Mettre fin à la discrimination dans la transmission du statut: une responsabilité qui dépasse une seule minister

Je réfléchis depuis longtemps à cette question qui revient sans cesse dans les rassemblements des Premières Nations. Comment mettre fin à la discrimination dans la transmission du statut d’Indien d’une génération à l’autre. Cette question a occupé un panel devant les chefs réunis à Ottawa cette semaine. Le projet de loi S-2 avance au Sénat et, pour la première fois depuis des décennies, il semble enfin possible d’éliminer la règle de la deuxième génération. Pourtant, au cœur de ce débat se trouve une figure qui me touche profondément, la ministre Mandy Gull-Masty.

 

Je le dis sans détour. Je la plains. Non pas par condescendance, mais parce qu’elle a accepté un rôle que jamais une personne autochtone ne devrait porter seule. Elle est devenue, malgré elle, l’agente indienne moderne. Elle est devenue celle qui doit défendre un système conçu pour réduire notre nombre. Elle est devenue la voix publique d’une loi qui ne sert pas les intérêts de nos peuples, mais ceux du gouvernement du Canada.

 

Quand Justin Trudeau est arrivé au pouvoir en 2015, plusieurs se demandaient pourquoi aucun député autochtone n’avait été nommé ministre des Affaires indiennes. Après avoir moi-même servi comme député, je comprends mieux. Une fois à l’intérieur du gouvernement, vous passez vos journées à tenter d’équilibrer trop de responsabilités contradictoires. Vous devez appuyer le premier ministre et la ligne gouvernementale. Ensuite, vous devez essayer de répondre aux attentes de votre peuple. Vous portez vos convictions personnelles, vos rêves pour les générations futures, vos obligations envers les ancêtres. Vous essayez de ne blesser personne et vous finissez par vous blesser vous-même.

 

Lorsque j’étais au caucus national, j’ai pris la parole pour dénoncer la règle de la deuxième génération lors d’un débat similaire sur la Loi sur les Indiens dans le cadre du projet de loi S-3 en 2018. On m’a accordé 90 secondes pour expliquer pourquoi cette discrimination détruit nos communautés. Deux ministres se sont ensuite levés pour contredire mes propos et ont parlé pendant 10 minutes. Je me souviens de leur malaise. Je me souviens aussi de mes collègues qui ne comprenaient pas pourquoi deux ministres adoptaient une position si dure. C’était pourtant clair. C’était la position du gouvernement. Ils savaient ce qu’ils faisaient. Ils savaient que le gouvernement protégeait un système qui garde nos peuples divisés et réduit notre nombre à chaque génération. Ils savaient qu’en freinant ces changements, ils refusaient à des enfants le droit de rester dans leur propre communauté.

 

La Loi sur les Indiens sert toujours les intérêts du gouvernement. Elle organise la disparition lente et administrative des Premières Nations. Sharon McIvor, militante infatigable, l’a rappelé cette semaine. Elle affirme que la loi est un document d’extinction. Si la règle demeure, plusieurs communautés n’auront plus aucun membre inscrit. Sans statut, nous perdons nos droits, et nos terres reviennent à la Couronne.

 

Dans ce contexte, Mandy Gull-Masty défend une position prudente. Elle affirme vouloir un chemin différent. Elle souligne que les outils nécessaires pour accompagner les communautés ne sont pas définis. Elle rappelle que les Premières Nations ne sont pas toutes identiques. Tout cela est vrai. Mais cela ne répond pas à la question essentielle. Devons-nous mettre fin à la discrimination maintenant ou poursuivre encore des consultations qui durent depuis des générations.

 

Je crois que si la ministre est crie, alors elle doit être une guerrière. Elle doit lever le poing et être prête à quitter son poste si le gouvernement refuse de reconnaître les droits fondamentaux des enfants de nos nations. Quand elle quittera la politique pour de bon, ce ne sera pas son titre ministériel qui comptera. Ce sera sa capacité à dire qu’elle a accompli quelque chose de valeur pour les générations à venir.

 

Je dis la même chose au député Jaime Battiste. Lui aussi doit écouter les esprits de ses ancêtres. La politique tente souvent de nous convaincre de jouer un long jeu. Mais le long jeu dans la Loi sur les Indiens est simple. Si nous attendons trop longtemps, il ne restera plus personne à protéger.

 

Aujourd’hui, le Sénat propose enfin d’abolir la règle de la deuxième génération. Le projet de loi passera ensuite à la Chambre des communes. Pour une fois, le chemin est clair. Fierté ou honte. Action ou immobilisme.

