Evidence of meeting #55 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Gary Merasty Liberal Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Do you support human rights applying on reserve--respecting first nations rights, of course, as I've heard you say?
Liberal
Gary Merasty Liberal Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Do you feel that you'd like to provide these necessary services, which are human rights violations today, such as those for people who have children with disabilities and for the inequity in treatment of women? Would you like to be able to address those as chiefs, as communities?
Liberal
Gary Merasty Liberal Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Do you feel that fair and reasonable consultation has occurred in unrolling Bill C-44 forward?
Liberal
Gary Merasty Liberal Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
I'm trying to make sense to Canadians, to many out there, because I've heard the government do interviews with media, and media will say, “This is a good thing you're trying to do, Mr. Minister, but it's these Indian chiefs who are blocking it, these bad Indian chiefs.” Mike Duffy, in an interview approximately two weeks ago, said, “Is it the chiefs who are blocking this?”
This is the concern that I have with media and how the spin is occurring. It is difficult for me to hear that, because I know they want to address these as much as I do. I think where we disagree is on the process.
They want me to go and sit over there. Let me think about that for a bit.
Liberal
Gary Merasty Liberal Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
I just had seven questions, Mr. Chair. I just had seven or eight questions, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
Gary Merasty Liberal Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
That's right; they were the most clear and concise that have come.
It is very disconcerting to me that this fairness is being twisted, that the truth is being twisted. I'm going to finish with this, and maybe you can elaborate on it for the rest of the time. How do you feel about having this twisting of the truth--the spinning, and the attacks on you?
They seem to be almost personalized. They say “chiefs” or they say “leadership”. It's not specific; they don't say “Chief Day Walker” or “Chief Laboucan”. They say “chiefs”. How do you think that makes our communities feel?
Okanese First Nation, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations
Chief Marie-Anne Day Walker-Pelletier
As a leader for that many years, I think you come to a point where you pity those people who make those comments. If I were to listen and dwell on their negativity, I would not achieve what I am trying to achieve in my community. They can talk all they want and say all they want--that's what gets them votes--but the important thing is, as a leader of first nations people from my community, I have the desire to assist my community. A lot of times, what's going around me doesn't necessarily impact the decisions I make for my people. So I think on the media...it sells papers.
The one thing about it is that it's off the backs of first nations people. We're the biggest business-oriented society, I guess, in Canada as everyone will use the residential school dollars that are coming out. We have people coming into our communities who are non-first-nation experts trying to help first nations manage their money--selling cars, new furniture. It's not our own first nations people doing it, but again it's non-first-nation people coming into our communities and exploiting us. What do you do? That's a human rights issue. That was happening yesterday when I left.
Those are the things we have to deal with as chiefs. We don't go to the media and talk about it. I don't have time for that. I have time to try to move my community forward and to develop and put governance structures in my community that my community has decided, approved, and that will carry for the future. That's our position.
Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to each of the witnesses for being here.
I want to underline the fact that all of us around this table are here because we do want to see improvements made in how we deal with aboriginal people's concerns. I personally requested to serve on this committee. And I don't question the motivation of my colleagues across the table to try to work at workable solutions, but we will disagree on process. I hope that regardless of where we come out of this meeting, we will not cast innuendo on each other, implying that we don't care, because that simply wouldn't be factual.
The questions that Mr. Merasty asked were rather easy to say no or yes to, depending on the question. I think the harder question, and I don't think we'll be able to answer it, is who then is responsible. If it isn't your fault, whose fault is it? There's enough blame to go around for many centuries.
Ms. Day Walker, you mentioned that you support Bill C-44 in principle. You said that it would decrease the gap between the first nations people and the rest of Canadians. I think, if I'm correct, you said that you would be, as first nations people, in a better position to lobby government because they will have to follow their own laws. So there are a lot of ramifications to any changes to this bill.
I think another statement that one of you made, and I'm not clear on which one, was that no one in your community knew what Bill C-44 was. I can accept that. Is it not true, though, that there have been a number of attempts over the last 30 years to deal with section 67, which isn't Bill C-44, but it was dealing with the heart of this matter of having first nations people excluded from the ability to file human rights challenges? So can you say that no first nations communities were aware that in the last 30 years there have been attempts to deal with section 67? I think that's the real heart of what we're after here today.
