:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
She:koh sewakwe:koh. I'm the elected chief of the Six Nations of the Grand River. I put a written submission in to the clerk back on April 25, so you have that in your package. In general, my remarks are going to be representing the Iroquois Caucus.
The Iroquois Caucus is an independent organization representing 70,000 Six Nations people in Canada. We have concerns that this legislation is an abuse of our people, and I might say a continued abuse of our people, because your Indian Act, back in 1867, took suffrage from our women. I think it's wrong that it be perpetuated today.
The Six Nations Council has enacted our own legislation, as I said, but on behalf of the caucus, we're concerned about the process. There is supposed to have been extensive consultation. We don't know who with, because as representatives of the communities of those 70,000 Six Nations people, we have never seen anyone consulting us.
I believe, as do my colleagues, that our relationship is embodied in the Guswenta,
Tekeni Teiohate, or the Two Row Wampum Treaty. I'll reiterate what it says:
We will not be like Father and Son, but like Brothers. [Our treaties] symbolize two paths or two vessels travelling down the same river together.
One, a birch bark canoe, will be for the Indian People, their laws, their customs and their ways. The other, a ship, will be for the white people, their laws, their customs and their ways. We shall...travel the river together, side by side, but [each] in our [own] boat. Neither of us will make compulsory laws or interfere in the internal affairs of the other. Neither of us will try to steer the other's vessel.
What we have here, committee, in my estimation, is someone trying to steer our canoe.
As I said, the remarks I'm making are on behalf of the caucus. We're concerned, as I said, with the consultation process with the AFN and the Native Women's Association. They don't represent the people that this is going to affect: the people in the communities.
With that, I'll ask my colleagues to make their presentations, because they haven't done their presentations yet. I'll be open for questions later on.
Thank you very much.
:
Seken sewahkwekenh. Good morning, everyone. My name is Chief Don Maracle. I am the chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. I concur with what my colleague Chief Montour has said.
The Mohawk Nation is part of the Iroquois Confederacy. We're part of the Iroquois Caucus and part of the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians. We live near Belleville, Ontario. Our current membership is 9,053 members. Our people live on just about every continent in the world.
Since the passage of the McIvor legislation, we have seen our membership increase by 819 members and there are other applications pending registration at the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. We have 2,200 members who live in our community, and an estimated 1,200 non-native, non-status people who live in our community and are attached to families.
With the implementation of Bill C-31 and in the past two years, our membership has increased by 10%. Many of the funding formulas are for people who live on the territory. Some of the funding formulas are for the entire membership. The new registrations have placed additional financial burdens on our community and on the council, with no additional funding to offset the increase in membership. These provide pressure on housing and education.
We have the third largest membership of aboriginal communities in Ontario and the ninth largest in Canada.
Our ancestors were military allies of Great Britain and participated in most of the wars in the last 300 years. After the American Revolutionary War and the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, our ancestors were required to choose a homeland on the north shore of Lake Ontario and the traditional hunting territory of the Iroquois Confederacy.
We are very disappointed that this legislation has once again surfaced in the House without prior consultation. The views of Wendy Grant-John, who was commissioned by Canada to travel across the country to gather the views of first nations people, have largely been ignored in the bill.
The government has a duty to consult and to also honour its own laws, and to date the government has not followed its own jurisprudence with respect to decisions passed on by the Supreme Court regarding the duty to consult. The duty to consult, accommodate, and obtain consent was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court when the government is considering action that could affect aboriginal and treaty rights.
This bill does impact on Treaty 3 1/2, which created the land base for the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. It's published by the Crown as Treaty 3 1/2, dated April 1, 1793.
We are also of the view that this committee is not the appropriate committee to be studying this matter. This issue is not really just about aboriginal women's rights. There are men in our communities who fall under the same situation, who have suffered abuse, and sometimes it's not always the man that's the abusing partner. We feel that the bill should protect the family as a unit, to have a more holistic view, and not be gender-based.
