Evidence of meeting #18 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was criteria.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Anne Hart  Representative, Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland
Jaimie Lickers  Representative, Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

Colleagues, we'll call this meeting to order.

This is the 18th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Today we're continuing our study of Bill C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order.

Today we have two representatives from the Mi'Kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland, Anne Hart and Jamie Lickers.

We want to thank you for coming and for taking the time out of your busy schedules to join us this afternoon to speak on behalf of the assembly.

Ms. Hart, we'll turn it over to you for the first 10 minutes. We'll listen to what you have to say, and then we'll probably have a few questions for you.

3:30 p.m.

Anne Hart Representative, Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here, first of all, and for the invitation to make a submission.

My name is Anne Hart. I am a member of the Qalipu First Nation. I applied for my membership in 2011. I was granted membership and Indian status on January 26, 2012. I've also been a member of the Mi'Kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland since July 2013.

The Mi'Kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland opposes the enactment of Bill C-25. While the Conservative government claims that this bill is necessary for the finalization of the Qalipu band list and to ensure the integrity of the band, it is simply a further attempt to treat the Mi'kmaq people of Newfoundland differently from other status Indians in Canada and to shield the federal government and the band from liability for the mismanagement of the band enrolment process.

The assembly was formed in May 2013 as a result of the concerns that applicants and band members had over the handling of the enrolment process and the evaluation of the membership applications. The assembly is a non-profit organization that advocates for the fair and equal treatment of all Newfoundland Mi'kmaq people and for the fair evaluation of all applications for Qalipu band membership.

The assembly has currently a membership of 8,500 people. It consists of three important groups: band members such as myself, who have received their band membership and Indian status; applicants whose applications have not yet been processed to date; and applicants whose applications for their band membership have been rejected.

The history of the struggle of the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq dates back to 1949, when the Premier of Newfoundland stated that there were no Indians in Newfoundland. For decades the Mi'kmaq people of Newfoundland had their existence denied and were prevented from accessing programs and services available to other first nations people in Canada.

In 1989 the Federation of Newfoundland Indians brought an action in Federal Court seeking legal recognition for the Mi'kmaq people in Newfoundland and a declaration that Canada was discriminating against the Mi'kmaq people of Newfoundland. Two further decades of negotiations led to the signing of an agreement with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians to recognize the Mi'kmaq people of Newfoundland and to create the Qalipu band. The agreement was signed in June 2008.

The agreement sets out the eligibility criteria for band membership. An individual is eligible for the enrolment as a founding member of the band if the individual is of Canadian Indian ancestry; was a member of the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq community or a descendant of such a person; self-identified as a Mi'kmaq on the date of recognition order; and is accepted as a member of the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland.

The parties received far more applications than originally anticipated. By the application deadline of November 30, 2012, the enrolment committee had received approximately 105,000 applications. It became clear that the enrolment committee would not be able to evaluate all of these applications during the prescribed time period, and much uncertainty arose as to the outstanding applications. It is important to note that some families had as many as 300 people applying.

In July 2013 a supplementary agreement was entered into between the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and the federal government. The supplementary agreement modified the application of the eligibility criteria in important ways that made it more difficult for applicants to meet the criteria.

The changes contained within the supplementary agreement were not ratified by the membership of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians like the agreement in principle presented in 2008.

This was a hardship for those members who applied after the formal recognition of the band and required the production of extensive additional documentation including proof of frequent visits to the Mi'kmaq communities in Newfoundland, communications with members of the Mi'kmaq group of Indians, telephone records, travel itineraries, and evidence that individuals maintained a Mi'kmaq way of life prior to 2008.

This is what brings us here today to discuss Bill C-25.

First, clause 3 of the bill allows the Governor in Council to amend the Qalipu band order to remove individuals from the band list therefore revoking that individual's membership and Indian status. There is no limitation on the Governor in Council's ability to exercise this power. He is not required to act on the advice of the enrolment committee. This is not acceptable and opens the process to abuse.

