Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 19 - Evidence, November 19, 2012 (afternoon meeting)
WINNIPEG, Monday, November 19, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 2 p.m. to study issues pertaining to the human rights of First Nations band members who reside off-reserve, with an emphasis on the current federal policy framework.
Senator Patrick Brazeau (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, this is the twenty-fifth meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights in the Forty-first Parliament. I want to start by acknowledging that we are in Treaty 1 territory, traditionally occupied by the Chippewa and Swampy Cree peoples.
The committee is pleased to be in Winnipeg today. Thank you very much for your warm welcome. I would like to thank Elder Gary Daneau for his wise words earlier before we started the meeting. We have been entrusted by the Senate with a mandate to study issues regarding Human Rights in Canada, and elsewhere in the world.
[Translation]
The committee was set up by the Senate to create a forum to discuss human rights at both the federal and provincial levels, and to monitor and ensure equal treatment of members of minority groups.
Over the years, it has submitted reports on such subjects as Canadians, the United Nations Human Rights Council, children, matrimonial real property on reserves and employment equity within the public service.
[English]
My name is Patrick Brazeau and I am deputy chair of the committee. I would like to welcome all of you here today.
I will let other members of the committee introduce themselves.
Senator Jaffer: Good afternoon, my name is Mobina Jaffer, and I am the chair of the committee.
Senator Harb: My name is Mac Harb and I am a member of the committee.
The Deputy Chair: In March 2012 a Standing Committee on Human Rights was authorized to examine and report on issues pertaining to the human rights of First Nations band members who reside off- reserve placing an emphasis on the current federal policy framework.
In particular the committee will examine rights relating to residency; access to rights; participation in community- based decision-making processes; portability of those rights; and existing remedies. According to census data collected in 2006, it is estimated that Aboriginal people represent 3.8 percent of the Canadian population. In the 1940s, nearly all Aboriginal people lived on reserve or in rural areas. However, this is no longer the case. In fact, in 2006, 54 percent of Aboriginal people lived in cities off reserve, and this number continues to grow today. With more and more Aboriginal and First Nations people living off reserve, there is a growing need to ensure that all First Nations people regardless of whether or not they live on or off reserve, have access to the same human rights and protections.
I would now like to welcome our first panel, starting with Robert Wavey, Executive Director for Manitoba Aboriginal and Northern Affairs. Eleanor Brockington is the Director of Policy and Strategic Initiatives Branch within the department. James B. Wilson is the Treaty Commissioner of Manitoba. Finally, Ms. Rhonda Forgues is the Acting Manager of Aboriginal Initiatives for the City of Winnipeg. I welcome you all on behalf of the committee.
Robert Wavey, Executive Director, Manitoba Aboriginal and Northern Affairs: Thank you and good afternoon honourable members of the Senate. We are here on behalf of the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs to speak to you about our views on the matter you are studying.
The Aboriginal and Northern Affairs vision is an improved quality of life and opportunities for Manitoba's Aboriginal and Northern people, with four current goals: first, to close the gap between Aboriginal and northern residents and other Manitobans in the quality of life, particularly in the areas of education, health, housing and economic opportunities, and employment; second, to fulfill constitutional obligations and other provincial responsibilities to Aboriginal and northern communities; third, healthy, safe and successful Aboriginal and northern communities; and fourth, autonomous, accountable and sustainable Aboriginal and northern communities.
The statutory responsibilities of the department are delivered primarily through the Northern Affairs Act, the Planning Act, and Communities Economic Development Fund Act, which are administered through the local government division and Community Economic Development Fund offices. The Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat was created in 1982-83, partly in response to the Canadian Constitution talks which included Aboriginal self-government. Today, the secretariat has become a prominent leader in all sectors of government services that relate to Aboriginal people.
As well as being the advocacy voice in government on behalf of Aboriginal people, the secretariat's objectives are to influence the development and delivery of policies, programs and services that result in safe, healthy and secure environments for Aboriginal people in northern communities; to conclude agreements related to adverse effects of hydro development, treaty land entitlement and other land related matters, and to fulfill obligations resulting from these agreements and resource-based developments.
We would like to preface our comments by stating that the Province of Manitoba does not have a specific policy for First Nation governments and First Nation members residing on or off reserve. However, if such an endeavour were to be contemplated, it would require First Nations' cooperation and participation among others. Manitoba chooses to work in collaboration with First Nations and other governments and organizations on issues and areas of mutual interest.
Manitoba views the federal government as having primary responsibility for Aboriginal peoples. As such, preference is given to work inter-jurisdictionally with the federal government in partnership with First Nation governments and Aboriginal organizations.
Given the time constraints we have for our presentation and rather than go into detail about Aboriginal demographics in Manitoba, we have brought copies of the Aboriginal People in Manitoba Report for your reference. It is based on 2006 census data and also includes more recent 2010-11 program data from provincial departments.
In March 2012, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada reported that there were over 140,000 registered members of First Nations in Manitoba with close to 85,000 living on reserve. That is over 60 percent. With a Manitoba population of over 1.2 million in 2012, the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada figure translates into 11.1 percent of the total Manitoba population as registered First Nation members, about 40 percent of whom reside off reserve.
Based on that census, non-status Indians made up 3.3 percent of the total Aboriginal population of about 176,000, which in 2006 was about 15.5 percent of the total population in Manitoba. That compares to 11.4 percent nationally.
Given the significant Aboriginal population in Manitoba and the increasing numbers and variety of Aboriginal- related issues that arise, the Government of Manitoba created an Aboriginal Issues Committee of Cabinet to provide coordination and coherence to decisions on Aboriginal-related matters. The AICC is co-chaired by the Premier and the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs who currently is also the Deputy Premier. The AICC includes ministers of departments such as Justice; Conservation and Water Stewardship; Family Services and Labour; Housing and Community Development; Education, Advanced Education and Literacy; and Health amongst others. The AICC provides a focal point for departmental submissions on Aboriginal matters and makes recommendations for cabinet and treasury board consideration.
Also, to increase responsiveness to Aboriginal needs, departments have in the past decade established dedicated branches, directors and service authorities to Aboriginal services such as First Nations, Metis, and Inuit health, Aboriginal relations branch within conservation, Aboriginal education directorate, and child and family services authorities. Although there is still much work to be done in general, most of the departments incorporate an Aboriginal lens into their policy, and program development.
Generally, all Manitoba programs and services of general application are available to non-status and status First Nation members living on or off reserve. There are many Aboriginal programs and services supported by the provincial government, but few programs are specifically targeted to First Nation members living off reserve.
For example, at our request, the Aboriginal Education Directorate prepared a summary of Aboriginal education programs and services, which we have shared with your committee. We noted that there was only one program, called Working Together Supporting Students in Transition: Sharing student information between First Nations and Provincial Schools that applied specifically to First Nations students who are moving from on-reserve First Nations schools to public schools in Manitoba.
Within our department, two funded programs are specifically for status First Nation members. The first is the First People's Economic Growth Fund, to which Manitoba has contributed close to $23 million over the last six years, which is for both on- and off-reserve status First Nation members who are entrepreneurs and business owners and for First Nations community economic development. Second, there is an Eagle Urban Transition Centre, to which Manitoba contributes $157,000 annually. It is a project initiated by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs to assist First Nation members moving into Winnipeg to access housing and other services including education and employment opportunities. The department also provides annual core funding for three First Nation representative organizations, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak and Southern Chief's Organization. They have asserted the portability of treaty and Aboriginal rights in that they represent First Nation members on and off reserve.
The department also participates in tripartite agreements between Canada, Manitoba, and the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, which was established in 1990, to address priority needs and issues identified by the Aboriginal population in Winnipeg. The Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg is a status blind or pan-Aboriginal organization and represents Aboriginal members living in Winnipeg. It is the only Aboriginal representative organization that we know of in Manitoba that includes the non-status Indian First Nation population. The department matches $100,000 per annum federal contribution to this tripartite table. This amount used to be contributed by our department to the Aboriginal Council as core funding, but since the council represents only the Aboriginal people living in Winnipeg and is not province wide, it cannot, we understand, be affiliated to the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, and therefore is not eligible for operations funding federally. Converting the provincial funding into tripartite enabled the partnership and matching federal contribution from the former office of the Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians.
There have been inquiries from time to time of other groups wishing to form Aboriginal councils in other urban centres, but none that have organized to the same degree as the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg. Perhaps this is because many of the non-status and status First Nation members living off reserve are served by the 11 Indian and Metis Friendship Centres such as this one throughout Manitoba. Winnipeg is the home to the first Indian and Metis Friendship Centre in Canada, which began in the early 1960s.
