Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2007

[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?

[Dawn Harvard, President, Board of Directors, Ontario Native Women's Association]

I am.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I think that there is a problem with the translation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Is there a problem with the...?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes. The mike was not on. The problem is fixed now.

Oh, what we do for our country!

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madam Harvard, if you would, please continue.

[Dawn Harvard]

I want to apologize right off the bat. I have a terrible case of laryngitis and I've been dragged from my sickbed to come here today. That's how committed I am, but I apologize if I'm not as clear as I could otherwise be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you for your dedication.

[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]

Thank you.

Madam Young.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Ms. Sanderson.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you very much.

We'll move into questions now.

Madame Karetak-Lindell.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I totally understand where you're coming from, because in my language we don't have a word for “guilty” either. That's one of the ways that we're trying to make people understand that you have to do due process and have respect for the people whose lives are going to be impacted by legislation.

Our party certainly feels that in order for the country to have good legislation we have to also look at the consequences of the legislation before we put it into law, to find out what will be the results of this, so that we can help people, whether in capacity building or just in the understanding of how to apply the law. And that way, a law that is passed will have an easier time afterward--not just “rush it and then see what all blows up, and if they do, well, we'll try to deal with it after”, which is the way I think they're trying to do this legislation.

Personally, I was very insulted yesterday in the House of Commons at question period, when we were being accused, in our committee, of delay tactics, when really what we're trying to do here is hear from the people who are going to be impacted by the legislation, especially when there is only six months for implementation in the communities. I can tell you right now that if that was the legislation and I was asked to explain it to my constituents in six months, it would not work. And I can say right now that my community is smaller than yours, so it's going to be that much harder.

We've been fighting for a longer implementation period, we've been fighting for resources, so that people can better understand, but most of all we've been fighting for consultation. Everyone around here agrees that in principle, section 67 needs to be repealed. It's the process that we're upset about. And for us to be accused, as a committee, of delay tactics and not allowing human rights to be practised in the communities is very insulting to me and, I'm sure, to the other members here.

My question then is in two parts. Am I right to say that you both agree that section 67 has to be repealed but that we have to go about a better way of consulting with the people? And in that, would you then include that there should be an interpretive clause in the legislation?

I am, on behalf of first nations, very worried about individual rights versus collective rights. Could you comment on that one particular aspect of it?

Thank you.

[Esther Sanderson]

Who would you like to answer first?

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Either one. Both of you, if I have time.

[Doris Young]

The repealing of section 67 has to be done in consultation with the people. For me, and for the first nations women, we think that where the legislation really belongs is with first nations. We have the ability to develop a human rights legislation for first nations. I think that's where we would make the most important strides, because the values of the people would be recognized in that human rights legislation of first nations people. I'm not sure how it would affect the interpretive clause, if that's the process that would be used.

[Dawn Harvard]

I like the way you ask questions; it's like my mother does. She tells me what to say when she asks the question. She knows the answer.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

I'm a mother.

[Dawn Harvard]

It makes my job easier.

That said, of course we have been fighting for and demanding the repeal of section 67 for a great many years. We are now faced with criticism that now that it's happening we're dragging our heels.

That certainly isn't the case. As we said, this has gone on for a great many years, and we cannot rush headlong into this without considering the unforeseen consequences, and without an appropriate consultative process, because unfortunately that will just lead to mass rejection in the first nations communities of something....

That would be such a shame. We have such an opportunity here to do the right thing and to make the difference. To have it thrown out because of process would be a real travesty. So we would certainly agree that we need to see....

We had recommendations that I hadn't gotten to because my voice gave out, but we recommended also that effective dialogue needs to take place between the governments and the aboriginal community before the implementation of the repeal of section 67.

When we say “effective”, that means with appropriate resources, appropriate information, adequate education at the community level, so that people can really understand what they're being consulted on.

Just to give an example, with the recent MRP consultations, many women were very concerned, because they were brought in and were asked to give an opinion on what the best solution would be, when they were not lawyers. They were community women who had maybe experienced violence. Many lawyers don't even have the full understanding and were therefore not in a position to give an informed decision.

This is the fear: that we do not want to rush into that same situation. We need to ensure that we have adequate community-level education and understanding of what we're talking about, what the consequences could be, what possible solutions look like. That interpretative clause is certainly a part of this.

We also recommended that during the repeal process there be an 18- to 30-month transitional period for the first nations.

The concept of first nations originally was not meant to mean that Wikwemikong and Sheguiandah or each little reserve was not a nation. We were the Ojibway Nation, we were the Anishinabe Nation, and my family belongs to several of those specific communities. We need to have some kind of overarching legislation to ensure consistency, because our members often go from community to community, and we cannot act as if each little small band.... Until some day when perhaps we achieve sovereignty and are able to make those kinds of decisions and put those kinds policies in place, we need to ensure that when we're protecting the most vulnerable citizens of our nation, the women and the children, we have that consistency, so that they can have that understanding regardless of which specific community they choose to live in at any given time within our nation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Ladies, thank you for being here. It is important that you make your presence felt at this committee because, believe it or not, hearing from you three today is consultation in the government's eyes. My definition of consultation with aboriginal people is not the same as the government's. I do not know if you have the same definition as the government, but it sees you as being among those with whom it has consulted, and so the bill should be passed and put into effect.

I agree with my colleague when she says that there are many things we do not understand. You are aboriginal women living in aboriginal communities. You talked about a consultation process. We are told that this section ought to have been repealed 30 years ago, and that we should be looking at how the act is working.

What would you say if the bill were to be passed tomorrow but not put into effect for about 36 months? It took three years to put section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms into effect, so we can certainly take three years to allow everyone to get ready. What does a genuine consultation process mean for aboriginal women who are experiencing real discrimination in a number of communities?

Any one of you can respond, or all three. Since this is my only question, you can take the rest of my time for your answers.

[Doris Young]

Thank you for your very important answer about consultation.

Of course, the definition of consultation means different things to different people. I don't know if anybody's defined consultation, and what that means, in a very broad way. I think that's part of the problem when we talk about consultation, particularly with aboriginal people, because we have a different way of thinking what that means and the government has a different way of looking at it as well.

I'd like to speak a little bit about what consultation took place in my community in northern Manitoba when we were making a new program called the aboriginal midwifery program, which is a four-year degree program now at the University College of the North.

I was the consultation coordinator of this program. That whole process took about 10 years, because the women said what they wanted in terms of bringing birth back to our communities, making sure life starts there again and not in a hospital, in a foreign place. That issue of midwifery back in our communities lay dormant for about four or five years, and then we got a number of dollars about three years ago to start up that process again. So it became a really good issue for us to become involved in.

We had large meetings with northern women, to begin with, and they said the very same things as they had said a number of years ago about wanting birth in our communities, and they defined what that meant to us. We had small meetings in the communities because we wanted to involve the smaller communities and the women in those communities, particularly the elders. We used translation services, which would be the Cree language, and then when we were in the Island Lake area, which is the Oji-Cree, we used that Cree language with the elders. It was a very slow process, but it was a very worthwhile one.

We would write what they said to us, and then we would take it back to the communities and ask them if this was what they wanted, if that was the meaning of our consultation. Mainly because we understood the language--at least I did, and maybe a couple of others who worked on this process understood that language--we were able to communicate more quickly than if we just had translators. And then we went back to the bigger community again to say what we were going to develop, in terms of the consultations we'd had.

All in all, it took three years to get that program. That is a consultation process that I was most happy with, because we were able to understand what the people in the community wanted, the elders were involved in it, and we had a very good process. That's just an example.

Is that helpful to you on what consultation means to us?