Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 18th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you so much.

We'll begin with Ms. Hughes for the first seven minutes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate the fact that you took the time to be part of the discussions here today.

The bill in its present form, if passed, you've already indicated there would be a financial hardship on individuals. I'm wondering if you think the bill would actually result in the government going before the courts with respect to litigation because of the problematic areas.

[Guy Lonechild]

I would expect there could be further backlog. There could be confusion. I would think that provincial and federal governments would have conflicting viewpoints on what laws were applicable on reserve, so ultimately, yes, I think it would be challenged.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I have another question. At the beginning of your speech you indicated that the Indian Act was forced on first nations without consultation and you spoke about the impact that has had. I know there are many people who still want to be part of the discussion on this piece of legislation. I can tell you that Chief Shining Turtle in my riding has even invited Mr. Clarke to his community as a willing partner. He wants to be part of the process, but he hasn't heard whether or not Mr. Clarke would be willing to go there to have a discussion about this as part of the consultation with his community.

I spoke to Chief Duke Peltier yesterday from Wikwemikong First Nation, which is an unceded first nation, and he has some grave concerns with respect to the language on special reserves in there.

Do you think the chief is right to have some concerns about that with respect to the special reserves?

[Guy Lonechild]

I can't speak specifically to the special reserve section; however, any changes or amendments to the Indian Act would require direct consultation at the very least with the chief of the community. I've had an opportunity to go back and work at my own first nation. Living it and on the ground is the only way to get the viewpoints most adequately from the elected leadership and of course the people who live under the Indian Act.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Earlier, in the response that we had with Chief Wilson-Raybould, there was a question by Mr. Rathgeber with respect to consultation, and that basically, it's difficult to consult with over 600 first nations. I don't know about you, but I'm of the view that this is possible.

For example, let's look at the amount of money the government has invested in advertising for their economic action plan. If that money were redirected to ensure there were appropriate and accessible meetings for first nations, would that not be a better direction for that money for consultation in addressing and trying to find the solutions, which first nations certainly have a lot of input on and are willing to share?

[Guy Lonechild]

I could say with great certainty that many first nations leaders look to and would provide an opportunity to consult and reprofile any kind of federal initiatives to look at rolling out a pretty comprehensive consultation plan.

I look at it this way. There have been many years where we've been attempting to provide a better way of life through changes to the Indian Act, providing discussions about soft government right across the country. If there's anything this bill could do, it could ensure there is some dialogue around this issue.

There have been many discussions around the Penner report in 1983 and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Let's get to the heart of what it is first nations people want. They just want to be more self-determining. I think the AFN and its organization and its regional chiefs would welcome those dialogues, but I don't speak for them.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You have one minute left.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Jean, do you have anything?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Lonechild, for coming before the committee. Thank you very much for your opening comments with regard to consultation.

One of the things that is in line with consultation is accommodation. With this legislation, it doesn't appear there will be accommodation, as I mentioned to an earlier witness, for things like custom adoptions. The provinces aren't set up to provide accommodation for cultural and legal practices within first nations communities.

Could you comment on that?

[Guy Lonechild]

I think the environment and the confines within the child welfare system would allow for a varied range of what is applicable to custom adoptions, kinship care, and issues around who would be able to be the beneficiary of a will. That's different from the province of British Columbia to Saskatchewan, as you know.

I wouldn't want to see further confusion about that. I think there needs to be at least in clause 7 and in the whole entirety of those sections a little bit about uniformity. Those are the areas where I think it would not be beneficial to change, where we'd have some uniformity coast to coast regarding custom adoptions. The quick answer to that is that we would view it as very problematic if it were to go forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll turn now to Mr. Clarke, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to thank the witness for coming in today and travelling here to provide his feedback on my private member's bill, Bill C-428.

We've heard from witnesses on how the current Indian Act affects first nations in their day-to-day lives and on the decision-making processes made on first nations reserves.

I am wondering if you could provide some input or feedback, and some personal experiences, that you believe the Indian Act affects first nations uniformly. Are there regional differences as well?

[Guy Lonechild]

There are probably numerous sections where the Indian Act has been very limiting. There's the ability to obtain a mortgage on reserve, of course, home ownership opportunities. This is something I feel very strongly about. I believe that first nations should have the ability to have a range of opportunities, not just in social housing but in home ownership.

