in the social affairs division, Ms. Hurley, who works for the Library of Parliament. She submitted a superb document, which we received today, on the history and the reasons why we are talking today about the McIver decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and why we want to amend the Indian Act.

We started trying to deal with the Indians in 1850, of course in a Canadian way. There was the American way. Everyone remembers the American way and Wounded Knee, where virtually all the Sioux and several other aboriginal communities were exterminated. They were driven off their lands through war.

In Canada, we took a gentler approach, although it was just as assimilatory in intent as the American way, which was to exterminate. We decided on a somewhat gentler approach and all the ensuing governments to the present day should look themselves in the mirror and say they are responsible for the fact that we are today debating BillC-3 to hopefully put an end—even if only partially—to unparalleled discrimination against women in Canada and against aboriginal women.

I have rarely seen a bill trying to end such discrimination in an existing piece of legislation. The act was called an Act for the gradual enfranchisement of Indians, the better management of Indian affairs, and to extend the provisions of the Act thirty-first Victoria, chapter forty-two. The bill was passed in 1869. Nothing could be more paternalistic than that.

In 1850, the first statutory definition of “Sauvages” in Canada was brought in. I am going to offer a history lesson on assimilation, for those who are listening to us. A better job of causing a people to disappear could not be done than the job Canada did with the Indians, with the first peoples. That much is clear. The reason some of them survive today is certainly not down to the governments that came one after another; it is because the aboriginal people had great resilience.

In 1850, the first statutory definition of “Sauvages” was inclusive, that is not me saying it, we have to go back to the Act for the Better Protection of the Lands and Property of Indians in Lower Canada, Statutes of Canada 1850, chapter 42. The Indians’ land was taken, and it was the federal government that flatly declared itself the trustee. But there were quite a lot of Indians. A way had to be found for there to be fewer of them.

A law passed in 1869 brought in the first provision under which the marriage of an Indian woman to a non-Indian resulted in the woman and her children losing status. A man retained all his rights and powers, while a woman who married a white man lost all her rights. And that has been the case since 1850.

The Bloc wants to speak out against that situation in the House. Over the next few months, we will try to find solutions. They will not be easy solutions, because the aboriginal peoples of Canada have been the victims of discrimination and assimilation in recent years.

It was in 1951 that an attempt was finally made to incorporate the double mother rule, under which a person who was registered at birth lost their status and their band membership at the age of 21 if their parents had married after the Indian Act came into force, in September 1951, and if their mother and father’s mother had gained status solely by marriage.

In other words, there was no problem if a man married a white woman, if an Indian man married an Indian woman and if an Indian man married a white woman. But if an Indian woman married a white man, she lost all her rights. That is what happened.

As far as I know, it is still women who bear children. Unless and until that changes, very clearly it is women who will be victims of discrimination under the Indian Act. That is still the case today and it will still be the case in the future, even if Bill C-3 is passed.

We are going to solve the problem in committee. We agree that the bill should be studied in committee.

Sometime last year, the House passed Bill C-21 to repeal section 67 of the Indian Act, which states that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply on reserve. That was impressive. Under Bill C-21, as of June 2011, the Canadian Human Rights Act will apply to aboriginal communities. Bill C-3 will add to the rights of women in these communities.

I hope that the government will see the light and adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I hope this will happen in my lifetime and during Mr. Speaker's tenure. Sadly, for the time being, we are nowhere near seeing this happen.

What is the McIvor decision? It is not very complicated. I have mentioned the milestones of the Indian Act. There was 1869, and then 1951. Another very important date after 1951 was 1985. That year, the Liberals, who thought they were so clever, introduced Bill C-31. The government at the time had a strong majority, and thus it was able to pass this legislation, which took effect in 1985. The problem is that Bill C-31, as it was passed, did not solve the problems.

Bill C-31 was supposed to remove discrimination, restore Indian status and ties to the band, that is membership rights, and enable bands to take charge of the status of their members on their own. Then the dispute started because, as they say, “The devil is in the details”, “Le diable est dans les détails” or, as you might sometimes hear in Quebec, “Le yâble est dans les détails”. I cannot wait to hear what the translators will do with that. So the “yâble” is in the details.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to echo the comments by the member for Vancouver Kingsway that the member has presented a very well thought out presentation on Bill C-3.

