;

AANR Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 14, 2002

1105

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.))

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Terri Brown (President, Native Women's Association of Canada)

1110

1115

1120

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1125

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

Mr. Marceau

Ms. Terri Brown

1130

Mr. Marceau

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Marceau

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Ms. Terri Brown

1135

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Larry Bagnell

1140

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Bagnell

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

1145

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)

Ms. Terri Brown

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

Mr. Marceau

Ms. Terri Brown

1150

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

Mr. Carignan

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Terri Brown

1155

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

1200

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Bagnell

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Terri Brown

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

1205

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

1215

Ms. Pamela Paul (President, National Aboriginal Women's Association)

1220

The Chair

1225

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Pamela Paul

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair (Vice-President, National Aboriginal Women's Association)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Pamela Paul

The Chair

1230

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Pamela Paul

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Pamela Paul

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Pamela Paul

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Pamela Paul

1235

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Pamela Paul

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Pamela Paul

Mr. Martin

Ms. Pamela Paul

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Pamela Paul

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Pamela Paul

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Pamela Paul

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Pamela Paul

1240

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair

Ms. Pamela Paul

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Pamela Paul

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

Ms. Pamela Paul

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1245

Jennifer Sinclair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Ms. Pamela Paul

Mr. Larry Bagnell

1250

Pamela Paul

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Pamela Paul

Mr. Richard Marceau

Ms. Pamela Paul

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

1255

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Pamela Paul

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Pamela Paul

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair

1300

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair

The Chair

Ms. Pamela Paul

The Chair

Ms. Pamela Paul

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 045

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 14, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

We are continuing our overview of the Indian Act. We have been advised that legislation will be coming to us. We have to anticipate what will be coming, although most of us have a fair idea of what it will be addressing. As far as we know, the bill has not been drafted. I suspect it probably has been, but we have no insight into what will be in it.

As a committee we decided to ask people who are affected by it and people we consider to be experts on the issue to share information with us so that when we do get the legislation, we will have the advantage of having information and a feel for how it will affect people's lives. That's the intent of this meeting.

Today we are pleased to have with us Ms. Terri Brown, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada. I see that you are accompanied by Sylvia Baptiste, who is the administrator. We invite you to make an opening comment, which will be followed by questions from members. This will last until 12:08 at the latest because we have other witnesses to hear from.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Excuse me for interrupting you, Mr. Chairman, but before starting, I would like to ask a question for information purposes.

There was someone from the National Aboriginal Women's Association who was supposed to appear. What is the status on that?

The Chairman: That meeting will be held this afternoon, after we have heard from this first group.

Mr. Richard Marceau: OK. Thank you, and excuse me, once again.

[English]

The Chair: I see Mr. Vellacott walking into the room. I'm sure he was busy. If you would allow me, I'd like to make a presentation to Mr. Vellacott.

Maurice and Mary Vellacott are proud new grandparents. As a proud grandfather of four beautiful grandchildren, it is an honour to welcome you to the fraternity of grandparents. The arrival of Charity in your life has blessed you, and will continue to bless you in unimaginable ways. It is my wish that Charity will fully realize all her dreams and aspirations, which have already begun to grow within her. I know you will share countless memories as you accompany and support her on that path.

It's signed by the chair of the committee.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Charity was born on the same date as the clerk of our committee.

An hon. member: But 21 years after her.

The Chair: So we are becoming a family.

Thank you for allowing us to do this. Please proceed.

Ms. Terri Brown (President, Native Women's Association of Canada): Good morning. Thank you for inviting me here, committee members and representatives of the House of Commons. It's my pleasure to present to you today the Aboriginal Women, Governance, & the Indian Act submission from the Native Women's Association of Canada. You asked me to come here, and I respected your wishes by appearing here today. We have many concerns with the process that has been initiated across Canada.

The Native Women's Association of Canada has been in existence since 1974 and is mandated by its national membership to be the national voice for aboriginal women.

We agreed at the AFN confederacy meeting in Halifax last year that a process of meaningful consultation should be developed by INAC in partnership with the first nations community. We chose at that time to place our involvement in abeyance until such time as the minister and the first nations could come up with a consultative process that was respectful and in partnership with the first nations of Canada. Unfortunately, the minister and first nations were not able to come to such an agreement.

We believe, because of our position to support the development of such a process, we have been effectively silenced. The minister has instead chosen to consult with the newly formed group, an INAC funded group, that they chose to recognize and fund. This organization claims to represent the national voice for aboriginal women. As a result, our funding proposal for phase two was left in abeyance.

We strongly believe the perspectives of aboriginal women must be taken into account regarding any proposed changes to the Indian Act or any governance legislation. For too long women have been doubly disadvantaged and discriminated against because of our race and our gender. As a national body duly mandated by all of our member groups to represent the issues and concerns of aboriginal women, we have highlighted the following issues and concerns, as well as making a number of recommendations.

The Native Women's Association of Canada has long been recognized as the national representative body. Our mandate, as outlined above, includes providing this national voice on behalf of our extensive membership throughout the country.

We are extremely concerned that the minister has given the newly formed National Aboriginal Women's Association legitimacy by, for instance, providing them with funding and appointing one of their members to the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee for the First Nations Governance Initiative. This position too closely reflects the position taken by the government during the Charlottetown Accord debates that required us to fight in the courts for recognition of the importance of our involvement on an issue of national importance to aboriginal peoples.

As INAC is well aware, we, NWAC, have been active over many years in representing the issues and concerns of our women in Canada. We have fought long and hard for the inclusion of our voice and our perspective on national issues of importance to aboriginal peoples. It is essential that the government continue to recognize us for the important and necessary role that we play in bringing forward the unique perspectives of aboriginal women. We do not want to be undermined and silenced anymore.

We question the motivation of INAC to so quickly fund the new women's organization, apparently only three weeks after it was formed. We also question the mandate of this new organization, and how they claim to now represent aboriginal women on national issues that affect our lives. Finally, we question why Minister Nault has provided a forum for this new group.

I want to give you some background.

Aboriginal women and children suffer tremendously as victims in contemporary Canadian society. They are the victims of racism, sexism, and an unconscionable level of domestic violence. It is of particular importance that the perspectives and concerns of aboriginal women be solicited and included in any reform of the Indian Act or of any proposed legislation.

Aboriginal women are doubly discriminated against. We represent over 50% of the aboriginal population. Too often our issues are overlooked and we are silenced. We thank the House of Commons, again, for ensuring we have an opportunity to represent our constituents on such an important matter.

Á (1110)

Many aboriginal women live in poverty. According to Statistics Canada, 43% of aboriginal women 15 years and older live in poverty. The circumstances of single mothers are often even more dire, with 73% of that group living below the poverty line.

The majority of aboriginal women live off reserve. Many of these women are Bill C-31 Indians and have found it difficult to return to their home communities because of a lack of housing and discrimination against them.

Aboriginal women suffer as the victims of violence. Some authors have described violence against aboriginal women to be of epidemic proportions, and many continue to cite the Ontario Native Women's Association report, which found that eight out of ten aboriginal women have been abused.

Understanding the contemporary life circumstances of aboriginal women plays an important role in guiding the work of my organization, the Native Women's Association of Canada. We urge the federal government to include our perspectives in any further consultations, discussions, or debates regarding the Indian Act and any government legislation.

Aboriginal women and self-government:

First Nations women have too long been excluded from the circle of decision making. This has led to male bias and has perpetuated the disintegration of harmony between male and female in Aboriginal societies. ... While colonialism is at the root of our learned disrespect for women, we cannot blame colonialism for our informed actions today. This generation of First Nations men must take some measure of responsibility for the activities in which they engage.

Aboriginal women in contemporary society have not been meaningfully engaged. It's no secret that they've been excluded for too long from all discussions of self-government and treaty discussions. Their lack of inclusion in matters that affect their futures and those of their children can be attributed to a number of different rationales, such as lack of inclusion because of the Indian Act due to membership issues around Bill C-31; denial of their meaningful participation; the effect of colonialism, that has eroded their traditional roles and traditional governing structures, not to mention the racism they face; the effect of colonization that has manifested in sexism towards aboriginal women and the white male devaluation of aboriginal women, which has arguably been internalized by some aboriginal men and women.

These rationales quite clearly underscore the role the Canadian state has played in discriminating against aboriginal women, most particularly with regard to aboriginal women's denial of membership and Indian status when they choose to marry a non-native man. The discrimination continues with the denial of membership and status for many reinstated women's children and grandchildren. Bearing this in mind, NWAC is obviously cautious and circumspect about federal government-driven initiatives that have not properly solicited our input and that will greatly affect our lives as aboriginal women.

I will go over some of the recommendations, if time allows. NWAC has a number of recommendations pursuant to the First Nations Governance Initiative: that the Native Women's Association of Canada continue to be recognized as a national voice on aboriginal women's issues and that NWAC be provided with funding to adequately represent women's issues and concerns with any amendments to the Indian Act and development of the first nations governance initiative.

