Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 30th, 2016

[Chief Kahsennenhawe Sky-Deer]

I don't think Canada can make Mohawks. How this gets to be reconciled is beyond me. We've tried to come up with ideas of putting them on a general list, and if they can pass through our criteria, then we'll welcome them into the community, but if not, well, you made them Indians.

As Sharon mentioned about the relationship between Canada and the band, you have created Indians, but in our opinion you cannot make Mohawks of Kahnawake. When, as the grand chief said, we took that first move in 1981 to rectify discrimination in the Indian Act against indigenous women, our women who married non-indigenous men lost their rights. We said that in order to rectify that, any Mohawk man who marries a non-native woman will also lose his rights and will have to leave the community. That was the only thing we had at that point.

Then the 1985 Indian Act amendments came in and tried to mitigate and rectify those issues, but the problems had already been created, and every single amendment that you guys make that tries to rectify....

I understand what she's saying. You can't consult on discrimination, but you can consult on how your decisions unilaterally impact on our communities.

As I said, we have criteria for how you can be recognized. We didn't do a section 10 because we have very strong principles. We talked early on about provisions in the Indian Act.

We're not voters. We don't like to vote. We talk about 2% of the Canadian population being able to change the whole government, but we have to have a double majority to hold a vote to make any kind of decision in our community. Where's the logic in that? How do you expect us to do some kind of takeover under section 10 when our community is adamantly and in principle against voting? It doesn't work for us.

Canada is taking the “one size fits all” approach again to rectify registration. That is our argument in saying that you're not considering the communities who have just self-asserted our own rules.

To us, identity and belonging are paramount to our existence as a people, and Canada's continuing to meddle in that. It is not your business. You have gone so far now, I think, in your authorities.... Maybe some of the other first nations across Canada think of Canada as the almighty father who has all the answers, but we say we were here long before you, and the answers lie in our communities. That's where these decisions should rest.

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

Thank you.

Ms. McIvor.

[Sharon McIvor]

I don't have a lot more to add. It was really clear that section 10, part of the Indian Act, was put into place to help alleviate these kinds of difficulties. I know across the country of at least 37 bands that have their own membership codes, and those membership codes continue to discriminate against the women and their descendants. Canada allowed that to happen—and we're not talking about section 10 here; we're talking only about status, not about membership. You're not addressing membership in Bill S-3.

What we're looking at is that there is the ability to determine that you could not refuse to take back the woman who married out, but you do have the right to not include anyone beyond her. There are several bands that did not take the women back at all, and those membership codes are still in place. They're challenged, but they're still in place.

We're talking apples and oranges here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Ms. McIvor, I'm sorry to interrupt.

[Sharon McIvor]

We're only talking about the relationships between the government and mainly Indian women and their descendants.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

We'll have to leave it there. I'm sure there'll be an opportunity to get more of that response out in the next questions.

The next question is from Arnold Viersen, please.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Last week, on Monday, on November 21, we heard from the litigants in the Descheneaux v. Canada case. They were some of our first witnesses on Bill S-3. Mr. Descheneaux and his chief were here, and they told us that they hadn't been consulted at all on the drafting of this bill, even though they were more than willing to work with the department. They in fact told us that the first they had learned about the bill was when we called them to come to testify before this committee.

I note that the minister has since apologized to them, saying that we probably should have worked together to draft a new bill.

I was just wondering whether you have any comments about engagement on this bill. Were you engaged at all prior to this? As well, do you think that not engaging with the litigants in the case was adequate?

I'll just open it up, starting at one end and working across.

[Chief Kahsennenhawe Sky-Deer]

I find it very surprising that Chief Rick O'Bomsawin—you're familiar with him—didn't know about it, because I even questioned him when they came to present in Montreal with regard to the S-3 amendments that were going to be coming. I asked him point-blank. I said, “Chief, did you consider how pushing forward this legislation all the way to the Supreme Court was going to impact first nations across Canada?” He looked at me and said, “I knew you were going to put me on the spot.” I said, “Well, what are your thoughts?” He said, “Sometimes what your own principles and thinking are might not be the same as what the community's are.”

