Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

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

Mr. Chair, nothing less than an apology would suffice. That was anything but an apology, and I think this is reprehensible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The point of order is noted. I'll take these comments under consideration and get back to the committee. Let's continue with the response now to Mr. Bélanger's question.

Go ahead, Madam Lavell. You have about a minute and a bit to wrap up. We have a minute and 20 seconds left in the time slot.

Thank you.

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell]

I'll ask Ms. Green to answer that.

[Karen Green]

With respect to matrimonial property, we believe there is a gap in terms of legislation in that area. We had a number of issues with respect to the legislation as it was presented. A lot of that was going to first nations jurisdictions and challenged first nations jurisdictions and their law-making abilities. We never want the individual rights of aboriginal women to be put against the collective rights of aboriginal governments. That was one of the major problems with the legislation.

There are many other provisions in the legislation we had difficulty with. We have been speaking with officials about how we change that. It might work to make it more presentable and palatable and have it actually reach the women who need to be reached. We're working constructively on that. I don't know where they're going to take us, but we are having discussions.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

If you would care to share any information with members of the committee, I'm sure we would welcome that.

[Karen Green]

We'll forward something.

The other problem we had was with respect to the non-legislative measures. We need to deal with housing issues, we need to deal with violence in communities, and we need to deal with poverty, lack of decent drinking water. Those things are all other issues that we have to deal with along with the legislation. That's only one piece.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Agreed. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

Now we'll go to Mr. Clarke for four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses, and congratulations on your election.

I am first nations. I served 18 years in the RCMP, and I've seen a lot of murders, investigated a lot of domestic assaults, and I've seen first nation women abused and had to investigate it, but I've also had to tell the families what transpired.

Today during your testimony, the issue that I heard echoing deep down is Bill C-31. Now, with Bill C-31, I do understand the McIvor decision, but my question is, how can government look at this without Bill C-31 being challenged in court, getting those people added to the list? What can you do, or what can you suggest to this committee?

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell]

I don't think I understood your question. You said—

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

Bill C-31.

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell]

Yes, I know that.

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

For those who do not qualify under Bill C-31, your grandchildren, how can government look at this legislation and implement the changes without it being challenged in court?

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell]

My understanding of the complaints of our women and the hardships they are going through right now is that as women we are being treated in a different way within the current legislation. My grandchildren do not qualify to be members of my community, whereas the grandchildren of my brother would, so that is still there. If we could eliminate that, it would be one step. However, we're only looking at the rights of our grandchildren. The next step, then, is what happens with my great-grandchildren?

We would only be solving it piecemeal if we go with the grandchildren, and then we would have to go through this whole process again. If we want to make sure we are working in good faith, then I think we need to work together to ensure that as first nations we have the right to determine our own citizens, our own members. We have said, I think fairly loudly, that we know who our people are. It shouldn't be up to someone on the outside or a government to tell us who our people are. No nation, I believe, undergoes that. Perhaps we can work together and bring the resources in, because right now our communities are not even able to deal with the current members that they have, or even the lands that they have. So if we could work together to bring something together, we could ensure that ongoing continuity.

We are looking at extinction, much like what happened under residential schools. Surely in this day and age that should not be allowed to take place anymore. That's what is happening. That's reality for many of our first nations. As I told you, one reserve in southern Ontario has three more years and then they won't have any more members. That's reality. We must do something about it. We do have some ideas, and we would like to work with you to look at what can be done.

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

How's my time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's really about it, Mr. Clarke. I know the four minutes goes very quickly.

We still have time for one more question, and we'll take that from

Mr. Lemay, you have four minutes.

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

Good afternoon and congratulations on your election.

The government has released a proposed amendment to section 6 of the Indian Act in response to the McIvor case. Have you read the document? If so, what do you think about it? Would it address the concerns you have been talking about for the past 40 minutes?

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell]

I believe that it responds to the court decision to come to a legislative change by April, but it is only the first step. It is only dealing with Sharon's argument about her grandchild. But to look at it further, then we're looking at the next generation and others who may not be included as part of that because of the unstated paternity.

I was just talking to a woman who is a result of that unstated paternity, and she doesn't have her status.

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

Excuse me for interrupting, but we were told that the government was going to introduce a bill in the coming weeks. It will follow what we here call the consultation, or the recommendations made in the wake of the McIvor ruling. That is what the document says.

Would you be prepared to look at this very closely and make recommendations to amend, if necessary, the upcoming bill?

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell]

I believe that is our offer to the current government, Indian and Northern Affairs, that we would like to work with them to ensure that the document does fit the needs of our people, especially our women, and we are open to working very closely on that.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

On a point of order, Mr. Duncan.

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

I would like the chair to note that Ms. Glover has left this room in disgust and to put that on the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. It now is on the record.

Perhaps we'll just finish up. I'll come back and address the previous point of order as well, but if I could, members, there are two things. We're going to finish up, and thank you very much, Madame la présidente, for your presentation today. It was very welcome and timely, and we wish you all the best in the months ahead in your important position.

Members, as a point of housekeeping here, I would like you to look at the documents that were circulated to you, and we will try to set aside a very short period of time at the end of the next hour to take a vote on that. The reason for that is that there may be a Liaison Committee meeting as early as this week, so if we don't get a tentative travel budget passed now, it will have to wait until after the break. So I ask you to consider that. You realize, of course, that we do not have committee business on the agenda today, so we will have to discuss this at your blessing in that regard.

Finally, if I could, members, on the point of order that was raised by Mr. Duncan, the committees really are not in a position and/or are not empowered to sanction specific members for unparliamentary language, if that is what has been alleged. However, I would encourage all members, whether their microphones are on or not, to abide by the spirit of the Standing Orders in regard to language that is used at committee. This is an important consideration and helps keep the debate and dialogue at the committees at a respectable and civil level. That's not to say that language cannot be pointed, certainly, but I would ask that you respect that. The only means we have, if members were to persist with such language, would be to not recognize members when it comes time for them to speak. Only the House can in fact bring sanctions on this type of intervention, should that be the choice of the committee.

So that is just for the benefit of members to understand the implications of the point of order, and the other comments are now on the record.

So with that, I think I saw a couple of hands up.

Mr. Lemay.

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

Mr. Chair, the documents seem to be in order to me, I wonder whether we could vote on them immediately. That is what I am proposing.