Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 10th, 2007

[Beverley Jacobs]

I think it's the same issue with respect to MRP, because if we had had consultations with the federal government before any decisions were made or legislation was drafted.... And if there is legislation drafted, we're still wanting to ensure that consultations occur, whether we agree or not, on how it affects our rights, because the impact this has is that when you have a piece of legislation you're legally bound as a government to consult with aboriginal people. That's a legal requirement, according to Canadian law.

So if you have a bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act adding specific amendments to repeal section 67 and there are implementation interpretive provisions, allowing that process to occur allows for the input of what we're talking about, the input of those who are most affected.

So that's what we're saying. For far too long, we've had Canadian laws that have impacted on our people, have affected our traditional knowledge, our traditional processes, without our input. We're talking about the Indian Act, we're talking about the Constitution Act. These were all laws, legislation that was drafted, created, but included aboriginal people without our consultation.

So this is what we're saying. That's enough. That's enough, because we want to be a part of this process. If you're going to create law, how are we impacted by it and how was our voice going to be included in that, when our rights are being violated on a daily basis?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We will move on to Madam Crowder.

[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?

[Ellen Gabriel]

That's a big question to answer, but I think if you examine some of the recommendations that we have, which include doing research on how this is going impact on communities that have been oppressed by the Indian Act for so many years, it's going to change the way decisions are made in our communities.

We need to have proper methods to help our people adapt, once again, but I think we should also keep in mind that in 2006, I believe, some of the UN commissions, like ECOSOC, were pushing Canada to change and repeal section 67. I don't think that should be the motivation for this present government to push this bill so quickly. This was just last year.

I would like to see the recommendations that we have--both NWAC and Quebec Native Women--because this is going to impact on the membership codes that the band councils are supposedly taking the authority of, but on which they are following the four criteria set by the Department of Indian Affairs. It's going to affect matrimonial real property. It's going to affect a whole slew of issues that I don't think our communities are prepared for. We're lagging far behind in education and far behind in trying to resolve some of the issues of violence in our communities. We're always catching up; we're always in survival mode.

This would at least ensure that human rights will one day apply, but it would also give us those tools to be able to apply them in our communities. That would be my hope.

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

It's interesting that you cited United Nations conventions. One of the previous witnesses talked about a United Nations convention; we're also in violation of a number of United Nations conventions, and we don't seem to be in a hurry to move forward on those. One of course is CEDAW, which talks about lack of support for aboriginal women--women who are impacted by violence, who don't have access to legal aid, who don't have access to adequate housing.

I would argue that if we're going to pick and choose which United Nations conventions we implement, and if we were truly committed and concerned about human rights, we would take a look at some of those conventions, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Aboriginal children are cited as being the most disadvantaged in Canada. When you look at those numbers, it actually puts us at 78, or something like that, on the United Nations index of well-being.

So I would agree that we should not be picking and choosing the United Nations conventions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We'll move on to the government side. Mr. Bruinooge.

[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?

[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]

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]

I get tired of our being a ping-pong ball between all the different parties. I don't want to be part of that.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Sure. That is my point.

[Ellen Gabriel]

My point is that if what you're saying is that if this is not passed the way the Conservative government has written it, then it's not a priority for the Conservative government after that...you're not going to look into the recommendations that all of our groups are making. We want consultation.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

That's not what I'm saying.

[Ellen Gabriel]

You have some communities that have to hire non-native consultants to come in to help them do their finances. You have communities that have such high levels of poverty that children go hungry. You have levels of alcoholism in some communities that are at 100%.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

It's a broken system.

[Ellen Gabriel]

How are you going to help those communities if you are not going to do proper consultation, provide capacity-building, and provide the tools and funding that are needed for this?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

This is a broken system, I agree.

[Ellen Gabriel]

To me, what is lacking is the will of the government. It just seems to me that this present government is only moving because it has been pressured internationally to change what's happening with regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights, which should be applied to reserves.

If this is what you're telling me, that you will not accept any changes or revisions, then you're saying—

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I just said that this is an amendable process.

[Ellen Gabriel]

Excuse me. In the longhouse we stand up when someone speaks. The person who is speaking stands up and nobody interrupts them.

This is the kind of government and these are the kinds of people you want us to assimilate to become, people who interrupt each other when they're talking? A lot of our elders look and say, “No way do I want to become part of that system.” You have to remember there are people who do not want anything to do with this system of government or governance.

You have here two people who are trying to help in this process, so don't get our backs arched, because we're trying to work with your government.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, if I can just comment—

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you. No, actually, we have run out of time.

I'll move on to Mr. Merasty.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me first of all say that I am very honoured to hear your perspectives on this issue and your presentation here today.

Having come from a first nations community myself--and I may end up making more of a statement than asking a question in this whole thing. The questions I've heard from the government side today and in past sessions have been to point out examples of human rights abuses at the community level, blaming the leadership or the communities for those violations. I think those are the wrong questions. Yes, maybe those violations do occur at that level, but the question is—

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

For clarification, I would just like to point out that Mr. Merasty, while a very valued member of this committee and very knowledgeable on the subject, is a substitute here and hasn't been a consistent member of this committee over the last month.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I don't think that's a relevant point of order.