Bill C-44 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act

This enactment repeals section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and provides for a statutory review, within five years after the enactment receives royal assent, of the effects of the repeal by any parliamentary committee that may be designated or established for that purpose. It also contains a transitional provision with respect to aboriginal authorities.

[Esther Sanderson]

Thank you.

I also believe that consultation ought to be from the community level, and that if we don't have that consultation process at the community level, to repeat what was said earlier, our people aren't going to use that. Bill C-44 is supposed to protect us, but right now we live in discrimination. In almost everything we do, because of the Indian Act and, right now, section 67 the way it stands, human rights do not protect us, and they haven't for a long time. I think that women are feeling that to wait for another three years, if it takes that long for us to get it right this time, then they are willing to do that, but they are not willing to jump into something that is not ours, that we do not understand. And that's a message that was given to us by the women to bring here.

Thank you.

[Esther Sanderson, Researcher, Aboriginal Language Institute, University College of the North]

Good morning. My name is Esther Sanderson. I'm from the Opaskwayak Cree Nation as well, and we're sisters. The issues that have faced both of us have been tragic in a lot of cases, but I want to say a little bit about the language with the Canadian human rights.

We come from Cree territory, and most of the people in the northern part of Manitoba still speak Cree, an aboriginal language. In terms of having people understand what is presented before them, the laws and the legalities that come into our communities are often not understood. So the process in itself with the Canadian Human Rights Act and section 67, or Bill C-44, are not understood simply because of the language difference. In terms of resources we would need, we would like translation services in order for our people to understand what is before them, so that they will also be able to make informed decisions.

There are a lot of words in the English language that the Cree language does not have—for instance, the word “guilty”. We have no word in our Cree language for guilty. So how do we explain those kinds of concepts and those kinds of words to our people? So it's a matter of translation that's really important to us,and to get the concepts right. Those are the kinds of services that we will require.

[Doris Young, Advisor to the President, University College of the North]

Good day, everybody.

[Witness speaks in Cree] I'm saying greetings to all of you in my language, which is Cree.

My name is Doris Young. I'm here to talk about this very important section of Bill C-67. I am a first nations woman and a member of the Women's Advisory Council of Manitoba; of the Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin, or MKO; and the Opaskwayak Cree Nation Women's Council, which is my community. I understand the MKO was here last week speaking to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development about this issue. I work at the University College of the North, in The Pas, Manitoba, as adviser to the president, and I live on the Opaskwayak Cree Nation.

First of all, I want to say that the government's plan to repeal immediately this section 67 without a commitment to ensure that there is adequate consultation and engagement of first nations is something that we cannot support, because if it's repealed without proper consultation it impacts on the lives of first nations communities, and in particular, native women. It will impact us in a negative way more than it would benefit us.

We believe, as northern first nations women, in our right to be protected against discrimination, and we also support the idea of empowerment, which is what this bill is designed to do. But empowerment really means to us the ability to make decisions on relevant information, which we don't have. We haven't received any information, there was no consultation with first nations women in Manitoba, and no information has been provided to us about this bill. We are therefore not able to make an informed decision about it, and that's why we can't support it.

I want to say a little bit about this colonization process and the residential school experience, which I myself have been affected by, and we've been personally harmed by both of these--first of all, colonization, and then residential schools. These laws that were passed were not really ours, but nevertheless we were forced to accept them, and it's caused us a lot of misery. Possibly this section 67 will have the same consequences if no consultation is made and no input on our behalf is given to the government about the effects.

We do believe that discrimination should not be occurring to native women, and neither violence nor abuse, because it harms our families and it harms our communities. We are dedicated to our families and we know collectively what is good for them and for our communities. We have the strength, courage, and of course the resilience to continue fighting for our place in society and to plan for the enjoyment of a good future for our children and our communities. This is why this issue is so very important for us.

