Debates of June 13th, 2017

Justice and Human Rights

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start off tonight by thanking the member for St. Albert—Edmonton for putting his heart in the cause.

I think a lot of us have heard the story about Constable Wynn and the family he left behind. His dear wife sits in this place tonight listening to our debate, which actually makes it a little more difficult to talk about, because sometimes this place is filled with a lot of words. However, tonight these are powerful words that have impacted somebody's life and will impact lives in the future.

Bill S-217 is asking for something very simple. However, I think the governing party is trying to mislead this place by making it something more complicated than it really is. For instance, “may” and “shall” refer to two different things. The term is “may...lead evidence”, which we would change to “shall...lead evidence” or shall present evidence. There is no aspect of this that would require proof. It talks about presenting evidence, to demand that evidence is put before the court in these kinds of cases.

I want to talk about an article in the National Post about the person who shot Constable Wynn, and I will go over some of the details.

...details a lengthy list of 57 convictions, starting in April 1999 when he was ordered jailed for two months for theft and break and enter.

In the years that followed, when Rehn wasn’t serving time, he was racking up convictions in Edmonton, Calgary and the smaller communities of Evansburg and Drumheller.

They were for assault, assault with a weapon, drug possession and possession of prohibited firearms. He obstructed a peace officer, escaped lawful custody and drove while disqualified.

He also was convicted for breaking and entering, theft and possession of stolen property.

Parole Board Of Canada documents show Rehn served two federal jail terms as an adult.

The first was a two-year sentence for possession of stolen property and driving while disqualified. The second was for three years on charges including escaping custody and possession of a loaded prohibited weapon.

Collectively, he was sentenced to serve more than 12 years in custody, but it’s not clear how much of that time he actually spent behind bars.

On the day he died, [the criminal]...was still facing 30 charges for four separate offences, including fraud, resisting a peace officer, escaping lawful custody, possessing a prohibited firearm, failing to appear in court, failing to stop for police, dangerous driving and multiple charges of breaching bail conditions.

Somebody mentioned that there were more than 50 convictions, but there were 57, and all the member for St. Albert—Edmonton is asking is that this evidence be put before the court when bail is being granted or discussed. To look elsewhere is absolutely a breach of justice for the Canadian public, to overlook those 57 convictions.

The opposition has the victims bill of rights on our side, which was one of the proudest moments of our government when I first arrived here in 2011. The victims bill of rights is something that recognizes victims and their meaningful place in these court cases in our justice system, because it is a system that often seems to overlook a victim. As soon as people are victims, as soon as they pass away or are gone, they are discarded and not even accounted for in terms of the case. It seems they do not matter. It feels as if they do not matter.

We have heard the other side say that they care about justice, that they care about Constable Wynn's family, and these kinds of issues. This is one of hundreds of issues across this country where these kinds of previous convictions are not taken into account in bail hearings, and they need to be. We absolutely need these cases and previous convictions brought before bail hearings so that these guys and ladies remain behind bars, where they should be.

Sometimes, unless it is happening next door or it is a personal issue, where a family member of ours is involved in a particular case, there is a distance there.

The government has supported this legislation before. I would challenge the government members to put themselves in that seat up there, where the wife of Constable Wynn is sitting. They should put themselves in that seat up there. Her husband is never coming home. I challenge the other side to do this very thing, to put themselves in the place of the family members who are left behind because somebody is out walking the streets with 57 convictions and multitudes of others.

I heard of one case where there are 150 previous convictions and yet this person is still walking the streets committing crimes in our country. How is that even possible? It is possible because there is a clause that says “may” instead of “shall”. If we put this clause into our justice system that says “shall...lead”, shall produce evidence or “shall...lead evidence” of previous convictions, I think we could greatly reduce the number of people walking the streets who really should not be, for our own safety, for the safety of the members on the government side, and for their kids' safety, as well.

Again, I am going to challenge the government side that was supportive of it. The members voted for it before and I challenge them to vote for it again, and support our justice system in Canada. We can make it a justice system again, not a legal system. There are too many stories of people getting hurt. They are not coming back. They disappear off the record. Victims often do. After the funeral and all things are said and done, the niceties that have been said and exchanged, people like the Wynns have to go back to living their lives without the patriarch of their family.

