Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 31st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for Thursday, May 31, 2007.

Committee members, we are continuing with our study of Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Today as witnesses we have Chief Rose Laboucan from the Driftpile First Nation; Chief Marie-Anne Day Walker-Pelletier from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations; and Erica Beaudin, the executive director of the Saskatchewan First Nations Women's Commission Secretariat.

Welcome to our witnesses.

We're going to provide time for our witnesses to make presentations, and then we will move into questions. I'd like to start with Chief Rose Laboucan.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Lemay.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I will wait until the witnesses and yourself get the translation. I know that one of the witnesses does not have it yet. It is a very important issue, Mr. Chairman.

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I want to complain in the strongest terms possible about what the government has just attempted.

[An hon. member]

A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

I want to remind my colleague that I am already speaking on a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I want to complain about the fact that, this morning, the government tabled a motion in the House to put an end to the work of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

That was determined by the Speaker of the House to be out of order. We are not entertaining the motion that was put forward in the House this morning.

We'll move on to the presentations of the witnesses.

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

If you want war, you will get it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Please be courteous to our witnesses.

You can begin. Thank you.

[Chief Rose Laboucan, Driftpile First Nation]

Good morning to everyone. I thank you for the opportunity I almost didn't have, but in saying that, I don't feel I should have any more drama than my plane ride and the responsibility and accountability to be here to speak on behalf of first nation women and children in my community, and that's the reason why I'm here.

I want to say that when I initially took this opportunity to speak, I didn't want anything in writing, because I think from my oral history I'm able to voice my concerns without having to write them down. So I didn't pass out any documentation.

The one thing that I saw in this process, the first flaw I saw, was that no genuine consultation occurred. In 1977 there was a promise broken, because the federal government said they would engage prior to the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act regarding any changes that were to be made. That was not my promise; it was the promise that was made.

So even from that point of view, I don't know how I'm going to be able to say that my human rights and my benefit are being reassured by the changes that are going to occur on section 67.

As the leader of a small community in northern Alberta where the collective rights when it comes to the land base supersede the human rights, I have no other option but to protect that small piece of land that has been designated to me as a reservation. And knowing that and knowing that the collective and individual rights issue is going to be an even bigger burden to us than you will ever know, I can't begin to say how the matrimonial real property rights issues and the other issues stemming from the land management act.... All of these are connected to the repeal of this bill, and I want to be consulted. I want to know what the future outcomes are going to be in this process. I want to know how to address those prior to that.

When Bill C-31 was imposed, no one looked at the future and the impact of that bill. In this case, I definitely want to be reassured that any financial burdens are not on me, because when you look at individual human rights and issues that will come forth, you can see there will be a financial burden to that. There's no way anywhere in my budget that I can accommodate that.

Do not get me wrong. I am for the women. I am for the children and the protection of the children. I'm a mother, I'm a grandmother, so no one can deny me that opportunity and say that this is not about those rights. It definitely is.

As for the principle of Bill C-44, the repeal of section 67 I don't have a problem with, but let's talk about the process and what has to occur prior to that, instead of ramming something down my throat again. I say that as a first nations person who has had to live under the Indian Act all my life.

I just want to say that there are other things I would like--definitely the transition period. There are other accommodations that could be made to this bill before it's passed in the House, but number one and foremost, without consulting me you have already violated my human rights as an individual. You can't have both, You can't have your cake and eat it too, and say collective rights are only this part of me, and individual rights are only this part of me. No. It's either that they encompass me as a whole individual or not. And don't strategize so that I'm isolated on one part of my human rights and not the other.

I know it's a really big issue, so when we look at it and we look at the land base and we look at the collectivity of our way of life, I need more time. I need to talk about this more openly and discuss all the alternatives and strategies that I could bring forth in this process.

It is from that perspective that I chose to come to speak to you today. Hopefully when there's a question and answer period, we'll get into more detail about it.

That's where I'm coming from. I just want the opportunity to have these discussions and move forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on now to Chief Marie-Anne Day Walker-Pelletier.

