Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I'll call this meeting to order.

This is the 65th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Sixty-five is an important number, but we cannot retire: we continue our work.

Folks, first up today for our ongoing review of Bill C-428, we have from the Native Women's Association of Canada, Michèle Audette and Teresa Edwards.

Thank you so much for being with us this morning. We appreciate your joining us, and we look forward to your testimony.

We'll turn it over to you for the first 10 minutes to hear your opening comments, and then we'll begin with rounds of questioning after that. Thanks so much again for being here.

[Michèle Audette, President, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Thank you very much.

[Witness speaks in her native language.]

I wish to thank our host nation, the Anishinabe Nation, for welcoming us to its territory, now shared, on which many times, many moccasins from across Canada have come to remind the federal government of the reality of the aboriginal peoples.

I am proud to be accompanied by my colleagues, Claudette Dumont Smith, Executive Director of the Native Women’s Association of Canada, and Teresa Edwards, who is responsible for human rights and is a lawyer with the Native Women’s Association Canada.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada was founded in 1974 and is very active in several areas, notably discrimination against women, of which one of the primary causes is the Indian Act.

History has surely taught you that we native peoples have been here for thousands of years. It is important to reiterate that this means we were highly organized societies, societies in which governance was very structured in political, social, cultural and economic terms.

Allow me to give you a short lesson on the history of the Indian Act. The Act was designed to ensure the gradual emancipation of the Savages — and unfortunately the goal remains the same today, in 2013 — so that the children of the Minister of Indian Affairs, that is, status Indians, might be emancipated and become Canadians in the prescribed form. I am sorry, but we are still very much alive, very active and very proud of our origins, our history, our present and our aspirations for tomorrow.

It is important to mention that on January 28, I took part in the opening of your debates in the House of Commons. According to the media, there were 5,000 consultations with native peoples here in Canada. I do not believe that some five- or ten-minute periods in a parliamentary committee constitute a consultation. We are talking here about the present and future of our nations. This is not a consultation, but a place where I can, on behalf of an organization, to share with you some solutions or concerns.

I do wish, though, to acknowledge the courage and determination of one member of the committee, Rob Clarke, for calling attention to the archaic aspect of the Indian Act. Yes, the act is archaic, paternalistic and obsolete. Let us recall that this act was imposed on us. None of our native leaders, our elders or our youth participated in the development of this act. You see the results today: when we do not take part in the well-being of our nations, we end up with failures. We are in a state of survival and the act is one of the major causes of this situation.

Why not do things differently then, Mr. Clarke, in 2013, with this bill that may change our present and our future? I am therefore asking you, sir, to ensure that we work together on this, in close cooperation. It is not enough to grant us ten minutes to tell you whether we are in agreement or not. No, the Native Women’s Association of Canada is not in favour of this bill. So I think we could do a remarkable job together.

Native women are the ones most affected by the Indian Act.

I will switch to English. My coffee is good now.

Aboriginal women are the most affected by the Indian Act, and we all know why. It is sad to say to the committee today that in 2013 aboriginal women across Canada are the most marginalized. Right now, yes, the Indian Act will not protect their human rights or individual rights, not even their collective rights, and there is no protection of their security in the Indian Act.

I understand that. I know. But why are we doing what our ancestors did—my dad is white—when they imposed the Indian Act? There was no real consultation or consent. For me, consultation must have consent attached to it, where two human beings engage in an exchange and ask, “What will be the best for my present and my future?” Right now, I feel that we are using the same paternalistic approach of imposing something that we think is best for someone else.

I'm 41-years-old and I know what's best for my family, what's best for me, and what's best for our people. The people will say the same, I hope, that every person or organization that comes here.... We need to work together, instead of imposing things as our ancestors did.

We have a great opportunity here. I'm asking all of you, appealing to your hearts and to your brains, can we do it differently this time? The native women of Canada would be so proud to work with you if we were doing things differently, where we could be involved, where we could have a voice, and where we could add some beautiful things to that legislation. Yes, we need to get rid of the Indian Act, but not this way, not the way it's proposed.

I will transfer now to my colleague and will come back at the end.

[Teresa Edwards, Director, International Affairs and Human Rights, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Thanks, Michèle.

Good morning.

[Witness speaks in her native language]

My name is Teresa Edwards, as I was introduced by Michèle.

I am from the Mi'kmaq First Nation in Listuguj, Quebec.

