Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 6th, 2017

[Martin Reiher]

No, there is no additional money for that.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

Do you have an estimated impact of that?

[Martin Reiher]

No, we don't have an estimated impact with respect to—

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

For the government-approved amendments....

[Martin Reiher]

With respect to the unstated paternity, there is no specific estimate of how many people would be included, based on the unstated paternity amendment.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

In terms of the 6(1)(a) all in, is it accurate to say that this includes issues that caused people to lose their status, for example, through education or military service?

[Martin Reiher]

That's correct. The amendment, as drafted, is very vague, very broad, and purports to provide an entitlement to descendants of anybody who would have been entitled under the previous Indian Act, including individuals who would have been entitled and then lost their status, based on enfranchisement in any situation.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

It's not strictly gender-based. Is that accurate?

[Martin Reiher]

That's correct.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I understand that your department estimated anywhere from 80,000 to one million additional members? What are your estimates?

[Martin Reiher]

Yes, thank you.

Over the years, this amendment was proposed by others, including in litigation. In 2005 and 2012, studies were made by our demographer on the impacts of such an amendment. The information we have, based on the data and that work, is that the implications would range between 80,000 and 2 million additional members in first nations.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

That's certainly a significant change.

In terms of the process, any section 11 bands that would have those 80,000 to one million would have obligations around....

[Martin Reiher]

The principle under the Indian Act is that when a first nation does not control its membership status, Indian registration automatically translates into membership in the band. That's the principle. Now, the amendment that has been proposed is unclear and vague, and it's uncertain how it would be interpreted. There's certainly a risk that a court would interpret it this way, meaning that there would be a significant influx in communities.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

In the handout that has been provided, we have diagrams of the impacts, and they're quite well done.

Have you done a diagram relating to paragraph 6(1)(a), and if not, could you do one?

I looked at the old copy. I haven't looked through the one that was released today. I have the original.

Do you have you a diagram of paragraph 6(1)(a) and its implications?

[Martin Reiher]

No, we don't have a diagram for that. It's so broad that there's no diagram that we could prepare. It would just be everybody. There is no need for a diagram because it's straightforward. It's anybody who can trace direct descent from anyone who was entitled before.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

And what date does that go to?

[Martin Reiher]

Again, it's unclear. It could mean under any other Indian Act in the past, since 1869.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

There is one minute left.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I think we have a problem here. We have a unanimous recommendation from the Senate, we have a minister who previously supported this particular amendment, and we have communities that haven't been consulted about it. Are there any discussion papers or is there any additional information you could give this committee that would further and more comprehensively describe this particular issue?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Please answer very quickly. You have 20 seconds.

[Martin Reiher]

We provided to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples a report prepared in the context of litigation, which is now public, and we could provide that information to you. That's all we have at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

Questioning now moves to MP Romeo Saganash.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the representative of the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs for his presentation.

From the outset, I do want to reiterate my objection to any attempt at improving a piece of legislation that is so colonialist, racist, sexist, and so on. We have been hearing all those adjectives for a very long time, and that is why it is so difficult for me to have an opinion on what is presented to us today.

That being said, I would first like to get some information on the technical discussions that took place with the legal representatives of various organizations, of the Assembly of First Nations and others. Following discussions with those lawyers, have any issues or questions remained unaddressed on either side? Did your discussions with those people have unanimous results?

[Martin Reiher]

Thank you for the question.

The discussions with legal experts were fruitful and helped us make some changes to the bill. When we concluded the discussions, any questions that were raised had been answered.

That said, following discussions, Mr. Schulze, the plaintiff's lawyer, told the standing Senate committee that he had found a new approach in response to one of the questions raised. According to him, it is a matter of sex-based discrimination. It is a matter of a situation—

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

Do you agree?