Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 9 - Evidence - December 6, 2011
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
Senator Lillian Eva Dyck (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning. Welcome to all honourable senators and to members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or on the web.
Our chair, Senator St. Germain, could not be here this morning.
The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. In order to understand the concerns of our constituents, we regularly invite representatives from national Aboriginal organizations to testify before us. Rather than assigning a topic for discussion, we leave the floor open to them to educate us on their memberships' most pressing issues. These sessions are invaluable in helping the committee decide what future studies it will undertake in order to best serve the Aboriginal community. This morning we will hear from the Native Women's Association of Canada.
Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witnesses this morning. From the Native Women's Association of Canada we are pleased to have their President, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, and Claudette Dumont- Smith, their Executive Director.
Witnesses, we look forward to your overview of your constituency's most important concerns, which will be followed by questions from senators. Please limit your remarks to about five minutes in order that we will have plenty of time for questions.
Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, President, Native Women's Association of Canada: In keeping with our customs, I want to acknowledge the Algonquin people, the people of this territory, and also to bring you festive greetings from the Nishanawbe people.
We want to speak to you on matters that are crucial to Canada's Aboriginal women, especially about our concerns with our children, our families and our communities. As you may know, the Native Women's Association of Canada, known generally as NWAC, is a nationally representative political organization, comprised of 12 provincial and territorial member associations from across the country, that is dedicated to improving the social and economic health and political well-being of First Nations and Metis women in Canada.
We would like to take this opportunity to share with you a number of issues impacting our women, including our perspective on the bill dealing with gender equity in Indian registration and the many problems that may arise and directly impact our women and children under Bill S-2, which deals with family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests.
The Indian Act has always been used by the federal government as a tool to limit who is and who is not an Indian. This has had particularly devastating impacts on Indian women who were targeted for exclusion based on European values and on the roles of European women of the time without consideration for the key roles that Indian women played in our communities.
Traditionally, Aboriginal women commanded the highest respect in our communities as the givers of life, and we were the keepers and teachers of the traditions, practices and customs of the nation. It was acknowledged and well understood by all members that women held a sacred role, not only as the keepers and protectors of mother earth and water, but more importantly as the givers of life. As we brought new life into this world, we were responsible for the generations to come.
I will spend a few minutes this morning discussing some of the key historic provisions of the Indian Act, as they tell a story and offer insight on what needs to be done, or perhaps more aptly, what needs to be undone, so that we can have a discussion on what we know as citizenship.
Status and membership, words that now denote the language of the Indian Act, are divisive and undermine our ability to discuss this issue in a language that would allow us to be more inclusive and representative of our traditions. Interestingly enough, in 1850 the definition of "Indian'' was inclusive and included any person of Indian birth or blood, any person reputed to belong to a particular group of Indians and any person married to an Indian or adopted into an Indian family.
It was only a few years later, in 1869, that legislation came into effect that introduced the concept of an Indian woman losing her status and that of her children on marriage to a non-Indian man. This limitation and losing of status, however, did not apply to Indian men. The 1876 legislation maintained this provision and went even further. The legislation confirmed Indian male lineage and included in its definition of Indian any woman, whether Indian or not, who was married to a male person of Indian blood reputed to belong to a particular band. Thus, a non-Indian woman was defined as Indian through the male lineage. This extended to the grandchildren, even if either the parents or grandparents divorced.
In 1951 the legislation, in addition to creating an Indian registrar, maintained the male privilege provisions. In addition, the legislation introduced what is now referred to as the double mother rule. This rule provided that if a child's mother and paternal grandmother did not have rights to Indian status, other than by virtue of having married an Indian man after September 1951, the child had status only up to the age of 21. Bill C-31 did away with this restriction so that now the child can keep his or her status beyond the age of 21. This becomes important when we look at the next case, which was the McIvor appeal court decision.
In the 1970s, as some of you may know, I brought a court case challenging the existing legislative discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act under the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of Canada, in 1973, was divided and ruled that the provision did not result in any inequality under law with the reasoning that all Indian women who married out were treated equally. They were equally discriminated against. It was as a result of situations like my own, and many women like me, that the Native Women's Association of Canada came together. Forty years later we are still dealing with the same issue.
In the early 1980s, Senator Lovelace Nicholas, an Indian woman who married out, was successful before the United Nations Human Rights Committee in securing a finding that Canada was in violation of article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 27 protects the right to practice one's culture and language in a community with other members of a person's group.
Following the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, Bill C-31 came into being and was enacted in 1985 and dealt with some of the gender issues. Bill C-31 reinstated women who had lost status and those who had lost status at 21 due to the double mother rule. However, this legislation continued to discriminate against Indian women who married out as their children were registered as 6(2)s, and did not correct the previous discriminatory practices contained in the Indian Act. In fact, it created a whole new scope of discrimination based on status and membership that continues to be felt today.
Although Bill C-31 was supposed to remove gender discrimination from the laws of Canada, after Bill C-31 there were some real differences between Bill C-31 Indians and other status Indians. We can refer to subsection 6(1) versus 6(2) distinctions in the Indian Act.
The children of women who lost status could not pass on their status to their own children if they intermarried with non-Indians. On the other hand, the children of status men who had married non-Indian women before 1985 could pass on status to their children.
There are a number of issues before the courts arising from the status provisions of the Indian Act. The McIvor case is only one of them. The McIvor case was decided by the Court of Appeal on very narrow grounds. Ms. McIvor's complaint to the United Nations is to rectify this narrow aspect. Bill C-31 did not rectify the broader outstanding gender issues encapsulated within the Indian Act. It has provided some relief by reinstating some of our grandchildren, but there are still those who have been left out.
It is important to note that there is still much work that is required to remedy these male-dominated, gender-biased foundations steeped within the Indian Act and its definitions. For instance, Bill C-3 does not rectify the act's discriminatory provisions that prefer male lineage, nor does it address departmental policies such as the unstated and unrecognized paternity policy for women who are unmarried when they try to register their children in the birth registry. The department has the final say on who is and who is not an Indian, or how much of an "Indian'' they are, depending on whether the father has acknowledged this through their signatures.
That is why NWAC is currently undertaking this exploratory process to begin the conversation that needs to be done among our nations and with the government regarding citizenship and nation rebuilding, so that we as a people can decide who will belong to our nation. We can decide this under our own language called E'Dbendaagsijig, meaning those who belong. We know who our people are and those are E'Dbendaagsijig.
Another issue, matrimonial real property, has now been reintroduced by the government in Senate Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests, to address the legal gap that exists with respect to the division of households and matrimonial interests, or rights for First Nations couples living on reserves following a separation or a divorce.
