Evidence of meeting #69 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was right.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I call to order this 69th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
For the first hour today we have a witness coming to us via video conference from Winnipeg. He will be with us for the first hour. We already have panellists for the second hour joining us. They will be here to answer questions in the second hour.
Mr. Kinew, we'll turn it over to you for the first 10 minutes, and then we'll have some questions for you.
8:50 a.m.
As an Individual
Okay, thank you.
[Witness speaks in Ojibwa]
I'll wait for the simultaneous translation to catch up there. No, it's okay, I'm just kidding.
Good morning, relatives. My name is Wab Kinew. I'm the director of indigenous inclusion at the University of Winnipeg where I'm in the process of setting up programs that help to connect indigenous people with the mainstream economy in a way that respects indigenous values.
In the Ojibwe introduction that I just gave to you, I told you about my lineage. I said I'm a member of the lynx clan. My people are known as the Lake of the Woods Anishinaabe. My father is Tobasonakwut, my grandfather the original Wabanakwut, and they gave to me the Anishinaabe way. My father spoke to me in the Anishinaabe language. Through them I learned Anishinaabe law.
That is correct: we have Anishinaabe law, a law that tells us to take care of each other. I think others should understand this. We, as indigenous nations, the Anishinaabe being but one example, have laws and governance systems that are still valid, in effect, and relevant to our modern conduct. My introduction refers to many of these laws, to my clan, to my family, to my membership in the spirit lodge Midewin. All of these things ascribe rights, responsibilities, and define my expected conduct within Anishinaabe society. If more people understood our laws and cultures, we could bring about reconciliation between indigenous people and other Canadians.
The Indian Act as it exists right now is an affront to these indigenous systems of law, culture, and governance. The Indian Act asserts the supremacy of western law and implies that indigenous law and culture do not have value. By imposing a system of governance on us you tell us that we do not know how to govern ourselves.
This may sound abstract. However, Chandler and Lalonde have found that cultural continuity is a hedge against suicide in first nations in British Columbia. American research suggests that native youth who are active in their cultures are less likely to use drugs and alcohol. If this is what the research tells us, why do we continue with an approach that undermines these cultures and that implies that indigenous nations do not have value? The proper course of action is to help indigenous people revitalize our own cultures and communities. The first step toward helping that take place is meaningful consultation. By consulting with indigenous people you send a message that you value us, our culture, and are therefore interested in a new relationship that is not coloured by the paternalism of the past.
The Indian Act has been very damaging in that it has removed opportunities, made dependence the easiest path for many, and led to the damaging residential school era. I'm against the Indian Act. The real issue is not whether or not to replace the Indian Act, but how to do it. Status Indians and others affected by the act have made life choices according to situations that have been created in part by the legislation. We have decided where to live, whom to live with, and how to earn a living based, in part, on the Indian Act. To change it or remove it without consulting us is not right. First nations people deserve to have our voices heard in designing whatever is to replace the Indian Act for that reason alone. However, results of the duty to consult changes to the Indian Act will affect treaty rights and aboriginal rights, so some meaningful consultation should occur.
I realize that I and other first nations people have been invited to provide comment, but I do not believe this fulfills the crown's duty to consult. Is there transparency as to why I and others invited to speak were chosen? Has a call gone out generally to everyone affected by the Indian Act to provide comment? Is there any assurance that the opinions we provide will be reflected in the handling of the bill? A thorough consultation would not leave room for these questions; hence, I do not believe that the duty to consult is being fulfilled.
There is a proposed provision in Bill C-428 to provide for reporting on collaboration between the federal government, first nations, and other interested parties to develop new legislation to replace the Indian Act. However, this is too vague to represent meaningful consultation. All it requires is that a report be made. I worry that such a report will simply say there has been no progress towards replacing the Indian Act.
If consultation with first nations is a real priority, then it should happen before a bill is tabled, not after. If there is a real desire for it to happen, then we should also spend some time drafting the terms of reference, allocating resources, and setting timelines for that process. We should not merely say, “Let us have a report once a year”. Instead, since Bill C-428 is a piece of legislation designed without meaningful consultation with the first nations people upon whom it will be imposed, it is paternalistic in the tradition of the existing Indian Act.
Solutions imposed from outside of indigenous communities do not work. They have not worked for the past 140 years. Replacing a paternalistic Indian Act with a paternalistic act to amend the Indian Act is not real progress. We must replace the Indian Act, but we must replace it with legislation that has been designed at least in meaningful consultation with, if not entirely by, indigenous people.
