Debates of Oct. 20th, 2023

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Indian Act

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑38, an act to amend the Indian Act, which corrects serious mistakes committed in the past regarding the status of many first nations members.

Today, I speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, but also as a member of the Huron‑Wendat Nation. First, let me say one thing: The Indian Act is a colonial law that introduced a system of domination and ghettoization. Its very name is just as racist as the N-word can be. I cringe whenever I see the word “Indian” on my status card. Cosmetic or vocabulary changes do nothing to fix the fact that this is a law on ghettos. This law was put in place by a conqueror in order to park people on reserves. It is a throwback to British colonialism and a culture that became woven into English Canadian colonialism. The Indian Act must be abolished and replaced by a new, respectful regime founded on a dialogue between nations. International relations begin at home.

Be that as it may, although it merely amends the scandalous Indian Act, the bill before us today remains incredibly relevant. The spirit of Bill C‑38 stands as a sentinel against the injustices perpetrated by the Indian Act, which continues to cast long shadows, even into present-day Canada. It courageously tackles the evils that continue to impede deregistration, enfranchisement and reaffiliation with the natal band, despite multiple attempts at amendment. This noble bill embodies a common quest and a never-ending conversation with the indigenous nations that stretch across our vast land. No fewer than 50 virtual sessions, held from August to December 2022, enabled first nations, indigenous organizations and all those concerned to engage in dialogue and express themselves.

The government anticipates that close to 3,500 individuals will be granted the right to registration as a result of these legislative amendments, thus opening a door towards the righting of many historical wrongs. This bill, like a small breath of fresh air, offers thousands of Canadians of indigenous lineage the chance to reconnect with their cultural heritage. It gives them access to the rights rooted in Indian status in Canada, but goes far beyond that, by allowing them to fully reclaim their identity.

It is worth recalling that prior to 1985, enfranchisement was a sinister assimilation policy under the Indian Act. Under this vile legislation, first nations individuals lost their entitlement to registration as well as membership in their home communities. Enfranchisement could be voluntary, but the government could also impose enfranchisement on individuals, either by virtue of their profession or because they had been residing outside of Canada for five years. When men were enfranchised, their wives and children were automatically enfranchised. This led to entire families and their descendants losing entitlement to registration, membership in their communities, and any associated benefits under the Indian Act.

In 1985, Bill C‑31 created new categories under section 6 of the act for determining eligibility for registration, which restored access to registration for a large number of people and their first-generation descendants. As part of these changes, the emancipation process was eliminated from the act, and people who had already been voluntarily or involuntarily emancipated could request that their registration be restored. Although the provisions of the Indian Act regarding registration and membership were amended in 2011 through Bill C‑3 on gender equity in Indian registration and in 2017 through the passage of Bill S‑3, An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général), these legislative reforms focused mainly on eliminating gender inequities in the registration process.

However, other injustices rooted in the grim past of emancipation are insidiously persistent. The descendants of those who were at one time subject to emancipation are still unable to pass on their right to registration in the same way as those who were not affected by this measure. Similarly, those who were subject to emancipation as a member of a band or community continue to be excluded from registration today.

The introduction of Bill C-38 offers the promise of better days ahead. After it is passed, many people will be in a different registration category and others will be newly eligible for registration. What is more, if the problems of individual and collective enfranchisement are resolved, nearly 3,500 people will be given the invaluable access to registration.

Right now, the Indian Act does not provide for the possibility of voluntary deregistration at the specific request of the interested parties. However, thanks to the proposed amendments, it will be possible for a person to have their name removed from the Indian register for various reasons, such as wanting to join indigenous tribes in the U.S. that do not allow those registered under the Indian Act to enrol; wanting to identify as Métis; deciding to no longer be recognized on the federal Indian register; or withdrawing consent to be registered as an adult, for those whose parents registered them as children.

Mercifully, Bill C‑38 will guarantee that, when a person has their name removed from the register, they will still legally retain their entitlement to be registered under the Indian Act, the right to be registered again in the future, and the right to transmit this precious birthright to their descendants.