In addition, Status of Women Canada recently commissioned a set of policy papers I would like to refer to you for your homework, First Nations Women, Governance and the Indian Act: A Collection of Policy Research Reports, which are of great value. These papers highlight some of the concerns of aboriginal women regarding the first nations governance initiative. A number of recommendations presented by Chief Judith Sayers and aboriginal lawyer Kelly MacDonald, which concord with NWAC's position on governance, are as follows.

First and foremost, the federal government must fulfill their promise, articulated in Gathering Strength, to fund--capacity build--first nations women's groups locally, nationally, and internationally, to strengthen their participation in self-government processes. An example would be funding for NWAC as the national representative body for aboriginal women for participation in the FNG Initiative.

Á (1115)

They should ensure the full and equal participation of first nations women in governance, both Indian Act and self-government structures.

There should be support, financial and otherwise, from Status of Women Canada and respective provincial women's ministries or advisory bodies for first nations women's goals and aspirations, including full and equal participation in negotiations and governing structures.

There are many more, which you can read for yourselves.

I want to end by saying that we're bringing our concerns to you in the spirit of cooperation. Mr. Nault has written us several letters and has stressed that he wants to move forward in the spirit of cooperation, but that has not been exemplified in his actions. We are very doubtful that we are being considered in any serious talks. So we're asking you to please consider our submission.

I would like to take your questions in order to clarify some of our points or to comment on something I may have left out. Again, thank you very much.

Á (1120)

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation.

Just to set the tone before we go to questions, I'd like to make it clear that this is a committee of the House of Commons. This is not the office of the minister or the department. I give you my word that you will be involved in the consultation process once we have a bill before us. The members of this committee from all parties are very interested in this, and we have placed a commitment on ourselves that at the end of the process we want to be able to say that everyone had an opportunity to participate in the consultation on the bill. So that is a commitment I make to you.

We probably have an opportunity for two rounds, the first one being four minutes and the second three. When I say four minutes, it means four minutes for the question and answer. So I say to you that if my colleagues take four minutes for the question, they have taken all of your time. That's my way of asking my colleagues to ask short questions.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Terri, for being here. I was very much looking forward to these presentations today because, as I hear out in my constituency and elsewhere in the country, it's often the first nations women who feel shut out or not totally included. With the nurturing aspect of women, they are interested in health and education, and they want to see those provisions made available to their children and grandchildren.

I have just a very quick question. You brought up the fact that there is another group and they're receiving funding and so on. To really cut to the chase, Terri, is there a problem with having more than one women's group? You may not be saying exactly the same thing, but might it not be even a good thing to have a couple of different women's groups, which may not be unanimous in terms of their point of view, bringing forward issues in the public arena and pressing the government as well? You've obviously had some concern about another group being funded and maybe taking a more prominent role and possibly pushing you to the side. Can you give me some sense of that?

Ms. Terri Brown: There's no problem with having another women's group, but when government uses other aboriginal women to undermine the national voice of women, we have a problem with that. Over the years NWAC has been the leading group to say we need to revise the Indian Act or possibly eliminate it because it is discriminatory. We led that discussion through the whole Charlottetown Accord process. We brought forward amendments to the Indian Act as a result of that.

Because a government initiative is announced and we're not falling in line and doing everything the government wishes, we are then undermined by the creation of another group. I have problems with that type of process and that type of threat to our communities. That analysis is very obvious from our point of view, although it may not be for other people. No, we don't have problems with other women's organizations, but when it's done internally in this way....

The women who formed this new organization are women we employed and who sat on our boards and who we trusted The head of this national organization was our executive director until she ran against me in the election. Obviously, she wasn't successful. She then turned around and formed this group.

That approach is very damaging to our community. I don't want to have a confrontational approach, and I don't want that legacy. He's not doing anything to eliminate the legacy. He's encouraging a very confrontational one.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Let me interject this way, then, Terri. I'm always concerned when we hear groups across the country, be it on men's or women's issues, that come forward representing themselves as the sole voice or mouthpiece, if you will, for any one organization, because I know our country is a whole lot more diverse than that. So I think there may be some benefit.

But if I understand you correctly, you're saying that you see this as more a deliberate attempt to undermine because of views that you've held that haven't gone down well with the department or the minister. Is that what you're implying in your comments here?

Á (1125)

Ms. Terri Brown: That's right.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can you be a little more explicit?

Ms. Terri Brown: Okay, particularly I want to refer back to Halifax and the Native Women's Association of Canada. We don't always agree with the Assembly of First Nations, but on this particular occasion we did. We were aligned with them. We were in solidarity with them.

What we were saying in Halifax was that we wanted a 30-day freeze. We did not reject the whole initiative; we wanted a 30-day freeze. It was very problematic because it was moving too quickly. Our women were being confused. They were being manipulated by certain individuals to go this way and that way. They didn't have all the information, and--rightfully so--we said, slow down; give us 30 days; that's not a long time. Within that 30 days, there was more manipulation for us to accept that.

Why we didn't accept that.... I just want to explain that one of our regional groups started in the discussions about the consultations, and they were very stringent with this group as to what could be discussed. Our discussions have gone on over three decades, on issues of membership and all these things.

The Chair: Thank you. I do not want to appear to be stringent with you. I will try to follow, but a trick for witnesses is, if I sort of gently cut you off and you have more to say, sneak it into your next answer. Okay?

Ms. Terri Brown: Okay.

The Chair: That's the trick. So if we ask you what time it is, you just tell us what the temperature is. That's what we do with reporters.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Good morning. Thank you for being here. I will shorten my greeting because we don't have much time. I will continue the discussion by discussing the statements in the question asked by this new grandfather who is sitting on my right.

You mentioned your request for a 30-day stay. I would like to hear you provide more detail on the approach proposed by Mr. Nault, the Minister. Is your position as entrenched as that of the Assembly of First Nations, which absolutely refuses to collaborate with the government on this issue, or do you hold a more middle of the road position, that is, do you accept to collaborate, but with certain conditions?

[English]

Ms. Terri Brown: In Halifax we took the position that we wanted the 30-day freeze so that we could attempt to regroup and strengthen our position--to be more clear on our position because it was a little muddy at that point. However, we didn't turn down the whole process. What we were saying was that we didn't just want to talk about the three themes that Mr. Nault was interested in because there were many other issues that impact first nations women, and that are sexist against our women, that we wanted to look at: matrimony property rights being one, nationhood membership and those kinds of issues, family law and those kinds of things that don't support the role of women or are more discriminating against women than aboriginal men.

We didn't reject the whole thing. We said, give us 30 days so that we can have further discussions and come up with a clear direction of which way we want to go.

Á (1130)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Have you now established what would be this clear direction in which you wish to move?

[English]

Ms. Terri Brown: Yes, our position is much more defined. We did say we wanted to go ahead with phase one, we put it to a vote, and that's a legislative process. We wanted to engage in that phase two because it was too late for phase one. It had come and gone because the time lines were very tight.

At that point, we submitted a proposal, which they looked at, and then I met with representatives of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They clearly said to me that they did not have to listen to me because I did not represent the aboriginal women in this country. They said there was another group that had our regional representatives sitting with them, that had other aboriginal women sitting with them, and basically they did not have to listen to me. They didn't say it so clearly, but they didn't really have to engage in serious discussions with me as an aboriginal woman leader of this country.

So clearly we were ready to go with phase two and phase three, but at that point I guess they felt they were in a position where they didn't have to listen to us. They had another legitimate group that they were working with.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I want to stop you here, because I need to understand what you are saying.

Representatives from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources appeared before us to say that they wanted consultation to take place, and that it be as wide as possible, and that as many people as possible participate. If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that you were told by representatives of this same department that they were sorry, but they would not hear you because they thought someone else was speaking on your behalf, and that they did not need to hear you. Is that what you are telling us?

[English]

Ms. Terri Brown: That's fairly close in terms of what I thought I was saying, yes.

The Chair: It would be helpful if you would name that person for the record. When we have these meetings there are records kept and the other side have an opportunity to send documents to members if they have a position to defend.

So if you wish to, we would urge you to name that person. It's a comment that has surprised a lot of us and we're very concerned if that's the case. But you don't need to respond to me. I'll continue with questions. You have the opportunity to name them at any time and you will have an opportunity in closing remarks.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Ms. Brown, for a very interesting brief. I've read through the recommendations and I believe there is a lot of merit here. I think they are themes that we have been hearing, at least since I've been involved.

I attended the Charlottetown aboriginal round when the Native Women's Association was actually picketing outside. They had many of these same points. And I was there at the Halifax AFN meeting, where you established a moratorium and where the real backlash started about the first nations governance agreement.

