Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2007

[Esther Sanderson]

I would like to comment on that first.

At one time in our communities, we had our own membership. We were allowed to have members join our communities, and they were put on the band list. Somewhere along the line, something happened. I guess it started with the Indian Act, regarding who could be an Indian and who couldn't be. That's when the injustices began in our communities.

Given the opportunity, we could do that again with the human rights in our communities, because it was done fairly. It was done as a process as to who could be a member and why they should or shouldn't be a member. In my mind, it would be the same process. The issues will probably come out the same in terms of membership, and that's what we were talking about in Bill C-31.

I'm also someone they call a Bill C-31, and I hate the way we define ourselves in our communities, where we're numbers and initials instead of people.

That's what Bill C-31 has done to us. It was a termination clause for all of the Indian people. Those consequences were bad. I would not like to see something like that happen again with Bill C-44.

We're adamant that we want a consultation process, so that our voices can be heard in Parliament and adequately addressed.

[Dawn Harvard]

I always find it very interesting that the last community, the real hold-out community, that is fighting legally right now to not have to take back those women is not a poor community. It's not Muskrat Dam. It's not somewhere where they really would have hardship in their community because of lack of resources and having to share. It's a very wealthy community. That really points something out to me. This wasn't about taking in outsiders; these were members of that community. These were their resources to start with.

In our community, we see women and children as resources. We need to look at investing in people and seeing them for what they can bring to the communities, and how to keep our women, children, and families strong and vibrant, so we can reinvigorate our communities. We know that just more money and more houses isn't going to change things, when our best and brightest keep leaving our communities. This is what we want to look at.

Again, there was a lot of perceived hardship in the communities when these women came back. These are the kinds of fears that I would worry about coming into play with this particular bill. There is a lot of perceived hardship that people think is going to be happening. There will be perceived losses if this comes into play, and we need to have some time to make sure that the community members are not making decisions based on fear-mongering, on fear that the Indian Act is the only thing that defines us, and that we are stuck with it here and forever after, for fear that we will be nothing without all these legislative acts that define us.

So we need to move past that fear and envisage new ways of moving forward that recognize our human rights as well as our aboriginality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps I'll give Ms. Harvard an opportunity to answer the question I posed in my previous round, which was on the topic of how the Canadian Human Rights Commission will provide a forum for individuals in first nations communities to voice any perceived or actual human rights abuses that they might see being perpetrated on them.

Do you see that as a good thing for the communities?

[Dawn Harvard]

What I see as a good thing is aboriginal people and aboriginal communities having recourse, having the ability to address human rights abuses. I don't necessarily see forums of airing human rights abuses to be.... It's a means to an end, and that's what we need to focus on.

Continually focusing on the problems and the abuses...we know they're there. We don't need to reiterate them anymore. We need to look at how to fix them, and if that's a necessary first step, then it can work. But it's only a step.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

What do you think the repeal of section 67 will do beyond that? In essence, that's the basic premise: it opens up the Canadian Human Rights Commission to receive complaints from first nations people on reserve, so that these complaints will be filed. Is there anything beyond what I've described that is going to occur, in your mind? Aside from this forum, and remedies potentially, what else do you see occurring from this legislation?

[Dawn Harvard]

I suppose that is the million-dollar question, isn't it? If I had the answer to that, I would be the superstar.

I guess the point, really, is that it's not so much about sitting here and defining what that is going to be as saying, let's at the very least take that step of removing this barrier, something that we know is a barrier, something that is causing hardship, that is preventing aboriginal community members from seeking restitution or resolution of their problems. Let's make that first step; let's remove that barrier. Let's do it with a clear understanding of why we're doing it and how we need to move forward together.

I'm sure we can sit down together and envisage how we will create resolutions to these human rights problems once we have removed that barrier.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

That sounds like what we are wanting to with this piece of legislation, there's no question.

Perhaps I could go to another comment that I believe Ms. Young made, but you ladies being sisters, you look so much alike that I'm not sure who's Esther.

You made the point that we should be able to decide what human rights are. I point this out and make reference to your comment, in the sense that I think one thing we've learned in trying to administer human rights is that it really comes down to the individual. If an individual feels that their human rights have been impugned, they tend to raise that themselves. It's very difficult to say, as a governing body, these are the human rights.

Perhaps you could speak to what you meant when you said that, if you think there is a way we can devise what human rights are.

[Doris Young]

I think the people in my community would say that they want to say what those human rights are. I think they would be the right to decide how they want to go about living in the community, what the rights are when you get housing, your right to vote, your right to live in the community, the right for our people to decide what jurisdiction they want to become involved in when they talk about human rights. Those are the things that I think they would say are human rights.

