Status of Women Committee on June 6th, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I will call this meeting to order.

I'll just quickly review the order of business for this morning. We have several people as witnesses this morning. Our meeting will go from 9 to 10:30, as normal. At 10:30 we will review the draft report in the camera session. Given that we have several witnesses, we will only have time for one round of questioning between now and 10:30, if everyone takes all of their time, just so that we stay on track.

You should have in front of you a copy of our briefing notes from our researcher, a copy of the draft report that we will consider in camera afterwards, and the revised committee calendar.

Welcome to the witnesses. We have representatives from the Native Women's Association of Canada, Beverley Jacobs and Lisa Abbott.

Beverley and Lisa, thank you very much for joining us, and I will turn it over to you.

[Beverley Jacobs, President, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Ske:noh swagwagoh. Geowso Gowehgyuseh. “Greetings of peace”, in my Mohawk language. I also introduced myself with my real name, Gowehgyuseh, meaning “She's Visiting”. I've stolen this from a Mohawk elder. My GST name is Beverley Jacobs.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Beverley Jacobs]

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to come here today to present on this critical issue of matrimonial real property on reserve. It is critical to aboriginal women in this country, who, as a result of colonization and assimilation policies carried out under the Indian Act, suffer from inequalities related to their social, economic, cultural, political, and civil rights. These breed violence, post-colonial and structural inequalities, racialized and sexualized violence, poverty, lack of access to justice, low education and employment rates, low health status, and little or no political participation.

The high rates of poverty and violence have had the greatest impacts on aboriginal women and their children. One effect that we have found in the work we've done with our “Sisters in Spirit” initiative is that gendered racism leads to the devaluation of aboriginal women, allowing violence to be tolerated both within and outside our communities, leading to an alarmingly high rate of aboriginal women who are murdered or go missing.

An understanding of the severe marginalization of aboriginal women is critical to finding solutions to this issue of matrimonial property rights on reserve lands. I have presented on this issue twice now, once to the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights, as well as to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, so this isn't a new issue for us. It is an issue that needs to be addressed immediately.

With the report that was submitted by the standing committee, called “Walking Arm-in-Arm to Resolve the Issue of On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property”, we do acknowledge that these committees were able to address this issue in the last two years. But I also believe it's because of the work that we've been doing at the international level at the UN in addressing this issue as a human rights violation, not only through the United Nations economic, social, and cultural reports, but also the United Nations habitat report, which has also acknowledged that this is a human rights violation against aboriginal women.

The situation of inequality has existed for 20 years, since 1986, when the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in Derrickson and Paul. We note that this situation has now existed for over two decades without redress. In our review of the reports of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights, we are pleased to see that the Native Women's Association of Canada has been given respect, because we have brought it forward for the last eleven years.

We are the only national aboriginal organization to actively pursue these issues on behalf of women and children—and the men in our communities, because it does affect everyone. We do concur with the general findings that something has to be done to correct this inequality, while also respecting the inherent right of self-determination of our peoples. It has to be addressed in that context.

Both reports acknowledged the impact on children, including the denial of their rights to be raised in their own communities and within their own cultures. We acknowledge that there has been a connection made between the lack of matrimonial property law regimes applying on reserve lands and the exacerbation of the situation of violence against aboriginal women and children.

We have long recognized that the lack of a matrimonial property law regime is a denial of women's equality. As noted, since 1995 we have actively lobbied the Department of Indian Affairs to secure funds to study and consult on the solutions, because we already know what the issues are. We already know the problems that exist. We're looking for the solutions, and we know that our women in the communities know what those solutions are.

Recently the Department of Indian Affairs appointed a special rapporteur. We are still being refused funding or any equitable funding to participate in these government-led endeavours. This has, on occasion, resulted in NWAC's being blamed for delays, or being forced to withdraw because of a lack of financial resources. We hope that the political will is shifting, and we can see that it is, and we do applaud those who have assisted us and have assisted our involvement in this so far.

Since last summer, we have been working with the Department of Indian Affairs and the Assembly of First Nations toward achieving a resolution of this issue, which could be equitably managed by all parties. We formally submitted a matrimonial property consultation proposal on July 25, 2005. We have been working with AFN and INAC and participating in a working group to draft joint consultation materials. However, we have had no clear response from the government on the status of the proposals that we have submitted.

