Evidence of meeting #72 for Status of Women in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was home.
A recording is available from Parliament.
The Clerk of the Committee Mrs. Marlene Sandoval
Good morning, honourable committee members. I see a quorum.
I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair. The clerk cannot receive other types of motions, cannot entertain points of order, nor participate in debate.
We can move to the election of the chair.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the official opposition.
I am ready to receive motions for the chair.
Go ahead, Ms. Truppe.
Conservative
Susan Truppe Conservative London North Centre, ON
Madam Chair, I'd like to nominate Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe as chair of our committee.
The Clerk
It has been moved by Susan Truppe that Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe be elected as chair of the committee.
Are there any further motions?
I declare the motion carried and Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe duly elected chair of the committee.
I would like to invite Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe to take the chair.
Congratulations.
NDP
The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe
Thank you.
My thanks to the committee for their confidence in electing me chair of the committee. It will be my pleasure to work with you in order for the committee to complete all its studies in a climate of mutual respect.
Before we move to the agenda, if my colleagues have no objections, I would like to modify the agenda a little in order to keep 15 minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss our future business.
I know that the committee has already proposed adding sessions. We have received replies from the witnesses we have invited. If there are no objections, let us set aside 15 minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss the committee's future business in camera.
Now we move to the agenda. Today, we have with us Mr. Ron Swain, Vice-Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Mr. Swain will have 10 minutes for his opening statement. Then we will move to questions and comments. We will finish the first part of the committee's work at 11:50.
Then we will suspend the meeting to allow the next witnesses to come to the table. Those witnesses are Ms. Courchene and Ms. Manitowabi, who will make an opening statement for 10 minutes. Then we will be able to ask them questions.
Mr. Swain, thank you very much for joining us today. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation before we move to questions.
Ron Swain National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here with my colleague, Julian Morelli. He's our communications director at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
Good morning, Chair and committee members. It's a pleasure to be here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people to speak to you about matrimonial real property on reserve. I am the national vice-chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. As you know, National Chief Betty Anne Lavallée was to speak this morning, but unfortunately she was taken ill and asked me to make this presentation in her place. She sends her regrets.
Since 1971, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, formerly known as the Native Council of Canada, has represented the interests of off-reserve status and non-status Indians, southern Inuit, and Métis throughout Canada. Today, over 60% of aboriginal people now live off reserve, and this number continues to grow. The congress is also the national voice for its affiliate organizations and advocates on behalf of aboriginal people living off reserve throughout Canada.
The issue of matrimonial real property on reserve is certainly not new. The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba addressed this as far back as 1988. At that time, the inquiry recognized the need for an equal division upon marriage breakup under the Indian Act. In addition, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples put forth recommendations on the issue. Over the last ten years, numerous studies and reports have been issued by the House of Commons and the Senate. A number of pieces of legislation have also been introduced by both the Conservatives and the Liberals.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples supports matrimonial real property, and we feel it's time to move on. This legislation should not come as a surprise to anyone. Aboriginal organizations, including the congress, along with aboriginal people were consulted on matrimonial real property in 2002 through the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee. In fact, under this committee we helped draft the legislation for the first nations governance act.
In 2003, the Standing Committee on Human Rights released an interim report called “A Hard Bed to Lie In: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve”. This report is still relevant today. It outlines the importance of matrimonial real property for a variety of reasons by emphasizing many of the barriers aboriginal women face, including factors that intensify additional inequality and discrimination toward women in these circumstances.
One story in this report really was quite striking. An aboriginal woman and her five children were forced to leave their reserve. They lost their social support and were left with limited finances in search of a home. This woman sought assistance for affordable housing, but was turned down and ended up living in a rundown boarding house. Child and Family Services intervened and took her children. In the end, she could not take it anymore and in despair took her own life. This is just one tragic example, and there are surely thousands more. Yet these hardships continue today. For example, many women are forced to leave their reserve after a marriage breakdown. Those who leave the reserve in search of affordable housing could find their position quite grim.
Let me give you an example. In 2006 the federal government entered into the off-reserve aboriginal housing sector. They allotted $300 million over three years to the provinces for off-reserve affordable housing. Not one of our affiliates received the full amount of funding. When the federal government gave money to assist off-reserve housing, the money didn't get there. One province under this program received $38.2 million and refused to provide any resources for off-reserve housing. This particular province refused to assist off-reserve housing initiatives because, and I quote, “they had other priorities”. My question is simple. Where are these people supposed to go?
This is why our organization fought so strongly for all aboriginal people to be included under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867. People who leave reserves for whatever reason should still have their rights. They are rightful partners in Confederation. They are a federal jurisdiction. Once a person leaves the reserve, they no longer have the same level of services or support available to them. They are simply not getting the help they need.