This simple wording change would help Constable Wynn and those like him who go out to do justice for us on a daily basis. They go out and have to deal with these types of individuals on the street. It would give them a better chance of coming home at night.

I see members on the other side shaking their heads. I see people smiling and having great conversations, but this is actually some serious legislation that we are discussing tonight. For me, I would appreciate a greater amount of respect for the issue at hand, considering the person who is sitting up in our gallery.

The member across the way heckles me. What I cannot understand, and maybe I will just go to my thoughts, is how this particular member and members with him on the government side, who supported this previously, and who say they are behind the intent of Bill S-217, all of a sudden are completely changed in what they think the intent of this bill is and what it can do and will not do. They are saying that it does not plug every hole, so they are not going to support it. It does not fix everything, including the kitchen sink, so the government members are not behind it now.

For once, maybe the government could put a word in the law that gives the RCMP members a better chance of coming home at night. Why would the government members not even give them a 1% or 2% better chance of coming home at night? The member across the way is shaking his head again. I do not understand it. Why would we not give our legal system a better shot at keeping these guys behind bars, as we should? We are all responsible in this place to do that.

I would call on the government side and other opposition members to seriously consider Wynn's law, as we have termed it, and the fine work that the member for St. Albert—Edmonton has done on this. I say this in all sincerity. We get partisan in this place, but this is absolutely not a partisan issue for us. This is about justice. This is about keeping dangerous people off the streets, so men like Constable Wynn can go home to their wives and children.

I would just challenge this place to do the right thing. Regardless of what our parties think of this, all members should vote and do the right thing in supporting Bill S-217.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being 7:30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings, and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 30, 2017, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Indian Act

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

moved that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, acknowledging that we come together on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people, I stand here to speak to Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration).

On August 3, 2015, the Superior Court of Quebec, in its decision in the Descheneaux case, ruled that key registration provisions of the Indian Act unjustifiably violate equality rights under section 15 of the charter, and declared them of no force and effect.

The court suspended its decision for a period of 18 months until February 3, 2017, to allow Parliament time to make the necessary legislative changes. That decision was appealed before the court before the current government took office, but that appeal was withdrawn by this government in February of 2016.

Bill S-3 is the first stage of the government's two-staged response to the Descheneaux decision, and needed broader reform of registration and membership provisions within the Indian Act.

I will take this opportunity to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples for its thorough and invaluable work under tight court mandated deadlines. I also want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for their understanding regarding the urgency surrounding this bill and for their work during pre-study of Bill S-3.

In keeping with the recommendations of the standing Senate committee, on January 20, 2017, the government sought and was granted a five-month extension of the court's ruling to permit more time to consider Bill S-3. Through the additional time provided by this extension, and the diligent work of the Senate committee, there have been numerous improvements made to the original version of Bill S-3, which have been welcomed and supported by the government.

The bill now proactively addresses further groups impacted by sex-based inequities which were identified by the Indigenous Bar Association. The recent decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Gehl case has also allowed the government to address the issue of unstated paternity by enshrining additional procedural protections in law through this bill.

In addition, I acknowledge the understandable skepticism of first nations and parliamentarians about whether the second stage of registration and membership reform would actually lead to meaningful change. That is why the government proposed a series of amendments to report back to Parliament on a number of occasions and in a number of ways to update members and all Canadians on the progress toward broader reform. Three separate reports to Parliament are now in this legislation to hold the government to account regarding the second stage process, focused on broader reform of registration and membership provisions in the Indian Act.

The bill now would require the government to launch the collaborative stage II consultation process on issues within six months of the royal assent of Bill S-3. The bill would also require that as part of that process, the government consider the impact of the charter and, if applicable, the Canadian Human Rights Act. The requirements for the government to report to Parliament on the design of the collaborative consultation process within five months of the royal assent of Bill S-3, and to report to Parliament on the progress of that process within 12 months of the launch of those consultations are also included in the legislation.

The second report must also include details regarding the 1951 cut-off, the second generation cut-off, the categories for Indian registration, enfranchisement, adoption, and unstated/unknown parentage.

The bill also includes a three-year review clause regarding the amendments to section 6 of the act enacted by Bill S-3. The objective of this review is to determine whether all sex-based inequities have been eliminated. The bill also includes a declaration by the government regarding recommended amendments to the Indian Act.

