Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2021

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I think we get the point.

We'll move on now to Mr. van Koeverden for six minutes.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for coming today, for sharing your insights, and for providing so much perspective on the process and making sure that the voices of your communities are heard on this. I hope it leads to further consultations and more fulsome discussions.

First, I am joining you today from Halton, which is the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee and the Huron-Wendat, the Attawandaron and the Anishinabe, the Mississauga of the Credit First Nation and many others. I'm very grateful to be sharing this land.

My question today is for Ms. Whitman.

Ms. Whitman, I bring greetings from my friend, Sherry Saevil, who is a grandmother who lives in my community. She says hi. We were chatting the other day because we share a birthday, which was on Friday.

[Lorraine Whitman]

Wela'lin.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

My question to you is around education.

Certainly this is a great step forward for newcomers, to provide them with some perspective and perhaps a little bit of insight on what Canada is and who Canada [Technical difficulty—Editor] and who it has always been.

However, for people like me who were born here, how can we ensure that this citizenship oath and ceremony go beyond the ceremony? What types of education do you think would be helpful or necessary to ensure it's not just something that's read, but that it's something that's understood and participated in? How do you think that can have an impact on settler people like me and people who are born here in Canada, who might do a citizenship ceremony or oath only electively? They decide to go to the library one day and do one.

How can we contribute to a further understanding and more work? And I thank you for all of the work that you've done.

[Lorraine Whitman]

Wela'lin.

I attended a citizenship ceremony in Wolfville two years ago. I made opening remarks and said the opening prayer. I wore the regalia. For people to be able to do the oath, education is so important, not only for new immigrants coming in but for Canadians as a whole. We're seeing a lot of conflict in that today.

Nova Scotia does have a citizenship pamphlet available that provides some of the information about the first nations in Nova Scotia, the Mi'kmaq—we just have the one tribe. In it, there is some of the treaties that have taken place and some of the cultural components.

It's important, because Canada is a very large and diverse country and we have so many tribes across the country, for pamphlets to be available for those areas where the oath is given, for that province or territory. An education pamphlet should be given to new immigrants coming to Canada, letting them know that we have lived here for thousands of years and we are the first peoples.

When I was at the event in Wolfville that day, the immigrants and new Canadians were so appalled to see a woman up there speaking, and then to see an indigenous person. They'd never seen an Indian beforehand in the cultural regalia. All of the other areas have different regalia as well. It is an important component, when we have an opening, for the elders to be involved. We had drumming of the Honour Song to welcome everyone. We have our Peace and Friendship Treaties that have taken place in Mi'kma'ki. This was the first discovery of colonialism. It started in the east and then went west. [Technical difficulty—Editor] of peoples that have lived through all of the hardship, the hurt and the pain that we've gone through with colonialism, so education is such an important component.

I hope I was able to answer your question.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

You certainly provided some important insight, and I appreciate it.

My family's journey to Canada started in Nova Scotia at Pier 21. My mom got off a boat in 1957 from Hungary. The boat obviously didn't leave from Hungary as it's a landlocked country, but that's where they came from. We're grateful to both the original people and Canada to have a safe place to live, so I'm very grateful for that.

Do you feel these adjustments would be as inclusive as possible, given that the indigenous culture in Canada is probably just as diverse as the people who are coming to live here?

My mother came from Hungary and my father from Holland, and apart from being next to each in the dictionary, they're probably not that similar. There are countries that are even more diverse, obviously, but so is the culture of indigenous peoples in Canada.

Do you feel we'd be as inclusive as possible? If somebody was doing a ceremony in Pacific Canada, in the northern parts of Canada or Nova Scotia, do you think that all cultures would be observed or included adequately in the ceremony?

[Lorraine Whitman]

With the indigenous culture, I haven't seen much of it happening or occurring. That's why I thank each and every one of you today for asking me to be included here, because of the educational program.

We certainly need to emphasize that we are all treaty people. It was my ancestors and your ancestors who signed these treaties. We have to make sure, when we educate people, there's no guilt—it wasn't you personally—over all of the hardships that indigenous people endured over the years. We need to start all of that education in the primary grades. We need to include institutions, and when I say institutions, I include governments as well. The education has to start at a young age in order to be fulfilled.

At the same time, we need to also let them know that we were willing. We opened our doors to newcomers. We were able to give them food and clothing. When these men got off the boats, there were no women. They were very sick men. We needed to help them. Our families brought them in to help them in the community. That needs to be stressed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I’m sorry, Ms. Whitman, but we’re about a minute over.

[Lorraine Whitman]

I'm sorry.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Ms. Whitman. Wela'lin. Meegwetch. Marsi.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thanks so much.

Ms. Normandin, you have six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before we begin, through you, I would ask the witnesses, if it is possible, for those who had any to send their opening statements to the committee so that they can be translated. This would help us in the clause-by-clause debate on the bill. I extend the invitation, if possible, of course. Thank you very much.

During the meeting with the first group of witnesses, I mentioned that the Bloc Québécois really wanted the gist of Bill C-8 to pass, but as you may have understood, there are discussions surrounding the Constitution issue. That's why most of my questions will be directed to Mr. Cardinal.