When these human rights are defined by somebody else, that's what makes it really hard. Going to a tribunal that's not within their area makes it even harder for them to know what a human right is outside their community and what they think human rights are.

I hope I'm making sense in saying what I'm saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We're finished the first and second rounds. Does the committee want to continue? Are there further questions?

Mr. Bagnell, you are next, for five minutes.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you for coming. I think you made your points very clearly and very understandably.

I certainly disagree with the point in the response to there being no consultation when the government member said 64% of Canadians don't vote. That doesn't mean we take away the vote from everybody. We give everyone—

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

On a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, I don't believe that is accurate in relation to what was said.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

As you said, Dawn, the result is not to give zero people an opportunity for consultation. There should be consultation, and however many choose to show up, they've had the opportunity. It's never 100% of anything.

You raised a very interesting point we haven't talked about yet. It's about the potential different laws in different areas. For instance, the way the government is dealing with matrimonial rights is to suggest that there'll be a national law, but when self-governing first nations make their own laws, then they can have a law in their area to fill that capacity, which would result in one law here and one law there.

Some people propose that this be the model used for human rights under Bill C-44, so that there be the national system available to people. But when a first nation decides to create its own law, as Ms. Young has suggested—defining your own laws on human rights—then each first nation would have human rights protection, but it would be defined by themselves.

My question is, and I think you raised this question, what happens if you have a number of first nations in the same area that all have different laws? Is that a problem, or is it not a problem? Or is it a minor irritant but not as important as getting it right?

[Dawn Harvard]

Actually, I have two points to make on that, the primary point being that we are talking about human rights. We are not talking about Wikwemikong humans or Toronto humans. We don't divide up that way. That's why it is important to have some kind of overarching.... We are all human beings and can all expect some basic standards: living free of fear of discrimination, the ability to pursue the best life in the way you see fit. There are all kinds, and there's no point in going through the list.

We need to look, then, at having that overarching concept, but also, when we talk about opportunity to come, we need to assess realistically what a real opportunity to come to a consultation would be. Because of geographic diversity, the kind of people who would have the financial ability to come to a meeting in an urban centre—to fly, to drive—is going to be very different.

This gets to my second point, which is that there's a reason that the Native Women's Association of Canada came into place, a reason that the Ontario Native Women's Association came into place. It was that a lot of women, a lot of vulnerable people at the local community level, were not feeling that their voices and their concerns were being heard or addressed at the national level through the chief and council system, which was an imposed system.

So that's it. We have to look again locally, to make sure that the opportunity to have your understanding and then to have your voice, to have your dialogue, happens locally, so that we can share a maximum diversity of opinion in that process—not just chiefs, not just those who have the financial resources and the education to get here, and not just Ottawa, in this kind of room. That's the kind of thing we need to make sure we're doing.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Let me propose a compromise to see what you think, with both the national law and individual laws.

If you had a national law for first nations who didn't have anything, but you allowed self-governing first nations to create their own law to fill that territory, and—because you said human rights affect everyone—you put in certain conditions that had to be covered in that local law for it to be eligible, so that certain areas or certain areas of rights were at least covered in the law, then no one would be denied.

Do you think that might be an appropriate compromise? This is to all the witnesses.

[Doris Young]

Yes, I think that would be an appropriate way of starting, that there's a basic way of looking at what human rights are, and that the concepts are clear to everyone, and that there's opportunity within those human rights to be able to move, making sure that the rights of the people are protected in the community. That would work.

[Esther Sanderson]

I also believe that with the human rights there has to be an overriding arch to define the big things such as housing, education, and health. Those are basic human rights that we all require. Then from there the communities would look at how that would impact on people if this were to happen or this were not to happen.

Some of the words that communities would use...I keep coming back to the language, because in our language we do not discriminate against people who are disabled, who are old, who are poor. Everybody is treated the same in terms of what it is that we require to be human beings and fulfilled human beings. Those would be the important things we would look at in our communities.

The Cree have vast territories. They cover from northern B.C. right up into Quebec with different dialects of Cree. I am sure those same words that we would use in our territory are the same words that would be used in northern Alberta or, say, in northern B.C. So the languages would be the same, and those words would be able to be transcribed and understood in those communities in the same way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Are there any further questions of committee?

I want to thank you, witnesses, very much for your attendance. I appreciate all the information and the great answers to the questions.

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

Steven Point was coming for an informal meeting at one o'clock, and I think all the committee members got the notice, so I don't know if people—

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

That is not part of our committee business, but if committee members want to stay and meet our invited guest, then so be it.

The meeting is adjourned.