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

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Is there anyone else?

Yes, please.

[Marilee Nowgesic, Special Advisor, Liaison, Native Women's Association of Canada]

With regard to some of the time constraints, it's not really our business to tell you how to do your business, but from what we have heard just in the one session we were fortunate enough to have on September 28 this year with women of the communities from across this country, a card will not make me expire.

You cannot tell me who will be and who will not be an Indian. What do you want us to start doing—in-breeding in communities so that we can retain membership? What do you want us to start doing? We've already given up enough.

I'm trying to think of the frustration they had. Do you realize that they were given only half a day to talk about this very important issue, without even having had prior time to study the document, to review it, to have some input with their communities or with the women in their communities who are facing some of the issues regarding membership, citizenship, equality, and the rights that are inherent to them?

Do you realize the frustration that the registrar of the department felt when she got into that room and was totally overwhelmed by the number of cases that have been going on for seven or eight years, and then this came about? How much are we going to prolong the backlog?

Our solution is to hire more people who know how to deal with these issues, who know how to look at genealogy and do research and get it done for you.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

There is just half a minute, if you'd like to go ahead, Chief Stonefish.

[Grand Chief Denise Stonefish]

Yes, I'll be quick. I won't repeat anything that has been said previously, because I agree with a lot of the things that have been said.

One other thing we need to consider too is that this has caused different classes even within our own nations. I think we really need to have meaningful dialogue, and I believe from what has been said today that NWAC and other women's groups are ready and willing for dialogue. Even the first nations across the country are ready for this nation-to-nation dialogue on this, and we need to do something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Okay, thank you for that.

We'll move to the next questioner now, which is Romeo Saganash.

Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been in this business for more than 40 years now, and to wrap my head around this one is perhaps the most difficult task I've had in those 40 years, really. How do you “improve” racist, colonial, paternalistic, archaic legislation? You can't do that, right? I think a lot of people in this room understand that.

Are we to continue on that path, National Chief, or do you view this as an opportunity to change to something that's really nation to nation? You mentioned that we need to take the time. I noted those words. The National Chief misunderstood. He thought he had 10 minutes. He took four. I'll give him the next five.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Thank you very much, my friend.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

Romeo, it's a good question, and it's a question about continuing down this path. It really is. I stressed earlier on, to all the honourable members, the process of moving beyond the Indian Act. It's been here since 1876, and that's not where our rights flow from. We have inherent rights. This particular issue about citizenship is fundamental to who we are as nations. I'm going to encourage the members of Parliament here to encourage the Prime Minister and cabinet to make sure those processes to move beyond the Indian Act are in place. Whether you do it band by band, or treaty area by treaty area, or nation by nation, work toward another jurisdiction, and work toward recognition of the ultimate dream of us indigenous peoples.

When you go back to the RCAP report, it speaks about another jurisdiction and another law recognized in Canada, in addition to common law and civil law, and that's first nations law and the recognition of first nations governments. That's the ultimate goal and where we're going to have to work. That means moving beyond the Indian Act, but it also means recognizing our rights and title.

The most fundamental right we have is the inherent right to self-determination, to determine our own citizens and to determine our own forms of government. That's what we have to do. We have to make space in this beautiful country called Canada for our laws to be recognized. You have only common law and civil law. There's first nations law, and there's the Creator's law. Where's the space for that? That's what reconciliation will mean. Once that's recognized, we can move beyond the Indian Act. If we stay under this Indian Act, within 50 years there will be no more status Indians in this country called Canada, and we don't want that. Our children and grandchildren don't want that. It's respect for rights and title and jurisdiction, and it has to be comprehensive. It has to be linked, as well, fiscally. It all has to be linked. To me, that's the process we have to embark on.

It can't be done right away. There's fear even among our chiefs. “Oh, if you do away with the Indian Act, what will replace it?” I've always said that if you do not want the federal law or provincial law to apply, then create your own laws, occupy the field, and exert that jurisdiction. That's what we need to have in place. I'm going to leave it there.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

You have three minutes.

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

Ms. Michel, I thought you had heard the question I put to the National Chief. Would you like to use the remaining time to answer it?

[Viviane Michel]

Yes.

It is understood that the Indian Act is obsolete. It still practises forms of assimilation. If we wanted to replace it, I would still have some concerns, in the sense that this may be the only document that recognizes our existence somewhere. As long as we do not manage our own operations, our own laws and such things, we can lean on the act, but only in the short term. We cannot do so in the long term, because it is too ancient. It is simply a means of protection.

