Status of Women Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

To all our witnesses, thank you so very much for taking the time to come in and give us some additional insight into what is an extremely important subject, I believe, for all of us at this table, and for Canadians overall. So I thank you for the good work that you all do. We appreciate it. Thank you very much.

If you have anything in writing, Ms. Pobric--you mentioned that you had some long-term and short-term recommendations--would you send it to the clerk and we will ensure that the committee members receive it?

[Mirjana Pobric]

I already did. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Oh, you did. Wonderful.

All right, I will move suspension for a few minutes until Minister Prentice arrives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I will reconvene the 18th meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I'm very pleased this morning to welcome the honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Mr. Prentice, we truly appreciate the fact that this is your second visit to our committee. Every time we've asked you, you have responded in a matter of days or weeks. Knowing how busy you are, we very much appreciate your availability.

You also have with you, from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Sandra Ginnish, director general, treaties, research, international and gender equality branch; as well as Holly King, acting director, women's issues and gender equality directorate. From the Department of Justice, we have Christine Aubin, legal counsel. Again from the Department of Indian Affairs, we have Wendy Grant-John, ministerial representative.

I believe it's your first time joining us, Ms. Grant-John.

We're very pleased you're all here. I will turn it over to the minister.

Again, thank you very much for coming.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for having me here today, along with some of the fine people from the department, Sandra Ginnish and Holly King from our department, and Christine Aubin from the Department of Justice, all of whom are integrally involved in this file.

It's also a real pleasure to be here not only with you as parliamentarians but also with Wendy Grant-John, who I know you'll enjoy having an opportunity to speak with today. She is one of the most respected leaders in first nations communities across Canada and certainly one of the most respected women in this country. I was honoured when she agreed to take on this task and to lend not only her personal commitment but her integrity and reputation to what we're trying to do. I know you'll have an excellent chance to talk with her.

Thank you for your kind words about my responding quickly. It would be more a tribute to my staff than to me in making this happen, but I'm delighted to come any time.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee.

I appreciate this opportunity to address the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I'd like to begin by thanking all of the members for the work on this difficult issue of on-reserve matrimonial real property, which I will describe in shorthand as MRP.

Your report, the committee's seventh report, really highlights the issue and provides some valuable insight into what needs to be done and highlights the legislative void that currently exists in this country.

I agree wholeheartedly with the committee's view that this void effectively violates the human rights of many First Nations people, particularly women. The issue is also closely linked with other social ills, such as violence against women.

This is something that I know Wendy will speak to you about.

The complex nature of MRP is well documented in a number of reports of the Senate and by parliamentary committees, by officials in my department, and by independent and international groups that have explored this issue and various aspects. I agree with the committee's contention that enough study has been done and immediate action is now required.

Our government has begun to take action on this issue. I'm pleased to report that the consultation process, the consultative process that Wendy is leading, has begun. It will be a well-informed, effective, and sustained solution for on-reserve matrimonial real property, and Wendy will speak about this. I think we are seeing a very high level of engagement and commitment from the national aboriginal organizations and from chiefs and councils across the country.

The matrimonial real property or the family home is normally the most valuable piece of property that a couple on reserve owns. In that sense they are the same as any other Canadian family. Upon the breakdown of a marriage, the division of this property necessarily affects everybody who's involved, both spouses, male and female, their children, their families, and by extension the broader community.

The principles and rationale guiding our forward momentum on this issue and our commitment to resolving it are really pretty straightforward. We want to ensure the legal rights and remedies that are available to other Canadians off reserve are also available to first nations citizens, men and women, living on reserve. We wish to ensure there is a framework in place to ensure there's a fair division of property upon the unfortunate breakdown of a marriage.

The stories we have heard over the years are heartbreaking, and by now, all too familiar.

We need to make sure we address this legislative void in a manner that is acceptable to those who will be affected, and this, I agree, is an issue that is not without its complexity. First nation individuals--particularly women and children--and first nation committees must, however, be the focus of this initiative.

That is why I believe the consultative process currently underway will achieve what we are hoping to achieve: a balance between individual and collective rights.

We've heard concerns during the consultation process to date that many first nations people are afraid that the underlying objective of this process will be to lead to an erosion of reserves. The goal of this process, I want to be clear, is to address the long-standing human rights issue. It is not the Government of Canada's intention to extinguish reserve status or to damage the collective status of reserve holdings through MRP legislation.

One of the principles my department has stated throughout is that reserve lands shall not be alienable. Let me assure you that reserves shall remain for the use and benefit of the first nations for which they were set aside. This process is led by Ms. Grant-John, a respected leader, a successful entrepreneur, and a skilled negotiator, in partnership with the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. I'm very confident that this process will lead to innovative and effective solutions, solutions that will help ensure that matrimonial real property rights on reserve are protected while respecting community interests and protecting reserve lands for future generations.

