Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 799
Jocelyn Kelly
View Jocelyn Kelly Profile
Jocelyn Kelly
2013-06-11 13:08
Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to address you on the issue of sexual violence against women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
My name is Jocelyn Kelly. I'm the director of the women in war program at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, an interdisciplinary research group at Harvard University that examines how to bring evidence-based practices into complex crises.
I've seen the transcripts of the other substantive sessions on the Congo and know that the members of the subcommittee are already very knowledgeable about the situation there. It's a rare honour to be invited here today to speak about such an important issue to those who are so clearly committed to this problem.
I've worked in international crises and disaster response since 2004 and have specifically worked in DRC since 2007 as a public health researcher, using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. During my time there I've worked not only with survivors of sexual violence but also with current rebel combatants from a number of groups and with demobilized former soldiers including former child soldiers. This has provided me an unusual opportunity to look at the complex issues in DRC from many angles.
The work of the women in war program has been possible because of the close partnerships we have with local organizations that undertake heroic work, including the Panzi Hospital, the Centre d'assistance médico-psychosociale, known as CAMPS, and the Eastern Congo Initiative, to name but a few.
Our program is committed to looking at gendered issues in areas of political instability. We try to conduct action-based research with local partners in an effort to inform programming and policy using the voices and recommendations of the true experts in a situation: those who are themselves affected.
In DRC our most recent projects have focused on a number of topics, including the stigma that survivors of sexual violence face in their families and communities after rape, the issues faced by children born as a result of sexual violence, the demobilization and reintegration of former child soldiers, and human rights assessments with a particular focus on women's rights in artisanal mining towns. I know we cannot even begin to cover all of the results from all of these projects. Instead, I'd like to try to cover two broad points in this presentation. I'll try to synthesize our more detailed research results into a set of more general observations about the situation in DRC, especially as it relates to women's issues. Next, I'll propose a set of recommendations, again, supported by those affected by these issues, in the hope that these will help the committee in its work.
We're here to discuss sexual violence against women, used systematically as a weapon of war in DRC. To do this, I'd like to start with one of my favourite quotes from feminist Gloria Steinem. At a presentation of hers I attended a few years ago, she said that when we discuss women's issues, we call it culture, and when we discuss men's issues we call it economics. The committee has already recognized what many people still struggle to realize, that sexual violence in conflict anywhere is not just a women's issue and it's not just a cultural issue, but a political issue and a human rights issue, and it's at the core of the peace and security agenda.
The DRC conflict can be intimidating to understand. People can get lost in an alphabet soup of factions of armed groups and subgroups and shifting political and military loyalties. It's a complicated situation, but there are lessons that have emerged through our work and the work of many dedicated researchers. First, and perhaps very obviously, wounds resulting from sexual and gender-based violence are multi-dimensional in scope. This pervasive and often public violence not only affects the individual survivor but also shatters family and community relationships. The stigmatization and isolation of survivors from their social networks, the witnessing of public sexual violence by members of a survivor's family and community, and the changes in social norms because of displacement are all destabilizing effects of sexual violence on communities.
A complicated problem requires a holistic approach. It is important to provide integrated medical, mental health, and economic support services. Holistic care, either through referral mechanisms or through integrating different services in the same organization, is required in order to address this issue.
Second, people focus on the problems that women in the Congo face, but interestingly enough many of the women we speak to are most concerned about their children and their families. We must take an integrated family-based approach to addressing this problem. Children are especially reliant on a myriad of critical social structures—family, religious communities, education, and health systems—in order to ensure their health and development, but these are the very systems that have been undermined or destroyed as a result of the pervasive insecurity in the DRC.
Children are affected both directly and indirectly by sexual violence. Services must take a family-centred approach to help women address not only their personal needs resulting from rape, but also the needs of their families, including children as well.
The Congolese government has made a commitment to ensure free education for children up to primary school. It's a promise that has currently been unmet. You would be surprised by the number of women who have suffered life-threatening injuries and have had everything they owned taken away from them, and when asked what they would like to see change in the future, say that the one thing they want is education for their children.
Another consequence of the conflict is the destabilization of economic systems. We must provide context appropriate income-generating solutions for women and men. We must encourage community-led implementation of farming, trade cooperatives, and micro-lending. And we must provide security for the women who are ready to work, to undertake the activities they choose.