Canada, after all, adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is a good declaration that was prepared jointly with the first nations. It sets out human rights, universal rights, and so on. It was very well conceived and it really defines our aspirations. I think there would be an exercise to be done using that declaration. We need to sit down, study it again and suggest changes, since Canada still has not implemented it. So, we have something in hand.

In the context of the Indian Act, parliamentarians are the ones who tell us how our communities will function. You are the ones who decide who is aboriginal and who is not. A public servant at the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada receives an application at his office, and he determines if the person is aboriginal or not.

Why do we not have the right to decide ourselves who is aboriginal? We know ourselves; you do not know us.

That is what I wanted to add. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Thank you.

The next question is from Gary Anandasangaree.

Go ahead, please.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, panellists, for your candidness this afternoon. I want to welcome my friend to the committee and thank Mr. Angus for his great advocacy.

I'm a little confounded this afternoon because I think there's a strong realization—I know there was when we embarked on this—regarding the serious failures of the Indian Act. I fully share Romeo's sentiments in terms of its premises.

The challenge is that we have a deadline set. The issue is how to balance that, if we balance it.

I'm going to ask you some very pointed questions, and I would really like all three organizations to give a very direct answer.

With respect to the current Bill S-3 legislation that's before us, do we move forward with it, along with the consultation process for phase 2? Do we not move forward? Do we go to court to get the extension?

It seems as though I'm hearing “all three of these”, so I would like to get a direct answer from all of you. If we are going to court, what is the timeline that would be appropriate?

You have all raised very complex issues and, in fact, issues of nationhood and self-determination can't happen in three months.

How do we balance that? I would really like to get a sense from all three of you.

[Francyne Joe]

You're right about the timeline. I'm not sure who created this timeline. It always put us under pressure. It's putting the Native Women's Association of Canada under pressure, because we haven't had time to speak with each provincial and territorial member. We haven't been able to go out to the communities ourselves and ask the women who are directly affected.

In terms of the issues that are affecting youth who don't have the status card to get the benefits that are their human rights, I can't say that we should not move ahead. It's affecting our youth at this time, and every day we're losing our elders, who are also affected.

I lost my own adviser in the late senator Len Marchand. I know he would have had a lot of advice to provide at this point. I would like to see us move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Mr. Bellegarde.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

I would say, on this one, to do it right. I would encourage you to get an extension, because you're still going to leave some young people out. Some are going to be covered, but others won't be. I'm going to say to go with the crown, go with additional people, and ask for an extension. Get it done right; get it done properly, and that way, it's going to take the time.

I know you have push factors. The judicial branch, as an executive and legislative branch of government, is telling you very clearly to fix it. We're saying it's really rushed.

I would encourage getting together with the crown and together with Descheneaux to make a court application for an extension. Put in the proper resources, both human and financial. Get out to the first nation women's groups across Canada, and work with the AFN chief of our Women's Council. Work with NWAC and all the women's organizations across here to get input, and get it done properly. That way, it's more comprehensive and complete.

That's what I'd encourage. That's immediate and long term, and it would go beyond the Indian Act.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Grand Chief, on that, I want to pressure you a little bit on the timeline. What would be realistic, given the scope, for an intermediate solution? We also want to make sure that we don't continue to disenfranchise young people, as your colleague has said.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

There are some wrongs you want to correct.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

How do we find that balance? What's a realistic timeline that's required for something like this to take place?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

I don't know. I don't have a right to say three, six, or nine months. All I'm saying is that you need more time. Bear in mind that there are some young people who might still feel left out. You're still going to leave some out, but just take the time. I don't even want to say another year, but soon. It doesn't make sense. It's too rushed. I think you have to take the time, whether it's a year...but not too long.

What's the balance? I don't have the answer here. All I know is that February 3 is not the right time.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

You have 30 seconds.

[Grand Chief Denise Stonefish]

As the chair of the Women's Council for AFN, I agree that you should go to court for the extension, because you do need to take the time.

This is an issue that's been on the table for a number of years. However, I don't think you covered it in a sufficient way or that you provided the opportunity for the first nations and their women to have input and feedback.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

There's a minute and a half.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

I'll yield it to Ms. Michel to respond to this.

[Viviane Michel]

When I spoke earlier, I said that the lack of time was a real problem. We need more time to conduct better consultations, and they cannot only last one day. The issues at stake are identity as a whole, language, culture and the general picture. I can see that this exasperates you, but it is reality for the first nations.

Identity is related to territory, and includes culture and language. So it is quite a broad concept. If you alter my integrity, you alter my person. I think it is up to us to say what we want.

If you really want to make changes, give us the time we need, and we will suggest ideas. We need more time and appropriate funding to conduct a better, more adequate consultation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

This is the final question, so please keep it short, if you would.