It seems to me that Sharon McIvor has gone through a lot to bring things to where they are right now, when she should not have had to do any of it. These problems should have been rectified years ago. It was not until the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker that native people even had the right to vote in this country in the 1960s. Where have the governments been all these years?

The member certainly understands the issue better than almost anyone in the House. She has indicated that there is still going to be a problem with illegitimate daughters. The question I have for her is this. Does she feel that we are going to be able to deal with that issue of this particular bill at the committee stage?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for what all members have come to expect from her, which is a thoughtful, comprehensive, and well thought out speech to the House, as well as one that is very fair.

It seems to me that Bill C-3 deals with a very critical and important issue not only to the first nations of this country but to many Canadians who want to have a just and progressive relationship develop between the first nations and all Canadians, and progress for all bands across this country.

It also seems to me that substance and process are both engaged by this bill. Process, in particular, that the bill raises is the importance of consultation with first nations, the involvement of first nations, and the right of first nations to help shape a proper response to the very critical issue about the definition of who does and does not obtain Indian status in this country.

I would like the member to comment, if she would, on the importance of process, as well as the substantive issues engaged by this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue works tirelessly on the aboriginal affairs committee and is very knowledgeable about the serious issues facing aboriginal communities across this country.

I do not believe that Bill C-3 would deal with all of the gender inequalities that are inherent in the current Indian Act. I had indicated in my speech that there is still a problem with illegitimate daughters. Illegitimate daughters have a different status, whereas illegitimate sons maintain their status. That is just one example of some of the challenges still in place in the Indian Act.

We have known unequivocally since 1973 that there are serious problems with the status provisions in the Indian Act. Here we are in 2010 picking at one small aspect of it. We need a comprehensive approach to status of citizenship.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to 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). It is a long title for a short bill. New Democrats will be supporting this bill at second reading.

It is important not only for the women and their children in Nanaimo—Cowichan but for the women and their children in British Colombia and across this country.

This somewhat technical bill is the result of a long-standing court case that Sharon McIvor had in British Columbia.

I am going to quote from the legislative summary because it deals with some of the technical aspects.The British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling gave rise to Bill C-3. The summary states:

The decision dealt with the case of Sharon McIvor, who had lost status when she married a non-First Nations man and had been reinstated in 1985 under paragraph 6(1)(c) of the post-Bill C-31 Indian Act. Her son, Jacob Grismer, having only one First Nations parent, acquired status under subsection 6(2) but was unable to transmit that status to his children owing to his own marriage to a non-First Nations woman. In contrast, persons in the male line affected by the 1951 double mother rule, which legislated loss of status at age 21, had been reinstated for life under paragraph 6(1)(c) and were thus able to transmit status to their children whether or not they married out. The Court found that this circumstance placed persons in Jacob Grismer's position at a disadvantage amounting to an unjustified section 15 Charter violation, and issued a suspended declaration of invalidity of paragraphs 6(1)(a) and (c) of the Act to allow Parliament to amend the Act before 6 April 2010.

When we talk about paragraph 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) and subsection 6(2), it gets very confusing and convoluted but it was an important ruling by the B.C. Supreme Court.

I want to put the whole discussion around citizenship and status in context and give the very big picture. I am going to start with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Article 8 of the UN declaration states:

1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural v alues or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;

(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

Article 33 of the UN declaration states:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live.

2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.

With respect to the UN declaration the Conservative government indicated in the throne speech that it would take the next steps. That is why it is important to read into the record some of the articles in the UN declaration because it sets the context for why discussions around citizenship and status are so important.

In terms of history, I am sure many Canadians are not aware that first nations from coast to coast to coast have a very long history of making their own citizenship and membership decisions.

In July 2008 the Assembly of First Nations and Indian and Northern Affairs joint technical working group outlined some history in a technical briefing paper. It indicated that early colonial powers relied upon first nations criteria to determine early colonial definitions of an Indian, including birth, marriage, adoption, residency, self-identification, kinship and community ties.