The government claims there is an urgency to remedy the situation, to ensure that people living on reserves have the same rights and protections as all other Canadians. Granted, this is good. However, in 1986 the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the courts could not apply the provincial or territorial family laws on reserves that are under federal jurisdiction, although the Indian Act contains no provisions for matrimonial interests or rights.
The bill was first introduced in 2008, and it is now known as Bill S-2. It is the latest version of the legislative approach chosen by the federal government to address the multiple issues that are involved in dealing with family matters on our reserves. After a 12-month transition period, this bill would establish provisional federal rules that would allow provincial or territorial court access to First Nations in order to settle their disputes. This would continue until First Nations governments have adopted their own laws or codes regarding the division of matrimonial interests or rights on reserves.
In theory, this seems like a good proposition, one that should address the situation that has put Aboriginal women and our children in vulnerable situations, particularly if there is family violence involved. However, the reality is that the government process does not provide for any additional resources for our First Nations families to access justice and build their capacity within the government to handle these situations. There will be no additional resources or support for families, our communities and our governments to enable them to develop and implement effective mechanisms and laws for the division of matrimonial interests, or rights that are adapted to our traditions and cultures while respecting the human rights that are within the country of Canada.
Instead, Bill S-2 relies on the use of territorial or provincial courts, which are often too expensive or too difficult for First Nations citizens to access, especially for those in remote communities. We have all seen the recent media. In a remote community it is very difficult.
Such a legislative approach would put Aboriginal women who are experiencing family violence at further risk by forcing them to wait long periods for justice when they already face inadequate social supports, services and/or shelter.
Any legislative change must include and address all the other socio-economic aspects related to this issue, such as violence, poverty and housing shortages on reserves. It only demonstrates the further need to address the problem of matrimonial interests or rights on reserves in a comprehensive manner, including protection of our First Nations families and ensuring the safety of our women and children, as well as developing an approach that focuses on allowing for the time, the resources and the tools for capacity building for our communities.
I wish to speak to family supports and children in care. I know that you have heard many other organizations talk about this. As women, we are concerned about what is happening to our children. Aboriginal children in foster care, like those who were placed in residential schools, are being raised without their language, their culture and their families and are sometimes facing abuse in these homes. We are aware of the impact of this on our communities. Similar or even worse outcomes will result if Aboriginal children continue to be removed from our homes to become wards of the child welfare system. NWAC regards this situation as urgent and one that must be addressed by all levels of government.
NWAC supports the recommendations made by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and implores the government to take immediate steps to fully redress the inequities and structural problems that currently exist. The disparity in the provision of education services to First Nation communities is another area that urgently needs action. Women are the teachers in our families and we know how important this is.
Our research reveals that Aboriginal women and girls are more vulnerable to violence as a result of past and current state policies such as residential schools, the sixties scoop and the child welfare system. All of these are connected to poverty and racism. These policies have resulted in more than 600 missing and/or murdered Aboriginal women and girls. Our organization has data that proves this.
NWAC strongly recommends that funding be allocated by all governments for a national inquiry on missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls. We hope to have the support of all the provinces and territories in addressing this issue. Such a national inquiry should work closely with NWAC, our communities and all other stakeholders to effectively examine and stop the violence against our women and girls.
Although NWAC is very strategic in addressing priority areas of concern and has partnered with other organizations to produce quality work in all that we do, we are extremely limited by a continuous lack of funding for human resources, equipment and other requirements in comparison to other national Aboriginal organizations. This disparity in funding and inequality for NWAC cannot continue. Your support in raising this issue would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for listening to the concerns of Aboriginal women.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Corbiere Lavell, for your efforts throughout your lifetime in advancing the causes of Aboriginal women and the inequities that we face.
Senator Meredith: We know that there are many issues facing First Nations people. This committee has heard from numerous witnesses on various social issues. We see the situation right now with respect to housing in Attawapiskat. We are all concerned. In the 21st century we need to ensure that all Canadians have proper housing, health care and education. We are just about to release our report on education.
You said that Bill S-2 is a good bill. However, you indicate that resources are needed. Every group that has appeared before us has indicated that there is a lack of funding. We know that money is always an issue. However, would you not say that this is a step in the right direction for individuals who have felt abandoned over the years in that they have not been able to go to the courts to ensure that their rights are upheld and that they have a voice? Would you not say that this bill is effective in that way?
We know that lack of resources is a problem. We know that in other marginalized communities, especially in urban centres, women are facing some of those same issues. They have to find the resources to enable them to go to court to defend themselves and so forth.
Would you not say that this legislation is a step in the right direction, in the absence of the lack of funding? Please elaborate a bit more on this. We are trying to level the playing field here while acknowledging that money is always an issue.
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: I do agree that the intent of this bill to provide a sense of equality and the right for our women to have access to their matrimonial homes on reserves is good. However, we believe that these aspects of our traditions and customs should be given back to us as a nation. It is our sovereign right to govern ourselves and make decisions for our people, and that should be done within our own governments. Throughout the course of history it has never been to our advantage to take any kind of legal issue, be it matrimonial or other, outside of our communities.
As you pointed out, we also face the high cost of legal services and difficulty in getting access to the courts in the first place. Those are tremendous obstacles. Imagine the barriers that a woman living in an isolated community has to face when there is a dispute about her residence and the community does not have the resources to enact a matrimonial code or policy that is acceptable within their customs and traditions. What recourse does a mother and her children have? The problems are insurmountable.
You can look at the factors such as travel from a small community. These women are struggling day to day just to get food for their family. How can they come up with whatever the legal retainer fee is, which is perhaps $2,000? That would be the minimum. There is absolutely no way that any of our women would be able to access that kind of money to ensure that they can have their voices heard in the court system.
These are obstacles and barriers that we can immediately see. If we could have the resources so we could develop our own matrimonial property laws within our nations and communities, that would be the ideal situation. If we, as women, could have a say in the development of those laws, that would be the best way to go.
All we have to do is look back at our traditions before contact and even until just recently. Our women had that voice within our communities. Decisions were made on a respectful and equal balance. It was that balance that has been taken away. We have to get back to that way of governance within our communities. We are working on that.
Senator Meredith: In the interests of time, and the fact that there will be more cases — while that potential development of your own governance and judiciary is concerned, other situations will arise — do you think we should allow this bill to serve its purpose so that organizations like yourselves and others, linking in through legal aid and what have you, will be able to provide the assistance these women need? I am looking at this as a time issue; it will take a lot of time under the Indian Act to be able to develop that and to ensure it is properly respected by all the bands across this country.