We are still unsure how meaningfully engaged aboriginal women will be in this consultation process, if there is one. We did put forward our proposal because we believe that it's essential to hear the solutions from aboriginal women and youth who have been affected by this. We are talking about 20 years. Those youth are 20 years old now. They would have those solutions as well and would have the answers that are needed because they have survived the conditions of losing their home and having to be forced away from their home.

In order to develop this comprehensive solution, we do believe that legislative and non-legislative policies are required to alleviate the underlying issues of poverty and violence against women and children. Because we have developed this comprehensive plan, we do concur with the report that further study is needed, study not on inequalities but on solutions.

We have learned from our experiences in lobbying for changes to address the sexual inequalities under the Indian Act. The amendments in that process did not assist us in any way; in fact, they hindered that process and created further inequalities for aboriginal women.

We have learned that process. We have learned from that experience, and we don't want the same thing to happen again. We want to ensure that this does not happen to those aboriginal women who are being specifically impacted by this issue. They need to be listened to, and the solutions need to be acted upon. We're talking about 20 years of inaction. We have these reports; we have these studies; we have these standing committees; we have these Senate committees that continue, and there's no action. We're looking for action.

Recently, we do know that there was a private member's bill, Bill C-289, regarding an act to amend the Indian Act. This was introduced and went through its first reading on May 17, 2006. The proposed amendment “to provide that provincial law apply to the division and possession of matrimonial real property and immovables that are situated on reserve” would add section 90.1

It also provides for one exception, regarding first nations, as defined under the First Nations Land Management Act, who have developed rules and procedures regarding marriage breakdowns, in their land codes.

However, although we acknowledge that the legislation has been passed, we don't agree that it should be provincial legislation applying on reserves. This will set a standard for further provincial laws applying, and that cannot happen. Federal laws have to be developed.

We also feel that this will not address the unique needs and circumstances of aboriginal women. For example, from a survey of the key issues and outstanding challenges, we know that the First Nations Land Management Act was enacted in 1999, and since then, 40 first nations have signed on to the framework agreement. However, only seven have adopted matrimonial real property codes within their respective land codes. Only a very limited number of first nations have finalized their self-government agreements; there are only five that have ratified agreements. It takes years under this process.

Under the Indian Act, there is no authority for first nations to develop bylaws and housing policies to address matrimonial property. Bands have no authority under the Indian Act, even though some of them have developed highly effective solutions. For example, the Squamish Band has a very developed housing policy. Sucker Creek had developed a bylaw to address this issue, but because bylaws have to be approved by the Minister of Indian Affairs, and because the bands have no authority to actually pass these, they weren't approved. Not all bands allot land in accordance with the Indian Act; there are many bands that use custom allotments. Further, there is greater potential than imposed amendments to the Indian Act. They also have experienced severe backlash from first nations.

It is already of great difficulty to enforce court orders on reserve. For example, when we're dealing with issues of violence against women, some provinces have enacted provincial legislation. How will this be meaningfully accessible for women in remote communities? There may be issues arising from enforcement of child protection or child support orders. We anticipate that the matrimonial property issue will not be easy to enforce on reserves.

The severe and chronic housing shortage on reserve needs to be addressed as well, as this exacerbates the problem.

Some provincial law does not recognize common-law relationships, and this was constitutionally upheld in Nova Scotia. So the rights of non-members and the fact that there are a high number of first nations who are in common-law relationships does require special attention.

We do know that children are directly affected by this. In our first nations and aboriginal communities, it's mostly the mothers who are looking after their children. When it's the mothers who are forced to move from their home and have to leave their communities, their children are affected. They have to find shelters. They have to find a safe place to live. That's not always an easy thing to do. For those reasons, we feel that the best interests of children and the right to live in their community will not be adequately addressed.

According to the Walking Arm-in-Arm standing committee report--a two-pronged approach with a short-term and a long-term strategy--we do know that this is a complex issue and intersects many of the issues plaguing our communities. Any commitment to a resolution of that has to be immediate, and also in the interim.