However, the consolidation of colonial legislation policy into the first Indian Act in 1876, which included legal definitions of the terms “Indian” and “statutory criteria” for who was and was not able to register as an Indian essentially laid the groundwork for the complete segregation from those who remained Indian and assimilation through the loss of status and existing rights.

The article goes on to talk about various changes, but I want to talk about other ones. The Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869 was the first law denying Indian status to an Indian woman who married out and which prevented her children from acquiring status. This provision was carried forward into the first Indian Act in 1876. From 1869 on, federal Indian legislation included successive Indian acts and introduced and solidified gender-based criteria within the definition of an Indian and in the treatment of Indian men and women.

This included the central role of patrilineal descent requirements and gender-based discrimination in the treatment of Indian to non-Indian marriages whereby Indian women who married a non-Indian lost their status and their children were not entitled to be registered. In contrast, Indian men who married non-Indians retained their status and their non-Indian spouse and offspring were entitled to be registered as Indians.

The article talks about the definition in 1876 and states:

In addition, the Act and subsequent amendments also continued and furthered the policy of enfranchisement, which became compulsory in a number of circumstances. For example, enfranchisement was automatic if an Indian became a doctor, lawyer, Christian minister, or earned a university degree.

Not only did gender discrimination become an integral part of the Indian Act from 1869 until the present day, but there was an enfranchisement policy that if first nations decided to get an education, they lost their status.

The 1951 amendments to the Indian Act further entrenched gender-based criteria in the definition of an Indian and ineligibility for registration and some precedents set by earlier Indian acts continued to prevail.

For example, Indians were defined as male persons of Indian blood and their descendants and wives. A woman derived her status through her father and then through her husband. If she married a non-native, a Métis, or a non-status Indian, she lost her status. Since children derive their status through their fathers, her children and future generations would also be ineligible to register.

The child of an unmarried registered mother would have status unless it was demonstrated that the father of the child did not have status. People who received or whose ancestors received land or money scrip were not considered Indians and therefore not eligible to be registered.

There is a long, long history of many attempts to limit from the outside from what was a colonial government and then turned out to be a patriarchal government later on, who would be considered first nations, or in those days Indian, in this country. Today we are debating a piece of legislation that very narrowly addresses one aspect of that discriminatory practice that became inherent in the Indian Act.

I want to touch on a couple of other things in the history. In 1961, there was an amendment to end the compulsory enfranchisement of men or bands. The rules indicating that if they had an education they no longer could be enfranchised were removed in 1961. This is how long the fight for equality has been going on.

In the early 1970s Jeannette Lavell and Yvonne Bédard challenged the discriminatory language of section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act. Both women had lost their Indian status because they had married white men. The Supreme Court ruled that the Indian Act was not discriminatory as the women gained the legal rights of white women at the same time they lost their status as Indian women. In the 1970s the courts seemed to be saying that it is better to be a white woman than a first nations woman.

This continued to have devastating consequences for women. Indian women who would later marry a non-Indian would lose their status as would the children of their marriage. These disenfranchised women were prohibited from residing on reserve, inheriting family property, receiving treaty benefits, participating in band councils and other affairs of the Indian community, and being buried in cemeteries with their ancestors. Not only did they lose their status, but they also lost the right to be part of their cultural and linguistic community. Many of these women or their ancestors had been leaders in their communities.

This of course was in stark contrast to first nations men who could marry whomever they desired with impunity. In fact, a non-Indian woman who married an Indian man would gain Indian status. According to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, approximately 4,605 Indian women lost their Indian status by marrying white men between the years of 1958 and 1968.

In 1981, Sandra Lovelace, a Maliseet woman from Tobique—Mactaquac, forced the issue by taking her case to the United Nations human rights committee, contending that she should not have to lose her own status by marriage. Of course, this subsequently led to what is now known as Bill C-31 from 1985. I am going to come back and touch on that in just a moment because, although we are discussing Bill C-3, there are some lessons to be learned from Bill C-31 from 1985.

In the current context, what we have is a very narrow attempt, based on the B.C. Supreme Court decision, to deal with some gender inequities in the Indian Act. I know a number of members in this House were present for the debate on the repeal of section 67 of the Human Rights Act that now allows first nations members to file human rights complaints on a variety of issues. At the time, witnesses came before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to say that what we are in effect doing is beginning to make changes to the Indian Act on a piecemeal basis, and what we can end up with is unintended consequences by not taking a step back and having a more holistic approach to the whole Indian Act.