I am committing, on behalf of the government and personally, to co-designing a process with first nations including communities, impacted individuals, organizations, and experts to deliver substantive registration reforms, including potential future legislative changes.

I have spent decades working on the issue of meaningful consultation, and finding ways to ensure that consultation incorporates voices beyond the usual suspects and provides participants with sufficient resources to engage. I can assure members and all Canadians of the government's absolute commitment that this will be a process where the voices of the full range of impacted people will be represented at the table, and which will incorporate a human rights lens.

In stage II, charter compliance will be the floor, not the ceiling, and there may very well be areas of needed reform where no consensus is achieved. The government has made it clear that consensus will not be a prerequisite for action.

However, if the government is to act in the absence of consensus, it only increases the necessity for decisions to be based on a foundation of meaningful consultation, and credible evidence about the potential impacts of reform. We must develop reforms which can be implemented in a way that ensures we have integrity in the system. Balancing the needed time to engage impacted people, through the parliamentary process, has allowed for only two truncated three-month engagement periods, even with the extension granted by the court.

There was not enough time to hold significant consultations on reforming Indian registration and band membership under the Indian Act.

Because of the tight court mandated deadline, the opportunity for consultations was limited, and I think it is important to talk about the intended scope of Bill S-3.

The goal of Bill S-3 is to remedy known sex-based inequities relating to registration in the Indian Act, which fall short of charter compliance based on the current state of the law. This is not restricted to situations where a court has already ruled, but extends to situations where the courts have yet to rule, and where we believe a sex-based charter breach would be found.

However, the government has been clear that in circumstances where the courts have ruled policies to be charter compliant, or where situations are more complex than purely alleged sex-based inequities, government action must be based upon meaningful consultation.

These issues have to be addressed during the second phase of the reform of registration and band membership under the Indian Act. It is important to note that this second phase will be a collaborative process.

The government must develop and initiate consultations on the broader reform within six months after the passage of Bill S-3, as stated in the bill.

Despite supporting numerous amendments proposed and adopted by the standing committee, the government has made it clear that it cannot support one amendment put forward by Senator McPhedran and accepted by the Senate. The intention of Senator McPhedran's amendment is to provide entitlement for Indian registration to all direct descendants born prior to April 17, 1985, of individuals entitled to status under previous Indian acts, including those who lost that status for whatever reason. In simple terms, this clause seeks to implement the approach commonly referred to as “6(1)(a) all the way”.

Although the simplicity of this approach may seem appealing, I would ask all members to consider this position cautiously. While I believe the amendment was put forward with the best of intentions, the way the clause is drafted creates ambiguity as to whether or not it would do what it is apparently intended to do. This ambiguity was highlighted by Senator Sinclair during clause-by-clause at the Senate committee, and by the Indigenous Bar Association at the House committee.

In fact, Drew Lafond of the IBA testified about the wording of the clause, noting, “We cautioned against simply inserting that in its current form...You run into technical problems with the language by simply inserting that into a bill because you run the risk of there being inconsistencies or some unintended consequences with that.

If this clause is interpreted in a way to implement the “6(1)(a) all the way” approach, then it could potentially extend status to a broad range of individuals impacted by a wide range of alleged inequities. This clause would go well beyond the intended scope of Bill S-3, dealing with significant non sex-based registration issues, including enfranchisement, adoption, date of birth, and others. In fact, the amendment seeks to implement the precise remedy explicitly rejected by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the McIvor decision, where it was clear that this remedy is not required to make the provisions charter compliant.

The Supreme Court of Canada then refused leave to appeal that decision. This does not mean the government will not consider this as a potential approach in the context of a policy decision to address broader registration and membership reform. The government is open to considering this approach through stage II, and may be where it ends up, but we have not adequately consulted with those who could be impacted, and we do not currently have the demographic information to understand the practical implications of implementing such an approach.

While arguing in the Senate committee for the need for further engagement on this clause, Senator Sinclair made that point noting: “The question becomes what impact will that have upon First Nation government. That is not a question we have the answer to...”

While the government is initiating that work now, preliminary estimates are not based on reliable data, and contain huge ranges of potentially newly entitled individuals, from 80,000 to two million. Highlighting these numbers is not to suggest either end of the spectrum is what the likely impact would be, but to note the huge range of current estimates and the need for better data.

In addition to the current lack of understanding of the practical implications of such an approach, it seems obvious that the necessary consultations were not held.