It is imperative that the government commit to this comprehensive and broad consultation process and meaningfully engage with first nations, aboriginal women in particular, in finding solutions that will equitably resolve these issues at the community level in a way that balances the individual, collective, and human rights of our women and children in the communities they belong to.

The report does recognize the urgency of the situation and recommends the immediate drafting of stand-alone legislation and/or amendments to the Indian Act. This has to be done in consultation and in partnership with the communities. We feel that our organization, the Native Women's Association of Canada, can provide the mechanism in order for women in the communities to be able to present their issues in a safe way. In some of the issues on reserve, it's not safe, and it's not safe for some of those women to come forward to even talk about it. We have to be able to find ways for these women to present their solutions, because they do have solutions.

The longer-term strategy recommends that the government collaborate with those organizations and communities to develop substantive federal legislation. The legislation should cease to apply to first nations that have developed their own matrimonial property regimes that are working in their communities.

We strongly take the position that both collective and individual rights must be upheld as they relate to all indigenous peoples. We, as aboriginal women, belong to those communities, and it is in the best interests of our women that all levels of government commit to both short-term responses and to addressing the longer-term issues, by fully engaging communities and reconciling the individual and collective rights of aboriginal women and children.

As well, as part of the longer-term strategy, the standing committee recommended that the government initiate and review a possible repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which has shielded the Indian Act and actions pursuant to any status Indians from human rights purview for almost 30 years now. It was supposed to be an interim solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Could you wrap it up, so we'll have sufficient time for questions, Ms. Jacobs?

[Beverley Jacobs]

With respect to section 67 and its repeal, we did submit a consultation process as well, in developing a national think tank. The think tank is also to come up with a participatory community engagement consultation process. In order to deal with human rights violations as a result of section 67 being repealed, there has to be a process set in place to deal with those human rights violations that we know are going to come forward—and a safe place, again.

We did submit a proposal. We submitted a consultation plan, and we feel it's important this be addressed immediately. We do recommend that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women support the Native Women's Association and call for a resolution of this longstanding issue, by supporting the measures for meaningful engagement and consultation on both the matrimonial real property issue and the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Ms. Jacobs.

If you leave us your presentation, we will ensure that it is translated and distributed to all the members as well.

I want to ask the committee, would you like to hear the Assembly of First Nations witnesses prior to questioning, or would you like to question this group first and then the second group? If you'd like to question this one first, that would be fine, thank you.

What's the will of the committee? Would you like to hear the other witnesses and then question all four?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

They might overlap, so it might be helpful from my perspective—but I don't care.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

As a way of being efficient with our time, if we hear first from the Assembly of First Nations, it just might help us with our questioning.

Everybody in favour of that? That's helpful.

Thank you, Ms. Jacobs.

We'll have Mr. Watts, chief of staff of the office of the national chief, and Debra Hanuse, the acting director of law and legislation.

Then we'll have you come back to the table for questioning, Ms. Jacobs.

Thank you very much, Mr. Watts and Ms. Hanuse, for coming this morning. We appreciate your commitment and interest, of course, and we look forward to your presentation.

[Bob Watts, Chief of Staff, Office of the National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Debra is going to lead off.

[Debra Hanuse, Acting Director - Law and Legislation, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with a briefing on matrimonial real property issues today.

My name is Debra Hanuse. As indicated by Madam Chair, I'm the acting director of law and legislation at the Assembly of First Nations, and with me today is Bob Watts, chief of staff. We're here on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations and the national chief.

The Assembly of First Nations is a national organization representing first nations citizens throughout Canada regardless of residence or gender. Today we'll provide you with a brief overview of the current legislative gap that exists in regard to matrimonial real property on reserves and we'll also provide an overview of some of the obstacles that have impeded a search for solutions to this issue. We'll conclude with some of the Assembly of First Nations thoughts on solutions that are required to address this very significant problem.

I'm taking the approach of assuming nothing, and I'm not going to assume that everyone knows the whole legal context that gave rise to this issue. So I'll try to capture it in a nutshell, if possible.

As indicated by the previous speaker, Ms. Jacobs from NWAC, the issue first arose in 1986 with the decisions in Paul and Derrickson. Essentially what those cases established was that provincial matrimonial real property law does not apply to reserve lands because that's a matter that's within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government under section 91.24. So that's a very important point to note, because it means that when we're considering solutions there are significant challenges and problems that would flow with any attempt to apply provincial matrimonial law to reserve lands, because that essentially results in interference with the constitutional division of powers, which I'll address later in the presentation.