When we start tinkering with one section, we often do not know what the impact will be further down the road, and I am going to come back to Bill C-31 in that context. However, regarding the current context and what this bill does not deal with, the band council of the Wabanaki Nation has provided a briefing document that talks about the fact that this piece of legislation does not deal with a couple of other problems.

It talks about the sibling rule, where at the time of birth, Indian registration rules did not allow for the registration of illegitimate daughters of an Indian father and a non-Indian mother. It goes on to say that a brother would have the right to be registered at the time of his birth since the Indian registration rules did not allow for the registration of illegitimate daughters of an Indian father and a non-Indian mother, but they did allow for the registration of their illegitimate sons. That is still a case that is outstanding and it is just one example of some of the challenges in the status aspect of the Indian Act which is not dealt by Bill C-3.

Again, I have indicated that New Democrats are prepared to support the bill at second reading; however, I would urge the government to take a much broader look at the Indian Act and its potential impacts.

I want to talk a little about resources, and this is where I am going to talk about Bill C-31 a bit. The Six Nations of the Grand River have prepared a citizenship briefing note, and it raises the spectre around the fact that Indian and Northern Affairs is pursuing an amendment to the Indian Act to respond to the directions from the B.C. Court of Appeal, to be in place by April 6, 2010.

First nations have not been adequately consulted regarding amendments, nor provided clear information on the impact on their communities, and Six Nations is not alone in raising concerns around the impact on the communities.

Just touching briefly on the issue of consultation, the government acknowledges that in this particular case, it has not done consultation. What it has said in that context was that the time was limited, that there was a mandate from the B.C. Supreme Court that it had to move forward. There are some very grave concerns that all aspects of this bill and its potential impacts have not been adequately examined. In fact, the government itself has been unable to give any clear idea of the impacts on communities.

What it has said is that it has estimated that there will be upwards of 45,000 people who could be reinstated as a result of Bill C-3, and that is from Mr. Stewart Clatworthy's report, who is a demographer and has done some work regarding this issue.

There have been no announcements and no budget allocations to deal with the increased administrative duty that comes attached to this bill. Back when Bill C-31 passed in 1985, The Globe and Mail reported that the government officers on two shifts a day were adding more than 500 people per week to the country's official Indian population. The system became swamped with more than 38,000 applicants seeking status for more than 76,000 people. That was in 1985 with Bill C-31.

Of course, we know that Bill C-31 had some other impacts on communities. Bill C-31 created additional problems. There was increased financial pressure on first nations to provide services to newly enfranchised members, and this was housing, health services, education, all of the kinds of services that come along with status.

It created divisions in some communities and families with an impact on community cohesion and identity. Part of that challenge arose because there simply was not enough money to allow people to move back to their home communities.

Just a reminder, some of these women who had married non-status men had been raised in their communities, had the cultural and the linguistic connections, and yet once they regained their status there simply was not enough housing to allow them to move home.

It did create divisions in some communities because of those very limited resources. It has led to a decline in status population and an increased restriction on the ability to transmit status to their children.

I want to turn on that point. There is something called the second generation cutoff in Bill C-31. And again, I would presume it was an unintended consequence because surely the government of the day would not have legislated assimilation, which is in fact what the second generation cutoff does in Bill C-31. The reason I am raising this in the context of Bill C-3 is again that unintended consequence.

In reassessing the population impacts of Bill C-31, Stewart Clatworthy prepared a report on February 26, 2001. Although it is a very lengthy report, I just want to quote from one part of it. Mr. Clatworthy assessed the continuation of the current rules of Bill C-31. He said that if Bill C-31 did not change, if it was the status quo, this is what we could anticipate as the impact of the second generation cutoff. He said:

The number of survivors and descendants who do not qualify for registration is expected to increase from the current level of about 21,700 to nearly 400,000 within two generations.

He was projecting a serious acceleration of the numbers of people who will lose status. He said:

After three generations (year 2074) individuals who are not entitled to registration are projected to form the majority of the population.

