Evidence of meeting #30 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was enfranchisement.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Lori Idlout Liberal Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik.
Thank you to all the witnesses for sharing their experiences and the importance of making sure that we address discrimination in the Indian Act. I've heard clearly that there continues to be discrimination.
It's wonderful to meet you, Kathryn, at least virtually. My question for you is about the Senate amendments and the consultation that might be required.
We've heard, for example, from the admittance regulars one set of recommendations to make a fix. We've heard that, for example, the Senate amendments include a solution as well. We have different solutions that have different potential impacts for different first nations. I wonder if you could share with us why it would be important to learn what the most appropriate solution will be to avoid a situation such as the one in which you sought legal action.
Thank you, Kathryn.
As an Individual
Thank you very much for the question. I would like to let Ryan, as well as our legal counsel, respond to some of the points that you're raising, Ms. Idlout.
One thing I will say is from my own family's experience. My mother, who was the daughter of two status Indians in their own right who endured residential school, didn't have status because of enfranchisement, as opposed to the marrying out kinds of reasons. She was provided the most limited subsection 6(2) status in 1985 when she applied for status. It allowed her to pass that only to her children.
In the case of the three families and then all the other people we've heard from since, we realize that the issue, at least for us, is that enfranchisement caused a whole different series of procedures and policies to come into play for those families that have the experience of enfranchisement. In my view, there are differences between that and the second generation cut-off issues.
Certainly, I think we have heard enough on enfranchisement to know that a remedy is required for it. In fact, when the original Bill C-38 was introduced, the minister at the time, Patty Hajdu, said it would be as though enfranchisement never occurred. That's what we have been looking forward to, aiming at and working toward for this last number of years.
I can let Ryan speak a little more to the actual issues involved. My understanding is that in Bill S-2, provisions were included to address other outstanding issues within the Indian Act, although the work began with our three little families on enfranchisement as an important enough, strong enough and complex enough issue on its own. I'm not able to say whether the inclusion of other issues in Bill S-2.... That's for others and those around this table to decide.
I will say that enfranchisement was identified at the time by Canada and by the ministers of what I still call INAC as being a wrong that required resolution. It required being righted. That's why we're here.
Perhaps Ryan can speak a bit more to some of the specific questions you've raised, Ms. Idlout.
Lawyer, As an Individual
I'll say that the plaintiffs in Nicholas have collectively asked me to tell the committee that they support the Senate amendments. They support removal of the second generation cut-off. They know what it is to be separated from their communities. They don't want the second generation cut-off to remain in the act in their name with the excuse that there needs to be a narrower fix for the Nicholas case.
As I've stressed, the court order in Nicholas is a tailored remedy. If it goes into effect, it does not hinder anyone else registering. It does not take entitlements away from anyone who's different from what the situation was in McIvor and Descheneaux. We say there's no reason for Canada to keep fighting to prevent the court order from going into effect in order to allow Parliament to continue to debate Bill S-2.
Canada said in court that there's an issue on how the court order would apply in B.C. and not outside. There's a very easy solution, which is an order on consent from the Federal Court. It's been done in previous cases in which Canada has accepted that the law is unconstitutional, as it did here.
There's a very easy fix so that the charter violations that have been identified can end, while Parliament can continue its debate on Bill S-2.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan
Thank you. That's the time we have.
Next, we go to MP Gill.
You have six minutes.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank all the witnesses joining us today.
I listened carefully to what you said. You mentioned genocide and discrimination several times.
I get the impression that if certain political parties have reservations about passing Bill S‑2, it's because of the Senate's amendments, including the abolition of the second-generation cut-off rule.
When we speak about genocide, we're speaking about language, identity and culture. Fundamentally, it's identity that is lost.
What do you think explains the government's desire to further delay the passage of the bill? When we speak about genocide and discrimination, I wonder whether that's really the question the government wants to ask the various communities. I don't think anyone would say they support discrimination or genocide. What would motivate the government to consult first nations?
At the same time, I ask you: Are we ready to vote on this bill?
Ms. Hannaburg, I'll give you and all the other witnesses the floor for the remainder of my time so you can indicate whether you support consultations or not.
Thank you.
As an Individual
I see the government as utilizing.... This is another thing I didn't get a chance to say. We're tired of being held hostage. We feel as though we're being held hostage. My family feels as though we're being held hostage, because we're being negotiated. This is perhaps an agenda to go further. It's mixing membership, band membership, self-government, and decision-making and self-determination. We're not talking about that. That is for a bigger debate and a bigger discussion with all other nations and other leadership.
We're talking about discrimination in the Indian Act, as well as our ability to pass our lineage on to our children and grandchildren. This is not being respected. We are the only race for which the government dictates who we are as a people. This is unacceptable. I have a daughter and grandchild. To me, it's as though the government is saying this child cannot be recognized, even while that child carries ancestral blood and lives in our community.
The children want to learn the language. They want to be part of the community, but we're not being allowed to because of the status number. It has to do with Bill S-2, and it's cultural. Yes, it is cultural. Everything about living in a community is cultural. We live in a holistic and inclusionary way. When that is being blocked and the funds are not there, you're not included. People start internalizing this racism. It's said to them that they are not native. Cousins are telling cousins. We've heard this before. This is not the new dialogue. Everybody's been talking about this, when children get pulled off the ice because they don't have a band number. They're no longer recognized. This has to stop. It's being perpetuated by the government and the policies within the government.
Bands can determine their membership. There are membership codes they can adopt. Some communities have them. They're worried and concerned about who their members are going to be, so they have a membership code. However, do not put us all into this whole thing about self-determination. The government is muddling everything all together. We're on the sidelines, standing still and waiting for 40 to 50 years to have our equality. We are the only race to be treated like this. This is unacceptable.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Ms. Hannaburg, I didn't mean to cut you off.