For some individuals, deregistration is vital because it is a matter of having control over their own identity. For others, it is a barrier to gaining membership in other indigenous groups, like Métis, if they have mixed ancestry. This has long hindered many people from accessing important services and benefits they should be entitled to through a group they wish to identify with.

For example, Métis lose their right to Métis membership if they are registered under the Indian Act. Bill C‑38 will provide individuals with the right and ability to have their names removed from the Indian register. Once deregistered, the individual will not have the right to access any programs, services, settlements or benefits associated with Indian Act registration. Even if the individual later seeks to be re-registered, that individual will have no retroactive claim to any such benefits for the period in which they were deregistered. However, any individual who opts to deregister will retain their entitlement to registration under the Indian Act, including the ability to regain their status in the future.

When a woman who is registered under the Indian Act is a member of the band that she was born into, in other words, either the mother's or father's band, this is referred to as being a member of her natal band. If passed, Bill C‑38 would recognize the acquired rights of all first nations to membership with their natal band. This bill would provide a legal framework to re-affiliate women and their descendants to their natal bands who were automatically moved to their husbands' band list upon marriage. Bill C‑38 provides a valuable opportunity to re-establish important cultural and community connections for first nations women and their families.

Since this bill is intended as a response to historical wrongs perpetrated by Ottawa and its racist, sexist legislation that discriminates against indigenous people, it is imperative to remain vigilant to ensure that this bill does not itself become an indirect instrument of assimilation and cultural erasure of indigenous people by allowing overly broad access to their recognized Indian status for those unfamiliar with indigenous cultures.

Luckily, the limited yet still significant scope of individuals who will now be eligible does not seem to pose a threat of diluting indigenous identity, as once provided for in the Indian Act, along with ethnocide. The indigenous groups that the Bloc Québécois consulted did not seem consider that an imminent risk. However, we will remain watchful.

It is imperative that this bill be considered in its entirety, with careful attention paid to its consequences and impacts, to ensure that it truly rectifies past wrongs while respecting the rights and identity of indigenous peoples.

From the 19th century on, women and their descendants have been the victims of blatant gender discrimination when it comes to registration and band membership.

In 1869, with the passage of the Gradual Enfranchisement Act, the definition of “Indian” was no longer based on first nations kinship and community ties. The act was deliberately designed to remove families headed by a non-Indian man from first nations communities by building on the predominance of men over women and children. The 1869 law also included a provision concerning interracial marriages. Known as the “marrying out rule”, it was retained in the first Indian Act of 1876. This rule removed entitlement to registration from Indian women who married non-Indian men, while granting entitlement to non-Indian women who married Indian men. In addition, children of entitled men who married non-Indian women became entitled under the Indian Act, while children of women who “married out” were no longer entitled. This is clearly a flagrant inequality.

In 1951, important amendments were made to registration, namely, the creation of a centralized Indian register. Later, other amendments further reinforced the discrimination against women and their descendants, especially the double mother rule. Gender discrimination in the Indian Act was challenged under national and international human rights legislation, which brought to light the fact that women were excluded from first nations communities and were being deprived of the ability to retain their indigenous identity in the eyes of Canadian law.

For decades, indigenous women fought for their rights in court, challenging the patriarchal provisions of the Indian Act. In the 1960s and 1970s, women like Jeanette Lavell from the Wikwemikong nation, Yvonne Bedard from the Six Nations of the Grand River, elder and advocate Mary Two‑Axe Earley from the Kanien'kehà:ka nation, and Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas from the Malecite nation took legal action to fight the Indian Act's discrimination against women and their descendants. These courageous women paved the way to reform and justice and thus helped to advance the cause of indigenous women's rights and to fight the systemic injustice that has long marked the history of the Indian Act.

The chief commissioner of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Marion Buller, said the following after tabling the more than 2000-page report:

Despite their different circumstances and backgrounds, all of the missing and murdered are connected by economic, social and political marginalization, racism, and misogyny woven into the fabric of Canadian society.

