Bill C-428 (Historical)

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act

An Act to amend the Indian Act (publication of by-laws) and to provide for its replacement

This enactment amends the Indian Act to require band councils to publish their by-laws and repeals certain outdated provisions of the Act.
It also requires the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to report annually to the House of Commons committee responsible for Aboriginal affairs on the work undertaken by his or her department in collaboration with First Nations and other interested parties to develop new legislation to replace the Indian Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I'll call this meeting to order. This is the 67th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Today we continue our review of Bill C-428.

Today we have before us, for the first hour, witnesses from the Assembly of First Nations. Today we welcome Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould. Thanks so much for joining us. We have Karen Campbell joining as well. Thank you so much for being here.

You're familiar with our process here at committee. We'll turn it over to you for an opening statement of approximately 10 minutes, and then we'll have some questions for you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I will call this meeting to order.

This is the 66th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Today we continue our study on Bill C-428, a private member's bill.

We have Mr. Harold Calla with us this morning. He's back with us on this study, as he's been with us in previous studies. Mr. Calla is chairman of the First Nations Financial Management Board.

Mr. Calla, we thank you for coming. We appreciate your testimony and your willingness to come today.

We'll turn it over to you for the first 10 minutes. Then we'll have some questions for you.

[National Chief Betty Ann Lavallée]

Dr. Bennett, I can't speak for other aboriginal organizations, but I do know, as an aboriginal leader, that when I first heard of Bill C-428, the very first thing I did was contact the member and set up a meeting to sit down and discuss it with him. Then I made the offer. I've been around long enough to know that there's never any money for consultations. I knew that with something this important, I would have to find a way to ensure that the people I'm responsible to had some sort of way to have input. As a responsible leader, I knew that my people were all coming together for our annual assembly, and I extended the invitation to Mr. Clarke to come and speak to them.

[Chief Betty Ann Lavallée]

Kwey, hello, and bonjour.

Good morning, Chair Warkentin and committee members. It's a pleasure to be here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples to speak to you about Bill C-428, the Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act.

I am the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Since 1971, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, formerly known as the Native Council of Canada, has represented the interests of off-reserve, status, and non-status Indians, the Southern Inuit of Labrador, and Métis throughout Canada. The congress is also the national voice for its affiliate organization that advocates on behalf of aboriginal peoples living off reserve.

For over 43 years, the congress has been a strong advocate for amending the Indian Act. Today, over 60% of aboriginal peoples live off reserve. The provisions of this act are rooted in a colonial ordinance directed at imposing restrictions and regulations for the purpose of assimilation. These restrictions are what created the removal of Métis and non-status Indians from their historical communities in the first place.

Our organization supports the removal of the archaic provisions created under the Indian Act, such as, for instance, eliminating the minister's control and authority over wills and estates. Canadian governments do not control the average person's wills and estates. Likewise, aboriginal people should be able to take control of their own personal affairs and not be subject to such childish scrutiny and personal interference by the crown into matters that no other resident of Canada would ever tolerate.

The removal of the phrase “residential schools” from the education provisions in this bill is a big step forward. In June 2008, the Prime Minister apologized for the residential schools, although no one should ever forget the tragedies and the injustices that have been done to so many of our aboriginal peoples. Our constituency has been touched by the residential school system. In fact, many of our people relinquished their status so their children would not be forced away from their homes and into residential schools.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada is now a major part of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. This amendment could be part of the healing process for all those personally affected by the residential school system.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, along with other participants, partnered with the federal government in the joint ministry advisory committee, JMAC, to assist in drafting Indian Act amendments. This committee tabled their final report on March 8, 2002. The report laid out recommendations and legislative options for a first nations governance act. At that time, our organization was supportive of this initiative.

Some of the proposals put forth in Bill C-428 are not dissimilar to the positions put forth in the joint ministerial advisory committee report and the First Nations Governance Act. For example, Bill C-428 repeals section 85.1, “By-laws relating to intoxicants”, under this act. The governance act also addresses section 85.1 and how these limitations have long been criticized by bands and representative organizations as being out of keeping with traditional law-making practices.

This bill also requires permitting and mandating individual first nations councils to publish bylaws. This measure allows for more inclusion to all community members, regardless of residency. Aboriginal peoples should be informed about their communities. Since the Corbiere decision, aboriginal people who live off reserve have the right to vote in elections should they choose to do so, and they also have the right to participate in and vote on decisions regarding specific claims and resource issues.

