Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 8th, 2017

[Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton]

I'll be saying the same thing I'm saying here today. It won't be any different for me.

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

Okay.

I'll move on to the next question.

Yes?

[Cynthia Smith]

When it comes to the second phase, I think that the position of Quebec and Canada's aboriginal women is clear: we do not need a second phase to this bill, so that we can be consulted on the existing discrimination that must be removed from the Indian Act, which is a Canadian piece of legislation. That would be tantamount to consulting people to find out whether they accept being subject to discrimination. It's illogical and ridiculous.

We don't need a second phase, which may take two years, when we have been hearing the testimony of women, communities and nations for 30 years on what is happening, on the reality and consequences of the act. Since we have been telling you for years what must be changed in the act, that must be done during the first phase.

If a second phase does take place—and I do say “if”, as that is still uncertain—and the discrimination issues that must be addressed during the first phase are resolved, we could discuss how to withdraw from the Indian Act, which, at its core, is and will always be an assimilatory and colonialist piece of legislation. If a second phase does take place, those discussions could perhaps be held.

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

Thank you.

Does anyone else want to comment on the question?

My next question will go to Chief Norton and Chief Picard. With the potential of doubling the number of individuals with Indian status, will this be a financial burden on first nations that want to accommodate those who wish to relocate and become band members?

[Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton]

I touched on that earlier in my opening remarks. That would, in our situation, double the numbers. Now, mind you, you can take those numbers that are registered here indirectly with the Canadian government in Ottawa, INAC, in terms of the process that's in place now. Some of those people are probably eligible under our criteria. Right now our process is frozen for a time period.

A percentage of those—and I can't give you exact figures—would want to come back into the community for sure, for housing, education, land, and all the things they feel they're entitled to. There's probably a set number out there who will never show up and never come back to the community, but it's still a worrisome situation because as it is right now, we have to double our efforts in order to provide the services we do provide. It creates uncertainty for the future in terms of the people now in the community, and they have fear and concerns about people coming in who know and understand nothing about us. It's part of what we call the ethnocultural suicide—if you want to call it that—for something like this to happen.

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

Chief Picard, would you like to comment?

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

I'll just say it again. I think it's important for the members of the committee to know that Quebec is no different from other regions where there might be different points of view on this issue. Again, as I stated earlier, it's a very delicate and sensitive matter.

I'm tempted to say that it's been a burden since 1985. This is a reality where you have a government transferring the onus of applying, in this case, a court order to the communities, so in a sense transferring the liability to chiefs and councils. That's totally unfair.

There are probably still many arguments to be made in terms of the impacts, but if you look back 30 years, you see the kind of instability this issue has caused for the past 30 years, again, in many cases clearly pushing leadership against the wall.

Within our region, even with those chiefs who might be in favour of putting an end to discrimination against women, a big part of them say, “Okay, then what?” That's where, I guess, some chiefs find it very difficult to provide a response where they know they don't have the capacity.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

No matter what decision they take, they're going to be liable. That issue is here, and again, it's like it's a never-ending cycle of intervening.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you very much, Chief.

We have to move on to another round of questioning, which goes to MP Saganash.

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

Meegwetch.

[Member speaks in Cree]

I think everyone on this committee realizes my total, absolute disdain for the Indian Act, but we still have to deal with it. It's still there until it's gone.

I would like to put a question to Ms. Michel.

I want to begin by thanking you for your testimony before the commission of inquiry in Val-d'Or on the relationship between aboriginal people and members of some public services. Thank you for your testimony. Many people really appreciated it.

During their testimony earlier this week, the representatives of the Native Women's Association of Canada raised a serious concern about clause 10 of Bill S-3. In essence, that clause stipulates that no individual who acquires the rights to register after the legislation goes into force can seek damages. So that is a legal disclaimer for the Crown.

The representatives of the Native Women's Association of Canada expressed a serious concern over that clause. I would now like to hear what the representatives of Quebec Native Women Inc. think about it.

[Cynthia Smith]

We support the concern expressed by the Native Women's Association of Canada. We have said so from the first interventions on the first version of Bill S-3, if I may say so. We still have reservations with regard to that provision. That was clause 8 in the previous bill, but it is clause 10 in this bill.

The concern over that disclaimer has also been mentioned by other aboriginal women and organizations. It is a very important concern, and so it is for us, as well. This is the only piece of legislation in Canada that allows discrimination without the government taking responsibility for it. That makes no sense to us.

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

We agree on this point. Thank you for your response.

Earlier, you said we were responsible for repairing the harm done. However, I think the purpose of the clause is basically to justify today a past human rights violation, which I find totally unacceptable.

My second question goes to the reluctance of the present government to move forward with section “6(1)(a) all the way”.

Ms. Michel also made this clear.

