Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 6th, 2017

[Francyne Joe]

We've recently had changes in our PTMA up in the northern communities, so we will be meeting with the new president and the board of directors up there, sharing the information we currently have, and then going into consultation with the membership in the Northwest Territories.

Unfortunately, the amount of time we had in the last fiscal year was really insufficient to try to get every territory and every province on board. Thirty days means only 20 working days, so from the information we were able to gather, I was quite pleased that women were able to voice their concerns.

There are still some other concerns that haven't been addressed by this amendment, but we are willing and we need to start working on how we can help our indigenous women get their status. It's a band-aid solution at this point, but we need to make it work.

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

Thank you. That was important to hear.

You expressed concern about clause 10 and the “no claim to compensation” provision. I would like you to elaborate on that, because what we heard from INAC just a while ago was that they had multiple engagement sessions with organizations like yours, but also with the legal counsel of different organizations—I imagine with the NWAC legal counsel. Is that the case?

[Courtney Skye, Director of Strategic Policy, Native Women's Association of Canada]

We had an engagement session on the issues, yes.

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

What was the response when you raised that concern with respect to the “no claim to compensation”? Was there any response to your concerns?

[Courtney Skye]

This is a recommendation that's been in a number of different pieces, and actually we've spoken to other indigenous people as well. The removal of this clause is a constant recommendation that is made on the Indian Act, but regardless of our recommendations it still remains. This amendment is constantly brought up as an issue, and continues to be put in by the crown.

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

What is the argument here? If this is inserted, I have problems with it, too. If you discriminated in the past, you cannot remove that in the legislation. What happened in the past happened, and you cannot deny that. Is your recommendation to this committee to remove that clause?

[Lynne Groulx]

Yes, that is our recommendation, to remove that clause. What we heard when we did our preliminary engagement sessions was that this is a breach of human rights. It is a human right to have your identity. Therefore, if your human right has been breached, you have a right to be made whole. How do you make a person whole? You have to provide a remedy. For that reason, we feel that this clause should be removed.

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

You speak to it from a human rights perspective, and that is exactly how we should consider this.

Francyne, you talked about inherent rights of indigenous peoples. This a concept I fully stand by, because when we say inherent, these rights exist because we exist as indigenous peoples. That's how I understand the concept.

You also talked about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I'd like to hear you on that particular point, because I think there's something important that this committee needs to consider. At least, we need to have that perspective whenever we discuss legislation or policy in this committee and the House. We need the proper basis to have that discussion. That has not been happening.

The new government has promised to adopt and implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and promised a new relationship with indigenous peoples in this country, but we still don't have the basis to move forward. Any changes to legislation, and in particular the Indian Act, should be done with a strong framework such as the UN declaration.

Is that your opinion? What is your opinion on this?

[Francyne Joe]

As mentioned earlier in regard to the Indian Act, this issue has been affecting our people for the last 140 years. It is an inequity that has been applied especially to indigenous women. In order for us to make some substantial changes, just taking out that discriminatory language is a good first step.

But the Canadian government needs to recognize our indigenous people, our history, our traditions. Concerning their promises to incorporate the UN declaration, we need to have a timeline. We need to start working with the government to see how this is going to move forward. That is going to be a big step for indigenous women and indigenous people overall.

I'm not sure whether Courtney has anything else that she'd like to say.

[Courtney Skye]

Yes, I think that's an important piece. It's an important piece to emphasize with this, because we're talking about the indigenous-born and their rights to exist and to exist in a way that's self-determined. That's the basis of human rights. It's a key piece.

Many people will say what UNDRIP means. One thing we want to highlight from UNDRIP is that it says we have the right to be free of discrimination, including a right to be free of sex discrimination. There's a duty to consult, but there's also a freedom from individual discrimination as well.

Removal of the sex discrimination brings women and their descendants on par to begin to talk about these bigger issues around the existence of the Indian Act—all these things. Until we have women who are at the same level, we can't even begin that conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you so much.

We're now moving to the next questioner, and that's MP Massé.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for joining us.