As much as indigenous communities need to rebuild, Quebeckers and Canadians need to become aware of the collective trauma experienced by these communities, understand it, and ensure that nothing this disgraceful ever happens again. Quebec Native Women had this to say:

[In the case of many of the missing or murdered women] [o]ne might claim that the person responsible for [their] death is the one who gave [them] the beating that led to [their] passing. In fact, this interpretation was favored by former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he insisted on the criminal, as opposed to sociological, nature of the murders of Indigenous women in the country (La Presse Canadienne, 2014)...Beyond the single act of violence perpetrated by one person against another, it is the accumulation of each of the above-mentioned acts of violence that led to [their] death.

According to Viviane Michel, a former president of Quebec Native Women, it is essential that indigenous women, families and communities have the opportunity to be heard as part of any inquiry. She also said that understanding the deep roots underlying the systemic discrimination faced by indigenous women is crucial to ensuring their dignity and safety.

In listening to the testimony of indigenous women, Quebec Native Women counted four types of violence.

The first type of violence is structural violence. This all-encompassing form of violence refers to the systemic effects of policies of erasure and assimilation since at least the middle of the 19th century. The Indian Act is the quintessential example of a system that governs all areas of the lives of first nations people, including political, economic, social, legal and cultural.

The second type of violence is institutional violence. This second form of violence, which necessarily flows from the first, has more to do with the repercussions associated with specific institutional regimes, whether in education, health or public safety. The residential school system is a prime example. Not only did this violence manifest itself in the lives of residential school survivors, but its consequences have spanned generations and have permanently altered the life trajectories of thousands of children by insinuating themselves into every aspect of their existence.

The third type of violence is family violence. This expression is frequently used in an indigenous context to emphasize the fact that violence affects not only couples, but also the children and potentially other people connected to the family.

The fourth and final type of violence is personal violence, which includes instances of physical violence, psychological manipulation and financial control, to name but a few. It involves individuals.

In their descriptions of the encounters, the families and survivors who spoke to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls all linked their experiences to colonialism, in its historical or modern form, through one or other of four main factors: historical, multigenerational or intergenerational trauma; social and economic marginalization; maintaining the status quo and institutional lack of will; ignoring the agency and expertise of indigenous women and girls.

The trauma of Canada's indigenous people is both individual and collective. Expert witness Amy Bombay's testimony at the child and family welfare hearing highlighted the importance of the concept of historical trauma to speak to what she called the cumulative emotional and psychological wounding that happens over the lifespan and across generations, emanating from massive group trauma experiences.

It is the response to this trauma that perpetuates this colonialist legacy, which has become embedded in all of Canada's indigenous cultures through no fault of their own. This response, which can take the form of various social problems, is always aimed at surviving this trauma. Throughout history, the Canadian government and the clergy planned the collective trauma with the ultimate goal of driving all indigenous communities to extinction. Those communities have since been left to deal with the consequences alone. One day, Canada will have to confront this reality.

We have a duty to remember precisely because the past determines our present and future. However, this duty to remember only makes sense in this case if we learn from the past. If we, like the Prime Minister of Canada, get used to shedding crocodile tears and settling for continuing under the Indian Act, then our collective duty to remember will be in vain. We need to build a new system, ideally an independent republic of Quebec, based on a new, respectful dialogue with all nations. That is what the Bloc Québécois is advocating for.

Tiawenhk.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many examples the member brought forward when talking about the real need. I think they amplify the importance of Bill C-38.

I know from personal experience in dealing with constituents, in particular a very good, dear friend of mine, Mr. Chartrand, that we have been trying as much as possible to make sure there is some justice in regard to someone getting registered and being identified by their heritage. It has caused a great deal of frustration.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on that. It is important to recognize, as we move forward, that leadership has to be driven from indigenous communities. This is an important aspect, and we have to ensure that we turn to that leadership to make sure we are getting this right. Would the member agree?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, and as one might imagine, when I was asked to speak to this issue, I immediately contacted the grand chief of my nation, the Huron-Wendat Nation. I asked him what he thought of this. It goes without saying that this must be done.