There's a great deal of focus on family violence with this bill. There are many reasons that contribute to the breakdown of a family. To focus on family violence is leading the public to believe that all first nation marriages break down as a result of family violence. That is not the case. It also brings to the public the view that all first nation men are violent to their partners. That is not the case.
This submission does not constitute consultation. Bill is paternalistic. It does not recognize that the jurisdiction over who can live on our land belongs to the first nation and not to the Government of Canada. The government purports only to understand that family law is a right of a first nation's jurisdiction, but in fact, all the government is doing is not recognizing their right, they're delegating authority to manage it to the first nation. The Royal Proclamation of Canada was a document the government spent millions of dollars on and that document recognized that family law is a matter of first nations' jurisdiction.
There is a requirement to hold a referendum to pass a law. There is no government anywhere in Canada that has to hold a referendum to pass a law. There is a lot of difficulty meeting the 25% threshold because many of our people, who have been added to the list through Bill C-31 in 1985 and the McIvor legislation, live in various parts of the world. They may not always participate in community decisions and a lot of them believe it's not appropriate for them to do so.
There's no clamour from our membership to participate in these kinds of decisions. To get to the threshold to even vote could be problematic in some of the communities. Also, there's a high cost to that manner of consultation, which the government does not fund, so it adds another financial burden on first nation communities to go through this type of process.
Our land is very integral to our people. There's a strong connection that our people have to the land. Our identity flows from that relationship to the land, and it holds a cultural and spiritual importance to our people.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before this committee on this very important issue.
My name's Alvin Fiddler. I'm one of the deputy grand chiefs from Nishnawbe Aski Nation. With me is Jackie Fletcher. Jackie is a member of the NAN Women's Council.
Just briefly, to familiarize the committee with who we are, Nishnawbe Aski Nation represents 49 first nation communities situated right across northern Ontario, northwestern and northeastern Ontario. It covers roughly two-thirds of the province of Ontario, and those are the communities that signed Treaty No. 9 back in 1905-06, and the adhesions, which were signed in 1929 and 1930.
I just want to start off by saying that we recognize that we have a shared interest to protect families, to protect women and children in the event of a family breakup, in the event of a divorce in our communities. We need to ensure that every individual is treated with respect and that their interests are protected in that situation.
I also want to echo what my colleagues, Chief Montour and Chief Maracle, have brought forward to the committee. We've always had concerns about the process, how this bill was brought about, and how it's going through the process now.
One of the concerns we have is that, even though there were pockets of money to do consultations across NAN, we just feel that not nearly enough was done to properly consult with our members or to do them justice. I think that's one of the points we want to make today. There have to be adequate resources given—perhaps to NAN's Women's Council that will drive this—and adequate time to make sure we do it right.
One of the things that I want this committee to recognize and to acknowledge is that if you go ahead and impose this bill, impose these rules on our communities, the infrastructure isn't there to follow through with these rules. Right now we're involved in two processes just dealing with the justice system alone: the Iacobucci report, and also the fly-in court system. There's such a backlog. There's so much work that needs to be done to try to improve how justice is delivered and administered, especially in the remote north. Of the 49 communities, 32 of our communities are considered fly-in and remote communities.
The other piece of that is enforcement. I don't know what this committee's planning to do in terms of enforcing these rules. Some of you may be aware that policing is a real issue in our communities. In fact, we're struggling with our NAPS, our Nishnawbe-Aski Police Service. We're so under-resourced, we're so underfunded that we're having a hard time. We cannot guarantee public safety for our communities, as well as for our officers.
I'm telling you this because I'm not sure how familiar you are with the north. One thing we want to do is to invite members of this committee to come visit us, to come meet with our leadership, to come meet with the NAN Women's Council. If we're going to do this, I think we need to do it together. We need to work together to ensure that this is done right.
We're tired of having bills and rules imposed on us because they never work. They don't work for our communities. I think the message we want to convey to you today is for you to come up here.
That's why we're here. We just didn't feel it was worth our while to spend a couple of thousand dollars to come down there for 10 minutes to present to this committee. I think you need to also invest your time and your resources to work with us.
:
Hi. My name is Jackie Fletcher. I'm a member of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation Women's Council.