Many communities expressed concerns that this approach could have serious repercussions for them.

Communities could find themselves with huge numbers of new members with little or no connection to their community and without meaningful prior consultation. I want to understand the perspectives and concerns of vast numbers of potentially impacted people who have not yet been asked their opinion on the “6(1)(a) all the way” clause.

I want to be clear that I stand in solidarity with the indigenous women who have been fighting on all of these issues for decades. I hear their pain, the hurt of receiving a letter in which they were told that their marriage made them a white woman.

Whether courts have determined these remaining issues as charter issues or not, I want to be part of fixing these ongoing problems. I want to know from the people who have been advocating and studying these issues for a very long time whether this approach is the one we should take and if so, whether this clause is the best way to implement that approach.

We must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past where, even sometimes with admirable intentions, policies are implemented absent proper consultation or evidence and result in dire, unintended consequences. I want to work with communities, impacted individuals, and experts to ensure that we finally get this right. The concerns expressed by many about the drafting of this specific clause show how easy it is to get this wrong if it is rushed.

As many members already know, the deadline for passing this bill is July 3rd.

If we do not have legislation passed that addresses the Descheneaux decision before July 3, the section struck down by the court will be inoperative in Quebec. The practical implication would be that these provisions will then become inoperative within Canada as the registrar would not be in a position to register people under provisions found to be non-charter compliant.

Ninety per cent of status Indians are registered under the provisions struck down by the Descheneaux decision. These applicants would then be unable to access benefits that come with registration and membership. In addition to up to 35,000 individuals waiting for their rights to be granted through Bill S-3, we cannot lose sight of the thousands of individuals who would not be able to register if the court deadline passes and the provisions noted above become inoperable.

I urge all members to act responsibly and to take into account the urgency with which we must act to pass this bill.

I ask all members to send the bill to committee swiftly so that it can be amended and sent back to the Senate in a form that delivers on the rights of 35,000 people now, and allows the government to begin the broader reform in a way that respects our duty to consult, international documents such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the need to get this right through the stage II process.

If this clause is interpreted in a way that implements the “6(1)(a) all the way” approach, then it could potentially extend status to a broad range of individuals impacted by a wide range of alleged inequities. This clause would go well beyond the intended scope of Bill S-3, dealing with significant non-sex based registration issues, including enfranchisement, adoption, date of birth, and others. In fact, the amendment seeks to implement the precise remedy explicitly rejected by the B.C. Court of Appeal in the McIvor decision where it was clear that this remedy was not charter compliant.

I ask again that the House send the bill to committee now so that we can amend it. Then we can begin this very important work of stage II where we can get rid of all the inequities in the Indian Act, once and for all, and finally get this right.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about the importance of consultation as she moved forward with phase two, and talked a bit about a truncated process. The government has regularly and consistently talked about consultation being important. In her speech she talked about having meaningful consultation beyond the usual groups that she would engage with.

I want to quote from Mr. Descheneaux who was the plaintiff. On November 21, 2016, he said this with respect to the government having tabled legislation in the Senate:

...we've never been called or asked which way we saw that stuff....

That's the part I find funny. After, I understood from the judge's ruling that they wouldn't be in consultation. I was thinking that they would come to the band and meet us, and say that they're going to go that way, or they're looking to go this way. It doesn't seem to be like that. I don't feel great with that, and I guess the chief and the lawyer don't either.

The government introduced legislation in the House and did not even have the respect and courtesy to talk to the person who had brought that case forward. Therefore, how can anyone have confidence in the minister's phase two process when there was such a dismal gap in phase one?

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

Mr. Speaker, from the time that we lifted the appeal on this to the time it was tabled in the bill, I had been under the understanding that Mr. Descheneaux and the family had been consulted. When I heard that testimony in the Senate, I was appalled and called Mr. Descheneaux.

These are the learning moments. As a minister, and a department, “meaningful consultation” means that we have to deal with the people who are impacted by this decision. At that time, it became clear to me what the impact was if we did not get on with this. Kids will not be able to go to post-secondary school, even though they have the rights that the court has awarded, if we are not able to get this through the parliamentary process. I think that these two truncated consultations are not good enough to deal with the other issues.

However, I thank the member for raising this, because it really did point out to me and my department that we need to do better. We believe that since November we have taken this very seriously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her presentation on the bill before us, which originated in the Senate.