Christine Aubin can speak to this, but the common law is infinitely capable of both protecting matrimonial property and ensuring the continuity of first nation reserves and the status of reserve lands.

Although it is far too early to predict exactly what legislative options will emerge from this process, the substantial research and analysis already conducted suggests a range of possibilities. At one end of the range lie a few amendments to the Indian Act itself, amendments that would see existing provincial laws on family and property apply on reserve. At the other end of the range is legislation that would grant individual first nations complete control over matters of family and property law on reserve.

Given the difficulties posed by each of these options at the extremities, I believe a sensible solution lies somewhere in between.

With all of the key stakeholders engaged, I am optimistic that the process will succeed. My optimism, as I said earlier, is also fuelled by the abilities of Ms. Grant-John, our representative.

Madam Chair, I am confident that the process now underway will not only lead to a legislative solution, but will also foster the support needed to implement that solution effectively.

Furthermore, to help address the often difficult situations faced by first nations women, I am announcing that an additional $6 million will be made available this year to help ensure that the network of 35 INAC-funded family violence shelters are better equipped to provide much-needed services to women and children on reserve. This amount will include funds to support resources, such as staff training, and direct costs to clients, such as food and clothing.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, Madam Chair. I'll do my best to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Minister Prentice. We will move on into our question and answer portion.

Ms. Neville, you have seven minutes in the first round.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Minister, I appreciate very much your being here. I particularly appreciate Ms. Grant-John's appearance before the committee.

I concur with the words you have expressed to us today. I think a solution must be found, and I appreciate that the consultation process is going on.

I have a number of questions, and some of them relate to the consultation process. I would like more information from you or Ms. Grant-John on how that is being conducted and who is participating.

But I also have a question that I would welcome a response to. I went through the consultation document on the web, and one of the alternatives you are proposing to deal with matrimonial property is provincial legislation. We've had Supreme Court decisions that have indicated that provincial laws cannot apply to reserve lands. Why are you proposing these kinds of solutions? Are you concerned that potential laws may be subject to challenge, and would it not be better not to propose unenforceable solutions?

So my questions are on the provincial jurisdiction and the consultation process.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

If I might, Ms. Neville, I'll respond in an overview way to the provincial legislation question. I think Wendy is probably the appropriate person to respond on consultation, because she's been leading the process.

First, I've asked Wendy as my ministerial representative to bring a legislative recommendation to me as minister. I have not prejudged anything. I have no favoured position on a personal basis as minister. I'm waiting to see what Wendy brings to me as her recommendation.

One of the options that have been considered in the past by other committees is provincial legislation.

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

I'm aware of that.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

My reading of it is not that provincial legislation in and of itself would apply on reserve, because there would not be jurisdiction for that. Rather, the suggestion has been that the provincial law could be incorporated by reference, on an interim basis, pending a first nation addressing the issue.

That is one of the solutions. It's not the one I particularly favour, but my understanding is that there is a way it can be made to work legally. It's not unusual. There are some other areas of jurisdiction, including industrial development on reserve lands, where a first nation community not wishing to reinvent the wheel is adopting provincial laws by reference, and even provincial administrative regimes. It's not without precedent to go down that road, and it could be quite workable. But again, that's not my recommendation or preference, it's simply one of the alternatives.

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

If I can comment, it's concerning that it is presented as an alternative when it is potentially not enforceable. But that's another discussion.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Well, it is enforceable, and it has been assessed as an option by other parliamentary committees.

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

Thank you.

With respect to my questions on the consultation process, I'm interested in knowing the nature of the consultation process and the timelines. We've had information that this legislation will be forthcoming early in 2007. Is that adequate time for the fullness of the consultation process? What else you can tell us, Ms. Grant-John?

[Wendy Grant-John, Ministerial Representative , Women's Issues and Gender Equality Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

I'd be happy to answer. We started the consultation process, and September 29 was the launch. The Native Women's Association, the Assembly of First Nations, as well as the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs are out there as we speak.

The Native Women's Association has been ahead of everyone. They've had three consultation sessions across the country so far. What they're doing is breaking it up into three different areas. They have focus groups, then they have open sessions, and then they have a support session for the women who come.

The Assembly of First Nations is just starting. They're going to address the 630 communities across the country. They've decentralized their consultations, so each of the regions will consult in the manner they want in their region. They will be starting this week in Vancouver.

The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs will be consulting with any one of those groups that are not represented or that purport that they do not want AFN or NWAC representing them. That's the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the provincial and territorial governments of course, and the Indigenous Bar Association.

The sessions I've attended so far have been very productive. Of course, they have all been Native Women's Association, because the AFN isn't on the road yet. But they have been very informative with a lot of discussion about exactly what you've brought up. There are a lot of informed women who are coming forward and expressing their opinions on the three options that have been presented, as well as bringing other options that might be considered.