In your opinion, is this a feasible vehicle to move forward with, while your organization and others support these women and young ladies?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: As I said in my opening statement, all we have to do is look at the experience I went through in order to get my voice heard in the court system. Granted, it took me awhile; I had to use legal aid. Even to get access to the Supreme Court of Canada, there are tremendous costs involved in that, and I would not have been able to do it otherwise.
In the case of national recognition of the discriminatory sections of the Indian Act, if we could not even get those kinds of resources at that level, can you imagine what will happen to a young woman and her children trying to get those resources to access those courts? It would be impossible.
Senator Meredith: Are you working with any other organizations right now that are advocating on behalf of the rights of women — lawyers who have given their time pro bono to help in these cases?
Ms. Corbiere-Lavell: In this day and age, I do not think there are many lawyers who would be willing to offer us much service to work with the potential number of women who may find themselves in these situations. Even for our organization at a national level, we do not have the resources to hire lawyers. I do not see how it will be possible for us.
I would love to be able to provide those resources to our women at the community level. If they could approach us and we had the funds available, perhaps it would be possible. However, right now, there is no such resource, nor in the foreseeable future will there be any that I can see. Perhaps my colleague may know, but we do not have partnerships with any legal entity or group of lawyers who would be able to do this on a pro bono basis.
Our communities are scattered and often isolated, where you have to fly in. A lawyer will not be able to fly in to hear the concerns of a young mother and her children. It is just not a feasible option right now in this day and age.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: It is nice to see you again. In your presentation, you mentioned missing women. I recall that I saw in the news on television — I do not know if it is true — that the RCMP had known there were missing women and there was a possibility of a mass murderer. Could you tell me anything about that?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: I think you are talking about the Pickton case in downtown Vancouver on the East Side. You are correct in stating that the Vancouver Police Department and the RCMP, who were working together on this case, knew many years in advance of the potential serial killing that was taking place. However, no action was taken. Even though families were inquiring, pleading and asking for something to be done, their voices were not heard.
All we need to do is look back at the history. We know 50 women were killed there or perhaps more. According to our women at the community level, they state there are a lot more missing; it is just not documented. We could only do so much within our organization, under our Sisters in Spirit research and data collecting.
Having said that, when the commission of inquiry was set up in British Columbia under Commissioner Wally Oppal to look into what happened, so that the policing services are forewarned and that some good practices would develop from this commission, we were the only national organization that was initially accepted to participate. Once again, when it came down to it, as I pointed out, we do not have those kinds of resources to be able to hire a lawyer to attend a commission like this. They take two to three months.
Since the Attorney General of B.C. did not give us any resources to participate fully in this commission so we could give our expertise — the voices and experiences of our families and the histories and stories of our missing and murdered women —we were not able to do so. Consequently, 22 of the community organizations pulled out of that commission.
Here we are. That commission is still taking place, and our women feel that it will not address what was lacking within the police services. It is a big concern and something that should be rectified.
What can we do about it? This brings us to the next step. We are asking for a national inquiry on missing and murdered Aboriginal women. We feel this is the only way justice can be done for all the missing and murdered Aboriginal women across Canada. If we could get your support in recommending that this has to take place so that all police services are aware, our women and their families will know something is being done and their grief can be lessened somewhat. Thank you for that question.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I went to university let us say 50 years ago. It was a class on native studies and, at that time, it was Graydon Nicholas who was the professor. He is now the lieutenant-governor.
This is a little emotional. He did not tell us; we had to read about it. In one of the paragraphs I read, it was when the first people came in and occupied our land, I learned that that was why the RCMP were formed. They came up with an RCMP group to help the Aboriginal people, to stop these people from coming onto our lands, and look at what they are doing now. They are against us.
The Deputy Chair: Before we proceed to Senator Hervieux-Payette, I just wanted to let our witnesses and senators know, our research assistant, Mr. James Gauthier, has indicated that the House of Commons Committee on the Status of Women has recently released a study on violence against Aboriginal women that was released in March 2011. It is entitled Call into the Night: An Overview of Violence Against Aboriginal Women. We do have a copy of the report, if people wish to look at it and see what is in it.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Good morning. Given your names, Dumont and Corbiere, I was wondering if you spoke French.
Claudette Dumont-Smith, Executive Director, Native Women's Association of Canada: I speak French.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: So Jeannette Corbiere Lavell does not speak French.
[English]
Sorry, Ms. Corbiere Lavell, I thought with your name that you spoke French.
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: One of my ancestors probably did.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am replacing a senator this morning. I have a strong interest in an experiment in education in Quebec that has lasted for a number of years related to going on to the reserve and teaching young Aboriginal people about multimedia, which in terms of trends in professions or in finding work, it is one area where they could find work. I do not want to criticize the health department because they provided the money. For me, it was an education question. I do not know where the money should come from, but $500,000 was cut from the project, endangering the whole project. They have been active in many countries. They do a fabulous job and have produced 450 videos. I am working with First Nations to help these people find work. We need to continue that effort.
There are two schools of thought. Do you feel we should take teenagers or a bit older off their reserve and bring them to school in large cities, or would this option be one of the best in order to train young Aboriginal people to stay in their milieu, to go with a mobile home where they have all the technical apparatus? I leave the problem to you.
I have knowledge of some native people in Montreal; unfortunately, I see them on the corner of the street and they ask for money. I would like them to be studying and learning things on the reserve and coming to Montreal with at least some basic skills to find a job. How do you see education with regard to native people?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: As Aboriginal people in Canada, we state to anyone who will listen that education and the requirement of specific skills for our young people are a priority. It is the only way that we can see where poverty, hopelessness and addictions can be addressed. They can be lessened if our young people can get self-esteem, a sense of identity and feel good about who they are, and contribute to their communities and to the rest of Canada.
What you are doing is good. If these young people have those skills, then they can develop a sense of self-worth. They will not only be able to compete on an equal basis with other employment options in larger cities, but, at the same time, our communities also need these skills. We are getting into media and mass communications, which is one of the fastest growing fields all over the world. If our young people can acquire those skills, all the more power to them. Whatever we can do to help them access these skills is so much better.
Coming back to the original start of skill attainment and accreditation in whatever field they choose, we need to look at early childhood education. We need to provide equal, perhaps even better educational situations for our young people within our communities, where they will learn that sense of self-worth, where our people will give them that identity to learn their language and their history. They will also learn Canadian history, and they will be able to get a good foundation in education and be able, then, to continue right through the educational system and graduate at grade 12 and go on to post-secondary education or to other specific skills, as you talked about.