Obviously, conditions differ in every region of Canada, and individuals have their own unique challenges to deal with. However, I find it appalling that in this day and age aboriginal women continue to encounter discrimination and inequality and are literally being deprived of their rights.
The Constitution Act of 1982, under subsection 35(4) states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
This is not the reality for aboriginal women.
We, at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, understand the complexities of this legislation, but this is no excuse. This is legislation that should have gone through years ago. How land is managed and allotted on reserves plays a big part in how matrimonial real property is exercised. There are reserves that have different categories of land on the same reserve: for instance, a reserve is regulated by the Indian Act or voluntarily adheres to the First Nations Land Management Act or a self-government agreement.
The Indian Act itself is problematic on a number of levels. It does not enshrine the treaty relationship, but in many cases it undermines or seeks to replace it. It was introduced and amended by governments that took a paternalistic view towards aboriginal people. It is more about limiting the day-to-day existence of status Indians and reserve communities than it is about implementing and building relationships with sovereign people who entered into this act without their consent. The lack of matrimonial real property is probably the most honest example of what is wrong with the Indian Act at its root.
Some communities have voluntarily adhered to the First Nations Land Management Act to get away from the Indian Act. A small fraction of those communities have made the necessary steps in recognizing the division of family assets, but there are still difficulties for women when it comes to exercising those rights.
The Standing Committee on Human Rights' interim report states that “the federal policy on self-government calls for the application of the Charter”.
The Government is committed to the principle that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should bind all governments in Canada, so that Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal Canadians alike may continue to enjoy equally the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. Self-government agreements, including treaties, will, therefore, have to provide that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Aboriginal governments and institutions in relation to all matters within their respective jurisdictions and authorities.
This legislation accommodates for the different land management on reserve. It allows for communities to establish laws that are specific to their culture and their traditions.
It has been argued that Bill S-2 could be interpreted to imply that it impedes on the non-derogation clause found under section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our organization strongly supports the non-derogation clause, in that nothing should abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to aboriginal peoples of Canada.
I honestly believe that ensuring equal rights to both men and women does not impede upon aboriginal treaty rights. On the contrary, I would argue that not backing this bill is disallowing equality for all aboriginal people.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples strongly supports matrimonial real property on reserve. We recognize that by implementing this legislation, many communities will be burdened with an increase in responsibility. For this reason, it is important that communities be provided with the necessary tools and financial resources to assist them in implementing this important legislation. This is an instrumental bill. It is important that we don't impose legislation on aboriginal people and their communities, but rather help aboriginal people by establishing a reciprocal relationship in working together and supporting aboriginal communities to ensure they are able to integrate equality while maintaining their cultural values and traditions.
Thank you for this time.
NDP
The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe
Thank you, Mr. Swain.
We will now proceed to the question round.
We will start with Madame Truppe. You have seven minutes.
Conservative
Susan Truppe Conservative London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Swain, for being here. It was great to hear from you and that you support matrimonial real property.
I, too, find it appalling that women on reserve do not have the same rights as I have and as the other women who are sitting around this table have. I'm just happy to hear you support that, because they should have the same rights as we do and they should have the same protection as we do.
I do have some questions for you.
Do you think that individuals living in first nations communities currently have access to adequate protections and rights related to matrimonial property, and how do you think they could be improved?
National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
I'll give you a little bit of my background. I'm an aboriginal man, a status Indian, and I have five children.
Unfortunately, I went through two marriage breakups. Right now, I'm a single father, so I know personally some of the realities of separation, the emotions, and some of the issues that can be involved.
I've also been an Ontario Provincial Police officer for 32 years, and I've worked on first nations communities throughout Ontario, both on and off reserve, so I'm speaking from some of my experience in that time.
Unfortunately, because of the nature of the fiduciary relationship to reserves—and I'll call them reserves because everybody seems to understand that “reserve” concept as opposed to “first nation”—the provincial laws don't apply when it comes to divorce court and different separation agreements. That complicates things and it makes this very problematic.
I've had personal experiences where, let's say, an aboriginal man is living with an aboriginal woman who is not from that community. When they break up, she is basically kicked right out the door. They have no protection under law. As a police officer, I've gone there. We keep the peace, but there's a band council resolution that has been passed telling her that she has to leave, and she's escorted off that first nations or reserve community.
I know personally that right now there is no protection. In some communities, but very few, they have created their own laws, basically divorce laws or matrimonial division laws—
Conservative
Conservative
Susan Truppe Conservative London North Centre, ON
About your experience, I think you said you had one or two breakups or divorces.
