Yes.
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.
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.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
As an Individual
Yes, absolutely.
I don't believe it is a partisan issue. I don't believe it is an issue between the sitting government and the opposition. In the end, whatever piece of legislation gets passed in the House of Commons will be implemented into law by the crown, and the crown needs to fulfill the duty to consult. If there were to be legislation proposed specifically to replace the Indian Act, or more generally that would apply to or affect treaty rights or aboriginal rights, I think that should reflect a consultation process with the affected first nations. If it's the Indian Act that is going to affect all first nations, then I believe, yes, that consultation process should take place.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
I fall under a very different set of circumstances right now with my private member's bill. As a first nations man, I have a unique opportunity. If we look back, three or four years ago the Indian Act wasn't on the radar. My purpose in introducing this private member's bill is to get the discussion going from a federal standpoint. That's what I believe is happening now. We've heard everyone talking about it in the back rooms, but no one has ever wanted to bring it forward and talk about it here in committee. I feel this is the ultimate place for this to be discussed, at formal meetings, where all governments—provincial, federal, and first nations—and opposition can hear it. This is a place where it can be honestly and openly discussed.
This legislation actually calls for somebody to report to Parliament on a process toward replacing the Indian Act. Currently in the Indian Act there's nothing that mandates the federal government to talk about the Indian Act and make changes in partnership with first nations. How do you feel about that? Do you think we should simply be maintaining the status quo, without any idea of allowing first nations to come forward and say, “Hey, we have an idea that would provide an opportunity for first nations to progress, new legislation that will help through economic opportunities”? How do you feel about that?
9:20 a.m.
As an Individual
Well, the status quo is not working for the average first nation person. I doubt very many people outside of the indigenous community are happy with the status quo on reserve or as it applies to status Indians.
The point I want to make with my comments today is that continuing with legislation, which is proposed and in some cases passed without consultation with first nations people, is itself a continuation of the status quo.
I respect your intention in bringing forward an attempt to change the Indian Act, but I think the whole process needs to be done in consultation with first nations people and other affected parties. If we engage in that sort of consultation before, during, and after those legislative processes, then I think there will be real transparency, real buy-in, and consequently a greater chance that those legislative changes actually lead to challenging the status quo.
Beyond that, there are many first nations in Canada, and not just first nations, but also regional organizations such as the Grand Council of Treaty No. 3 in northwestern Ontario, that have started, or in some cases implemented, alternatives to the Indian Act.
I would just like to say on the record that yes, the federal government needs to work with those first nations and regional organizations that are taking those concrete, positive steps. I hope there is the will on the part of the federal government to work with those organizations that are doing that and to figure out, in collaboration with them, what sort of resource allocation to those initiatives makes sense.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Do you feel the Indian Act will be dismantled in your lifetime?
9:25 a.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I do. In the last five years, beginning with the federal government's apology on Indian residential schools, and moving towards the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and then more recently with the coverage of the housing crisis in Attawapiskat, and then this past winter with the widespread attention to the Idle No More movement, I believe there is more and more attention being paid to indigenous issues in Canada than ever before.
I believe that, while it may be messy in the short term, in terms of the debate sometimes being rancorous, sometimes there being a lot of conflict, a lot of partisanship in some cases, in the end most Canadians are decent people, and most Canadians want positive outcomes for both themselves and for their fellow compatriots. In the long run those shared interests will lead us towards a path to get rid of this paternalistic piece of legislation that is currently on the books.
Today if I show the average Canadian a status card and ask them if it makes sense in 2013 to carry a race-based piece of identification around with me, most people will say, “No, that doesn't make sense. That doesn't sound like the Canada I know”.
However, it doesn't immediately follow that we should therefore just remove the Indian Act entirely. As I said in my comments, this piece of legislation has been on the books for a long time. People have made their life choices—where to live, what to do, how to earn a living—based on that existing legislation, so we can't just pull the rug out from under them. Rather, we need a very thorough consultation process, which is going to take their concerns into account, and in so doing, we're going to bring about a piece of legislation, and the ideal legislation in the long run is one that's actually going to last. It's not one that we'd legislate for a year or two, figure out that there are a whole bunch of problems with it, and then have to return to the table and start drafting a replacement for the replacement.
So I think the debate—
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Mr. Kinew, I hate to jump in here, but we have other folks who need to get in and question here.
We'll turn to Ms. Hughes now, for five minutes.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Kinew, I think you're absolutely right that this is about picking the low-hanging fruit as opposed to tackling the real problem, which is the relationship. By tackling the relationship, as you've indicated, the solutions will be there.
We've heard from a variety of witnesses who have indicated that the first people are the ones who will be able to assist in guiding this government in being able to have the proper legislation, if that's what needs to be in there, in ensuring that the relationship is rebuilt and, as well, ensuring their ability to govern on a nation-to-nation basis.
Mr. Clarke mentioned about feeling like a second-class citizen. I can tell you that when I spoke to Chief Moonias this week with respect to the string of suicides and the attempts of suicide in his community, he said that he thinks that they feel more like refugees than they do the first people in this country.
Also, Mr. Clarke mentioned that the Indian Act hasn't been on the radar. The fact of the matter is that if we're getting comments like that, then it's obvious the apology may have been for nothing, and the crown-first nations gathering may have been for nothing. The crown-first nations gathering was an opportunity for the government to have those discussions and consultations with the first nations, to be able to resolve the issues that the Indian Act has brought forward and the problematic areas that have come along the way. We've had successive governments that have refused basically to rebuild that relationship, so I understand that.