I looked at him, puzzled, and it got me thinking. It's funny that Kahnawake are called the “counting Indians” because we tend to count blood quantum, and how native you are. The reason for that is, I think, historically, our people depended on going to work in the United States, and the United States has criteria about who could live and work in the United States, the Jay Treaty. There was a requirement to be 50% blood quantum. For us, it was very important to maintain that. I think that persevered over time into our laws. When you look at a community like Odanak, there's no criteria of who could be identified in that community as being Ojibwa or Abenaki.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Were you aware that S-3 was being drafted?

[Chief Kahsennenhawe Sky-Deer]

Of course we were aware. We were aware once the decision happened, and we looked at it, and we said, “Oh my god.”

When you look at blood quantum, we were very worried about how far the amendments were going to go to identify people as being status Indian under the Indian Act. We know what 1985 did, and I agree the women should have been welcomed back. We welcomed them back in our community, and then the children of the children after McIvor. Now Descheneaux goes further. At what point is it going to stop? If you remove the 6(2) cut-off, you might as well make non-indigenous persons Indians. That's how we look at it.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. McIvor.

[Sharon McIvor]

You did make non-indigenous people Indians. In 1985, when we lobbied to have every non-indigenous woman who had married in and received Indian status to have that status removed, the parliamentarians said, “No, we couldn't do that.” They basically said that they lowered themselves enough to marry an Indian, so they deserved to keep their status. We did not get notified. We found out after the fact on a website that this bill had been drafted. It had been on the department's website.

With McIvor, we did not get notified. We did not get consulted. They started setting up the committee, and we were invited to come and talk the same as for Descheneaux. No, we didn't get consulted. When we did get consulted, it was at this table. We successfully convinced your counterparts in 2010 to change the law, and they attempted to do that.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Matson, go ahead.

[Jeremy Matson]

I personally wasn't consulted. I approached the INAN committee and the Senate's APPA committee, and that's how I was able to submit something to the APPA committee and also the INAN committee.

To answer another question, in Winnipeg, from July 20 to 22, 2010, at the annual general assembly of first nations, the following was passed by consensus: “Therefore be it resolved that the Chiefs-in-Assembly support efforts to remove all discrimination against our people, including gender-based discrimination, from Indian Act registration provisions.”

The Assembly of First Nations has written me letters about various legal complaints, human rights complaints. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Native Women's Association of Canada, all the three main national organizations, and a lot of the regional organizations, too, across Canada have supported me and my United Nations petition. The support's there to remove the gender discrimination. I have documents that go to answer your question. I don't want to be left out of that because it's important that the AFN had—

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you.

I have one last question.

This is perhaps the first piece of legislation that this government is bringing in on the indigenous file. Do you think the way this has been handled is consistent with the Prime Minister's pledge in all the mandate letters to build a new nation-to-nation relationship?

Could I just get each of you on the record on that?

[Chief Kahsennenhawe Sky-Deer]

When the Conservative government was still in office and the Supreme Court ruling came down, they made an appeal. Then when the Liberals got in, they withdrew the appeal. That, to us, at the forefront.... They should have consulted on whether we thought that was a good move.

Just to go back to your last question—

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Just speak briefly, if you could. We are actually out of time on this one.

[Chief Kahsennenhawe Sky-Deer]

—we were never fully consulted, but we found out about it after the fact.

I just wanted to make that clear. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Thank you for that.

The next question is from Romeo Saganash, please.

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

In fact, that was a good question, so I will give some time for the others to answer the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Go in any order you would like. Chief Norton, would you like to respond?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Would you like me to repeat my question?

[Sharon McIvor]

No, Joe and I are looking at each other; both of our microphones are on.

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

Whoever wants to start....

[Sharon McIvor]

Okay. I don't think the government knows what nation to nation is. I don't think they know how to consult, and I definitely am convinced that, whatever they're doing, it's not nation to nation.

If they were going to consult nation to nation, they wouldn't be consulting individual bands and they would not be taking great leadership from the Assembly of First Nations, who are there because they are the chiefs of made-up bands.

Our nation, which is very small, has eight bands, and each chief is talked to individually. If you go to the Assembly of First Nations meetings, B.C. holds sway because we have about a third of the bands in our province. Of course, our population is very small, but we have a third of the bands. It's a made-up group.

So we're not talking nation to nation. You can't talk nation to nation unless you have a nation, and we as individual bands are not nations.