I'm pleased to say there are nine members on the Nishnawbe Aski Nation Women's Council. We don't have a hierarchy. We don't deal with a president, vice-president, all those kinds of things, and it works really well. We are all equal at that table. That's a very important facet of how we used to be as aboriginal people before contact.
What I want to talk about on MRP has been said already by the three gentlemen—and I'm very pleased to see gentlemen here at this table. I'm not sure who all are on the standing committee, but I understand there are 12 females, which is not very good representation, because this is not just a women's issue, this belongs to the community. As well as not being gender-based, we have same-sex marriages, we have men and women. We can't just have a cookie-cutter approach to this issue.
I also want to talk a little bit about the checkerboard effect. For example, if a non-native woman marries a native man and they separate, under this legislation the house goes to the female, who is non-native. You could end up with all non-native people on a reserve, so it doesn't make sense. I'm very concerned about that as well.
We appreciate the effort that is being put forward to address this issue. It is a very extreme issue in our communities, but we need the resources, as Deputy Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler talked about. We need the legal people there. I can't even understand a lot of this information that has come forward. We need to educate our people in the communities, and every community is different. We can't just say we'll put in this blanket solution for all the communities. I know some communities are using their housing policy now to address MRP. So it's up to the individuals.
I would also invite you to come to sit with us so we can come up with the solution. We are tired of being talked down to.
I have four sons right now, and they're all living on their own. When they move into their own houses, I don't go and say, “Okay, you have to live like this. You have to make your bed like this. You have to do this.” They're living their own lives, yet they'll allow me to come in and give them some suggestions. That's what I would like to see this government do, come to hear what we have to say. Come to the communities and see what it's all about. It's very easy to sit in an office in Ottawa and make rules when you don't know what's going on in the communities.
As I said, I appreciate that this issue is being addressed. I would like to have more resources. There are three languages: Oji-Cree, Ojibwe, and Cree. We need to have the translation done. We need to go into the communities and consult with the communities.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Deputy Grand Chief, Chiefs, and Ms. Fletcher, for joining us here today.
We're hearing overwhelming opposition from first nations and certainly, overwhelming concern about the process: the lack of consultation; the lack of listening to the concerns that first nations have brought forward; the lack of non-legislative measures and support, whether it's housing, policing, women's shelters; questions about what the provincial courts are going to do; and questions that have gone unanswered.
I'm very thankful that you're here today to speak to us on behalf of the people that you represent. I just want to read into the record a statement made by the Minister for Status of Women, , who was quoted in as saying, “I think this about certain interested parties, namely some chiefs, who do not want to share their property. I believe strongly they're doing what they can quietly behind the scenes to get support from certain people and that's why you don't hear them come out”.
Now, obviously, the minister isn't here today to see you, in public, in a televised meeting across the country, pronouncing your opposition, much like leaders did last week. And we'll hear more tomorrow, as well.
Obviously, there's a statement out there by a minister of the Crown, who must have credibility. What would you say in response to that kind of a statement?
Maybe we can start with Chief Montour.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I know that Chief Maracle, in his opening remarks, pointed out that this bill is before the wrong committee, and I would completely support Ms. Bennett's motion.
At the aboriginal affairs committee, we’ve just finished studying a private member’s bill that included a section on wills and estates. It became very clear—and this relates directly to matrimonial real property—that taking into account the very complex land codes within first nation communities, the matter of wills and estates needed further study. With regard to matrimonial real property, it's very clear that we're not dealing with fee simple lands. We're dealing with custom allotment. We're dealing with certificates of possession. We're dealing with a variety of mechanisms around lands that do not simply mean that when there's a marital breakdown, person A stays in the house and person B goes somewhere else.
That is an important factor when we're talking about matrimonial real property.
Madam Chair, when David Langtry, the acting chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, came before this committee, he indicated that there were three questions this committee should be considering. One is fair access to justice, one is ability to access rights in a safe way, and a third one is whether communities have the capacity they need to develop and implement their own matrimonial real property systems. I would argue that all three of those questions need to be dealt with at the aboriginal affairs committee because the aboriginal affairs committee has a much broader perspective on the complexities facing first nation communities.