That is essentially on the basis that they want to consult further. Is there any justification to continue to consult with indigenous peoples on whether or not they would like to be discriminated against further? That is such a ridiculous pretext not to move forward with Bill S-3.

I'd like your comments on that, Lynn.

[Lynn Gehl]

Yes, I agree that it's ridiculous. Who are they going to consult with? Is it the first nations where the descendants of women are missing? That's not nation-to-nation.

We need to keep in mind that we're asking them to change the law, not band membership, and also that the only thing they really need to consult is the charter. The charter gives excellent guidelines to ensure that sex discrimination doesn't exist, and it's my understanding that in enacting laws, Parliament has a responsibility to be acting proactively versus just acting after the fact for back-end fixes. That's my comment.

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

Mrs. Michel, do you think your most basic human rights and the basic rights of indigenous women are still debatable?

[Viviane Michel]

Some people make decisions without having really talked with the women. Some people think the changes they're making to the legislation are the best changes. However, they don't see the consequences of these changes.

Earlier, we talked about the contradictions. We're left with this legacy, and we'll need to deal with it later. For example, if the amendment is accepted, forms of reconciliation will still need to take place between us, since our rights have been so greatly violated and we've been so badly ignored.

I won't tell our own history of Canada, meaning the history of the first nations. However, I want to note that, in the past, the relationships were equal. However, after colonization, our relationships completed changed. Who is responsible? We must be granted basic rights of existence and recognition and be shown all due respect. For 30 years, women have been fighting for this and saying they face discrimination. A second phase would take another two years, but to say what? To hear the same thing said again?

I'm told that I need to stop here.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I'm sorry, but that round is now over. We're moving to another questioner, MP Rémi Massé.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll ask my questions quickly. I have only five minutes, and I want to clarify certain parts of the positions taken by the witnesses.

Grand Chief Norton and Chief Picard, in the letter you submitted, which we looked at a few minutes ago, you referred to the potential significant impact of the proposed changes to the act in Bill S-3.

Are you referring to

section “6(1)(a) all the way”?

Are you referring to all the changes following the Senate amendments?

[Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton]

I'm not sure I understood all of your question, but if it is about what I would consider tinkering with the Indian Act to meet certain goals and criteria, I would simply go back to you and ask why the government doesn't recognize the fact that the Iroquoian people have their own way of identifying their people, through clan systems and through naming their own people and identifying them, and some kind of nation-to-nation understanding is reached between the parties, in order for Canada to say, “This is the way they deal with things in the Mohawk nation, or in the Iroquoian communities.”

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

My next question is very specific.

We're talking about a legislative process and a Superior Court of Québec decision to make legislative changes to the act you know, an act whose title contains a term I don't like to use. In this context, do you agree with the government taking a step-by-step approach?

The approach would first involve resolving the issue put forward by the courts following the Descheneaux decision, so that the Canadian government can pass legislation that it's comfortable with. The approach would then involve undertaking a collaborative and consultative process to examine the broader issue of discrimination.

Do you agree with the government proceeding step by step?

[Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton]

I'll ask Chief Picard to respond.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

Thank you for the question.

Given that we have little time, it's difficult to give a detailed answer to your question. That's why I specified earlier that, even though we're here this morning, by teleconference in my case, we're going to give the committee members a much more detailed statement by the end of the day tomorrow.

That said, your question raises concerns. I think all the chiefs in Quebec and Labrador share this perspective. We agree on certain things, despite our diverse positions.

We were contacted last Monday to give a presentation this morning. We sometimes feel that, when there's a wave of panic, people come knocking at our door.

Last year, the decision was made very early in the year. However, the first consultation session didn't take place until the following September. If action had been taken, certain questions may have been answered.

I think the step-by-step approach is probably not desirable. I think both Grand Chief Norton and Grand Chief O'Bomsawin are concerned about the potential consequences of the approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Meegwetch.

That concludes the first round of questioning and presentations.

Thank you for coming out. We sincerely appreciate your efforts to come here in person or by phone. I want to thank you for participating.

We're going to suspend for a couple of minutes so that the other delegations can take their seats and get organized.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We have many presenters who want to have their voices heard, so I'm going to ask members to grab their coffees and come back to their seats. Let's get going.

On this panel we have Sharon McIvor, Pam Palmater, and Catherine Twinn. Thank you for coming.

Each one will be allowed 10 minutes to present—that's our standard, unless I hear otherwise—and after that we'll go into a round of questioning from MPs.

According to my agenda, we start with Sharon.

Welcome.

[Sharon McIvor, As an Individual]

Good morning. Thank you for inviting me.

My name is Sharon McIvor. I am Nlaka'pamux, from south-central British Columbia. I've worked on this issue and many other issues, but on this issue for almost my entire life.