One of the most significant aspects of Bill C-428 is that it will require the minister to report annually on the work undertaken by his or her department, in collaboration with aboriginal organizations and other interested parties, to develop new legislation to replace the Indian Act. We at the congress believe that this is useful and positive initiative that would keep all parties informed on the progress thus far.

As I previously indicated, the Indian Act was one of the first pieces of legislation to define and create arbitrary classes of aboriginal peoples such as status, non-status, and Métis. Prior to delineating aboriginal peoples, it was understood that non-status and Métis were included in the Constitution Act of 1867 under subsection 91(24). Recently, we've had this confirmed. This subsection provides Canada's federal government exclusive authority to legislate in relation to Indians, and lands reserved for Indians.

Under the Indian Act, non-status and Métis were gradually excluded from the same rights and privileges as status Indians. A recent Federal Court decision ruled that Métis and non-status Indians in Canada are Indians under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867. This decision marks a new relationship with the Government of Canada.

As a national aboriginal organization, we fully expect the government to abide by their duty to consult.

Mr. Rob Clarke has done just that. He consulted with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples on a few occasions about his private member's bill, Bill C-428, and he made himself available to any aboriginal community off reserve who invited him to learn more about his private member's bill. He attended our annual general meeting and met and had a discussion with my board of directors. He offered his time to come out to speak to their individual boards, which they held at this meeting, and community peoples.

On the whole, this legislation addresses obsolete sections of the Indian Act and permits more participation by off-reserve community members. As a Mi'kmaq, I am a registered Indian under the Indian Act, with my status tied to an Indian Act band. Although I live off reserve, I am recognized as a Mi'kmaq woman with treaty and aboriginal rights. Much of the relationship between the crown and aboriginal peoples involves treaties and treaty relationships, not the Indian Act. There are members in our constituency who are non-status Indian with treaty rights, but they are not protected under the Indian Act.

Treaties were established before the Indian Act. Treaties did not discriminate between mixed bloods. Status and non-status Indians and Métis were all included in these treaties.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples respectfully requests a helpful addition to this bill. We believe the annual report by the minister should be amended to include the implementation of treaties. Most non-aboriginal people, and even the media, seem to think the relationship between the crown and aboriginal peoples is based on the Indian Act. This is not the case. The treaty relationship is the basis of the relationship. It is not based solely on legislation. To view it otherwise would limit our thinking to only those issues that are currently covered by the Indian Act, and not those that are broader in scope.

This is an instrumental bill, and it's important to address the distinctions made between people living on and off reserve, as well as the broader principles.

We lalioq. Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Audette and Ms. Edwards. I think you've laid out your position pretty clearly.

We would agree that no matter how well intentioned a bill put forward by a member might be, in this case a private member's bill, something that continues to alter the Indian Act piecemeal shouldn't proceed. We would also agree that using the UN declaration's statements about around free, prior, and informed consent, there should be a process developed in conjunction with aboriginal peoples to amend or change or abolish the Indian Act.

You're right: we all agree that it's a colonialist piece of legislation that needs to change. Not everybody from coast to coast to coast is in agreement about how that should happen, and so there does need to be that process.

I have two questions, and I'll ask the first one. A couple of times in your presentation you used the word “collaboration”. In its preamble, Bill C-428 says, “for the development of this new legislation in collaboration with the First Nations organizations”, and in clause 2, it says—and this is where the minister is supposed to report to the House—“on the work undertaken by his or her department in collaboration with First Nations organizations”.

In our view, collaboration does not equal consultation and does not equal free, prior, and informed consent. I wonder if you could comment on those two sections of the bill where it talks about collaboration, and whether in your view that translates into consultation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I'll call this meeting to order.

This is the 65th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Sixty-five is an important number, but we cannot retire: we continue our work.

Folks, first up today for our ongoing review of Bill C-428, we have from the Native Women's Association of Canada, Michèle Audette and Teresa Edwards.

Thank you so much for being with us this morning. We appreciate your joining us, and we look forward to your testimony.

We'll turn it over to you for the first 10 minutes to hear your opening comments, and then we'll begin with rounds of questioning after that. Thanks so much again for being here.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Similarly, the bylaw section of Bill C-428 reflects article 4. These sections....