That being said, when it comes to leadership, it takes two to tango, as they say. It has to come from both sides. The desire for dialogue and leadership in dialogue must come from both sides. Unfortunately, I often get the impression that things move far too slowly in the House.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I am wondering, and what I want to ask the Bloc Québécois member, is why the Liberals took so long to move second reading of the bill. They introduced Bill C‑38 a year ago.

Why are they dragging their feet on this matter? Does this suggest a lack of sincerity and enthusiasm when it comes to indigenous relations? Can my colleague comment on that?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating our colleague on his excellent efforts to speak French. Allow me to applaud him. I understood his speech completely.

First of all, I would like to say that, for my own sake, I have long given up trying to explain the Liberal's slow response to a host of issues. Some things are better left chalked up to the mysteries of life. Even on my deathbed, I doubt I will have the answer.

That said, I want to come back to something I mentioned earlier. At some point the government needs to stop with the words, the processions, the public ceremonies and the crocodile tears. People need to stop pretending they find this tragic. At some point, they have to get moving. Why does it always take so long for something to get started? It is unacceptable.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the structural violence that was committed against indigenous identity, indigenous language and indigenous families, we also have to talk about the resistance to defend that identity. That is why I think this is so important, and I thank my colleague for his speech. We have to be rooted in the history of this country and what happened.

I will talk about Beaverhouse. Beaverhouse is a community between the Algonquins of Timiskaming and Abitibiwinni and the Ojibway Matachewan, yet it was ignored by the federal government, which said it was not a real band. For 100 years, it had no legal rights. It had no legal rights to represent itself and no legal rights to defend its families. When the sixties scoop came, they went after communities like Beaverhouse to trash and destroy them.

Chief Marcia Brown Martel led the legal battle to bring the children home. It changed Canadian law because this little community stood up. It was only last year that Beaverhouse was finally recognized as a band. It had been on its land since time immemorial.

Colonialism destroyed and attacked communities in different ways, but to repair the damage, which is our obligation, is going to take a multi-faceted approach. What does my hon. colleague think about the need to address the individual impacts that were felt by various communities and various nations by the colonial system across this country?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure that I understand the situation that my colleague just described to the House. His intervention was very interesting.

Something that has always bothered me is the use of the term “indigenous people”. Of course, people use it to be brief and concise, but indigenous people are not a homogenous group. We refer to first nations because there is more than one nation. Each nation has its own values, its own culture, its own identity, its own language and its own interests. We obviously need to differentiate when speaking about each of these nations.

It would be like saying “all of the peoples of the world”. Obviously, there are a lot of things that all of the peoples of the world have in common, but the fact remains that we cannot treat them as though they are all identical. That is how we need to look at things when we are dealing with adults. It helps us break away from the colonial mindset.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and riding neighbour from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot for his eloquent speech. As he himself is a member of the Huron-Wendat Nation, I think he knows what he is talking about. He is well read and very passionate about the issue.

I also liked the fact that he talked about the future republic of Quebec, which will truly establish a nation-to-nation relationship. I was pleased that he did not talk about the future monarchy of Quebec, although that would be unlike him.

A bit earlier in the debate, I asked a Liberal member a question about the very nature of the work being done to try to correct a fundamentally racist and archaic piece of legislation. I told her that we should simply tear up the Indian Act and start over on a respectful and new foundation in order to be able to work intelligently nation to nation. She told me that within many first nations across Canada, there is no consensus. Again, we have this sort of claim that it is up to the federal government to build consensus.

I would like to hear the thoughts of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who, I repeat, is a member of the Huron-Wendat Nation. I would like his view as a first nations member. According to him, how should we proceed with building consensus among all the first nations of Canada?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, neighbour and friend for his question.

Let me make one thing clear. The title of this bill, while perhaps a little better than the title it replaced, is in itself a sign that it must be abolished. I used the word “Indian” unwillingly, and it turned my stomach every time I used it throughout my speech. I was using it for the sole reason that it is the title of the act. Indians do exist, and they are the inhabitants of India. It is not the term for first nations, Métis and Inuit people. These people are known as indigenous people.

