Status of Women Committee on June 6th, 2006

[Beverley Jacobs]

So that's an issue for us.

The issues that we are addressing are financial issues. We are a very underfunded national organization. We've continued to say that very consistently over many years.

Because we represent aboriginal women across the country, we have 13 provincial-territorial member associations across the country that have aboriginal women as members, and we've continuously said that finances are an issue.

In my presentation I have discussed that the reasons we're submitting a proposal are to come up with solutions from women in the community. The processes in place right now are not inclusive.

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

Mr. Watts, could you tell us why the structure or the component of this particular group does not include the women's representation?

And do you have a ballpark amount of money--I know the women's group is also underfunded--of what would be needed to finance it properly?

[Bob Watts]

No, I don't have a ballpark amount of money. The reason that NWAC isn't part of this is because this was an accord signed between the Assembly of First Nations and the Government of Canada.

It acknowledges that for some issues other parties may need to be invited in and our chiefs and councils, as Debra said in her opening comment, represent all of our members, regardless of gender and regardless of residency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. You've run out of time.

Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you for joining us and for sharing your experiences with the committee. Your three presentations highlight the fact that this is a complex matter. Objectively, the reason for this complexity appears to be that people are divided on a solution. Some would prefer to see legislative measures in keeping with tradition and customs, so that First Nations would be responsible for deciding for themselves what actions to take. Others appear to favour changes to the Indian Act, or a related bill.

It's my understanding that in the case of the first group, it's important to retain some sense of independence with respect to the Indian Act, which is a colonialist piece of legislation. There is a legitimate desire, quite understandably, for autonomy. However, I fail to understand the reasons for wanting to amend the Indian Act.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this position indicative of a lack of confidence in the way in which groups would enact their own legislation? Why would someone favour amendments to the Indian Act or the adoption of another bill over the autonomy of Aboriginal peoples? My question is directed to Ms. Jacobs.

[Beverley Jacobs]

With respect to the issues with the Indian Act, we're dealing with a history of patriarchy and colonization. It is one of the most colonial and racist pieces of legislation that exists in the world. Because of how it was enacted and created, with its power and control over indigenous peoples in this country, it's what's causing the problems and divisions in our communities and the inequalities in them between our men and our women and the imbalances that continue. With the impact of the Indian Act system, we're talking of generations of colonialism affecting our communities, resulting directly in the violence that we're dealing with in our communities, where women are not feeling safe. So that's why we feel there is no confidence in the Indian Act system, in the sense of being able to directly resolve some of these issues.

The fact is there are other processes set in place; there are positives out there and best practices occurring in first nations communities. I think that's what we're trying to get at; we're trying to get at those best practices, at what's creating the safety mechanism for aboriginal women to be able to come forward to talk about these things. These are part of the difficulties when we start addressing these very specific issues.

I understand the processes of first nations governments that are under the Indian Act system. We have 650 or so of these communities across the country governed by this system, and women are half of the population of these communities.

When we're having to address very specific issues such as this, a lot of times what happens in the communities is that there's internalized depression, internalized lateral violence, whatever you want to call it. So a lot of times in those communities women are not able to say what needs to be said, and that's the reality of the situation. If we don't have a process that takes us away from that, then we're not going to be able to find those solutions.

I come from one of those communities. That's where I live. So I know that it exists and I know that a lot of the women in our communities are not even able to come forward or even to feel safe to come forward, unless there's something in place for them to deal with it. So that's the reality of the situation.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

In order for us to address this situation, can you tell me if, setting aside possible differing opinions, the majority of non Aboriginal and Aboriginal people favour independence vis-à-vis the Indian Act?

[Beverley Jacobs]

I don't think that's an easy question to answer, unless we're to do a survey of each of our first nations. I know that Bob and Debra can explain that from the AFN perspective and that the chiefs in their communities can address that, but I know what the women are saying.

[Debra Hanuse]

I would just like to offer a very brief additional comment. To clarify this, I don't believe independence is necessarily the appropriate word in this circumstance. I think first nations are seeking a reconciliation of first nations law-making authority with Canadian law-making authority. We've got numerous Supreme Court of Canada decisions that direct us towards this reconciliation, and section 35 of the Constitution sets out a constitutional table at which we can have these negotiations to achieve that reconciliation.