Mr. Chair, the UN declaration, which states—

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

What I'm utilizing right now is the parliamentary process of the committee, including to form a legal consultation with first nations. In my private member's bill, I'm trying to look at mandating first nations to meet on a yearly basis, in consultation with the federal government, to look at a more modern and respectful relationship and dialogue to create a more modern and harmonious act that reflects today's values.

You mentioned the UN declaration, and I'd like to point out that under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Canada became a signatory in 2010, we have the responsibility to uphold the articles established in accordance with the UNDRIP, and to adhere to the requirements.

I'd like to point out that under Article 18,

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making....

That's what I'm also doing, through bylaws, letting first nations be self-governing and form their own bylaws without having to have ministerial approval.

Also, Article 19 reads:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

That is also being included in my private member's bill: a yearly review with the minister and first nations, and that's being legislated.

But also, nothing in Bill C-428 contravenes any part of the declaration; it legislates a consultation process whereby the minister must report back to the House the progress that has been made in repealing the Indian Act. I have met, and will continue to meet with, willing partners in the process, including the first nations grassroots, chiefs, and organizations.

But the bill also promotes other articles in the UN declaration, which you've pointed out, such as Article 3, which calls for first nations to “...freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I believe in my traditional values, one being a first nation person. It's an honour to be here speaking on such a sensitive issue as the Indian Act. Hopefully, once we have finished this meeting today, you will get a better picture of what I'm trying to do.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and guests, I'm honoured to be here today to open the committee's study of my private member's bill, Bill C-428, the Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act.

As a proud member of the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation and a parliamentarian, the opportunity to sponsor a private member's bill comes along very rarely. I was lucky to be picked in a lottery to bring my bill to Parliament and I take this opportunity very seriously. The reason I'm doing this is in fact the reason I got into politics.

I spent almost half my life living and working on reserve. I was born under the Indian Act and no doubt will die under the Indian Act, but I don't want the Indian Act to follow me to my grave.

As a veteran of the RCMP, with over 18 years of service, I spent the majority of my policing career living and policing on reserves. What bothered me was that I had to enforce this 137-year-old Indian Act and saw daily the impact that this antiquated, paternalistic, and racist legislation had on grassroots band members.

As a representative for Desnethé–Missinippi–Churchill River, a riding having almost 23 first nation communities and the second largest first nation population in Canada, I'm very aware of the challenges posed by this outdated, colonial statute we refer to as the Indian Act.

The problems created by this archaic piece of legislation are far reaching, extending to every aspect of our lives as first nations, and are the root causes of the Attawapiskats of our country. Indeed, we heard every single candidate for chief in the 2012 Assembly of First Nations election say that the Indian Act must go. Virtually every leader of first nation communities across Canada said that the Indian Act must go. And experts from across the political spectrum all say that the Indian Act must go.

In a November 9, 2012, interview the current national chief, Shawn Atleo, said:

Yes, the Indian Act and the Indian Act bureaucracy must be fundamentally and finally eliminated.

The Indian Act is completely contrary to Canadian values and stands in the way of our progress and success as first nations, and has done so for generations. In fact, this legislation treats those of us who live under the Indian Act as second-class citizens.

This legislation was put in place in 1876. It served as the model for South African apartheid, and it really has no place in Canada in 2013 or any other time in our history. It remains a blemish on Canadian society and must be rectified.

Let me talk for a moment about the connection between apartheid and the Indian Act. In an article by South African lawyer, Gary Moore, he sets out the following details:

In 1913 the young Union of South Africa enacted a native land act. The act prohibited the sale or lease of scheduled areas of land reserved for natives to whites. It prohibited natives from acquiring land outside reserves. Reserve land was mostly Crown land. Natives were left in occupation, and native systems of land tenure continued. In 1936 a Crown corporation was created, the native trust, to purchase additional areas released for native occupation. In 1927 South Africa passed an act for native administration generally. It declared the governor-general to be “supreme chief” of natives in most provinces. He had power to appoint and remove chiefs, divide and amalgamate tribes, and punish offenders. His actions as supreme chief were not cognizable by the courts. The act gave the governor-general power to make law by proclamation for native reserves. Proclamations provided for the administrative grant to natives of permission to occupy residential sites and arable allotments in reserve settlements and locations, with restricted tenure and disposal rights. The governor-general could make regulations for such purposes “as he may consider necessary for the protection, control, improvement and welfare of the natives, and in furtherance of peace, order and good government”.