I want to start by saying that there's an understanding that the oppressed and those who have been discriminated against have never gotten their freedom or equality by asking for it from those who have oppressed them and discriminated against them, so I'm just wondering what the heck I am doing here.

This issue has been going on for many years, as you know, way longer than the 30 years. For us, we're talking about 525 years where immigration has seriously interfered with who we are. As you know, for 150 years the immigrants have had the ability to make laws that lock us into a position where we cannot move. I understand that the communities are suffering, but the communities aren't suffering because of the women. They are suffering because of the lack of their women.

I also want to say that I'm listed on the program as “an individual”. I want to make it clear that I'm speaking not only for Sharon McIvor. I'm speaking for Mary Two-Axe Earley, Jenny Margetts, Nellie Carlson, Susan Blankenship, and Edna Blankenship. The list could go on for a long time. I'm also speaking for Jeannette Corbiere, Helen Blankinship, and all of those who are still alive who have had the Indian Act and the operation of the colonial government affect their lives so badly.

I also want to talk a bit about who you are speaking for. In theory, you're speaking for the Canadians, because they've elected you and put you in place, but if you look at this historically, John A. Macdonald was a racist and a sexist. When he was prime minister, a lot of these policies got their teeth and started affecting the aboriginal communities—in particular, the Indian women. As for the bureaucrats, Duncan Campbell Scott was a very famous bureaucrat who worked very hard throughout his tenure to make sure that as many Indians as possible lost their right to be recognized as Indians.

Now we're talking about a piece of legislation today. As some of you probably know, I've been here before on this matter, with Bill C-31, Bill C-3, Bill S-3, and all of the different changes that have been forced by the court. I've also been around and involved in regard to dozens of ministers of Indian Affairs. For example, I talked to Minister Irwin about the matrimonial property issue, the matrimonial on-reserve property issue, and he said, “Sharon, I'm a family court lawyer, I know the issue and I know it well, and I know it's not good, but I can tell you, I will not touch the Indian Act with a 10-foot pole.”

We know that you're forced to be here because of Descheneaux. You were forced to be there because of McIvor. You were forced to be here because of the charter equality rights section kicking in. I think the 10-foot pole analogy has worked itself out really well, and I can tell you that until you get another court decision, you won't be back here. You can promise all the promises, because you did. You did in 1985. You promised that they would go out and consult, and apparently you have in your files, your archives, 20,000 documents that prove the communities agreed to leave the discrimination in.

When we went to court, those documents were used as a justification for keeping me out of the courtroom from July of 1989 to October of 2006. We finally were able to get to trial. We never did have disclosure of those 20,000 documents. We still have no idea of the contents of the documents that gave the justification to continue the discrimination against the aboriginal women.

When I went to court, the Government of Canada put forward that they had looked over all of my history and had decided that in fact I was entitled to status, good enough to pass it on to my son, because my son and I were in the case together. I was a subsection 6(2), which meant that on my own I didn't have the right to pass it on, and my husband was white, and my son did not have status because of my 6(2) status. They came to us in July of 2006 and said that they had looked at the records and had discovered that I was in fact entitled to better status and my son could have 6(2) status. They then said, “Now that the case is moot, let's all go home.”

We refused to do that, and in September 2006 they brought a motion to have our case declared moot. They did not succeed in the motion, but at that time we asked the court to declare that my son was entitled to status, because that was the justification they used to have it declared moot. The crown refused to consent to my son having status. Although they were using it as justification for having the case declared moot, they refused to consent that he could have status. Because we had not put an application in to have the declaration, we needed the consent of both parties. So he did not get status in September 2006.

When we went back to court for trial in October 2006, we did bring the motion, and it was heard first by Madam Justice Ross. We didn't have a clue how they figured out why I would have better status to pass it on to my son. We asked the Department of Justice to argue our motion for us because we didn't know how they figured it out. They said that I was entitled to status because my grandmother, who was always a status Indian for her entire life, was not married to my grandfather, therefore, my mother had status at birth. My mother was not married to my father, so therefore I had status at birth, and I lost my status in 1970 when I married my white husband. Therefore, I came back as a 6(1)(c). The married-out women got a paragraph 6(1)(c) status, and my son was entitled to a subsection 6(2) status.

That piece is the one I want to talk to you about today because in 2006 I got subsection 6(1) status, my son got 6(2), my brother, who did absolutely nothing on this issue, got 6(1)(a) status; and his first wife, in 1972, and his second wife, in 1983, both white women, were entitled to 6(1)(a) status. In fact, my sister-in-law, in 2007, got 6(1)(a) status. A white woman got 6(1)(a) status. This was in 2006, and we didn't resolve ours until 2010.

All I wanted to say is that the operation of the act is still giving white women paragraph 6(1)(a) status, and I can't get 6(1)(a) status.