Currently, we have a dropout rate of 30 per cent; we have a lot of work to do. However, if we had the opportunity on a comparable basis to have those kinds of educational standards for our young people, the interest is there; we just need to provide that for them, along with the other necessities of life, such as nutrition and proper housing. A child cannot learn if he or she is cold at night and does not have any food in the morning. Those are basic necessities and should be their right as citizens in Canada.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: How do we manage that? It sounds odd asking that question. I fully support the fact that you should be responsible. Of course, you must have the means to exercise these responsibilities. The Senate has looked at these questions, such as housing and food. My colleague Senator Watt was very forceful with regard to the issue of providing access to food at similar costs as in cities. Transportation costs seem to be a burden that does not make sense.
It is the same thing with housing. I suppose your housing is 50 per cent more for the same square footage. How can we resolve that? My sense of fairness is such that you should be provided a choice to stay where you want and to pay similar prices. Looking at what Mr. Charest is doing in Quebec, if we did not have any native people in the North, we could not even claim the territory. You are the custodians of some parts of Canada because you were there first. I am a lawyer, so I start with that rationale. The first thing you need in international law as the owner of a piece of land is that you have to stay on the land, and your people were courageous enough to stay on the land.
How should we monitor and help in that regard? If you need X thousands of houses, how can we ensure you have access at reasonable prices?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: I am a retired schoolteacher and I know the cost of providing good education within our communities.
However, I also know we do not get the same kind of funding to even provide an equal standard of education within our communities, compared to the non-native municipality that is 10 miles away. There is a real disparity in funding.
Looking at equal access, I know there are different departments within government. They can find the resources, provide transportation, and bring food and materials to Northern and isolated communities. It can be done. They can transport these materials to, for instance, an air base or base for one of the departments, such as Natural Resources. They can build houses that are sustainable and will last for 50 years. Those materials can be brought there at a reasonable rate, it seems to me. If the government can do it, why can it not be done for our communities? When I look at some of our housing, we always get second rate materials that bring about mould. I look at photos and it is particle board and chip board. Those materials will not survive our climate conditions.
We look at the so-called provision of water and sewage. Municipalities have years of experience. They have engineers and infrastructure. It is not only the mayor and councillors who make decisions; they have a whole group of people in the background. That is their job. Our communities do not have that.
There is disparity. It can be done, but we have to work together to find a way.
I also want to say that many of our communities have only been exposed and in contact for the last 50 years. We have gone through a big learning curve. How do we get along? How do we learn to do this? How do we manage a huge municipality of 2,000 people without having any prior experience? Many of our people are just coming off the land. I would never have expected my grandfather to make a decision regarding housing. He was a fisherman. My mother was a teacher. She would have had a bit more experience on how to manage any kind of funds coming into the community. I have been outside and exposed to cities. I do not know if I would be able to do it myself and tackle the problems that our people are facing, such as transportation and materials. It is a big challenge.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: My last question is twofold. First, I always get the feeling that many of the areas you experience difficulties in are provincial jurisdictions. For example, education at the federal level is not that great. It is a provincial matter. I do not know what kind of relationship there is, or if we should not, in fact, contract out to the provinces to take care of education. If they are taking care of it in my community — and I am the former president of a school board — we should apply the same standard. I have no problem with that.
However, I feel if we create another ministry called Indian and Native Affairs it will not have the experience that the provinces have. People are in various places in the country.
It is the same with housing, which is also a provincial matter. Looking at water, I was with the ministry of social affairs in Quebec. I wrote the law about fluoridation of water and I had to see how it was working. Inspection is done by the ministry of municipal affairs in this case. In many areas, we seem to duplicate with people that do not have the same experiences as the provinces. We multiply the costs, but it is always the same taxpayer.
I will conclude with something that will reassure you. I am on the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, and we know that the rest of the Canadian population is indebted to 150 per cent of their income. If you think we are great at managing our own revenue, I am not sure about that.
Do not feel guilty. I feel it is with trust that we can help solve the problem and looking at services where there is expertise. Provinces should be involved with experts or advisers, or at least be given the experience of our own system at the provincial level. We do not have that at the federal level. Do you agree with my assumption?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: I see where you are taking that dilemma. While it sounds practical, up until now there has always been that barrier because the provision of services within our communities on reserves is always a federal responsibility. The funding is always much lower than what is provided outside within the province. That is our history. Until that can be rectified and changed, I do not know what can be done. Having the same equal basis as other Canadians to deliver and provide the kind of services and support to our communities would be a good starting point. Give us a little bit of time to learn to do it properly. We have many young people who are getting the training. All they need is the opportunity. There are no opportunities within our communities for anyone who has any kind of training — whether it is skills or in science — to come back to the communities. It is there and we should be able to welcome them to come back and work with our people.
Senator Brazeau: My question has to do with a comment in your opening remarks with respect to lack of funding for the Native Women's Association of Canada. Obviously the federal government does provide resources to the organization on many different programs, including health. As a matter of fact, funding was announced for Evidence to Action in the amount of $500,000, and very recently Evidence to Action II was funded to the tune of $1.8 million over the next three years. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: You are correct.
Senator Brazeau: Some may not feel that is enough money, but regardless, we are not talking about nickels and dimes here. We are talking about significant amounts of money.
How much does your organization receive on a yearly basis on average, and if you still feel that it is not enough, what would be enough?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: I will ask my executive director who is in charge of our administration to answer those questions.
Ms. Dumont-Smith: We did get funding for Evidence to Action. It is $1.6 million for three years. That is a decrease. We were getting $1 million per year for Sisters in Spirit for the first five years of that initiative which allowed the Native Women's Association of Canada to do advocacy work as well as research. That has been cut out with the Evidence to Action program.
Having said that, we also receive funding from Health Canada to address various health matters. We receive funds from Indian and Northern Affairs; small, core funding from that department. However, we cannot address issues that are very important and are a priority to Aboriginal women, such as education and economic development. We have accessed this year — after many meetings with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development — a little bit of money to help us start work on the issue of education, but that funding will end March 31. Hopefully we will be able to access more money because it comes up all the time. At the office, we are asked to make presentations at all levels of government, such as committee hearings like this, but we do not have the capacity. The people we have on staff are specifically working on whatever project we have been funded for.
The same is for economic development, which is one of our priority issues. We do not have the capacity or expertise in that area to address those issues. There is funding, but human and financial resources are missing in those areas.