Our work with the World Bank in artisanal mining towns in the DRC illustrates the importance of this issue. Women often go to mining towns to seek the economic opportunity that is all too rare in Congo. There they face horrific outcomes, and are often marginalized into undertaking sex work instead of fulfilling their right to undertake fair-paying work in mining towns.
There is a need to support local mining activities in a sustainable way to harness the economic promise in these areas. To do so, we must address corruption and fraud in the mining sector, provide technical assistance for the modernization of artisanal mining, engage in education on Congolese law and the mining code, and promote grassroots, inclusive economic cooperatives.
Finally, violence is cyclical. I've interviewed more than a hundred soldiers from a number of rebel groups during my time in Congo. We think of combatants as perpetrators of violence who commit monstrous acts that most of us find impossible to understand. However, many of these soldiers were forced to join armed groups through kidnapping or intense pressure, and they often joined at very young ages. Many soldiers joined with the idea of fighting against the atrocities committed against themselves and their families, but after joining, these men and women found themselves perpetrating the same crimes they had themselves suffered.
We see a recurring pattern to the insecurity in the DRC. Many of the rebel soldiers we have talked to have gone through a revolving door of demobilization multiple times. When I was in the DRC last summer, our research was interrupted when were interviewing former child soldiers who were actually leaving our research project to rejoin the fighting against M23.
Since the conflict is now two decades long, there is an entire generation of young people who have never experienced peace. Funding for the demobilization of rebel groups and integration of soldiers into their communities must be a part of other services, and requires long-term commitments from governments and donors.
Combatants need ongoing psychosocial services in addition to simply giving up their guns. I heard a psychologist talk about this as “mental disarmament”. Undertaking this work will help ensure that military mindsets and predation of civilians does not occur after ostensible peace processes are undertaken.
Despite the complexity of the situation in the DRC, there are things we can be sure of: peace must be a foundation for longer-term sustainable improvements in the situation in Congo. Moreover, women's issues are political issues. Sexual violence and other human rights violations undermine peace and security in Congo. Sexual violence in conflict is not inevitable. I'll say it again because it's something that many of us still struggle to understand. We think of rape as old as war itself, yet many remarkable public health and political science researchers are undertaking groundbreaking work to show that sexual violence in conflict is not inevitable. Since it is not inevitable, we are charged to address this issue and to prevent it.
This can be done through attainable but difficult measures, including changing people's attitudes to women's rights, ending the impunity of military and civilian perpetrators, undertaking security sector reform with the national military, providing fair and equal employment and educational opportunities for women and men, and pursuing lasting peace and stability in Congo.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the entire committee, for your continued dedication to this important issue.
Mark O'Neill
View Mark O'Neill Profile
Mark O'Neill
2013-06-05 16:40
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, committee members. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to discuss Bill C-49 and the proposed establishment of the Canadian Museum of History.
I believe the proposed changes will strengthen our institution and greatly enhance its contribution to the public life of this country in some very significant and constructive ways.
At the outset, however, I would like to talk about some of the things that won't change, and that have been the subject of some debate and discussion in the media and elsewhere.
First, the proposed Canadian Museum of History would continue to present outstanding temporary exhibitions that illuminate world history and cultures. They will remain part of our mandate and an important part of our programming.
In fact, we are currently working with our colleagues in Greece on the production of a major exhibition about that country's ancient history. This exhibition, “From Agamemnon to Alexander the Great”, will feature over 500 exceptional artifacts and will be launched at the Royal Ontario Museum, our partner next year, and will travel to Ottawa, Chicago, and then Washington.
Second, we will maintain the ever popular Canadian Children's Museum.
Third, our First Peoples Hall and Grand Hall will continue to explore the historical achievements and contemporary contributions of Canada's aboriginal peoples. They are the finest exhibitions of their kind in Canada and so they shall remain as integral parts of the new museum should the legislation be passed into law.
Finally, we will continue building our national collection, and undertaking scholarly and other types of research, despite claims from some to the contrary. In fact, our national collection fund now totals $9 million and in consultation with academics across the country, the corporation has developed a research strategy, the first in the museum's history. This strategy will guide the work of the museum in its research activities over the next 10 years.
I would like to turn now to the engagement process we used to solicit public input.
It began last October. We engaged with Canadians across the country and invited them to think about their history and how it should be told in their Canadian Museum of History.
We set up an interactive website and designed an online survey. We organized roundtable discussions in nine cities from St. John's to Vancouver. We set up an interactive kiosk in public places across the country. We held meetings with school students and other groups. And we had questions placed on an independent opinion survey. Over 24,000 people became directly engaged in the project, either in person or online.