The proposed provisions within Bill C-428 are fairly innocuous. I do not think you would find very many people who would argue in favour of residential schools or keeping the laws that made them possible on the books. However, does anyone really fear that the federal government will start funding residential schools again if the Indian Act is left the way it is? I do not think so. So removing these provisions represents picking the low-hanging fruit, if you will. That may not sound too bad, but in a world of limited resources, picking the low-hanging fruit comes at the expense of tackling the more challenging aspects of the relationships between Canada and the indigenous people.
There must be a legal interface between the Anishinaabe law, of which I spoke earlier, and Canadian law, and we have an interface already, interfaces actually. They are called treaties. We should be focusing our attention on honouring the spirit and intent of the treaties. Spending our time tinkering around the edges of the Indian Act distracts us from what we should really be doing to improve the relationship between indigenous people and other Canadians: honouring the treaties in the treaty areas and respecting aboriginal title in the non-treaty areas.
Furthermore, there is only a limited amount of political capital available in this country to deal with indigenous issues. If we expend it on this bill, I worry there may not be enough left over to tackle the real problems in first nations communities. When I visit reserves across this country, the problems I hear about over and over again are suicide, prescription drug abuse, and the lack of opportunity. We should be focusing on tackling these problems. You will recall that Chandler, Lalonde, and others have found that culture, and consequently the indigenous laws embodied therein, can help deal with some of those issues. Let us devote our energies to improving the relationship between indigenous people and Canada and to responding to the immediate crises many first nations people face today.
Based on these remarks, I have three recommendations: one, that the federal government engage both first nations politicians and grassroots indigenous people in a meaningful consultation about replacing the Indian Act, meaningful consultation meaning a consultation process where the opinions expressed by those first nations and indigenous people are not only heard, but reflected in future legislation; two, that this consultation happen before any act to replace the Indian Act is tabled; and three, that you withdraw Bill C-428 as an act of good faith until such meaningful consultations take place.
Meegwetch. Merci. Thank you much.
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you very much.
We'll begin the questions with Mr. Bevington, for seven minutes.
8:55 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mahsi Cho, Mr. Kinew.
I'm from the Northwest Territories. That's my riding. I represent five indigenous first nation regions in the Northwest Territories and one Inuvialuit. We certainly, as well, have very strong Métis people in the Northwest Territories.
I agree with your sentiments. We're dealing here with a private member's bill that was brought forward. It's not even a government bill. What we have here is that the individual has brought forward a bill, hasn't demonstrated consultation with first nations, and really is, as you said, occupying a lot of our committee time here that could well be put to other purposes.
Do you think it would be appropriate for us now to simply put forward a motion to Parliament to withdraw this bill?
8:55 a.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I do. I do not begrudge MP Rob Clarke for making an attempt to tackle the problems posed by the Indian Act. I think that the sentiment is good. However, as I stated in my comments, to me the real challenge is not whether or not to get rid of the Indian Act, but rather what is the process that is going to replace it going to look like.
If we are starting down a path that is all about imposing legislation without consultation with first nations people, then I don't think that's the right path. If we are going to really devote the time, energy, and resources and if we are really committed to doing this right and moving past the Indian Act era, then the process by which the legislation is designed and then ultimately implemented is very important and it needs to reflect a new relationship, which is one that I see embodied by many Canadians from coast to coast to coast, which is that people want to move past the era of paternalism.
What I see happening more and more today is that people understand that indigenous peoples have our own cultures, our own laws, our own ways of doing things, and that these are worthy of respect and they need to be taken into account when legislation is being designed.
Yes, I would agree with such a motion, mainly because I think that the bill as proposed is set on a foundation that is one of paternalism and does not reflect true consultation with first nations people.
9 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I recognize my colleague's desire to change things as well. I don't see it as a bad thing, but I do see that there needs to be a statement made here.
We've seen legislation come forward from this government in the last two years that has not been subject to consultation in a meaningful fashion. I agree with you on the importance of this government and the rest of us legislators understanding that first nations need to be the prime movers in the development of new legislation. It fits with the concepts of self-government that we're working on in the Northwest Territories and across the country. Those concepts should be the paramountcy I believe in much of what's going ahead here.
How can we talk about self-government without the first nations giving us the answers that we need to make the legislation here in Parliament meaningful? How can self-government work in the future without that clear understanding on our part as legislators?
9 a.m.
As an Individual
No, I don't think it can. I think that ultimately federal politicians definitely have a role to play in helping to bring about positive change for first nations people in Canada, but I don't believe that the role is to dictate what is to take place in first nations and other indigenous communities.
Rather, once first nations have a model and a system that's based in their culture and that is applicable in the contemporary realities of funding agreements and bylaws and things like that, once we have a system like that, then I think the role of federal politicians is to support those things to figure out what sort of allocation of resources makes sense and to figure out this idea that I mentioned of an interface between Canadian law and indigenous law.