Our funding varies. There are about $5 million a year. We have 30 staff working on many different issues. We continuously put out paper. We continuously try to improve the lives of Aboriginal women. In relation to what we need, I will mention core funding. We had core funding for five years. That, as well, will end March 31, 2012. We have no idea if this will go beyond that time frame.
We have been operating with that core funding for the last five years. It has not increased every year, although the cost of living has increased. We need more money in that core area. We have no one in the area of mass communications. We have no expertise in the technology field. We are moving into 2012 and we need to bring ourselves up to par in order to address the issues more rapidly because technology is changing. We have many gaps in funding and we require more funding.
As far as the amount, I would say our core funding should double. Our funding should be ensured so we can deal with issues affecting women. Those issues include housing, education, violence and all the justice issues that specifically touch upon the lives of Aboriginal women. I believe our core funding should really be ensured and not just be project to project. About half of our work time is spent on preparing reports back to government for accountability.
We do need more funding. I am hoping that we get the support for more core funding, at least for the next five years, so that we can plan appropriately and be on par with other national organizations.
Senator Meredith: On economic development, with the funding that you have received what projects have you undertaken? What are the successes of those projects in terms of creating economic stability for women?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: As I mentioned, we have tried to get money for the economic development area because we are invited at many tables at the federal level to speak about the economic issues of Aboriginal women, but we do not have the capacity or the expertise. It is very limited in what we can present. We have no money in economic development.
Senator Meredith: Have you taken on any small projects in terms of squeezing money from your budget to ensure that something gets stimulated?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: Last year we made a presentation to Minister Duncan on the subject of our need for funds to work in the area of economic development. Our president, as well as the other NAO leaders, presented to the Prime Minister last February and that presentation was on economic development. We presented a proposal and met with people from the Aboriginal Affairs Department and it never came through.
I am not an economist. We do not have anyone in that area working at the Native Women's Association of Canada. We do not have individuals with economic development skills on our staff. Therefore we try to do bits of patchwork when we have to present to the Prime Minister or Minister Duncan.
Senator Meredith: I am not talking about reports. I am talking about small projects that you could have done by moving budgets around. Funds from one budget can be moved around to start a small project that will stimulate funding for your organization.
Ms. Dumont-Smith: That does not happen. That is not the reality.
Senator Meredith: Have you done anything along those lines?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: No.
The Deputy Chair: You were talking about your core funding ending March 2012. What does your core funding support? Would that be the main staff you have within the office?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: The core funding we have will pay for the limited salary dollars, including mine, our president and one executive assistant, as well as rent. It is very limited.
The Deputy Chair: If you were to compare NWAC to CAP or to AFN, do they have core funding? Do you have any idea what the difference in funding would be?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: I do not know their amount of funding. I can only perceive it to be higher in some areas. I know they have communications experts. They have IT experts, which is something we do not have. We have to share an executive assistant. We do not have funds for a receptionist, for example. That is taken from the administration dollars from other projects. We are very stretched in trying to cover all the bases at all times.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Do you know exactly how much funding in dollars Aboriginal Affairs gets every year?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: Do you mean what we get from them?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: No, how much does Aboriginal Affairs get in funding dollars?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: I believe it is in the billions.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Do they have to share these billions of dollars with your organization, with housing organizations in my community?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: I imagine so, yes.
Senator Brazeau: What type of discussions have you had with provincial governments? Along the same lines as Senator Hervieux-Payette's line of questioning, there are many issues that fall within provincial jurisdiction. In my view, having led one of the national Aboriginal organizations, one of the problems is that the federal government is always looked at to provide funding for these matters. It is true; there is absolutely no level of expertise in many of these matters. It is the provincial governments that have the expertise. Do you not believe that perhaps it would be easier to try and work in conjunction with the provincial governments to address the many issues that plague Aboriginal peoples?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: That is a good question, Senator Brazeau. We have 12 member organizations that work closely with the provincial and territorial governments. They are the ones that access funding for work within their regional areas. They do not get any money from us as a national organization. We do not provide any funding for our member organizations. We come together and we look at our overall mandate right across Canada, like specific issues we just talked about. However, if we look at the Ontario Native Women's Association, the Quebec Native Women's Association, the Native Women's Association of Prince Edward Island, they work directly with and have good working relationships with their provincial governments. I am really pleased to share that with you.
As a national organization, we cannot access funding from the provinces. I believe it is understood. It is just not possible. We would not compete with our member organizations at the same time. There are occasions where we can work together, for example, on missing and murdered Aboriginal women. We support each other.
The other thing that we should share with all of you is that as a women's organizations, we were created on a volunteer basis because of a specific need in the early 1970s. Monies were not given to us to get organized. We came into being out of necessity. We saw what was happening to our families, our communities and to our rights as Aboriginal women. That mandate and vision is still there. We will do whatever is necessary to continue to work on behalf of our women. We have that mandate.
Many times this is volunteer work. Much of our work is on a volunteer basis. For the 40 years that I have been working with our women's organizations it has always been on a volunteer basis. I think we can go right across Canada and ask our women that. They do not get paid. They are not highly paid consultants or in positions of high wages. It is always volunteer work. We are glad if we can get our expenses to come to a meeting, to come to a meeting like this even. We appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Brazeau: What are your views with respect to the fact that NWAC has been in existence since the early 1970s, that you have been a national Aboriginal women's organization, made up of provincial affiliate organizations, which I understand very well, but now within other organizations there are other women's councils or women's secretariats that, in some cases, get funding that perhaps could have been intended for the Native Women's Association of Canada? I do not ask the question to pit women's councils against each other, but if there starts to be an increase in women's organizations, do you not feel it might lead to the potential for duplication of effort, and not necessarily coherence with respect to what is currently being done on behalf of native women across the country? Is that a concern of yours?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: I would say very definitely we do not perceive any kind of duplication. There is so much work to be done that obviously the more women's organizations, the more women's committees that have taken on the task of working with our people, all the better for our families and communities.
Members of the Native Women's Association of Canada are elected. We are the only nationally elected Aboriginal women's organization, and you can extend that to our provincial and territorial member organizations. It is all on an elected basis. Women at the grassroots level recognize this is our leadership and they are bringing forward our concerns.
I do not know about the other national organizations, how they choose their women's committees. I do not believe they are elected, but nonetheless we will work with them. We give them that respect, because they have that same willingness, that same challenge, and it is our role as women to work on behalf of our children and future generations. I do not perceive any kind of disparity or dilemma. I would encourage having more women's organizations to work with us.