 

Il est temps que nos représentants aient le courage d’affirmer que le statut ne doit plus être un outil de division. Il doit être le reflet de notre lien vivant avec nos territoires. La ministre doit agir. Les députés doivent agir. Et nous devons rappeler au gouvernement que nos enfants ne sont pas négociables.

 

Quand le soleil se lève, nous offrons nos prières,
Le cœur du guerrier se tient toujours prêt,
Le courage toujours prêt,
Prêt à rencontrer les ancêtres.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/espaces-autochtones/2135633/droit-naissance-premieres-nations-citoyennete

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/espaces-autochtones/2110788/c-38-reforme-loi-indiens

Ending Discrimination in the Transmission of Status: A Responsibility Larger than Any One Minister

I have been thinking for a long time about a question that comes up again and again in gatherings of First Nations. How do we end discrimination in the transmission of Indian status from one generation to the next. This question dominated a panel before the assembled chiefs in Ottawa this week. Bill S-2 is moving through the Senate, and for the first time in decades, it finally seems possible to eliminate the second generation cut off. And yet, at the heart of this debate stands a figure who touches me deeply, Minister Mandy Gull Masty.

I say it plainly. I feel sorry for her. Not out of condescension, but because she accepted a role that no Indigenous person should ever have to carry alone. She has become, despite herself, the modern Indian agent. She has become the person who must defend a system designed to reduce our numbers. She has become the public voice of a law that does not serve the interests of our peoples, but those of the Government of Canada.

When Justin Trudeau came to power in 2015, many wondered why no Indigenous MP was appointed Minister of Indian Affairs. After serving as an MP myself, I understand better. Once inside government asa Minister, you spend your days trying to balance too many contradictory responsibilities. You must first support the prime minister and the government line. Then you must try to meet the expectations of your people. You carry your personal convictions, your dreams for future generations, your obligations to the ancestors. You try not to hurt anyone and you end up hurting yourself.

When I was in national caucus, I spoke out against the second generation cut off during a similar debate on the Indian Act under Bill S-3 in 2018. I was given ninety seconds to explain why this discrimination destroys our communities. Two ministers then stood up to contradict me and spoke for ten minutes. I remember their discomfort. I also remember my colleagues, who did not understand why two ministers would take such a hard line. Yet it was obvious. It was the government’s position. They knew exactly what they were doing. They knew that the government was protecting a system that keeps our peoples divided and reduces our number with every generation. They knew that by slowing these changes they were denying children the right to remain in their own community.

The Indian Act still serves the interests of the government. It structures the slow, administrative disappearance of First Nations. Sharon McIvor, an indefatigable activist, reminded everyone of this again this week. She argues that the Act is a document of extinction. If the rule remains, many communities will eventually have no registered members at all. Without status, we lose our rights, and our lands revert to the Crown.

In this context, Mandy Gull Masty defends a cautious position. She says she wants a different path. She notes that the tools needed to support communities are not defined. She reminds us that First Nations are not all the same. All of this is true. But it does not answer the essential question. Do we end discrimination now, or do we continue consultations that have lasted for generations.

I believe that if the minister is Cree, then she must be a warrior. She must raise her fist and be prepared to leave her position if the government refuses to recognize the fundamental rights of the children of our nations. When she leaves politics for good, it will not be her ministerial title that matters. It will be whether she can say that she accomplished something of value for those who will come after.

I say the same to MP Jaime Battiste. He too must listen to the spirits of his ancestors. Politics often convinces us to play the long game. But the long game in the Indian Act is simple. If we wait too long, there will be no one left to protect.

Today, the Senate is finally proposing to abolish the second generation cut off. The bill will then move to the House of Commons. For once, the path is clear. Pride or shame. Action or stagnation.

It is time for our representatives to have the courage to say that status must no longer be used as a tool of division. It must be the reflection of our living connection to our lands. The minister must act. MPs must act. And we must remind the government that our children are not negotiable.

When the sun rises, we offer our prayers,
The heart of the warrior is always ready,
Courage always ready,
Ready to meet the ancestors.

 

Canada violates UNDRIP with Bill C-5

Last week, I attended the Assembly of First Nations Annual General Assembly in Winnipeg. Hundreds of Chiefs and leaders gathered in ceremony, dialogue and resolution. But beneath the songs and smudges, a quiet alarm was ringing. That alarm has a name, Bill C-5, known as the One Canadian Economy Act.

