Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 28th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Deputy Grand Chief Archibald or Mr. Dinsdale, do you have any short comments you wanted to make on this?

[Deputy Grand Chief RoseAnne Archibald]

Yes.

First of all, how do we ensure that action is taken from NAWS? For our part at the AFN, we're going to continue to push the federal government to provide sustainable funding and resources to adequately engage in that planning process. What is key is an investment of sustainable funding. We can make recommendations, but without the investment, those priorities and actions sit on the shelf. So it's really key for us that we look at sustainable funding.

In terms of Bill C-47, how do we make sure our voice is heard, or how do we follow up? I've been before this committee on another bill, which was human rights. I made a recommendation there and I make the same recommendation here. I find that the processes of Parliament are not conducive to true partnership. We come and we make our presentations and hope to goodness that those things are taken into account. I really believe we have to start to examine a new way of conducting relations between first nations and the Government of Canada, one of true partnership. That is something we would have to build together.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Mr. Dinsdale.

[Peter Dinsdale]

The action plan you speak of is key. As we said in our remarks, if there is not specific action out of this, we believe the issue is going to start to lose legitimacy.

But let me tell you, what's important about it is that every province, territory, and the federal government has known this was coming. If a region comes without talking about plans and actions, or thinking about how they coordinate themselves, they aren't doing their work, frankly. It has a lot of value in terms of setting up markers for opportunities for announceables, for policy work to be done internally, and to engage that kind of thinking.

Frankly, you are all going to be dealing with these issues whether it's in a summit or not. There are still going to be single aboriginal parents raising young children, not graduating from school, living in poverty and in sub-standard housing, in all of our communities. You will be dealing with those issues one way or another.

This is an excellent opportunity to try to coordinate effort around a serious national issue. Whether or not you get the recipe just right, Mr. Lemay, to address those issues properly has yet to be seen. But you are going to be dealing with these issues regardless: Quebec will be, the Government of Canada will be, and every other jurisdiction will be.

While we come together, it's best to coordinate our efforts as best we can, instead of working at cross purposes.

I think it has tremendous value.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Dinsdale.

Next is Ms. Crowder from the NDP. You have seven minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward today. I think it was important.

I brought the motion forward, with the support of my colleagues on the committee, to have representatives from the summit come, because it seemed to me it was an important event that happened, at which there was a gathering of women from coast to coast to coast, and of men as well, that worked on some really important issues that are facing first nations, Métis, and Inuit across the country today.

There are a couple of things I wanted you to comment on. One is GBA, gender-based analysis.

I was fortunate enough to be on the status of women committee back in 2005 when we did the original report on gender-based analysis. Of course, what we discovered to our horror was that, by and large, most pieces of legislation are not subjected to any kind of gender-based analysis—or policy, for that matter. There is sometimes a pro forma checking of a box to say we more or less considered it, but we know from seeing legislation that comes before us.... Matrimonial real property is a really good example of one that has been developed largely in the absence of women's voices at the table, despite the very good work that Wendy Grant-John did.

I would like you to comment on what immediate things you need to see happen on gender-based analysis in a culturally appropriate way.

The second piece is that I want to get back to Mr. Dinsdale's remarks around concrete deliverables. My understanding is that there were a couple of provincial and territorial political representatives there, but by and large the federal government was absent from the process. What is it that you need to see in order to have concrete deliverables from the next summit? What specifically do you need out of the federal government?

Could you take on those two?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Ms. Dumont-Smith.

[Claudette Dumont-Smith]

I'm very happy to say that the Native Women's Association of Canada has 95% completed the development of a culturally relevant GBA. We'll be speaking about that with our government partners, we'll be presenting it in full form at NAWS 2, and we will be applying it to programs, policies, and initiatives. We're going to use it. It's more or less a tool to measure whether they are indeed considering gender-based analysis from our perspective when they put something forward.

I could tell you that for us it's going to highlight a lot of the shortcomings that exist and have existed. I believe that if government departments, whether they be provincial or territorial or whatever, use this recommended CR GBA, it will meet our needs, because it's built on our world view, our culture, and on a holistic perspective, as you can well imagine, so I'm happy about that.