Rather than focus on the actual text of your document so far, I'd like to concentrate on what Richard was speaking about, which I think is very worrisome. And I don't want to put words in your mouth. Perhaps you could correct me if I'm wrong. You started your remarks by essentially saying that you felt your organization has been essentially disciplined, punished, or inconvenienced in some way based on the fact that you've opposed at least the consultation process of the first nations governance agreement. Is it true that your organization feels you have been effectively silenced because you disagree politically with the current minister?

Ms. Terri Brown: Yes, definitely that's the very clear message we're getting.

I want to mention at this point that he has not met with any women's groups. I don't know if he's met with the new national group, but I talked to Pauktuutit and the Métis women. As of December, he has not had any meaningful discussions with any women.

Á (1135)

Mr. Pat Martin: And this new puppet group, then, this new organization that's been set up by the minister because they will cooperate, do they actually have a person placed on the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee and your organization has not? Is that true?

Ms. Terri Brown: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Are you satisfied that the recommendations in your brief are going to find their way into the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee? Will that other organization faithfully represent the views you've brought to our attention today?

Ms. Terri Brown: I wish I could get beyond it, but in terms of participating in a process that has very clearly discriminated against us, I couldn't say I could cooperate with this group at this point. It's just been too damaging for our group.

In the summer we were offered $1.2 million. I was looking at the agreement offered to us before Halifax just yesterday. The money was basically in the bank. We are holding the bag on the money spent on preparing the initiative, the preliminary work in preparation, $150,000. We don't have a huge budget, but we never did receive any of the $1.2 million, which I believe the other group--

Mr. Pat Martin: So you've had your funding cut because you weren't falling into line and cooperating with Nault's consultation initiative. For your information, yours is the second organization that's come to us and said this. The AFN feels it's being disciplined or punished or having its wrists slapped in some way for not falling into goose step with this whole process.

I would point out that what's going to be thrown at you soon with this new legislation is going to be very complex, very complicated. You are going to need a lot of technical research to be able to represent your views, or to be sure that the views in this document somehow find their way into the amendments of the Indian Act. At the very point where you most need good research and skilled people on staff, you're having your ability to represent yourself undermined.

Ms. Terri Brown: Right.

Mr. Pat Martin: This is unbelievable, Mr. Chair. I hope the other committee members are as shocked by this as I am.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming today. As you said, it's very important that you're heard on new governance and that's what you're here for today. Hopefully we can get some more information on this.

I was interested in your comment on the need to change the Indian Act. When we had the grand chief for the AFN here, I think he said this wasn't the time to change the act, that there were other, more important things on their agenda that we should go forth with. I assume you're not in agreement. You're suggesting we should change the Indian Act.

Ms. Terri Brown: The Native Women's Association has always said we want to change the act. It is discriminatory against aboriginal women and very sexist. Obviously it has led to generations of destruction in our aboriginal communities. The traditional role of women has been seriously undermined. We can't say we've changed this message.

But the way the process has gone has been very problematic and very destructive. The issues are still there--matrimony, property rights, loss of nationhood or status of generations of our children. The issues will not go away; they are there. And the issues Nault brought up--accountability and all of those things--are definitely part of the discussion, but we didn't want to leave out our serious issues that we have been pushing for over the decades.

We do want to change the act, but the approach is everything. How effective the legislation is going to be is all in the design. We were not consulted from the very first step, and this is very problematic for us.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I'm glad you've gotten those items of suggested change on the record here.

My second question is a general one relating to governance. At least in my opinion, one of the ways to improve governance is to transfer more responsibilities to first nations' governments. Canada has been successful in varying degrees in different arrangements across the country. It's worked out quite well in some areas.

As these governments become more self-governing and have more powers, do you feel there are mechanisms also being put in place for redress? For instance, are there mechanisms in place if people want to appeal a decision or have problems with those governments? Your group in particular may have special needs in this area. I'm not sure whether they've been met.

I'm curious about your thoughts on redress and appeal.

Á (1140)

Ms. Terri Brown: I didn't go through the whole presentation, but we do have in it recommendations on redress, family law, and conflict of interest. These kinds of things are definitely important for aboriginal women because our individual rights need to be reflected in the act as well as our collective rights.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: You have 25 seconds.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: All right, I'll ask this question and you may have to answer it later.

It's not an easy question, but you alluded to the fact that we're all painfully aware of the tragic fact of the high incidence of poverty and abuse. I think everyone on the committee understands that and are here to try to figure out solutions to it. I'm wondering if you could comment on what some of the first steps are that we could take to reduce this poverty and to reduce the level of abuse, which is, of course, unacceptable and above average.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The department's fact sheet on accountability noted that the Indian Act doesn't deal with accountability and indicated that some of the consultations upcoming would be on the issues of political and financial accountability. Would you agree with the AFN where they say that already first nations have to meet, as they put it, accountability requirements greater than those applicable to other levels of government, and that matters of accountability should be addressed by negotiation method instead of by legislation? They say it's already quite high enough and higher than what's expected of others. What would be your official position? How do you view the political and financial accountability of first nations governments to their members? Do you think there's enough accountability? Should it be more or is it too much already in terms of political and financial accountability?

Ms. Terri Brown: I can say that accountability can always be improved. In terms of the aboriginal women's position, we want governments to be accountable. We not only want them to be accountable, but we want gender rights reflected in any of our bylaws. Accountability is an issue, of course, with the Department of Indian Affairs administering everything. It's done from the outside, the accountability, and I don't know how much.... It's an issue. Administratively it's an issue.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can you give us an example in terms of a band? In your view, if we say that there could be improvement, as there should be in all levels of government, what would you have as a specific suggestion to improve political and financial accountability, say, on bands in my constituency? And we have some good people there, some people who desire to serve and want to see things improve and go ahead. I'd like a specific suggestion from you as to how there could be an improvement to political and financial accountability.

Ms. Terri Brown: There needs to be more involvement of the membership and accountability of leadership. There needs to be some policy on removal of leadership if that's an issue. There should be reporting on programs and what the benefits are for each member, what are the assets being held in trust, that kind of thing.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So there should be more constitutionally required or stipulated meetings in respect of those things, for scrutiny of those issues, you're saying?

Ms. Terri Brown: More openness, I would say.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I don't know if you'll have time to answer this, but in terms of the current electoral process on and off reserve, do you have specific suggestions as to how that could be improved, in terms of accountability?

Ms. Terri Brown: That is very new--

The Chair: Sorry. I will say that if there is any information you feel you didn't have time to get in, send us a document. We will make sure it's distributed with everyone. But you will have closing remarks, so take notes.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Á (1145)

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you.

When we were doing the Nisga'a treaty we heard also from Native Women's Association of Canada then. They were concerned that there was still no role for women even in the self-government agreements. We were assured by Indian Affairs that there were mechanisms in the self-government agreement. Because I worked with the Nisga'a treaty, I'll use that for an example.

We've heard from some groups that even if we do the governance act, they hope to have an opportunity to sign their self-government agreements so that they would not be governed so much by the Indian Act. For those who you think will not be governed by the new act, do you see an improvement now in the communities, where women have more of a role? Let's say for the people who are affected by the Nisga'a treaty, are they actually putting into action what they said they would do by giving women more role? We talked about matrimonial property and the problem with that. Can you enlighten us as to what changes you see happening in those groups?

Ms. Terri Brown: Sure. I don't have the full analysis of the Nisga'a treaty, but I could say that in general it's not viewed as being very representative of women or as having included women more than before. The problem is that it's one thing for folks to say they're going to do something. But when you have it in writing and part of legislation, that's where the accountability comes in. Gender parity in government, and employment, and wage equity, those kinds of things, need to be written because we can't go on the goodwill of people anymore. We've been promised everything, including the moon, but we haven't received.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: The other statement we kept hearing was that women should be covered under the Charter of Rights. They should be able to use it to gain what they're asking for. Maybe you can enlighten us as to the difficulties.

I know, for those coming from small communities, a lot of it has to do with the attitudes of people in the community. Unless it changes, it's very difficult to deal with domestic violence and property rights. They said people could keep turning to the human rights charter.

Ms. Terri Brown: Yes. We've always said individual rights need to be considered for women. We cannot be exempt from the charter because we live on a reservation and are suffering all of the social ills and violence in that connection. We do need to enshrine individual rights.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, it is still my turn, and I would like to go further into the problems that aboriginal women are facing, along the same lines as Nancy.

When an aboriginal nation gains more autonomy, what is the direct impact on women? You have mentioned quite often that sexism is what you have inherited from colonialism. When one part of this heritage is put aside by an agreement on self-determination, in the case of the Nisga'as, for example, is women's status modified? If yes, is it for better or for worse.

[English]

Ms. Terri Brown: I guess I want to make the point that I wish we could set aside periods of history. The impact on our people has been a long legacy of facing systemic racism, for example, and sexism.

It's very difficult. Definitely in the past we had a very strong role, a traditional role, in our communities that has been seriously undermined and almost eliminated in a lot of cases. Our society was operated on matriarchal laws, or matrilineal laws, that we were displaced from. The role of women has diminished seriously.

