Thank you.
I am to send greetings on behalf of our president. She couldn't be here with us today, and she asked my colleague David and I to provide the presentation for the Indigenous Bar Association.
I apologize that we couldn't translate and provide this in advance, but I'm told by the chair that it can be distributed here later.
For those who don't know us, the Indigenous Bar Association is a non-profit organization representing indigenous peoples involved in the legal profession across Canada. We include judges, lawyers, academics, students at law, and law graduates from the indigenous community in Canada.
The IBA has been active since its creation in 1988, but also with its predecessor organization, the Canadian Indian Lawyers' Association. That was before my time, but my colleague David Nahwegahbow was around then. The IBA focuses on the following.... Well, one of the key objectives of the IBA is to promote recognition and respect for indigenous laws, customs, and traditions in the work we do. So in the spirit of summarizing our recommendations, I'm going to try to keep within the five or so minutes allotted.
Due to the fact that Bill C-3 is merely a reactive response to an antiquated, severely flawed piece of legislation--I'm sure you've heard a lot of that--the bill cannot and does not promote a broader solution. It is a narrow bill that only creates room for those who fall under the same fact pattern as Ms. Sharon McIvor, meaning it only addresses the issue of status loss due to marriage. Questions pertaining to citizenship, indigenous jurisdiction, and the long-term viability of the status system as a whole remain unanswered.
By not taking this opportunity to address these broader issues, first nations communities--and also, I think, Canadians--will continue to suffer harm due to the continued loss of access to their citizens.
It is a widely held view that first nations across Canada have vehemently asserted that membership or citizenship is a core area of self-government. These assertions have also received significant support in major studies such as the Penner report on Indian self-government in 1983 and the royal commission report on aboriginal peoples in 1995. As you know, these were initiatives that were supported by the different parliamentary groups at the time.
In the Haida case, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that indigenous nations have pre-existing sovereignty, which undoubtedly includes the right to determine their own membership or citizenship.
Put simply, first nations in Canada traditionally exercise the right to determine their own citizenship. This is now a constitutional right recognized by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In the view of the Indigenous Bar Association, the existing status system under the Indian Act is an unjustifiable intrusion into the inherent right of indigenous nations to determine their own citizenship.
The failure of the crown and federal government to recognize indigenous rights to determine their own citizenship, in addition to the imposition of the status system on indigenous populations, also violates article 33.1 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions.
To flip ahead in my presentation, Bill C-3 is just a minor modification of the status quo. It continues to perpetuate the inequality within the first nations community. It's not just a gender issue.
By not addressing it, it hurts the community as a whole.
Families may have members who are registered as subsection 6(1) or subsection 6(2) or non-status. If you think about it, what other community in Canada has this type of legislative determination? Personally, I'm a subsection 6(1). I'm the mother of a subsection 6(2). I'm a Robinson-Huron Treaty annuity.... I'm Canadian. There are all kinds of characterizations to describe me.
The IBA's main recommendation is that the federal Government of Canada move away from defining Indians to supporting an approach that recognizes first nations jurisdiction in determining citizenship. Again, we consider continuing to perpetuate this through Bill C-3 and other acts as a violation of our mutual constitutional obligations under section 35, 1982.
Moreover, the federal government's continued insistence on interference with first nations jurisdiction to determine its citizenship is inconsistent with international norms. The fact that these legislative sections still exist are inconsistent with current international conventions, most notably article 33.1. But there are other articles you should draw your minds to: articles 4, 9, 18, and 19.
The second recommendation of the Indigenous Bar Association is that Canada establish another special parliamentary committee to act as a parliamentary task force on the broader issue of self-government, membership, and citizenship in conjunction with sections 6 to 14 of the Indian Act.
Previously, the Canadian Indian Lawyers' Association provided recommendations to the then Penner committee on Indian self-government. One recommendation, which was adopted by the Penner committee, was that constitutional change to address the issues we're recommending was not required. The federal government has always had the ability to resolve this legislatively.