Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The NDP will be supporting this proposed amendment for a couple of reasons.

First of all, it's interesting to hear the parliamentary secretary talk about the flaws in the current Indian Act. This was a real opportunity to deal with some of the flaws in the Indian Act. This simply doesn't do it. What we are doing is continuing the ability of the minister to interfere.

I want to refer to a couple of documents.

The Assembly of First Nations provided a briefing document to committee members, and in their document they indicate that:

In choosing and designing mechanisms for the fulfillment of this authority, care needs to be taken that new barriers or new oversight mechanisms are not being created, further vesting control in the office of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

When Chief Nepinak came before the committee, in his summary statement he said:

The proposed legislation is simply an addition to the Indian Act, citing the same authority and the same definitions, granting broad additional powers and discretion to the Minister and his office. The legislation mingles only one recommended change from the AMC and the illusion of another and the resultant product is another piece of federal government owned legislation that perpetuates Canada’s self-proclaimed authority and chips away the rights of First Nations.

In his testimony he specifically dealt with the offending piece and indicated this:

This authority defeats the objectives of the AMC recommendation that first nations retain the right to opt in. The clause would allow the minister to subjugate those bands that have previously opted out of the Indian Act to custom election procedures.

Then he goes on, and he does indicate a major concern:

“Protracted leadership dispute” is not a defined term and leaves broad discretion to the minister.

And he reiterates that the AMC did not make any such recommendation.

I also want to point out another problem. Subclause 3(1) provides the condition under which the minister may choose to add a first nation to the schedule, after which time that first nation would hold its election under this act. What that section requires is a band council resolution, but when you refer to clause 42, there's a completely different and more onerous process to have a first nation remove itself from this process. You wonder why you can get in so easily, but you take so much more difficulty in getting out. This whole notion of opt-in and being in control only seems to be a control issue when you actually try to get in, not when you try to get out.

I would urge members to support this amendment because it would deal with a number of the criticisms that did arise. As Grand Chief Nepinak pointed out, and as others have pointed out, this was not part of the recommendation that came out of the consultation process. If the government wants to indicate it is truly committed to a consultation process, it will actually listen to the recommendations that come forward from the groups that did the consultation. I would suggest we support this amendment.

Jean Crowder

Transcript

Discussions (0)