Additionally, this process removes the power of the Indian registrar to remove names from the Indian registry which is the process followed by other status Indians in Canada. By removing this power from the registrar, individuals whose names are removed from the Indian registration will not have access to the protest provision in the Indian Act which allows an individual to protest the removal of his or her name from the Indian registry without retaining legal counsel.

Clause 4 is similarly problematic in that it removes the legal right of an individual to sue the federal government, the band, or the council for the wrongs that he or she may have suffered as a result of the mismanagement of the enrolment process.

The provision shields the federal government, the band, and its councils from any liability for gross negligence, for failing to consult, for breaching its duties to the Mi'kmaq people of Newfoundland, and breaching the honour of the crown.

This clause prevents individuals from recovering damages for loss of entitlements, for life decisions made in reliance on their entitlement to band membership and Indian status, as well as any costs associated when preparing their membership application.

Clause 4 represents a denial of fundamental legal rights guaranteed to all citizens of this country. It removes the right of individuals who have suffered harm from suing for damages.

Bill C-25 should not be enacted into law.

The documentation now being requested from applicants in order to substantiate their applications poses impossible hurdles for most applicants. These applicants were not notified in a timely fashion that they would require to keep and produce extensive records to prove their self-identification, community acceptance, and participation in cultural activity. They are now being asked to produced phone records, credit card statements, travel itineraries, application forms, government documents, and records some five years after the fact.

To now shield the federal government, the Qalipu band and its council from any liability for the mismanagement of the Qalipu enrolment process would be a fundamental denial of justice to the applicants and members who may lose their Indian status.

It is the assembly's recommendation that Bill C-25 be opposed and not be enacted into law. Alternatively, clause 3 of the bill should be struck and the normal process under the Indian Act should be used for the removal of names from the Qalipu band list and the Indian register. This will ensure that existing band members have meaningful access to the protest provision in the Indian Act.

As a further alternative, and at a minimum, clause 3 of the bill should be amended to clearly outline the basis on which the Governor in Council may act to remove the name from the Qalipu band list. The wording of this clause should be revised to ensure that the Governor in Council cannot solely make the decision to remove individuals from the list.

Clause 4 should be struck in its entirety. Individuals who have been wronged by the mismanagement of the Qalipu enrolment process should have access to appropriate legal recourse. Alternatively, this clause should be revised to narrow the limitation of liability.

Thank you very much for allowing me to provide this information. I certainly will be open to questions.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

Thank you, Ms. Hart. We appreciate your opening submission.

We'll now turn to Ms. Crowder for the first round of questions.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Thank you, Ms. Hart, for your submission.

There were a couple of points in your submission that I wanted to clarify with you.

As you're aware, last week we had the minister before the committee. We were seeking clarification from him on certain aspects of the bill. Specifically with regard to clause 3, with regard to the Governor in Council, we asked the minister and the department to clarify the process by which names would come to the Governor in Council for additional removal.

Minister Valcourt indicated to the committee that the Governor in Council would not be making unilateral decisions, and that they would be acting based only on recommendations made by the enrolment committee. Minister Valcourt confirmed that would be the case, that the enrolment committee would be making those recommendations, not the Governor in Council or the minister.

I don't know if you have any comments on that process.

3:40 p.m.

Representative, Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland

Anne Hart

I'm glad to hear the decision will not be made solely by the Governor in Council. I wasn't aware of this discussion.

However, the enrolment committee has been part of the whole process from the beginning. For the people, like me, who are holding their status cards, I have a letter stating that I am now a status Indian. I received a letter from the enrolment committee stating very clearly that I meet the criteria. So my question now would be to the enrolment committee and certainly not to the Governor in Council, and that is, what criteria would you be making to remove my name, if it were me, for instance, from the Qalipu band list?