I find that there are some troubling aspects in her presentation.

I think the minister understands my total, absolute, and profound disdain for the Indian Act. I have said that before in public. I have said that in committee. I have said that to her as well.

What is troubling in that presentation is that the minister claims that the government cannot go forward with some of the amendments being proposed by the Senate, in particular the amendments that were suggested by Senator McPhedran, on the basis that we do not know the consequences. The minister seems to suggest that those human rights violations can continue to wait because it is a question of human rights and dollars. I am a bit troubled by that position.

I want to reiterate this for the record. In my view, she made reference to the concerns that were expressed by Senator Sinclair. However, I want to remind the House and the minister that Senator Sinclair voted in favour of the amendments that are before us today.

Mrs. McIvor wrote to the senators with respect to the amendments. She states:

...I take fundamental exception to this argument. Indian bands and communities have no legitimate say in whether the Government of Canada continues to discriminate against me and other Indian women because of our sex. The Government of Canada has an obligation under constitutional and international law and a fiduciary duty not to discriminate on the basis of sex, whether Indigenous bands and communities agree or not. By now most Indigenous bands and communities do not wish to see discrimination on the basis of sex continue.

I think that is a strong statement from one of the people who has been fighting these issues over the years. I would like the minister's comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his ongoing advocacy. There is no place for a consultation on what is a charter right. A charter right is a charter right. I would correct the member that Senator Sinclair voted against, in clause by clause, the amendment by Senator McPhedran on 6(1)(a) all the way. He voted for the bill, to bring it to the House, but he did vote against that clause.

Obviously, Madam McIvor's advocacy is very important, but it is so important that we get it right. Because the B.C. Court of Appeal voted that extending 6(1)(a) all the way was not a charter right, it is, therefore, a policy issue. We need to make sure we get this right and that we are able to deal with this in a comprehensive way so that we finally stop making mistakes and ending up back in court, back in the House. We want to get all the discrimination, disenfranchisement, adoption, all of these issues where the Indian Act is not dealing with people fairly, and correct them.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the minister's presentation here tonight and making herself accountable to this chamber. I think that is important.

I am simply going to ask her about the consultation process. Obviously, they are moving forward with phase two. She has said that they are looking to course correct. However, I would ask the minister if she has gotten to the root of the issue. There seems to be a problem with consultations within her own department. At some point one either says, “We're going to consult on consultations,” or one says, “We know what the problem is and I, as the minister, am going to fix it.”

I have been to Prince George. I have met with the chiefs. They have said that they were not consulted on the moratorium on tanker traffic off the B.C. coast and they were upset with that.

The minister continues to come to this place, and as the responsible minister, at some point, she is going to have to present a credible road map on how consultations need to be. What actions is she taking with her department? Who is she holding accountable, and if not, is there going to be a broader effort to reach out and to find out what is wrong in this area of consultation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think acknowledging our mistakes in the past is the reason we put these additional amendments in the bill, where we will be reporting back to Parliament on the design of the consultation to show who we have talked with and the advice we have received in a completely transparent way. Then we will launch the consultation and report back to Parliament again, 12 months later, to show Parliament the progress we have made on the consultation before we table another bill.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I congratulate the minister for her leadership on many files in indigenous affairs, but specifically, for withdrawing the appeal by the previous federal government against the Quebec Court of Appeal so that we can find solutions to this.

There are impassioned arguments for a much broader reform for registration and membership under the Indian Act. Many argue that Bill S-3 would not go far enough. I know this is only the first stage of our response, the government's response, to the Descheneaux decision. Would the minister explain what is anticipated in stage II of the plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the main thing about stage II is that the process will be co-designed with first nations, including communities, impacted individuals, organizations, and experts, to be able to design a process that will lead to the substantial reforms, including advice on potential legislative changes. It means that we will come back with what we have heard and what we are planning, in terms of co-designing that process. Then we will launch it within six months and report back here 12 months after that. We believe we can get this done in 18 months.

Again, it is about our making sure that the future reforms are able to maintain an integrity to the registration system. However, I must tell the member that, eventually, we do not think it should be my department registering or determining who is a member or who has status. Eventually, first nations, Inuit, and Métis will determine that for themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-3, an act to amend the Indian Act, elimination of sex-based inequities in registration. Right off, I should acknowledge that perhaps the title is in error. I am not totally convinced that everything in the bill performs that function.

