Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2016

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the panellists for their presentations.

I find it ironic that we wouldn't be able to get an extension to look further into this issue. The government certainly has no problem right now in not respecting the orders of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal over first nations children.

This government has proposed a new relationship with indigenous peoples, based on the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I also heard the Prime Minister, not too long ago, almost a year ago, in Gatineau, promising to—and this is his word—“rescind” any legislation unilaterally imposed on indigenous peoples by previous governments. He did not say the “previous government”; he said “previous governments”.

When I heard that last year, my first thought was about the Indian Act. Naturally, of course, I think everybody thought about that.

I would like to put my question to Mr. Bertrand and Ms. Coté.

Do you think that the legislative proposal made by the Senate and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are compatible? You quoted a few articles of the declaration, such as article 33, but we are also concerned with article 9 here.

[Chief Robert Bertrand]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Saganash.

It's very important. It is also very interesting. What is throwing a wrench into the work is the famous deadline of February 2017. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples would certainly like more time. I think that everyone who spoke this afternoon said that they would like to have more time. Unfortunately, the Superior Court of Quebec imposed this date.

We discussed this at length and we came to the conclusion that we might be better off starting with this first step. We hope that the other questions will arise during the second phase. In fact, I am convinced that other topics will be added during the second phase.

Mr. Saganash, I would compare this to the situation of a person who is hungry and is looking at an apple tree. There are five or six apples that are ready to eat, but the others are not ripe. However, the fellow is hungry. Is he going to wait for all of the apples to be ripe before he eats them, or will he eat the five or six apples at the bottom of the tree? I am among those who would eat the apples at the bottom and wait for the others to ripen later.

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell]

I would totally agree with you.

We had a workshop in September, in Sudbury, and it was agreed that we have done quite a bit of work already within our own governance structure. We just need to get to the next phase, which will be the implementation. This is where we will be looking at phase 2 to assist us in the next phase of implementation of our citizenship act.

We need to start because it will help certain people. Otherwise, who knows how long it's going to take.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

But my question was specific.

Are these proposed amendments to the Indian Act compatible or consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell]

Well, you would have to tell me if they are.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

What do you think of this, Mr. Bertrand?

[Chief Robert Bertrand]

Mr. Saganash, I will let Mr. Coté answer that one. He's a lawyer.

[Frankie Coté, Senior Manager, Engagement, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples]

The answer to your question is, plain and simple, no.

This is being imposed. As was previously stated by Robert and Jeannette, as well as by the witnesses who appeared earlier, there's a tight deadline, and this is being done because of that tight deadline.

I would only hope that the government commits to first enacting UNDRIP, but also to enacting it within a certain form that's consistent with Canadian law.

I would hope that they would take article 33 in this case, and use that as a guide when they're moving on to stage 2 of this phase, because indigenous people should be able to determine their own citizenship. We're in this problem with the Indian Act because it's been unilaterally imposed since 1876.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I rest my case, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Thank you very much for the question and answer.

The next question is from Don Rusnak.

Go ahead, please.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I expire in 2020, and I don't need this piece of plastic to tell me who I am.

One of the questions I have is this. Who are these 35,000 people who are going to be able to get one of these? What are the benefits to them?

I'm one who looks at the long term, and where we should be going as nations. One of the things we're doing as the indigenous caucus of the Liberal government is looking at nation to nation, and what that will look like in the future. I was the executive director of Grand Council Treaty No. 3—it seems like forever ago—and we were developing our own laws. We had the natural resource law and a citizenship law, and it wasn't some other government or some act that told us who we were. We decided as a people, as a group, based on our cultures and traditions. In all honesty, I was learning because I grew up in the city of Thunder Bay. I grew up away from the culture and away from my people.

The other thing that strikes me while we're sitting here talking about citizenship or status is how ridiculous this conversation is. I was just talking to my colleague. Imagine someone from Norway right now watching us talk about other Canadian citizens governed by an act and fighting to be part of that and not being your own people. We have to move beyond the Indian Act, and I understand what you're saying. Mr. Viersen asked why we need those protections. The answer is because there's a certain class of people, and unfortunately there is a class of people who live in a lot of my first nation communities across my riding, who would suffer if the Indian Act were to disappear. I don't think a lot of Canadians understand that the dependency is so deep. The Indian Act did its job. It destroyed our people.