Many people have referred to this as legislated assimilation. I want to come back to what I started with when I indicated that prior to contact, and even in the early days of colonial rule, the colonial government of the day took first nations definitions of who was first nations from first nations.

In the context of Bill C-3, although I recognize that there was a court imposed deadline, it could have been an opportunity, once that court decision was issued, for the government to implement a full consultative process to look at all aspects of citizenship and membership.

This was an important opportunity to right some of the wrongs around the gender inequality but also to look at some of the unintended consequences of Bill C-31.

I look forward to having discussions in committee about the complex nature of status and citizenship. I am expecting that we will have some very excellent presentations before the committee that lay out some of the challenges.

The House resumed from March 26 consideration of the motion 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.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to 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).

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill designed to allow those who suffered discrimination because of Bill C-31 passed in 1985 to reconnect with their origins.

Indian registration is indeed the first step in gaining not only Indian status, but also peer recognition in the community.

Membership is a very important concept, as it entitles individuals to live on reserve, participate in political processes such as the election of band chiefs, own property on reserve and share band resources. It permits recognition of one's origins and the practice of one's culture.

In 1996, many questions were already being raised about the impact of Bill C-31. There were concerns about possible adverse effects on the debate about whether or not someone is a band member, an issue that is not only complex, but also an integral part of a person's identity. To illustrate this complexity, I will read two excerpts from a report prepared by the Library of Parliament in February 1996 and revised in 2003.

The debate over membership is complex and multifaceted. A consideration of the issue leads to questions about what it means to belong to a community, about who has the right to define community membership, and about the changing nature of the Indian population. For many years, externally imposed rules for status and membership have produced internal divisions within Indian communities. The impacts of Bill C-31 have further emphasized political, social and financial concerns and introduced new problems.

The growth in the number of status Indians living off reserve as a result of Bill C-31 has also increased the need to clarify the responsibilities of federal and provincial governments in providing and funding the services required. Problems have arisen, moreover, because many of the programs and funds for status Indians are available only to those who live on reserve. Some of those who wished to live on reserve could not, however, because of a lack of services, such as housing. Furthermore, despite the increase in services, many off-reserve Bill C-31 registrants did not know how to access them and thus did not take advantage of them. INAC has been criticized for not making this information more readily available.

These quotes show just how complex recognition is.

Does the implementation of Bill C-3 raise new questions about the implementation of Bill C-31? The Bloc Québécois thinks it does.

The McIvor decision forced the government to close the loophole created by the 1951 act and the unacceptable amendment to the 1985 act, which was itself trying to close the enormous loophole created by the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The 1876 Indian Act stated that a woman marrying a non-Indian would lose her status and stop being an Indian in the eyes of Canadian law. The act and all of the legislation succeeding it marginalized women in aboriginal society and considerably diminished their social and political role in community life. Indian women were subject to a law that discriminated against them on the basis of their race, gender and marital status.

In 1951, the Indian Act was amended, but still marginalized women marrying non-Indians. Such women could not be registered on the new federal register of status Indians.

In 1985, after new provisions were added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Bill C-31 attempted to close the loophole in the Indian Act, but women's children still did not have the same rights as men's children.

The federal government waited 25 years to introduce a bill recognizing the Indian status of individuals who had been discriminated against in the past. This issue is not just about First Nations and women. It is about equality and human rights. The Indian Act discriminated against women because it denied Indian status to the grandchildren of aboriginal women, but not to those of aboriginal men. Bill C-3, which was introduced today, will correct part of the problem.

If not for Sharon McIvor's hard work and perseverance, if not for the 2007 British Columbia Supreme Court ruling, which was confirmed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal on April 6, 2009, the federal government would never have introduced this bill.

The bill must go to committee so that various stakeholders can have an opportunity to express their opinions about the effect that Bill C-3 will have on their communities. The committee will also have to come up with a better plan for implementing the bill so as to avoid making the same mistakes that were made in 1985 with Bill C-31.

Count on us to help make that happen. The Bloc Québécois' excellent critic for this file, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, will do everything in his power to ensure that the committee hears what everyone has to say.

