Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 6th, 2017

[Martin Reiher]

Thank you.

The government took to heart the injunction of the Superior Court of Québec to deal quickly with the issue before it, but also to look at broader issues. This is why a two-stage approach was proposed and will be followed. Immediately after Bill S-3 is passed, stage two will be launched to have meaningful discussions with first nations on broader issues—not only sex-based discrimination or inequities but also broader issues and how to address these issues with first nations, rather than imposing something. To avoid a patchwork approach is exactly what the government wants to do, but this requires discussions. This requires consultation with first nations and impacted individuals, which is why stage two is proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you very much.

We're moving into the second round, and the periods for questioning are reduced to five minutes.

We begin with MP Yurdiga.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning.

As The Globe and Mail notes, this is going back to the Senate, as follows: “But the senators said, and the government agreed, that the bill as written would not remove all of the provisions that make it easier for some First Nations men to pass along their Indian status to their descendants than for women."

Can you explain how this is acceptable? How can this be remedied without the Senate amendments?

[Martin Reiher]

Thank you.

The Senate amendment 8.1 and 8.2 proposes the adoption of a remedy that was explicitly rejected by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia in the McIvor decision in 2009 as not required under the charter. Therefore, it's the government's position that it is not contrary to the charter to pass Bill S-3 without 8.1 and 8.2.

That said, the government is prepared to listen to and explore with the impacted individuals and first nations how to address their concerns in a way that respects both the impression that there is an inequity and, at the same time, the will of communities and first nations to control their identity and their membership. That's how the government proposes to address the concern.

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

If I understand it correctly, it's not going to solve all the issues. We're just going to take a certain level, and the rest we'll have to deal with through the court system again. Is that correct?

[Martin Reiher]

Bill S-3 does not address all issues relating to the identity of indigenous people; that's for sure. This is why the government proposes a second stage to talk about the identity of indigenous people more generally. Bill S-3 addresses the sex-based inequities that we know about at this time.

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

It's a good thing you brought up the second stage. Can you explain why you believe stage two will only take 18 months to complete? I think that's too short of a timeline. Is this a reality, or is this just throwing a number out in the air? It doesn't seem that 18 months is enough time to be able to accomplish the tasks that you desire to complete.

[Martin Reiher]

Thank you.

That's a legitimate concern, of course. The 18 months that has been put forward is a firm commitment to addressing these issues quickly but with significant consultation. As I indicated before, the first step is to co-design the consultative process with first nations and indigenous groups, and in fact co-design how we will consult. If we hear that more than 18 months is required, the government will adjust.

The minister indicated that she does not have a specific deadline, but she wants to move quickly. She proposed 18 months as a reasonable time frame, but subject to what we hear from first nations and the indigenous groups in general.

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

Thank you.

What you're saying is that 18 months is a starting point and that there is the potential to extend that for whatever period is necessary to complete the task. The last time Bill S-3 came through here, in my opinion it was a joke. The consultation wasn't there. The departmental official deceived us with the consultation process, and we were really shocked about that.

However, moving forward, when Bill S-3 passes, what are the next steps? Can you explain the process to identify and re-establish Indian status? Further, there has to be some kind of timeline. We're talking about potentially doubling the amount of individuals seeking to re-establish their status.

Can you touch on each aspect of that—

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

You have 20 seconds.

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

—briefly?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Be very brief, yes.

[Martin Reiher]

I apologize, but I'm not sure I followed the question.

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

Okay, once Bill S-3 passes, what are the next steps?

[Martin Reiher]

The next step is to start registration and launch stage two.

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

That's what I'm talking about: the registration and the time period.

[Martin Reiher]

With regard to how long it will take to register the up to 35,000 individuals, 54 people are being hired to implement Bill S-3 quickly once it's passed and in force. We contemplate that it will take over two years. We have an assessment of how many people will apply over several years, and over two or three years we think that most of the 35,000 individuals will have applied.

Maybe I can quickly turn to my colleague, the registrar of Indian Affairs.

[Nathalie Nepton, Executive Director, Indian Registration and Integrated Program Management, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Merci, Martin.

It is a good question. If we compare it to the process that was put in place to deal with the Indian Act amendments as a result of the McIvor decision, we saw the majority of the applications come in within the first two to three years. There will be a peak, and then it will slowly start to drop in the next two years.

Overall, we're looking at probably a five-year process, but it is voluntary, so it depends on the individual coming forward and applying.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

The questioning now moves to MP Michael McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you to the presenters today. I'm watching this very closely as it moves forward.

I grew up in a small community. I still live in a small aboriginal community. I watch government classifications divide our community, cause rifts within our families, with political organizations. I'm very familiar with this. I am Métis. My wife is Dene, or what everybody in other parts of Canada call Inuit, but we call the people in the territories Dene. My children sometimes use the term Dene to describe themselves, or Métis, whatever seems to best fit best the occasion.

I've always been curious of the challenges with opening the doors for people to gain status. Lately I'm watching with interest because I keep hearing push-back against this bill, against certain areas. It seems that the Government of Canada is nervous about how many people we're going to bring in. First nations are nervous about how many people they're going to see come to the communities. Sometimes I think are they worried about having too many Indians, or is it because there's not enough funding to accommodate everybody?

The Métis, thankfully, are moving toward self-governance for almost every tribe, who have opened their doors to people who do not have status, so the Métis are included. We work as partners. I don't think the issue is going to be as big as it is in some areas.

In the proposal we're looking at, and what you've talked about in terms of stage two, we may take the 18 months and consult, but the results may be the same in the end. Is there some consideration that we may be back in this very situation in 20 months or so? What do we do then?

[Martin Reiher]

Thank you.

We have yet to see the options that will be developed by first nations, by indigenous peoples, and by impacted individuals, so I cannot prejudge what will happen after the process. I doubt very much that we will hear a desire to maintain the status quo. It's highly likely that the government will hear about options for reform and will look into them and come back with reports to committees first. As you know, in Bill S-3 the minister is committed not only to launch a process of consultation but also to report back to Parliament on its progress after 12 months.

Theoretically, I suppose it's possible that at the end we would be in the same place, but it's highly likely that we will have options on the table to work with and to propose reform. Of course, as was mentioned before, it's not reasonable to think that everything will be settled within 18 months and that control of this will be with first nations for the determination of their identity, etc. I think a staged response, staged reform, is highly probable, which will take a number of years to implement. At least, I think after 18 months we will have a very clear picture of the path and where people want to go.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I'd also want you to tell me how you're going to reassure aboriginal people, indigenous people, that this stage two consultation will be done for the reasons you've demonstrated and not because we're concerned about what resources are going to be required after we see the definitions grow.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

You have 20 seconds.

[Martin Reiher]

First, the government has to be responsible fiscally—that's a given. At the same time, we have heard first nations people say they are concerned about a large influx of people into their communities, not only because of the erosion of their culture and language, etc., but also because of their inability to act in certain situations. Voting thresholds were sometimes an issue for first nations when a large number of members were not living in the communities and not interested in the communities' affairs, and not participating in votes. That prevented the communities from moving forward. These are things that we have heard. I think the communities know why we're doing this.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

We're in the final round, and the final question will go to Cathy McLeod. We might even have to cut your five minutes down a bit because we have a packed agenda, but over to you, Ms. McLeod.