That means we're ready to vote on Bill S‑2 with the Senate's amendments, or at least on the first amendment.
Are we ready? Are consultations necessary?
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Thank you very much.
I'd also like to ask the other witnesses with you the exact same question.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan
We have one minute. If you want to split it in half, it's going to be 30 seconds for some comments between Kathryn and Dawn, who had their hands up.
Director, First Peoples House of Learning, As an Individual
Thank you.
I would like to note that with these federal changes, “The duty to consult is a constitutional obligation that arises when the Crown considers conduct that might adversely affect potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitutions Act”. This change, in fact, “enhances equality and rectifies past injustices.”
This is not an adverse effect. This is going to enhance their quality of life and support the perpetuation of indigenous people. Unless somebody wants to suggest that we're not in support of perpetuating the lives of indigenous people, there's no reason to continue consulting.
Liberal
As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd just like to add something to these remarks.
When we talk about consultation, it's true that we can get lost in minutiae that can lead to even more minutiae. As a result, we end up with a sort of endless consultation process.
In response to the member's question, I'd say that consultations can be useful if they are conducted on a sufficiently large scale and cover the basic principles, as the other members have just mentioned. However, there are consultations that go into such great detail that we inevitably reach a point where a certain group, certain individuals, or certain communities say yes to this and no to that, while others say the opposite. I think we're done with that kind of consultation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan
Thank you very much.
We're still doing questions and answers. We have MP Schmale next.
You have five minutes.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you again to our witnesses on this important topic.
I'll start with Ms. Hannaburg because you were one of the last people to speak.
Given the fact that the dynamics in Parliament has changed from a minority Parliament to a majority Parliament, are you getting a warm and fuzzy feeling from the government that they're going to move forward with these amendments?
As an Individual
I want to say that there are mixed messages, and they're fuzzy—yes, very fuzzy. They don't seem to want to move, and there are things going on, such as the potential for changing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
It suits certain agendas and policies, as I mentioned. When things suit them, they will move fast. However, adding more people and allowing our communities to flourish is not a priority. Even though there's talk about reconciliation, wanting healthy communities and the determinants of health that they sign with Health Canada, it's not coming through as genuine.
I'm very concerned about that because we need to see some action. Regarding the words that were spoken—for example, when Dawn mentioned UNDRIP—being at the United Nations and standing behind us.... The lip service has to stop. We need to see some action now. We're losing our people. This is genocide policy. We're moving toward genocide. We don't know how many years, but some of the communities are in their last generation of being able to pass on status. We have to move on this, and we have an equal responsibility to keep those communities healthy.
This is why we're here today. We want to speak about the injustices that are going on, along with the barriers and obstacles that have been put in front of us. We must have those barriers and obstacles removed.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON
There are a few things I want to dive into from your opening remarks. They tweaked my interest.
Your seatmate, Ms. Lavell Harvard, reacted to my first question.
Maybe I could get a comment from you. I also have a question about enfranchisement. I have a limited amount of time but a lot of questions.
Director, First Peoples House of Learning, As an Individual
I would like to jump in because I have a history with this particular government. I was one of the national leaders who stood with the former prime minister at sunrise. We were all stumbling around in the dark at four o'clock in the morning on Parliament Hill in the first sunrise ceremony. In our first national leaders meeting, the Liberal government said, “There is no relationship more important” to this government than that with indigenous peoples, first nations peoples.
If this does not go through, and if we continue to delay and use consultation as a stalling tactic, then that comment will be proven false. We really need to see this government uphold its commitment to our people, in front of our elders, our youth and all of our national leaders. It was the commitment it made on those territories and that land, saying that this relationship is important. The most important part of the relationship is whether we continue to exist.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON
I have about 90 seconds left, and I have two or three questions. I'll quickly go to you, Ms. Hannaburg, but I really want to get to Ms. Fournier as well.
You mentioned cost in your opening remarks. We've heard the department say costs. There's the monetary costs and the humanitarian costs as well. When you have this gigantic budget with ISC, it's really minimal when you look at it.
I don't want to take up too much time. In 30 seconds or less, can you explain the cost? I think it's more the humanitarian cost, as well, that you were mentioning,
As an Individual
Basically, it would be the cost that goes to communities when they're putting out a budget to make sure that it will match the needs of the people, the new registrants. There is cost and there are programs. Indigenous Services needs to tally the cost per person, per capita, and increase it so that there is not this racism and hatred with people saying, “Oh, you're taking away.... You're pulling at my little end of the blanket. You're coming here, and you're taking our resources.” We've seen this before. This has created violence. We've witnessed violence because of it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan
I think that's all the time we're going to have.
Perhaps all of you could submit that in writing so we could have it, because I think it's a good question.
We have to go to our next questioner, and that is MP Lavack.
You have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Ginette Lavack Liberal St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the witnesses joining us today. We're so grateful for their testimony and their presence.
First of all, we all agree that the Indian Act is extremely discriminatory and has caused immense harm. We're here because we want to address the provisions of this act that cause such harm.
I'd also like to point out that I disagree with my colleagues who say the government is doing nothing toward reconciliation. We're taking concrete steps. Over the past year, the government, as well as the Minister of Indigenous Services herself, has publicly committed, on multiple occasions, to correcting the act with respect to the second generation cut-off. The question is not whether we will do this, but how we will do it. I wanted to mention this because it is important.
When Bill S‑2 was drafted, it was intended to address the issue of enfranchisement. Ms. Fournier, can you tell us more about the real impact that enfranchisement has had on you and your loved ones?