That's “POGG”.

There were special rules and regulations for succession to property of deceased natives. Regulations forbade whites to enter native reserves without a permit. There were regulations restricting the number of shops a native shopkeeper could open in a reserve. Native administration was under the minister and department of native affairs. The department was a vast empire in South Africa on its own. A 1951 act provided for tribal authorities each comprising a chief and his council. A 1953 act vested control of native education in the central government.

Does this sound familiar? It should:

It is said that before South Africa enacted native administration laws it sent officials to Canada to study the reserve system provided for in Canada’s own Indian Act.

However, for all the abuse that South Africa has rightfully had dumped on it because of apartheid, in 1994 that system was finally removed from law. Yet here in Canada the Indian Act, which came well before apartheid, still exists almost 20 years after the demise of apartheid: 20 years.

I must ask the members of this committee, is this the kind of law we wish to see in the books in 2013?

I truly believe there's a consensus to replace the act. The real questions are, how should that happen, and what will replace it?

When I submitted my bill in its first version in December of 2011, I asked for a full repeal of the Indian Act. What I wanted to do was start a serious discussion and debate about getting rid of the act—and here we are today. I believe I've done that, and accomplished that.

In subsequent discussions with first nations leaders and grassroots members, I was told that the wholesale elimination of the act could inflict unintended collateral damage. It could also place fiduciary responsibility on first nations communities unless there was careful consideration of the effects of each and every clause, and of course they want to know what we'd replace it with.

My goal was to ask my first nations leaders and grassroots to engage with the crown to come up with these solutions. In speaking with our first nations leaders and grassroots members, and after three draft versions of the bill, I arrived at the current and fourth version.

I know there are those who question my right to do this. There are even those who have said the entire exercise must be done by indigenous, for indigenous, people. So I agree, and here we are.

As a parliamentarian and an aboriginal person, I've heard repeatedly that I have no right to bring this bill forward like any other parliamentarian.

There are even those who have said:

I am afraid that a backbencher's private member's bill is not an appropriate consultation for this very serious relationship with first nations in this country.

Well, I believe it's my responsibility to do it. It has to be done. The time has to be now.

I also know that there are some who claim that this bill cannot have been put before the House of Commons without a formal consultation process. Those very same people clearly know that a private member's bill in the House of Commons does not have the financial or human resources for me to conduct a full-scale consultation, nor is it permissible to share a bill with anyone until it is tabled in the House of Commons.

Nonetheless, I have been engaging and reaching out to first nations on the Indian Act for years, and I have seen with my own eyes the harm this legislation has done. Bill C-428 is designed to mandate development of a process in which first nations and crown can work together on ways to review, repeal, and replace the Indian Act.

Finally, there are those who have specific concerns about the content of the bill itself. I'm here to say that I'm open to amendments that move us closer to the repeal and replacement of the Indian Act, and I'm also open to amendments that make the bill closer. What I hope to see is an open, frank discussion of this bill that bridges partisanship. For me, it's not about the Conservatives or the Liberals or the NDP, and not about partisan ideology, but about starting a process that could transform the lives of so many first nations people, especially the younger generation.

In addition to the mandate of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to produce an annual report on the progress of the repeal and replacement of the Indian Act, in collaboration with first nations, this bill will bring a number of changes to the Indian Act. These changes are housekeeping in nature and are designed to remove the underbrush from the act, but they also speak about the goals of the bill.

The true intent of the Bill C-428 is to create and aid freedom and independence for first nations. This is the motivation behind the changes to the bylaw process, wills, and estates sections of the act. These changes will remove the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs from the process and return control of bylaws, wills, and estates to the communities, where they belong.

In addition, a number of sections of the bill remove outdated, antiquated, and unenforced sections of the Indian Act. These sections cause delay. I'm sure we all agree that it's bad policy to leave in these laws and things that there is no intention of ever enforcing.

An example would be the section of the Indian Act that prohibits the sale of agriculture products grown on reserve to anyone off reserve without the permission of an agent of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. This section of the act has been waived for a number of years and therefore is not enforced. Imagine a Cree farmer growing corn and not being able to sell his corn without the permission of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. It kind of reminds me of a first nations wheat board.