Mr. Cardinal, since we've talked about it, I'd like you to start by explaining what an inherent right means, in indigenous law, because it's been mentioned, but it hasn't necessarily been explained.

[Éric Cardinal]

An inherent right is a right that exists independently of state or constitutional recognition. For indigenous peoples, this is very important. As you know, before the Europeans came here and created New France, New England and eventually Canada, there were peoples who had lived on these lands for thousands of years. We're talking about time immemorial. This ancestral occupation was well organized. There were organized societies, what we can call normative orders.

When I teach indigenous law, I always describe a circle to represent indigenous normative orders, and this circle is not completely included within the larger framework of what might be called the Canadian Constitution, where the normative order is of a Canadian type. The Supreme Court recognizes that before the assertion of Crown sovereignty, there were pre-existing sovereignties, therefore indigenous sovereignties. Among these are rights that are recognized—not completely yet, but increasingly—by the Canadian state, notably by the Constitution Act, 1982, but also by other laws or provisions, as well as by court judgments. These rights are therefore said to be inherent.

It has long been thought that it was the royal proclamation that conferred rights on indigenous people. This is not the case. Indigenous people have special rights within Canada because they existed prior to the assertion of Crown sovereignty. These are called inherent rights.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Perfect, thank you.

You can probably see my next question coming. It is an open secret that the Bloc Québécois wishes to propose an amendment that will remove the notion of Constitution from the oath of citizenship. I would like to have your comments on the need to include the Constitution in it.

Is it necessary to have the word “Constitution” in the oath of citizenship?

[Éric Cardinal]

As you surely understood from my statement, I don't think it is necessary to mention the Constitution, and the way it is mentioned is certainly not useful. The indigenous and treaty rights of indigenous peoples are fundamental, and that's what we want to recognize. However, it is not because they are constitutionally recognized that they are important and fundamental, it is the opposite: the Constitution recognizes them because they are fundamental and important. It is indigenous rights that must be recognized, and it is those rights that must be recognized as being of fundamental importance, not the Constitution or the Constitution Act, 1982.

In addition, I heard the other witnesses earlier talking about the treaties. They said it was very important to recognize them. That was the essence of the proposal in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 94. But you have to realize that in constitutional law, the interpretation of section 35 is a recognition of treaty rights. It does not recognize or protect the treaties themselves. This makes the use of the Constitution less useful if the objective is really to focus on the recognition of treaties and indigenous rights.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

My next question may be related to what you just said. In your speech, you mentioned that the Constitution Act, 1982 was a promise not kept.

Can you explain to me how it does not necessarily recognize all the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people, perhaps with concrete examples?

[Éric Cardinal]

That's right. As I said, many indigenous nations are still engaged in the claims process. The term “claim” means the recognition of rights that exist but have not yet been incorporated into Canadian law. While the Constitution can, in principle, recognize these rights, until they are recognized by treaty, they will not be incorporated into the Canadian legal framework.

In Quebec, no historic treaty has been signed. It is very important for the nations in Quebec that indigenous rights be recognized. However, the Constitution does not recognize all rights. For example, unceded territories are recognized, but the rights to those territories should also be recognized.

Let me give you another example. The right to self-government, i.e., that indigenous governments can form a third order of government, is not recognized. In fact, many jurists say that the Constitution does not recognize this right, so much so that in 1992, the Charlottetown Accord planned to amend the Constitution to add the fact that indigenous governments were a third order of government recognized by the Canadian Constitution. This would be an example of an indigenous right that is not currently recognized by the Constitution.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

If, in the oath of citizenship—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

We're out of time now, Mr. Cardinal. Thanks very much.

[Éric Cardinal]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Ms. Kwan, you have the final six minutes. Go ahead.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses.

First off—to the indigenous community leadership—I'm very sorry to learn that the government did not consult you with respect to the changes in the citizenship oath. I would have thought that that had been done. In any event, I'm glad that you're here at this table now for us to receive your input, and hopefully, going forward, this does not happen again in the future.

The issue around inherent rights is something that was discussed in the last panel, and there was a suggestion in terms of making changes in the amendments to the citizenship oath to add the words “inherent rights, titles, treaties and agreements of First Nations, Inuit and Métis people”. I would just like to get comments first from Ms. Whitman with respect to that suggested change. The idea is to add those words after the language that says, “I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada”; you would then say “and inherent rights, titles, treaties”, etc.

[Lorraine Whitman]

Yes, I do agree with that, but I also would like to have included the 2SLGBTQQIA+ people. As we know, we also have the two spirited in ours, but we need to be inclusive of everyone, no matter where they reside. I think it's very important that the language all be congruent and be the same in the following...and that everyone be included here and no one be left behind. Maybe with “indigenous”.... Some people, when they look at “indigenous”, are not really sure what the true definition is. As you know, our government has changed us from native Indians to first nations to aboriginal to indigenous. I think that a definition should be there, with it being within the parameters of first nations, Métis and the Inuit all being there and being inclusive, as well as the LGBTQ community.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Could I get your comments, Mr. St. Pierre, please?