There are numerous challenges that would flow from trying to apply a system of property law for the disposition of matrimonial real property upon marital breakdown to the kinds of landholdings on reserves, which are not fee simple interests. So that's essentially the main context.

So what is the current gap that exists? There is no gap in regard to the disposition of personal property interests on a reserve, so if we're talking about cash and furniture and all those sorts of personal property interests, provincial law clearly applies in that context. However, in the context of real property and disposing of real property interests on reserve upon marital breakdown, provincial law clearly doesn't apply.

What are the practical consequences of that? That means there are certain remedies and relief available under provincial matrimonial law that are not available to first nations citizens. Those laws include orders for the partition and sale of the matrimonial property and permanent orders for possession of the matrimonial home and orders prohibiting the sale of the matrimonial home.

So those are the types of provisions that aren't available to first nations citizens right now as a result of this legislative gap. I'll now try to run very quickly through some of the obstacles that have impeded a search for solutions on these questions.

First of all, the constitutional division of powers has obviously been an obstacle to finding solutions, and I would refer you to and will provide you with a copy of our speaking notes, where we provide a bit more of an elaboration of the decisions in Derrickson and Paul and the various doctrines they refer to, the ultra vires doctrine and the paramountcy doctrine, which are all constitutional provisions and rules that really make it difficult to apply provincial laws regarding real property to disposition of matrimonial property on reserves.

A second matter that has impeded the search for a solution is the nature of a lot of the provisions in the Indian Act that are directed towards protecting reserve lands from alienation. There are numerous provisions in the Indian Act, and I'll refer to very few of them. For example, subsection 89(1) of the Indian Act prohibits the giving or taking of mortgaging reserve lands. So under subsection 89(1) of the Indian Act, reserve lands can't be mortgaged. The objective of that provision is obviously to protect lands from alienation.

Section 24 of the Indian Act.... Another way of preserving the aboriginal interest in reserve lands is to prohibit the transfer of any interest in reserve lands except to other members of the band or to the band. Again, all these provisions, section 29 and subsection 89(1), protect reserve lands from seizure under legal process. All these provisions are directed toward protecting reserve lands from alienation.

While there are numerous offensive and paternalistic provisions in the Indian Act, first nations generally support the objective of preserving reserve lands from alienation and see the value in having some of these provisions there, although there's a need for modernizing that particular land regime in the Indian Act.

One of the very difficult challenges is if you try to take the provincial matrimonial law regime and apply it to reserve lands, you run the risk of undermining the very protections in there to protect Indian reserve lands from alienation. As an example, under provincial matrimonial laws, courts can order partition and sale of matrimonial real property. If you take that example and you apply it to reserve lands, there's a risk of alienating that particular land.

How would you reconcile that provincial regime with the nature of reserve landholdings, which are very much governed and prescribed by the Indian Act? There's a huge challenge that has really stood in the way of finding effective solutions to this very serious problem we all face today.

The next area I would like to touch on, which has served as an obstacle to progress, is the nature of reserve land tenures that I alluded to earlier. Namely, you have provincial matrimonial property law that is directed towards fee-simple interests in land, and there are no simple fee-simple interests in land on a reserve. The nature of reserve lands is very different. Legal title to reserve lands is vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada. First nations have what's called a beneficial interest in reserve lands, and individual members of first nations have even lesser interests in reserve lands.

There are limited rights of possession and occupancy that first nations individuals can acquire to reserve lands. One such legal interest is called the certificate of possession. It's an interest in land, which, like a fee-simple interest, is transferable, but as I indicated earlier it's only transferable to the band or another band member, not generally transferable like a fee-simple interest. That's pretty much the point at which any comparisons between a fee-simple interest and a certificate of possession end.

Another type of interest in reserve land is an even less secure form of tenure known as a custom allotment. A custom allotment has no legal significance whatsoever; it's an interest in land or a privilege to occupy land that is sometimes granted by a band council to band members. That right of occupancy is entirely at the pleasure of the band council, and it's certainly not an interest in land that would be transferable.

