Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 10th, 2007

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

I read the blues and all that.

The real question is, why do these violations occur? Why are there inequities in our communities? Let's look at some of these things.

Regarding HR violations for those who are disabled, there's no provision in the Indian Act nor an Indian Affairs policy that provides the medical, physical, or emotional treatment services required by those who are disabled on reserve. The only way they get service is if they're apprehended, because they can't get services on reserve. We know that today; I would say, let's act on it.

Housing is another example. Most on-reserve funding is based on on-reserve populations, so when an off-reserve band member applies for a house and gets denied, whose fault is it? The band's or the government's?

Regarding Bill C-31, a young mother gives birth to a child and doesn't identify the father's name. That baby loses his or her status. Whose fault is that? Bill C-31's or the band's?

These are human rights issues; that's the reality. So what I see happening is that the government realizes these shortcomings, as outlined in their cost driver study that says they're drastically underfunding and not addressing these issues. They're trying to redirect blame to the first nations communities, which I think is disrespectful and an abusive act in and of itself.

So let's look at this. An individual files an HR complaint, and let's say it's a person who is disabled and lives on-reserve. CHRA receives the complaint, evaluates the complaint, determines that it's valid, and refers it to a tribunal, and then the tribunal hears the complaint. They find in favour of the complainant, the disabled person, but they also find out that the band gets no funding for this.

So then what happens? They make a binding decision on INAC. Will the minister act immediately? I don't know. I would hope, but the past hasn't really suggested that this would happen.

So the band has expended $40,000 to $50,000 appearing and meeting with the tribunal. No services are provided in the meantime to the person who is disabled. It creates animosity. It finds no fault with anybody specifically, other than with a piece of legislation. So maybe even the complainant, the disabled person, is spending their own money trying to launch this complaint and see it through.

What have we achieved?

Yes, I support the repeal of section 67. I think that human rights should be balanced with collective rights. It should be taken in the charter, rightfully stated by the chair earlier, as an interpretive clause, and everything else that's been talked about.

At the end of the day, we have a government that is refusing to deal with what we know is wrong today—with those examples, which I listed—and instead is trying to do something that may not even correct it, i.e. Bill C-31, as I stated earlier. I think it's an abuse of process, and that's my comment.

My question, if anything, is, do you think it's abusive of this government to not address those issues that are facing us today?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I apologize, but unfortunately I have to interrupt because I'm the chair. I have to make sure everybody has equal opportunity, and you won't have time to answer that, so I'll move to the government side.

Mr. Blaney, please.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Jacobs, thank you for meeting with us once again. Ms. Gabriel, we had the pleasure of meeting at the Socio-economic Forum of First Nations in Mashteuiatsh.

Subsequent meetings have been scheduled in upcoming months. We have raised important issues that our witnesses have talked about, specifically issues affecting Quebec first nations, including the housing crisis, which has become an alarming issue.

Nonetheless, I do not believe that these problems prevent us from making progress in other areas, such as the ones we are talking about today. Of course, the process is not perfect, but as the saying goes, the only way to eat an elephant is to take one bite at a time. Therefore, I believe that this bill is one small step that will allow the first nations to live in a society where they have equal rights.

You are involved in the promotion of women's rights in your communities. If we were to repeal the famous section 67, how will that improve women's living conditions, particularly in comparison to past living conditions?

[Beverley Jacobs]

I don't know if it will make any difference, really.

I would agree with what Gary Merasty has said—and that's what I had said in my presentation—in the sense that even if you do change the black letter of the law, that doesn't necessarily mean that's going to make any effective change to anyone's lives.

And even when we're dealing with access to justice issues, you change and repeal a section from an act that will allow people to use it who haven't been able to use it before. You've had a justice system for a long time that has failed aboriginal people. That doesn't necessarily mean the process is even going to allow for women who don't have financial resources, resources for bringing an issue to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. So that's still an issue of poverty; it's still an issue of women being able to use a system without having the resources that go with it, because that's part of this.

I think part of what we're saying with the implementation plan is to also look at the resources that are needed in a community to address these issues, because this isn't the only one that's going to come forward. We're dealing with MRP, we're dealing with housing, we're dealing with the effects of Bill C-31, and we learned our lesson from Bill C-31. That's part of this process, the effects of Bill C-31, that resources were supposed to be put into a community with the influx of population of first nations communities, and that wasn't done. And so it created a division in the community between the people who regained their status and the people who had lived in the community all their lives. And it's the women who suffered, because they were the ones who needed to come back to the community and they were the ones who were labelled “Bill C-31”, when everyone is Bill C-31; all of us who have status are Bill C-31.

So that's what I'm saying. We've learned those lessons. We need to be really cognizant of the fact that we're talking about capacity-building, we're talking about resources, we're talking about things that are needed for it to be effective.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

In any case, I can assure you that those points were brought up by different witnesses who spoke about measures to implement the legislation in the communities.

Ms. Gabriel, do you have something to add?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Actually, you have 30 seconds. That's not really fair to you, unfortunately, Mr. Blaney.

Does the Bloc have anything else? Mr. Lévesque, please.

[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?

[Ellen Gabriel]

I agree with Ms. Jacobs on this plan, but there is more to this. I believe that we must aim for a constitution, or an aboriginal charter of human rights that would include our culture, aboriginal values, and access to our land and resources.

[Beverley Jacobs]

My dream is that we will develop a process that addresses everyone's interests, because that's what our culture is about. We have a process in our community called the Great Law, and the Great Law addresses all of these things. If we were to follow all of these things the way they're supposed to be followed, we wouldn't be having human rights violations in our community. We'd be following our traditional values and beliefs in our culture and our tradition.

But there have been impacts from the government, and I'm not talking about Conservative, Liberal, or whoever was in power. I'm talking about a government that has never taken into consideration any of our traditional legal systems and let them flourish.

Let us flourish; let us be who we're supposed to be. That's what we're asking for. That's what I'm dreaming of. Those principles and genocidal policies have impacted the traditional values of our communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I want to thank the witnesses for their patience at the beginning of the meeting and for their attendance.

[Proceedings continue in camera]