At December 31, 2000, more than 114,000 individuals had acquired Indian status.

I will be speaking about Sharon McIvor's struggle, which is the basis for our debate.

In 1985, the federal government amended the Indian Act through Bill C-31, which gave Indian status to women married to non-Indians. However, in many cases, these women could not pass this status to their children.

In 1985, Sharon McIvor, a law student from British Columbia and descendant of the Lower Nicola Indian Band—her mother was a status Indian woman and her father a non-status Indian man—applied to regain her status. She obtained her Indian status but was told her children were not eligible.

In 1987, Ms. McIvor wrote a letter requesting a review of the decision. In 1989, she received a reply upholding the denial of Indian status to her children. She launched a court case challenging the Indian Act.

Shortly before Ms. McIvor's case was heard in court in 2006, the federal government agreed to restore status to her children. Ms. McIvor continued with the court case. In 2006, Ms. McIvor's case was first heard in court.

In October 2006, the federal government abolished the court challenges program, which had helped Ms. McIvor defend her case. It was the Conservative government that made this decision. With the elimination of the program, Ms. McIvor found it difficult to fund the defence of her case. The government's decision came just after Ms. McIvor won her case in the British Columbia Supreme Court.

In June 2007, Justice Ross of the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled in favour of Ms. McIvor. She maintained that the law “implies that one’s female ancestors are deficient or less Indian than their male contemporaries. The implication is that one’s lineage is inferior.”

In July 2007, the federal government announced that it would appeal the decision. In 2008, the case was heard by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. On April 6, 2009, a decision was made in favour of Ms. McIvor. I—

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it seems there can be, and many times is, some very confusing wording and approaches to status. I have talked to experts and asked them a question on this bill or on the Indian Act as it now exists. There are many confusing circumstances.

We have to ensure the bill does not create other cases of discrimination. That is our fundamental role. We have to ensure we respond appropriately to the B.C. Court of Appeal to ensure we resolve the issue of inequity on which it had passed judgment. That is what we have to do and that is what the committee's work will be.

There are many who will pass opinions. As I mentioned, Dr. Pamela Palmater has gone through the bill and found some areas where she feels that discrimination may arise from what we study in Bill C-3. Whether that is the case or not, the committee will have to judge this. If it is possible to make amendments to deal with any further cases of discrimination that may arise, I think we will do everything in our power to make those amendments so other cases of discrimination do not arise.

We know one thing for sure. Many times, when the government responds to this, it creates other possibilities of inequity. We have to look forward and not deal only with the present situation.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today and speak to 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).

The bill is in response to a long-running battle in the courts spearheaded by Sharon McIvor. This action is being taken because the courts have said that the government must take action on this particular case. I congratulate Sharon McIvor and the others who have walked with her on the journey to heal the wounds of inequality and injustice.

It is pertinent for the House to know that it has taken 20 years. The court case was launched in 1989 and it took 17 years, until 2006, for it to be heard. Every obstacle was thrown in the way. I will not get into a debate about what government was in power when. The case was launched under the Mulroney government, carried on under the Chrétien and Martin governments, and continued on under the present Prime Minister's government.

However, there is something wrong with the system when it takes 20 years in the courts to resolve an issue of inequity. It takes time and resources and eats up people's lives, and we are talking about people's lives. I really do not care what government was in power. There must be a better way. There are smart lawyers in the Department of Justice. Someone must have sat back and thought that this really was an issue of inequity. They must have wondered if there was a better way to deal with it, such as through discussion or negotiation.

I note as well that, when it comes to resources, Sharon McIvor used the court challenges program, as have many other women, to try to advance their particular cause of equity. It was in 2006 that the current government killed the court challenges program that promoted the cause of equity. That added further to Sharon's struggle for money to see this case through to its successful conclusion, at least in some people's minds.

Does the title of this bill accurately reflect the intent of the bill, which is to provide equity? Many would argue that it tries to achieve that particular objective but it would be wrong for the House to think that this legislation would resolve all of the issues of inequity based on sex or on one's maternal line. Many other issues have not been addressed.

Let us take a quick look at what Bill C-3 is about and put it into context.