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

You raised the issue around the protest provision. Again, my understanding is that as of the 2011 supplemental agreement, all applications received prior to that date are being reviewed under the criteria that has been clarified in the 2011 supplemental agreement. Again, some clarification...because we're using two different pieces of language, and I know they're two different matters. My understanding again is that if the enrolment committee makes a decision to remove somebody's name from the band list, there is an appeals process outlined in the criteria for a member to appeal that decision. There's an appeals master.

You rightly point out that the Indian Act, and my colleague pointed out section 14.2, allows a protest provision. Are you suggesting there should be both an appeals process and a protest mechanism?

3:45 p.m.

Representative, Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland

Anne Hart

Maybe you could respond, Jaimie.

3:45 p.m.

Jaimie Lickers Representative, Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland

I'd be happy to speak to that issue, if the committee would prefer, given that Ms. Hart is not a lawyer.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Please do, Ms. Lickers.

3:45 p.m.

Representative, Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland

Jaimie Lickers

We understand there is a process under the agreement for the appeal of decisions. However, on this particular point, dealing with clause 3, we're dealing with a limited group of individuals who have already received Indian status.

Individuals in Canada who have received Indian status have a process under the Indian Act, whereby a certain process is followed if they're going to have their status revoked and their membership removed. When that happens, those individuals have access to the protest provision in the Indian Act.

Any differential treatment to members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq band who are status Indians under the Indian Act today is differential treatment under the law.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

This is not a question that we asked the department when they were here. Have you clarified that the protest provision will not apply?

3:45 p.m.

Representative, Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland

Jaimie Lickers

The protest provision could apply.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Right.

3:45 p.m.

Representative, Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland

Jaimie Lickers

But the case law under the protest provision says that the registrar cannot go behind an order in council.

If the registrar removes an individual's name from the Indian registry or from a membership list because that name has been removed from an order in council, recent case law says the registrar has no discretion and must remove that individual's name from the registry and from the membership list.

The protest provision on the surface remains available, but the case law makes it clear that any appeal of the registrar's decision, if his decision is based on an order in council, the result is predetermined.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

So what we really do need is clarification with regard to that particular section of the Indian Act, because at this point what I'm understanding you to say is there is an appeal process and that the protest provision is available but unlikely to be applied based on case law. That's what I'm understanding you to say. Am I correct?

3:45 p.m.

Representative, Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

That's a point of clarification that we're going to require.

3:45 p.m.

Representative, Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland

Jaimie Lickers

It's important to keep in mind that the protest provision under the Indian Act is meant to be a very informal process that an individual can access by way of writing a letter and submitting affidavit evidence and any other forms of evidence that the registrar will accept.

It's a very accessible process for individuals, as opposed to following the appeal procedure under the agreement and then having to go to either a judicial review application or to go to court and retain counsel to challenge that decision. They're two distinct processes and one of them is very accessible and one of them is not.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

I only have 20 seconds so I'll conclude.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

Thanks, Ms. Crowder.

We'll turn to Mr. Strahl.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

Thank you for coming.

I did have some questions regarding who you're representing, basically. I think you mentioned at the beginning of your comments 8,000 or 9,000 members?

3:50 p.m.

Representative, Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland

Anne Hart

There are 8,500 members.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

Right in the middle: 8, 500 members.

How does one become a member? Is it a proactive thing, that they approach you, and they request to be represented by you? How did those 8,500 people come to be represented by your organization?

3:50 p.m.

Representative, Mi'kmaq First Nations Assembly of Newfoundland

Anne Hart

How it began was the organization was first known as the watchdog group. Then they incorporated themselves. A lot of it is by word of mouth and since the incorporation they've got the information out to the people who have concerns, who have put in their application, did not have their application processed, or they had their application sent in and they got a rejection letter.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

Does someone take out a membership or just indicate that they would like to join your group?

I guess I'm trying to figure out.... There are 101,000 applicants, and 8,500 have.... Tell me how someone comes to be a member of your organization.