One of the issues that need addressing is that it's really imperative that measures are in place so that our collective and human rights are protected, and they include our customs, our practices, and our languages. There must be assurance that our ability to create our own human rights laws and decision-making bodies is enhanced, not weakened. There must be provisions in place to ensure that first nations women are meaningfully engaged in the development and implementation of first-nations-driven human rights mechanisms, and there must be adequate resources available to us to be involved in this process.

Twenty-two years ago, in 1985, when Bill C-31 was passed, we did not have the knowledge of or insight into its impact on our future generations. We were so happy that at last the prospect of discrimination would end. Of course it didn't happen.

Now 22 years later, in 2007, the Canadian government is imposing a bill, Bill C-44, that is designed to empower first nations people when seeking redress against discrimination. Those of us living and working on first nations territories are not permitted to seek redress under section 67 of the Human Rights Act. We have no protection against discrimination under the Indian Act.

Bill C-44 is theoretically designed to end that situation. Once again, when we heard that, we were hopeful, but we're really more cautious about this today because of the unintended consequences that resulted from Bill C-31.

The intent to end discrimination is a sound idea, but there's no process in place right now to assess the results of repealing section 67. Native women are the ones who will most likely feel the results. We're the backbone of our communities; we're the daughters, the mothers, and the grandmothers. Whatever decisions are made impacting our community, it's always the women who bear the greatest amount of work in maintaining familial kinship and communal systems.

As noted earlier, we have experience stemming from Bill C-31 and are now beginning to feel its impact. Today we are fearful of its consequences because of our inability to continue to pass on our legal rights to future generations. You heard Dawn mentioning some of the direct impacts on her family. This inability to pass on our rights has a domino effect on the legal and political future of all first nations and its impact on our governments, our lands, our housing, our education, and our other rights. We don't want to enter into another situation that will jeopardize us.

There's another issue that's related to discrimination and first nations women living on first nations territories, and that's accessing protection against discrimination through the Canadian human rights legislation. We can say at this time that this present legislation does not serve us well. It's not a good option for a number of reasons.

It doesn't provide us with adequate due process.

The problem is in the way the tribunal currently operates. Decisions made by the tribunal take too long. It's too cumbersome, too expensive, and the tribunal process will be removed from first nations areas.

The tribunal decisions that are made are not made by first nations and generally are not related to relationship building, which is really an important value for first nations. This results in more alienation, resentment, and very often does irreparable damage to families and the kinship system.

The process is also not understood by first nations women on the reserve, and therefore they'll likely not use the Canadian human rights legislation.

That's another fundamental injustice that needs examination, the fact that there is no safe place for us to get redress from any government. For example, Bill C-31 and the Canadian human rights legislation: first nations women sought redress, and the result did not end discrimination, as stated earlier. On first nations territories, discriminatory practices are prevalent against women in areas such as housing, education, and the right to remain in the family home when a relationship breaks down or when the death of a spouse occurs. In this particular area, lack of adequate community resources often perpetuates these unfair situations.

In spite of all these obstacles, first nations women continue to strive to be involved in the system so we will be able to maintain healthy communities and a balance and justice for all of us.

We need education, resources, and time. We need to educate ourselves about this issue so that we can make informed decisions. We need resources in order to educate ourselves and to be able to meet. We need time to consult with first nations women on the reserves so that their human rights are protected and the discrimination is properly addressed.

Given the opportunity, we could be involved in developing first nations human rights legislation that would help resolve discrimination in our communities. We believe that this process would give us the opportunity to reflect our time-honoured values and beliefs in fairness and justice. Also, this process would not compromise first nations jurisdiction.

Finally, first nations women must be part of this important process. We must be part of the solution to end discrimination.

[Witness speaks in her native language]

I'm saying thank you for the opportunity to come and speak to you on my relations.

[Dawn Harvard]

We do our best.

