Evidence of meeting #52 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consultation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
We don't have time for the answer to that question, unfortunately.
I'd like to mention, Madam Crowder, before you start, that Sharon McIvor is not able to be here, so our meeting is likely going to be a little shorter than usual, just so you're aware of that.
Madam Crowder, please.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming before us today.
I'm going to give Ms. Harvard a chance to answer the consultation process, but I'm going to couch it in a framework.
I thank Ms. Harvard for speaking about the personal impacts of Bill C-31, section 6.2, because I think that's a really good example of how concerned many women and men are who have come before the committee to talk about unanticipated consequences. When we're talking about consultation, what we've been hearing from people, almost without exception, is that if you are going to develop legislation that is going to impact on our lives and our communities, you absolutely must include us in developing that legislation. You cannot unilaterally impose legislation upon us and then ask us to live with the consequences.
I think our struggle, in part, at the committee has been that we don't all come from the same understanding around what consultation means and how absolutely essential it is for nations to be included.
Ms. Harvard, I wonder if you want to pick up on the consultation piece from there. And that's the only question I'm going to ask.
President, Board of Directors, Ontario Native Women's Association
Actually, I appreciate the opportunity, because it's very easy to tell you what the consultative process is not.
It is not going out and asking the chiefs, even the regional chiefs or even, with all due respect, President Jacobs or any other president of our PTMAs. It needs to be grassroots, community level. Yes, that's messy, and yes, it takes a long time, but if we look again back to the MRP consultation process and look at the months, verging on a year, that it took to decide on the budget, on how it was going to happen, on how to decide budget line items, certainly we can take that kind of time to be in the communities getting the voices of the actual community members, and that's something that has not been happening.
I can say this because I'm in this position for love, not money. I'm not going to go out of here worried that I'm not going to have my paycheque; I have to support myself some other way. But really, I am not held accountable to any one government position or policy out of fear about funding. This is what our women at the community level have said. Our community members say it needs to be in the communities. If we need interpretation, then we need interpretation from legal language into everyday language and from everyday language into our native languages, and we can certainly be partners in facilitating that process, but we don't ever want to be seen....
And I would fear being seen as the consulted person in this process. It did strike great fear in my heart when somebody mentioned that this was considered consultation and my name is going to be on rubber-stamping something, so I wanted to make it very clear that I would never have the audacity to say that I speak for all of those members, only that I want to be here with the opportunity to request their desire to use their own voice to speak for themselves where they are comfortable to come out, in their communities. And it's about dialogue, not a monologue. It's not picking option A or B; it's about dialogue, communication going both ways so that people can hear.
Researcher, Aboriginal Language Institute, University College of the North
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.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
I think it's a really important message that women and men by and large support the repeal of section 67, but it is so important that community members are involved at the community level, that they have an opportunity to discuss the information that's before them, that they have an opportunity to talk about what would work and what wouldn't work, and they absolutely need to have the information in their own language. And that will not happen in a short period of time. It just won't.
Conservative
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to each of you for appearing here today. You've certainly outlined for me some very important issues that we as a committee need to consider. While this is not considered full consultation, I would be disappointed if the government didn't at least take into consideration the people who've appeared before this committee.
You've also pointed out some of the barriers that aboriginal women face. I think the one that you mentioned, Ms. Harvard, about the double barrier of race and gender is particularly pertinent, and also the negative impact of previous legislative changes. You mentioned Bill C-31, with the second-class citizen issue. Certainly that is a very real issue that we should all be concerned about.
But I think we need to realize that in spite of all of the attempts to create a perfect bill, that probably will never happen. I think we need to remember that this bill does include a clause that mandates a review within five years, and it doesn't have to wait five years if there are unintended negative consequences that appear. I'm sure we're all eager to address those.
Both of you and other previous witnesses have also mentioned the need for more consultation on Bill C-44, and while I'm not in a position to say whether that should go on for another six months or six weeks, I do think we need to remember that this is not the first attempt to repeat section 67.
In 1992, Bill C-108 died when Parliament was prorogued; and in 1999, another attempt, by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its report, recommending that section 67 be removed. In 2002, there was Bill C-7, another attempt; and in 2005, Bill S-45. In 2005 again, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in its report, A Matter of Rights, strongly recommended the repeal. And then again, just most recently, in March 2006, the United Nations commission criticized Canada for our failure to repeal section 67.
In light of all those previous attempts, my question is this: have you or any of your groups taken any steps over the years to inform your people, first nations women especially, about the potential impact of not Bill C-44—admittedly, that wasn't there yet—but the potential impact of the repeal of section 67? Has there been any dialogue? I would have thought there may be some dialogue, and I'm sure there has been.
I'd like you to outline that.
President, Board of Directors, Ontario Native Women's Association
Actually, this is a fabulous question, and I would like to assure you, absolutely, every given opportunity I have. But as I mentioned, even though we are a provincial organization overseeing services to over 10,000 aboriginal people, I am a volunteer, and we do not have the funded capacity to roll out the kind of consultation, the kind of education that we're talking about really needing to be here.