Why that reconciliation is so important is that when imposed legislative solutions are put in place, the result is documents like this. This is the Indian Act, a not very thick document on its own, but a thick document like this when it's an annotated version, containing references to numerous cases where there have been disputes about what the provisions of the act mean, or where there are gaps in the act not fully addressing a particular situation, which force the parties to court to find those clarifications. You need to do that in order to run your daily life, so you can't afford not to go to court to seek those clarifications.

The result of this has been enormous legal and social costs to first nations and governments, where we spend our time in courts coming up with thick, annotated Indian Acts that tell us how we should be doing things, whereas a collaborative approach to legislation is preferable.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Ms. Smith.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I would like to thank all parties for your presentations this morning. They were very insightful and good.

I know what you were speaking about, Beverley, when you were saying that you lived in the community and know what's really going on. My son is an RCMP officer and he is married to an Ojibwa girl. She was raised on a reserve, and I have many connections on the different reserves. Her brother is also a chief in Manitoba. What you're saying I thought was extremely compelling and extremely truthful.

Two things came up, as you were talking. You were saying that anything that needs to be done needs to be done in collaboration. You also made the comment that we've been talking about matrimonial rights for a long time, with many Senate reports, and many of this and that reports. Yet nothing has really been done to this point. So could you elaborate a little more on what kind of collaboration is necessary right now to move this forward?

[Beverley Jacobs]

What we have proposed in our meetings is that in order for us to move forward on this, there is a recognition of both organizations and who we represent. What assists in our collaboration is the fact that we're willing to come up with solutions. The Assembly of First Nations represents all the Indian Act chiefs. With them being able to access the first nations communities, that's how our collaboration can work. Some of the women we represent are on reserve and some are off reserve. Some of these women have been directly impacted as a result of this specific issue and Bill C-31.

What I can see is if we're able to assist those women who may not want to speak through their chiefs or council, or who may feel this process is oppressing them and they're not able to come forward.... So if we can acknowledge this, that's a huge obstacle we've dealt with.

I know that because the reality of the situation is that those chiefs and councils use their power and control in their communities, which prevents these women from being able to come forward. So that's how I see our collaboration. If it also works with the processes through government in acknowledging that, we can move forward in this process immediately, because that's what we're dealing with right now, and you have acknowledged that.

We've been doing this for a long time. The way I feel right now, the way things are happening today in our communities, and the way our people are reacting to situations, people are saying that's enough; we need action. We need something to address the reality of the situations in our communities. And our women are saying that's enough. For us to be able to move forward, I think it will be very positive for us to have this collaborative approach.

[Debra Hanuse]

Thank you for the opportunity to add a few comments. We've been out there many times talking to people in communities, talking to first nation governments, asking what the problem is. We don't need to go out there again and ask those same questions. We have a good sense that women want some of the remedies available under provincial matrimonial law--maybe not quite so far as partition and sale, but certainly interim possession and temporary possession orders, to have those kinds of remedies available.

Generally, we know the solutions first nations people are looking for with regard to real matrimonial property law on reserve land, so we have to get it right before we go out there and consult further. That's where there's the opportunity for a lot of high-level collaboration at the present time. Before we have those consultations with first nations communities yet again, raise hopes only to have them dashed, let's get it right. Let's engage in high-level discussions to define solutions. We haven't taken that step. We all seem a little afraid to go down the path of committing to solutions that we can go out there and collectively sell to first nations and to Canadians as to how we're going to address this problem and close the gap.

If we could concentrate our efforts over the short term on working very intensively through proposals such as NWAC's proposal to provide the resources to first nations--because frankly we don't have those resources--if we could be provided with those resources, we could then engage in discussions with you to find solutions we can all live with. Then collectively we can go out there and sell those solutions to first nations and to the Canadian public.

What are we looking at in terms of costs? I don't have a ballpark figure on this right now, but just to give you an example, AFN is currently working with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and with NWAC to review some information packages that have been developed by a consultant working with all three parties on this issue. For us to consult with our representatives, because we are a national organization, we have an AFN women's council that would come together to review these materials and provide its perspective and its input.

To bring all these women together for one meeting only, it costs us in the neighbourhood of $30,000 for travel, accommodation, and our own internal review of the documents. That's one meeting, one opportunity for a day for first nations women to come together and talk about something like that. You can multiply that by the number of meetings that would be required to come up with some solutions. And it's just a matter of how long it's going to take and how much political will we have, because the longer we drag our feet, the longer it's going to take and the more it's going to cost. Let's get our thinking caps on, define very clearly for ourselves the solutions we want, and let's roll up our sleeves and get to it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Meegwetch.