The results are detailed in a report that will be released shortly, but I am very happy to share with you, the members of this committee, some of what we have heard from Canadians.
Canadians told us that visiting museums and historic sites, and encountering real artifacts are by far their favourite ways of connecting with history. Many stress the unique role that museums play in educating children and youth, and in providing shared learning opportunities for family and friends.
Canadians have said that they trust museums more than any other source of historical information and that they value museums for the way they allow them to interact with each other and their common history.
Yet, Mr. Chair, we've never had a museum that tells the pan-Canadian story from earliest time to present day. The Museum of Civilization has indeed been trying to fill that void and has been doing so despite a very different legislative mandate. Its central purpose, as described in the Museums Act, is to enhance understanding of cultural achievements and human behaviour—not Canadian history and identity.
Nevertheless, since at least 2005 and on the heels of the overwhelming success of our sister institution, the Canadian War Museum, the museum has been working to broaden and deepen its focus on Canadian history. It has been trying to do a better job of telling the story of this country and its people from the pan-Canadian perspective. It has been working to share that story with as many Canadians as possible.
Currently, the museum is a key centre for historical research and scholarship through its artifacts, exhibitions, and its other programming. The museum explores many aspects of our country's past and disseminates the results of that research in many forms across the country, such as print publications and other forms of research. All of this will continue under the new mandate.
The museum’s work and achievements are impressive. But it has serious shortcomings, which are most evident in our largest permanent gallery, the Canada Hall.
The Canada Hall was not designed to be a narrative history exhibition. Inspired to some extent by the success of the streetscape of the Epcot Center in Florida, the museum staff designed the hall to offer a vision of Canada's social and economic history that moved temporally and geographically from 1000 A.D. in the Atlantic provinces to the present day in British Columbia and the Northwest Territories.
While that approach makes for an interesting and informative visit, it can't help but produce a disjointed and narrow picture of our country's dynamic past. In the Canada Hall, the regions of the country presented are frozen in time and exist entirely independently. Whole categories of endeavour—politics, sport, culture, our contributions to the world—are poorly covered or not covered at all. Women's history is at best peripheral. The journey through time ends in the 1970s, so almost half a century of our history is left unexplored.
As a result of this, while walking through Canada Hall you will learn about life in New France, but you'll find no mention of the Quiet Revolution or anything else about Quebec. You'll learn about the early whaling industry in Newfoundland, but nothing about why, how, or when the colony joined Confederation. You'll see re-creations of grain elevators and oil rigs, but you won't learn about the phenomenon called western alienation.
Although modules on the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada have been added very recently, Confederation itself is reduced to a multimedia timeline. You'll find no mention in Canada Hall of the flag debate or the Constitution, no mention of Paul Henderson's goal in Moscow, or the wartime internment of Ukrainian or Japanese Canadians. You'll find no reference to residential schools or peacekeeping, or Terry Fox and his Marathon of Hope. There is no meaningful reference to the Great Depression, the conscription crisis, or even a hint as to where Canada might be headed. But perhaps the most egregious flaw in the Canada Hall is its starting point. If you've been there, you will know that its telling of our national story begins not with the arrival of the First Peoples but with the arrival of Europeans in the eleventh century. Colonization as a term or concept is not mentioned in Canada Hall.
This is something we intend to correct. Canadians made it very clear to us during the public engagement process that the voices and the experiences of First Peoples must have a place in any narrative of Canadian history. We want to focus more of our attention on the telling of Canada's story in all its richness and complexity. And we believe the task is best accomplished under a new mandate and a new name—a name that better reflects what we aspire to become.
Here is the vision we have for the new Canadian Museum of History.
It will feature the largest and most comprehensive exhibition on Canadian history ever developed. The new permanent gallery will replace both the Canada Hall and the Canadian Personalities Hall. It will be a place where Canadians can go to retrace their national journey and encounter their national treasures. It's where they can go to learn about the people, events, and themes that shaped our country's development and defined the Canadian experience. It will underpin our national identity. It will include seminal events and episodes from our past, and some of the greatest Canadian stories never told.
We are also establishing a network of history museums across the country. Members of this network will have a permanent gallery devoted to the presentation of their exhibitions. Those exhibitions will complement and enhance our national narrative by adding regional content and perspectives. The new gallery will also broaden the reach and the profile of the contributing institutions, and members of this network will have better access to the national collection to enhance their own work.