The McIvor case was the first of many cases to reach a decision under section 6 of the Indian Act. The case is about Indian status. It does not talk about band membership, citizenship or section 35 rights.

Sharon McIvor challenged the constitutionality of the Indian Act under section 6 as a violation of section 15 of the charter. The argument was that there was preferential treatment for descendants who traced their Indian ancestry along the paternal line over those who traced their ancestry along the maternal line, and that there was preferential treatment for male Indians who married non-Indians and their descendants over female Indians who married non-Indians and their descendants.

The B.C. Supreme Court ruled in favour of Sharon McIvor. It said that there was discrimination on the basis of sex and matrimonial descendance and ordered that section 6 was of no force and effect only with respect to the conferral of Indian status. The order resulted in inequality, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled, regarding the passage of status.

However, even though Sharon McIvor had won, Canada appealed the decision to the B.C. Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found discrimination in section 6 as well but on a much narrower basis. The court said that Bill C-31 created a new inequality because it enhanced the position of those affected by the double mother rule. Children of non-Indian mothers and non-Indian paternal grandmothers lost status at age 21 but restoring their status in section 6(1) meant that they could pass status regardless of the status of one parent.

The court only struck down sections that gave this enhanced status, and that is sections 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c), so the ruling was in relation to a more limited category of people affected, which is why the government did not appeal because there were protected vested rights. The court gave the federal government one year to amend this provision.

Sharon McIvor in fact felt that even though she had won, the ruling was not what she wanted or felt she needed to resolve the issue of inequity. She filed for a leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The appeal was denied on November 5, 2009.

The B.C. Court of Appeal's decision does not result in those who are already registered under the impugn provisions being struck off the registry, which basically means nobody will lose the rights they now have under the Indian Act, as this would result in a charter challenge itself.

What was the government's response? The government had a deadline to meet of April 6 of this year. The court said that it would give the government one year to bring in the legislation to deal with the inequity under section 6 of the Indian Act. The government released a discussion paper outlining what some of the options might be, some of the processes that it would go through. It then went through an engagement process. Engagement is an important word. It is not a consultation process because the government felt it had no legal requirement to consult, but only to engage the opinions of people to listen.

People had problems with that. People felt the engagement process was limited. Only about 150 individual submissions were made to the department. There were some regional and national meetings, but people, as a whole, felt it was very limited, that they did not get the full range of views they should have on this important legislation.

After the engagement process, the government gave notice that it would table a bill back in December. We were informed that the bill would be narrowly scoped to only deal with the equality as set out by the B.C. Court of Appeal. The government did admit that it would only deal with the B.C. Court of Appeal decision, that it would not deal with other issues arising out of the Indian Act, other issues of inequality or discrimination that exist.

Up against this April 6 timeline set by the Court of Appeal, the government has now brought forth legislation at the eleventh hour. The timing constraint is certainly compounded, and was compounded, by the prorogation of Parliament, which removed many days from the parliamentary calendar. I know the government says it is serious, but if it is serious about getting the legislation through, then annual prorogations are not the way to do it.

In examining this bill, we want to be diligent, we want to be expeditious, but we should not be rushed.

When we look at some of the content of the bill, people have written to me and to the department. They have indicated there are certain provisions of the proposed legislation that are still very problematic, and that they may raise other potentially new cases of discrimination.

I refer to a briefing note, a submission that was made by Dr. Pamela Palmater, who did her doctoral thesis on the Indian Act and the whole issue of status and the conferral of status. I will only refer to one section, just to give members and those who are listening a sense of where some other issues of discrimination may arise.

She says that section 6(c.1)(iv) of the proposed Bill C-3 provides that a person:

—had or adopted a child, on or after September 4, 1951, with a person who was not entitled to be registered on the day on which the child was born or adopted;

She says:

This section has the effect of creating a new way to determine entitlement to registration and, as a result, creates a new form of discrimination as between the siblings of the Indian women who married out. What this additional criterion does is determine entitlement to registration based on the status or lack thereof of the applicant's children. Status has always been determined based on the entitlement of one's parents, i.e. parents transmit their status to their children - not vice versa.

I mention this because the committee will have to take the time to understand what the implications are of this legislation. We do not want to make the situation worse. We want to improve the situation. We want to respond effectively and efficiently to the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision.