Can you address that, one of you?
Okanese First Nation, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations
Chief Marie-Anne Day Walker-Pelletier
I think over the 30 years we've had that opportunity. I have to say that first nations, in the last 25 or 30 years, have come to the table with their own process on how they wanted to be consulted, but it fell on deaf ears. The process of the Human Rights Act has been around, as you've said, and we support it. At the same time, talking about the overcrowding of housing in our communities, isn't that a human rights violation? Do you allow that in Ottawa here--all those issues?
So to me, we've always worked with it in a way, but it has to be first nations driven, and our inherent rights to our treaties, the collective rights, need to be recognized.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you.
I think it's clear that there is not unanimity, even among first nations leadership, let alone among all first nations people. In fact, as committee members, we get communication from first nations people, on and off reserve, either face to face or by letter or e-mail. So we do know that there is an appetite in first nations communities to have this bill, either in its current form or amended, and I'm sure there will be some negotiations in that regard. There is a call for this bill to go forward.
In light of that, is it realistic for us to expect that every first nations person would be adequately consulted and feel as if, in the process, they have actually been heard? We try to....
Ms. Laboucan, in response to your question of it being demeaning to be here, with respect, I think it's an honour that you're here. I'm honoured that you're here. I don't certainly, for one second, think of you as a lesser person.
My question is this. Although it's great to have consultation and we want to, when does the consultation end and we move forward, even though we will never have unanimity across first nations people?
Driftpile First Nation
I've been a chief now for almost five years. I've been elected for three consecutive terms, not by choice, but people.... That's their expectations, not mine. I'm a teacher by trade and I love teaching.
To me, with regard to this committee hearing that I'm at today--and I was here before with the National Chief Phil Fontaine--this has been, for me, the only consultation, or somewhat of a consultation, in that I'm able to talk about it, discuss it, bring my points of view across. This is the first time for me for any of this. Unless I took it upon myself to read it and read about it.... Nobody called me. Minister Prentice didn't call me and say, “Well, Rose, what do you think of this bill, and how is it? What other ramifications do you think this bill's going to have in your community?” No one talked to me about it.
So if this is the only process of consultation that's going to occur for me, I at least expect that the recommendations we make here--and everyone else who's a witness--be taken into real consideration.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Yes, I agree that we take it into consideration, but there comes a point when we need to act.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Thank you. You're finished with your questions.
Mr. Lévesque, please.
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Chiefs.
I read Bill C-44 at second reading. I had spoken against the way it was presented. I looked at other agreements signed by the government and I disagreed with the fact that you had not been consulted.
If I remember correctly, there was a political agreement on May 31, 2005. In 1977, section 67 had been promulgated to protect the Indian Act. In 2005, after various disagreements and a lack of negotiations with First Nations, there was a political agreement aimed at improving the collaboration between First Nations and the Canadian government. There was also a statement indicating that First Nations would be consulted on any piece of legislation applying to them or that could have important consequences for them.
The parliamentary secretary said something very important a few minutes ago. He said that 18 communities had negotiated government rights. They had negotiated. Did the government sit down with you, if only for a day, to negotiate anything relating to repealing section 67?
According to the Canadian Human Rights Act, you have to provide drinking water, water systems, as well as minimum levels of adequate housing, education and healthcare. Would you be able in six months to provide all those services as you would be required to under the Bill? What would be the financial consequences for your communities if some of their members were to sue you because you did not provide such services?
Chief Day Walker-Pelletier, let us take the example of the First Nations University of Canada in Saskatchewan. Could you have received the type of education that you hoped for since it has been established and been operational? I will let you answer.
Driftpile First Nation
There is no way, in this beautiful country called Canada, that I would ever be able to meet the financial needs of my community, even if I was sued. Right now, we are in dire straits. We stretch the dollar as much as we can.
