Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 15th, 2010

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

Thank you for the question.

In terms of extinguishment, I want to make sure I have your question right with regard to the current rules for registration. Are you referring to the future generational cut-off?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I believe so, under subclause 6(2).

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

Right. The second generation cut-off that will ultimately result is not something that will be addressed within the scope of this particular bill. I certainly recognize that as a result of Bill C-3 in its current form, there is going to be an influx of potential persons who are eligible to be registered. The government has indicated or estimated that there will be in the range of 45,000.

That certainly can--and will, as it did in 1985--pose problems for first nations communities that have to administer programs and services to their citizens. As I said in my opening comments, I have said, and we at the Assembly of First Nations and our chiefs have said clearly, that there is a need to ensure there are adequate resources to enable our first nations communities to address the potential influx of new registrants resulting from the bill in its current form or the potential influx of people resulting from an amendment to the bill.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Do you have examples, even anecdotal, of how your members had to deal with those requests back with Bill C-31? What did it look like?

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

I'm kind of dating myself a little bit in that in 1985 I was 14, but in my home community, where I'm on council, we are having dialogue and discussions around the potential influx of people who are coming in. The persons who worked within our communities at the time were somewhat inundated by applicants coming back, though some communities weren't at all.

I would maybe look to my colleague, Karen, to reflect a little bit on the reality of 1985 in a more articulate way than I'm doing right now.

[Karen Campbell, Senior Policy Analyst, Strategic Policy, Planning and Law, Assembly of First Nations]

Just very briefly, and likely not any more articulately, in terms of the additional need--this was addressed and read into the record on Tuesday as well--around rapid increases in registration, there were calls on registration clerks and those individuals at both the community and the government level at the time to be working around the clock. Backlogs still exist right now, and there are individuals who aren't able to fully access their rights because of the backlog in registration and the inability to respond to it.

In terms of direct programs and services at the community level, in many communities—certainly not all, because the situation does differ across the country—there are large draws particularly on housing and infrastructure, and that's where the real crunch came down. Budgets for funding of post-secondary education in particular were also looked at, as were those for the kinds of services that are offered directly in the community.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks to you both.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much, Ms. Leslie and both witnesses.

Members, we're going over by about a minute on each of these. I'm trying to apportion out the time as well as I can so that we all get the same amount.

We're going to go to Mr. Duncan. We'll have time for only another two slots, with two three-minute questions and answers after that.

Let's go to Mr. Duncan.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Chief Wilson-Raybould—I'm used to calling you Jody, of course—and Karen.

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

You can call me Jody.

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

I think we all recognize that this is a complicated picture. I was struck by a couple of things you said. You said something along the lines that you should think of yourselves as citizens rather than as Indian Act registrants. There's some confusion between registration and membership, and you focused quite a bit on governance and how changes on that front would be very critical.

I'd like to reassure you that the government does recognize that governance and capacity are directions that are vitally important. We want to get there too. Doing so is in everybody's best interests.

Specific to Bill C-3, I think it's important I get on the record that Bill C-3, of course, would not preclude further legislation. At the same time, I heard you loud and clear when you said that long-term solutions do not lie in further tinkering with the Indian Act. That puts us in quite a dilemma here, in a sense, because Bill C-3 is designed to address a very specific case, the McIvor case.

We know there are further legal actions dealing with registration that are in the system, but I'm also struck that we have negotiated agreements between the Government of Canada and first nations in various parts of Canada. Many of those were with first nations that obviously had significant governance and capacity. That's why they were involved in those discussions. Sometimes “significant” would be an understatement; “very well capacitated” might be better. Whenever we have those agreements, they tend to include as one of the provisions the fact that only those people who fit into the Indian Act registration classifications are eligible for membership or citizenship.

In order to square the circle here, to get to where you would like to get, is not passage of Bill C-3 and adoption of the exploratory process a reasonable and practical direction to try to move us forward?

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan—or John, as I've come to call you—for the question.

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

You may call me John anytime. You know that.

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

This is a really important question, and one that I hope I'll be able to provide an answer to that makes clear the distinction between what you're asking--between Bill C-3 and the exploratory process.

I do not necessarily see the two as existing in isolation. I view Bill C-3 and the amendments to the Indian Act and the rectification of discrimination as it is right now, and potentially as it could be to rectify all gender discrimination, as a step forward certainly. I do recognize and applaud the government's commitment to engage in an exploratory process around the issue of citizenship.

Again I have to go back to my comments that citizenship and status are not related. They are fundamentally different. As you reference with respect to modern arrangements or modern agreements that have been negotiated by first nations, yes, within a chapter there is a provision that welcomes as members those persons who are eligible to be registered under the Indian Act within their agreement that has been negotiated in a modern context.