[Chief Marie-Anne Day Walker-Pelletier, Okanese First Nation, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations]

Good morning, and thanks for the opportunity to be here today. I have Erica with me, who will discuss the consultation process, but I'll deal with the other issues.

I'm Chief Day Walker-Pelletier from the Okanese First Nation in Saskatchewan Treaty Four area. I have been chief of my first nation for 26 consecutive years. During my tenure I have witnessed many changes and many challenges within our first nations community—within my own community and within other communities that I'm from and that I represent.

I'm here to discuss my perspective on Bill C-44 and the repeal of section 67. I also bring common themes from my colleague Chief Sarah Gopher from Saulteaux First Nation, who was unable to be with us here today because of pressing commitments in her community.

I first want to state that I support the ideology of the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act on first nations land. I believe and, further, act every day to support our first nations processes that carry out just decisions for everyone.

In fact, there is potential for me as a leader to have greater access to funding from the federal government. This act may enable me to provide opportunity for my members in a way that I cannot do right now with the resources that are available. In the event that the Canadian Human Rights Act becomes applicable, additional resources for drinkable water, more housing, sustainable schools, and health centres now seem a possibility.

Further, as a leader I'll be in a better position to lobby the government to fulfill their obligation to us as first nations, because they will have to follow their own laws.

I have several concerns about Bill C-44 as it is presented and communicated.

First, I feel that the government is using a negative perception of first nation women living on reserve. I hear their lives have few rights and, further, little opportunity. As a woman who has grown up and lived on reserve all my life, other than leaving for schooling, I know this is not the case. We have issues that do affect women differently; however, these are part of the greater social considerations on the reserve. As a woman chief, I am more concerned about the vulnerability of all my members and believe that every situation is unique and must be considered differently.

Further, I feel that Bill C-44 is a premature bill to go before the House for further approval. If the intent is to bring federally legislated fairness and equality to our first nations and our members, then the government must ensure proper diligence be given to a first nation process for community input and guidance, and additionally, that once first nations have spoken, the government will respect that voice and enact their own recommendations, protecting our inherent and treaty rights.

In Saskatchewan, apart from our inherent rights as first nations people, we also have six other treaty areas and the rights that were negotiated with them. In fact, it is our belief that our inherent rights and the rights of the land treaties and the promises the Crown made to our ancestors must be paramount. We as chiefs hold the responsibility of keeping these promises alive in our present-day lives.

We believe that any legislation that will impact our collective inherent and treaty rights must go through a thorough review and recommendation process with our elders. This must happen before we as leadership even entertain endorsement or rejection. It is with their teachings and memory and guidance that they will provide an understanding and world view that must be considered.

Further, we believe that the government must give serious consideration to and take action to support our governance processes in trying to accommodate new mainstream legislation, especially if it is not first nation contrived. This is one of our inherent rights.

Finally, any legislation that is meant to protect individual rights of first nations must include language that will protect our collective rights. This is our unique status that we, as first nations, hold in this country. This language right must include provisions to guide and support the adjudicators who are entrusted with the interpretation of the Canadian Human Rights Act for first nations and their communities.

As for consultation with first nations, we have several issues to reference that demonstrate the negative impacts on first nation people when legislation is passed that does not have first nation approval for process, analysis, and implementation. We only have to mention Bill C-31 to see the lasting impacts on communities and how communities are still torn apart by that legislation.

As the chief of my individual community, which is part of the File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, I know that the consultation process from the community level to the provincial level has been next to nil. In fact, when I mentioned to my community members that I was going to Ottawa to sit before this committee, not one of my members had even heard about Bill C-44. However, 20 years later, if you ask my members about Bill C-31, they still have much to say about its many effects—mostly negative—on our community. It is the general consensus that Bill C-31 created more inequalities than any measure of equality for our first nations women and children, despite it being purported to eradicate these inequalities.

Apart from the promise of the government in 1997 to exempt the Canadian Human Rights Act from being applicable to the Indian Act, without full consultation with first nations, my fear as a chief is that if a proper public education and communication process is not done, the impact will create a misinformed membership that will be further confused about their rights as well as their responsibilities.