Many of the questions I had have already been answered.

Ms. Jacobs, you've referred on three occasions to the need for safety mechanisms for first nations women to address this issue. You also made reference that on some reserves it's not safe. I wondered if you could elaborate on that concern.

[Beverley Jacobs]

I receive phone calls from women in communities who have been assaulted by chiefs, by councillors. That is huge. We're talking about remote communities, where they have nowhere to go. That's the power and control I was talking about. Safety mechanisms, when we're addressing these issues, are not going to occur in those communities. This is where they are being affected.

On violence in some first nations communities, we have heard from a lot of women that this is part of the reason they've left. The issues that come as a result of dividing matrimonial property is because we are talking about separation and divorce, which a lot of times is about violence. A lot of times the women who are leaving those homes are leaving abusive relationships. If there is no mechanism for them to be able to even come forward to address those issues, then they won't be resolved.

That's a whole other issue of the cycle of violence that's occurring, which is a result of the issues of colonization and assimilation policies. We're talking about generations of families who have been impacted by this. Men and women in our communities are dealing with that. Today we are having to address that. Some don't want to talk about it at all. They don't even want to address it.

The phone calls I get and these stories from women in the community--story after story--are sad. It is sad to hear this and sad that we have to deal with this issue. But it needs to be addressed in order for our communities to move forward. These issues have to be addressed. That's why, on the question earlier about collaboration with government, there also has to be an acknowledgement by government of why we're dealing with this issue the way we're having to deal with it. Because that didn't happen before. In our communities, there was no violence. There wasn't abuse. When we were living in very healthy communities and when we addressed this in our way, we had a social structure.

We have a social structure, which is based on our traditional values and our customs and beliefs. Those traditional customs and beliefs have been impacted as a result of colonization and the Indian Act system. That's what we're addressing today. On every issue that we bring forward--matrimonial property, housing issues, education issues--those are always the underlying or causal factors that we're having to address. Women and our children are being impacted the most. That's what we're talking about.

It's not just in first nations communities. We know it's happening all across the country. It's in Canadian homes where women are being abused. We are taking the brunt of it, and I'm tired of it. As a first nations woman, as a Mohawk woman, I'm tired of hearing this. I feel it's my responsibility to make sure it doesn't occur any more.

My daughter is 23, and she also had to live through that. I have grandchildren, and I don't want them to live through it. I don't want them to see violence. As women in our communities, that's what we're having to go through, that healing process to deal with these issues. That's what we're talking about.

Thank you.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

We've come full circle in terms of residential schools and the Indian Act. In my community, CAS apprehends a disproportionate number of first nations children. Quite simply, they don't know what to do. They know that they are impacting negatively, breaking down that family unit that's so important in terms of healing and survival, and we're caught in this incredible vise.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry, your time is up, Ms. Mathyssen.

Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you.

Thank you all for appearing here today. I think your appearances have reiterated how complex this issue is on many levels. We're all hearing around the table the frustration of the inability to move forward on this issue and the fact that it's been so present for the last 20 years. I'm concerned about how we do move it forward.

Ms. Hanuse, you spoke about the need for high-level political discussions to make this happen. We've heard--as I heard it--conflicting views on the consultation process, whether we take it out to the communities, whether we bring women into the communities. The aboriginal affairs committee came up with recommendations, which I know you're familiar with. They talked about interim legislation. The minister responded, saying, “Not interim. When we do it, we do it with full legislation.”

I guess what I'm really interested in is how we move it forward. How do we grab hold of this issue and make it happen for people? Is it the high-level political? Is it the bringing together of groups here in Ottawa? Is it moving out, fanning out for another consultation process with women? We heard the underpinnings of what causes some of the issues, like poor housing, and we all know that might have been addressed in other ways.

How do we move this agenda forward?

[Bob Watts]

If I can start, I'm sure everyone will have some other answers. I think what Debra talked about is a need for a high-level group to be able to sit down and sift through the many recommendations that have been made from the many studies and come up with some examples and some ideas of what practically could be done, and use some of the best practices that Bev talked about, use some of the best practices from the First Nations Land Management Act and other places where people are struggling with this and are legislating in their own communities with respect to issues like matrimonial real property.

