44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 20, 2023 10:00AM
moved that Bill C‑38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
26 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest. The term “enfranchisement” meant the destruction of indigenous identity. To be enfranchised meant someone's inability to leave the reserve, the inability to vote, the inability to marry whom one loved, and even the inability to fight to defend Canada, because the Canadian government, in the First World War, did not want to allow indigenous soldiers because it did not want to recognize them as citizens with rights. We have a long way to go in dealing with the destruction that was done.
I appreciate my hon. colleague for bringing this bill forward, although this bill has been sitting on the back burner for some time now. The issue goes back to the fact that, at the end of the day, those who are trying to re-establish their rights are still going through the department of Indian affairs. That is what it was before and that is what I still call it. It is a department that is underfunded and that does not take this issue seriously. It is bureaucratic red tape.
My hon. colleague says that indigenous identity must be dealt with by indigenous people. When are we actually going to see a bill that is about nation to nation, that is about empowering the nation to make decisions about environmental protection and growth, and that is about who their band members are? We are still going through the department of Indian affairs. It is still a colonial system and a broken system.
254 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Fredericton for her speech and her position on Bill C‑38.
Obviously we are in favour of the principle of the bill, but I am still uncomfortable when bills on indigenous issues are introduced because I find it will only result in some sort of band-aid solution.
The government is trying to fix something that was done on a fundamentally bad foundation. The title itself, “Indian Act”, is repulsive. I find that the federal government tends to take a paternalistic approach to the first nations and that always makes me uncomfortable.
Should we not, for once and for all, rip up the old Indian Act and truly redo the agreements with the first nations, agreements that are created and developed nation to nation and not with someone who has a colonizer attitude draped in virtue?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I have written so many papers in university about the need to dismantle the Indian Act. We need to throw it in the trash. We need to just completely move forward from it.
When we have conversations with the 634 indigenous communities across the country, there really is no consensus. I think that is the piece right now. We are trying to do it the right way. There would be a risk of losing services if we were to just scrap it altogether. We want to make sure that no services are lost and that rights are enhanced, so it is, unfortunately, a patchwork process.
I would like to address paternalism, because we are in a highly colonial space right now. However, I also feel that there are so many women's voices leading this discussion. With the co-development, the nation-to-nation relationship and the consultations, we are doing this in a good-faith way and with a better approach than I have seen from the federal government in a long time. I am proud to be a part of that process, because I feel we are changing things. I think we are really making a meaningful difference. I am committed to seeing that process through to the end, but done the right way.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a piece of legislation that would come in a series of other approaches in addressing the inequities in the Indian Act.
The enfranchisement piece is really key. Other items include getting rid of some of the inflammatory language and restoring some of the rights that should be there. Again, it is a process, and we are committed to doing the work that needs to be done to undo the wrongs. This is an important step forward.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, from a personal perspective, and on behalf of Conservatives, one of the things we would say in response is that we need to eliminate the “Ottawa knows best” approach and the control imposed over people across the country by this outdated and archaic Indian Act, but we need to do this much quicker.
We need to get to a place where first nation, Inuit and Métis people across the country all have the ability and the right to determine their own future, to true self-determination. That is the only path where we are going to get past all of the litigation, all of the lawsuits and all of the court cases and where we actually empower indigenous people across the country to control and dictate their own futures and their own destinies.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the foundation of a solid house cannot be built on sand. Unfortunately, this bill is yet another pillar or beam in a house that the government is trying to build on a very shaky foundation, namely the Indian Act.
After hearing my colleague's speech, I would like to ask him a question that reflects the Bloc Québécois's position. Why not simply abolish the Indian Act itself, which is so problematic?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
2581 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I really have appreciated hearing the debate in the House today. It draws our attention to the fact that this is a very complicated issue that we really need, in the House, to listen to far more than to debate amongst ourselves. I thank the last member for her speech on her concerns about the circumstances that our first nations and our indigenous peoples find themselves in.
Part of the challenge, I do believe, is that indigenous communities are multiple and they come from very different perspectives themselves. I have had conversations with young leaders in the indigenous community who say that their circumstances are so complicated. In their minds, it will take time. What they want to see is something that is really important. I will focus on just this one point and get into the bill more at the next opportunity I have to speak.
The bill would provide strides toward reconciliation and the reversal of discrimination and inequalities within the Indian Act, but it is only a milestone in a long journey of self-determination for first nations across Canada.. What I hear more than anything, over and over again, from indigenous individuals who want to see a good future for themselves and their families is that they do not want to be stakeholders in Canada. They want to be shareholders. I look forward to that day with them.
234 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