I want to make a special note. The court decision was a long time ago. We have a deadline of July 3, and this is the first hour of debate in the House. We know this sitting is coming to an end, we have a court deadline, and, to be frank, the opportunity to give this very important matter the due diligence it deserves is lacking. We have less than a month to ensure the bill responds to the Descheneaux decision.

I will put a personal face to this. I want to share my story with Canadians. Many Canadians may not understand the very complicated issue of registration and membership. I beg the indulgence of the House to go back into my history.

I grew up in an urban community, graduated as a registered nurse, and was asked to go to a semi-remote first nations community to be its nurse. That was in 1983. It was quite a large community, an interior Salish community, and I had an opportunity to work in it.

One day a community a health representative told me that everyone wanted me to visit one of the elders. I was not supposed to visit her because she did not have status anymore because the government had said so. I will call her Margaret as I do not want to share her real name.

Margaret was 80-plus years old. When she was young, she had fallen in love with someone who lived in a nearby community, married him, and her husband was tragically killed. Not only did she lose her status as an Indian, but she lost her husband and was left in complete limbo. In this case, the community welcomed her home, but that was not always the case. The people brought her back to their community and provided her with housing. This elder spoke the language beautifully, she wove beautiful baskets, and was an incredible person and support. She was very respected and looked up to, but she always had the issue of not being part of the community because of her decision to marry someone from another community.

It was not just her feeling of not being part of the community. I was told that although I should not visit her because she was not officially part of the community, they really wanted me to she her. In their hearts, everyone knew she was part of them and their community. Her benefits, her ability to get medication, to travel were affected by her status. She had health issues and at times would have to go to a larger centre. She was excluded from those simple measures. At the time, it seemed terribly unfair that this well-respected elder was stripped of her status.

For people to understand, it takes a bit of a history lesson.

I am going quote a Canadian lawyer, Alison Gray, who talked about the changes over time. She said, “Throughout the history of the Indian Act, the provisions governing entitlement to and transmission of Indian status have favoured men and discriminated against indigenous women.” That goes back to 1869.

She goes on to say:

Beginning in 1869, indigenous women who married non-indigenous men lost their status and entitlement to all benefits of status, including the ability to pass status on to their children. However, if an indigenous man married a non-indigenous woman, he not only preserved his status but he was able to confer that status on his spouse and children.

Some changes came along in 1951 called the “Double Mother rule”. I will not get into the details of that because this becomes a technical and complicated issue as we made the changes and made things more and more complex.

She continues:

In 1985, Parliament amended the registration provisions in the act to ensure compliance with s. 15 of the Charter. The intent was to remove restrictions relating to marriage and remove any sex-based discrimination. However, the result was to create a two-tiered system of status that continued to unfairly discriminate against indigenous women and their descendants.

This continued discrimination was first successfully challenged in McIvor, which resulted in amendments to the act in 2010. However, the 2010 amendments did not eliminate all the sex-based discrimination in registration, which led to the successful challenge in Descheneaux.

Both McIvor and Descheneaux involved challenges to the two-tiered status set out in s. 6. Despite being enacted for the express purpose of eliminating sex-based discrimination, s. 6 continued to discriminate against indigenous women and their descendants by limiting their ability to pass on Indian status, as compared to indigenous men and their descendants.

Almost concurrently with Descheneaux was a case the Gehl challenge. She says:

In Gehl, the challenge involves the registration provision and the government’s Proof of Paternity Policy, which sets out the evidentiary requirements for proving a child’s paternity. The claim is that the act and the policy impose a burden on registered indigenous women only, and also prevent many from passing on their Indian status to their children and grandchildren.

Of importance to this case is the two-tiered status...is available to those with two parents entitled to be registered and allows Indian status to be passed on to their children regardless of the status of the other parent. Where only one parent is entitled to be registered, a lesser form of status is granted...

I bet that most members and anyone listening to this debate are confused. We get into sections 6(1), 6(2). We have created a complexity that is a real challenge.

We have one earlier court case and the Descheneaux case. After Bill S-3 was introduced, we finally had a response to that case. I do not think anyone would argue it was a paternal system that predated 1985. An attempt was made by the government to create a system that was fairer, but it was maintained as discriminatory legislation.