I think that the contemporary role for federal politicians, if we want to get the relationship right, is to collaborate and not to dictate. It's to identify where things are going right, to see who is actually taking concrete steps towards improving their communities and to work with them. If we're going to continue to have a one-directional conversation, then that does not represent a step forward in the relationship; rather, it's a continuation of the relationship that has been the norm in Canada for the past 140 or so years.
9 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thank you very much.
My time has pretty well run out. I think you've expressed the feeling on this side of the table. I'll leave it at that.
9 a.m.
Conservative
9 a.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
Thank you, Chair, and my thanks to Wab Kinew for taking time out of his busy day to share with us his thoughts on this topic.
I think we all agree that we need to move beyond the paternalistic Indian Act, but the question is how, and what we should replace it with. Mr. Clarke's intention with the bill was to start the conversation and take concrete action to enhance the lives of first nations people.
Could you share with us what you imagine replacing the Indian Act with? It would be something which the aboriginal communities can buy into, but what kind of a program, what kind of a process, would it be?
9:05 a.m.
As an Individual
As I said, I respect Mr. Clarke's intention in designing this bill.
The proper way to go about a meaningful consultation process to replace the Indian Act would be one which sets out a timeframe, sets out the resources it's going to take to get the consultation done, and drafts the terms of reference for that consultation.
I realize there's been an attempt in this bill to provide for some consultation. This is reflected in the requirement for a report to be made annually on the progress of the collaboration. However, the way we operate in the contemporary world is that if you want something to get done, you have to measure it. If we want this consultation process to go forward, and we want it to be transparent, and we want it to be designed in such a way that there won't be ongoing questions about whether or not it was a meaningful consultation or whether the duty to consult was fulfilled, then we should set out the specifics as to how we are going to measure the outcomes of that consultation process.
To me the key pieces of the process are that there be a timeline, that there be resources devoted to the consultation process, and that the terms of reference be drafted. Beyond that, for it to be recognized broadly as a meaningful consultation, it can't just be that we have people coming forward to speak their piece, but then we go ahead and draft the legislation according to our own desires anyway. Rather, it should be inclusive of those voices that are heard within the consultation process. Meaningful consultation is one in which consultation occurs, and the voices from that consultation process are reflected within the legislation that is eventually tabled.
Those are the key aspects as I see them. I think there are a number of reasons for this. First of all, there's the crown's duty to consult. Beyond that it's just a matter of rightfulness to consult with the people who are going to be affected by the legislation.
Finally, if you want to speak of political expediency, if you have people's buy-in obtained through consultation, then I think there is a greater chance of success that the legislation will be embraced after it is passed and that consequently it will lead to more positive results.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
Do you think that this bill is a step in the right direction in helping us move past the current Indian Act?
9:05 a.m.
As an Individual
I don't believe it's a step in the right direction, because it's a continuation of the history of imposed legislation within Canada. As I said, I believe the intention behind the legislation is good. The desire to change the Indian Act is something I agree with. However, because of my analysis of it, which is basically that there has not been thorough consultation with first nations people in designing the bill, I think it is just a continuation of the existing policies of paternalism rather than being a real step in the right direction.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
Mr. Clarke has introduced the bill with the idea of an incremental approach. What are your thoughts on bringing the bill forward in small segments?
9:05 a.m.
As an Individual
I believe that pragmatism and considering political reality, I think, are really important, especially when we're dealing with issues like the Indian Act, which the average Canadian may not thoroughly understand. I respect that approach. However, I still think that every step we take down the road towards replacing the Indian Act should reflect a renewed commitment to a nation-to-nation relationship. It should reflect a new understanding, one which consults with first nations people.
If we are to proceed in one giant leap, which would replace the Indian Act in one fell swoop, or whether we are to legislate those changes incrementally, piece by piece, I think that either course of action we take, the first nations people must be consulted prior to those steps being taken.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
Given the fact that there are over 600 different bands, how would we consult with everyone? What are your thoughts on how we can maximize the consultation process?
9:10 a.m.
As an Individual
I think the federal government has extensive experience in doing consultations not only with indigenous people, but also broadly in other areas like the environment. I think that having consultation meetings regionally and then having those findings reported back at a national level is a legitimate approach. I think that we also need to do a fair bit of outreach. While there are certainly a great number of people who are really engaged with the political process in indigenous communities, there is also a fair degree of apathy among some of the people who may be most affected by this bill.
In addition to a consultation process that happens within the regions and not just in Ottawa, I'd also like to see a fair degree of outreach, which could take the form of marketing efforts, or it could take the form of ground level grassroots outreach.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Thank you very much.