National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
Yes, two marriage breakups, unfortunately.
Conservative
Susan Truppe Conservative London North Centre, ON
Maybe you can tell me, because I'm not familiar.... I don't have reserves in my riding, although I have aboriginal organizations, and I've asked them from time to time whenever I speak to them what they think of this bill. I've not yet had one person, not one.... Not everyone supports everything we do, but I've not had one person actually say, when I'm talking to them, that they don't think this is a good idea.
I just want to get your sense of how this happens. What normally happens when a marriage on a reserve breaks up? How is the decision made as to who is going to occupy the family home? Is it immediate? Can you take me through an example or a scenario?
National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
Well, I can always go back to my own personal experience with a small community called the Thessalon First Nation, which is just outside Sault Ste. Marie in northern Ontario. I've also had experiences in Grassy Narrows, which is a community of about 700 people north of Kenora. I have had experiences in both of those.
Unfortunately, most of the time, in the dealings I've had, when a marriage breaks down, violence is involved, and, unfortunately, we're called at a time when there's a big fight going on. I can relate that to both Thessalon and Grassy Narrows. I won't use names. I'll just use the scenario. Usually, a big fight takes place, the police are called, the police show up, and whoever is the perpetrator or the offender gets arrested and taken away.
I can give you an example from up in Grassy Narrows. This is going back a few years. The individual happened to be from that community, and he was with a Métis girl who wasn't from that community and didn't have band membership or wasn't part of the band. Once the person was released from custody, he went to the chief and council. Within a very short time, a band council resolution was passed, and then he had control and custody of that building, the house, the matrimonial home.
They were in a common-law relationship at that time. She had some children but not from that relationship. She was basically forced to leave that community. There was no separation of property. She basically had no rights. They were not in a long relationship—I remember it as being two and a half years—but it still was a relationship for a significant time, and basically she was escorted off that community with just the clothes on her back and with her children. That was a situation with a non-band member.
Conservative
Susan Truppe Conservative London North Centre, ON
I think that bothers everybody, the fact that they don't have any rights and they are simply forced out of the house and have nowhere to live. If you don't have family that you can go to, you have nowhere to go. I think what is more troublesome is that in an emergency situation, where there is violence, it's the woman who has to leave with the child.
I've had a couple of members of first nations who have told me that, from these organizations that are in my riding. In their case, their father was abusive and they and their mother had to leave, so she made sure she built her house off the reserve so that she would have access to half of the money that was put into that house if she and her husband split up.
I don't think it's only about having half of the ownership of everything you have, and you have those rights, but, in my mind, it's for emergency protection orders, too, to keep them safe.
Just very quickly, how would this change the reserves? Would it change the reserves very much once this is in place?
National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
By reading the act, you at least have some rules and some process to address this. What I really like about this piece of legislation, and it's not a perfect piece of legislation—no legislation is perfect—and it doesn't speak to the issue of—
National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
It doesn't speak to the issue of communal land, and that's very complicated. What it does is put in place emergency processes so that you can have support for a woman who's a victim of violence and some interim orders so they can at least have custody of the matrimonial home.
NDP
The Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe
Thank you very much, Mr. Swain.
We'll turn now to Madame Ashton.
National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
I come at it from two points of view, I think. Our organization believes there has to be put in place protection for these women. We have to have some way of speaking to this. It's an issue that's been talked about and put forward. There's no legislation that speaks to it in a significant way. So that's one thing—
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Swain. Thank you for outlining the jurisdiction that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples holds as an organization.
As you know, one of the concerns that the Native Women's Association of Canada as well as the Assembly of First Nations has raised is around the lack of.... The government tells us there's been consultation, but in fact first nations haven't been adequately consulted, and consulted in real terms, as we know needs to be done with first nations. Furthermore, for those who have been asked about this, their recommendations haven't been heard.
I'm wondering what you, as the representative here of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, would have to say about what these organizations are saying about the lack of consultation.
I think we can all agree, but perhaps I can just go back to that initial point. Are you okay with there being no consultation in the first place?
National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
I would like to speak to that, but, first of all, there's an urgency that has to be talked about, that this legislation speaks to. It's speaking to safety issues. I think you have to put that as paramount when you're thinking about this piece of legislation. That's one thing.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples was consulted. We represent off-reserve aboriginal people, which doesn't mean we don't represent people who live on reserve. I'm a status Indian. My band is called the Swan Lake reserve in Manitoba. What's nice about this piece of legislation is that it talks about creating laws. If the community wants to create laws, they actually have to contact me, and I have a right to vote on what those laws are and to have some input.