Two key resolutions were passed. One calls for a delay in the implementation of the Building Canada Act, a part of Bill C-5. The other calls for a massive investment to close the First Nations infrastructure gap. At their heart, both resolutions call on Canada to pause, listen and honour its legal and moral obligations to Indigenous Peoples.

Bill C-5 gives sweeping powers to Cabinet to fast-track what are called “nation building” projects. These include highways, ports, nuclear facilities and pipelines. These projects can now be designated as being in the national interest with limited oversight and very little consultation. First Nations fear that this Act returns Canada to a past era when the government made decisions about our lands without our voices or our consent.

This is not fearmongering. The Act was passed in just twenty days. That is not consultation. That is not co-development. That is not free, prior and informed consent, the very foundation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. And here is the most troubling part. Canada passed a law in 2021, the UNDRIP Act, which made those principles part of Canadian law. That law obliges the federal government to consult, cooperate and obtain consent from Indigenous Peoples before adopting any measure that affects us.

The implementation of Bill C-5 may very well be a violation of that law. It raises the possibility of legal action. First Nations governments could, if they choose, bring forward a legal challenge stating that the Crown has breached its duty to consult and has failed to uphold the requirements of the UNDRIP Act and Section 35 of the Constitution. The government may have passed Bill C-5, but that does not make it immune from the courts or from accountability.

Many of the Chiefs I spoke with were stunned to see that Indigenous Member of Parliament voted in favour of this bill; Liberal, Conservative and NDP members including Jaime Battiste, Rebecca Chartrand and Mandy Gull Masty, supported the legislation. Yes, they represent all Canadians, but they also hold a sacred responsibility to ensure Indigenous voices are heard. They had a chance to stand up and they stood down.

One Chief told me, “If Jody Wilson Raybould or Robert Falcon Ouellette were still in Parliament, this bill would not have passed like this. Mark Carney would have had to sit down with us and talk.” Perhaps. But more importantly, our people would have had someone willing to speak the uncomfortable truths aloud, even when it is not politically convenient.

We are not against nation building. We believe in the potential of this country. We want roads, energy, internet and housing. We want our children to have what every other child in Canada takes for granted. Our goal is not to stop Canada’s progress. It is to ensure that progress includes us.

Article 19 of UNDRIP is clear. You cannot make laws that affect Indigenous Peoples without consulting us and obtaining our free, prior and informed consent. Bill C-5 violated that principle. It passed too fast, with too little input and now risks becoming a legal and moral failure. We even passed a law which is supposed to give life to UNDRIP in Canadian laws. 

Canada must pause the implementation of the Building Canada Act and return to the table. Real dialogue is still possible, but only if the government is prepared to treat First Nations as equal partners, not as afterthoughts.

We have come too far to go back now.

 

Le Canada enfreint la DNUDPA avec la loi C-5

La semaine dernière, j’ai assisté à l’Assemblée générale annuelle de l’Assemblée des Premières Nations à Winnipeg. Des centaines de chefs et de dirigeants se sont réunis dans un esprit de cérémonie, de dialogue et de résolution. Mais derrière les chants et la fumée des cérémonies, une alarme discrète sonnait. Cette alarme porte un nom : le projet de loi C‑5, connu sous le nom de Loi sur une économie canadienne unifiée.

 

Deux résolutions clés ont été adoptées. L’une demande un report de la mise en œuvre de la Loi sur la construction du Canada, une partie du projet de loi C‑5. L’autre réclame un investissement massif pour combler le fossé en matière d’infrastructure dans les Premières Nations. Au fond, ces deux résolutions demandent au Canada de faire une pause, d’écouter et d’honorer ses obligations légales et morales envers les peuples autochtones.

 

Le projet de loi C‑5 accorde d’importants pouvoirs au Cabinet pour accélérer ce que l’on appelle des projets de "construction nationale". Cela inclut des autoroutes, des ports, des centrales nucléaires et des pipelines. Ces projets peuvent désormais être désignés comme étant dans l’intérêt national, avec un encadrement limité et très peu de consultation. Les Premières Nations craignent que cette loi ne ramène le Canada à une époque où les décisions concernant nos terres étaient prises sans nos voix ni notre consentement.

 

Ce n’est pas un alarmisme gratuit. La loi a été adoptée en seulement vingt jours. Ce n’est pas de la consultation. Ce n’est pas du co-développement. Ce n’est pas un consentement libre, préalable et éclairé, pourtant le fondement même de la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones, ou DNUDPA. Et voici l’aspect le plus troublant : le Canada a adopté une loi en 2021, la Loi sur la Déclaration des Nations Unies, qui a intégré ces principes dans le droit canadien. Cette loi oblige le gouvernement fédéral à consulter, coopérer et obtenir le consentement des peuples autochtones avant d’adopter toute mesure qui les affecte.