Ms. Dumont-Smith: To add to that, we do not see any conflict or anything in working with other women's organizations. In fact, we are co-presenting a proposal to the Minister of Justice to work on issues of violence against women with the Métis National Council of Women. We have also met with the Women's Council of the Assembly of First Nations to work on matters of mutual interest and concern. We are not pitted against one another. We work together to try to address the many issues, as the president said, of Aboriginal women.
The Deputy Chair: Are these other organizations not part of a bigger organization? For example, with AFN, which would have global funding, the women's section of that would be part of AFN and is not a separate organization like NWAC. You are a separate organization; you are not affiliated with another bigger organization.
Ms. Dumont-Smith: That is correct.
The Deputy Chair: In a sense there is no conflict because you are a totally different body.
Senator Raine: Ms. Corbiere Lavell, I would like to congratulate you on the wonderful work you have done over the years.
I think you are absolutely right in your opening statement to inform us of the long history of trying to get the rights, if you like, of women considered equal to those of men. In the little that I know about Aboriginal culture, I can see that there are some common threads where the matrilineal, really the female lineage, was as important or more than the male. When European contact came along and we just sort of assumed we should do it our way, it did not really fit. There has been a lot of fallout because of that.
I would like to ask you about two things. One is the matrimonial property law that looks like it will be passed. As you know, it has been adjusted somewhat, and I am sure that it only will be the first step in solving some of the issues. In spite of the lack of resourcing for lawyers and things like that, do you not think that having the same rights as other Canadian women is important to, at least as a starting point, even the playing field?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: I agree with you. This is our aspiration as Aboriginal women in Canada. We started looking at the discrimination in the Indian Act on that basis. We wanted the same rights, our rights as women, to be recognized, that we had human rights as well. That was not shown within the legislation called the Indian Act.
At the same time, we also have been striving to have the various levels recognize that we are also citizens of Canada and should have the same rights as every other Canadian woman.
We also know that having the same rights within our communities as Canadian women outside our communities will not manifest in a way that will enable us to access those rights. It is just not on the same basis. It will just be really difficult to try and put into practice our rights within our communities unless there is some background and a basis for our communities to recognize and look at our own cultural backgrounds and have our own codes. That is the most important thing.
All we have to do is look at our history. Within our history we had those treaties that were guaranteed, that we would have our sovereign rights as nations, the sovereign right to make determining codes and laws within our communities. That should be the most basic and uppermost right that we would like to recognize. We are citizens of these nations. If we try and take the next step and start taking away from our sovereign right, it will not be practical.
All we have to do is look at the declaration on the rights of indigenous people. It is there. We would like to see those rights accessed and applied to us as Aboriginal people in Canada. How can we do it? How do we go about that? It would be the same aspect. We aspire, as I said, and are doing whatever we can.
Senator Raine: What comes first, the chicken or the egg? In reality we are living in a society where we have two different cultural groups that do not really mesh, the world views are different. There are so many big differences.
However, I believe that most Canadians today, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike, would like to see progress for Aboriginal people, especially those living on reserves in remote areas. We need to apply the tools that we know to define rights so that we can challenge people to live up to them. We think that the missing link for matrimonial real property will be fixed with this legislation. All the problems will not be solved overnight. I understand that, as every First Nation is different, they each want their own code, which respects their culture and their laws, to apply in their communities. However, we must have a starting point.
In order to move to the next step, you really have to address who belongs to your community. I love your comment that citizenship and nation rebuilding should be left to those who belong. As long as the federal government is deciding who belongs, there will always be conflict.
Your organization understands the ramifications of the citizenship issues. Could your organization be a clearinghouse to help develop best practices and codes that could be adopted or used as a starting point in various communities? Do you see that as a role for NWAC?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: We have proposed that idea to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. We are working with our nations across the country to develop our own governance codes. I talked about citizenship in those codes. In our language citizenship is "E'Dbendaagsijig'', those who belong. Once our citizenship codes are created as part of reclaiming our nations all the other laws and governance structures will be applicable, and they we will welcomed by our communities because they will have been developed by those who are part of that. It will not be imposed from the outside. You are absolutely correct in stating that that is what must happen.
As the commissioner on citizenship for the Nishanawbe nation, I am working with the chiefs of our 39 First Nations in Ontario to develop a governance structure. We are developing our own E'Dbendaagsijig, called (Chinoknigawin), which is the big laws governing us as First Nations people. We have been working on this for several years and we are in the process of finalizing. We are coming together and reclaiming the sovereign right that we had when our ancestors signed those treaties. Our leadership at that time consulted with all the members in their communities; the women, the elders, everyone. That is how they went forward and signed those treaties.
If we could return to that premise, it would resolve many of our current issues. Our nations would have their own matrimonial codes and we would be able to determine who belongs and who does not. We know who our people are, and all we are asking for is the opportunity to deal with that. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that we should have the right to determine who our people are and to govern ourselves. That is all we want. I would like to believe that that will happen in my lifetime. Our children are growing up and will have to take over what we are leaving. They are bright and beautiful children. I hope that there will be a planet and an environment where they can live good, healthy lives. I want that for your grandchildren as well as for ours.
Senator Raine: Going to the next step, I am sure you know that the government does not just print money, that it all comes from taxpayers and resource revenues. My understanding is that when the treaties were signed it was agreed that resource revenue would go to the government and the government would look after the people.
In hindsight, although it seemed like a good thing at the time, some people have become dependent on receiving money from the government without the satisfaction of earning their own living, and there will never be enough money in those situations.
I know that you recognize the necessity for education in order to have skills to earn your own living. We are just finishing our study on education. We have traveled across the country and seen incredible things in on-reserve education. Some have immersion schools with bright and proud children who are booming with energy and desire. No one wants to stand in their way. There is a huge wave coming. However, that is not everywhere; it is only on those First Nations that have own-source revenue, because what is coming from Aboriginal Affairs is not enough to provide for that quality of education.
Do you see a day when belonging to your nations will not necessarily entitle you to getting everything paid for but rather to being part of a community that will look after its weakest people, those who need help the most, with everyone being expected to contribute? Is that the future you are looking for?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: Ideally that is the way it should go. We need to go back to the original concept of our ancestors who signed those treaties with the Crown on a nation-to-nation basis. I can remember my grandfather saying that the Queen promised to take care of us, that she would have our people in the palm of her hand and would provide all the resources to us as Aboriginal people. That was his understanding and that is how we need to look at our treaties. It was not meant to be only $5 a year for the next 100 years.
We have to look at reality and at the resource revenues. Much of the resource revenues are not coming to our communities as they should be. If we had access to those resource revenues, we would be able to provide for our nations. We need only look at Northern Ontario where they have diamond mines and the ring of fire. If we could work together, there would not be the perception that we are always taking. Those are our resources as much as everyone else's, and that should be recognized. We are also paying a lot of taxes, so it does not go only one way. Many of our people live off-reserve.