So certainly, and as I mentioned earlier, this is something we have been fighting for, here and abroad, for many years. It certainly isn't going to be new. Again, with each legislation, each wording, there are consequences. Each time it comes out, we do need to understand what the nature of the beast is this time, to make sure we're all on the same page.
Advisor to the President, University College of the North
Thank you for that very important question as well.
The women in northern Manitoba have always been interested in taking an active part in every opportunity we can have to look at how to end discrimination and how we can be involved in that process.
These particular bills that you just mentioned, we haven't really looked at as Bill C-108, or Bill C-99, or Bill C-7, or Bill C-5, or Bill C-45. What we do look at in our communities are the ways in which we can be involved in ending discrimination, not only for us but for our children. So we try our very best. We're a dispersed community, meaning that we live in a very large territory, so our consultation is quite difficult when we don't have the funding capacity to do as much work as we would like to do.
But of course we do. We are involved in the process whenever we can. That's what women do.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thanks.
I did have a chance to just briefly browse through both of your websites, and I guess I would have thought that maybe there would be some beginning consultation or opportunity. I know that not everyone has access to the web, so I'm not implying that would be adequate consultation, but could that be one of the resources we could use to begin to get feedback on an issue like this, through your websites?
Researcher, Aboriginal Language Institute, University College of the North
Can I answer that?
Researcher, Aboriginal Language Institute, University College of the North
Thank you for the question.
I'm often amused at the thought that in the north we have access to high-speed Internet.
Conservative
Researcher, Aboriginal Language Institute, University College of the North
There are portions of my community where we still have dial-up, and that's not really truly far north according to the other northerners.
It is a good way for those people who are able to use the Internet. The other drawback would be that a lot of people don't know how; they're not computer literate. So that would be another area that we might need to look at in terms of getting information out there.
The other big issue is that it comes in English, so therefore it's going to need to be translated again in order for the people to understand it.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I think that's a point well taken. As I said, not everyone would have access, and probably a very small percentage, but again I think it could be one tool.
I'd like to ask one last question, if I could: have you contacted the Canadian Human Rights Commission to begin a dialogue as to what they could offer you in terms of resources at this point to begin the process?
Researcher, Aboriginal Language Institute, University College of the North
I'd like to say that we did have our human rights person in our community who worked for the province. She worked there for about a year. Before I left, I was talking to her, and she said there were hardly any people who ever came there. In any case that they were looking at, she never heard back again from Human Rights as to what was happening. So that's the problem that we face.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, or almost good afternoon, to each of you.
When the comment was made by my colleague that there have been various attempts to repeal section 67, I think it should be noted that the bill we have in front of us is not the same as other bills that have come before the House and been put to the test. Maybe we should just reflect on why those various attempts have failed in the past. One of them could very well have been that we didn't engage in an appropriate process of consultation and engagement with those who were going to be most affected by various pieces of legislation, in this case a bill that would repeal section 67.
If we were going to honour your voices and your intentions and your aspirations for your community, would any of you have a problem with taking more time and repealing section 67 in an appropriate fashion? Would each of you want to see an appropriate consultation, whatever that is?
We have to remember that the definition of consultation is not only an onus that should be placed upon aboriginal communities, but the government itself has a legal obligation to consult. And it's supposed to come forward with a policy on proper consultation, which we haven't seen yet. So the onus is not only on aboriginal communities to define what proper consultation is; the government has its own obligations as well.
So would you feel comfortable that, if we could, we would take more time to do this properly? Would that be your wish?
President, Board of Directors, Ontario Native Women's Association
I'd like to respond to that in conjunction with the previous question. While this notion of a website and all of that is a good start, it's not a dialogue; it's one-sided—a good start, but there needs to be interfaced dialogue. But I'm very glad you picked up on the onus of the government to facilitate the consultative process.
To give you an idea of what we do on a day-to-day basis, there's not exactly an opportunity for us, when we are working to help an aboriginal woman standing in a line-up at a shelter at four o'clock to get a spot, as she's standing there with her baby stroller and her baby on her hip, trying to find a roof over her head for tonight, to say, “Oh, and what do you think about Bill C-whatever?” Hence my earlier comment about the initial education process that needs to take place, so that it's not going to be just a polling-of-opinion kind of situation.
But that said, somebody once asked me why I do this, being president, and I said, because I can, because I have the luxury of a roof over my head, I have the luxury of knowing I'm going to eat tonight, and of knowing my children will have clothing, and that we're safe. That allows me the luxury to entertain ideas and larger concepts, such as the concept of human rights. When you're struggling on a day-to-day basis trying to find a place to sleep and food, those aren't the kinds of things you have the time to deal with.
So that's certainly where our organizations can help, but it definitely needs to be about capacity, because we are already stressed to the limit and going way above and beyond. We rely on hundreds and hundreds of volunteer hours just to make sure our women are safe and fed and have roofs over their heads. I would be very hard-pressed to find more volunteers to implement something like this, when it really is the onus of the government to make sure the membership is well educated, that all of the citizens are well educated, before this is put in place.