Manitoba provides $1.2 million per annum to the Manitoba Association of Friendship Centres to disburse and augment the federal support going to Friendship Centres.
These are just some of the programs and services we deliver. If you want more detail on other provincial programs and services, we can take note and submit the information later.
We are open to questions. Thank you.
James B. Wilson, Treaty Commissioner of Manitoba, Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba: Thank you, senators and staff. I would also like to thank you, Gary, for his opening prayer.
Welcome to Treaty 1 territory. I want to give some context to the dialogue that we are having today and Treaty 1 is really significant to that dialogue; the treaties as well as the difference between the treaties and the Indian Act. A lot of the questions we are addressing revolve around the differences between the treaties and the Indian Act.
One of the women in the back, Chickadee, she has her pipe with her. It is significant that a pipe be present in this dialogue because the treaties were negotiated through ceremony in a lot of instances.
If we go back August 3, 1871, Treaty 1 was signed in this area, Lower Fort Garry outside of Winnipeg. The treaties brought together the Crown and the First Nations into a mutually negotiated partnership. We had the Crown approaching the First Nation saying, "We want access to the wealth of the land," and we had the First Nations approaching the Crown saying, "We understand what you want and there are certain things that we want as well from this partnership." The treaties really laid the groundwork of the partnership between First Nations and the government.
With those negotiations came things like the guarantee to hunt and trap on traditional territory, and fishing; things like education, as the First Nations wanted access to mainstream opportunities.
The treaties had a lot to do with opportunities. First Nations wanted access to opportunities so their descendants could participate and become part of mainstream society while holding onto their communities, their governance structures, their culture, really key things.
The analogy when referring to the treaties is that it is like a marriage; you have two groups coming together. The work of the marriage does not stop when the marriage ceremony happens, that is when the work begins. It is an ongoing process. Of the over 70 treaties negotiated with First Nations across Canada, and in Western Canada 11 are numbered treaties. Something else was introduced unilaterally, both simultaneously and after some of the treaties were negotiated without input from the First Nations and that was the Indian Act. A lot of people confuse the treaties with the Indian Act, but they are two very separate things. The treaties really lay the foundation for the relationship.
The Indian Act was brought in unilaterally without input from First Nations people. The Indian Act is where we get the introduction of residential schools, we get the introduction of the Pass System, we get the introduction of taking agricultural practices away from First Nations. The Indian Act is where we have the introduction of dependency. The current legislative model is the Indian Act.
I believe we have to move away from that Indian Act table, from that Indian Act form of relationship between First Nations and the Crown. We have to move towards or back to the treaty relationship between First Nations and the Crown, one of mutual dependence, mutual responsibility, mutual obligation and mutual benefit.
One of the things that we are doing through our office to educate people about the role the treaties play, is we have a campaign called "We Are All Treaty People" here in Manitoba, and its intent is to get all Manitobans, not just First Nations but all Manitobans understanding that the treaties benefit them. There are treaty rights attached to both sides. If you own property in Manitoba, as an example, and you are non-native you are exercising a treaty right. Your right to own property is traced back to the treaties. You would not be able to own that property without the treaties that were negotiated.
We are educating people. I think education is key in getting people to better understand their rights and obligations. We are moving towards educating primarily in the K to 12 system in Manitoba, start educating people about the treaties. Part of that is educating them again about the treaties, treaty relationships, the history attached to them, and about the difference between the treaties and the Indian Act.
As you get more and more people educated and more and more people understand the difference between the treaties and the relationship in depth, we will really be able to move towards solutions to issues that involve not just one group or another but everybody together.
Rhonda Forgues, Acting Director, Aboriginal Initiative, City of Winnipeg: Thank you for the invitation to come and share with you today the types of programs and services that City of Winnipeg offers for Aboriginal people living here. My name is Rhonda Forgues, and I am the corporate manager of Aboriginal Initiatives, City of Winnipeg. I am going to be sharing with you some information about our programs and initiatives, and although they are not First Nation specific, they are offered through the pan-Aboriginal approach to everything that we do. I do have some packages that I could hand out after we're done here. It provides some information about our programs, as well as some information on some of the statistics and demographics here in the city. So, I would like to begin with Oshki Annishinabe Nigaaniwak, which is the City of Winnipeg's Aboriginal Youth Strategy. Back in 2008, city council adopted that we take part in a strategy focused on Aboriginal youth. In 2009, community elders gifted us with Ojibway spirit name, which is Oshki Annishinabe Nigaaniwak, which means young Aboriginal people leading. In 2010, we had an Aboriginal youth create a symbol of two eagles looking forward to the future, and in 2011 we launched an evaluation of our initiative thus far.
The Aboriginal Youth Strategy is an annualized program with a budget of $1 million a year, and our focus is on youth and young adults between the ages of 15 and 30. Some of the key areas of activity for the Aboriginal Youth Strategy are around employment and employment development activities; physical, cultural and leisure activities; and literacy and life-long learning activities. These priorities for the Aboriginal Youth Strategy have come from the community and the civic system wanting to support the community. For example, employment development was around the community's priority for some economic development opportunities. Physical culture and leisure is focused around community's priority of building healthy families. The literacy and life-long learning priority is focused around the community's priority of keeping our kids in school. The mandate of the Aboriginal Youth Strategy is around giving Aboriginal youth positive opportunities in the community and the civic system by bridging and providing culturally appropriate programs and supports related to employment, literacy and recreation, to increase resiliency, self-sustainability, pride and future opportunities.
Some of the partners that we work with in the community for the Aboriginal Youth Strategy are the Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre, the Ndinawe Youth Resource Centre, Indigenous Leadership Development Incorporated, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Ka Ni Kanichihk, Boys and Girls Club, Spence Neighborhood Association, the Broadway Neighborhood Centres, Just TV Program and RAY.
The Aboriginal Youth Strategy with its million dollar budget provides three quarters of that budget to the community partners associated with the Aboriginal Youth Strategy, and a quarter of that budget is spent internally and working with our civic departments to create opportunities for Aboriginal youth as well.
To give you examples of the success of the Aboriginal Youth Strategy and its engagement process under employment, employment development; over the past three years, we have had 20 projects that have engaged over 990 Aboriginal youth. Under the physical, culture and leisure activities, we have completed five projects and have been able to engage over 18,000 youth visits. Under literacy and life-long learning, we have had five projects and engaged over 900 youth visits with that program as well. We are very proud of what we have done with the Aboriginal Youth Strategy.
Another big strategy for the civic system is "Our Winnipeg." There is an Aboriginal component that is separated out in the "Our Winnipeg" plan. It speaks to the fact that the City of Winnipeg recognizes the importance of Aboriginal peoples — First Nations, Metis and Inuit — to the founding of our city. Each has contributed culture, values and vision, which will continue to be important to our shared future.
Today the vibrant, diverse people who make up the larger Aboriginal community enrich and enliven the social fabric of Winnipeg: They remain vital to its economic and cultural future.
One of the key directions in the "Our Winnipeg" plan that focus on the Aboriginal community is acknowledging that Aboriginal Winnipeggers bring a diverse richness of cultures, traditions, language, teachings, values, skills and perspectives to our city. The second key direction is around fostering opportunities for Aboriginal Winnipeggers, particularly youth, to obtain meaningful employment by building on current civic practices, processes and community partnerships. There are a variety of different directives related to each of the directions. Again, we have that information in the packages for you should you need more details.
We are also happy to share with you that the City of Winnipeg is also in the process of creating an Aboriginal Relations Division. We are quite excited about this development because it is bringing together all of the Aboriginal specific initiatives across the departments into one focus and will have dedicated resources. The mandate of the Aboriginal Relations Division is that Aboriginal relations support the City of Winnipeg by providing leadership and expertise from Aboriginal-inclusive perspectives on programs, services and initiatives that support and address the needs of Winnipeg's Aboriginal community now and into the future.
Some of the roles and responsibilities of the newly created Aboriginal Relations Division will be around internal projects and initiatives. On an internal perspective, we will be looking to build stronger relationships, understanding and involvement with the departments across the corporation, and build on and enhance supports and services for existing Aboriginal employees. Externally, we are going to be focusing on continuing to grow and develop partnerships and relationships with community-based organizations to build and enhance programs and services specifically for the Aboriginal community.
Some of the main priority areas in the Aboriginal Relations division will be focusing on the Aboriginal Youth Strategy, which I have shared with you already. As well, the intergovernmental initiatives such as the one that Mr. Wavey spoke of earlier, around the tri-level agreements, such as the Intergovernmental Strategic Aboriginal Alignment whereby we work with the province through Aboriginal Northern Affairs, the local government, the federal government through INAC, as well as community partnerships and corporate strategies.