As Michèle so eloquently stated, the MP Rob Clarke has claimed that he brought this legislation forward because the Indian Act is an archaic piece of legislation that treats aboriginal people as wards of the state, with no power. Yet there has been no thorough process in place to meet with our leaders, our governments, and the people within the communities to hear the voice of women on how to best proceed to amend the Indian Act.

Calling witnesses to a committee is not, in fact, a thorough consultation by any stretch. We have to ensure that any changes to the act are designed by first nations themselves. If they are not part of the solution, there will not be a successful implementation. We have seen this for hundreds of years. Aboriginal people need the provisions that will protect their rights. With the government moving forward unilaterally, as it has, it is still treating us as wards of the state and making decisions on what it thinks is best for us, even now in 2013.

It's become apparent to all Canadians that this government is not consulting our people, and the resistance is manifesting itself with every Idle No More demonstration that is happening in every community across this country.

There have been little to no opportunities for community women to express their views, to strategize, or to discuss their visions on any amendments to the Indian Act.

Despite the fact that aboriginal rights are protected within the Constitution, and despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has set out specific processes for governments to thoroughly consult, accommodate, and get consent regarding legislation affecting aboriginal peoples, this government has been systematically passing legislation that strips away these rights and our protections with little to no input from our people, which is a breach of this country's very own laws.

Any efforts to change the Indian Act must be based on collaboration between first nations and the government, not on independent action by a member of Parliament or by the government alone.

NWAC opposes this bill for a number of reasons. For example, residential schools created generations of alienated peoples whose earliest experiences were of forced removal from their families and communities, profound racism, and brutalization. In total, some 150,000 aboriginal children attended 130 Indian residential schools from the 1800s until the last one closed in 1996. This is a 100-year history, as the last school close in 1996. So the impacts are very real and very present in past, current, and future generations of our people.

The cultural traditions that honoured children and elders were replaced by Euro-Canadian ones that inflicted physical, emotional, and sexual violence while instilling deep notions of shame and inferiority. Violence was normalized and there was complete impunity for the perpetrators. While violence is a symptom manifested towards our women and within our communities, it is at the core of the ongoing intergenerational trauma from Indian residential schools and the challenges that face us today.

The current effects are demonstrated with educational achievement levels, addiction challenges, child welfare apprehension, over-criminalization, conditions of poverty, vulnerability of women and girls to predators, and increased indicators of mental health difficulties.

Given all these facts, it would be more appropriate to put in place legislation that would ensure that all Canadian students were required to learn in school about the true history of our peoples so that racism could finally be addressed through proper educational curricula and put these myths to rest.

There is an urgent need to address the context of inequality and the intergenerational trauma in which aboriginal women and girls are affected. In particular, more attention must be paid to the continuum of violence and poverty where aboriginal girls are unprotected, revictimized, and then later criminalized.

Measures and processes such as this are not the way to move forward. We can be far better served with other legislation that will positively affect the lives of future generations. This legislation, and similar legislative reforms that are being put forward, are all laying the foundation for further dispossession of lands; loss of resources and benefits; jeopardizing our socio-economic security; as well as putting the environment, water, and animals at future risk while enabling governments. Both federal and provincial governments will have more decisions about the future and about our resources. In no way will these methods or measures benefit our people.

I'm speaking to you about this legislation, but also all the other pieces of legislation that have been moving forward in the same manner.

[Michèle Audette]

In conclusion, I would say to you once again that you now have a unique opportunity for us to work together. I am talking here, about the organizations, in particular the Native Women’s Association of Canada. You are expressing the will to change the reality of native peoples. Why not do this with us?

Together, we could make sure that the statistics on the poverty facing women in communities and urban centres are reduced. We could also reduce the statistics on violence, disappearances and murders, all problems confronting Canada’s native women. I would call that a real partnership. Could we have a real partnership this time?

Let us recall that this approach, as proposed by the member of Parliament, is inconsistent with human rights and many Aboriginal rights, as well as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada has signed.

In closing, I repeat that we have a chance to work together. Why not forget about this bill and build one together for the present and future of the first nations in Canada?

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you for your opening statement.

We'll begin our rounds of questioning with Ms. Crowder, for the first seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Audette and Ms. Edwards. I think you've laid out your position pretty clearly.

We would agree that no matter how well intentioned a bill put forward by a member might be, in this case a private member's bill, something that continues to alter the Indian Act piecemeal shouldn't proceed. We would also agree that using the UN declaration's statements about around free, prior, and informed consent, there should be a process developed in conjunction with aboriginal peoples to amend or change or abolish the Indian Act.