One matter that came up at the aboriginal affairs committee when we were talking about Bill was the issue around custom adoptions. Now, I haven't heard anybody talk about custom adoptions. When provinces are going to be dealing with allocating who gets to stay in a home when there is a marital breakdown, how are they going to deal with custom adoptions? Many provinces don't recognize the first nations’ tradition of custom adoptions, so what would happen in such a case?
Chief Montour, Deputy Grand Chief Fiddler, Chief Maracle, Chief Abram—all of you have talked about the lack of resources. At the aboriginal affairs committee, I can tell you we're well steeped in hearing testimony from people about the lack of resources for housing, the lack of resources for education, the lack of resources for water, and the lack of resources for policing.
Deputy Grand Chief Fiddler, I know your communities have been struggling with issues of policing now for a long time, but it has been very prominent in the media over the last number of weeks because of that lack of resources for policing in your own communities.
We hear the government say that what's going to happen is that by passing Bill , miraculously, somehow or other, people in communities are going to be protected. Well, who's going to enforce those protection orders? Where's the community going to get the resources for alternate dispute resolution and mediation? Where's the community going to get the resources for legal aid? Where's the counselling when families need help? Perhaps they could resolve issues with appropriate counselling. Where are those counselling dollars going to come from? How are the chief and council going to deal with the fact that there are such severe housing shortages?
As Deputy Grand Chief Fiddler and Ms. Fletcher pointed out, there could be 13 or 14 people living in a house. What happens if the custodial parent, the woman, is living with the husband whose whole family lives in the house? Now we're going to say, okay, the woman now has the house. Does that mean the grandparents have to move out because they're the parents of the young man?
This act has been touted by the opposition...I mean the government—opposition I could only wish. The government has indicated that this act will deal with violence against aboriginal women. I want to thank Chief Maracle and Chief Montour and others for rightly pointing out that aboriginal men, first nation men, are not violent by nature. When we're talking about marital breakdown, we're talking about the stressors of poverty and a lack of access to resources that complicates families in a way that many Canadians simply don't face.
On the issue of violence, Bill mentions family violence—not violence against aboriginal women, but family violence—eight times in this act, and it does nothing, absolutely nothing to deal with the factors contributing to family violence.
We saw in the past as the Aboriginal Healing Foundation funds sunsetted, which could deal with the intergenerational traumas that resulted from residential schools, for example, that money has disappeared.
So when you want to talk about what's happening and where this bill should rightly be it should absolutely be before the aboriginal affairs committee. I would support the calls that have come in from certainly the chiefs who are before us today, but many other chiefs and community members as well, about the duty to consult and accommodate.
It isn't just going out and self-selecting a number of communities, it is about that duty to consult, that free, prior, and informed consent that's been outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. So I certainly would encourage all members to vote in favour of Ms. Bennett's motion and have this bill dealt with appropriately at the appropriate committee.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
[
The witness spoke in her native language]
Good afternoon, everyone.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to express our concerns about Bill .
Quebec Native Women has repeatedly expressed its concerns about this issue. We would like to provide you with our comments and recommendations on the latest version of the bill.
Bill is supposed to remedy the legislative gap that exists for first nations couples living on reserves after the break-up of the relationship or the death of one of the spouses. That includes the division of property and matrimonial rights or interests. However, the bill, in its present form, does not fully address the issue of matrimonial property and will not fully protect those who are most vulnerable.
I would like to highlight some factors that contribute to the complexity of this bill that, at worst, will create more problems for aboriginal women and children than it will solve and, at best, it will be wishful thinking only bringing temporary solutions to vulnerable women.
First, although we commend the government’s efforts to enable first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property code consistent with their own traditions and customs, the bill does not take into account the jurisdiction of first nations over reserve property and their right to self-determination as it grants jurisdiction to provincial courts for enforcement. As a result, a provincial court will be imposing on communities the use of their own lands. In addition, if they do not develop their own code, the proposed legislation establishes federal laws that will be imposed on first nations. Even if first nations have an opportunity to create their own laws, it will only be a form of delegated authority.