In the movement to being self-governing, we're saying we want to restore some of the roles and replace being excluded from, for example, the Indian Act. The Indian Act has discriminated against us, and colonialism has done very serious damage in our communities.

Á (1150)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: OK. To get back specifically to my question, does an agreement on governance change the status of women in the community that is involved? If yes, is it for better or for worse? Do we have recent examples of changes in the status of women following an agreement on governance.

[English]

Ms. Terri Brown: We're saying we do want to move forward with the agreements because we want to be self-governing. It's definitely something we want to move towards.

When the agreements are developed, or legislation is developed, we want to compare it under a gender lens. Is it more inclusive? We want to be inclusive of women. We want women in government. We want women employed and all of those points. It's what we want to see in the agreements. We want to evaluate it under the gender lens.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Carignan.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Ind.): Good afternoon, Ms. Brown. In your brief, you mention at length the difficult situation that women have faced in the past and until recently. One of your recommendations states that the rules of justice should be stipulated in general terms in the Indian Act.

Does this mean that the situation is so crucial that rules of natural justice must be stipulated in a statute? If not, then what is the meaning of this recommendation on the last page of your brief? It is the second recommendation at the top of the page:

Broadly prescribe natural justice rules and procedures into the Indian Act.

[English]

Ms. Terri Brown: I guess on that point what we're referring to is administrative law, that the administrative bodies need to be open and transparent and fair to women.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to go back to the consultation process, or what you know of it, with the first nations governance agreement. We've been told now there has been $10 million allocated to conduct this comprehensive consultation. The AFN and other groups tell us that only about 600 people have actually gone to any meetings across the country.

So what would your view be? What would broad consultation look like, in your mind? If there was a true consultation process going on, how would you envision that? Say you were able to agree on a consultation process; what would that process look like?

Ms. Terri Brown: From our point of view, definitely more than 600 people would be consulted. We have the ability to consult with our constituents because of our natural networking and our ability to relate much more effectively than government.

The process in itself would be reflective of the talking points we want in there, not just specifically what government says we can and should be talking about. There are other broader issues for women, which we've been talking about, as I mentioned, over the years. So we would incorporate all those issues, doing it on a more grassroots level because, again, we have the ability to sit down as aboriginal women and talk about very important, very difficult issues that we may not otherwise be able to do when there are government people sitting at the table.

For example, one of the issues was the facilitation. The government insisted on facilitating these consultations, and we insisted that we should be facilitating it. When you think about it, it's very simple to deal with that point, but when you're talking to government, it isn't. You begin to be manipulated on issues, influenced on issues, when really, if we sit down as women, we can get through some very difficult discussions. I really have a lot of faith in aboriginal women being able to sit down, when there isn't the interference by government, and talk about serious issues, and we have done so in the past.

Á (1155)

Mr. Pat Martin: Would it be your view that the government has missed an opportunity for broad consultation by bypassing the legitimate, established organization that represents aboriginal women in this country? In other words, by choosing to have you silenced.... If they were serious about genuine, broad consultation, they could have taken advantage of that network of organizations that is the Native Women's Association of Canada--an enormous missed opportunity.

More and more people are telling us that this whole consultation has been an absolute sham, an absolute farce. As evidence of that, I actually demanded the production of papers, which means all the billing, all the money spent on this consultation process. I was told yesterday in the House of Commons that no such papers exist. So they have a $10-million budget, with no accounting, to talk to 600 people, and when those 600 people come out, they don't want to talk about accountability; they want to talk about housing, health care, and poverty.

The Chair: Thank you. You have an important issue, but we're well over three minutes.

Are there any other questions or comments? Then that completes this round.

I will have time for three more three-minute questions. I'm looking for hands--Mr. Vellacott, Mr. Bagnell, Mr. Marceau. After that, we'll have closing remarks.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In follow-up from what Richard asked about earlier on the issue of self-government, women, as you pointed out before as well, Terri, had concerns or expressed some reservations about the Nisga'a agreement. Is it automatic that self-government will improve the lot of women--it's a bit of a leading question here--or does it depend on the details of that self-government? When you have women coming to members and so on expressing their concerns about that or other types of self-government.... Just respond on that. Is it automatic that self-government will improve the lot of women, guaranteed, or does it have to do with the detail?

Ms. Terri Brown: It's a very complex question, but if it were so simple.... It's about inclusion, and this is a very good example of how you can be exclusive or inclusive, or representative of over 50% of the population on the self-governance initiative.

Self-government in itself has been our dream. Since I was a very young person getting into politics in the Yukon, it has always been our dream to move towards that, because we want to be free people, we want to be governing, we want to be able to make decisions for ourselves that affect our generations, not just ourselves.

But the whole process is very important. The inclusion of women would guarantee for us that our issues are looked at and that they're written in the laws, that they're not just given as verbal agreements.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right, I hear you.

You said that before, too, the fact of writing it in law.... We can just depend on the goodwill of people, but that's not quite fine enough, human nature being what it is.

Getting back to my prior question, you didn't get much of a chance to respond, but to your knowledge, what are first nations women's views of the current electoral process? If you had suggestions for improvement in that area, on the electoral accountability, what would those suggestions be? You know the situations, the bands across Canada that are working well and some maybe less so. What would you have as specific recommendations for us on improving electoral accountability?

Ms. Terri Brown: Electoral accountability is very costly when you talk about truly including people who live off the reserve. Again, 50% of women live off the reserve for very obvious reasons of social conditions, discrimination, lack of housing, and education, etc. They left the communities for very good reasons, were excluded over the years, and could not vote.

We're saying the nations are making efforts to include them, but it's very costly. It needs to be very strategic in terms of developing a plan on where the people are, how they're going to include them, and how to include as many as possible. It would be representative government.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You're saying, if they're going to get true accountability, democracy costs. There would need to be more dollars for the monitoring and implementation of a good, fair, and proper process all the way through, and so on.

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: As I have the last question on this, my colleagues also gave me a question. I'll give you two questions. You can answer whichever one you want.

Under the present system and laws, what is stopping the chiefs from incorporating women, using women in governance, and involving them in the operations, management, and governance of first nations?

My second question is one I asked before. We all understand the tragic situation of above-average levels of poverty and violence. We all want to try to reduce it. Do you have any suggestions on how we might do it for first nations?

Â (1200)

Ms. Terri Brown: On your first question, I believe the exclusion of aboriginal women is the legacy of the Indian Act. It has displaced us and eliminated us from being effective leaders or even participating in leadership at all. It has had a long-lasting impact.

Now we're saying we're back. We're educated women. We want to be included. We want to be employed meaningfully. We want to be, in a meaningful way, represented in government.

Was your second question on poverty?

Mr. Larry Bagnell: How can we reduce poverty and violence?

Ms. Terri Brown: One aspect would be to fund aboriginal women's groups. There are many groups across the country. Ours is one of the few that are funded. Now there is the new group that was recently funded.

Most women work on a volunteer basis. We are underemployed and unemployed. We're the ones most affected by poverty and violence. We have the answers. We have very workable solutions for you, if you would like to listen. We definitely can't get into a meaningful a discussion today, but as a follow-up we can do it. We have answers. We're suffering a great deal. A little bit of resources for women goes a long way. We don't need to be overly funded, but we definitely need money for women to work.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Ms. Brown, you told me just now that there absolutely needs to be a greater place for women in the agreement. You referred to gender lens, or something to that effect, so that the issues concerning the status of women would be taken into consideration at that point.

Does this go somewhat against the very principle of self-determination or self-government, for this type of stipulation to be included in the agreement? If you believe strongly in the principle of self-government, shouldn't the status of women be addressed within the nation itself and not within the agreement?

What this seems to do is give another government, in this case the federal government, the option of saying how affairs will be managed within a nation that will later be autonomous.

[English]

Ms. Terri Brown: On the issue of the gender lens, I mentioned the gender lens because it currently exists in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. It's called the gender equality analysis policy. It's supposed to be reflected in all policy development and legislation.

I don't believe the government can solve all of our problems. On the other hand, we do need legislation for women to guarantee our rights are reflected.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Therefore, you don't trust the aboriginal government to solve that problem.

[English]

Ms. Terri Brown: It's not that I don't trust that they will solve the problem, but it may not be placed as a priority in terms of solving problems for women. We want it prioritized and put at the top of the list so that we are included in a meaningful way. Of course, if it's part of legislation or bylaws, it's more likely to be followed.

Reflecting on that again, it depends on the commitment and the active role of women. When women are not paid for working, they cannot be part of the economy. They cannot be part of government decision-making. Our groups are seriously underfunded, underresourced. If we were funded at the levels the AFN is, for example, we could be more effective and have a more meaningful role.

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Marceau.