Again, as our NDP colleague said in his previous question, each and every one of these indigenous people must be treated individually. What I am trying to say in answer to the question is that it is possible that many communities will see benefits as a result of several provisions of the current legislation. However, the best way to do this is to open a dialogue and start from scratch.

There is no requirement that the same law apply to all first nations. In order to determine what should replace the current legislation, it is important to listen to the first nations communities themselves. We will have to listen to what they want to do. If there is no consensus, obviously that also shows that there is no consensus in favour of it. If there is no consensus against it, there is no consensus for it. We can look—

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I thank the hon. member. I spent the last 30 seconds motioning for him to conclude his remarks. He will have time to answer a brief 30-second question.

The hon. member for Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the 2021-22 departmental results report for the Department of Indigenous Services Canada indicates that the department's ability to meet the target that it set for itself was only achieved at a level of 26%. In other words, of the goals the department set for itself, it was able to achieve only 26%.

My colleague has indicated that he is a member of a first nation, and this department is meant to provide services to first nations people across our country. Does he think that achieving 26% of the targets it set for itself indicates that the government is serious about its commitment to meeting the challenges faced by first nations people across our country?

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member has only a few seconds.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I only have a few seconds. A quick question lends itself to a quick answer. I apologize for not heeding your instructions. I do not want you to think, even though we were friends even before we sat together, that I do not respect your authority as Speaker.

My very short answer to the question is no.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, before the Indian Act, first nations, Métis and Inuit thrived and passed on intergenerational love from generation to generation. The Indian Act is an attempt to erase indigenous peoples from the lands we now call Canada.

Bill C-38 is about status. It could have been about addressing discrimination to the fullest extent. I struggle to support Bill C-38, an act to amend the Indian Act. I am conflicted and disappointed to witness yet another form of incremental change proposed by the Liberal government.

As the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group have clearly stated, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says indigenous peoples have “the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture”. This bill does not meet this minimum standard. For decades, first nations have fought for their rights to be upheld. If Bill C-38 is passed as it is, discrimination against first nations women and their families will continue.

There are two reasons I support getting this bill to committee. Number one, while experts say it does not go far enough, this bill is needed, and number two, the failings of this bill to respect the rights of indigenous peoples will show, through public discourse at committee stage, that amendments are necessary.

Bill C-38 was tabled because of a court case, Nicholas v. Canada. It is not because the government is taking a proactive, co-operative approach to reconciliation. Introducing this bill is the minimum requirement set out in that case. After years of discrimination caused by enfranchisement in the Indian Act, 16 courageous plaintiffs sued the Canadian government in June 2021. They agreed to pause proceedings on the condition that legislation be introduced to address this inequity.

The Liberals' commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples is abysmal. If their commitment was real, Bill C-38 would be fulsome. It would have addressed all discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act. Incremental changes are not sufficient to ensure the advancement of indigenous peoples' rights.

I acknowledge that the Indian Act must be abolished. It is a complicated assimilative tool going back generations. The Liberal government has shown that it is not ready to abolish the act. Bill C-38, like previous court cases, makes amendments that are narrow in scope. Future court cases will be imminent if amendments are not made to this bill. Discrimination will be allowed to continue without the ability to seek reparations.

The Liberal government has shown that it is not ready to undertake the full-scale reconciliation needed to adhere to international law as the governing party. The following background will be the tip of an iceberg. All parliamentarians must commit to learning more about the Indian Act and how it continues to implement the genocide of indigenous peoples.

The Indian Act was established in 1867. John A. Macdonald understood the strength of first nations, Inuit and Métis as a threat to his causes. He had to find a way to weaken them. The Indian Act was the tool to continue the process of genocide against the first peoples who thrived on the lands we now call Canada. The Indian Act is a long-ago piece of legislation that was introduced in 1867. The act remains today.

