Evidence of meeting #65 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Indian Registration and Integrated Program Management, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Thank you for the question.
In terms of who determines credibility, again, obviously for applications for registration, it is my area, so through policy we would definitely define it based upon existing case law and definitions.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Indian Registration and Integrated Program Management, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Well, I don't have an answer at the moment, but I take into consideration all the evidence I have when I consider an application. My decision is based on a balance of probabilities whereby a reasonable person can believe that someone is eligible for registration or not.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Indian Registration and Integrated Program Management, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
For now, yes.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Arnold Viersen expressed a particular concern about Deborah Serafinchon, who testified here, before the committee. How willing would you be, if it was in the interest of the case, for instance, to suggest this evidence from a DNA test?
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Indian Registration and Integrated Program Management, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
If I understand your question, Mr. Saganash, I would say that DNA testing is indeed a credible source if the institution performing it is accredited, and we can guarantee—
the chain of custody
to make sure that the person who provided a sample is really the right person. The affidavits or testimonies of community elders are also considered credible evidence.
As you can imagine, sometimes DNA testing is not always the only solution. As I mentioned, when we talk about credible evidence, we mean a sworn statement or a record. We can even use DNA tests conducted from samples obtained from a brother and sister, or a half-brother and a possible sister. We really look at a set of credible evidence before making a decision.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Can I ask one quick question on what you've just said, Nathalie?
You're saying given the changes that have now been made to the act, if Deborah, or any individual who finds themself in Deborah's situation, were to reapply today, she would be caught under this and therefore would receive status.
9:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Indian Registration and Integrated Program Management, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I won't confirm they would receive status, because again, it depends on all of the information submitted. But I will say, in regard to anyone who will apply, for example, or who may be affected by any of the proposed amendments under this bill, they can reapply, and either they will be determined to be eligible for entitlement and therefore be registered, or they will be eligible for a category amendment. For example, someone who is now registered under 6(2) may receive a category amendment to be in 6(1).
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Rémi Massé Liberal Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Madam Chair, just to clarify the process, I called a vote on this, so do we have to still go through a number of comments? I'm asking just to clarify how that works.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
In terms of procedure, members are able to ask more than one question on an amendment, and the vote isn't called until all members are satisfied.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Rémi Massé Liberal Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
So even though I called a vote, we have to wait for everybody to continue...?
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
We are at the end of the speakers list, and we appropriately have MP Viersen, who is going to maybe summarize or make another valid point. Then we'll be ready for the vote.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I have one more question for Nathalie.
Was “chain of custody” the term you were using? What does that mean?
9:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Indian Registration and Integrated Program Management, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Yes. The chain of custody in an accredited institution for the individual who is seeking to have their DNA to confirm, for example—
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Indian Registration and Integrated Program Management, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
That's right. The individual shows up personally, their identity is confirmed through various pieces that are submitted at the accredited institution, and there the swab is taken by a professional who has confirmed their identity. Then it's sealed.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
All right.
I think we learned a lot about evidence and DNA.
I'm going to call the vote.
(Amendment negatived)
Shall clause 1 carry?
(Clause 1 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 2)
MP Tootoo.
9:15 a.m.
Independent
Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU
Madam Chair, I was wondering if I could ask the witnesses a couple of questions.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Madam Chair, as I understand it, non-affiliated independent members can propose amendments off the floor, but can they engage in the debate? I'd just ask for clarification.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Our expert indicates it's up to the chair to decide. Given the respect that we have for MP Tootoo and his participation in the committee, I'll allow a certain degree of latitude.
Welcome back. It is up to me, and I'll try to move the elements of the meeting forward. I'm fairly confident that you're not here to disrupt the proceedings.
Please go ahead.