In your second question, you were asking what the federal government can do. I think we have to work in partnership with the provincial and territorial governments as well on aboriginal women-specific issues. I think that's really not happening at the moment; everybody is working on different topics and at a different pace.

We have to get together to really address the issues, and not all the issues—we can't, because there are too many—but those in some of our specific priority areas, to work together, and to try to develop some kind of report card mechanism, so that at every subsequent NAWS event we can report on what's being done.

That's the only way I can see, because everybody is on a different page: they know a little bit of what's happening here, a little bit of what's happening there, and the federal government is not involved there, but some provinces are doing things. It's a mishmash of information. There has to be some way we can bring it all together to really know that we are moving forward on the issues we brought up; otherwise, everybody is working in a silo, as they have been doing for x number of years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Ms. Dumont-Smith.

Ms. McPherson, do you have something to add?

[Rosemarie McPherson]

First of all, Women of the Métis Nation attended one of the first gender-based meetings. We were invited by Status of Women Canada and we really appreciated the fact that we were invited.

We didn't really know what it was all about. When we attended the meeting, it became clear to us that it is a good tool to use to get women to start speaking up and really know who they are and what they want. We women decided that we would like to tackle that on our own, but we would like to incorporate the language in there, because we really need to have our language so that we can truly understand the culture. We would like to explore and have the opportunity to do gender-based analysis within our provinces.

The other concrete deliverables are a biggie. They're a biggie, but for the Métis women, as long as we are participants and as long as the Métis women are acknowledged and as long as it is acknowledged that we're not going to go away, it is a good start for us, because--trust me--we've never had that. We're just starting to get it, and that is a big deliverable in our books.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Deputy Grand Chief Archibald, did you have something to add?

[Deputy Grand Chief RoseAnne Archibald]

Thank you very much.

We call it the gender balance analysis. What needs to be done, in our view, is that government has to make it a priority in terms of investing in first nations women. At least for the last couple of decades, those of us who have been around have seen progress and we've seen that when we begin to invest in women, even in small amounts, the social payoff is quite phenomenal.

For example, in my territory right now 27.44% of our leaders are women. Either they're a chief or they're a councillor. In those communities in which women on the council are the majority or make up half the council, we see a progressive social agenda. We see improvement in those communities because of the balance between how men view the world and how together they begin to solve problems.

In terms of specific recommendations, I would first say that making investment in first nations women should be a priority. Then a process should be established through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Status of Women Canada to perhaps look at an allocation of resources, the development of a process to deal with first nations women's concerns, and how to go about investing in women so that we can begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I think we already do see it; I just think that the more we invest in women, the closer we can get to that light.

That would be my specific recommendation in terms of the GBA, because that GBA would be part of that process as well--the development of it and the implementation of it within government and within ourselves as first nations, and moving forward on that level.

In terms of concrete deliverables, you were talking about NAWS. It leads back to Mr. Roger Valley's question on how to take the NAWS process and begin to infuse it and make those connections with women at the community level. If we can look at specific recommendations that come out of NAWS--look at investments in the form of pilot projects or special processes for beginning to implement those particular recommendations, and look at deliverables we can actually achieve on the ground in communities--then I think we will begin to move from talking about it to actually doing it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Mr. Dinsdale, do you have a a quick comment?

[Peter Dinsdale]

With respect to how to go about gender-based analysis at the outset, we're not involved in a lot of the policy development, frankly. Rarely do we get brought in on a consultative basis or a program development basis and have an opportunity to be engaged, but I'll tell you that nearly 80% of our executive directors and presidents in leadership across the friendship centre movement are women, so we're almost the inverse of the situation just described. I think there are only two males who are executive directors or presidents of provincial or national bodies across the country, so we certainly have a strong aboriginal women leadership. I think that's a reflection of their role in the community, which is the other aspect of it.

I think friendship centres really try to provide expression for aboriginal women to fulfill those roles as providers for their families, keepers of the culture, and those types of things. I think that clearly needs to be top of mind in developing and moving forward.