Another section that would be almost as laughable, if it were not so paternalistic and patronizing, is section 92, which prohibits missionaries, aboriginal affairs employees, and reserve teachers from trading with first nations under the Indian Act.

A more insulting and hurtful section of the act is the one that has established residential school systems. My grandparents attended residential schools, so this is very personal to me. I am sure no one here would want to see residential schools again in Canada. A heartfelt apology to aboriginal Canadians who survived the system was made by Prime Minister Harper on behalf of all Canadians and all the other political parties in the House. There is no moral policy or reason to keep this law in the books.

To go back to the two essential questions, they are: how shall we deal with the Indian Act review, repeal, and replacement, and what should be in its place? I can't answer these questions alone. That is why we're here today in committee: to seek these answers. I'm sure we each have our own ideas about what a respectful and modern relationship between first nations and Canada could be, but we have to arrive at a consensus about what this means and what this would look like.

Our people have waited 137 long years for this discussion. It's about time that we take it seriously. It's my hope that this bill will serve as a springboard for engagement. I look forward to this process and answering your questions today as we proceed through the examination of Bill C-428.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I call to order the 64th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, December 5, 2012, we are continuing our study of Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Indian Act (publication of by-laws) and to provide for its replacement.

Today we have the privilege of having one of our own committee members testify before our committee as the proponent of this private member's bill.

Mr. Clarke, we'll turn it over to you for the first 10 minutes and then of course we'll begin our rounds of questioning. Please go ahead.

Indian Act Amendment and Replacment Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-428 under private members' business.

The question is on the motion.

The House resumed from November 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Indian Act (publication of by-laws) and to provide for its replacement, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

First Nations

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Motion No. 386, which asks for the House's support in initiating a formal process of direct engagement with the first nations that would replace the Indian Act with a series of new agreements.

These consultations would begin and end according to a precise schedule. They would lead to the writing of a report that would establish specific, meaningful elements on which the government could take action once the consultations are complete.

The repeal of the Indian Act will not be a sad occasion. It is a completely outdated, irrelevant, heavily bureaucratic tool for oppressing the first nations.

We are nowhere near having an act that meets their needs. In fact, the opposite is true. This issue deserves to be treated seriously. It is a call for action to eliminate the government's trusteeship over the first nations.

We must put an end to their status as wards of the federal government. This is one of the most pressing problems facing Canada. It is time to change things once and for all. It is time to put an end to the old habit of settling each dispute on a piecemeal basis. According to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the act not only includes discriminatory elements, it is discriminatory in itself.

The Indian Act is full of paternalistic and discriminatory policies with regard to the first nations. I will not go into details and enumerate its many provisions, but we must recognize the incalculable consequences of this interventionist and controlling attitude on the lives of all first nations.

The act is typical of all the government's attempts to maintain the marginal status of the first nations. Now we must think in terms of renewal. We believe that the Indian Act must be replaced with new legislation, in an equal partnership with the first nations, a real nation-to-nation collaboration.

The fact is that the current legislation is completely outdated, discriminatory and must be replaced by modern legislation. This government has never tried to do that. We in the NDP want the first nations to be able to prosper, and this involves replacing the current legislation with modern legislation.

It is important to understand that the very existence of this legislation hinders progress for first nations communities and is not viable on every level, especially in terms of the relationship between the first nations and the government. This is precisely what the first nations have been saying for years now.

Why is the government so stubbornly refusing to listen to those who are most affected and to really respond to their interests? By governing practically every single aspect of the lives of people living on reserves, this legislation has adverse effects on progress by first nations.

The government claims it is overflowing with goodwill, but its claims are false and misleading. It sees amendments to the legislation as the answer, even though it is clear that the legislation is outdated.

How can they claim to be modernizing an act that they know is completely out of date and has only been used to marginalize first nations for the past 136 years? The process has to be led by the first nations, in keeping with the principles set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the concept of their free, prior and informed consent.

The process must protect treaty rights and inherent aboriginal rights. The first nations do not have the legislation they need for health, education and funding at their disposal. This is a vacuum that must be taken into account in drafting modern legislation and setting up a timeline for the process. Modern legislation could then guarantee an improvement in the first nations’ economic and social circumstances.

This legislation undermines the efforts made by first nations to improve their living conditions. On this, we have the support of the Assembly of First Nations, which is entirely in agreement with us. The National Chief called on the government to take action months ago, but the government chose to drag its feet. It is not as though there is a shortage of cases.