The ISAA, which is short for Intergovernmental Strategic Aboriginal Alignment, is intended to better align our programs, services and resources to support Aboriginal people in the city of Winnipeg and improve their socio- economic circumstances. The four key areas of priority are education, training and life-long learning; employment and employment development; building capacity, community supports and personal engagement; supporting community safety and wellness. Each of these four priority areas have two goals associated with them. Each of those goal areas are either in progress or in the process of being developed. This tri-level agreement goes until 2015.
Last but not least, I wanted to share with you our progress on all of these initiatives. The city's active work in the Aboriginal community has resulted in an increase in Aboriginal youth engagement in the city services and facilities. For example, library use by Aboriginal youth has increased by 161 percent from 2010 to 2011, and within our recreation programs it has increased 85 percent for the same period. Graduation rates from the employment development programs have also grown. While they are positive trends and encouraging, there is still a need to continue our energy and engagement in this critical area.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Brockington, do you have anything to add?
Eleanor Brockington, Director, Policy and Strategic Initiatives Branch, Manitoba Aboriginal and Northern Affairs: No. Robert and I prepared our presentation together, and I am here to assist with any questions.
The Deputy Chair: Before I go to my colleagues, I will take the opportunity ask a few questions.
Mr. Wavey, you talked about the fact that the Province of Manitoba does not have a policy, whether for on- or off- reserve First Nations individuals, because the province has taken the position that it is the federal government's responsibility to deal with First Nations issues. In my view, that has been perhaps the biggest problem in terms of dealing with First Nations issues in this country, because the federal government is always fighting with the provincial governments with respect to jurisdiction.
Having said that, how do we move beyond these jurisdictional disputes? Without getting into the details of what has gone wrong in the last few years or so with respect to jurisdictional disputes, how do we move beyond that so that at the end of the day, whether First Nation citizens live or choose to live on or off reserve, they essentially get the same services they are or should be entitled to?
Mr. Wavey: I believe that I did say that First Nation members residing off reserve have available to them any program and service that the province offers as residents of Manitoba. I think the more important question and issue that needs to be resolved is to improve the working relationship amongst the many departments and branches of those departments intergovernmentally to be able to identify more clearly what those issues are. I do not mean this on a department-by- department basis, but on a government-wide basis. As you mentioned, it is not necessarily just intergovernmental issues; it is also issues between departments. I think there is a need for better communication and improvement in how we work together.
I want to go back and make the point that it is not because the federal government is responsible for Indians and lands reserved for Indians that the province does not have a policy. I just wanted to clarify that.
Do you want to add anything, Eleanor?
Ms. Brockington: I do want to mention that in any discussions about a First Nations policy the Province of Manitoba would not move unilaterally; it would have to be done in consultation with the First Nations. In May 2011, one of the works that we did together with the Treaty Relations Commission was to honour the treaties. Many of the First Nations in Manitoba are part of the numbered treaties, and we were also in the process of a self-government agreement. It is out of respect for the First Nations' desire within this province to move into self-government. I think that is why we have restrained from creating an overall policy that speaks to First Nations. In writing policy we work cooperatively with the First Nations, and we move together with the parties when planning new programs or initiatives.
Mr. Wilson: You talked about solutions. Education is one area that has been real positive in getting the First Nations, the province and the federal government working together. In Manitoba a tripartite agreement was signed by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the provincial government, Manitoba Education, and the federal government to try to remove some of the jurisdictional issues that hampered education previously. Still, a lot of things need to be resolved, but I think that is one positive example that has helped that relationship.
The Deputy Chair: My second question deals with provincial spending here in Manitoba for Aboriginal and First Nations peoples. We know that federally — and these are AAND's own, formerly INAC's, numbers — for every $8 they spend on reserve, they spend $1 in an off-reserve context. This is the federal government's own numbers in terms of Aboriginal spending or First Nations' spending. First, do you have an indication of what the on-reserve funding ratio is provincially versus off- reserve funding? Second, are you aware of the entire funding budget here in Manitoba for Aboriginal affairs and peoples? If you do not have the numbers, could you forward that to the clerk of the committee at some point for our use and benefit?
Mr. Wavey: We will take that point and try to get back to you with whatever numbers we can provide.
The Deputy Chair: That would be greatly appreciated.
Mr. Wilson, you were talking about the importance of treaties, and you also made mention that treaties are very much like a marriage. I could not agree more. Where we stand now, in my view, with respect to treaties, is somewhat like after perhaps a couple of years in a marriage, different interpretations of what that marriage may be develop, and that might lead to problems. I think that is where we are at. To bring some context, obviously there are different interpretations depending on who we talk to. Some may argue that governments go beyond the original intent and spirit of the treaties. Others will say that they are not being honoured whatsoever.
What would your views be or recommendations? You are talking about moving away from the Indian Act and taking away the labels on reserve and off reserve, but at the same time, would honouring the historical treaties be the way to go, or should we look at negotiating modern treaties that reflect modern realities that certain of our peoples across the country face today?
Mr. Wilson: I think the question of modern treaties would be a question more for political leadership to address.
The question about modern day perspectives and what they mean is hugely significant because we see that dialogue happening daily. One of the areas that is being hashed out as we speak is this whole collective versus individual rights — the different interpretations and the different world views and perspectives on rights. Some of that was hashed out internationally after the Second World War, with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We have different perspectives on what education, housing, water, natural resources mean. The key thing is that we have a table where we can share those perspectives.
I think for a long time there was only really one perspective on the table. It is really important that we have a table where you can sit down and mutually discuss what education means in a 21st century context? How does that differ from the initial agreements that were made? How does that differ from the intent of the agreements that remain? There really has to be that table at which they can be hashed out in a respectful way that is not hierarchical like the Indian Act, but as partners coming together.
The Deputy Chair: In terms of actually achieving progress in the future, who do you think should be responsible for leading that charge? On the one hand, you can have the federal government trying to initiate a process, and oftentimes we will get issues coming from the other side, saying, "There is a lack of consultation. It is a one size fits all model, and it may not attend to our needs." On the other hand, when First Nations' leadership or their peoples present options to whatever level of government to move forward, oftentimes it falls on deaf ears. Who is responsible for leading that charge at the tables that you are speaking about to initiate change and create forward movement on the issues we are discussing?
Mr. Wilson: I believe all levels of government are responsible. First Nations, leadership, municipal governments, provincial governments, federal governments, and us as citizens are responsible for pushing that dialogue and making sure that dialogue happens. I do not think it can be just one person responsible, or one group responsible. It has to be living out that partnership, so that everybody can see a role for themselves. It cannot be an "us versus them" with people saying, for example, "That is a First Nations' issue and I am not involved in that." It has to be something that everybody sees they play a real key part in.
Senator Jaffer: I want to thank you for all of your presentations, and you have made very thoughtful presentations. Ever since Senator Brazeau suggested this study and the Senate accepted it, I have been struggling with something, and I will put this to you. I do not do this with any disrespect to anybody, so please do not think that is where I am coming from.
I have often thought about a scenario where someone comes from outside to live in Manitoba, or comes to live in Winnipeg. They become part of that society, part of that community. They buy goods and pay taxes. They become part of that community. The struggle I have is with how we as Canadians — not Manitobans but generally as Canadians — do not quite accept Aboriginal people who leave reserves and come into our communities in the same way as we do other people who move into our communities, form part of our communities, contribute to our communities. We still have that non-status level in the sense that we do not give them the services that we give to other Canadians. If you do not agree with me, I would like you to challenge me. I understand the historical background, but I have real problems with this issue, and I would appreciate your input.
Mr. Wavey: In trying to frame the question, I guess I can only go back and mention what I said earlier. Any reserve resident moving off reserve has available to them any program and service that is being offered in Manitoba to them as Manitobans. I do not think I am free to put on my other hat right now, so I will pass that on.
Ms. Brockington: This is an area that has come up previously and we have looked at it. Unfortunately historically, when First Nations people signed the treaties, the federal government enacted the Indian Act, and many of the First Nations ended up on reservations. For many years they were not considered part of Canadian society. They could not vote. For many years, they could not leave the reserves because they needed permission in order to leave the reserve, whether it was to trade or for employment. If they wanted to fight for the country, they had to give up their special status of being covered under the Indian Act.