There is that constant contribution, and it is not one-sided taking, which is the perception across Canada. If we could access those resources, our nations would then be in a better position to provide governance and implement those other structures, such as servicing, education and taking care of our elders, everything that governments across Canada do. We would like to have the opportunity to do that as well.
Where do municipalities and cities across Canada get their resources? It comes from somewhere, but no one questions them. We see where there is a lot of other misspending that takes place at all levels, but if it is a First Nations community, there is a big uproar over it.
Senator Raine: You mentioned the municipalities and where they get their money. For most municipal budgets, the vast majority of revenue comes from property taxes. On reserves, because you do not own your individual property, you are not taxed for the services that need to be provided. That must come, then, from senior governments who need to get their revenue plus resources from taxpayers.
Right now in our government, I am sure you are aware that we are in a deficit position wherein we are basically spending the money of the grandchildren of our country to live today. We all have to work hard to create the standard of living that we would like.
It is a very complicated situation, and I am glad that you are involved because I think your organization has a lot to offer in terms of moving forward with education and family resourcing. Thank you for what you are doing.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to make one comment. Coming from Saskatchewan, which is a very treaty-based part of the country, our history has been that the First Nations there have long asked for proper acknowledgment and recognition of the treaties. Senator Raine, there is a book called Treaty Elders of Saskatchewan: Our Dream Is That Our Peoples Will One Day Be Clearly Recognized as Nations, which says that according to the elders, we did not give up the resources, except to the depth of a plow. It is a long-standing issue.
For instance, in Saskatchewan, there is a big fight over potash, which is considerably lower than the depth of a plow, but if there is potash beneath the reserve, who should it belong to? Of course, First Nations say it belongs to them and the provincial government says it belongs to the province. It is not a straightforward situation; there is a constant battle going on as to whom the resources belong. I look forward to the day we reach some kind of resolution. Does anyone have any comments with respect to that?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Property taxes cover the expenses of most municipalities, but small municipalities in Quebec get most of their money from the Government of Quebec. It all depends on the size as well as the revenues of that region. There is an equalization formula.
It is the same thing with the school boards. In the Gaspé area, for example, most of the money does not come from local taxes but from the Government of Quebec.
There is a mechanism in Quebec whereby in regions where revenues are lower, both for the school boards as well as municipalities, the formula provides for the capacity of taxing in that region. It may be different in other provinces, but I can tell you that the Gaspé area would not survive if there was not major financial support provided to that region.
In large cities like Montreal, money is still provided by the Government of Quebec, but it is not the majority. Big cities and small communities are quite different. We have hundreds of small towns in Quebec, and they mostly receive their money from the government. This is just being aware of how it works. I was the president of a school board, so I knew where the money was coming from.
Senator Patterson: You are the Native Women's Association of Canada. Could you tell me who is included in the definition of "Native''?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: Within our organization?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: We were founded on the basis that we do not exclude any of our women, so we represent the voices and interests of status women, Metis women, and we also have Inuit women within our provincial-territorial organizations. We are not discriminatory on that basis. If any of our women at the community level have issues regarding their rights or any other specific issue, then we are open to assisting them in whatever way we can, either through our provincial-territorial organizations or our national organization.
Senator Patterson: However, you only have 12 provincial and territorial associations, and most of the Inuit women in Canada are in Nunavut. I guess I am curious, why do you not have a territorial association in Nunavut?
I am also curious about some of your programs, which seem to be national programs. For example, is Evidence to Action, an important initiative on violence against Aboriginal women and girls, intended to apply to all Aboriginal women and girls in Canada?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: To be more explicit about our organization and its setup, as I said, we are inclusive of all three categories that are recognized within the Constitution. However, we also have our sister organization called Pauktuutit Inuit Women, which represents the interests and voices of Inuit and Innu women in Nunavut and right across the North, into the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
As I said, we are open to partnerships, and we work well and closely with each other on those major concerns, such as missing and murdered Aboriginal women. When we say Aboriginal women, that means all Aboriginal women recognized in the Constitution: status First Nations women, Metis women and Inuit and Innu women. We have a good working relationship and we respect each other.
Senator Patterson: In your partnerships, you mentioned the AFN Women's Council and the Métis National Council of Women. You did not mention Pauktuutit Inuit Women, but I understand you have a relationship with them as well.
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: That is right.
Senator Patterson: You get ASETS funding, the Aboriginal employment and skills strategy, and you attend federal- provincial-territorial meetings on behalf of native women. Do you have mechanisms for involving Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada and the Inuit Women's Association in programs like the ASETS program, and when you participate in federal-provincial-territorial processes? I know Pauktuutit is not there. Do you have mechanisms for involving them in those meetings and programs like ASETS?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: The executive director of Pauktuutit, Tracy O'Hearn, attends the Violence against Aboriginal Women Group, which is one component of the FPT process. She is there. The assets program is delivered at the PTMA level. I believe that in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are women of Inuit ancestry who have received some funds through that. If they would apply in other areas, they would receive funds as well.
Ms. Corbiere-Lavell: Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada also get ASETS.
Ms. Dumont-Smith: I do not know all the programs that Pauktuutit does access. I know they do a lot of work in health and violence against women. I am not sure if they have their own ASETS, though.
Senator Patterson: What about the From Evidence to Action program? Are you reaching out to Nunavut and the Inuit of Nunavut in that initiative?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: Yes. The core staff of From Evidence to Action is at the Ottawa office. By the way, Pauktuutit is in the same building as us; we are on the ninth floor, they are on the fifth. Through that program, we have a gathering of families every year. Last year, we had the president of Pauktuutit attend because she was a family member of a missing and murdered woman, as well as the executive director. They are part of our database of families who have lost a loved one by way of being murdered.
Senator Patterson: It has always puzzled me that there are two national women's organizations. I am not entirely satisfied that the cooperation is as close as it could be. You mentioned one component of the federal-provincial- territorial process where you are working with Pauktuutit. Would you say it might be helpful if there was more clarity about the mandate and roles of Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada and the Native Women's Association of Canada? Could that be improved upon?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: I know that Pauktuutit also works with ITK. It is my understanding that they are invited to different tables to present the Inuit women's perspective at that level. Also, Pauktuutit has informed us that when it comes to Inuit issues that pertain to their Inuit women, they are in the best position to address those issues.
