Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 2nd, 2013

[Chief Robert Louie]

I think we've indicated quite clearly what we think works: the land management process. If the land management process were opened up to all first nations—at least the opportunity—that relationship would certainly be beneficial to everyone concerned. That's one of governance. That is capacity recognition. I think that's where the focus has to lie. I think that has to be the future. That's where you're going to have consequential things really happen.

[Chief Austin Bear]

I thank you for raising that concern and issue, Mr. Bevington.

When you mention treaty implementation.... In my comments earlier I was responding to your question: Do we need an Indian Act? Does it have to even exist? My answer to that is no. We don't need an Indian Act, particularly with respect to treaties, as I was trying to relate to the committee, and particularly the numbered treaties. We have an agreement between the nations that signed the numbered treaties. What we needed then and need now, for lack of a better term, is a treaty implementation act that identifies, determines, and binds the legal requirements of both parties to the treaty agreements. That's what I was alluding to.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Does anyone else have a last comment on this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. George-Wilson.

[Leah George-Wilson]

Thank you.

If we have to have an Indian Act, yes, there need to be changes, but not in a piecemeal way. It needs to be in a more fulsome manner, with a process for first nations to have options and to be consulted. If we don't have to have an Indian Act, then we're talking about self-government, and then we're talking about treaties and some kind of agreement between the crown and individual first nations. It doesn't need to be the Indian Act, but it needs to be something.

[Chief Austin Bear]

I do have one more comment, sir, if I may.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Okay, we'll turn to the chief and then we'll finish up.

[Chief Austin Bear]

Very briefly, we're going down the same road with Parliament and the government in power. I'm going to take you back to just leading up to 1930. The very same thing occurred, where the government, with its will and authority, because of a majority government, or whatever the case was, enacted a natural resource transfer act or agreement that impacted on first nations land, without any consultation in those treaty nations and those treaty areas about how it impacted on the first nations in Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. To this very day, our resources, without any compensation or opportunity for benefits from the resources and our treaty lands, have been wiped out by that natural resource transfer agreement.

There was a dreadful error made then by government, and as far as the numbered treaty nations in those three prairie provinces are concerned, I will speak again about making further detriments, by legislation, to the first nations of those treaty areas. I speak from the position of treaty, not from the strengths or weaknesses or impositions or imperfections of the Indian Act. I speak of a higher agreement, and that is the nation-to-nation agreement with respect, at least, to the numbered treaties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much, Chiefs. We want to thank you for being here and for bringing testimony.

Ms. George-Wilson, we appreciate your testimony. And, gentlemen, thanks for joining us.

Colleagues, we'll suspend this meeting for the next five minutes to greet our guests, and then we'll proceed with the next portion of our meeting.

[Chief Austin Bear]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll call the meeting back to order, recognizing Ms. Crowder.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move a motion that pursuant to Standing Order 97(1), the committee report to the House a recommendation that Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Indian Act (publication of by-laws) and to provide for its replacement, not be further proceeded with. I'm going to give you the following reasons.

Again, I want to recognize Mr. Clarke's work on this, and certainly he has accomplished his objective of having us talk about the Indian Act; however, I think with the number of witnesses who have come forward and expressed grave concerns about various sections of this bill, it requires much more study and consideration of the implications. I am suggesting that we do not proceed with this piece of legislation at this time and that we go back to the drawing board on it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

Ms. Bennett.

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

I would support the motion, in that I believe we've heard many witnesses to that effect, and there is great concern that this has been done without prior consultation. However well intentioned it was, the unintended consequences, but also the lack of consultation, mean that we ought not to proceed, and we would, again, be prepared to give all-party consent, I believe, to have it withdrawn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll move to a vote on the motion. I think we've heard the terms of the vote.

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

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We're being asked for a recorded vote. We will proceed.

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That motion is defeated. We'll begin the process of moving through clause-by-clause consideration.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), the consideration of the preamble and clause 1, the short title, are postponed to the end.

(On clause 2—Report by Minister)

I recognize that a number of amendments are being proposed. Government amendment G-1, I believe, would be the first that we consider.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've heard the testimony from the witnesses, and I'd like to propose an amendment that would require the minister to report within the first 10 sitting days that Parliament sits in each new calendar year, rather than January 31. Since the House does not resume sitting each year until the last Monday in January, as set out in Standing Order 28(2)(a), this amendment would ensure that the minister has a period of 10 sitting days at the beginning of each calendar year to fulfill the reporting requirement.

The amendment also makes the correction to the minister's title in the English version, since his legal title, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the title in the French version, which is le ministre des Affaires indiennes et du Nord canadien, are correct.

The proposed amendment would replace “First Nations organizations” with “First Nations”. This would respond to committee testimony where witnesses stated that discussions must occur with first nations as the treaty rights holders, and not their political organizations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Clarke.

Before we proceed, I have some details with regard to this vote. I want you to note that if amendment G-1 is adopted, amendment G-6 will also be adopted, as it is consequential. Also, if G-1 is adopted, the question cannot be put on amendment NDP-1, as they both amend the same lines. The question on amendment NDP-5 also cannot be put.

Ms. Crowder.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I didn't realize that amendment NDP-1 wouldn't be allowed to be moved if this one were adopted, so I'm going to speak where I wasn't intending to, since I will be surprised if this motion doesn't pass.

We will not be able to support this amendment. This does not deal with the issues around consultation with first nations to establish appropriate terms of reference, identify the resources required, set timelines for the process, and so on.

Again, this is a very vague clause. There is nothing that would hold the government to account for what it's proposing. Also, it is again being done without the involvement of first nations, who would be directly impacted, so we cannot support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

I'm not seeing any additional speakers on amendment G-1. We'll move to a vote.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 7 negatived)

(Clause 8 agreed to)

(On clause 9)

On clause 9, I recognize there are some amendments, specifically amendment G-2. Would somebody move amendment G-2?

Mr. Clarke.

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

Mr. Chair, as noted in the response, the government's amendment number 2 clarifies the manner in which bylaws enacted under the Indian Act will come into force and provides first nations with discretion to provide an alternate coming into force date, something that is currently not available under section 81 and section 85.1 of the Indian Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Clarke, have you finished?

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

The proposed amendment would repeal subsection 85.1(3). This would maintain the first nations' bylaw-making authorities to regulate intoxicants on first nations reserves, ensuring that all 259 bylaws currently in force remain in force. The amendment would repeal only subsection 85.1(3), which requires that copies of bylaws enacted under section 85.1 be sent to the minister within four days of their enactment. Removing the requirement for bylaws to be forwarded to the minister is consistent with clause 8 of the bill, which eliminates the requirement for copies of bylaws enacted under section 81 to be forwarded to the minister within four days.