Many people held the interpretation that everything stemmed from the treaties. The collective history of our people, the treaties was the agreement to work and live and share the resources of the country. When the Indian Act was implemented, many of our people thought it stemmed from the treaty, although it was a unilateral move. For many years, as Canada was developing, many of the First Nations were cut off from the rest of Canada.
Now, within the provincial government, like I said, we have looked at the issue of services to Aboriginal people. What we have presented is only a small picture of the number of services that the various departments have to assist Aboriginal people living off reserve. Like we said, we do not have that many that are specifically for status or non- status First Nations. Many of our services are deemed to be Aboriginal. I know that some people have compared the targeted services for immigrants who come into the country to the services provided for First Nations people who are moving from a rural to an urban area. When we looked at the comparison, yes, the amount of services and the resources that are dedicated are not up to that same level.
We know that many of the immigrants or the newcomers to Canada and particularly to Manitoba often get a very biased perception of First Nations and other Aboriginal peoples in Manitoba. We have tried to work with various organizations to break down some of that stereotyping and the discrimination that builds up. We have tried to target some of our services in that area.
We rely on our partnerships with other levels of government and also with people who work with the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg. The Misquadis v Canada case ruled essentially that the federal government should provide services for Aboriginal people who are off reserve, that they have the same entitlement to the Aboriginal training and employment programs as any of the Metis or the First Nations.
I think that was very important advocacy work. Like I say, we try to support those kinds of fundamental changes into how programs and services are delivered here in Winnipeg. Some of the models developed have been accepted outside of Winnipeg and in fact have impacted nationally on other programs. That is my long answer to the perception that you raised.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Wavey, did I understand correctly that if you were to put on your other hat, perhaps your response would be slightly different?
Mr. Wavey: No comment.
Senator Jaffer: I have a question for Ms. Forgues. For many years before I became a senator I used to come to Winnipeg and work with many immigrant organizations. I believe that Manitoba and Winnipeg have some of the best immigrant organizations and the support they get from the Manitoba government. It is my belief it is some of the best, and the integration in Manitoba is so much further ahead because of the great work that the province and the city does with immigrant communities.
We decided to come here first because you already have a model in place that has worked. This is a group, if I am not mistaken, of 80,000 people amongst the people of Winnipeg, or who are off reserve, and they are not getting the same kind of services as newcomers get.
Ms. Brockington, you have given a very good answer, so I am not putting you on the hot seat, or Mr. Wavey. I think that is a question our committee has to ask, or our country has to ask: How long are we not going to give the same rights that others have in our country to Aboriginal people. I do not expect you to answer further. I just share with you my angst and how I feel.
Ms. Forgues, obviously our future is young people, and there is an increasing number of young people in the Aboriginal community. I believe in the future that they will be the people who help us pay the taxes and help people like me get the Old Age Pension. Following up your discussion on the upcoming Aboriginal Relations Division, I wonder if you are aware of Edmonton's Aboriginal Regional Office, and whether you are discussing with them best practices and strategies on successful approaches to your work?
Ms. Forgues: Actually, we do, across municipalities, speak quite a bit amongst the different initiatives and strategies across all of the civic corporations. The municipalities get together about every two years as an Aboriginal-specific gathering to talk about best practices and programs and services and initiatives that we each offer, to share successes stories, challenges, those kinds of things. Much of what we do has been built on or learned from our sister municipalities. Edmonton and the folks in Regina and Saskatoon are some of the key municipalities that we speak to on a regular basis. We do phone each other and say, "How did you handle this?" or "What is the best way to approach this?" Our models are influenced by the lessons learned and best practices, not only from the Edmonton model, but other municipalities across Canada as well. That has been very helpful and beneficial for us.
Senator Harb: Thank you for your presentations. My first question is really a logistical one. On page 7, Mr. Wavey, right at the top, you mentioned that "the department provides the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs with $325, the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak with $100 and the Southern Chief Organization with $70. This is an incredible sum of money for the different programs these organizations are involved with. Could you elaborate a little bit in terms of the amount and what you can do with that "big" sum of money?
Mr. Wavey: It is the financial way of putting our figures down. It is actually $325,000 annually to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, et cetera.
Senator Harb: I thought so.
On page 6 you speak very eloquently about the various programs. You say, "There are very few programs that are specifically targeted to First Nations members living off reserve." You give examples of programs such as Working Together, Supporting Students in Transition, Share Student Information Between First Nations, and Province Schools that apply specifically to First Nations students who are moving from on-reserve First Nation schools to public schools in Manitoba. I believe this is the thrust of this whole issue, and that is transition from on reserve to off reserve is where the vast majority of intervention needs to take place. Do you agree with that assessment?
Mr. Wavey: Yes, I do, and I can probably put on my other hat temporarily to tell you why.
Senator Harb: Yes, please. Do put on your other hat.
Mr. Wavey: Mr. Wilson talked to you about treaties. One of the important aspects arising from those treaties is the treatment of Aboriginal people, our First Nation people generally since that time, all of the traumas endured and the resulting symptoms. With the transition from on reserve to off reserve, you have suffered all of those symptoms including residential schools, as an example, and the intergenerational impacts of such trauma. You bring that with you off reserve, and you are coming into a society that you are not familiar with and may not be used to. A lot of other supports are required in addition to just the actual educational support in order to ensure that people coming off reserve can succeed.
Senator Harb: Is it your position that if there is an area for the federal government and the provincial government to work jointly, it would be the holistic approach that Ms. Brockington talked about with regard to the issue of immigrants and the integration programs that are in place? When you compare those programs to the First Nations and the Aboriginal peoples who move from on reserve to off reserve, they do not seem to have the kind of support that exists for them. Is this the area that you think the focus of the federal government should be on?
Mr. Wavey: Again, it is not the federal government in isolation, although they do have primary responsibility under the Constitution. I like the use of the word "holistic" because it means more than just the lens you are applying to the issue. It has got to be the total resources. In terms of the supports required for anybody that moves to the city, for example, it has to go beyond just the educational portion. There may be childcare involved, and you also have the court system involved. You need to bring all of those players together to formulate the particular best practice, if you will, to ensure success for that individual that is moving off, not only in the school system but once they move on into life.
As I said earlier, there needs to be a better way for governments and others to come together to work on this issue from that whole holistic view, if you will, not just a specific lens of education or health or social services, but all of them together.
Senator Harb: My final question deals with the specific mandate of the committee. As you know, the Senate has authorized the committee to travel to three provinces in Western Canada to examine the human rights aspect of off- reserve Aboriginal peoples and First Nations, in particular the rights that relate to residencies, access to rights, participation in community-based decision-making process, portability of rights, as well as existing remedies among others. While we very much appreciate that your presentations were filled with facts and figures that are very useful for us, what we would like to see also from your end is specific recommendations that we can make to the Senate and ultimately to the government in our report. You can put on whatever hat you want.
Mr. Wavey: Can you give me a second? Maybe somebody else wants to answer.
Mr. Wilson: I will. My recommendation talked about that holistic approach and that progress will be made if it is looked upon as a partnership. As I was saying going back to that treaty relationship, one of mutual respect, not hierarchical, but we are here together. We both have obligations and responsibilities in this, and solutions will be found by parties working together. That would be my key recommendation.
Ms. Forgues: From my perspective at the urban setting level what I hear mostly from the community and community partners on a regular basis is that whatever it is we commit to, on whatever we focus our resources we do so on a long-term basis. Folks need to know you are in it for the long haul with them. It is really hard to make change or do something different if it is short-term, or considered a pilot. The community would appreciate it if whatever we do, we do it for a long period or the long haul, so they know we are partners.
Mr. Wavey: After deliberation and discussion, I think we touched on it at the beginning, and I think it has been touched on probably by others. The federal government has to consider seriously funding First Nations on par with whatever the provincial government is providing off reserve. Education is the prime example, where you have a huge discrepancy in tuition fees paid off reserve, and on reserve to schools. In that way, the First Nations people living on or off reserve will have the same opportunities, and if they do choose to stay on reserve, then they are better prepared if they decide to move off.
Can I ask Eleanor if she wants to add anything?
Ms. Brockington: What we were looking at was historical in terms of programming and services. We have seen a trend. More and more First Nations people are moving into the urban areas, and we do provide some funding and services. That is why Indian and Metis Friendship Centres were first established, and I do believe Manitoba is the only province that is currently providing any resources to the Indian and Metis Friendship Centres, like provincial dollars. Outside of Manitoba, I think most of the Friendship Centres are federally funded. So we do provide support.