 

La mise en œuvre du projet de loi C‑5 pourrait très bien constituer une violation de cette loi. Elle ouvre la porte à des actions en justice. Les gouvernements des Premières Nations pourraient, s’ils le souhaitent, déposer une contestation judiciaire affirmant que la Couronne a manqué à son devoir de consultation et n’a pas respecté les exigences de la Loi sur la DNUDPA ni de l’article 35 de la Constitution. Le gouvernement a peut-être adopté le projet de loi C‑5, mais cela ne le rend pas à l’abri des tribunaux ou de la reddition de comptes.

 

Beaucoup des chefs à qui j’ai parlé étaient stupéfaits de voir que des députés autochtones ont voté en faveur de cette loi. Des élus libéraux, conservateurs et néo-démocrates, dont Jaime Battiste, Rebecca Chartrand, Leah Gazan et Mandy Gull Masty, ont soutenu ce texte législatif. Oui, ils représentent tous les Canadiens, mais ils ont aussi une responsabilité sacrée : s’assurer que les voix autochtones soient entendues. Ils ont eu l’occasion de se lever. Ils ont choisi de se taire.

 

Un chef m’a dit : « Si Jody Wilson-Raybould ou Robert Falcon Ouellette étaient encore au Parlement, ce projet de loi n’aurait jamais été adopté tel quel. Mark Carney aurait été obligé de s’asseoir avec nous pour discuter. » Peut-être. Mais plus encore, notre peuple aurait eu quelqu’un prêt à dire les vérités inconfortables à voix haute, même quand ce n’est pas politiquement opportun.

 

Nous ne sommes pas contre la construction nationale. Nous croyons au potentiel de ce pays. Nous voulons des routes, de l’énergie, de l’internet et du logement. Nous voulons que nos enfants aient ce que tous les autres enfants au Canada considèrent comme acquis. Notre objectif n’est pas de freiner le progrès du Canada, mais de veiller à ce que ce progrès nous inclue.

 

L’article 19 de la DNUDPA est clair. Il est interdit d’adopter des lois qui affectent les peuples autochtones sans nous consulter et obtenir notre consentement libre, préalable et éclairé. Le projet de loi C‑5 a violé ce principe. Il a été adopté trop rapidement, avec trop peu de participation, et il risque maintenant de devenir un échec juridique et moral. Nous avons même adopté une loi censée donner vie à la DNUDPA dans le droit canadien.

 

Le Canada doit suspendre la mise en œuvre de la Loi sur la construction du Canada et revenir à la table de discussion. Un véritable dialogue est encore possible, mais seulement si le gouvernement est prêt à traiter les Premières Nations comme des partenaires égaux, et non comme des pensées de dernière minute.

 

Nous avons fait trop de chemin pour revenir en arrière maintenant.

 

Tu m’as dit que tu serais là, mais t’as tourné la tête.
T’as donné ta voix aux puissants pendant qu’on restait muets.
La promesse est tombée, cassée comme un bâton sacré.
Et moi, j’entends encore les anciens dire : « On nous a menti. »

 

 Open Letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

(with copies to Grand Chief Cindy Woodhouse and all concerned parties)

Dear Prime Minister Trudeau,

I write to you in these final days of being Prime Minister, with a new Liberal leader soon to be chosen on March 9th and a general election likely to follow. It has been a remarkable nine years, but time is running short, and there is an urgent matter that must be fully resolved now, rather than left to the uncertainties of a new government. That matter is the long-overdue resolution of the First Nations child welfare dispute—a cause that has persisted under your leadership, with First Nations communities and, above all, their children still awaiting justice.

Much progress has been made, yet despite a potentially historic $47.8-billion proposal to overhaul on-reserve child welfare services, the process remains tangled in legal and political challenges. The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Chiefs rejected the initial proposal and established the National Children’s Chiefs Commission (NCCC), chaired by Chief Pauline Frost of Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, to reset negotiations. Canada, however, refuses to meet with the NCCC. Minister of Indigenous Services Patty Hajdu has stated there is “confusion” around the roles of the AFN and the NCCC. Meanwhile, the AFN insists it has clearly communicated that the NCCC should lead negotiations. This standoff directly harms children, families, and communities.