There's an interesting legal principle, nemo dat quod non habet, which means you can't give any interest greater than what you have. If you have a custom allotment, which is not a legal interest in land, it would be interesting to see how a court would then try to order interim or permanent possession of an interest in a custom allotment when the individual band members and spouses who would have an interest in that type of holding would have no interest legally recognized at law. The courts would be very challenged to find a way to address the particular needs of spouses who have custom allotments to reserve lands.

I'd now like to turn to my colleague, who will address some of the additional obstacles to progress in finding solutions to this very serious problem.

Thank you.

[Bob Watts]

It's not all obstacles that we have; we have some ideas on solutions too. But it is a difficult situation.

On band membership and citizenship, under the Indian Act, a band member who marries a person from another band can retain membership in his or her own band. Furthermore, after the enactment of Bill C-31, non-Indians can no longer acquire Indian status or band membership upon marrying an Indian. As section 24 of the Indian Act limits the transferability of certificates of possession to members of a band—which Debra spoke to—extending remedies currently available under provincial matrimonial property law to reserve lands may inadvertently result in discrimination against non-Indian spouses and spouses who are members of other bands.

For example, section 24 and the foregoing band membership provisions in the act may preclude a court from making orders for permanent possession of matrimonial homes on reserve to non-members and non-Indian spouses. Thus further consequential amendments to the membership provisions of the Indian Act may be required to fully address the current legislative gap that exists on reserve lands and avoid further discrimination against other classes of individuals. This unquestionably complicates the search for solutions.

Bev Jacobs talked about chronic housing shortages. I'm just going to talk a bit about it because I think she expressed it really well.

While the lack of a legal regime to govern the disposition of matrimonial real property on reserve is a serious human rights issue that must be addressed, this legislative gap merely represents the tip of a much greater iceberg. The legislative gap in matrimonial real property rights on reserve lands is exacerbated by chronic housing shortages that exist on most reserves and difficulties in securing financing to purchase or construct alternative housing on reserve upon marital breakdown, in part due to the restrictions in the Indian Act against mortgaging reserve lands. These factors play an equal if not greater role in imposing hardship on first nation families, and in particular on women and children, who are often forced to relocate to off-reserve locations upon marital breakdown, particularly if domestic violence was a factor contributing to the breakdown in marriage.

Due to the chronic housing shortages on most reserves, the solution will not simply lie in extending remedies available under provincial matrimonial real property law to reserve lands. For example, under provincial matrimonial real property law, partition and sale of the matrimonial home is a remedy that is available to divorcing spouses. If provincial matrimonial laws were extended to reserve lands, this remedy would not have much practical benefit for first nation spouses, due to chronic housing shortages that exist on most reserves and difficulty in securing financing from conventional lenders.

Therefore, due to the chronic housing shortages on most reserves, the solution does not lie solely in filling the legislative void that currently exists. The chronic housing shortages on most reserves, which underscore the gap and poverty between first nations and other Canadians, must also be addressed in order to ameliorate the hardship typically imposed on first nations women and children upon marital breakdown.

What solutions are required to address the legislative void that currently exists in matrimonial property rights on reserve? The solution does not lie in imposing provincial matrimonial real property law on reserves. Apart from questions regarding the constitutional validity of this option, we have highlighted numerous practical problems with this option throughout our presentation.

The solution also does not lie in tinkering with the Indian Act. The act is a source of many of the problems that first nations and the federal government are grappling with today. We will not solve these problems by wallpapering more amendments over a flawed and crumbling piece of colonial legislation like the Indian Act.

[Debra Hanuse]

Instead, the solution lies in recognizing and implementing first nations jurisdiction in regard to matrimonial property rights on first nations lands. Any solution adopted to address this issue must support, strengthen, and affirm the jurisdiction and law-making capacity of first nations, rather than perpetuate the colonial legacy of the Indian Act.

We anticipate that first nations will ultimately be the ones to create and enforce laws based on our traditions and customs in a way that acknowledges and accommodates human rights and indigenous rights—in other words, with a balance between collective and individual rights. In this regard, as Bev Jacobs of NWAC indicated, there has been a significant shortage of resources available for first nations to participate in discussions and dialogue on these issues, to draw on existing work and identify best practices, and to advance solutions to this very significant problem.