Since its inception, the Indian Act has continued to deny equality for first nations. The Indian Act allows discrimination without justification. The Indian Act denies women status and therefore rights by gaining status. The Indian Act introduced residential schools, created reserves and imposed a band council system. The Indian Act also tells first nations who can have status and who cannot.

Before the creation of bands by this act, indigenous peoples had their own forms of governance. I am thankful for the strength of those who maintained their governance. I am thankful to Inuit elders. I am thankful to hereditary chiefs. I am thankful to the Wet'suwet'en. I am thankful to the Tseeweyhum family and the many others who keep indigenous legal orders alive.

The Canadian government has known about sex-based inequities in the Indian Act for decades. Bill C-31 in 1985, Bill C-3 in 2011 and Bill S-3 in 2017 have attempted to eliminate sex-based inequities. None of these bills worked to the fullest extent; what they did was complicate indigenous identity for some and not for others.

The Indian Act continues to divide indigenous peoples against each other. With each amendment, the Indian Act becomes more complex and confusing to navigate for indigenous peoples. Indeed, I am told by many how confusing it is to know if they have status, how to get status and if their children will be able to get it. They ask, “What are the implications of being removed?”

It is a shame that in 2020, the Minister of Indigenous Services tabled one of three reports after Bill S-3 to amend the Indian Act was passed. The final report made recommendations that are not being addressed in Bill C-38 by the Minister of Indigenous Services today.

As of 2020, there were over 12,000 applications for status still needing review. The special Bill S-3 processing units created in 2016, as of February 2023, have 1,770 files in progress and 3,990 files in the queue. The bill before us would do nothing to address this backlog. First nations are waiting up to 18 months for a decision by Indigenous Services Canada. This is unacceptable.

Bill C-38 would address enfranchisement, deregistration, loss of natal band membership and certain offensive language. These are long-awaited amendments that indigenous peoples have demanded for decades.

Enfranchisement is a particular genocidal policy and a clear example of Canada's attempts to assimilate indigenous peoples. Enfranchisement was either voluntary or involuntary. Women were enfranchised when they married a non-indigenous man between the years of 1869 and 1985. Other examples of enfranchisement included going to university, becoming a doctor or lawyer, working as a minister, seeking to vote and if one sought freedom from residential schools. Amendments introduced in 1985 attempted to remove enfranchisement. Obviously this did not work.

Bill C-38 would still discriminate against women and children who were involuntarily enfranchised. Descendants are unable to transmit entitlement to registration to the same extent as families that were never enfranchised. Those who were enfranchised as a band or collective have no entitlement to register under the Indian Act today.

I will now turn to deregistration, which provides for removing status from membership. There can be any number of reasons to deregister. These provisions would keep the safety of not impacting the children of those who may have deregistered.

The third component of Bill C-38 is on natal band membership. Bill C-38 would provide a legal mechanism to re-affiliate women to their natal bands. This amendment would serve to allow for membership to be reinstated on a band list based on specific conditions. It would address reinstatement of membership for a group of individuals who were originally prevented from being reinstated based on oversight.

Finally, the bill would amend outdated language, which is a small but important step. The offensive language regarding first nations peoples who require dependency on others would be amended. The offending definition of “mentally incompetent Indian” would be replaced with “dependent person”.

Bill C-38 would address these cases, and it is estimated it would impact around 4,000 people. Many more would remain discriminated against.

The Liberals had a chance to remove discrimination from the Indian Act once and for all. Bill C-15, on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, became law in Canada. The Liberals had a chance to introduce that bill so that it would be in alignment with international law. Instead, they are introducing more piecemeal legislation. The past court challenges, Descheneaux v. Canada, McIvor v. Canada, and Matson v. Canada, make it clear. The Senate committee on aboriginal peoples makes it clear. The Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group makes it clear. So many more make it clear. The Liberal government's pattern of reluctant piecemeal changes in response to litigation is unjust.

There is no justification for Canada to ignore, and indeed infringe on, indigenous people's rights. Parliaments would debate again after the passage of Bill C-38 why it is not okay to keep disrespecting indigenous peoples and infringing on their rights.