I will echo the comments of our colleague Cathy McLeod. Having heard testimony before this committee and before others, I would also like to be a lawyer. I think that will be the next step, in a future career, in order to properly understand all the ramifications.

According to the latest testimony we have heard, and according to the amendment proposed by Senator McPhedran—6(1)(a) all the way—there still seem to be some technical elements that have not been examined or clarified. So some work appears to remain before an adequate bill is created.

In this context, I would like to come back to the consultation. My question is for the Native Women's Association. Do you feel that enough consultation has been conducted in this process to make it possible to assess the impacts related to all the proposed legislative amendments?

[Courtney Skye]

There's no consultation that can be done on equality. You can't actually choose and seek to address equality. What is there to answer on that? What question can there be around asking communities whether or not they want equality?

We talk about how many people could potentially be impacted or be able to claim status. If anything, these huge numbers are a demonstration of the breadth of the discrimination that's been experienced by communities. More importantly, equality can't be negotiated away, and so we can't negotiate away the rights of equality for our women.

This is not a question around membership; this is specifically about who is eligible for status and whether men and women are equal to inherit and to transmit status equally. Right now, they are not. We are strictly talking about ending that discrimination and seeking equality for women.

There are many other questions that are on the table, but they are not about what this bill is specifically seeking to do. We are committed to implementing what's in the bill, but then also engaging in these other conversations as well, which have been described and are entrenched through the stage two engagements.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Unless I am mistaken, the approach proposed by the government is a staged approach that provides for a second consultation and a very clear process in terms of timelines.

Are you in favour of that two-stage process?

[Courtney Skye]

Yes, we are, and we are committed to working on it. NWAC has been committed since its inception to seeking every opportunity to advocate on the rights of indigenous women. This is another opportunity for us to engage and to advocate for the rights of indigenous women. We will take every opportunity and are glad to engage in these conversations.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Over the course of previous testimony, we have received comments stemming from concerns with regard to our government's commitment to move forward with a second stage of consultation. Witnesses clearly referred to delays during other legislative steps that took five, six, seven or eight years to complete.

Bill S-3 was developed with a set of established timelines in specific provisions. Are you confident in the fact that the process, as presented, could be put forward and completed within the set timelines?

[Francyne Joe]

I'm never confident in timelines, with this or any other government, because promises to indigenous people have been broken in the past. I think that with this change and NWAC's commitment to work with INAC, we can bring something forward that will benefit indigenous women.

It's not just me or the women here holding them accountable; it's so many women across this country. I try to trust. I will do my best to trust, but at the end of the day it's really up to the government to hold true to what they say, so...fingers crossed.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will share my time with Mr. Bossio, if he has any specific questions. I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Make it very short, about a minute.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Okay.

This is to the Native Women's Association.

I heard you say earlier that you felt strongly about the consultation process and felt that we need to move forward with it and work in a collaborative way to establish a collaborative process in order to define what the consultation process should look like. You seemed to indicate that you had some level of trust in the stage two mechanism to accomplish that consultation.

Do you agree that we should try to move as quickly as we can to bring in the 35,000 who have been identified and whose status could be rectified under the bill today under stage one and then move towards stage two? Or do you feel that we should look for an extension, for the 18 to 24 months that will be required under the consultation process, and forget about stage two?

[Francyne Joe]

We've been advocating for all women for so many years. My cousin Sharon McIvor has been in this for decades. We would like to see those who are currently eligible be able to move forward and get their status, because it means so much to them, even at this time. If we continue to postpone this, we're doing such an injustice to those people who are continually waiting for this process to move forward. I would hate to make them wait.

We were speaking yesterday about how many elders have been fighting this fight, and they're passing on. Let's see some sort of....

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Progress?

[Francyne Joe]

Progress. Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I think that's a good place to end.

[Courtney Skye]

May I make one more point?

Stage two spells out specific issues, and that's what we're supportive of, the specific issues. Stage two takes place after the eradication of the sex discrimination.

We are supportive of stage two with respect to those specific issues that are outlined in the bill.