My first question is this. Who are the 35,000 people who would be helped by getting them under the Indian Act and getting them some of the benefits under the Indian Act? Can you answer that question, or should I be asking someone else that question?

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell]

I don't feel comfortable answering that question simply because it's a Quebec case, and it's a first nation in Quebec. If I look at the Indian Act and the implications for the non-recognition of certain members of their family, I can see the impact that it would have. Maybe they're going through the same process whereby their communities are dwindling, and there's seen to be extinction of those communities. Maybe that's what they're concerned about, and this would be a way of alleviating that problem so that there will continue to be members within that Abenaki first nation. For whatever reason, they're not recognized right now.

Sharon McIvor did it for her grandchildren, and then this is the next step. I believe my son's grandchildren would be affected like that. We haven't reached that point yet because we were so happy to get onto the first level, and I didn't realize the implications.

My opinion is that we cannot afford to lose any more of our people. If we can assist and ensure that they have that right to be part of their community, to be strong within their ties to their people, to me that's all we would need to know. They can trace their ancestry to one parent, so that would fall within our Anishinabek Nation E-dbendaagzijig citizenship act. I can see that being applicable there. Maybe we should share it with them.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I have a similar history. My mother regained her status. Again I hate saying that means something, but it does in a weird way. It's horrible that it does, but it does because it reconnected the community.

I come from a community that was flooded out, and a lot of people dispersed. What kept the members together was that we of course had other first nation communities around the area. The history was originally that they got kicked out of Quetico Provincial Park, and they dispersed. Some kept ties, and some didn't. Bringing that community back and getting a lot of the people together to have status under the Indian Act helped a bit to get that community spirit going again. I understand that part.

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell]

It's history, too. We have our own oral history, and that's part of that. That would just be verifying that.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

If we're making these amendments to a horrible piece of legislation, I understand the argument for putting it off to get it right, but if we rush this through, are we going to be letting people slip through the cracks? At least we're getting some people connected before.... In the case of some communities it may be too late. The rest of it can come in a second phase, as long as this government is committed to that phase, which I believe it is.

[Chief Robert Bertrand]

If you'll permit me, I'd like to answer your first question.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Be brief, if you can, because we're almost out of time.

[Chief Robert Bertrand]

Okay.

I believe it was INAC that came up with the number 35,000. If it came up with that number, then I am convinced that it has the necessary information to find out everyone it applies to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Thank you.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Perhaps that's something the clerk can ask the department—whether it has the list to get the information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Okay, good.

We are going to our final question of the round. It's a five-minute question, and it goes to David Yurdiga.

You have a full five minutes.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to welcome you guys to our committee here.

I think Bill S-3 is a good start, but I think it could have been much better if the consulting process were much longer. Obviously, we do feel for anybody who is going to be falling through the cracks.

Earlier we heard from National Chief Bellegarde regarding land adjustments. Do you agree that you cannot just give a person status without a land adjustment?

Does anyone want to answer that?

[Jeannette Corbiere Lavell]

Well, it's obvious. If you have more people, then you will have to expand.

Some of our first nations have been doing that, and they're making arrangements with municipalities that are surrounding those first nations, so that the land would be acquired and be able to be used by the first nation.

Land is a key part of our teachings, with our connection to the land and also with the waters that go with the land. These are all key resources, and our people recognize the importance of them, so land would have to be part of that.

We would have to include that in the second phase of the consultations, I'm sure.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

We were just looking at Bill S-3, and it is definitely going to bring more people to reserves. A lot of people want to attach their land and use the resources.

My biggest concern is that if there is no money attached to this, it's going to put a strain on a lot of the budgets for you guys and for the schooling, Can the schools accommodate it? There are other programs that will also be put under pressure.

Do you think that as part of implementing Bill S-3 there should be money attached to it?