Bill S-3 is the government's response. I am going to talk about the process of the response. I have some real concerns and I will take it back to my own riding where I have a number of communities.

July 29, 2016, the chief in Tk’emlúps te Secwepemc received a letter from the minister in which she said she would start an engagement process with first nations and other indigenous groups across the country. It would take place in the late summer, early fall. It would consist of information-sharing and looking at a path forward.

This is critical to communities across the country. When they get a letter from the minister, knowing they have a court decision and something that is as significant as looking at the registration process, they are very interested and want to be involved. This was supposed to happen late summer.

In August, we wrote the minister's office, stating that a local band wanted to participate in the engagement process, asking where and when the meetings would take place. We did not get a response.

In September, we followed up. The Kamloops Indian Band had reached out to us again regarding the letter it received back in July. It was eager to be part of the minister's proposed meetings, but it was very worried that it had missed them. It thought that it was too late and that it had missed something critical.

Finally, on September 20, the minister's office emailed us to say that INAC had reached out to the band, but there were no details. Less than a month later, members of the band could travel to a meeting in Vancouver to tell the government what they thought. It might have been an hour or so long. Then the actual legislation was tabled October 25.

That is one community. If we look at the hundreds of bands across the country and if they feel the same frustration on such an important matter that impacts registration and members, imagine how concerned they would be.

The legislation was tabled in the Senate. In the House, we were encouragement to do a pre-study so we could move forward and meet the court deadline. During our pre-study, department officials were specifically asked if the bill would eliminate all known sex-based inequities. I asked the officials if they were confident the bill would do that. The official said, “In terms of your specific question for sex-based discrimination, yes, this bill is addressing everything that is wrong.” This was back in December.

We were told by the officials that the bill would take care of the issues, as the title states. Clearly, what happened was the Senate continued its study and things started to go astray.

Department officials appeared first. Then we heard from the litigants who told us they had not been contacted by the department on Bill S-3. Again, despite lofty promises about the need to improve the relationship with indigenous people, there was clearly an inadequate consultation with those most directly impacted.

We were absolutely stunned when Mr. Descheneaux indicated that he had not had any contact, and it was his case that had been brought forward.

Essentially, flaws were noted. With respect to consultation, it became apparent that the bill did not eliminate all known sex-based inequities. It was taken back to the drawing board, and it was put in abeyance at committee. Then it was brought back to the Senate.

In the meantime, we now have a new deadline, and that is July 3. A number of amendments were put forward.

What would the bill do? It is complicated and technical. We have had diagram after diagram to try to understand it.

Apparently, we are dealing with inequities with a cousin issue, a sibling issue, omitted or removed minors issue, children born out of wedlock, the great-grandchildren pre-1985, the great-grandchildren pre-1985 affected by sibling loss, the issue of great-grandchildren born pre-1985 whose great-grandmother parented out of wedlock phase two. We can clearly see there are a number of things done. We fixed a bunch of the problems. There were some fixed in the original bill. Clearly, it did not fix everything. There were some more fixes made in the reintroduction, and we now have the issue the minister referred to as 6(1)(a) all the way.

There is not time to even understand paragraph 6(1)(a). It was something the Liberals proposed way back with the McIvor case when they were in opposition. Clearly, at one point they thought 6(1)(a) all the way was a very adequate solution, but now they believe it is an inadequate solution. From everything we are understanding, this was perhaps a hastily developed amendment that an opposition put forward. Then the senator put it forward. They put some language around it, but from what we can see, it is almost identical.

We now have concerns by the minister about 6(1)(a) all in. We have the Indigenous Bar Association with concerns. Senator Sinclair originally had concerns, but then he voted for it when it went to report stage and third reading. We have groups advocating for this being the final solution and a committee that does not have any more time to really understand what 6(1)(a) all in would do and what it means, because it has been left so late. Is it going to solve the problems?

To be frank, we are hearing very conflicting testimony, and because the Liberals have left it for so long, we do not have the ability to actually do due diligence, which is what a committee should really do. There are no more sessions planned for the committee to look at this legislation to understand the impact of the 6(1)(a) all in.

In summary, what we have before us with Bill S-3 is certainly a fix for many of the problems. We have an incredibly botched process from start to now, and we have a problem with a Superior Court deadline that may or may not have any flexibility. Therefore, on this side of the House we are mostly incredibly disappointed that we did not have adequate time to do important due diligence to an incredibly important piece of legislation.