Two other major issues not addressed are the second-generation cut-off and the ability to seek reparations. The second-generation cut-off in section 6(2) is not addressed in Bill C-38. This is shocking, given how much attention has been paid to this section in past works. In its Bill S-3 review, the ministry of Indigenous Services Canada reported on it. The Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group in its works reported on it. The Senate committee on indigenous peoples reported on it. They all recommended to remove provisions related to the second-generation cut-off.

If bands reject second-generation cut-off, it is because they are not being properly resourced by Indigenous Services Canada to meet the needs of their increasing membership.

Section 6(2) is sexist, and it is problematic. Who a child's mother is, is usually readily apparent. Who the father is, is not always apparent. Whether the father acknowledges his paternity, and this can be counted as the second-status parent for purposes of eligibility for status, is essentially his decision. The two-parent rule continues Canada's program of forced assimilation. Maintenance of the two-parent rule would fulfill the genocidal intention of the Indian Act, getting rid of “the Indian problem”.

Until this rule is amended, hundreds of thousands of indigenous people, mostly women and their descendants, will be discriminated against.

First nations children were robbed of their mothers. First nations children continue to be robbed of their mothers. The current child welfare system continues to separate indigenous peoples from each other. The Liberals say they will consult on second-generation cut-off. Consultation should not be necessary. Discrimination is discrimination. No amount of consultation will result in the justification of it. The government must interpret the rule of law as adhering to international human rights laws and the charter.

We are told by the Liberals that the public portion of this consultation will not begin until 2024. It will be much longer before legislation is drafted and presented before the House again. This tactic to delay is a denial of the rights of indigenous peoples. We should not have to wait for discriminatory provisions to be removed. There is no justification for discrimination to be allowed to continue.

Another form of oppression is preventing indigenous peoples from seeking reparations. Bill C-38 includes specific clauses that will not allow victims of these policies to seek reparation for the discrimination they have experienced. First nations women and children will continue to be harmed, yet they will not be able to seek reparations, even if discrimination is found.

In past bills, there were related provisions legislating that governments are not liable for harms done under the act. Persons are prevented from seeking claims against the government for discrimination caused by the implementation of the Indian Act.

These injustices remain in Bill C-38. According to human rights laws, Canadians are allowed to seek reparations. Why can first nations not do so?

Bill C-38 is a flawed proposal. While it addresses some injustices in the Indian Act, discrimination against first nations would continue. Bill C-38 continues the Liberal incremental approach to reconciliation.

The Liberals' interpretation of Nicholas v. Canada is about status. Bill C-38 must not just be about status; it must be about addressing discrimination and violations of basic human rights. It must be about reconciliation.

I ask this again: Why is it that when Canadians experience human rights violations, they are allowed to seek reparations, when first nations are not?

I hope that Bill C-38 can be salvaged. I hope that, at committee, we hear from experts explaining why improvements must be sought to ensure that first nations' rights are on par with Canadian human rights.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague from the NDP is very passionate about the issues she speaks of. I serve on the indigenous and northern affairs committee with her and I know that she is very serious about solving these issues.

She spent a fair amount of her time going to great lengths to explain the shortfalls of this bill. She talked about the second-generation cut-off and how much work has already been done on that.

As we have talked about today, since this bill was introduced, it has taken almost a year for us to actually get to debate on this. We have had a lot of time to initiate some of these changes.

With all those frustrations and concerns, has there been any attempt by her or her party to utilize these discussions to leverage their coalition agreement with the Liberals to actually include some of these indigenous issues in their agreement, to get some action?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, when it comes to the confidence and supply agreement, we have discussed, very clearly, what the conditions are. In terms of indigenous issues, we have been clear about what we need to do, so there would be no surprises.

I shadow the Minister of Indigenous Services, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Northern Affairs. I continue to work with the ministers that I shadow to make sure that we are going beyond what is said in the confidence and supply agreement, so that indigenous people's rights are being respected.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut for her speech. She too, like our colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, is very credible. She is very concerned and knowledgeable about the issue, to say the least.