Education is just one level, one area where there is a big discrepancy in the funding to First Nations schools versus provincial schools. There is a huge discrepancy in terms of the types of services that are available. For example, Manitoba developed a renal health program so that the people in the Island Lake First Nation communities — it is an area of four communities with a population of over 10,000. We knew it was a hardship for many of those families to have to relocate to Winnipeg or to another area where they can get treatment for diabetes and renal treatment. As part of the government's decentralization of health services and making health services available closer to home, one of the centers developed is right in Island Lake, and we did it through the Neewin board, which is both Island Lake First Nations communities as well as the provincial government and the federal government.
However, we still run into issues in terms of health, and some of these relate to funding. The province provides for the clinic. We make sure that it is administered through the Northern Medical Health Unit at the University of Manitoba. I can tell you that it is very difficult to recruit and maintain that clinic with specialized medical personnel.
Many of the issues that we run into at the nursing stations in those four communities, which are administered federally, relate to the depth of the poverty there. Some families are not able to afford the transportation to come from a small community like Wasagamack, which is a little over 500 people. They must make a one-hour journey, by boat or by air, to the renal center at Garden Hill. It is closer if they come into Winnipeg.
The First Nations and Inuit Health Branch will cover for transportation for that family or that person to come into Winnipeg and receive dialysis treatment. They do not want to cover that fee, $25 boat ride, from Wasagamack to Garden Hill to access the renal centre in Garden Hill. We have tried to accommodate and we have really pushed the envelope in many cases to try to make services and programs available on reserve, without encroaching on what we perceive and support as First Nations' assertions, that the primary responsibility is with the federal government. That is why we have said that if the federal government would look at these housing services and medical services and health-related services and improving the quality of life on reserve, it would help the First Nations people to be better prepared to live off reserve, if that is what they choose to do. I know that given the limited resources, First Nation schools do make an effort to prepare their students to continue with their education in the urban area.
Another area in education, the University College of the North, started with one campus in The Pas. Now we have two. Now we have 12 regional centres located throughout the North to provide post-secondary college education for people living in those areas. We have done many things to try and accommodate and provide services for people closer to their homes no matter where they live.
The Deputy Chair: On that note, given the time, this will conclude our first panel. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Ms. Forgues, Ms. Brockington, Mr. Wavey and Mr. Wilson for appearing today. Obviously, if there is anything that you have missed, perhaps in your presentation, or would like to forward at a later date, you can always do that through the clerk of the committee.
Honourable senators, our panelists for the next hour are Walter Wastesicoot and Inez Vystrcil-Spence from the Manitoba Keewatiinowi Okimakanak; Damon Johnston, President of the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg; as well as Steve Courchesne, Member of the Board of the Circle of Life Thunderbird House, and Ms. Sasha Marshall, Executive Director.
To all of you, welcome.
Inez Vystrcil-Spence Health Director, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak: Thank you for the opportunity to address the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. My name is Inez Vystrcil-Spence, and I am the Health Director with Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak. I have been with the organization off and on since 1996. I am a Bill C-31 Indian. I was granted my status back in 1987 after the amendments. I am a resident living off the reserve currently, in southern Manitoba; however, I am a homeowner on reserve in my community of Nelson House, Manitoba. I just wanted to give you a little bit of who am I am and some of the perspective that I bring to the table.
I am honoured to be here presenting on behalf of the organization and our membership in the north. Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak represents 30 First Nations communities from northern Manitoba, which spans two thirds of the province's land mass and includes approximately 65,000 citizens.
It is important to highlight Canada's failure to honour the Crown's obligations in treaty implementation. Canada's failed policies continue to contribute to the poverty experienced by First Nation citizens of this country. Limited opportunities to acquire education, housing, inadequate health care, and employment force First Nation citizens off reserve if they are to realize secondary and post-secondary education to qualify for employment. The only employment opportunities available on reserve are supported by inadequate Treasury Board approvals that are subject to appropriation from Parliament on an annual basis. The practices by the Governments of Canada and Manitoba can be summarized by a medical term known as "supervised neglect," a term which describes where a problem is observed but a choice is made where it is not disclosed or acted on, meaning a choice is made at some level within the system to either not disclose information to a patient, or an individual, or a choice is made to simply not act on an apparent condition. Sewer and water in on-reserve housing are in most cases substandard. Health care is only accessible off reserve in most cases with the current federal health services on reserve encroaching on nothing more than a death sentence should one approach the local nursing station during an emergency.
Colonization dictates that the colonizer imposes the laws and regulations of the sovereign they represent and do so in a manner that ensures the colonized assimilate into the settler society over time. The Indian Act and the Reservation System facilitates the colonizer's purpose. Efforts to assimilate First Nations into the settler society have included the residential school system, the '60s Scoop, and current child and family services systems. Each of these efforts has resulted in the dismantling of rich and vibrant First Nation institutions, including governance, spiritual practice, language and so forth. First Nations in Canada have no choice but to leave the reservations if they are to access goods and services which are for the most part non-existent on reserve.
It seems now that the government is purposely restricting through legislation and regulation access to that which would sustain First Nations people on reserve. This is a situation that will force First Nations people to seek and accept provincial assistance to meet basic human rights needs and thereby further the devolution of the settler state's obligations under the treaties to provincial jurisdiction.
First Nations do not want to be stewards of Canada nor do they want to be stewards of the provincial and territorial governments. First Nations need and want the federal government to demonstrate transparency and accountability by ensuring that any tinkering with federal legislation that impacts First Nations is led and supported by First Nations.
I am going to pass the microphone to my colleague Walter Wastesicoot to make supplementary statements.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.
Walter Wastesicoot, Advisor Special Health Projects, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak: My name is Walter Wastesicoot. I have approximately 30 years of experience working with First Nations on issues that directly impact them. In my personal experience, I was at the same residential school that the previous speaker attended, the Mackay Indian Residential School in Dauphin, Manitoba. I have that experience that I have always drawn on in pursuing and attempting to gain redress for First Nations issues.
I have a home that I own in a community in northern Manitoba, Thompson, Manitoba. I have been paying taxes for a long time already, and I know what that includes.
In terms of impacts of First Nations that are leaving reserves, in my personal experience I never had the opportunity to go by choice to live on the reserve because I spent much of my youth in an Indian residential school. Upon leaving that institution, I returned home to find my family all over. They too had attended different residential schools. I believe Robert was speaking to the dysfunction that is left by such an experience in terms of returning home to family.
One thing that we discussed in preparing this presentation was the fact that racism in this country is so normalized. An example of that is the discussion that we are here for today, the fact that we sit in this forum and talk about the difference between on reserve and off reserve in relation to the first citizens of this country. That is an example of how racism in this country is normalized. In our experience, when there is a discussion between on reserve and off reserve, that comes with a certain connotation that usually involves money. People are looking to offload responsibility in certain areas in an effort to save money.
Some time ago the leadership in our community spoke to the issue of on reserve and off reserve. In trying to understand that myself, I approached one of the community elders who happened to be living off reserve but had spent most of his life on reserve. The only reason at the time he was living off reserve was to access health care. However, when I asked him the question about on reserve and off reserve, he was offended because of his belief in the Creator's purpose. He said, "When I was born, the Creator prepared everything on this earth that I would need to sustain myself." The only thing that he had to do was respect everything that was prepared for his use. However, the Creator never told him you cannot go here, you cannot go there. Those were laws and regulations imposed by man.
I think I will leave it at that. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
We will move onto our next presenter, Mr. Johnston, from the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg. Sir, you have the floor.
Damon Johnston, President, Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg: It is a pleasure to be here today, and I welcome and thank you for the opportunity to present to you today.
My opening remarks will be in the context of how we view progress in terms of human rights in Canada, particularly in relation to Aboriginal and treaty rights. In this case, I am going to outline some key actions or inactions taken by the Government of Canada.
In the first place, the Government of Canada ended the Court Challenges Program. This program was the primary source of funding for Aboriginal people to seek court remedies for domestic human rights cases pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The council benefited directly from this program, through its pursuit of remedy in the case known as Misquadis et. al. We have seen that as a significant step backward. Although we do not view the courts as the primary vehicle to give meaning to rights, at times we need to resort to the courts when we cannot make traction elsewhere, primarily at the negotiating table.
The second point I would make is that at the 2012 Canada First Nations meeting in Ottawa, Prime Minister Harper did not outline any process or timetable established by the Government of Canada to repeal or abolish the Indian Act. The council is of the opinion that this legislation must be repealed or abolished to enable freedom for the Aboriginal people of Canada.
Thirdly, Minister Duncan's official statement on the occasion of the second anniversary of Canada's endorsement of the United Nation's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does not really reference the rights that are in the document relative to the actions being taken by Canada to give meaning to those rights. In other words, what we would like to see is some kind of annual report card in that context.