We have five minutes for closing remarks, and they belong to you. We will conclude at the end of your remarks, so I will take this opportunity to thank you very much for your contribution. It was very helpful, and it will continue to be helpful because you will be involved in the consultation once we receive the legislation from the House. Please proceed with your closing remarks, Ms. Brown. Thank you again.

Â (1205)

Ms. Terri Brown: I just want to thank you again for inviting me to do a presentation today. I am very honoured to represent the aboriginal women of Canada. I plan to do so in a very meaningful way and to work in cooperation with government.

We cannot accept the moves of government, for example, that Minister Nault has engaged in. We cannot be accepting of any of this manipulation of our position and undermining us. I'm hoping this information will get to the right people and you can reflect our position.

The aboriginal women of Canada have suffered a great deal. We're not talking about some theories or ideas. It's very personal for us. On a daily basis we face challenges as aboriginal women. For you, it's very different. It's very removed from you. For us, it's a reality. When we go to our home communities, we see people dying. I just returned from Vancouver the other day. The community there is very devastated because 50 women were killed. You don't know about the other 200-plus women who have disappeared over a period of 20 years. We just hear about that.

Systemic racism affects our lives in every way. We want to challenge that, and we want to say to people that we cannot stand by and watch our people die as a result of poverty. Our youth are so devastated that they're killing themselves. We're facing oppression. We learned oppression. We've learned to oppress each other. We want to stand up and say we don't accept that anymore. It's an issue for aboriginal women.

We want to have rights reflected in any governance initiative. We want to be included because it means that whether our nation survives depends on our actions today. We take our work very seriously. We're not overly paid people. We do it because we're committed and we want changes. We want effective changes and we can't wait forever.

So I put all the issues to you. I hope you can proceed in a manner that is very cooperative and respectful of aboriginal women, because we deserve that respect. We not only deserve that respect, we demand that respect from government. They should be respectful of us and inclusive of us.

With that, I thank you very much. I hope to see you again.

The Chair: Again, thank you, Ms. Brown and Ms. Baptiste. Through you, I thank the Native Women's Association of Canada.

We will suspend for two minutes and resume with the National Aboriginal Women's Association.

Â (1208)

Â (1214)

The Chair: We will resume proceedings. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing with the overview of the Indian Act.

We have with us for this part of the meeting, from the National Aboriginal Women's Association, the president, Pamela Paul, and the vice-president, Jennifer Sinclair. I invite you to make your presentations, after which we will undergo a series of questions and you will have an opportunity for closing remarks.

I'm very strict on time. This way we get more questions in. I urge my colleagues to ask short questions. If you don't have time to respond completely, sneak it into your next response. You will have an opportunity for closing remarks.

Please proceed.

Â (1215)

Ms. Pamela Paul (President, National Aboriginal Women's Association): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the National Aboriginal Women's Association position on the first nations governance initiative. While we are supportive of the initiative, some fundamental departures from three of our areas of concern--elections, accountability, and the legal status of first nation councils--are currently being embodied in the discussions.

I cannot comment to any great length on these three areas. The discussions of the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee--I see you've been referring to it as JMAC--in which we fully participated, have not been reviewed by our board of directors. We will be having a meeting in Vancouver next week to address the JMAC papers and formulate our official response.

I'd now like to address the committee on concerns our organization has in relation to the place of women in Canadian and aboriginal society. The National Aboriginal Women's Association--I'll use the short term NAWA--is a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization that conducts research into policies and regulations affecting the lives and well-being of aboriginal women in Canada. As well, NAWA advises governments at all levels when they undertake to improve the lives and communities of aboriginal women. NAWA also seeks to empower and enrich the economic and social well-being of aboriginal women and their families, thereby improving and strengthening aboriginal communities across Canada.

Legislative and structural barriers that prevent aboriginal women from full participation in aboriginal governance, or that fail to recognize basic human rights for aboriginal people, contribute to keeping communities and their economies at a disadvantage compared to their counterparts in mainstream society. It is vital that any framework for first nations governance, whether pursuant to the Indian Act or a first nations constitution, ensures that the human rights of aboriginal people are protected and entrenched. The ability to self-govern is a prerequisite for achieving equality, human dignity, freedom from discrimination, and full enjoyment of all human rights.

A strong role for women must be embedded in the structure of first nations governments if we are to achieve all these objectives, especially those of equality and human dignity. This would ensure a balanced and fair societal structure. People are not born knowing what the concepts of freedom, justice, and democracy are; it takes enormous effort--and enormous individual effort above all--to arrive at the respect for other people implied by these words.

The Indian Act “belongs” to the federal government and is subject to change by whatever government party holds power. It is not a first nations governance act, nor is it even a first nations developed initiative. Aboriginal people do not own, nor will they ever take ownership of, the Indian Act.

NAWA has been a partner on the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee on the First Nations Governance Initiative discussing proposed changes to the Indian Act. NAWA's members have requested a venue to participate in this important process. NAWA's role on the JMAC is to keep our committee updated and bring their concerns to the table and to this committee when the cabinet hearings are held. NAWA has developed a cooperative and coordinated process between a national aboriginal women's group and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to ensure that the concerns of our members have been brought forward.

Because the Indian Act is federal government legislation, NAWA feels it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that the basic human rights of aboriginal women are protected in any proposed changes until such time as first nations governments and communities develop constitutions that promote fairness, equality, and accountability to their members.

To date, the federal government has not done a great job in protecting the human rights of aboriginal women. Over the past two and a half centuries, the process of colonization, often aided by the federal government of the day, has played a large role in the marginalization of aboriginal people, especially women. Aboriginal women have been the targets of legislated sections of the Indian Act; as a result, they have found themselves in a position within our society where they have fewer fundamental rights than aboriginal men. In effect, the Indian Act has legitimized discrimination against aboriginal women, both at the external level of government policy and at the internal level of their local aboriginal communities.

For example, the status category of the Indian Act, whereby aboriginal women lost their Indian status when they married a non-status individual, and non-aboriginal women gained Indian status when they married an aboriginal man, reinforced the unequal treatment of aboriginal women by legalizing sexual discrimination and the power of males, institutionalizing inequalities.

Â (1220)

In 1985, Bill C-31 brought in major amendments to the Indian Act. These were intended to bring Canada in line with the equality rights section of the Canadian Charter of Rights by removing the discrimination against aboriginal women. It's been 17 years since Bill C-31, an Act to Amend the Indian Act, was enacted and implemented. And the effects of these changes have yet to be studied in great detail. However, there have been some studies. We are aware that continued discrimination exists and that aboriginal people in Canada are still subject to a legislated identity. That was the last major change to the Indian Act.

This governance initiative will introduce legislation intended to provide the tools for good governance. In principle, NAWA agrees with the recommendations that were put forward by the JMAC. However, we will need to fully examine the legislative package that will be developed from the recommendations before taking a final position. The JMAC's work produced documents that carefully examined and provided options that followed the guiding principle that the legislation should not take away from our aboriginal and treaty rights. An examination of the documents and reports produced by JMAC will illustrate and clarify a number of the concerns raised by other groups.

However, as in any situation where change will directly impact upon people's lives, we go into this process with our eyes wide open and with concerns regarding the impact of the changes, especially to aboriginal women. We proceed with caution. We do this because of the impact of the last changes to the Indian Act, more commonly known as Bill C-31. Although the intent may have been sincere, the impact was immense to first nation communities.

The intent of this legislation is to somehow balance the power and include some accountability by the first nation councils to their members. The NAWA is not convinced that these changes will have the desired results, but they are a transitional step.

According to the Institute on Governance, “Fundamentally, governance is about power, relationships, and accountability: who has influence, who decides, and how decision makers are held accountable”. Stable and sustainable governments are dependent on a clear division of powers and accountability.

Good governance for aboriginal women must include provisions that assure women a role in all aspects of governance, a structure that allows for dispute resolution; rules of natural justice; the rights of all members; transparency and providing information to members; conflict of interest guidelines for decision-making; criteria for removal of leaders; provisions to deal with family issues such as possession of, valuation of, and division of matrimonial property located on reserve; obtaining maintenance for children of a first nations member; and enforcement of restraining orders. These are all the principles required to ensure that basic human rights are protected.

NAWA is not in agreement with, and it will never accept, the idea that the Canadian Human Rights Act not apply to the Indian Act. NAWA has discussed the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Indian Act, and how these acts relate to aboriginal women. NAWA feels that the government must ensure that human rights for aboriginal women are based on and protected in Canadian and international law. We strongly recommend that there be a mechanism developed for enforcement and protection of those rights.

At a discussion group on governance hosted by NAWA, aboriginal women made a recommendation, which NAWA supports, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a signatory, apply to all aboriginal peoples, including first nation, Inuit and Métis. The principle of human rights for aboriginal women is an inalienable right to which every human being is entitled. These rights are non-negotiable. Throughout the world human rights cross all cultural or traditional barriers.