Second, aboriginal women’s groups have been asking all along that additional resources be provided so that first nations communities can both develop and enforce their own laws. Yet no funding or resources will be provided to first nations to access those provincial courts, which will therefore be too costly or complex for them in a number of cases. We are carefully watching the government’s intent to establish a centre of excellence for matrimonial real property, which could assist idle communities in drawing inspiration from established best practices, but will not force them to use those practices, nor will it provide assistance to all the communities across Canada.
According to the website of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, a maximum amount of just under $5 million over five years will be earmarked for the centre. That corresponds to six full-time employees for five years helping 500 aboriginal communities across Canada to develop their own legislation. Not only does that seem like an impossible feat given the remoteness of the communities and the lack of human and financial resources within many band councils, but it also means postponing the detected implementation problems to the medium term. Supporting the development of those new family codes is a good idea if resources are also provided directly to the communities so that they can develop their own matrimonial real property laws.
Third, we want to ensure that minimum standards for the protection of aboriginal women are observed and that the following factors do not penalize women and their abused families or families affected by grieving or separation: exclusive membership codes, lack of housing, lack of legal resources and assistance within communities, as well as a different legal system.
From my experience as a first responder, the best resources to help aboriginal women are those that are culturally adapted and easily accessible within their own communities. Aboriginal women’s groups and their communities must work together in order to develop a fair and equitable system that is based on cultural traditions and customary law. Consideration should also be given to setting up multi-tier aboriginal mediation systems and other practices or aboriginal legal and decision-making systems for matrimonial real property. There also has to be a recognition of the systems that are already in place.
Bill proposes a solution based on the common law of the federal system without considering the legal provincial diversities. In fact, this bill is asking provincial courts to implement a common law system to handle family law disputes and, as a result, to adapt to a number of legal systems, including the system implemented by various nations and communities, if applicable. The Civil Code of Québec does not grant the same rights to spouses and common-law partners. However, the opposite would be true for provisional laws.
Another consideration is having a judge who is familiar with the Indian Act. It becomes a very complex situation. Also, the bill would not protect aboriginal women living in communities governed by specific treaties such as the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement, as well as the Northeastern Québec Agreement that brings some specific features to the Cree and Naskapi territories. In its present form, the bill will probably have no legal impact on the Cree and Naskapi communities and they will have to make laws so that matrimonial real property matters can also be incorporated in their own legal system. That is another legal framework that needs to be considered in the province of Quebec.
Since the rights and recourses by provisional federal rules will be handled by various provincial, federal and aboriginal legal systems, the federal government should conduct further analysis to determine whether this situation has an impact on Quebec’s aboriginal communities and, if that is the case, to establish what the consequences would be. Ultimately, what makes aboriginal women vulnerable currently in cases of separation or domestic violence is the lack of housing and the non-settlement of land claims for all aboriginal nations across Canada. This type of settlement would enable communities to address the demographic pressure on their people and their needs for economic development. This is how the Harper government must do its part if it wants to help aboriginal women escape violence.
Bill , in its present form, does not address this main concern. Furthermore, by refusing to take it into consideration, all it does is send the problem to the provincial courts and band councils. The unilateral approach taken by the government to resolve this issue through legislation will also fail to address systemic problems. The lack of resources, particularly the lack of housing in the communities, will be challenging, and so will the implementation of some provisions regarding the forcible removal of a spouse who will not easily find alternative housing in the community.
In addition, there is also an issue with public safety in the communities. The lack of human and financial resources in the police forces will make it difficult to effectively enforce emergency protection orders. We appreciate the changes to improve the bill, especially the 12-month transition period, but we note that it is a short transition period given that the legal framework being set up in the communities is not good.
Let's talk about family rights. Not all communities are in the same place. They do not have the same human and financial resources to establish this regulatory framework and then implement it.