Now I am going to reference examples of issues or barriers to the rights within this study's terms of reference. The first is rights related to residency. There is no legislative requirement stating that you must live on reserve to maintain or exercise your treaty rights. Second, some bands require that all band members must vote on reserve, yet they do not provide mail-in ballots for those band members who live off reserve. I am a member of the Fort William First Nation in Thunder Bay, Ontario, and I am proud to say that my band is making real effort to connect with those of us who live off reserve and even those of us who live out of province. I guess that is a good example of leadership at the First Nation level making those kinds of efforts.
I also qualify my remark in the sense that as we go forward I am confident that most First Nations in Canada will make those efforts. A lot of it has to do with the level of understanding and capacity at any given point in time. When I say "capacity," I refer to the education levels of band leadership, the knowledge base that exists there, the attitude or resolve to make positive changes that benefit all members of their band.
With respect to access to rights, there is a significant level of lack of knowledge or understanding of rights versus benefits within Aboriginal communities generally. In other words, there is a real difference between rights and benefits that flow from those rights. Generally, benefits are those things that you negotiate out of the rights. In other words, this right equals these benefits. The reason you need to do that is that the cost of recognizing rights in real ways is real. There are limitations to any government's budgets, any country's budgets, but in order to make these things workable, we need to go to the negotiating table and give those meaning. I will speak more of that in my next statement.
Treaty rights are somewhat more defined than Aboriginal rights. Treaty rights, particularly older treaties, should be brought into modern day context through negotiation. Modern treaties, such as those developed and given legal standing in British Columbia and Canada, such as Tsawwassen and Nisga'a, give real definition to the rights of both of these peoples and provide visible and measurable political, cultural, social and economic benefits to those affected by these agreements.
Next is participation in community-based decision-making processes. This varies from First Nation to First Nation, sea to sea to sea. I suspect this is primarily based in the attitude and willingness of chief and councils to consider these issues and implement measures that would bring a higher level of accountability and service to all members of their First Nations. Local capacity, associated costs, location, would all factor in this equation.
Next is portability of rights. Again, it is important to delineate between rights and benefits. Once rights have been clearly defined, you can give meaning to these rights by negotiating what benefits they may provide, again in modern day context. It is also then much easier to quantify the cost of these benefits and how they may be provided in different settings — that is, on or off reserve.
Next is existing remedies. Existing remedies are piecemeal, require a certain level of education to understand, and can be quite costly, particularly for those who live off reserve. Use of the courts to define and qualify rights is a slow and mostly unsatisfactory process for everyone. Good faith by all sides is the best and most efficient method to give real and practical meeting to Aboriginal treaty rights.
Steve Courchesne, Member of the Board, Circle of Life Thunderbird House: Honourable senators, meegwetch. I would really like to welcome you to the area of Treaty 1. As an Ojibway person and signatory to Treaty 1 as our family was, thank you for coming here and allowing us to present.
I sit on the board for Thunderbird House and also Native Addictions Council of Manitoba. We are here to talk about some of the issues pertaining to urban Aboriginal people, especially within Winnipeg.
Let me start off with a story, this is the way the elders back home do it. I am from Sagkeeng First Nation. Back home, every year there are a number of sundances on our reserve. That was not the case when I was a kid in the 1960s. You would not know there was a sundance ceremony going on on our reserve when it happens, people know and they go. The sundance ceremony is a ceremony of sacrifice; you forego food and water and you dance for four days. The elders tell us that is the closest, while you are on earth, you will get to the Creator, who comes and sits. There is a tree in a circle. You stand and you dance and you look at that circle, and that is where Thunderbirds come, and that is where the Creator comes and listens to you. It is not about bravery, like the movies say, it is about sacrifice. You sacrifice for your people for your community. People come and do that.
After this one sundance in our community, after the ceremony was done, the flags were taken down, and people's offerings were taken away, someone from our reserve went to that tree and defecated at the base of it. Now, what does that have to do with Aboriginal people and us? Well literally, as Aboriginal people, we are shitting on ourselves, and pardon me for the vulgarity, my vulgar language, but that is a reflection of where we stand right now. The basis of where we stand is that, you know what? We are damaged people. Why are we damaged? Let us look at the history, and I am not going to go over the stats and rehash everything because our people have been saying it over and over here, and pointing it out quite clearly. I want to say that if you are going to step on the tundra, there is going to be a footprint there. That is what happened to Aboriginal people. The churches and the government stepped on the people and left a footprint. For some people, they have managed to succeed even though they have been stepped on, but many of our people have not.
Look at the city of Winnipeg. You have an exodus of people leaving the reserve and coming primarily to the inner cities. Why are they going there? For a lot of reasons: work, lack of housing lack and resources. There is another reason they go; it is a brain drain. People who are educated are going to look elsewhere for opportunities. There are some good people who stay and try helping the community, but opportunities are few and far between.
Here in Winnipeg, there are a lot of good people out there and a lot of organizations out there, like the Christian sect. If you look around this area here in the heart of Winnipeg, Thunderbird House is on the notorious Main Street, Main and Higgins. At one time, I remember in the 1970s there used to be a bar right where Thunderbird House is situated — the Patricia. Beside the bar there was a row of buildings. In that row, right where Thunderbird house sits now, a place of spirituality and a place of welcome, was a shooting gallery. It was like in the movies where you knock on a hard steel door and people let you in. There is no electricity. It is dark and it stinks. There is no real furniture there, but there are people everywhere, and there are spent needles all over the place. I happened to frequent that place when I was younger.
Anyway, it was an eye opener. People would curl up into a ball and try to find a vein just to get that Talwin, Ritalin — it was Ts and Rs. It was the cheap drug at that time. Indian people were poor. They had to make do. The drug of choice in the 1970s, early 1980s was Ts and Rs. I remember one girl, a friend of mine, they could not find her vein. What they did was there was an old mattress and they laid her down, tilted her head back so she could find a vein.
Thunderbird House and other organizations like it are ship havens in a sea of decay. You have a lot of people accessing the city for hope, but a lot of times there is no hope here. What you have is gangs and unemployment; you have no opportunities.
People talk about equality. Well, we want equality; we want to be equal. That is not the case. What you want is equity, the same starting ground. I will give you an example. When someone goes to race in the Olympics, say the 800- yard dash, what do they do? Nobody starts at the same place; they stagger the start so there is equity in the start, so it becomes equal after the start. That is the same thing with Aboriginal people. It is not equal because it cannot be equal, because there is no equity there. The starting lines are different based on White privilege, education factors, poor this, poor that, and all of that; you know that already. If we are honest with ourselves, we know the history of Aboriginal people and we know the history of the government initiatives. Rather than rehash that, we are going to talk about the realities of the situation.
I volunteer at a couple of places, at a lot of different places. A lot of my friends do. There are a lot of volunteers, a lot of good people out there in the Aboriginal community. There is also a lot of despair. We call it the "Indian factor." Do you know what the Indian factor is? The Indian factor is this: We are hardest on our own selves. Why is that? Like I said, we are stepped on; we are damaged. There are only so many resources out there. There is the Aboriginal Council, there is MKO, SCO. There is a whole bunch of organizations, but only a little bit of resources there. So what happens? Well, we try to step on each other to get on top. That is systemic, colonial mindset.
As my daughter says, "We are whitewashed." That is what happens — a lot of Aboriginal people become whitewashed. We do not recognize our own colonial attitudes towards each other and towards other people. Aboriginal people will be stepping on the recent immigrants because they get resources. That is the reality of fingers — little bits of resources, small pieces of the pie, but there are a lot of people that need it — not want it, but need those resources.
Thunderbird House was built in the year 2000. There has been some political history. Like I said, the Indian factor is there. We attack each other and we bash each other. One of the things about it, it is a safe haven. Aboriginal elders tell you that organizations working for the people are actually working for the Creator, because those are the Creator's children you are trying to help. That is synonymous with what happens with some of the organizations we have here, not just Thunderbird House, not Native Addictions Council of Manitoba, but a lot of the organizations that are here. I am here because I want you to feel what we feel. You know, we are goodhearted people, kindhearted people. We believe in that sharing, that kindness, that honesty and that faith. If you believe in those four things, at least a little bit, then that circle works for you.
I wanted to greet you in Anishinabe, Ojibway. I cannot. Why? Because I am damaged. Years ago there was the Heritage Language Act. Was Aboriginal language part of that Heritage Language Act? Of course not.