We'd also like to note that the Assembly of First Nations has been working with government through the implementation of a political accord that provides for the recognition and implementation of first nations governance. This is obviously a vehicle through which these talks could continue and be advanced, as they relate to jurisdictional matters.

As indicated by Bev Jacobs, we've been working with NWAC to find solutions to this problem, so there are other processes that we can continue to participate in to find solutions to these problems. We believe that the best way to achieve this is through cooperation with one another. In this regard, we would welcome an opportunity to work together with NWAC, the Government of Canada, and any other interested parties to find solutions to this very pressing problem.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

I very much appreciate the information and I understand how important this issue is. I would hope that we'll continue to work together to find solutions.

On to the speakers list, and Ms. Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for coming today. This is very important to all of us.

I wanted to start off with a couple of things. Firstly, I would just go back to Ms. Hanuse and the last comment she made with respect to working through a political accord. Is there some discussion going on now? What exactly did you mean by political accord? I just want to understand what you meant by that.

[Debra Hanuse]

The political accord is an agreement that was concluded between the Assembly of First Nations and the Government of Canada on May 31 of 2005. The accord is directed to achieving a reconciliation of first nations and government jurisdictions in a number of areas. The parties have turned their attention, first and foremost, to addressing governance issues and addressing the reconciliation of policies relating to comprehensive claims, etc.

I'm not sure if my colleague would like to add anything further to that.

There's a joint steering committee that has been established. It consists of representatives of first nations and government. On behalf of first nations, the national chief is a member of the joint steering committee, as well as Regional Chief Shawn Atleo, who is from the British Columbia region. And on behalf of the Government of Canada, Minister Prentice is a member of the joint steering committee. Initially, I believe, it was intended that the Minister of Justice would also serve as a member of the joint steering committee. I'm not sure at present what role Minister Toews is currently playing in regard to the joint steering committee at this point in time.

Underneath the joint steering committee, there are a number of committees that do the work of the committee in preparing for the meetings and that have discussed a number of issues. Following the election, a number of pressing new issues were added to the agenda of the joint steering committee, including water, accountability, and numerous other issues. So the agenda of the joint steering committee has become very loaded recently.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

The reason I ask this is that from everything I've heard this morning and from everything I've read so far, it's obvious that no matter how many discussions we have, the provincial solution doesn't work, and I think that's what you've reiterated to us this morning.

The major issue, of course, is the shortage of housing. That needs to be addressed, and I don't think anybody here will disagree with that in terms of the chronic shortage of housing.

The legal regime--one of the comments made was that with this, financial resources are needed to really allow for the kind of work that needs to be done. I think that was mentioned by Mr. Watts. Does this joint group have the proper powers and the proper financial resources, in your view, or is that part of what we need to be working at to increase its financial ability to actually address some of the issues?

I'm going to another question, but this is important, because if we have a mechanism in place that is now looking at these things, is it lacking the resources to do what it needs to do to get to the solutions?

[Bob Watts]

There has been an initial allocation for this year to help support the work of that group. The money that's been allocated isn't sufficient. We've started to outline, as Debra has said, an agenda, but there hasn't been a full meeting of the senior steering committee yet.

Minister Prentice has committed, on behalf of the government, that this is an important committee, which he supports and which he is going to ensure works.

I think with new government and shifting priorities, it hasn't had the ability to express itself since the new government has come in, so it's slow in taking off.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

All right, that's a problem.

Is this joint group also looking at transferring legal authority to aboriginal communities to develop their own laws? Is that part of the equation to see how that can be done?

[Bob Watts]

That certainly, in terms of a principle, underscores all the work of that group. That's certainly probably one of the top principles.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

So finances at this point are the major issue for the group. Is that what you're telling me? I'm trying to get at the crux of moving forward somehow, because I've seen the consultations, I've read consultations, I've read discussions, and I'm trying to get at where the initiatives are that are now happening that might move us forward. That seems to be one, but you're telling me it's underfunded.

Yes?

[Beverley Jacobs]

I just want to say that the joint steering committee doesn't involve the Native Women's Association of Canada.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

It doesn't?

[Beverley Jacobs]

No.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Okay, that's a problem.