Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the fifth time I have stood in the chamber to ask why the Liberal government would not have removed all sex discrimination against indigenous women from the Indian Act. The Liberals had multiple opportunities proposed by the Senate and my colleague from the NDP, which on National Aboriginal Day, of all days, the government and the Conservatives voted down. They did a half-way measure and said that they would consult on removing the sex discrimination for indigenous women.
To be clear what this means is that in the past indigenous women who married white men lost their Indian status, which then affects all of their subsequent children. There is a not a concomitant penalty for indigenous men who marry white women. It is an obvious case of discrimination and has been adjudicated in Canada's courts for 40 years.
Therefore, Ms. Jeannette Corbiere-Lavell, Ms. Yvonne Bedard, Senator Sandra Lovelace-Nicholas, Dr. Sharon McIvor, Dr. Lynn Gehl, and Senator Lillian Dyck fought this hard in the courts and won. The courts ordered the government to act. Instead, it took the narrowest measure, the most narrow interpretation of what it had to do.
Again, on Wednesday night last week, I asked the parliamentary secretary why the government believed it was necessary to consult on whether indigenous women should have full human rights. To my amazement, she said, “We are restoring rights to indigenous women...that cannot be denied as it is clear in the legislation....I would ask the member opposite to understand and accept that.” The famous six indigenous women who fought this in court do not support what the government has done. They consider it a half measure.
To lead up to my question, where once again I will ask the government why it is necessary to consult on whether indigenous women should have full human rights, I will read today's blog from the Native Women's Association.
But here’s the catch – Bill S-3’s provisions haven’t come into force with the bill’s passage; in fact, there is no fixed date for their implementation.
Not only does this leave thousands of Indigenous persons in limbo, but the bill also neglects to address several other forms of legislated sex-based discrimination: the existing hierarchy between men with 6(1)(a) status and re-instated Bill C-31 women with less conferrable 6(1)(c) status as well as issues related to sperm donors, surrogacy and adoption, such as a child adopted into an Indigenous family who receives ‘higher’ status than an Indigenous child born into an Indigenous family.
There is more. It is a great read. I do recommend it to all parliamentarians. NWAC goes on to say that:
But don’t worry – the government will be engaging in consultations with Indigenous groups to discuss barriers and discrimination related to status registration. That is to say, the government is consulting Indigenous peoples on just how much discrimination against them is acceptable.
Therefore, one more time, the sixth time at least, I ask this. Why on earth would a feminist government committed to a nation-to-nation relationship built on respect continue to discriminate against indigenous women in our country?