Then there has to be a consultation, and some of it, for the reasons Bev articulated, may have to be in Ottawa or other major centres. Some of it has to be in our communities. It's a community issue and it also has to be dealt with in our communities, by the leadership there and by the people in the communities. So it has to happen in both ways.

I'm not confident that a legislative solution, for the reasons that we've articulated, is going to be an effective solution, whether it's a stopgap or long term. It's going to require something else in terms of being able to deal with issues that each community has, and some are very different. There are some communities where women were the property owners, period. Is the solution to go back to where women are the property owners? I don't know. It may be in some places. Some people just laughed at the idea that this Indian Act was going to change things, because they said “We know what the real story is: women are the property owners. But over time and through court cases and through divorce battles and everything else, that changed.”

So there are things that need to be examined in that regard, and it can't be done in isolation. We put forward, with other aboriginal leadership last November, some ideas to deal with closing the gap, to deal with the issue of poverty. Some of the issues we're talking about are manifestations of poverty, and the issue of poverty has to be dealt with. And that was done at the first ministers meeting in Kelowna in November of last year. To pretend that we can deal with matrimonial real property issues in isolation of other issues that are real in the community, including violence.... Why are first nation women's shelters funded at a lower level than the provincial women's shelters?

There are a lot of good questions we need to ask ourselves in terms of the system our people are living in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Ms. Neville. Your time is up. I think we all get so intensely interested in your answers that I'm not getting your one-minute warning down. My apologies.

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our representatives here today for taking the time to come and address the committee.

My question follows a similar theme as other questions here today. As I read the material, including the government response to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development from last year, and through your presentations today, there's an inconsistency in my mind on one point: the urgency in addressing the issue. On the other side of the coin, you've laid out the compelling reasons for more extensive consultation, which we all know can take a long period of time, up to and including the one solution that you gave us today, which was really to go directly to the issues surrounding and advancing native self-government as really being the ultimate long-term solution for this question.

It seems to me that there's a volume of information available that would give policy-makers the ability to find some solutions relatively quickly. I'm puzzled as to why you still believe that rather extensive consultations still need to be in front us when this issue is so compelling and so urgent.

[Beverley Jacobs]

I think if we're talking about interim legislation, it has to be federal. And if there is a process, we don't want the process to occur like the First Nations Governance Act did, where it was implemented on its own, without consultation. That's what we're talking about.

We do want the legislation to be immediate, but we know what the reality of that is when it comes to government and passing legislation, how slow that is. But in the sense of what is needed immediately, it is human rights protection, because every day those violations are occurring.

If we're able to talk about ensuring that voice is heard with a consultation process, it's not going to take that long. When we're talking about consultation, we're talking maybe a year to go through that process--if we have draft legislation and we've already talked about what it might look like. Even if we have something to take back to the communities, to say this is what it might look like or these are the issues we need to address in this legislation, then that's the process. If we're able to go through that process alongside of the legislative process, then that's what's needed.

[Debra Hanuse]

Urgency is bit of a relative term, of course. If you're bleeding to death, you want the wound cleaned and sealed so that you're not bleeding.

But in order to do it right, if we just have the policy-makers go out there and impose solutions.... To date, they haven't been able to come up with solutions that have been acceptable. I would be very surprised if tomorrow they could put before us a package that would just address everyone's concerns, given the multiple layers of issues we're dealing with here—the need to address membership provisions in the Indian Act, as well as the nature of reserve lands, legal title to reserve lands, housing shortages--all of these multiple issues. If there was a policy-maker who could come up with a document that addressed all those concerns in a way that was satisfactory to everyone, then that person should probably get a Nobel Peace Prize or something to that effect. I'd rather see us get it right.

Yes, of course it's urgent. We don't want to have this situation perpetuated to the end of time. But we also don't want to get it wrong. We want to ensure we get it right. I think the solution there is that we know the issues; we need to sit down and talk about what solutions we can agree on, and then that's the package we would bring to people to consult on, not a broad general sweeping consultation on “What would you like?” That's far too open-ended. It should be: “Here is a solution that addresses everyone's needs. It addresses your interest, your interest, and your interest. Can it work? What kind of tweaks do you want on it?”

We're not there yet, and we need to work very hard to get there. That could take up to a year. With proper resourcing, I'm sure it's doable. With political will and proper resourcing, in a year to a year and half I could see us coming up with a package we could bring to everyone that would address everyone's concerns. That would address the next steps and what's required.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We have time for one five-minute round of questioning from Ms. Bourgeois.