I am thinking of economic development, self-government and the sustainability of communities. There is every indication that we have cause for concern. What will spur the government to action?

The NDP would not amend the Indian Act by replacing certain elements. We believe that this would be futile and unwise. However, everything leads us to believe that that is the government's intention. Just think of the declarations that came out of the Crown-first nations gathering last January. The government said that it wanted to work with the first nations to change things, but that did not last very long.

Private member's Bill C-428 sparked shock waves. It includes amendments to several sections of the Indian Act, but first nations were not consulted about this bill. This unilateral action makes no sense. It shows contempt for the first nations. And this is not the first time that the Conservative government's contempt has surfaced, which indicates that it is deeply rooted.

For example, if we go back to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Canada used all kinds of poor excuses to delay adopting the text and then it voted against its adoption, in 2007. It was not until 2010 that Canada ratified the declaration, after being so damaging to the work done by the UN to adopt the text.

What is surprising in all this, to say the least, is that the Liberals are responsible for a large part of this legislation, of its irritants and of the lack of consultation when attempts were made to impose changes. Remember the infamous 1969 white paper, whose author was none other than Jean Chrétien. This was a pure and simple attempt to assimilate first nations.

Motion No. 386 also does not mention the absence of distinction as to sex. Yet, it is crucial to deal with this issue in the context of gender equality, and it should be part of the basis for future consultations. The rights of aboriginal women were violated, particularly when they would marry outside their first nation reserve.

Despite the fact that the law was amended in 1985 with regard to women's rights, discrimination against women continues unabated. That was the finding of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which pointed out in its 2003 report on Canada that aboriginal women continue to be the victims of systematic acts of discrimination in all aspects of their lives. The consultation process would thus give us the opportunity to harmonize the individual rights of aboriginal women with their collective rights as members of first nations.

I am asking all my colleagues to think carefully about this issue, which is of the utmost importance to first nations and Canada as a whole. This is a basic issue that involves guaranteeing real respect for the rights, needs and priorities of first nations, which are too often overlooked in this country. This is also an opportunity to make Canadians aware of the discrimination faced by first nations people. This is not a matter of making changes to the Indian Act but of replacing it with new, modern legislation. Consequently, the first nations communities that worked with the government will be able to help to determine what the next steps will be in promoting the development and well-being of their communities.

This co-operation is part of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the purpose of which is to get the states to consult and co-operate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned. Any commitment in this regard must be based on real co-operation among equals. We must implement a real consultation process and establish a real partnership. By so doing, we will finally be able to focus on reconciliation and harmonious relations between nations.

Unilateralism can lead only to failure, as it has always done in the past. So, let us revoke the Indian Act and scrap this 19th century law that has led to so many problems and discontent once and for all. Let us start fresh with new legislation.

The NDP wants to work with the first nations to develop modern legislation that will help these communities to prosper.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand in the House again and speak about an issue and a motion that is important. Today, I will speak in opposition to the motion brought to the House by the member from Toronto Centre.

The beginning of the motion is pretty straightforward. It expresses views that are shared by many in the House, including myself, and many first nations throughout the country. The beginning of the motion states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Indian Act is the embodiment of failed colonial and paternalistic policies which have denied First Nations their rights, fair share in resources; fostered mistrust and created systematic barriers to self-determination and success of First Nations...

After that is where I and the member for Toronto Centre begin to part ways. In the part of the motion that follows he says that the House, should: first, undertake a process to eliminate these barriers; second, take two years to complete this process of discussion; and third, take two years to present a series of concrete deliverables for the government to act upon. Therefore, what the member proposes is two years of talking and no action. That is why I so strenuously oppose the motion.

It has been 136 years since the Indian Act was first brought into force. I wonder how many more years need to pass before we begin to build a process to replace it? The motion is nothing more than flowery rhetoric that we have come to expect from the Liberal Party and it is entirely consistent with the Liberals' track record of inaction when it comes to first nations' issues.

Instead of proposing concrete action to enable first nations to move forward and finally begin to escape the shackles of this paternalistic and colonial legislation, the member opposite has suggested that we further delay any concrete action and take two more years to simply talk about the devastating impacts of the legislation.