Earlier, I was talking about consensus-building, which is not the federal government's role within first nations.

Since the beginning of this debate, we have been talking about the Indian Act, about reviewing it, improving it and making changes to it. Basically, my question to my colleague is this: Rather than talking about legislation, should we not start talking about agreements between the federal government and first nations?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, indeed, nation-to-nation conversations are absolutely important. When it comes to recognizing the right to self-determination and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we must show through our actions what reconciliation actually means. That also means including the use of indigenous legal orders.

I hope that, through our conversations, we will continue to advance the importance of nation-to-nation relationships.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the wisdom and knowledge she has brought to the House on this issue.

Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have failed indigenous, Inuit and Métis people with their incremental approach to reconciliation. In fact, I still remember that the Conservatives under the Harper government said that the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls issue is an Indian issue. Here we are today with this bill, yet another bill with an incremental approach.

Can the member advise the House on what generational damages she sees for the people, the women and families on the ground as a result of Canada's colonial and incremental approach to ensuring indigenous rights are respected.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, being Inuk, I have grown up in a colonial system, and people do not understand that a lot of the time. All I have to say to better describe it is that my dad committed suicide. I was raised in the foster care system. I have too many families that I have to thank for helping raise me to be who I am.

The unfortunate truth about my story is that it is a common story of indigenous peoples. What I just shared is common to so many first nations, Métis and Inuit. With the ignorance we experienced from regular, mainstream Canadians, we had to start using terms such as “systemic racism” and “genocidal policies”. The terms help explain what the impacts are of these discriminatory policies, discriminatory lies and administrative tactics to not only steal our lands but continue to steal our time and oppress us.

I am so thankful to indigenous peoples who keep our culture alive and who keep our languages alive.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say, at this great distance, that I speak to you acknowledging that I am on the territory of the W̱SÁNEĆ peoples, who held this land on the southern Vancouver Island and the islands I represent, whom I have the honour to work with. I try constantly to remember that I am in a nation-to-nation relationship with five different first nations that are on this territory. Although, as the chiefs will always remind me, they are Indian Act nations and, in reality, we are villages within a much-larger nation of the W̱SÁNEĆ nation.

I am deeply honoured to share a working place with the member of Parliament for Nunavut, and I appreciate her voice and leadership more than she knows. I was so disappointed when I read Bill C-38. She confirmed for me my sense that this is so much less than what one should expect at this point.

I was the first member of Parliament, as far as I know, a number of years ago, to call for the repeal of the Indian Act in the House of Commons. I turned to my colleague at the time, Romeo Saganash, to tell him I was about to call for the repeal of the Indian Act. I asked him if he thought that was okay, because I had not consulted with a lot of first nations before I did that. He said that nobody asked them before they passed the legislation, so he thought it was okay.

We have a long road to go. It is not a slow road, and yet the steps being taken by the government are slow and often completely contradictory in terms of reconciliation.

I wanted to express my deep support and gratitude to the member and let her know that, where I can, I will do what she recommends on Bill C-38. It obviously needs—

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I need to allow time for the answer.

The hon. member for Nunavut.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, solidarity is so important, and in a party system, it is very hard to see solidarity. I do feel the sense of solidarity the member has shared with me, and I think we all need to talk about solidarity more often when it comes to discussing indigenous people's rights.

I started off my conversation about intergenerational love and how we lived with it since time immemorial. Since 1867, all the successive governments stripped us of our intergenerational love. We have shown that, through our strength and our willingness to understand that our culture is too important, it is for us to manage the wildlife and the environment. We are the right people to be the leaders in Canada.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a Métis, an indigenous Canadian, I am happy and pleased to see this bill coming in. It has taken a long time.

However, I am concerned about the NDP-Liberals and how they have worked against indigenous people in many respects, such as with natural resources projects. There have been projects, such as northern gateway, that were approved and wanted by indigenous peoples. Why are the NDP and the Liberals working against indigenous peoples?