Currently, the transition period that is referenced in Bill C-44 is six months. If a conscious, cautious, and respectful process is to be carried out, including elders, women, and the disabled in the community, then the six-month process is not realistic. I would suggest that the transition period be extended by at least 30 months. It would also be prudent to say that the consultation process should be adequately funded to ensure a comprehensive community voice.

On the process of consultation, I will turn it over to Erica to describe the process to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Chief Pelletier.

Madam Beaudin.

[Erica Beaudin, Executive Director, Saskatchewan First Nations Women's Commission Secretariat, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations]

Thank you very much.

The consultation process that has been discussed in Saskatchewan is that before Bill C-44 goes any further in the legislative process, a fair and considerate consultation process that builds on a respectful nationhood must occur.

We believe the topics that follow must be thoroughly considered when analyzing implementation.

First of all, there is the role of culture, language, and traditions. When undertaking a comprehensive consultation with first nations, the government must understand that our cultures, spoken languages, and traditions, including our oral history, must be an essential component.

What is an understanding on a topic in one language is very much different in another. Also, our oral history may have an ability to approach the subject and define human rights in a way that may not be considered in foreign world views and languages, such as our two languages of French and English.

In terms of an operational analysis, in order for first nations to meet, at the very least, the minimum standards that will be required in first nations communities once the CHRA applies, what we're looking at is an operational analysis that considers that financial, capacity-building, and human resources are needed. In this process it's important that first nations and the federal government work together to provide a joint analysis that is agreed upon and that both are committed to fulfilling.

In order to look at the financial resources and capacity-building, the operational analysis needs to provide a foundation for further financial resources to build capacity in first nations. If first nations and the federal government work together, they'll have a greater chance of meeting the requirements of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In terms of the first nations institutions, historically we as first nations have had mechanisms in place to adjudicate when a person or party has felt aggrieved. The application of the CHRA on first nations is an opportunity to strengthen and support our justice institutions and the processes and decisions they make that are relevant and meaningful to their community members.

In terms of document language and definitions, currently Bill C-44 narrowly defines aboriginal authority. It would be wise to have the language and the definitions in Bill C-44 discussed at length at the community level to ensure relevancy, understanding, and clarity. It's common sense that if people understand the language and the meaning of the language, they will understand and support its importance.

[Chief Marie-Anne Day Walker-Pelletier]

As first stated, I believe the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act to first nations could be a positive change. As a leader, my hands have been tied financially many times in terms of assisting my members on reserve to reach a standard of living that is enjoyed by other Canadians.

This bill, if carried out in a process that is respectful of and meaningful for first nations, could lessen that gap. If it includes the wisdom of our elders and the contemporary knowledge of our youth, and considers the special circumstances of our people living with disabilities, the process has enormous opportunity for positive change. It is critical to have an act that respects our unique status and protects our collective rights as first nations people while allowing us, as first nations leaders, the opportunity to satisfy and meet the needs of our individual members.

I thank you for this opportunity to speak today. I would be happy to answer any questions that come forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations.

We'll move into the seven-minute rounds.

Madam Neville will begin.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me thank the three of you for coming today. You raise a number of issues, some of which have been raised before and some of which, I think, were stated for the first time today.

I'm going to share my time with my colleague Mr. Merasty, but I do want to get something on the record and ask your thoughts on it.

You have all spoken about the importance of the consultation process. You've all spoken about the importance of doing this in a fair, respectful, and consultative manner.

Chief Laboucan, you spoke about being tired of--if I wrote it down correctly--having things rammed down your throat over and over again. Are you aware that there was an effort to abort this committee and not even allow us--

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. We should stay on it until we're done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We will restrict our discussions to Bill C-44.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, could I just respond?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, I challenge the ruling of the chair, because I think this is relevant to the consultative process.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

We wanted to sit non-stop. Why would that be ramming it down? We wanted to sit until we're done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay, Mr. Bruinooge--

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

That's not aborting. That's extending in perpetuity.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

That's your interpretation.