I wanted to briefly start off by letting you know that the Ontario Native Women's Association began back in 1971. This date was actually very historic. If we look back at that era, that was the particular timeframe when aboriginal women across the country were working to end the discrimination against aboriginal women under the Indian Act when they married a non-aboriginal man and were cast out of their communities. That's how a lot of our associations came to be, as those women came together.

Here we are, many years later, still fighting discrimination specifically based on gender, and this is why we are here today.

The Ontario Native Women's Association exists to give voice to the aboriginal women in Ontario. We're located in Thunder Bay and have at least 80 different local chapters throughout the province of Ontario. Each chapter has its own local membership and autonomy, so we have a very wide distribution of perspectives from aboriginal women across Ontario. Over the course of the year, we estimate that we provide services and programs to 10,000 aboriginal families—children, women.

As I'm sure everybody here is well aware, the Human Rights Act created back in 1977 was put in place at a time when the question of those women who were cast out of their communities was still up in the air. My own mother, in fact, was Jeanette Corbiere-Lavell, who was the first woman to challenge the Government of Canada on the discrimination against her, specifically based on gender, because she lost her status when she married my father, a non-aboriginal man.

She eventually lost at the Supreme Court, and the Human Rights Act came into place, and then eventually we all know that Sandra Lovelace took it to the United Nations, and things were changed with Bill C-31.

Unfortunately, what a lot of people don't realize is that through Bill C-31, these women were taken back to their communities, but they were not restored to their original status. They were returned as reinstatees, which is a second-class position. They have fewer rights and less ability to pass status—the rights of their heritage—on to their children and their grandchildren.

In my own family, I have one daughter who's a full status Indian and another who's completely non-aboriginal, although these are both my own birth children—simply because of the discrimination, because of the way these women were put back into place in second-class positions, simply because of their gender.

I give you all of this background because this is a very important example of why we need to look at removing section 67 and why people see it often as a women's issue. Even though it affects both genders equally, discrimination based on gender is primarily a problem for women. Aboriginal women specifically face discrimination based on both race and gender, so they have double barriers when trying to provide for their families, trying to give their communities and their children the quality of life they deserve.

The poor translator--I realize I've completely gone off what I told her I was going to say.

Before we can move forward, we must understand our past in order to understand our present situation as aboriginal citizens.

My mother always said it was quite a trick to have gone into the church an Indian girl and come out a white woman. She said, “That place had real power back in those days.”

Again, this discrimination continues. In families like mine, we are still faced with these divisions under our own roof. How do we look at one child and say, “You are a member of our community”, and look at her sister and say, “You're not”? This is the kind of division that it's creating.

Unfortunately, oftentimes when questions of gender discrimination come up, there's a lot of fear-mongering in our communities; that if we recognize human rights.... I've heard people say, “We will have some man from Iran come, and they will be taking over the reserves if they have matrimonial property rights. We will have men coming in and taking over our communities.”

I don't think this is the right perspective. Aboriginal women, aboriginal people are human. We deserve human rights.

But our position with Bill C-44 is that we need to be very careful about the process, about looking at the long-term consequences of what is going to happen.

Like Bill C-31, which everyone thought was a wonderful solution, many women were returned to their communities, but in the long run, it's endangering our nationhood because it doesn't guarantee the ability to transfer status to our children past the second generation. So now we are coming into situations where a lot of our communities are declining in membership because of this. We need to be careful.

We support this in principle. But we want to make sure there's an appropriate consultative process to ensure that those visions we have not yet been able to think of, those consequences and those potential problems, are well thought through so we protect our communities, our land base, and our rights while ensuring that aboriginal people are no less human than any other citizen of this country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I'd like to open this meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Tuesday, May 15, 2007.

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you. Today we're going to continue our review of Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Today the witnesses who will be appearing are, from the Ontario Native Women's Association, Dawn Harvard, president, board of directors; and from the University College of the North, Doris Young, adviser to the president, and Esther Sanderson, researcher, Aboriginal Language Institute.

Welcome to the witnesses.

The chair would invite each of the witnesses to make a 10-minute presentation, and then we'll move into question time.