Aboriginal people are here in this situation because of the foundations of the roots of our relationship with the Crown, with the bureaucrats and with the church. The church acted as an agent. The story I told at the beginning here, it brings around what we are dealing with.
Aboriginal people have suffered an identity crisis, but there are strong people out there that are keeping that identity alive and people are grabbing at it again. They are embracing their identity. Those are the people you see standing up and saying, "We can do it as Aboriginal people if we look at being in an equitable position."
I will give you an example of what is not equitable. NACM is a native addictions treatment centre. It has been here for 40 years. It is poorly funded. It is in a building the government said itself is dead, basically you are on a life line. Yet, you have a comparable organization like Addictions Foundation of Manitoba, where they have an endless supply of resources. That is the reality of things. You have Aboriginal people down here and the main stream that are up here, and that is not equity.
I just wanted to say that what is happening with the Aboriginal people here, Thunderbird House and all of that, is that you are creating a service dump. In the big scheme of things the feds are getting out of the Indian business. What they are doing is doing a service dump. What they want to do with the service dump is dump their fiduciary responsibilities. Look at the transfer agreements that they started with in the 1980s. That is exactly all it was. They wanted to ease off and give responsibility to Aboriginal people. Really what it was was a "fiduciary dump."
Aboriginal people are not as dumb as a lot of people think. We learn the system just like anyone else.
In closing, I want to say that urban Aboriginal people need places like the Thunderbird House, like NACM. There are a lot of comparable organizations for Christian groups, non-native groups. You look at an example right across from Thunderbird House, Youth for Christ. They have huge money, millions, from the city. You look at Thunderbird House — my executive director here, Sasha, works for nothing. There are absolutely no dollars at Thunderbird House. Yet it shows the need and it shows that it is viable.
One other thing about Thunderbird House is they have a host of ceremonial aspects. A lot of Aboriginals say the city is dirty and they cannot do ceremonies in the city. Where are these people going to have access to do ceremonies? You see a lot of people in the city here, how many people have an eagle feather? I bet one of you have an eagle feather. You look at the average Aboriginal person and they will not have that eagle feather. It is out of their reach. They do not have the resources or they do not have the network to get that. Yet, that is something that is coveted and sacred. A lot of people do not have one. That is something that is basic. They do not have sweetgrass. It is just the way it is.
People like Sasha and a lot of my colleagues here, a lot of Aboriginal people here, are fighting to change that. I will give you an example. We are talking about a partnership with an organization called Comprehensive Community —
The Deputy Chair: Excuse me, sir. I do not want to interrupt, but would you be able to conclude as quickly as possible? Senators do have questions and unfortunately we are on a timetable that sometimes we do not like, but we unfortunately have to follow.
Mr. Courchesne: In closing, Thunderbird House is one of those organizations that has absolutely no resources, yet it fills a great need. Meegwetch.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much for your presentations. We certainly have learned a lot. You have made us think as well. Some of the terms that you have used to educate us, are causing us to think about what you have said.
I have a question for Ms. Marshall and Ms. Vystrcil-Spence. We have heard about the general challenges Aboriginal people face, but we know that women face even more challenges, with being single parents and other issues. Of course, if there was any other group of people that had so many Aboriginal women missing, as we have in the West, I think there would have been a revolution. Yet, we are all quiet, not doing as much as we can. I would appreciate it if both of you would tell us more about the many challenges faced by Aboriginal women?
Ms. Vystrcil-Spence: Thank you for your question and the opportunity to speak on gender issues. I am just going to speak on a more personal level. I am not going to speak officially or be too politically correct.
The reality of my experience is that I work with predominantly men in the business. That does not mean that I feel that I have anything more distinct to say on matters of policy. I think for the most part we all agree on general statements and positions and agreements on whatever issue we are working. I think what is distinct about what I might bring to the table is how it is an issue of priorities. I think there might be a perception that certain issues take precedence over other issues. Resources and hunting issues might be more of a priority over issues such as violence affecting women and children. It is debatable, I think, and we do have the discussions.
My experience working in a political organization, there is definitely that respect that is there, and I would never say that I do not have the opportunity to ever speak out. They do ask me to speak out on what my perceptions are, but for me, maybe it is just because I am a social worker, that is my background, maybe it is because I am a woman. Those are the issues I am particularly sensitive to. Whether that is because I am a woman or because I am a social worker, I cannot attribute to that, but I know I am a little more sensitive. I find I will always try to balance where the men are coming from with what I am hearing from the women. What the women come with are experiences of violence, and that seems to be a big issue.
The file that I am working on now is murdered and missing women. The approach that we are taking politically, although a lot of issues are related to the matter of violence overall and the murdered and missing women file, but what we are trying to advance is the need for a national inquiry to open it up and talk about what is the experience; how have the systems, the judicial, the criminal systems, and the social systems been managing this matter. There is a sense of unfairness and discrimination. Families and women are feeling that their voices are not heard, that they are not being represented, and that the whole experience of investigation is leaving them in the dark. They are feeling silent and feeling that their voices are not being heard. That is one experience of gender, and that is the most recent file I am working on.
As the health director, I can speak about experiences relating to maternal child health, prenatal care and cancer, just those issues that affect women. Men could also speak to their issues, and I have to be fair and balanced as well. That is the most current one. I am just giving you an example of how the violence file is being managed, what we are perceiving by the actions of governments in what is really an inadequate and inappropriate response to the crisis we are dealing with and trying to manage and support the families of the 600 women, nationally, across the country, who are victims.
Sasha Marshall, Executive Director, Circle of Life Thunderbird House: I knew she would be great with that question.
My experience is on a different perspective. I live in the north end, which is one of the poorer areas of the city. Little girls 10, 11, 12 years old are raising their siblings. They are walking them to school and walking them home; they are making lunch and making dinner. They are primarily responsible for them.
This is just my own opinion from the things I have observed. Going back to the residential school system, you had a child who was taken maybe at five years old, spent 12 years in the system, they get out, they go back home, many of them have children fairly quickly. They do not know how to parent because they were not parented. They do not know how to teach empathy because they were not shown empathy, and it begins this vicious cycle. You now have these parents raising their children in this way because they do not know how. These kids now are looking after each other, functioning the best that they can. The circle continues. We are still seeing it generations later and sometimes it is not that many generations ago. We are still dealing with those kinds of impacts. I think that it is not going to stop.
All of the political stuff aside, from my perspective, it is not going to stop until we start the healing, bring back the culture, bring back the tradition and teach these girls to respect themselves, how to be a healthy family unit. That is what we see so much of with these young girls. They do not have any resources. They do not have any connection to their home, to their family, to their home community, and they are just struggling with what they have.
Those are some of the issues I would like to see addressed in a more comprehensive way.
One of the programs we run at Thunderbird House is a girls program, and it specifically targets those girls. It does not get much money. It breaks my heart every time I have to say that we do not have room for this or that girl. We are trying to teach critical thinking and coping skills, matching that up with a sense of who they are, where they come from and respecting themselves in that traditional way.
As far as I am concerned, one of our biggest gaps is that we are missing that linkage between cultural identity and who we want these girls to become.
Senator Jaffer: You have made me think so much about the statements all of you have made this afternoon. However, the one thing that I would like to ask you, especially, when you address the issue of racism, — I also am not going to be very politically correct — is about the fact that Aboriginal people were supposed to stay on reserves, and not migrate to the cities, as I see it.
When people started doing what is their right, to move anywhere you want to in Canada, that broke the pattern and made it difficult for Aboriginal people who come to the city to be able to establish themselves well. You raised the issue of racism; people face a lot of racism.
From the way you were speaking, Mr. Wastesicoot, I got the impression that you also could suggest some solutions to our committee, and I would like to hear from you about that.
Mr. Wastesicoot: I think the truth has to come out in the education system in Canada. When you say your understanding is that Aboriginal people are supposed to remain on reserve, in my opening statement, I related a story concerning my uncle who was offended at the distinction between on and off reserve. He was offended because he believed that this earth was created for him to use when it was his time to use it. His Creator did not tell him you cannot go here and you cannot go there. His Creator gave him all he needed to sustain himself on this earth. It was through what is called Confederation that laws were created stating to my uncle, "You cannot go here; you cannot go there; you cannot do this; you cannot do that." Those were man-made laws. They were not the Creator's laws. That is one solid foundation to begin with — instituting the truth in the education system that exists in Canada.
Senator Harb: Ms. Vystrcil-Spence, in your presentation you mentioned that the 30 First Nation communities from northern Manitoba represent two thirds of the province's land mass and they have approximately 65,000 people. Can you tell us a little bit about the nature of that land mass? Can you grow wheat on it? What are the conditions of that land? Is it being used for any agricultural purpose? What is the situation there?