As my colleagues on this side have said, I think we agree with you totally that this bill should just be withdrawn and that we should proceed with a proper process for replacing the Indian Act.
Seeing that you're here with us and somehow the government has decided to support what you have called a paternalistic act to replace the paternalistic Indian Act, it gets in the way of moving forward in a meaningful way to begin that consultation and the real work that needs to be done.
You, with 8th Fire, have done amazing work in trying to get indigenous issues on the radar of the 96% of Canadians who aren't from an indigenous background. I was grateful for your description of the kind of process that it would take with first nations, but I wonder if you have thought about how you would advise the crown to also begin the process of educating those 96% of Canadians about the need to get rid of the Indian Act and get rid of it now, in terms of what they see and what you've described with Chandler and Lalonde. How do we get there? As you know, political will comes when all the people of Canada say to the government to get on with this now, please.
How do we do a better job explaining that this isn't an Indian problem, that this is a Canadian problem and that we need all Canadians to be onside to increase the political will of a government to get on with it and do the job?
9:10 a.m.
As an Individual
I agree with your assessment that having non-indigenous people in Canada buy into the need to replace the Indian Act is very important. That will generate the political capital necessary to engage in this wide-ranging consultation process that I've outlined in a few of the answers and in my comments.
Having worked in the media as a daily news reporter for a number of years, I can tell you that issues like the Indian Act and the rationale behind why consultation with first nations needs to occur, these are complex issues that are not easily explained in a two-minute news story or in a 700-word column within a newspaper. It is definitely a challenging exercise.
However, every year the government sets out its priorities. I think one step would be for the federal government to make this a priority, and consequently, the media would be forced to do a better job in explaining what the issues are and what the duty to consult is.
Beyond that, I think there's a real challenge in Canada within our education system at the elementary, secondary, and post-secondary levels about how we teach indigenous history and indigenous issues today. I think in the long run we want to look at those things and make sure that the place first nations people, Métis people, and Inuit people occupy within the fabric of the country is properly taught. That's the long-term solution.
I think the immediate solution, one which federal politicians can engage their constituents in, is to make this a talking point. Whatever your assessment is of the Indian Act, or the policy alternatives that could potentially replace it, I think there's widespread agreement that the status quo doesn't work. On one side of the spectrum you have people who think the act is offensive and paternalistic. On the other side you have people who may not be against the way the act is approached, but who just resent the current status quo on reserves. They too would want to see the Indian Act changed.
I think it's working from that common ground where federal politicians say, “We're tired of the status quo. Let's do something to change the status quo. In order not to have to revisit this issue again in a year, when the next first nations housing crisis or another thing pops up in the news, let's do it right. Let's get it right this time.”
The way to get it right is to engage in the consultation process with first nations, to fulfill the duty to consult, and to make sure that whatever legislation eventually gets passed reflects that consultation process right back, even before the legislation is tabled.
It's a sentiment that I agree with, and it's something that all politicians may be able to play a role in bringing about.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
In my riding, we're calling it Idle “Know” More in trying to make sure that we play a role in eradicating the ignorance and getting on with it.
We're also impressed with what they've done in New Zealand, where Maori studies are taught from kindergarten to grade 8. It's been over a year since the TRC recommended the curricula changes. Obviously some provinces and territories have begun that, but I guess we feel that this has to be done at all levels of government, from school boards to us as federal politicians.
Thank you for all you do in being able to tell the story in a way that all Canadians can understand. It's a really important role that you play.
Meegwetch.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Kinew, for your testimony today.
I look at the Indian Act and it goes back 137 years of maintaining the status quo. We've seen approximately 16 attempts to try and change the Indian Act, but it has always been met with failure.
I look at the Indian Act, and then I look at apartheid in South Africa which took the Indian Act and used it as a template. Currently in South Africa, they don't have apartheid, but here we have 137 years of the Indian Act, which is still in place, which governs the day-to-day lives of first nations.
In your series, 8th Fire, people came forward to be interviewed and provided their life experiences. Everyone says to get rid of the Indian Act. We hear it from the AFN leaders. We hear it from leaders all across Canada. They say to get rid of the Indian Act, but no one ever seems to want to do it.
Being a first nations man myself living under the Indian Act, I don't have the same rights as my non-aboriginal colleagues here have. I feel like I'm being treated as a second-class citizen being dictated to in my day-to-day life. Then I hear the word “consultation”. I'd like to get some clarification from you, Wab. On every piece coming forward from the opposition, either a motion that affects first nations or a private member's bill, do you feel that they should be consulting across Canada with every first nations group?