You're right: we all agree that it's a colonialist piece of legislation that needs to change. Not everybody from coast to coast to coast is in agreement about how that should happen, and so there does need to be that process.

I have two questions, and I'll ask the first one. A couple of times in your presentation you used the word “collaboration”. In its preamble, Bill C-428 says, “for the development of this new legislation in collaboration with the First Nations organizations”, and in clause 2, it says—and this is where the minister is supposed to report to the House—“on the work undertaken by his or her department in collaboration with First Nations organizations”.

In our view, collaboration does not equal consultation and does not equal free, prior, and informed consent. I wonder if you could comment on those two sections of the bill where it talks about collaboration, and whether in your view that translates into consultation.

[Michèle Audette]

Thank you very much, Ms. Crowder.

These are indeed fragmentary approaches.

I urge the committee to abandon this legislation or project. I urge you to do this. We can do something else that will be in collaboration with the native women of Canada—I won't speak on behalf of the other organizations. We have so much to learn from what happened in the past. Why are we making the same mistake when we can discuss this together and can have an exchange?

For me, collaboration is when we talk about a consultation, when I have time not only to absorb what is proposed but also also to go back and propose something. For me, that's an equal or working relationship. In this case, we found out a couple of days ago that we were invited here and that we would have to say within 10 minutes what we wanted to happen. It would have an impact on the next decade, and I don't know how many decades. I don't want to put that on my shoulders, not even on NWAC's shoulders.

So if I respond to your question, madame la députée , my perception or NWAC's perception is that this is not a consultation. Collaboration is where we also have time to go across Canada to meet with the women so that they can understand the situation and the project that is being proposed here, but that is not happening in this case.

With regard to the human development index, Canada was once the best country in the world. Today it is in 11th place. Regarding the equality of men and women, it has fallen to 18th place. So imagine what it must be for native peoples. We must have slipped to 80th place.

With this bill, maybe we could reverse the trend if we worked together on improving these statistics.

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

You mentioned a couple of things that constitute consultation in your view. I know a tremendous amount of work has been done around what constitutes consultation. If the Indian Act were to be completely overhauled or repealed, what do you think needs to be place to have an appropriate consultative process with the Native Women's Association of Canada?

[Michèle Audette]

Thank you very much.

It is extremely important to equip our national organization and all our regions so that, in our communities, we can speak freely and comfortably about what could be a project of society or a project in a region.

We also feel that it is necessary to stop making all projects the same, as if all native peoples were the same. That is wrong. Among the first nations, there is an unbelievably rich cultural diversity throughout Canada.

I would say that the Indian Act is the source of a lateral form of violence within our nations and our communities. The way it has been constructed over the years, women have been the ones most affected. So forums are necessary, as are places where we, too, can write recommendations or build a vision of these things. Women have something to say, whether they are in an extremely isolated community or in an urban centre because they can no longer go back to their communities for whatever reason.

This consultation also requires that the whole matter of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples be enforced. It clearly talks about education, culture, identity, protection, safety, individual rights, collective rights, women’s rights, children’s rights and so on. Everything is good in that project. We could have a firm foundation.

It is necessary to ensure that we have the necessary funding and the necessary native experts. It is necessary to have a reasonable length of time, not just ten minutes. I am talking here about a year or two during which this reflection and this mobilization from the base will lead us to a project of society in which, finally, we will no longer be treated like children.

Ms. Edwards, you wanted to say something.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll turn to our next questioner.

[Teresa Edwards]

Can I respond?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

With just a very short interjection, if you have one.

[Teresa Edwards]

I would suggest that the committee look at implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. NWAC provided input for a guide on how to implement that, and I'd be happy to share that with the government. It lists step-by-step processes for achieving free, prior and informed consent, and how you would do it over one, two, five, and ten years of building a true collaboration, not over a year with intermittent standing committee hearings with one or two presenters.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

I will turn to Mr. Rickford now for seven minutes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here today. Perhaps a couple of clarifications are in order.

Teresa, in your speech you made at least a couple of references to this being a government bill, and I would clarify that it's a private member's bill. Moreover, this is a private member's bill that's being brought forward by a first nation member of Parliament, who, for the purposes of any and all discussions around this matter and in his day-to-day life, is subject to the conditions and the terms set out in the Indian Act. In this manner, I'm going back to my initial clarification with respect to government and private members' business.