Neither does the legislation address the second generation product rule or situations of undeclared or unknown paternity. Again, these are matters that the committee will seriously have to consider.

The case is also shrouded in other fundamental rights issues, which the Government of Canada says this bill does not raise. I tend to agree that the bill does not raise these issues, the issues of jurisdiction, who determines citizenship, who determines membership. Why do we have a very paternalistic piece of legislation, one of the greatest examples of colonial infrastructure left in the western world that determines who is Indian and who is not. It is not determined by birth, by culture or by descendancy. It is determined by a statute in the House. There is definitely something wrong with the legislation, for which there are many descriptions. We are only dealing with one part of it now, but this whole bill raises other fundamental issues.

People ask this question. Why should Canada interfere in the determination of who can be registered as an Indian under the Indian Act? They say that it contravenes international conventions like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which states that indigenous people have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the state in which they live.

Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or their own membership. I believe all members of the House would agree. Hopefully in the future we will be able to deal with these matters. The government acknowledged that by announcing an exploratory process to deal with these more substantive and fundamental questions.

The government should not delay or prolong that process. National aboriginal groups, regional aboriginal groups and individuals want to see this go forward in an expeditious manner. We want to ensure that it is done in a proper way and properly resourced, and let us call it a consultation process as opposed to an exploratory process.

We also have to be cognizant of questions around implementation. Is the department ready? Is the Office of the Indian Registrar ready? Are people being notified of possible changes that are coming? It will not be automatic that one gets status. The fact is people will have to apply and provide documentation, so there will be an onus on individuals to provide, in some cases, some very personal information. That in itself can be problematic, but is the system ready to take on new registrants?

Also, what are the impacts? There is a possibility that there could be up to 45,000 new registrants. That is what a noted demographer, Mr. Clatworthy, has indicated in his study commissioned for the department. He also gives a breakdown of how many people would likely register on reserve as opposed to off reserve, and what the implications would be then in terms of program and service implications and cost. We have asked the government this question. The government says that while it is looking at it, it does not know what the impact will be on programs such as non-insured health benefits, post-secondary education and if there is an influx of people on a reserve and what happens to the existing housing prices and the need for other services, other types of infrastructure.

While we ask all these questions, we believe the intent of the bill is to try to meet the test or dictates of the B.C. Court of Appeal. We believe it is worthy of support at second reading. We hope it will close one gap in the law, even if it does not address others that remain. It definitely requires full examination in committee.

Despite the shortened time frame due to the court decision and the government's prorogation, we hope there will be a full and fair hearing with a broad cross-section of witnesses. I look forward to hearing those witnesses and, if possible, to making the bill a better one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the specifics on what we are now calling Bill C-3 in terms of that comment or question, but there has been a whole host of areas, whether it has to do with drinking water, housing or child and welfare services, where I believe we have had a sense of urgency and we have improved the circumstances very significantly in our time in office.

I would like to think that we will continue in a dramatic way in that same direction.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the excellent questions from the member for Labrador and the member for Winnipeg Centre this morning.

I thank the government for introducing Bill C-3. The fact is that Sharon McIvor should never have had to launch a court case in the first place. It took 21 years for this process to take place and it should never have taken that long in the first place.

We will be supporting the bill. We feel that it is long overdue to rectify this situation.

However, I do not understand why this was left until the last possible minute. The parliamentary secretary indicated that April 26 is our date. The question really is, as the member for Labrador suggested, whether the government could have acted earlier and given us more time to deal with the issue.

Having said that, we will be supporting the bill to get it to committee and then if there are any amendments we can deal with them at that time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Indian Act is very controversial of course and we do have some first nations in Canada who have negotiated their way out of the Indian Act for all provisions of the Indian Act with the singular exception of the registration provision very often because this whole determination of who is and who is not a registered Indian or a status Indian is a very complex and debatable issue.

Even after Bill C-3, we have bands that operate under custom code that will determine who their members are without reference to Bill C-3. We also have bands that have chosen to remain strictly under the Indian Act provisions that will have members added to their roles through the bill.

Therefore, there is no single response or catch-all phrase, but this is a narrow targeted and focused bill.

[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)