Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 8th, 2017

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I think what we said at the committee in the Senate was that we believed at that point that unstated paternity would be in phase two, and I think people like Senator Sinclair and others really hoped we would be able to deal with unstated paternity in this. Because of the Gehl case, we were able to make that amendment and that change now, but we believe the rest is based on policy decisions for which there have to be consultations with first nations, following “nothing about us without us”, because they are not charter issues.

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

I guess the statement that was made that we were dealing with all sex-based known inequities but that this one can wait until phase two caused a bit of a concern there.

I want to head to the area of my next question—

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Cathy, we didn't believe that was charter, but because the court had ruled, we decided we could do this in this phase, and that's a bonus.

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

I know seven minutes just flies by, so I really want to get to my next question.

On the “6(1)(a) all the way”, I was told on Tuesday that it could have very wide-ranging implications beyond gender-based inequities. I do note that the law clerk did add for clarity proposed paragraph 6(1)(a.2), which, for the purpose of this current vision, clarifies that it is really about the matrilineal descent and the issue of sex-based gender inequity. Are you not confident that the drafting, which actually includes more clarification than the Liberals had when they submitted the amendment—because it's exactly the same amendment the Liberals submitted for McIvor—since the clerk has created more clarity around what it's doing, creates the clarity that's needed in terms of gender-based issues?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We can have a very short response. You have 10 seconds.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

No, I think, as Michael McLeod said, with the ambiguity that's there, and as Senator Sinclair has said, it may well not do what it was intended to do and may actually contradict other parts of the bill, and that's why we need to consult, but we also need to consult on how we determine this fairly and put in place a process with integrity, which will be supported.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

The questioning moves to MP Saganash.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister, for coming before us again.

Welcome back to the others who were here on Tuesday.

You said in your remarks that government action needs to be based on meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples and you referred to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

What is unfortunate is that you and your government, in spite of your promises do not apply that rule across the board, and I can refer to a lot of cases in this country—just put Site C down for instance, as a case in point.

Speaking of “6(1)(a) all the way”, I'm profoundly shocked and totally disturbed by the suggestion that this is a choice between human rights and dollars. That's shocking. That's disturbing to hear. In this country we call Canada in 2017, to suggest that we have a choice between human rights and dollars is unacceptable. That was the suggestion that I also heard from the other side.

I don't think we should be talking on that basis, not in this country.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I agree.

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

You supported these amendments in the past when you were in opposition. The present Justice minister supported these amendments in the past as well, when she was vice-chief for British Columbia, so what has happened since then? Which Carolyn Bennett do we have before us this morning?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

As you know, I was not the critic at the time and, not being a lawyer, I think it was a decision of Todd Russell at the time that it was something he would like to see.

I think what I'm saying is that it now needs to be understood that reaching equality and fairness is not an issue of money. This is an issue of fairness and putting in place a process for determining who has status or not in a process with integrity that people understand and have bought into.

Because the B.C. Court of Appeal decided this is not necessary for charter compliance, we have to get out there and consult to make sure this is done properly, and it needs to be with all of the voices, not just chiefs and council. It has to be the women and the people who have been sorely affected by this for a very long time, so that's why we set up phase one and phase two. We do need the numbers because there are going to be impacts on communities, and we have to make sure the resources are there to be able to have communities reach out to their new members and to be able to look at the voting systems on education and land claims. All of those things are based on 25% voter turnout.

These things could be seriously affected if we don't do this right and get the resources there to help communities engage with their new members, and that's why this consultation on phase two becomes so important.

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

What is surprising in this discussion is that you, as a minister of the crown, have decided that we need to consult more on human rights.

Can you tell me if any other group in this country that you call Canada in 2017 requires that they be consulted under fundamental human rights? Do you know of any other group beside indigenous peoples?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

The issue, Romeo, for even the early conversations, is that there are other inequities in the Indian Act, like enfranchisement. There are a number where we will have to get the data, and we'll have to figure out how we implement this. That is what phase two is about. We want to get rid of all of the inequities in the Indian Act. These in Bill S-3 are the ones the court told us to do, and we did even more than the court asked.

Now we have to go on and get rid of the rest of them, and I am committed to doing that.

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

I appreciate your personal commitment. One of the things that the Human Rights Tribunal said recently, talking about you, your words, and your department, was that you say one thing, and your department does exactly the opposite.

Can you tell me who's running the show here?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

First, I disagree—

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

That's why nobody trusts INAC.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I want to say that the officials at INAC have done nothing but that loyal implementation that great public servants want to be able to do. The fact is that we have almost 30% indigenous people in INAC who now can see their fingerprints on better policies going forward.