I want to ask you whether or not you think it is impossible or too onerous for the government to consult with the first nations. I know you mentioned that you feel that it can be done, but do you think that it's too onerous on them? My understanding is that if there's a will, there's a way. We're talking about 600 and some first nations, not 6,000 and some. Could you reflect on that and give me your point of view?
9:30 a.m.
As an Individual
I do not believe that the apology was an exercise in futility. Rather, I believe that the federal government's apology on Indian residential schools was a good thing. I saw in my own family the way that it made a positive impact on first nations people. My father went to residential school. I'm the first generation in my family who didn't go to residential school. My older cousins went to residential schools. The apology was not a panacea. It was not a miracle solution, but for some people, such as my father and my uncle, it did make a positive impact on their immediate well-being. That's the first thing I want to say.
The jury is still out on the outcome of how to assess the crown-first nations gathering. If we look back in 10 years and say that the meeting didn't have any impact, then perhaps it was an exercise in futility, but if this time period we're in right now ends up leading to some concrete, tangible outcomes for first nations people, then perhaps it was a step on the road to that. We'll see. The jury is still out.
With regard to your question, no, I don't believe that meaningful consultation is too onerous. I don't believe that the duty to consult is an onerous imposition on the crown. The honour of the crown is at stake.
The reason I said consultation needs terms of reference, a timeline, and resources to do so is that those are the things that need to be in place if we want things to actually happen. If you want something to happen, measure it. Let's put the measurements in place by which we can evaluate whether consultation has occurred.
Putting out the call to 633 first nations across Canada and other affected parties does not have to be a huge, onerous burden on the crown. That could be done reasonably within the existing resources allocated to the federal department, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, in my belief. Furthermore, the consultation process to actually bring in those voices, to aggregate them, and to work those into a piece of legislation that would legitimately replace the Indian Act could be done realistically as well. No, I don't believe it's too onerous.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. Kinew, for your interesting presentation.
What if the consultation does not lead to consensus? Where does that leave us?
9:30 a.m.
As an Individual
It's an interesting question, because it's one thing that first nations people grapple with all the time. I think we ought to look at it indigenous nation to indigenous nation. Are we likely to find consensus among all 633 first nations across Canada? Perhaps not. Is it more likely to find consensus among, say, all the Anishinaabe or Ojibway communities? Is it more likely to find a consensus among all the first nations within a given treaty area such as Treaty No. 3? I think that is more likely.
If we make the consultation process so that it's implemented on a regional level, I think we're more likely to hear a unity of voices, because the conditions within a given region, within a given people, are more similar than they are across the regions of Canada. That's why I suggested earlier that the consultation should be very regional in nature.
We also need to consider the fact that in replacing the Indian Act, it may not be a one-size-fits-all solution that comes next. As such, we ought to consider whether there would be one approach for communities in, say, the prairie region, while perhaps there's another approach that makes sense in Atlantic Canada. Perhaps there's another approach that makes sense on parts of the west coast. The way—
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Excuse me. I understand that. I need to move to a second question.
I understand the duty to consult, and I understand that it's enshrined in judicial decisions and in history, but some have suggested, and I think I might join them, that this proposed legislation sets out a pretty protracted duty to consult. As you know, and as we all agree, the Indian Act needs to be replaced, but no one seems to know exactly with what.
Clause 2 of this bill, as you cited in your opening comments, requires the minister to report annually to this committee regarding progress by his department “in collaboration with First Nations organizations and other interested parties”. I would suggest to you that this is a duty to consult.
I appreciate your comments about timeframe and resources, but it's quite conceivable that in this process in the first year the duty to consult might set out a timeframe or resources to lead to eventual replacement of the Indian Act, based on the consultation that you so rightly desire.
9:35 a.m.
As an Individual
I agree with your assessment that the duty to consult is important and it must be fulfilled; however, I don't think what's proposed in this legislation fulfills that criteria because, as I said in my comments, it's too vague, right? There's merely a requirement to report about progress and that this reporting happen annually. It doesn't mandate that progress actually be made. For all we know, the report every year could be “Well, there was no progress this year”.
If we really want that progress to occur, then we should set out the terms by which we are going to measure progress. What is progress? How does that look and what form does it take? Also, money talks. We want something to happen: measure it. Let's talk about money. Let's talk about the measurement of it. Let's talk about the timeline. By setting out those clear measurable objectives in that case, we may be able to make real progress.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Do you not agree that your people and your groups need to be consulted regarding the timeframe and the necessary resources?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
As an Individual
No, because the legislation has been tabled without consultation. Consultation should happen before legislation is tabled, before legislation is proposed.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
April 25th, 2013 / 9:35 a.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I just had a brief point that I wanted to clarify, and also a quick comment that of course we would agree that the residential school apology was absolutely essential and was a very important historical moment in Canadian history. I appreciate your talking about the impact on you and your family.
My point of clarification is with regard to your comments when you talked about timeframe references and terms of reference. I don't want to presume this, but I'm presuming that you would want the timeframe, the terms of reference, and the resource discussion to happen with first nations so that government—and this is not partisan, as I don't care which government it is—doesn't present this plan and say, “Well, take it or leave it.” I'm presuming that you want—
9:35 a.m.
As an Individual
To clarify, I should say explicitly that while I am advocating for a timeline, resource allocation, and a terms of reference, specifically those things should be arrived at in consultation with first nations people. Yes.