Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 1st, 2010

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

So you're saying you don't know...if a status Indian is provided services by the federal government that are otherwise provided by the province...if that person wasn't status.... You don't even know that?

[Roy Gray]

If you're talking about offsets or provincial savings or what have you, what I'm saying is, is this an on-reserve or off-reserve population? In the context of the population growth that's going to come into play as a result of this bill, it's really premature to talk about those kinds of issues.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Can you get back to the committee on that?

[Roy Gray]

What is the specific question?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Right now, the federal government pays certain things for status Indians. Regardless of the results of this bill, there are going to be some more status Indians. In some of these cases, the provincial governments would otherwise pay those costs. Obviously, there's going to be a savings to the provincial or territorial governments, so I'd just like some more detail from the department once they do an analysis of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Let's go to Mr. Rickford.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two questions to ask. The first is somewhat technical. I would just like to know whether people may lose their status if the Indian Act is amended.

[Roy Gray]

No.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

My other questions are about the exploratory process. Could you give us a more in-depth explanation of this process? Why is it in place? Could you provide us with some of the issues that could be addressed during the process?

I have to say that this is easier in French. I have commented less and asked my questions in quick succession!

[Brenda Kustra, Director General, Governance Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you for your questions.

First...

as the minister had indicated, the elements of the exploratory process are very important as we go forward.

First of all, we want to work in partnership with the national aboriginal organizations to design the process. We don't have a preconceived idea of what the process will involve. We do want it to be very inclusive and to be able to gather the views of first nations individuals, community leaders, and organizations, right across the country, because everybody does have a different perspective on what status membership and citizenship mean.

We also want to have a process that uses a wide variety of activities and technologies to gather the information. We know that youth across the country are very plugged into the electronic world, so we're hoping to be able to design some elements of the process that will provide them with a good opportunity to share their views with us.

We also want to start the process early. As the minister indicated, we have had preliminary discussions with the organizations to actually get together to design the process, so hopefully that will take place in a very short period of time. Then, throughout a number of months, different activities will unfold. It will give everybody an opportunity to gather the information and then try to determine what the next steps might be, based on all the information gathered.

On your question with respect to why we should go ahead with the exploratory process, as the minister indicated, Bill C-3 specifically responds to the Court of Appeal decision in British Columbia, so it has a very narrow focus on two sections of the Indian Act that were determined to be unconstitutional. Many other issues around status membership and citizenship were raised in the engagement process that my colleague, Roy Gray, and his team, conducted over the fall last year. The exploratory process is a way for people who express views during that process, as well as many others across the country, to offer their ideas. It's a forum whereby everybody can listen and people can be heard. There will be opportunities for everybody to share their views.

Your third question was with respect to the kinds of questions that may be asked. I think as we move forward with the organizations to design the process, and depending on the kinds of activities that take place--if there are workshops or town halls--there may be questions developed that would be posed to the participants in those events, but we do not have a preconceived roster of questions that we want answers to. It really is about a dialogue.

Merci.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

That's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to congratulate you on your French. Well done.

Now let's go back to Monsieur Lemay.

Mr. Lemay, you have five minutes.

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

Mr. Gray and Ms. Kustra, there is something I would like to know. You are in charge of registering people requesting Indians status, right? Is this your responsibility?

[Roy Gray]

No, it is the responsibility of my colleague.

[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?

[Roy Gray]

I'll clarify one point and then turn it over to my colleague.

On the point about the mandate of the working group, I think we were talking about the financial working group, which is a different group or process from the exploratory process. I just wanted to make that clarification.

[Brenda Kustra]

The reconciliation on membership is a subject that I'm sure will be discussed in the exploratory process. There are many communities across the country that are very welcoming to new members, and others who would prefer to keep their membership as per their existing membership code.

I assume, because of the wide variety of views on this subject, it will be a controversial discussion. There will be pressure on first nations that are currently in control of their membership to perhaps change their membership code.

[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?

[Brenda Kustra]

I would certainly not prejudge the will of the House and Parliament on the passage of Bill C-3. But I can say that it is our intention to begin the exploratory process while the debate continues on Bill C-3. That is a commitment that the minister has made.

We hope to be able to have our initial discussions with the national aboriginal organizations very early in April and start the design of the process and the activities that will unfold over a period of time. We want to do that very much in parallel with the movement of the legislation through Parliament.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Lemay.

We now go to Mr. Holder.

Welcome to our committee. You have five minutes.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's my privilege to be here.

I must tell you that as a first-time attendee to this committee I'm extremely impressed by the decorum and tenor of the questions, the quality of it, and the willingness of all members to work towards a positive solution in this. My compliments to members opposite and on this side as well, and to you, Chair, obviously.

I thank our guests for attending today. I have a couple of questions, if I might, just to help me understand more clearly the steps of the process.

One of the things the minister spoke about was the issue of the extension being requested after April 6.

I'm trying to understand. We were mandated to have this in place. It looks like, as has been indicated earlier, that the timeframe is going to be pretty tough to get through from a legislative standpoint. I need to understand better. If that doesn't happen, are we somehow either in contempt of this requirement or would we be shown not to be doing our due diligence? Could you just explain what the implication of that is, if in fact we don't reach our deadline as required?

[Martin Reiher, Senior Counsel, Operations and Programs Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an excellent question.

In fact, on March 9, the Government of Canada has sought an extension of the suspension of the declaration of invalidity that the British Columbia Court of Appeal issued on April 9, 2009. We don't know at this time what the decision will be on this motion.

If there is no extension of the suspension period beyond April 6, 2010, this means that the declaration of invalidity will become effective. The result of this is that paragraphs 6(1)(a) and (c) will become invalid, which means, according to section 52 of the Constitution Act of 1982, they cease to exist. So there would be a gap in the registration rule applicable in British Columbia. This means that there could be no new registration of individuals affiliated with bands in British Columbia from that time on until there is replacement legislation.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I get a sense from all sides that this replacement legislation, which is what we're reviewing today, is going to have some priority to get it through. Presuming that comes through some time in late April or possibly May--and I don't know the answer to that, and I'm sure you don't--when that is done.... I have a question. We've talked in terms of up to 45,000 individuals being affected by this. That's your best estimate at this stage. I'm told that for those individuals to receive status, it has to go through an application process. Do you have any sense of that uptake?

I guess as a second part of that, how are you enabling or supporting that process of application? That is to say, when the legislation is done, we're then in compliance, so how will you in fact advise those individuals who have the right to apply for status? How will you guide, advise, direct, advertise, and promote?

[Roy Gray]

Mr. Chair, I can take that question.

The minister alluded to the fact that the department is developing a strategy to deal with this influx, or potential influx, of applications for status. We're not in a position today to say exactly how long that process will take, nor can we really predict exactly how many applications will come in.

Presumably, there will be more applications than there will be people entitled. There will also be a proactive communications strategy that will explain who will be potentially entitled and who will not be. That information will be broadly distributed.