I'm very proud of my department, and I think, again, it's a matter of the relationships that these amazing people have in communities. They have lived it themselves, and we have to be very careful in those kinds of generalizations because, I agree, the leadership starts at the top, but it starts with our Prime Minister. He couldn't have been clearer to every minister of the crown and every public servant that this is the most important relationship, and we have a very big steamship to turn around, but we're doing it step by step, and I am proud of the progress we have made.

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

Can you quickly comment on clause 10 with respect to no liability of the crown? I'm firmly opposed to that provision because it invites us.... It's a proposition to justify past human rights wrongs in 2017. Is that your understanding as well?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

You have 15 seconds.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

It's a common provision in most of what we do, but it also is intended to protect first nations communities from their liability in decisions that they have taken. I understand part of it is before the courts now, but this is what we need to protect first nations communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

The questioning now moves to MP Bossio.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you so much for being here today, Minister.

I was saying in an earlier panel that I wasn't aware of this even being an issue until 2014 when I was at a women's native restorative justice symposium. Dr. Marlene Brant Castellano is a friend of mine, and I didn't even know at that time that she was impacted by this, until that day. There were a number of people. Jeannette was here as well, who testified earlier, and I had met her that day and heard their stories about the fight to right a wrong, an injustice.

To me it is appalling, I have to agree with Romeo, that in the Canada we know today this still exists. It is incredible.

I have to say that I am struck by the passion and the frustration over the decades of governments coming back again and again and again and saying, “Yeah yeah, we're going to fix this. We're going to get out, we're going to consult, and we're going to deal with it once and for all and be done with it”, and here they are again today saying, “Okay, do you know what? You're going partway to fixing a problem that's existed forever, and we're not fully fixing the problem, to deal with it once and for all”.

Yes, we're making commitments in phase two to say, yes, we have a process and we're going to follow this process, and we have timelines that we are going to dedicate ourselves toward. But they still do not have the confidence that phase two is going to fix the problem, that our government is going to, in this mandate, be able to put an end to sex-based discrimination toward indigenous women and girls and generations of siblings once and for all.

The Carolyn Bennett that I know, in your soul I know you believe and it is your desire to put an end to this for once and for all, but as you say, we have this massive steamship that we're trying to turn and trying to get moving in this direction. If we don't put an end to it, once and for all, saying that sexual-based discrimination is ending today in this bill as it is amended, and that phase two is only to deal with the non-sex based discrimination and how we implement this bill.... How do you give them that confidence if we don't have that written in the bill right now as it stands?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

First, I want to thank you for this, because we do need to underline the women who have been fighting for this for a very long time.

We talked before about the real impacts of the Indian Act, but before that, the settlers would come and only speak to the men. The disempowering of women's voices over the generations has ended up with missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. There is no question that the loss of indigenous women's voices in their communities and the way they were dealt with by government has had disastrous effects.

I understand that, and I do believe in the commitment now to deal with pre-1951 and the second generation cut-off, and adoption and enfranchisement, people who went to university or joined the armed forces. We will have to be very intentional about dealing with all of those discriminations and inequities in phase two.

There is unbelievably serious commitment by me and our department. It is about doing what we can do now, but also honouring my commitment on the duty to consult to make sure of the process we put in place for the areas for which we have really no good records—who gets status, who doesn't get status? How do we engage and get the answers as to what would be a system that would make sure the people who get status actually are exercising rights that they rightfully hold? The integrity of the system is what people want because again we are now delving into an area—and we talked about that when I was here before, about date of birth and all of those things. It is the things in the areas where there are no good records where we have to design a real process to get this done properly.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

The other big issue, of course, that we're trying to deal with here is, yes, we're trying to move beyond the Indian Act where it's self-determination for all indigenous communities. And on one hand we want indigenous communities to have the right to determine who's going to be a member and who's not going to be a member, and who's going to be status, and not status. But on the other side we have this discrimination that exists and has existed for hundreds of years. How do we square this circle between on the one side having self-determination and first nations making that determination, and on the other side having the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and what is, as we know, blatant discrimination?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I think it's even more complex than that, Mike. In reconstituting nations at the moment the governance is in Indian Act chiefs and council, and there's a lot of hereditary leadership that doesn't feel heard. As we reconstitute nation to nation, this is going to be complex, the way we have to go in actually doing what is meant by nation to nation and government to government. This is going to be about really moving to self-determination and having indigenous people in charge of their citizenship.