During the public engagement process, Canadians told us what they expect of those exhibitions and the museum in general, especially the new Canadian history hall. Here are some highlights.
Canadians want us to be comprehensive, frank, and fair in our presentation of their history. They want us to examine both the good and the bad from our past. We were urged to foster a sense of national pride without ignoring our failings, mistakes, and controversies. Canadians want us to present various viewpoints and voices, recognizing that people and events can be interpreted in different ways when seen through different eyes. They want us to connect with them on a personal level. They want to see themselves and their neighbours reflected in the museum—whatever their heritage, whenever they joined the Canadian family, and wherever in this country they live. They have told us quite clearly not to ignore the world beyond our borders.
Those comments, suggestions, and pleadings will inform our every decision going forward. The content for this new exhibition is being developed by a multidisciplinary team of experts at the museum, led by Dr. David Morrison. This team is made up of researchers, curators, and museologists working in close collaboration with advisory committees composed of historians and experts from across Canada.
Creating a new gallery is going to be a major challenge. Our experts will first have to develop a comprehensive and cohesive storyline, which they have begun to do. They will have to identify the themes, events, and artifacts that merit inclusion in the gallery. They'll have to make some difficult choices and grapple with some very contentious issues, and they'll have to do it all in full knowledge that their every decision will be scrutinized by scholars, lay people, advocacy groups, the media, and politicians from coast to coast to coast. But our professional staff are the best in the country at what they do, and they're certainly up to the challenge.
Mr. Chair, the call for a national history museum is hardly recent. Over 60 years ago, the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences stated in its final report, “On the necessity for an historical museum, we can hardly speak too strongly.” In 2003, the Government of Canada announced a $50-million plan to convert the Government Conference Centre in Ottawa into the Canadian History Centre.
Mr. Chair, should Bill C-49 be passed into law, the corporation will create a museum worthy of Canadians' support and deserving of their pride.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
I would be happy to answer them.
Janice Makokis
View Janice Makokis Profile
Janice Makokis
2013-05-08 16:23
Thank you.
[Witness speaks in Cree]
Good morning, my friends and relatives. My name is Janice Makokis. Thank you for welcoming me here and giving me this opportunity to speak to you today.
I was taught to introduce myself in my language to acknowledge who I am, where I come from, and the responsibilities I have as a Cree woman to the Naheo Cree laws and nation I've been born into. This action is a part of acknowledging our Naheo Cree laws, practising self-determination, and exercising our sovereignty when we belong to a nation.
Another part of exercising indigenous sovereignty is acknowledging the lands we are on when we travel to another nation's territory. I'd like to acknowledge the unseated Algonquin lands we are on today and thank them for allowing me to be on their lands to speak to you.
In my Cree language I said I'm a member of the Bear clan, and I'm from the Saddle Lake Cree Nation located in Treaty 6 territory. I am a treaty person, and I'm a descendant of Treaty No. 6, where my ancestors entered into treaty with the crown of Great Britain in 1876.
I'm an Idle No More organizer and have been invited to speak as a person involved in this movement from the beginning. I am also a treaty educator and a sessional instructor of Blue Quills First Nations College. I exercised my treaty right to education and the promises given to my people during treaty. I obtained several degrees: a bachelor's, a master's, and a law degree.
Idle No More was initiated by women and originated as a grassroots movement in response to the current suite of legislation that directly affects the lives of indigenous peoples. Specifically, the suite of legislation attacks and undermines indigenous peoples' treaties, the treaty relationship, indigenous sovereignty, indigenous title, and inherent rights that have existed from time immemorial. Indigenous peoples across Canada have gathered through various peaceful activities, such as community teachings, public rallies, and peaceful roadblocks, to make statements of opposition to this legislation.
When our nations are under threat and our traditional governance structures, indigenous laws, and ways of life are being undermined by outside forces, in this case Canada, the women have a responsibility to take a stand and do something. This is one of the reasons why Idle No More began with women.
In Cree we have a law called, e na tah maw was sow in, which means we are to defend the children and generations. In times of crisis, this law is invoked by the women, and Idle No More is a response to that because a threat against our people's children and all of creation is imminent and very real.
One of the bills that is included within the suite of legislation that Idle No More has a response to is Bill S-2, which I'm here to speak briefly about. I'm not going to go into detail about the technicalities. My friends here have spoken to that or will speak to that.