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

My question is to the minister, and it focuses on legal aid.

We know that many issues relate to the fact that individuals don't have a high enough income, nor can they access legal aid when there is a need for dispute resolution. And you and I both know of a number of instances where women's groups and women have been left out in the cold. How do you see this matter being resolved in the dispute resolution process? And do you see it being resolved through this consultation process?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

The consultation process really is focused on how we can arrive at a legislative solution that's workable. How such a legislative solution would be enforced, how it would be applied, how it would administratively operate--that is all proper discussion at the table in terms of the consultation process. Obviously it's not a consultation process on the legal aid system and how it's functioning, and cost sharing between the provinces and others; we're staying focused on the debate and the dialogue that needs to happen about the form of a legislative response so that we can deal with this. Clearly, once the legislation is in place, we all, as parliamentarians, will have to make sure it's working effectively. But we need to take the first step, which is to get a law in place that is workable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for joining us today. I also want to thank all of the women who came here to share their stories with the committee.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women held consultations on this issue. It became apparent that we were dealing with a very complex subject. Perceptions and viewpoints vary widely. Some argued that the Indian Act was a colonialist act and not the right solution. Others maintained that resorting to provincial legislation was not the right option either. Still other maintained that this issue should be addressed by First Nations themselves. Some women told us that turning this issue over to First Nations would be tantamount to giving powers to chiefs who, in their opinion, may not necessarily have any intention of ruling favourably toward women. Moreover, I read in the October 3 issue of Le Devoir that several band chiefs were reluctant to grant more power to women.

I agree that this is a very complex issue. No doubt you realize that too. However, will this option truly serve to defend women's rights or will it merely appease everyone? What measures are being proposed by the government?

[Wendy Grant-John]

Thank you.

I asked the minister if I could address it, because being a first nations woman who's lived in my community for 57 years this year, I think I've had the experience that you've described.

I've also travelled across the country since I've come on, and talked to individuals who have experience and expertise, whether they're lawyers or judges, first nations, who have been working in this area for a number of years, and I have to say that without exception I am being told that the issue of the power struggle that is being presented is something we need to be very careful about. In fact, when you look at the traditional forms of government in first nations communities, women had a position of equality and equity in the community. And when we go forward with any legislative approach, we need to ensure we capture this, that we do not in any way diminish the ability of women to take their rightful place in the community from a traditional government perspective--and that's when we talk about our collective rights--and that we are aware that the problem has been created by the imposition of a government that is not something we are comfortable with. And if we are going to change this, we have to acknowledge the work that needs to be done to ensure that the traditional values are put in place.

Let me just quote one woman, an elder, quite elderly, in a community who said, “Why would I want to have any legislation to guarantee me my rights in the community, when if I took those rights I would be a lesser woman than I am in my culture as it stands today?”

So I think we have to have a lot of sensitivity around that and we need to ensure that as we bring these forward we understand that the issue of the Indian Act and the elected chief and council is something that is still being struggled with in the community. And when we get to a solution--a self-government solution, a jurisdictional acknowledgement of that--we have to guarantee that those communities are allowed to let this happen in whatever timeframe they think is necessary.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you for that question. I agree with you that this a difficult, and rather complex issue. However, we are in the process of finding an effective solution. By that, I mean a solution that will not only restore equality between women and men, but also protect women and children who make up families.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I have a question for Ms. Grant-John.

By legislative approach, do you mean including new measures in the Indian Act, or drafting an entirely new piece of legislation?

[Wendy Grant-John]

On what I'm talking about, the minister is saying he's going forward with legislation, and that's something the communities are coming to accept. But in any legislation model, we need to have a discussion around implementation that supports the traditional government system within the communities. So go ahead and fill the gap in the Indian Act, but ensure that it doesn't continue the struggle between the powerful men and the women who supposedly are not able to get into that system. When we do that, it will probably be at the other end when we talk about implementation. How is that going to look for those communities as they build their self-government models?

I hope that answers it.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I'll leave it to my colleague to ask you a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Just over one minute.

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

Minister, I'd like to discuss a very specific case. I'd like either you or Ms. Grant-John to answer my questions.

A married couple opened a service station on a reserve. They subsequently separated and got a divorce. When the divorce became final, the wife was unable to recover her half of the business. This incident occurred in Quebec.

My question is this: as part of your consultative process and in keeping with your plans to draft new legislation, did you or do you intend to take into account the laws that apply in Quebec?

You stated the following in your address, “Reserves shall remain for the use and benefit of First Nations for which they were set aside.” What exactly do you mean by that? What implications does this statement have for my client? I did in fact act as legal counsel in this matter. Will this case be settled sometime in the next 20 years, or will we have to wait even longer, as people have been doing for many years already?