I suppose that because they are not an officially recognized NAO, perhaps they are not invited to all tables, but it is not for us to invite them. I believe they work very well with the other national Aboriginal organization, ITK.
The Deputy Chair: With regard to that line of questioning, could it be because of cultural differences that Pauktuutit is a separate organization? Because there is a self-government agreement, there may be differences and the two interests are not necessarily compatible in all ways?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: You are correct. As I said, we work together very well on issues of mutual concern, such as stopping violence, alleviating poverty, better education and housing. Those are all interests of mutual concern.
However, if we get down to more specifics, Pauktuutit has their own expertise and knowledge, and we recognize that. They work with their national organization, ITK. At that level, we also recognize that and give them that respect.
At the national level, as a national organization, we will be signing a statement of partnership tonight with the Assembly of First Nations, where we will work together as one national organization with another national organization on those issues of mutual concern. That is that recognition that we are separate but we also have common areas of mutual mandates and concern and we are respectful of each other.
As I said, we are a nationally elected organization and the Assembly of First Nations consists of the chiefs, and we will have that ongoing working relationship. We would like to see this kind of statement of partnership extend to the other organizations, but it is not to take away from any of the women's committees that are perhaps part of the other organizations.
I point out that we are specific, we are elected and we have stated that we have that recognition within our constitution. We should have the right to speak on our own behalf and be a nationally recognized organization; we should not have to come under the other organizations. We have a specific history and cultural traditions that need to be recognized as well.
Senator Meredith: Ms. Corbiere Lavell, companies are downsizing and reorganizing themselves to be more efficient and so forth. To Senator Patterson's question with respect to the number of organizations there, have there been any talks or discussions around how you might be able to pool your resources so you become more effective — not negating your autonomy as a national body, but in terms of resources and attacking the same sort of issues?
For example, one arm would take on the women's issues — those that look at the economic empowerment of women and so forth. It would be working together instead of going to the federal government saying we need more resources, which we know is always an issue. I am for that, but how can smaller organizations come together and say you are a division, you are sharing the same administrative resources — head offices and so forth — so you become more effective? Have there been any discussions around that?
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: We have not even thought of that concept simply because —
Senator Meredith: Can I suggest you do that? I want you to be effective in the work you do. You have done this for a number of years, but the cry is always financial.
Ms. Corbiere Lavell: I think we need to take a step back and recognize our particular areas of legality, our areas of composition and the fact that we have different mandates. I do not know how they could be combined.
Our Metis sisters have a whole different set of legal connections with the government; they have a different traditional background and history. Likewise, so do the Inuit women, our status sisters and women in our communities. There is absolutely no way that any of these areas of rights, concerns or future development can be combined. It would be like asking any other Canadians to come together that are totally separate. It would just not be feasible.
We have our own traditions, cultures, nationhood and identities. It is very different, and it will have to stay the same. All we have to do is look back at our treaties. Our Metis sisters did not have those treaties. I do not believe the Inuit are in that same position.
Therefore, to deal with our treaties and our rights as status women, it must be very specific. That is why we need to maintain that separate identity as a national organization.
Ms. Dumont-Smith: I want to flag the point that that was tried previously. The National Aboriginal Health Organization was put in place in the year 2000. It has proven to be an abject failure. It is falling at the moment, as we speak.
Senator Meredith: Why is that? Is it because of the leadership not coming together and saying these are the common goals we need to work on specifically?
Ms. Dumont-Smith: I will not answer that because our president did. It was in terms of different rights, concerns and issues. NAHO is struggling now, and some organizations have pulled out.
Senator Demers: Who elects you and how many women are entitled to vote? You may want to keep that in mind when giving your answers.
Accountability is something that we have heard a lot about in my close to two and a half years as a senator. For example, you need 50 people to do a job, but you only have 20. The other 30 are there, but they are not accountable. While you were talking, I could tell that you heart is in the right place, but how many people are accountable? We are going into 2012, and there is no question that women are getting beaten up; their children are not eating and there are mental health cases. That does not sit well with me. As Senator Meredith said, we are always talking about money. We understand the money part — more than you think — but I wonder how much accountability there is. How much help are you actually getting? I am actually not questioning both of you; I am just asking about the big picture, if you do not mind.
Ms. Corbiere-Lavell: With respect to your first question, as a national organization, our board consists of 12 presidents of each of the 12 member territorial organizations. Each of those 12 presidents in those territories is elected within their provincial and territorial regions. It varies. If you look at the province of Quebec, when they have their AGAs, you get hundreds of women. It is the same in Ontario. Going across Canada, it varies.
I cannot say specifically that we have 10,000 members, but maybe we do because it varies, as I said. We have 12 sitting on our board as of right now. As I said, we also have a working relationship with the Pauktuutit Inuit women. We also maintain a partnership and a working relationship with the Assembly of First Nations, the Metis National Council, the Congress of Aboriginal People and the Inuit Tapiriit. We also have that kind of working relationship.
Getting back to your accountability aspect, we have always maintained that we are extremely transparent and accountable for any of the funds that we do receive from the federal government — this goes back to our previous program, Sisters in Spirit. Everything has been accountable. We can produce and show you what we have done with those funds. We are also in the process of going out and working with our communities, both Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal, to do the kind of training to make our people aware that this is our culture and our tradition. In our traditions, violence was not there. We know all the reasons why that came about. We would like to see that cease.
Our vision is that once we attain our nationhood status, if we look at our clans and our teachings, the grandfather teachings about being respectful and showing that love, compassion and strength to each other; and if we bring that back again, then this violence should stop. We should be able to help our people who have been through the residential school system, and the justice system, and have been downtrodden, and give them that sense of identity again. We need to look at addictions, for the variety of reasons of why it is there.
It takes a lot of work, but we are not in a position to explain the accountability practices of other organizations. All we can do is speak on our behalf. We do the best we can with the few funds that we do get.
The Deputy Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our witnesses, Ms. Corbiere-Lavell and Ms. Dumont-Smith, for giving us excellent information about the Native Women's Association of Canada and about concerns with regard to citizenship. You talked about Bill C-3 and Bill S-2, the matrimonial real property bill. You talked to us about housing shortages and Aboriginal child care, education and missing and murdered Aboriginal women. You gave us a broad spectrum of what you do. You also talked about your funding dilemmas and your interest in economic development, which you would like to pursue. You also gave us news about exciting partnerships coming up with the Assembly of First Nations.
Next week, senators, we will discuss future business. We will come prepared to look at what our analysts have for us and to determine an agenda for the future.
It has been noted that we will be releasing our report on education tomorrow. We all look forward to that.
(The committee adjourned.)