I want to focus my comments on how this bill is in violation of our treaties and the treaty relationship. This bill undermines indigenous laws and the inherent rights we have. Finally, this bill further oppresses the roles of indigenous women within our nations.
When my ancestors entered into treaty, we were sovereign nations, and the treaty process acknowledged that. We had established governments to govern ourselves. As a treaty person, I find it arrogant that Canada thinks it can draft a piece of legislation that dictates the division of marital property on reserve lands I live on. Nowhere in the treaties did we ever say we would give up our ability to govern ourselves and practise our own laws. To have provincial laws imposed on our—
View Tilly O'Neill Gordon Profile
CPC (NB)
Within my constituency, we have three reserves. In my last four years, before I became a member of Parliament, I taught at a school on a reserve. I, too, saw many breakups; I encountered them with the children.
What do you see in the bill that will provide protection for the children? I focus on that. Lots of times these children are really in quite a state, trying to come to school and put up with things that are going on. Do you see Bill S-2 as something that is going to help the children as well?
Ron Swain
View Ron Swain Profile
Ron Swain
2013-04-30 11:34
When we examine the bill in detail, we see that it makes a priority of the protection of children as well as their connection and continuity within the community. The bill emphasizes safety for children and their connection to the community, which should not be severed.
Christopher Devlin
View Christopher Devlin Profile
Christopher Devlin
2013-04-23 8:49
Thank you.
I understand that all of the members have a copy of our paper in front of them, which will be very helpful. We have three comment sections in the brief.
The bill proposes to repeal several sections of the Indian Act. The first section of our paper just reviews the sections where we have no concerns about the repeal of those provisions. They are archaic provisions for the most part, or they are provisions that enough workarounds have been developed that they are no longer in effect as a practical matter. We suggest that the committee should not be concerned about the repeal of those provisions, so I'm not going to spend any time on those.
What I do want to spend time on are the effects of section 7 of the act, which would be the repeal of certain provisions of the Indian Act relating to wills and estates. Section 7 would remove the minister—of I guess it's still legally Indian and Northern Affairs Canada—from the administration of estates and wills. We have considerable concerns about this section. It's a very small section with huge implications, as we see it. I want to talk first with respect to wills, then estates, and then some transition issues that we've identified in the paper.
With respect to the repeal of sections 42 to 47 of the Indian Act that would follow from clause 7 of Bill C-428, the provincial laws with respect to wills wouldn't then apply to the wills of Indians by virtue of section 88 of the Indian Act. It's all very complicated, but section 88 of the Indian Act brings into force provincial laws that apply to wills with respect to Indians. It's referential incorporation of provincial law. Without federal regulation over Indian wills, then the provincial laws would apply. We see a few challenges with this.
First of all, provincial laws are different throughout all provinces and all territories. You would no longer have a uniform law that would apply to Indian wills across the country.
The second thing is that it would be a very complicated and expensive process that would then fall to individual Indian families rather than be administered from the Department of Indian Affairs. We also have to remember that these provisions only touch on wills for Indians who are ordinarily resident on reserve. The wills of Indians who do not live on reserves or whose main residence is not on a reserve are already subject to provincial legislation with one exception. That is, if they hold any land on a reserve, then they still have to go through and are still subject to the Indian Act with respect to transfer of land. The normal conveyancing of land in a provincial system wouldn't apply. They would then still have to go under the Indian Act to be able to transfer and devise land held on a reserve to the beneficiaries. I'll explain that in a moment.
Without that backstop of having Indian Affairs be the default institution, these private citizens—who are now Indians, ordinarily resident on a reserve, or their families—will be forced to start in the provincial system, and potentially move back to Indian Affairs to get a variety of opinions on the value of the estate, perhaps section 50 sales of their certificates of possession. Then, once all that is taken care of, they have to go back to the provincial system to get it probated. The current system allows the minister, who effectively acts as a probate court, to have all of this happen in a very efficient manner. Those efficiencies will be lost.
Families who have to deal with probate of Indian wills will be flipping back and forth between whatever their regulations are in their province, and then back to the Indian Act if there are land issues on reserve, and then back to the province. We expect that this will increase costs.
The other thing that we have identified in the paper is that many Indian estates, frankly, aren't worth that much. Usually, the typical Indian estate, for someone who's ordinarily resident on reserve, is some sort of landholding on the reserve, like a certificate of possession. There will be a family home. But the value of those land holdings tend to be much less, particularly in rural communities, than you might expect off reserve. The value of a certificate of possession doesn't attract a high market price.