I go back to my original comment, my personal story that these decisions impact real people. They impact Margaret and who she was in her community. She was a lovely woman, a beautiful, articulate, talented elder who gave so much to her community; and we, the Government of Canada, made her lesser for that, and we need to make sure we get this fixed.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is something that emanates from an August 3, 2015, decision of the Superior Court of Quebec, which at the time ruled that the Indian Act unjustifiably violated equality rights. The Superior Court of Quebec at that time gave Parliament 18 months to try to make the necessary legislative changes to right a wrong.

The hon. member appears to understand that this is in fact unjust to many indigenous women, yet her government, the former Stephen Harper government, chose not to right a wrong but to appeal the decision in September 2015. It is in fact due to the leadership of the minister and the Prime Minister that we withdrew the federal government appeal.

If the hon. member understands that this is a wrong, why did they choose to appeal the decision of the Superior Court of Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the member is new here, but he might not be aware that, when decisions come down in terms of when a government is in a writ period or a pre-writ period, it typically goes into a holding pattern and the decision is made in an automatic way, so that whoever is the government post-election will have the opportunity to make that decision. If they choose not to move forward, then they have taken away any options in the future. Therefore, obviously the current government had the opportunity to look at the issue, it has made its decision, and we did the responsible thing during the writ period.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member for many years in this place and she has always spoken from a deep heart on behalf of indigenous Canadians.

I too have known incredible aboriginal elders. I worked with Nellie Carlson and Kathleen Steinhauer in the 1970s in their campaign for Indian rights for Indian women. It was only because of their efforts moving forward voluntarily to resolve this discrimination, not the efforts by any Conservative or Liberal government, which we have seen back and forth. We have had back-and-forth Liberal and Conservative governments, so neither of the two should be pointing fingers at each other. Where have the Conservative governments been on resolving this matter? Why do we have to wait for first nations women to go to court? Why do we have to wait for indigenous children to have to go to court so that they can have equal rights to other Canadians? When will this end? This discrimination has been going on for 100 years.

Can the member speak to it? It is not just because the most recent case came forward and unfortunately there was an election. Does she not agree that we should be ending this discrimination now, and should be doing away as well with legislation like the Indian Act, as my colleague has said?

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

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I very clearly articulated the need to get rid of the sex-based inequities in the Indian Act. Truly I think most indigenous communities believe we should move away from the Indian Act altogether. It is a piece of legislation that has been incredibly paternalistic. Someone once said to me that unfortunately the Indian Act has very deep roots; it is very complex. Therefore, if we look at this issue of registration and fixing the issue of registration, we see it is a process that has to be done thoughtfully and, in this case, with appropriate consultation as opposed to the consultation process that happened.

Whether paragraph 6(1)(a), all in, is the answer, I do not think the analysis has been done, but there are people who believe it will fix the issue. However, the committee has not had enough time to do its due diligence to really understand what the opportunity is. I do know that before us we have some legislation that would fix a significant number of the remaining issues. Historically, as time goes on, we look back at what we have done in the past and we know that some of the decisions that have been made since Canada was formed have had tremendous negative impacts and that we have to move forward in a more positive way.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo could reference a bit about our experience at committee the first time around, when we had witnesses come to the committee and we asked them about some consultation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all the work he has done on committee with us and his commitment to this place.

I talked already about Mr. Descheneaux's comments the first time around. Chief O'Bomsawin says there has been no communication whatsoever, and this is one of our biggest complaints about the whole thing. He said:

I'm probably one of the chiefs at the table who is strongly known for negotiations. I'm a strong believer that we all sit down at the table and we talk. We're not going to solve all the problems of the past, and we never will, but it wasn't us who made these problems. It was our ancestors who made the problems. I think today we need to sit down and say, “What is the future and how are we going to work together?”

This is from one of the chiefs who was incredibly disappointed, because he was directly involved. He was really concerned with respect to the lack of consultation. He is just one of many examples of moving with legislation in a way that is too fast.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the campaign that led to the last election, there was a lot of talk about reconciliation. The new government would establish a new nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples. I get the impression that we do not know exactly what we are talking about when we talk about that nation-to-nation relationship that we want to establish with indigenous peoples.

Could my colleague assist me in understanding what we are talking about, on the other side?