An elder, my husband's brother, passed away three months ago. He was on the list for mould remediation. When we got to his home, you could literally put your hand through the wall. That's how bad the mould was in his home. But this man lived in that house. He never asked for anything; he never asked for help. We have band members like that, who genuinely care about the next person and what they could get, instead of themselves.
When I look at the situation that I have to live with right now in my community, it's a hard task to try to comprehend the other things that I know will impact us in the future, and Bill C-44 is one of them.
The last time I met with Minister Prentice, I gave him a package. We were talking about other things, so my personal issues from my first nation couldn't be discussed at that table. So I had to put my issues into a package and give it to him. God knows if he has read it yet.
On top of that, when we got the money for the mould remediation, we had to hide it, lie, and say that it was renovation, because there is no money for mould remediation. God forbid you should get some, and the rest of the Indians will want the same thing, although they have the same issue. It's really sad. I don't think people realize, in that context....
I want to deal with the violence in my community, I want to deal with the drugs and alcohol in my community, I want to educate my people, and I want to be part of the job market. I want a million things, and I can't do it, yet I have to come all the way to Ottawa to try to defend something.
Talk to me. I know how this is going to impact me in my community. You didn't on Bill C-31, and look at the outcomes of that now.
I have a non-status person coming to band meeting saying, what's going to happen? They're not legally married, but she asks, what happens to my husband when he passes on; do I get the house? I don't have any status. I don't have any of this, I don't have any of that, but can you still take care of me?
As a human being I want to, but what do I do with my housing list, which has more than 100 people on it? How do I accommodate them? What about the young people?
My son is getting married this October. His outcome has to be to buy a house outside of the community so he can have a place to live, because he doesn't want to take it from someone else. That's a young man who worked all his life and never depended on social assistance; not once did he ever receive it.
We have good-quality human beings who want to make a difference. Just give us that opportunity. When you come down to this, and you want to consult, let's do it right. We're not asking for much here. We're asking for an opportunity to make that difference and address those impacts that are going to be down the road. There are going to be impacts.
Don't turn a blind eye to the real issue here, because in this process you're already violating my human rights as a human being. It's a double whammy, because this human being has treaty rights that have never been honoured by this country.
That's where I come from, and that's why I chose to come here. I'm not here for me; I'm here for the future of those young people who are going to have to live with this at the end of the day.
I'm not saying let's stop it either. But let's get together, let's talk about it and create that task force. There is no need to push this tomorrow. If we take the next 135 years, so be it. Let's take it.
I just feel it's wrong that this whole thing has gone this way.
I'm sorry if I strayed away from your question, or if I didn't answer your question. I apologize.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all very much for coming today.
Chief Laboucan, it's a real honour to be here with you today. I doubt you'll remember me, but I grew up in the community just south of you, in Swan Hills. I have many friends throughout--
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
We are known for toxic waste. That is true.
But throughout Driftpile and Kinuso and Slave Lake and High Prairie, I have many friends, and many friends who live in your community, and they are actually part of the inspiration I have to be on this committee.
I have to share with you the frustration that I've had, as a new member of Parliament, and I'm not used to the double-talk that happens consistently--on both sides of the House, I guess you could somewhat argue. When you hear of opposition members standing up and saying that they're willing to get the job done and be here until it's done, and then it's their own Speaker of their own party who stands up and acts very undemocratically.
In fact, coming here today, I was looking forward to having lengthy discussions with you because that's what was proposed.
I want to talk to you a little bit and ask you this. And I do take this as somewhat of a consultation. This may not be the consultation that's required, but there is no doubt that in sitting with you and discussing with you, we are taking what you tell us as something that we need to bring back and look at. That's part of the parliamentary process.
The next step is supposed to be bringing the legislation and going clause-by-clause through a committee, which Mr. Lemay and the other members are stalling very much at this point, and one can only wonder why. Whether it's because they don't want to walk the talk and actually put some of these amendments forward and vote on these things....
At the end of the day, what we have to do is get some movement on this. We have to move this file forward. Whether the process we need to follow.... But we need to move this forward.
Chief Laboucan, I want to ask you a simple question to start out. Are you in favour of the basic principles of repealing section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act? And I'll move on from there.