To begin, we can start with Madam Harvard, please. Are you ready?

Aboriginal Affairs

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate is not the only place where the opposition is denying justice to Canadians.

The operative clause of Bill C-44 is only nine words long but the House of Commons standing committee has been studying these nine words for 14 weeks and the opposition MPs have now decided to continue their searching analysis into October.

Therefore, first nations Canadians, who have been deprived of human rights in this country for 30 years, will remain so for another summer while the opposition members retire to their golf clubs and tennis clubs.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is proudly moving forward with human rights protection for first nations citizens through Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, while the government is looking to rectify this long-standing inequity, the opposition parties continue to dither and delay.

How much longer do first nations citizens need to live without the protections that are taken for granted by all other Canadians?

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs please highlight the importance of the bill now before the committee?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member from the Liberal Party is interested in matrimonial property. Of course we as a government want to pursue that matter very vigorously. That is why we brought forward Bill C-44.

Some people in Canada might not realize this, but in fact the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to first nations people on reserve. It is a shameful situation that has been left with us by the Liberal government.

The Liberals, with all the other opposition parties, have just chosen to put off extending human rights to first nations people until after the summer. They want to go back to their cottages and their country clubs first and maybe think about it a little further.

We are ready to act. We are ready to bring human rights to first nations people.

Afghanistan

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the facts related by the member from British Columbia are not accurate in any way, shape or form. The NDP's concept of a delay and filibuster is a meeting where there is a vote taken and decisions are made. I do not understand that at all. It is certainly, as I said, different from the way the opposition conducts itself in delaying legislation.

In fact, when we talk about that, I could ask the member from the NDP why it is that it supports the notion of not dealing with Bill C-44 that is going to give human rights to first nations people and give them the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Why does her party support the concept of that not being dealt with at committee and delaying that over the summer?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I am a bit nervous. Following Ms. Gabriel's answer, my colleague asked me if I had any further questions.

At the outset, when I made a statement on Bill C-44, before even hearing what the Quebec Native Women, the First Nations Assembly of Quebec and of Labrador, or the Native Women of Canada had to say, I noted that this bill was a ''white'' piece of legislation. It is not because I recognize aboriginals to be of a different colour, but this seems a somewhat discriminatory way of differentiating aboriginals from the rest of the Canadian population. Let us just say that this bill is a non-aboriginal approach that does not take into account the culture and living situation of the first nations. This struck me from the very start.

Today, what is striking is Ms. Jacobs' statement on the implementation plan. In the plan she is suggesting, I do not know if there's going to be some sort of protocol at each step during discussions with the government. The plan would not come into effect unless there was agreement on the implementation mechanism. I don't know if we can work this way. If we can, Ms. Jacobs, I would like to hear you elaborate on the plan that you are suggesting.

Ms. Gabriel, before allowing Ms. Jacobs to answer, I wish to ask you the following question. Would you agree with such a plan, with the timeline to implement Bill C-44 that Ms. Jacobs is suggesting? Would this be in keeping with your own vision?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

So you're suggesting, then, that a repeal should happen. We're in a process now. I know that you know a large amount about how the parliamentary system works. We're in a minority government right now. It seems that there are only small opportunities any time an attempt at bringing forward a repeal of section 67 happens. It happens for very small moments. People need to get around this opportunity and make it happen—that's my opinion.

In light of the fact that we're in a minority government and that opportunity is so finite, would you suggest that it's more worthwhile to put this off because you don't believe in the vehicle of Bill C-44, which is amendable? You would rather put that off in light of what I said about the finite moment or hope for the future?

Just remember, we just went through 13 years of a previous administration, the Liberals, who did nothing on this front, on the system itself. There's no doubt about that. It's a matter of fact; it's not opinion.