When the member opposite brought forward the motion, did he not consider that 136 years was long enough for first nations people to wait? Maybe he should listen to first nation leaders who have said that they have waited long enough. Having listened to the speeches at the Assembly of First Nations elections in July of this past year, I heard all the candidates state unilaterally that the Indian Act must go.

Clearly, everyone agrees that changes must be made to replace and to modernize the sets of laws that provide first nations with the same rights and opportunities that every Canadian enjoys.

I urge all parties in the House to reject the motion and instead support the private member's bill that has been brought forward by my colleague and my friend, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. Bill C-428 is an act to amend the Indian Act and provide for its replacement. What my colleague proposes is real action and tangible results that would make a difference for first nations people.

The bill would do a number of things. First, it would provide greater autonomy for first nations people. Second, it would lessen the role of ministerial involvement in the day-to-day lives of first nations citizens. Third, it would give back the responsibility for key areas, such as bylaw making powers and the administration of wills and estates over to the first nation, where it rightly belongs.

I wonder what the members opposite have against providing greater autonomy for first nations and lessening the federal government's paternalistic role in the day-to-day lives of first nations citizens.

About a month ago I had the privilege of speaking in support of that private member's bill during the first hour of debate. Second reading of my friend's bill concluded this past Wednesday evening, and we are now waiting for the bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I am really disappointed that the Liberals did not even bother to stand in the House and speak to the bill during the second hour of debate last week, particularly when it has to do with some of the same material they suggest needs to be discussed in the bill they brought before the House now.

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here today and close debate on my Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Indian Act (publication of by-laws) and to provide for its replacement.

As a member of Muskeg Lake First Nations and as a former RCMP officer who spent a large part of my 18 years on the force doing first nations policing, I have seen first-hand the cultural, societal and economic barriers that the Indian Act has built. It is an archaic and colonialist piece of legislation that institutionalizes racism and represses the self-determination of first nations.

The Indian Act is completely contrary to Canadian values and has kept first nations from taking advantage of the same rights and opportunities that have been available to all other Canadians for 136 years.

Clearly, something needs to change. All Canadians recognize the hardship the Indian Act has caused my people and we are all eager for positive, enduring change.

After engaging with many first nations organizations, leaders, band members and other interested stakeholders, I believe we have arrived at an important turning point. My private member's bill is the result of significant open discussion and represents the desire of first nations to be self-reliant and free from the shackles of the Indian Act.

Throughout this engagement process, I have always welcomed feedback on ways the bill could be improved. I recognize that there may be a need for amendments that will clarify certain aspects of the bill and I have indicated that I am open to that.

I look forward to hearing more from grassroots members and leaders of first nations and other interested parties before, during and after committee hearings. Their suggestions and concerns will certainly be valuable to this process and will be taken very seriously.

I have been heartened recently to hear that first nations leadership has acknowledged that the Indian Act and its bureaucracy must go. It is important that first nations take leadership and initiative in order to ensure success.

I am proud that my Bill C-428 has provided the opportunity for a frank discussion and debate, and has led to a recognition of the fact that the Indian Act is a blemish on Canadian society in a way that has never been done before. Until we can provide for its replacement, it hinders first nations' success and prosperity.

I believe that my bill is only the first step in doing away with the Indian Act entirely, and we must continue to focus our efforts on fulfilling that goal. That is why I believe one of the most crucial components of my bill is the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development's duty to report to the aboriginal affairs committee on all work undertaken by his or her department in collaboration with first nations organizations, leaders, band members and other interested parties to develop new legislation to replace the outdated Indian Act.

The introduction of such a process accepts the need for ongoing collaboration between the Crown and first nations. Other parts of the Indian Act, like the subsections on will and estates, and the bylaw publication, emphasize the need to move beyond the Indian Act.

It is hard to believe that, in 2012, first nations reserves must seek permission from the minister to sell their produce and that they are prohibited from doing business with anyone they choose. These paternalistic features stand in the way of first nations independence and perpetuate the paternalism. It is about time that first nations are afforded the same rights and opportunities that all Canadians expect and deserve.

We have a unique opportunity today to fulfill this vision. My bill transcends partisan politics and I urge strong multi-partisan support.

The opposition needs to understand that first nations are as rich in diversity and opinion as all Canadians are. To think otherwise is outdated and out of touch.

Bill C-428 is just the beginning of a long road of empowering first nations people and doing away with paternalistic and offensive policies. I am confident it will spur the necessary change we are all striving.