Your second question was around what we need to see now in terms of concrete actions. Too often we're afraid to say that we can't do everything and we can only do this or that, or that we have 137 recommendations, but we can look at these two seriously and deeply. Maybe in two years we'll be at NAWS 3, or whenever we're going to do it, and say we had all these recommendations but we focused on these two. The federal government agreed on these two--perhaps it's employment and training--because of the programs we have. The feds could do employment and the provinces could do training. Find a role and actually commit each of the regions to specific action, because in the absence of that commitment we're all going to be doing our small projects here or there and we won't see that bar moved any more by the time we come together again.

Frankly, if I had my druthers, I would certainly ask for commitments on the areas you are willing to work on, and if you're not, let's stop the charade; let's be honest about it and let's work on those areas in which we all can agree that we could actually move some agendas. That would be my recommendation: let's have an honest conversation about what we're willing to work on and drop the rest.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Dinsdale.

Next we'll go to the Conservative Party and Mr. Bruinooge. You have seven minutes.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming today. I especially appreciate hearing your testimony, as this event was a fantastic opportunity for me to hear first-hand many of the issues that face our aboriginal women throughout the country. I thought one of the best parts of the conference that really came out was how the various aboriginal groups worked together. We had Métis, first nations, and Inuit ladies working collectively. I thought that was very nice to see. I haven't seen that at too many other aboriginal conferences, so it was a fantastic event.

One line of questioning that Madam Crowder brought up suggested that the federal government wasn't well represented there. Well, I know her opinions of me, but I should suggest that the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the time and also of the Status of Women, the Honourable Bev Oda, was also present at the event and made a major contribution to the proceedings.

Perhaps I could ask a question to Claudette. Would you suggest that the Government of Canada has been supportive of this conference as a full partner, or were we, as Ms. Crowder put it, perhaps not well represented?

[Claudette Dumont-Smith]

Are you asking if the federal government was supportive, or if it is supportive right now?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Yes. Based on your experiences in dealing with the federal government, would you suggest we've been a full partner on this?

[Claudette Dumont-Smith]

I would say a limited partner, yes.

Of course we have to develop proposals to get funds to address, for example, Health Canada, with which I'm most familiar. We have to develop proposals and make sure that we're addressing health issues.

There were a lot of difficulties with that, and I'll tell you why. We're very appreciative of the money we got from them, but we got it at the end of May. Our process to prepare for NAWS 1 was that we would reach out to our constituents across Canada to get their ideas on what we would present at NAWS, so we had to really work. The way we worked was not even humane. We had to cross the country. We went to four regional workshops, bringing in women to tell us what issues they wanted identified there.

Yes, they did give us that money, but it was in circumstances that were very difficult. If there had been more collaboration, maybe this thing could have evolved over a six-month period, and we could have been better prepared. It was rush, rush, rush. I'm the senior health advisor at the Native Women's Association of Canada, and speaking only about the health, I feel we could have presented and prepared better issue papers. It was too fast. We got the money; we had to go across the country, develop our issue papers, and go and present.

From that point of view, I think we can expect more from the federal government, and I'm hoping that will happen this year. I'm hoping we'll have a bit more time to be better prepared, because we do want to present the views of our women in a proper way and a proper fashion. We don't want to work in this hurried state. I don't think it's good for us, and it's not good for the federal government, because the end product is not the quality that we want to present--so my answer to you would be yes and no.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Ms. McPherson, the women of the Métis Nation were well represented in Corner Brook, which I must admit, with my colleague across the way from Newfoundland and Labrador, is a beautiful place. It was a fantastic location. I'm sure the Northwest Territories will also be quite nice for the next location.

Rosemarie, you work a lot on the protection of aboriginal languages, specifically Michif. We all know that the term “mother tongue” is well chosen. It is the mothers who tend to pass along language.

Could you tell us a bit about the work that you're doing to protect the Michif language?

[Rosemarie McPherson]

If you don't mind, I'd like to touch on the NAWS a little bit. I'm proud to say that we received $30,000 from your government to send ten women to Corner Brook. It took a lot of that money to go to Corner Brook. We're proud of the work we did.

I worked weekends and so did everybody else. We did a really good paper. I have to agree: if we had only had a few more dollars, we would have done more of a bang-up job. From the Métis perspective, it's not always about how much money we receive. It's also about what we want to do, what we give to get in return. I want to leave that with you.