The Indian Act itself has been problematic for every community across the country. We could be here all day. What I would like to say is we need to move this discussion forward. We would be one community that would be very interested in having a discussion about self-government, at least among our membership.

We don't like living under the Indian Act; however, those are the cards that have been dealt to our first nation, like many others. I'm sure I'm in the same boat with many private citizens at our first nation living either on or off reserve. They will also want to be consulted. We look forward to this discussion wholeheartedly.

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

We've seen how the Indian Act has hampered the economic opportunities for first nations. We've seen how the First Nations Land Management Act has gotten rid of a third of the Indian Act to provide those economic opportunities.

What I'm trying to do is remove the minister from making day-to-day decisions on economic opportunities overall for all first nations across Canada. What I'm also trying to do on my private member's bill is.... Currently, there's no legislative process that would require any government to meet with first nations in consultation to look at the Indian Act on a year-by-year basis.

I'm wondering, one, in terms of economic opportunities how the Indian Act affects first nations. Two, should there be some type of mechanism that will require the minister to report to the standing committee, or to Parliament, on the progress, in consultation with first nations, on a year-to-year basis to review the Indian Act?

[Guy Lonechild]

I'd back up a little bit. Of course, it's important that we get this right from the start. It's important that we consult with first nations people, first nations leadership, and of course, affected organizations, AFN, and other regional organizations.

Removing barriers within the Indian Act in terms of the turnaround time for the minister to sign off on certain bylaws and so forth are important. They're important for economic growth, for our timely decision-making where we have quite a diversified economy on the reserve and in the area. Yes, in fact we do need some legislative changes that would ensure that band councils are empowered to make decisions and can take things to their membership so we can have that discussion among ourselves as opposed to waiting for sign-off on certain bylaws and so forth.

I see those as benefits. Again, I think first nations would welcome that.

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

Chief, when we look at, for instance, residential schools, do you feel that clause of allowing or keeping residential schools or that language in the Indian Act..... Should that terminology still be in place or should it be removed?

[Guy Lonechild]

I think you're going to get consensus that it should be removed, that residential schools in itself should be removed.

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

When we talk about bylaws, we heard how the AFN thinks there could be problems for first nations in drafting up their bylaws, and also with technology, in publishing the bylaws for the band membership and making it open.

Right now you personally are working for a first nations community. How do you address the needs or meet the mandate to publish any types of meetings that take place on the first nations community? How do you let the membership know what's taking place?

[Guy Lonechild]

We just had a recent discussion with our member of Parliament, our MLA, and chief and council. We talked to them about the transparency of our financial statements and so forth. We welcome that. We post them on our website. I think as long as it's defined, not enforced by someone else.... If we look for ways, maybe there are best practices for a first nation to provide disclosure, transparency, of all their bylaws, and that would be the next step we could do. I don't think we would post all our bylaws on our website, but it would be a step I think we would consider.

The cost effectiveness, as she had mentioned, I think might be an issue. If there is some opportunity to make any amendments, it's to ensure that at the very least there is some kind of a public posting and that it's on a website if it's available.

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

So it should be public. It could be through a band website, a newsletter, a locally owned first nations newspaper, or it could just be from a locally published paper that hits all the circulation in that first nations community.

[Guy Lonechild]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much, Mr. Clarke.

We'll turn to Ms. Bennett now, for seven minutes.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Thanks very much.

The issue of consultation is huge in terms of the duty to consult. As you know, we even have concerns that this comes as a private member's bill rather than a first nations led process that would be presented to the crown and to the Prime Minister, and the changes would be made in that way, not this way. The consultation also has to be, I would assume, before something's tabled. Is that correct? Once it's tabled, we have difficulty at second reading. Unless something comes to committee after first reading, as I think a lot of us have hoped in many other issues, it has already been passed in principle before it comes to this committee.

I'm concerned on two fronts. One is that the duty to consult didn't take place before it was tabled, or before it was even conceived, and two, there's the duty to consult, because what we're hearing time and time again on this bill is unintended consequences. The duty to consult is so you can get it right. As you've pointed out, whether it's section 7, or whether it's the intoxicants piece, it's just not thought through if you haven't talked to the people affected by it.

I would like your opinion. As members of Parliament, we've got lots of other ways to promote dialogue on an issue as important as the Indian Act without putting forward a private member's bill without consultation. How would you describe a proper process to begin to deal with this issue of the Indian Act?