Self-government agreements and modern day treaties need to assure, at the very least, the following elements for good governance: a first nations human rights panel; a first nations ombudsperson office; gender analysis in all self-government agreements and legislative bills; a first nations gender lens; the participation of first nations women in governance structures; and dispute resolution mechanisms.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and the committee, NAWA is supportive of finding a new relationship with the broad Canadian society. Our concern is that the history of the Indian Act has not been empathetic to the plight of aboriginal women in Canada.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to introduce our organization and to make these points for your consideration. And we'll take any questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. I'm convinced that, as with the previous group, you will incite many questions.

I do not participate in asking questions on this committee as a rule. I will make a personal comment on who owns the laws in this country. My interpretation is that there's a bill being written, and at this point it belongs to the government, which means the cabinet, because a government is the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Once the minister tables it in the House, it no longer belongs to the government, in my view; it belongs to the House. That is why it's referred to a committee of all parties. And once it's passed, it belongs to the people of Canada.

So even though I am a member of the party that is in government, I don't feel that politicians own anything more in Canada than any other citizen. So that's my view, and I'd like to express it to set the record straight.

Mr. Vellacott has the first question on a four-minute round.

Â (1225)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I could get into the issue of the origin of your group and why it came up, and if there's time, I might want to pursue that later. I do understand that we should have women represented forcefully and repeatedly, and I'm not of the view that it can't be done with several different voices. But we don't want it diluted, either.

My question concerns the Canadian Human Rights Act. I'm looking at page 5 of your brief. I've heard this talked about before, and I've been given specific examples by native women who have come to me. The impression I have is that at the end of the day the Indian Act trumps the Canadian Human Rights Act such that Indian women are not given the benefit of the Canadian Human Rights Act as are all other non-aboriginal women. Is that correct? So you're not fully under the Constitution and the Canadian Human Rights Act in particular.

Ms. Pamela Paul: That's right. Section 67 exempts the Indian Act from the Canadian Human Rights Act . But it's not just women; it's everyone under the Indian Act.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So when it comes to grievances and issues that would be assumed to be your right and prerogative, as for the rest of non-aboriginal society, these things don't apply to you.

Ms. Pamela Paul: That's right.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can you give me specific examples of where that hurts aboriginal women the most, where they have some issues or grievances or a traumatic situation? Without giving names, can you give me maybe one or two specific examples of that , Jennifer?

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair (Vice-President, National Aboriginal Women's Association): More specifically, it would be under matrimonial property rights. That's not recognized under the Indian Act. So if a woman who is living on a reserve runs into difficulty with her marriage, whether it be through a divorce or her husband dying, she has no right to the property on the reserve, and it would revert to another man in the family. There are instances right across Canada where thousands of women are currently living on the streets of our cities. These are women who have been exiled from their communities and who have no resources and no mechanism to be able to discuss their property rights with their community.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: There is no fee simple ownership of property on most reserves, aside from certificates of possession, as long as they're honoured and so on. How does that work? Is there a difficulty in not having fee simple ownership of property? Is that also part of the issue?

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair: The Indian Act fails to recognize matrimonial property rights, and when there is a case where a woman would have to leave or there is a divorce and there's a question as to who--

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Let me interject here. If I understand correctly, as things stand on the reserve, it's common or pool property anyhow. So if you're in a home, you don't ultimately have that home as a husband and wife. Is that correct?

Ms. Pamela Paul: I participated in a discussion group on matrimonial property rights this past weekend, so I can speak to it because I learned a lot there.

There are three situations you might find on reserve: band-owned houses, where the band has total control of who lives in the house, who inherits the house, and all of those things. On some reserves the property can be sold to another band member, and a certificate of possession is held by the band member. The third one is just the common property.

If I were living in a band-owned home and I split up with my husband and my husband's brother was the chief, then I could conceivably be asked to leave that home without any recourse, because the decision of who stays in the home or leaves lies with the band. There are no set rules.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

Â (1230)

Mr. Richard Marceau: Good afternoon, and thank you for being here. Your organization's existence has been put in doubt. I would like to hear you to learn more about your organization, whose legitimacy has been put in doubt several times. I prefer hearing your point of view.

When was it founded?

[English]

Ms. Pamela Paul: Okay. Thank you.

I would actually like to deal with that issue. For one thing, we were set up in October. Some women's groups came to me and said, “Could you please set up another organization that would ensure we had a place at the governance discussions?” So that's what we did.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Therefore, it was a reaction to the refusal of the preceding organization to participate in the governance process.

[English]

Ms. Pamela Paul: Yes. Just as a brief history, I was the executive director at that organization. I was the one who was negotiating the contribution agreement on the governance.

The board could not make up its mind one way or another. One day we said yes; one day we said no. Some days we sent letters saying we weren't going to be in, and the next time we said yes, and asked for an agreement. So when the agreement finally came into place, there was a vote by the board, and they could not come to a decision to sign that agreement.

Because of that, some of the other women, who were maybe not even part of the other organization--some of them are not part of the other organization--asked if we could do something that would ensure that particular group could have a place at this table. That's what we did.

Honestly, I'm going to speak to this organization because I heard the legitimacy being questioned, and I kind of resent that. If you say that, you're saying our members--we have nine groups so far because we've only been in existence for four months--are not legitimate, and they are. We have organizations like the Institute for the Advancement of Aboriginal Women, and several others. These are our members in Alberta. So I'm going to speak to that.

Jennifer and I put the organization together, and for two months we worked for nothing. So it is a legitimate organization. We do not compete with the other organization. We are in integrated policy and research. That to us is something different from a political organization.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: You mentioned that at the start you worked on a volunteer basis. How much money do you have for your organization's operations, and where does the money come from?

[English]

Ms. Pamela Paul: We are only funded to work on the governance issue right now. It is not our goal to seek core funding anywhere. We are going to work by project.

For example, our next project is with Industry Canada, working on an aboriginal women's business support centre. That is where our funding comes from. We work as researchers and writers. We do the work ourselves.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: The Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Mr. Coon Come, appeared before this committee and clearly stated his refusal to participate in the governance process, and he claimed that the consultation process was biased, incomplete, unscientific, in short, that the consultation process was worthless. I am summarizing what he said; these are his words, not mine.

Are you satisfied with the consultation process? Do you believe that it is sufficiently wide, and complete, and that it will provide the government or the department a proper vision of what aboriginal peoples are thinking across Canada?

[English]

Ms. Pamela Paul: Honestly, I think the consultation process could have been a little better, but I look at consultation in a different way than other people do. The way we look at consultation, agreeing to discuss it with you doesn't mean we're going to agree on the outcome.

So was it okay? Yes, it was okay. Everybody had the opportunity to come forward and say, “I don't like this.” Everybody had that opportunity, but most people chose to reject it rather than say anything. You could have come forward and said, “I don't like these questions. They're not written properly. We don't agree with this. We don't like accountability.” I think the consultation could have been better, but I also think there was a responsibility for aboriginal people to come forward and say at the time, “We don't like these consultations. We don't like these things. We prefer to do it this way.” I think responsibility goes both ways.

Â (1235)

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

The Chair: I'm very sorry. I apologize. Mr. Martin, of course. I was more concerned that we were two seconds away from five minutes. The information was important. I apologize.

Mr. Pat Martin: Not at all.

Thank you for your brief. I guess I would jump right into the issue of having the two separate organizations. The first nations of Canada have said they think the whole consultation process was such a sham that they didn't want to take part in it. They feel the content of the first nations governance initiative isn't dealing with issues they would like to see dealt with. It's only dealing with accountability, the elections process, and the legal status of first nations communities, as far as we can guess, because we haven't seen it either.

I notice that the issues you advocate on behalf of are really quite different. There are more complex social issues that won't be addressed. So your organization was put on the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee--I have their latest brief here from March 8--and the other organization wasn't. You can't blame people for assuming you were created, you were manufactured, just to collaborate with the minister on this initiative, even though, frankly, the views that you say you were created to undertake aren't being addressed in this first nations governance, nor will they be addressed by the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee.

It says here that matrimonial property rights will not be dealt with and should probably be dealt with in some subsequent review the next time the act is opened up, five or ten years from now. But it definitely won't be part of this bill.

How can you blame people for thinking you were set up as some sort of a puppet organization? You know, this organization wouldn't cooperate so we're going to find an organization that will.

Ms. Pamela Paul: I told you the story of why the other organization wouldn't cooperate.

Mr. Pat Martin: You were the executive director--

Ms. Pamela Paul: Yes, I was.

Mr. Pat Martin: --and you lost the election, so a new person came in.

Ms. Pamela Paul: No, it had nothing to do with the election. It has to do with the women coming forward and saying, “Can we get in on this governance process?” Because the other organization.... Let me tell you something. Our organization--

Mr. Pat Martin: The leadership of the aboriginal community agreed that the process and the content were so flawed that they weren't going to play ball at this time.

Ms. Pamela Paul: I'm going to say just one thing. One model for everybody doesn't work any more. One organization speaking for everybody doesn't work, and we're seeing that break down all over the place.