Other provisions in the Indian Act require that certificates of possession can only be bought and sold by other members of the band, and of course, mortgage money can't be raised to pay for these, so they tend to be cash transactions. Because you have a small market for certificates of possession—other band members—and because you can't raise financing, the price for these holdings on reserve gets much less.
Why is this a problem? It's a problem because the public trustees in the various provinces and territories simply won't touch small estates. If they can't get their fees out of the estates, then they won't deal with these kinds of issues. So if a will is declared void for whatever reason, or part of it is declared void, or if the will says you can have all the personal property but the real property on the reserve has to be transferred according to the Indian Act, the value of that could be so small that there won't be any backstop. The public trustees in the provinces simply won't deal with it.
As a result, one of our big concerns is that landholdings on reserve may no longer come out of the names of deceased Indians, because there may be no financial incentive for people to actually go through a probate process, or in the case of intestacies, an administration process. You may have certificates of possession that could remain in the names of deceased Indians for years. There's simply nobody who will have an interest in resolving those estate matters. Indian Affairs will no longer be administering that. The minister's jurisdiction will be taken away. The public trustees won't be able to get their fees, so they're not going to be interested. Quite frankly, some of the families in some of these small rural communities, access to justice for them—accessing legal counsel who will understand this, their ability to fund the probate process—probably won't be there in many cases.
There are some other concerns we have, which I only want to touch on, that are unique to first nations. We mention concurrent spouses as an issue. The Indian Act has significant flexibility to deal with situations in which a person may be married to one person, say early on in their life, then by the time they die are living with someone else. The Indian Act allows for the minister to ensure that a will provides for all dependents of a deceased Indian, and that can include concurrent spouses. That flexibility is lost in most of the provincial jurisdictions that we're aware of.
Also, Indian customary adoptions is another big concern. Under the Indian Act the definition of a “child” includes children who are adopted through indigenous legal traditions. The definition of “child” in most of the provinces and territories does not refer to that. So when you have child beneficiaries under Indian wills, currently they can include children who have been adopted according to the custom of that first nation. That may become lost and those beneficiaries may become disentitled under Indian wills.
I've already talked about the problem of dividing land on reserve, so I won't go into that again.
The form of a will is another big concern. Under the Indian Act and the Indian Estates Regulations, the form of a will is that it has to be in writing, signed by the testator, and expressing the testator's wishes. That's it. It's a much more generous definition than what exists in most provinces and territories.
We have—and we note these statistics in our paper—only 5% to 10% of Indians ordinarily resident on reserve making wills now. The fact that this bill would see them fall under provincial jurisdiction and therefore have to comply with the forms of wills that are required under provincial laws may reduce the incidence of Indians, ordinarily on reserve, making wills. It may increase the level of intestacies of Indians ordinarily resident on reserve as a result of having to comply with provincial jurisdiction. Some provinces, it's true, allow for holographic wills, so just a piece of paper signed by the testator, but many don't. We have to be alive to that as the bill is being considered.
I have touched briefly on the ability of the minister currently to void wills in unjust circumstances. Provincial legislation will allow wills to be voided in circumstances of duress or lack of testamentary capacity. The Indian Act provides greater flexibility to the minister currently, particularly when a will disposes of land contrary to the Indian Act or against the public interest. There is a huge flexibility currently in the Indian Act for the minister and the department to make provision for all those who need to be provided for in a will, and to vary it accordingly. That flexibility doesn't exist to the same degree in a variety of provincial regimes, nor uniformly across the country, the way it does now.
Although it removes the minister's exclusive jurisdiction over wills in estates, the bill still keeps the intestacy provisions in place in the Indian Act. As I mentioned earlier, over 90% of Indians who are ordinarily a resident on reserve do die intestate. However, this removal of the jurisdiction under section 43 of the Indian Act means that the minister has certain obligations, but no longer the jurisdiction to trigger them under the intestacy provisions.