The preservation of the Michif language is very important to me. It is my mother tongue. I speak Michif. We're trying to revitalize the program by making CDs and doing dictionaries. We're going across Manitoba. I have to speak on Manitoba, because that's where we're doing this.

We go to the little communities. It doesn't take much money. I go to the casino and I get four decks of cards for a buck. Then I go to a little community, gather the people, and we play Barouche. We don't speak anything but the language.

We go to another community. If there are six women, we throw our few dollars together, buy wool, and make knitted slippers. We go to different communities. It's always something different.

We have to do it in the community. We never discourage little ones, because they are our future. They hold our language in their hands. We have to allow them to open it wide, so that they can continue with our language.

I get excited with I speak about language. It's important to put in a proposal for our elders to be the authenticators of our language. With the Michif language, there are a couple of linguists out there who have come to our community, and we've taught them the language. They received a large amount of money to do a dictionary. To preserve a dying language in Manitoba we receive 125....

We would like to put in a proposal for elders to authenticate the work that these linguists do. How can they be telling us how they're going to write our language, when we're the ones who taught them to begin with?

It disturbs me, and I'm glad you asked that question, because now I can tell you. We need to make sure that our elders can authenticate what these linguists are writing. This proposal, by the way, is going to be coming forward. As we speak, it's being written.

Every time we have a meeting, we do a prayer in Michif. Every time we go somewhere in public, we talk in Michif. The Métis are very versatile in their languages. You have to be careful where you go. Maybe it's not Michif in some places; it could be Saulteaux.

The dying language for the Métis is the Michif language.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

First of all, I would like to say to my colleague Mr. Rod Bruinooge that when you have to go fishing for compliments you really haven't done a hell of a lot. You do a good job of fishing for them, but I'm not sure how much you're catching.

Let me also say that I commend all of you for getting together at NAWS 1. I was involved in aboriginal politics—I'm still involved—for 12 or 13 years. There are certain dynamics within the aboriginal community, if I can use those words. There are some tensions; there are jurisdictional issues within the aboriginal community.

So I commend you for getting together. It's not always easy to share that space, to share that time, and sometimes to share stories. I think that's a remarkable achievement in itself.

I would also like to say to you that we should be careful of some of the signs out there. The challenges facing aboriginal women have come with their own cultural nuances and things of that nature, but there are also challenges for women within Canada generally.

We are looking at a government that does away with the court challenges program, that imposes cuts on programs for the status of women, that doesn't sign onto the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This was one of the specific recommendations that you guys made at NAWS 1. With respect toBill C-21, the repeal of section 67, which in principle we all agree with, there was no listening to the voices of aboriginal women. That was the presentation we heard. As for matrimonial real property, the first voice of the women in the aboriginal community was one of condemnation, because they weren't listened to.

The unity you display is important, because of the signs out there and the actions on the part of this government. We should always be cognizant of that. The signs are prevalent not only around the issues that affect women, but also around issues that affect aboriginal people generally.

My question has to do with the need for unity and one voice. Do you feel that it is necessary now in light of these signs? Is the need for unity sometimes overcoming the tensions within the aboriginal community? Do you feel that? Did you feel it at NAWS 1? Do you think it's present now? Are you communicating between the NAWS about these pressing matters?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Ms. Dumont-Smith.

[Claudette Dumont-Smith]

There is unity among the women of the various organizations. NAWS 2 is being planned with ITK, with AFN, and with other women, so there is unity. There's no disunity, so to speak. I think the issues you've raised, like the cutting back of funding from Status of Women Canada, all affect women, so we have to have the same opinion on that, because these issues touch us, as women, in our hearts.

I think somebody mentioned earlier that, yes, we do work together, because it's women, it's issues of the heart, of the family, of the community. You won't see the same breaks when you have a bunch of men together, so to speak. I just have to say that it's positive when it comes to women, and I'm very proud of that. We all speak the same language, so to speak. We all are addressing these issues that are so dear to our heart, and I don't think you'll ever see any deviation from that for NAWS 2.

And, yes, we do speak to each other between the NAWS events. The co-chair for NAWS 2 is a member of our group, with somebody from NWT, and they meet, I think, every two weeks or something and they talk about the progress of NAWS 1, what they want to see moving forward.

Yes, it is a positive thing, from my point of view.