:
[
Witness speaks in Kanien'kéha]
Greetings to the chair, honourable members of Parliament, and my esteemed colleagues from the Quebec native women's association. This is at least the fourth or fifth time I'm presenting on this issue, in previous times as the president of the Quebec native women's association, so it is a great honour indeed.
As in the previous forms of this bill, several persistent omissions must be taken into consideration if there are to be real and long-lasting solutions to this problem. They first must be placed in context to understand the root causes of this injustice, which originates in the Indian Act and the impositions of colonial and patriarchal values.
I am compelled to note that the goal of this bill is the fair and equitable distribution of matrimonial real property for Indian women on reserves upon the dissolution of a relationship.
This bill should not profess to address the chronic issue of violence against aboriginal women. The issue of violence is best addressed through a national plan of action by Canada, its provinces and territories, and through cultural sensitivity classes on Canada's colonial history for judges, lawyers, members of Parliament, and politicians. It should include a genuine process of reconciliation that recognizes the negative impact of colonialism, the Indian Act, and the Indian residential schools system on indigenous peoples' identity, culture, language, traditional forms of governance, and how they have affected the roles and authority of indigenous women in their nations and communities.
A holistic view is essential if the issue of MRP is to be properly addressed by all levels of government, but in particular within aboriginal forms of governance.
High unemployment rates, lack of sufficient housing, a growing population, dispossession of our lands and resources, the imposition of paternalistic values and processes, outdated funding formulas, poverty, and social ills rooted in colonialism have for generations affected indigenous women's ability to enjoy their fundamental human rights.
There are several areas of concern regarding this bill, which include, one, the incorrect assumption that this bill was accompanied by a consultation process; two, the lack of inclusion of the Constitution Act of 1982, which protects and affirms the inherent and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples; three, the lack of resources for communities in implementation of this bill, and potential court orders supported by a weak implementation process, considering the situation of policing on reserves; and four, the non-legislative measures and lack of access to justice, in particular for those women living in remote communities, and the financial burdens placed upon these women, where homemakers rely on spouses for their incomes.
On the matter of consultation, I must state sincerely that there was none. While engagement sessions were given by Wendy Grant-John—her report came out in March 2007—and an explanation of the issue of matrimonial property was provided, with some discussion on suggesting solutions, even the ministerial representative's report noted that there has not been sufficient time to reach consensus.
While the government firmly believes that there were consultations, I must remind them that the ultimate duty to consult rests with the Government of Canada and its duty to uphold the honour of the crown. It is important to state that there were no consultations on the specific details and nature of Bill on matrimonial real property.
It is of significant importance to note that during any consultation process, the process of reconciliation must be included and is always ongoing in Canada's relationship with aboriginal peoples. As per the policy of the Government of Canada in its duty to consult, the crown also consults because it is legally obliged to do so. It must give effect to reconciliation and uphold the honour of the crown—the government's ability to adversely affect aboriginal treaty rights is restricted in this reality—and crown conduct must demonstrate respect for aboriginal and treaty rights.
In remote communities women rely on travelling courts. Women must often travel in the same vehicle as their ex-partner to attend court. Remote communities do not have easy access to legal aid. The financial burden placed upon women is cumbersome in their quest for a fair and just settlement.
Access to justice is challenging. With regard to financial compensation to their ex-spouse, should they try to negotiate a fair and just settlement, their measure of worth, of contribution made as homemakers, is not considered. This causes aboriginal women to experience more vulnerability and discrimination, as low-income women would not be able to pay their ex-spouses for the value of their part of matrimonial real property.
The issue of policing on reserves is also an extremely serious question. Provincial courts would only be able to provide temporary occupation orders for the home, and a lot of times police who are reserve police might have trouble implementing them if they're related to the persons involved. In Quebec common law, as Ms. Michel has stated, relationships are not recognized.
If harmonization with provincial and territorial laws was the goal in this bill, then a consultation process that also included the customary laws of indigenous peoples, along with their free, prior, and informed consent, should also have been considered. The trend for over 100 years is to go to Canada's courts if we disagree with Canada's decisions. Aboriginal peoples should not have to go to Canada's courts to protect their inherent and treaty rights.