In our paper, we talk about what we identify as potentially harsh, unintended consequences. For example, under section 48 of the Indian Act, the minister still needs to be involved in the valuation of estates assets and intestacies, and also has to provide an opinion as to whether adequate provision has been made for children and dependents. Currently, the minister and Indian Affairs act as the administrative backdrop to Indian intestacies. If that's not the case, if they become more passive players in the process, although the minister has the obligation to come to these opinions, that won't be triggered until a private administrator would come forward from an Indian family on behalf of a deceased Indian to ask for those opinions. That means the minister's obligations would be somewhat reliant, then, on the diligence of these private administrators, or reliant on the fact that the private administrators are indeed appointed.
That goes back to my earlier point. On some Indian estates, there simply won't be enough value in the estate to warrant someone being appointed administrator. Their fees and costs won't be covered.
View Rathika Sitsabaiesan Profile
NDP (ON)
Okay, thank you.
There are concerns for individuals, child soldiers, for example, who may have dual citizenship in Canada. They could be caught under this bill, even if they had been compelled to participate in an act of war, as defined by the bill, or an armed conflict, as others have mentioned is a better term to use.
When the minister visited us last week, he said the minister would retain discretion not to pursue an application for deemed renunciation “for an individual where they have been compelled to do something against their own volition”. Is relying on ministerial discretion enough to protect children with dual citizenship who may be caught up in this bill?
Furio De Angelis
View Furio De Angelis Profile
Furio De Angelis
2013-03-26 10:24
We see in many other institutions that children's rights are particularly important, and that they have to be protected in a special way. We know in the determination of refugee status how important the special procedures are that have to be applied when interviewing children. Even in the difficult context of exclusion with respect to refugee status procedures, in duress involving child soldiers, for example, children have to be seen in a particular light. There are specific and expert procedures that have to be applied. When we deal with children's rights, special procedures have to be applied, because different situations may be at stake. Duress and coercion are a reality whenever we deal with children's rights.
Furio De Angelis
View Furio De Angelis Profile
Furio De Angelis
2013-03-26 10:25
Well, we'd like to see how that is worded in the bill, but definitely I would say it's important that when children's rights are at stake, there must be special procedures, and expertise must put into the context of that evaluation.
View Christine Moore Profile
NDP (QC)
Are any services provided to children—perhaps not to three- of four-year-olds, but maybe to teenagers—to help them deal with injured parents? Is there a component dedicated to teenagers or children who are able to grasp that dynamic?
Stéphane Grenier
View Stéphane Grenier Profile
Stéphane Grenier
2013-03-25 15:52
To my knowledge, there is no such program. I was unable to develop something like that, and I don't think my successors have done it either. That's very complex. There have been some small initiatives where peers, on a family level, established connections with social workers and psychologists locally. Those were small local initiatives. However, nothing has ever been established in terms of strategy.
View Olivia Chow Profile
NDP (ON)
For the 15 soldiers overseas, some of them might be born outside Canada and have children who also might become soldiers and have children who are born outside Canada. Like 2.8 million Canadians living abroad, any children who are born to a second generation—kids like myself, Canadians—will not have citizenship, because the Citizenship Act has a flaw in it: a second-generation cut-off, whether it's diplomats, soldiers, ordinary Canadians, or adopted kids. If I adopt a kid and the kid comes in as a Canadian citizen, and if their kid then happens to be born abroad, their kid wouldn't have citizenship.
While fast-tracking soldiers' citizenship sounds great, what about their kids and their grandchildren? They can't be citizens. They would be stateless.
View Jason Kenney Profile
CPC (AB)
Just to clarify, Ms. Chow, are you talking about the second generation, the two generations born abroad rule that was adopted in 2008?
View Olivia Chow Profile
NDP (ON)
That's right.
Hon. Jason Kenney: Okay.
Ms. Olivia Chow: So for these soldiers, while we fast-track them, what will happen to their children? Is this not something we could also fix?
View Jason Kenney Profile
CPC (AB)
To answer the question, Mr. Chairman, I would say that whether they are soldiers who are able to accelerate the acquisition of their citizenship or not, if their children were born in Canada they will immediately obtain Canadian citizenship. If the children were born abroad and one of the two parents is a Canadian citizen, they have Canadian citizenship. And indeed, they just need one of their four grandparents—no, it's just the parents; it's two generations.
This was a provision adopted unanimously by Parliament in both houses, all parties, all members, in 2008. I don't see this as a matter of contention.
There have been some suggestions that we ought to amend the Citizenship Act to make an exception to the two-generation born-abroad rule for crown servants. Indeed, I proposed such an amendment in the last Parliament and I intend to bring that amendment forward again.
Results: 1 - 15 of 799 | Page: 1 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data