That's not to say that the recognition, or that clause in the agreement, will not be dispensed with or disbanded when our nations are on this process of nation-building and becoming more self-governing and implementing their agreement in a really meaningful way on the ground that acknowledges where their citizens want to go, that the requirement of having the recognition of people eligible to be registered as a requirement for eligibility to benefit from a treaty or otherwise will dissipate and it will not need to exist anymore because our nations are on that path, as you reference, with respect to developing our own systems of governance and becoming self-determining. That, in my opinion, goes well beyond any determination of who and what one is under a piece of legislation.

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

Thank you. I think that was a comprehensive question and a comprehensive answer.

I would like to mention two other initiatives that are somewhat related to this whole question of discrimination.

We amended the Canadian Human Rights Act, and as of June of next year, that act will apply to all Canadians equally. It used to exclude, of course, first nations people living on reserve. For the Government of Canada to pass that legislation, there was a lot of resistance.

We also have the matrimonial property rights initiative, which has now been put before the Senate. The Senate will be dealing with that at committee, I assume, and once again, that's a question of a vacuum in the law.

We met resistance on both of these bills, but they are there to end discrimination.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Could you perhaps get your question in?

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

Can you offer comment as to how we as a federal government can get past these kinds of obstacles?

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand that we are in a time crunch.

To be brief, and to assist government in getting beyond, whether it be MRP or whether it be the repeal of section 67, actually engage in the dialogue on first nations jurisdiction and advance, where appropriate, legislation that recognizes that jurisdiction, whether it be in an exploratory process, or, as our chiefs have called for, through a special parliamentary committee, to look at these issues in a really fundamental way on the ground that are reflective of our communities and where our communities want to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much for the brevity of that response.

We have four minutes or so for the last two questions. We'll go to Mr. Russell and then Mr. Dreeshen. Then we'll have to wrap up, and we'll suspend briefly before our next hour.

Mr. Russell, go ahead.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to follow up, when it comes to Bill C-3, we have projections from Mr. Clatworthy, who has been hired by the department, on the impacts of roughly 45,000, and on how they are dispersed between on-reserve and off-reserve. I'm just wondering whether the AFN has done any analysis on that, so that we could have a comparator. I'm not doubting his numbers, but it would be nice to see if there was a comparator.

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

Karen can correct me if I'm wrong, but no, we haven't done that substantive analysis. Doing that analysis requires going into a community to understand the particular circumstances of that community. That's a long process, but it's an important process.

I can speak on behalf of my own first nation. We are a nation of some 930 members, and the implications, as a result of Bill C-3 in its current form, are that more than 500 people would be coming back into our community. I'm not questioning those numbers except from my perspective as a council person in my own community, knowing that we are facing a potentially large number of registrants. That's not a bad thing. They simply need to be provided for in an appropriate way.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

When I asked government officials about whether they had done projections on, for instance, costs--it's not always the most savoury type of discussion, but it's a realistic one, isn't it--they hadn't done them for long- or short-term health benefits, post-secondary education, or the implications for communities when it comes to providing services or housing. So the government really needs to get on with doing its work, even in light of Bill C-3.

On the exploratory process again, you don't like the word exploratory. I believe I heard you say you think we've done enough of this exploration, so where would you like to see it go?

Sometimes people see this talk we're often engaged in as a way to deflect dealing head-on with some very crucial issues. I mean, it might be nice to explore, to talk for two years, but at the end of that, people need to see something delivered at their community level as well. What do you see being delivered at the end of this process?

I'm not that confident in this process, let me tell you that. I'd have to see a hell of a lot more meat on the bones before I'd give the government a thumbs-up on this.

At any rate, I'd like to see what your vision for this process might look like.

[Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould]

Thank you for the question.

We are in a time when there is a need to have true engagement, true engagement at the community level. That certainly can be supported by our governments, both provincial and federal, and it needs to be supported in that way, by way of providing resources and engaging in a joint process to develop some form of terms of reference.

However, in order for an engagement process to be successful, it needs to be driven at the community level by the community members, and it needs to be out of self-interest to advance our nations in terms of nation-building, in terms of building our own governance and getting out from under the Indian Act to where we are self-determining and self-governing.

I believe this is an enormous opportunity for the government to support this endeavour. It will take time. It will take resources. Most importantly, it needs to be supported, and supported at the community level, driven by our own individual nations and what is appropriate for them.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Russell.

Now let's go to our last questioner, which will be Mr. Dreeshen for four minutes.