As Elders have often counseled me, kisēwātisiwinihk—speaking and acting from the heart—must guide our decisions. When I served as an MP under your leadership, I received a call from your office during the 2019 election, asking me not to speak publicly about the lawsuit involving First Nations children. I was assured it would be resolved as soon as the election ended. Yet another five years have passed, prolonging injustice. I pray I was not wrong. 

Meanwhile, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) continues to uphold its 2016 finding that Canada’s child welfare system is discriminatory. Some chiefs, like Derek Nepinak of Minegoziibe Anishinabe, want an “opt-in” clause; others support the new NCCC. Even AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak faces criticism from regional chiefs who question her closeness to your government.

Amid these political and legal disputes, we risk losing sight of who matters most: the children. They face the damaging consequences of an underfunded, inequitable system—conditions reminiscent of the tragedies once perpetuated by residential schools. Rather than cooperation, letters and legal motions circulate among your ministers, the AFN, the NCCC, and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society. When the only real mandate should be the well-being of First Nations children, we see endless conflict.

With a leadership transition looming, and a possible new government on the horizon, we cannot assume a Conservative administration would uphold this settlement. If we wait, these children will remain entangled in legal battles instead of receiving the support they deserve—another tragic echo of past injustices. After nine years of litigation, the time to finish this work is now. I know you are busy with President Trump and trade disputes, but the AFN’s office is within walking distance—close enough for face-to-face conversation. The chiefs did not reject your proposal out of personal dislike; they carry decades of distrust toward government. They need a legally words written on your official paper as witness that First Nations peoples have full responsibility for their children.

A lasting solution demands compassion and humility from all sides. While details are important, Elders remind us not to be paralyzed by the quest to be “100% right.” Instead, we should honor kisēwātisiwinihk—acting from humanity and justice. It is time to address systemic inequities.

We may not, at this moment, eliminate the Indian Act or guarantee clean water for every First Nation. Yet we can take a decisive step by concluding this settlement now—before your term ends. Let it stand as a testament to reconciliation in action. If your chapter of leadership is closing, end it with clarity and respect, ensuring First Nations children receive the fairness they deserve. When historians reflect on your final days, let them see you standing up and saying every child matters.

Sincerely,
Robert-Falcon Ouellette
Former Member of Parliament

cc:

• Grand Chief Cindy Woodhouse (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations)
• Chief Pauline Frost (Chair, National Children’s Chiefs Commission)
• Cindy Blackstock (First Nations Child and Family Caring Society)
• All Concerned Parties

 

Gerorge Erasmus, Greatest Canadian Speech, Bringing Canadians Together

This is an example of the fiery speeches that former Grand Chief George Erasmus was well known for and perhaps one of the greatest speeches in Canadian history. This is the 20th anniversary of when Erasmus spoke to a group of prominent Canadians during a panel called “Bringing Canadians Together” during the 125 anniversary celebrations of the founding of Canada held in 1992. During the speech he discusses South Africa and Apartheid. This speech is what inspired me as a 17 year old to travel to South Africa and observe the first free elections in that country. I had the chance to see Nelson Mandela and feel the hope of the Indigenous peoples of that country in their demands for FREEDOM.

TO LEARN MORE (PODCAST)

http://archive.org/download/1993SpeechGivenByGeorgeErasmusAboutCanadaConfederation/AtTheEdgeOfCanadaGeorgeErasmusMainMixdown.mp3 

Listen to how he builds the rhythmic cadence as the speech continues, reaching multiple climaxes. Hearing the speech gives me chills down my spine.

Georges Henry Erasmus (born August 8, 1948, in Rae Edzo, Northwest Territories) is a strong Canadian aboriginal politician. Erasmus was born in a Dene community of the Northwest Territories to a family of 12 children. He attended high school in Yellowknife. He became president of the Dene Nation in 1974 and while president fought against the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline. It was his involvement in Indigenous politics of this period which allowed his rise to prominence. He was the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations from 1985 to 1991. Erasmus was national chief of the Assembly of First Nations during the Oka Crisis. After serving two terms as national chief he co-chaired the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. If you compare these speeches from the current speeches given by the current AFN Grand Chief you will see major differences in style. Is this method of confrontation the best means to obtain the rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada? Are the people of Canada prepared to hear Erasmus and the words he has to say? Would you ever give a speech like this today or have current leaders moved to more professional negotiated discussions over resources and social services?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipxq8sR0_Lc

http://archive.org/details/1993SpeechGivenByGeorgeErasmusAboutCanadaConfederation

http://archive.org/download/1993SpeechGivenByGeorgeErasmusAboutCanadaConfederation/AtTheEdgeOfCanadaGeorgeErasmusMainMixdown.mp3