[Ellen Gabriel]

First of all, I want to correct you. I said I would promote or support the repeal of section 67, but not Bill C-44, because of the lack of consultation, because of the lack of research, and basically because your minister is pushing the wonderful skills of the Canadian Human Rights Commission but at the same time ignoring the report and recommendations of that commission. So I just want to clarify that.

I'm supporting the repeal of section 67, because if we have a Criminal Code that applies to our communities, then why not a human rights code?

The difference between Chief Picard and me is that they're talking about sovereignty. They're talking about what I mentioned before--membership codes, matrimonial real property, some of the issues that I know the chiefs in Quebec are very adamant at trying to keep hold of as part of their authority.

If we didn't have all the problems in our community, I would not—I can't remember the right word—agree to have some of my principles negotiated, because as a longhouse woman and as a speaker for my community during the Oka crisis, in which the Conservative government dealt with us, I probably would not agree. But if I look at what's happening to the children, what's happening to the women, and coming from a community where my cousin's house was burned and nothing could be done, coming from a community where the International Federation of Human Rights criticizes the Conservative government for the numerous abuses that happened, of men who were arrested and burned with cigarettes, and yet nothing could be done because the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to reserves, then yes, I will compromise some of my principles as a longhouse woman.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have to go back to a comment made by Mr. Russell. If the Liberal Party wants to mock our government for highlighting the issues facing first nations women, it's welcome to. You're welcome to raise that at any opportunity. If you want to mock us for that, it's fine.

Now, having gotten that off my chest, I would like to perhaps go back to some of the comments you made, Ms. Gabriel.

Compared with your counterpart from Quebec, Ghislain Picard, who is very much against Bill C-44, who is very much against this repeal and in fact called for us to just basically rip it up and go on with some other business of this government, you obviously have a different perspective. You're saying we do need to move forward with the repeal.

You're calling for some amendments, which is part of any parliamentary process. We have a committee here today, and obviously the opposition members are considering options that they want to bring forward, and the government here is looking forward to making this bill happen. But you have actually recommended that we proceed.

Why do you think there's a difference between your perspective and the male counterparts that we see in your province?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you both for coming back before the committee again. I appreciate your making time in your very busy schedules after that last hearing.

We've heard consistently about consultation from almost every witness who came before the committee, and it seems to be the central point. Mr. Lemay's question was around whether you consult after you pass legislation or before you pass legislation. Of course I would argue you need to consult before you pass legislation.

Matrimonial real property has come up as an example of a consultative process, and I've heard you speak about it. I am not going to read all of this, because I read it into the record before, but Wendy Grant-John's report says that her process was not consultation; in fact, her recommendation 18 outlines a number of factors that need to be considered in terms of consultation.

What we have before us, in my view, is a box that people are attempting to force people into, saying that this is appropriate consultation--if you support human rights you're going to support Bill C-44; don't worry, trust us; we'll consult after the fact.

You've talked about the steps that you've outlined, but right now, what would you recommend that the committee do next?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Good afternoon to each of you, and welcome back for the second time.

I find some of this pretty remarkable. The government has raised this issue around consultation, and they continue to ask questions of the aboriginal witnesses we have in front of us: What's your view of consultations? How much is enough? Do we have to talk to every aboriginal person out there? My comment might be that at least you should talk to somebody within the aboriginal community, not necessarily everybody.

In terms of timeframes, I find one thing very hypocritical on the part of the government. In order to get an honest and sincere apology around Indian residential schools, we have to wait four to five years for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to do its work. But in order to implement Bill C-44, we're saying let's do it in six months, without any consultation. So I think there's a double standard, to say the least, when it comes to the government's response.

The government has also held out aboriginal women as the poster child for moving very quickly to pass and to implement Bill C-44. But what I've observed and heard is that aboriginal women have similar, almost identical concerns to the other witnesses we have.

How do the women you represent feel about the approach being taken by government? It almost seems to be a little bit of a divisive strategy, holding out one segment of the population, because human rights run the gamut, not just on gender, but on different circumstances.

So I would just like to know how you feel about that.