Our organization is not a puppet of the government. We are making sure our women understand this process. They have the report. You don't have the report; we have the report and they have the report. They have the analysis of the report.

Mr. Pat Martin: Which report? The actual content or--

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Martin. I will intervene at this point.

The fact that both organizations, both associations, were invited to this committee confirms the legitimacy of both groups, so that is a given. I don't think this committee should question that validity.

Ms. Pamela Paul: I agree.

The Chair: You are recognized; you are here. That doesn't prevent you from making any comments you wish.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Are you saying you've seen the content of the first nations governance initiative? Do the groups you represent have a copy of what's going to be in the bills?

Ms. Pamela Paul: How would we have it?

Mr. Pat Martin: I thought you just said you had circulated it amongst your people.

Ms. Pamela Paul: I have the JMAC report. Our members have it. They have an analysis of it and know what's going on. They've been informed since we've been on the committee. It is why they asked us to be on the committee.

Mr. Pat Martin: You're nine member groups. How many groups are represented by the other organization?

Ms. Pamela Paul: I don't know.

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair: The other aboriginal women's group is represented by provinces. In other words, if you are not a member of a provincial organization, you have no voice at the national level.

My work in the past has been involved with children who are on the street, sexually exploited children and youth. We also do an awful lot of work with women who are homeless on the streets, and their families. Unless those women belong to a group that is recognized at the provincial level, their voices are not going to make it to the national level for you people to be able to hear.

This organization wants to focus on bringing in women who wouldn't normally be heard through a provincial organization or the voice of a chief.

Mr. Pat Martin: What is the budget you've been given to undertake on the governance issue alone?

Ms. Pamela Paul: We've been give $255,000. A lot of it went to legal fees. A lot of it pays for Jennifer and me and our technical working group. That's about it.

Â (1240)

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair: Yes. We brought in twenty women from across Canada.

Ms. Pamela Paul: It's what funds us. We don't get core funding.

Mr. Pat Martin: You were funded specifically to represent aboriginal women at the governance initiative.

Ms. Pamela Paul: That's right.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Madam President and Madam Vice-President, for your enlightening report. It brings a lot of light and dispels a lot of fog from what we're dealing with here.

You seek to empower and enrich the economic and social well-being of aboriginal women and their families, thereby improving and strengthening aboriginal communities across Canada.

Ms. Pamela Paul: It's a lofty goal.

Mr. John Finlay: It is what the governance initiative of the minister is all about. He has made it perfectly clear, as you've made it clear, that anything aboriginal women or any other aboriginal people wish to see included or to comment upon is fair in this consultation.

You also get some reason in the consultation. It takes two people to consult. If you refuse to belong to a committee, then I guess you refuse to belong to a committee. If you don't get in there and muck about, you may get nothing out of it.

It's what we've been facing for years, déjà vu. I've heard this same argument over and over again when things are to be done, when Indian woman are being discriminated against, when children are not ready for school, and when we don't have decent housing. Everything the minister is trying to do will not produce nirvana, but some steps up along the way. It has to start with empowerment, capacity building,and strengthening communities. It won't be done any other way.

You seem to have it in the first two pages. I urge my colleagues to read it and understand what you're saying.

We're trying to do exactly that with the Indian Act. The legislation should not take away from our aboriginal and treaty rights. We've said it until we're dry in the mouth from saying it. It doesn't seem to make any difference with certain leadership. I don't know why they don't get tired of it. They've been doing it and saying it for as long as I've been around. It hasn't made much difference.

What we're doing now is going to make some difference. You've already told us things I didn't know about the Indian Act. There you are. We'll all learn a lot more about it.

I want to ask you a question. You made it, I think, quite clear on page five of your brief. NAWA feels the government must ensure that human rights for aboriginal women are based on, and protected in, Canadian and international law. I naively thought they were, and all natives were, under the Constitution and the Human Rights Act. Now you say we are not. I think you quoted section 64.

Ms. Pamela Paul: It was section 67.

Mr. John Finlay: I'm sorry, it was section 67. Could you enlarge on it for me, please?

Ms. Pamela Paul: One thing I neglected to mention is that there has been a review by Canadian Human Rights Commission. One of their recommendations is that the section 67 exemption be removed. I want to find it here, if I can.

Mr. John Finlay: Excuse me, Madam President, our researchers told me it's section 67 of the Human Rights Act that excludes....

Witnesses: Yes.

Mr. John Finlay: I'll check that myself. Thank you very much.

The Chair: If Mr. Finlay doesn't have a question, I will move to Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thanks so much. I appreciate the insights we've gained along the way here.

I want to go back to your own statement here, because in terms of the priorities for self-government agreements and modern day treaties, you note as being absolutely essential for good governance a first nations human rights panel, and a first nations ombudsperson office. A Canadian Alliance member of Parliament, Myron Thompson, has for some time now had a private member's bill in terms of an ombudsman, or ombudsperson as you call it here, that type of thing, to address some of the anomalies and some of the seeming discrepancies that exist in terms of rights that aboriginal people appear not to have, that are just assumed and taken for granted out there in a non-aboriginal world.

Getting back to this issue of matrimonial property rights, I believe you're right on the money, because I think it is a big issue out there, with women especially. Would you feel that if in fact, as my colleagues suggest, this is not going to be on the agenda, or on the radar, in terms of the first nations governance act, that it needs to be? Will you be insistent, will you be pushing, in regard to that panel, that this needs to be on the agenda there?

Â (1245)

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair: We would certainly like it to be discussed as one of the next steps to be put into force. We had heard that Minister Nault was considering opening up matrimonial property under the First Nations Land Management Act. Our concern is that not every first nation is a member of or belongs to the First Nations Land Management Act. In fact, there's an opting in, and it still must be negotiated under there, so it's still not entrenched and protecting all women.

At the same time, we have to remember that not every first nations community out there is still under the Indian Act. Many have already negotiated out, or are in the process of negotiating self-government agreements, from underneath the Indian Act. So these amendments currently being made to the Indian Act are not going to affect all first nations communities either.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you're telling me, Jennifer, you have a concern that even though there would be certain self-government acts out there, that would not protect the rights of native women.

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair: Before I could answer that one comfortably, I'd have to do an analysis of all of them. But we have heard that not all of them are incorporating or taking into account those issues that apply to women.

Also, when you're looking at negotiating those self-government agreements, are there voices that, because of previous Indian Act legislation, have excluded voices? Then you hit the issue of how to incorporate those voices that have been excluded from the Indian Act into changing those agreements, or will their voices be excluded in the new agreements?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I agree, but I do have a concern. Are we implying we're going to get different patchwork types of agreements across the country, with some better than others, in terms of protecting women's rights? Some may not. I haven't done the analysis either, but it's anecdotal out there, and I can't dismiss entirely that some self-government acts do not have the kinds of protections along the lines you're suggesting.

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair: That's why it's important to have a human resource panel to address that from a first nation perspective, that we begin to address these issues and what will be best for us.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Thank you, and to the other group, thank you very much for coming today. I was very impressed at your presentation. We're all here to try to find solutions, and you made very good use of your time. You got so much into however many minutes you had. It was excellent.

What was very touching for me was the fact that some of those things you raised were exactly things my constituents have come in through the door and raised as problems. You had them on your list, with suggestions. So I thought that was excellent.

I have two questions. The first one is related to human rights and governance, which you talked about a lot. My understanding is that first nations people, of course, have the protection of human rights related to things in general, other than what is covered in the Indian Act. But my question is related to governance specifically.

Is there anything in either the Indian Act...bands, or even in any self-governing first nations you know that are now passing the act, that precludes women from fully participating in the governance--from having equal numbers or majority numbers--for instance, as chiefs of council or tribal leaders, depending on which form of governance they have? I come from a riding that has had very effective women chiefs.

Ms. Pamela Paul: There's nothing there that excludes them. That was one of the questions in our governance discussion group. Someone suggested women should have 50% designated seats, and we didn't agree with that. One of the first things I'd want to know is why they aren't running in their communities, when the opportunity is there for them to run. But there's nothing that actually physically excludes them.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: You said the federal government has responsibilities to protect your rights until first nations get their constitutions in place and ready. How far down that road are we, in getting proper constitutions in place and ready?

Â (1250)

Ms. Pamela Paul: Some communities are very advanced, but I think we're still a few years away yet. But it doesn't take much to pull a community meeting together and ask, “What do we want? What does this community want, and what do we need to govern ourselves?”

The Meadowlake Development Corporation agreement, in principle, actually has sections dealing with matrimonial property rights, so that's a positive step. The First Nations Land Management Act, because of a court case by the Native Women's Association of Canada, will have to also look at matrimonial property rights and include them.

The only thing is, with the number of self-government agreements that are being negotiated right now, how do you go in there and say they are being negotiated and there has not been an opportunity for them to be put in?