It is available to members to advance legislation of particular interest, as it is for all members, irrespective of the political party they represent. It may be personal, it may be on behalf of a constituent or group of persons who may exist in their riding or in a region or across the country. To that extent, and as someone who has invested an entire professional career living and working in first nations communities, I am very pleased that a colleague of mine from those communities has come forward with a piece of legislation—which, I might add for your benefit, originally looked somewhat different than it now does for purposes of our discussion and debate here at committee.

Rob's work over the past two years has started a conversation about certain components of the Indian Act that are relevant to him, including the history of his family, and the community or communities that he was raised in as a young person. Michèle and Teresa, they reflect his own experiences, many of them very personal, experiences I would respectfully submit to you, that have had a profound impact on him for the purposes of bringing forward these specific clauses in his private member's bill.

For example, on the matter of wills and estates, prior to being a member of Parliament Rob spent a professional career with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He accumulated a certain pension and various assets. It looked very much like something that other Canadians would accumulate. He lost a colleague on a particular evening who was fatally shot. Rob then realized that unlike the process his colleague would have to go through, he on his part would have to have his will, the transfer of his assets and legacy to his family, signed off on by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs under the terms and conditions of the Indian Act.

On this very narrow question, Michèle, do you agree there is something wrong with that? It's really a yes or a no.

[Michèle Audette]

Yes.

But please don't quote me saying that I approve of the legislation.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I'm fleshing out the issues here.

[Michèle Audette]

Thank you.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Of course, you've been to committee on a number of occasions, Michèle, and understand some of the issues we want to flesh out.

Furthermore, Teresa, if I can go back to you, it wasn't clear to me why you wanted any and all references to Indian residential schools taken out of the bill, notwithstanding the larger narrative that you were driving at regarding all legislation. More precisely perhaps, why wouldn't you want any and all references to Indian residential schools removed from the Indian Act? Further, do you not agree that a first nation member of Parliament whose family members attended residential schools, which left a profound impact on him, should have an opportunity to remove the words “Indian residential school” from the Indian Act?

[Teresa Edwards]

For me, the idea isn't that I would not want the words “Indian residential school“ removed from the act. What I am cautious about is any history being taken from the Indian Act that demonstrates what occurred with Indian residential schools at a time when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is under way and in the process of making ongoing recommendations about implementing strategies that could heal the generations who currently exist.

I would hate to think that the Indian Act would be amended in a piecemeal fashion, striking out the section on Indian residential schools so that we could thereby look back, without an alternative in place, and say that never happened. We already have many members of Parliament and Canadians who say that was 100 years ago, when in fact it wasn't. The last school closed in 1996. This is a very real issue.

I respectfully submit that despite the MP’s personal experience, Michèle and I, as first nation women, have lived the personal experience that we have been advocating about for some 30 years, and we've been personally affected by Indian residential schools. We've been impacted by Bill C-3 and by Bill C-31. However, I would never propose that I have the solution or would never come forward to tinker with the Indian Act in a piecemeal fashion for my personal benefit when I know, even as a lawyer, that any case that goes forward to the Supreme Court of Canada is a huge risk because it's not only about my case but also about the 633 first nation communities and hundreds of thousands and millions of people who will be impacted by this legislation and by cases that go forward and are decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.

With all due respect, personal issues aside, we still need to proceed in a manner consistent with the UN declaration, in a manner consistent with how it's been set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We will turn now to Ms. Bennett for seven minutes.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Would you provide the clerk with a copy of the guidebook you referred to?

[Teresa Edwards]

Absolutely.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

It would be important that all members of this committee understand how the UN declaration could be implemented in a meaningful way, one that was about real consultation.

I'm quite struck by the eloquence and articulate nature of your testimony, as always.

It seems pretty clear that you don't like this bill. Are you saying that the bill should be withdrawn?

[Michèle Audette]

Indeed, I think so, for personal reasons. I live in a community where I am raising my five children and I see injustice, violence, discrimination. It is a lovely community, but I do not even have the right to vote, because I am not a member. There are a thousand and one reasons.

Furthermore, I would say no to this bill for reasons related to well-being. I cannot speak on behalf of all women in Canada, but I can say one thing, from the fact that I defend the interests of these women. If we have a chance to get rid of an archaic act, can we, native women, be in the front row and contribute solutions? We are the ones who are concerned.

Can we be the ones at the front line to change that legislation? With this case right now, we are not.

So, no. I urge you, members of Parliament, to withdraw or to abandon this legislation and to please make sure that we will be part of such changes, as community members, as mothers, and for the rest of women across Canada. We're amazing. We have lawyers, doctors, social workers, and police. We have all kinds of people who could build a beautiful project for our societies. Please.