Another important issue is that of membership codes, the criteria created by the Indian Act, and many times it uses blood quantum. Should a woman not be a member of the community, the woman will never have the right to own the home and its implements, thereby creating another gap.
Lastly, a centre of excellence should not be included since this was never a topic of discussion during talks with Ms. Grant-John. A centre of excellence is another example of the paternalistic attitude of government. It ignores the customary laws of indigenous nations and ignores the inherent rights and treaty rights. It seems to be another part of the aboriginal industry where badly needed funding for communities will be directed toward an organization isolated from the communities, instead of going to institutions damaged by the Indian Act such as our languages and cultures and traditional customs and governance, as well as more emergency shelters in the communities, which are essential to this process of reconciliation.
If the centre of excellence is to be created, it should not be headed or controlled by any aboriginal organization. Instead, it should have indigenous women academics, elders with traditional knowledge, and front-line workers with experience in domestic and institutionalized racism and abuse.
Like many laws before it, Bill fails to consider the realities of first peoples and their communities who lack the much-needed financial and human resources for its implementation. Bands are already pushed to their limits by outdated funding formulas, as stated by former Auditor General Sheila Fraser in her 2011 June Status Report, in chapter 4, “Programs for First Nations on Reserves”. She states, "Structural impediments explain the lack of progress on reserves". Ms. Fraser goes on to say substandard construction practices or materials, lack of proper maintenance, and overcrowding also contribute. Bill also does not accommodate the need for more land, nor the fact that in order to develop their own MRP codes, a band must already have been in or be in negotiations on their land.
Legislation that fails to consider the effects of colonialism and assimilation policies, like the Indian residential school system and the Indian Act, creates deficiencies in the promotion and protection of indigenous women's rights. In recent years, great accomplishments in the area of human rights, most notably regarding the collective and individual rights of indigenous peoples through comprehensive human rights instruments like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, must be included in any remedies to injustices faced by indigenous women and their families.
Various human rights agencies, like the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, have been created to reconcile past injustices experienced by indigenous peoples due to doctrines of superiority and colonialism, which regrettably still exist today in Canada. There is a movement forward to end the discriminatory practices perpetuated under Canada's Indian Act laws and policies. It behooves the Government of Canada to implicate itself wholeheartedly within the processes of reconciliation in all its dealings with aboriginal peoples. Canada must amend Bill , listen to the voices of indigenous women and their communities, embrace human rights instruments, and repeal Bill .
I guess my recommendations will come at a later time. Thank you very much for your consideration.
:
One of the problems has to do with membership codes. While you might have Indian status in Ottawa, the communities themselves are allowed to create their own membership codes and provide services for their members. So it becomes problematic, especially in certain communities where blood quantum is an extreme issue, so that a woman who's not a member of the community or who has partial status would not be able to become a member, and therefore not be able to have land. She could stay there probably for a certain period of time.
But the whole issue should not be looked at solely from a funding perspective. I quoted to you many things that have happened. Canada applied this Indian Act. They have an Indian residential school system, for which we received an apology, but there's been no reconciliation to undo the damages that have been done.
So, great, you have an Indian Act band system that's going to apply the policies of the Government of Canada, but it does not recognize nor does it follow the traditional governing systems or even recognize our sovereignty over our lands. There is an assumed sovereignty by Canada, and Canada's sovereignty is based on legal fictions, such as the doctrine of discovery and papal bulls.
You can have all the amendments you like, but still there are problems that need to be fixed within the community. Now that you've damaged all of our institutions and now that it's easier to embrace colonialism and assimilation and to adopt every single part of what was intended in the Indian residential school system, you want us to pick up the matrimonial real property according to what you think is the solution rather than listening to the solutions that have been provided.
We have rights wherever we go on our traditional territories. They should not just apply to reserves. Yes, we should have the same rights as anybody else, but within our own nations, under our laws that predate European arrival here. The issue is a lot more complicated than strictly saying it's a matter of funding. It's a matter of human rights. It's a matter of respecting inherent treaty rights. It's a matter of implementation and of reconciliation, which was required after the residential school apology.