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Do you have a French name?

Ms. Pamela Paul: No.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Is there any group among the nine groups that you represent that represents Quebec?

Ms. Pamela Paul: No.

Mr. Richard Marceau: In the priorities that you have identified, you use the expression, gender lens. I will ask you the same question that I asked the previous organization that just appeared.

If you feel that there must be safeguards within the governance agreement regarding equality of men and women, are you not stating indirectly that you do not trust the aboriginal nation itself to bring about greater equality or respect the equality that should exist between men and women?

[English]

Ms. Pamela Paul: I would say there's a caution there that needs to be looked at, because we're how far down the road and in many cases there hasn't been that. So there's definitely a caution.

Would I say I don't trust them? No, I wouldn't say that. I would say there has to be a caution going into that, as we had going into the governance with our eyes wide open.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I was somewhat surprised by one aspect of your presentation, and that of the other organization also. It is the fact that there is no mention of the most important event of the last fifty years regarding aboriginal peoples, and that is the Erasmus-Dussault Commission. It was an exhaustive work, intelligent, well written, well-researched, and it seems that many recommendations and even the spirit of the Erasmus-Dussault Commission have been omitted.

Are you at a phase where you are saying to yourselves that you must go on to other things, that the government has not said it is interested, that it is better to work on governance, on a case by case basis, because there is no will on the part of government?

[English]

Ms. Pamela Paul: No. We only had 10 minutes, so we had to pick and choose.

I think there's a lot. As I said earlier, we're into integrated policy and research, so we are definitely going back and pulling out everything. This will all be pulled into a report and it will also probably form part of our presentation back to this committee.

But for this one, no, I'm not saying they're not important. Just because the government perhaps doesn't find them important, it doesn't mean we're not going to cover them.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you. I think some of my questions were covered by someone else.

Again, going back to the question...I piggy-backed on Mary's time last time. I'm thinking of the communities I live in. Even though we are governed by municipal laws, by the Canadian law, by territorial laws, I still find that in my Inuit communities it's very difficult for women to get involved in the political stream. That's why I keep asking this: what is physically stopping women from participating in the communities as far as a certain section in the Indian Act is concerned?

We can't govern human nature past a certain point. We can make the proper laws. In my Inuit territories there was even a decision made on whether there would be one man and one woman in my ridings for the territorial government. We chose against that, because there's nothing stopping the women today from running.

So yes, I know you want legislation to ensure women's equality, but I keep thinking there are things that can be done today, whether it's by the current chiefs or by the current band members, to deal with that in the communities. Have you seen that change? I know you'll have to change the attitude to also get the results you want for women's equality, which I think can be the case for every part of the country and the world.

Â (1255)

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair: I was going to say that we are seeing changes. I think we see that with more and more women having a voice around the assemblies and the confederacies, with women becoming chiefs, fulfilling roles on council. And you can see a slow change in the way the messages are being delivered and in the direction that I believe our communities are taking.

Is it going fast enough, far enough? Not in our books. The direction of the research I've taken over the past 10 years has involved my working with street kids, homeless mothers, mothers who for one reason or another haven't had the same advantage or the same experiences or support mechanisms in society. I think only when we can see a reduction in the number of aboriginal people who are left outside can we then say there's a difference.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Do you see that change happening at the national level as well, with national groups like the AFN?

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair: That's a tough one for me to call. I'm a former employee of the AFN. I was one of those who left when everyone was terminated.

The gender equality unit is gone. It was never supported while it was there to the level it should have been. The 17-point platform Matthew ran on contained no social development and no education. Women, children, and youth were wrapped up into one small paragraph. Through his tenure at the AFN we saw a decline in those areas, and the support that those of us working in those sections were trying to grab just wasn't there. It switched into other areas.

So our organization was born out of those needs, and I think that's what we've been trying to push forward. It's not a political agenda, it's an agenda that's picking up the slack. And we're doing our best.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to move off the issue of the organization, etc., and ask you specifically, with the position you have on the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee, which is a very fortunate place to be in terms of getting your issues front and centre, did you raise the issue of Bill C-31, subclauses 6(1) and (2), where people can lose their entitlement with an unstated father?

Ms. Pamela Paul: No, but my history is in that issue. I wrote my Master's thesis on that issue, I did some work on that issue, and I also did some work in the Atlantic. So it's a very close issue, near and dear to my heart, but it wasn't within the parameters of the JMAC to do that. They had three topics--accountability, elections, and legal capacity. We went to a few meetings and it somehow didn't fit in.

Mr. Pat Martin: And none of those are the things you formed your organization to fight for, I presume. You didn't specifically--

Ms. Pamela Paul: We formed our organization to ensure that the women we represented understood the JMAC process and what went on there. That doesn't necessarily mean it had to do with our issues. Our issues formed from the women, later on, but initially it was to have them understand what was going on with JMAC.

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair: I think, too, our organization brought attention to the fact that we would like to see an institution implemented alongside these changes, where first nation members, women included, can then go to either the ombudsman or to someone else to hear complaints and to ensure that the governance in their communities is in fact truly representative of the people, and inclusive.

Currently, if there's a dispute in an Indian Act band, it's very difficult for those individuals to hear a response or to have clarity on the outcomes, on whether they were right or wrong, on whether it was a fair process or not. We're asking for an institution to be developed alongside these recommendations so that first nations community members under the Indian Act will have access to something--outside of nothing.

· (1300)

Mr. Pat Martin: What is the status of that idea? Is it being adopted by the advisory committee? Will it form part of the bills we're about to see?

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair: Yes, it's part of the recommendations that came out of JMAC. The rest will be up to you and of course the drafters, and it will be up to us in terms of what we do to gather the support of the women, to bring their voices in, and to ensure that institution is put into place.

So I would say it is a responsibility of all of ours, including yours.

The Chair: Thank you very much. This completes the second round.

Before I invite you to make closing comments, I will do what I usually do, which is to thank you very much for helping us, because that is what you are doing. We don't have a bill in front of us. We're asking experts and the people affected by the legislation we anticipate to help us out so that we can get more in tune with the effects that the legislation will have.

So we thank you very much, and if you want to use it, you have quite a bit of time for closing remarks.

Ms. Pamela Paul: Well, I don't know if we'll use up all the time. We're going to be back, right?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Pamela Paul: I would like to say, just to clear up a little misunderstanding, that I don't want people to think we're only in there to do governance and we're puppets for Minister Nault or anything like that. I talked to the minister on this issue. I said I had women who wanted to be informed, and that's what we did.

On the JMAC, we had a lawyer there and she represented us to the best of her ability. That doesn't necessarily mean we talked about women's issues, because as you know, the JMAC affects everyone under the Indian Act. So we didn't restrict it. We decided at the beginning that we wouldn't just go up there and talk about women's issues. It's just to go up there and make sure, because we all have children and we all have grandchildren, that our rights are looked after and that they fall within the parameters and they fall within the mandate. So that's why we're there.

Our future work will be.... Again, one of our big areas is going to be the homelessness area, which Jennifer is working on, and aboriginal youth on the streets. As she said earlier, we're not duplicating work; we're picking up areas that other groups aren't working on.

I just want people to understand that. Don't think we're not going to be around here next year or the year after that, because we are. We're in for the long haul. As I said earlier, we're an integrated research and policy group. That's our focus. That couldn't necessarily be anything.

We're meeting with Health Canada to look at gender analysis. We've had meetings all over. Again, these are just things we're interested in, things our membership is interested in. We want to run our organization as a business, and that's what we're doing. We want to be proactive and we want to do things.

As I said earlier, agreeing to consult doesn't mean you agree with the outcome. If you look at the JMAC report, it says very clearly that our participation on there didn't mean we agreed with everything or that we were in agreement with the process.

I'd like to thank you all for inviting us here. I know I'll see you all again when we come back.

Maybe Jennifer would like to say something.

Ms. Jennifer Sinclair: I'd like to thank you again for the opportunity to speak before you and to bring across our views. I think Pam said it best: when we decided to go into this initiative, it certainly wasn't to be a political organization. Both of us have experience with those organizations. We come from the attitude that it's just time to do something. We've had enough talks, we've done enough reports.

As I was saying, my background has been within child welfare, looking at the outcomes and the effects child welfare has had on the stability of our communities, and how that instability can affect an economy. I hope what you'll see from our organization in the future is more policy papers and research papers providing insight and direction for the rest of us that we might all advance together.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Paul and Ms. Sinclair. Through you, I thank the National Aboriginal Women's Association.

Before closing, I would like to say that for the chair, both groups have the same credibility. We need both groups to assist us in the work we'll all be doing. Thank you very much.

For my colleagues, there was a question of a letter from Mr. Keddy. Mr. Keddy is not with us today, so I will repeat what I have just done next Tuesday. If it's not addressed next Tuesday, I'm afraid it will have to come back after the break.

Thank you, everyone. The meeting is adjourned.