Ms. Vystrcil-Spence: I want to revert to a more appropriate gender response and have a man answer the question. If you are enquiring about the geography and the terrain and the opportunities, from what I understand and what I have observed, I know that we are rich in resources, mining, timber, the amount of fresh water that we have in the north, wildlife and other resources. I know that that is integral to a lot of the work we do in the north. That is what MKO consistently brings to the table when we have made presentations. There is a strong emphasis on resources in the north.
In terms of what the land might offer, are you coming at it from an economic perspective? What are the opportunities?
Senator Harb: Yes.
Ms. Vystrcil-Spence: The position that I hear a lot about from my colleagues is trying to advance or reach a settlement on the natural resource transfer arrangement where the transfer of federal land, I believe, happened, or was handed over to the province unfairly and without consultation. That goes back to the 1930s, I think, the NRTA. We have been trying to get to the table to negotiate and amend or revisit it and discuss a more fair process of sharing the resources.
Senator Harb: You seem to all come at it from very similar point of views in that you believe that the Canadian policies have so far been a failure. You outline the issues of education, housing, health care, employment on reserve, and you state that they are substandard. By the way, in 2006 Statistics Canada issued a report to support exactly what you are saying. The fact is that employment is very limited on reserve, health care is scarce at best, and the health of people who live on reserve is far worse than those who live off reserve. Housing is 45 percent substandard, and so on. That is why both presenters concluded, I guess, that it amounts to what one would call supervised neglect. In essence, if it is the federal government's responsibility to provide those kinds of services and manage and support and assist, obviously they have failed. That, I presume in your estimation, would explain the migration, that is irreversible, from the reserve to off reserve. In your estimation, if the government had not failed in its duties on reserve, perhaps we would have seen a lot more activity, economic development, and that kind of thing you have been talking about. Is that what I hear?
Mr. Wastesicoot: I think what you hear is accurate.
I want to add that this exodus of people from the First Nations communities. Right now in the province of Manitoba, approximately 10,000 First Nations children are in care. That would represent the four communities in the Island Lake region. If all of the people from those four communities were removed today, that would represent the number of First Nations children that are in care in this province at this time.
For the most part, we have trouble with the laws and regulations that impact us because they prevent us from taking ownership of our own issues. A document was produced by another Senate committee some years ago entitled A Hand Up Not a Handout. In there were a number of recommendations that would supposedly help First Nations elevate themselves out of poverty. There is no evidence that those recommendations were implemented, they could go even further in certain areas as far as recognizing and implementing the treaty obligations of the Crown.
Today many barriers still exist to economic development in the North. As Ms. Vystrcil-Spence stated, the North is rich in natural resources. However, our people were forced onto little boxes and were supposed to remain there. There was a time in this country's history when my grandfather had to produce a pass to leave that little box. I think that happens in South Africa, or it did recently.
Senator Harb: Is it your position that one way or maybe the only way for the federal government to deal with the human rights issues is to sit with First Nations to go over the act and determine whether it needs to be repealed, reworked, abolished all together. Mr. Damon Johnston seemed to have mentioned that what is needed is transparency and accountability. Is it your position that one of the recommendations this committee should make to the government is that it sit with First Nations to review the act to see what needs to happen to it.
Mr. Johnston: Just quickly, everything seemed to change in 1867 when Canada became a country. Prior to that point, as I understand it, the relationship between First Nations, Metis and Inuit people was one of alliance. The French and the English both had "Indian allies," and then again in the War of 1812 which we are celebrating this year. Then in 1867 we had this legislation that just changed everything. As the elders pointed out, it confined us to the reserve in a real way and you could not leave without a pass. Then there were attempts to control our development, our human development, what we learned, how we learned it, where we learned it, who taught it to us. When you look at pre-Confederation to Confederation, you have a big question mark: What happened here? Well, clearly, to me, the Indian Act represents control — control of Indians and lands reserved for Indians. We do not need to be controlled; we need to be enabled.
In spite of the act we are doing that. By happenstance I was born off the reserve. I did not get my status until 1985. There were benefits of that, but I also lost in that process. What I lost was any chance to really learn my language, to learn about and live my culture, to live with my relatives, my people. The benefits were that I got the same education or access to pretty much the same education, as you did. I learned how this big world works outside of the reserve. I have done quite well in it, but I paid a high price for that.
Even today, when I go home to my reserve, they welcome me to a degree, but it is still not the same. I am not one of them in the truest sense of the word, and that hurts.
This legislation to me is abhorrent. It exists nowhere else on the planet. As far as I know, the apartheid system in South Africa was put in place in 1947, the year I was born. I know that South African officials visited here, and they went back and tried to create reserves in South Africa through the Bantu land act, and it did not fly because of people like Nelson Mandela. Canada led the World in supporting the end of apartheid, and yet here in Canada we have this legislation in the year of 2012. Like I say, it is beyond my comprehension. We have the capacity to change that circumstance. We can begin tomorrow, but it has to be willing on both sides. The Prime Minister said the roots are deep, but they are not very healthy roots.
Mr. Courchesne: I think what it boils down to is a fundamental mindset shift. I will give you an example: I happened to take a few friends of mine to Kenora. On the way we picked up a hitchhiker, a recent immigrant from Pakistan. When he found out that we were Aboriginal people he asked if we got free stuff. That is exactly the mindset there. I think a lot of people have that misconception that we get a lot of free stuff.
At the same time here in Canada, a lot of people think of Indians as lesser individuals. I think it was in the Hawthorn report that we are described as citizens plus, and that is what the mindset of Canadians should be. Indian people are the monarchs of this land and should be treated as such. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation says, "Look we know you are a leach." That is what people think of us. That is not true. We are the monarchs of this land. You are feeding off the riches of the resources of the North. That is the reality. It has to be a mindset change, but I do not know if you can legislate that. It has to start right from the basis of education.
Ms. Vystrcil-Spence: I had one thought that I wanted to share on your question relating to the Indian Act, whether to repeal or amend it. We had a discussion, a caucus before we came to the meeting. We met this morning, and we discussed all kinds of things going on and whether it classifies as an infringement or violation of human rights, an act or omission. We had all kinds of examples. If you want that, we have lots of things that we can reference. However, on your question specifically, we did discuss it, and I think that it is not as simple as just repealing the act. As offensive as it is, I think we would all agree the Indian Act is discriminatory and is a racist piece of legislation. It targets one group and in itself is probably a human rights case of targeting or profiling.
The reality is that there is a lot of case law that has come out of the Indian Act. There are a lot of mechanisms within the Indian Act that would facilitate improvements in programming, better investments, wiser investments maybe. I think that, as it is, it is not appropriate. The reality is that the original framework as it is for those of us who are within the treaty nations is the treaty. The original relationship is the treaty, which was an agreement of coexistence and sharing. From there we have the BNA Act, section 91.24, which provides for federal laws to be developed for the benefit of Indians and lands reserved for Indians. Out of that comes the Indian Act in all of its forms since Confederation. From there, we have policies that primarily guide and are being used as the main vehicle for federal investment in our communities, and it is not appropriate. The Indian Act does provide for mechanisms, like I said, and better investments, either regulations. $Why the government chooses not to be more creative and innovative in its programming and in its design of how it might better invest or manage its investments, if that is the concern, I do not know. I think that is why we get into using the term "supervised neglect." We know that there are better arrangements. We know there are fairer processes of engaging and more inclusive ways of getting our voices heard and reflected in the law, the amendment of laws and in new laws.
A conscious decision is made to not do it so in the way we are consistently saying, decade after decade, generation after generation. There is a vision that the people hold collectively on how they want to be governed, how investments could be made and how opportunities could be created, but the government is not listening. All of these loopholes and all of these jurisdictional gaps get created and perpetuated. I think if it is fair, transparent, open and meaningful — for real — we can get to the table and talk, but let us make it a fair process and actually do something out of it.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Johnston, you talked about the Court Challenges Act. What happens now that the Court Challenges Program is gone? What happens to all of the good work that your organization was doing?
Mr. Johnston: As you know, there are always alternatives. A fund was created by the Asper Family at the University of Toronto, and it can be accessed when the case is of particular interest in law. If you feel you have a strong case on an important issue, you can seek monies to pursue that or lawyers who are willing to take it forward.
I still feel it was a step backward. I mean, Canada is supposedly proud of its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, recognizes that no government is perfect and that no system is perfect. You need remedies, so I thought that ending that program was a real step backwards.
The essence of democracy is we have the right to complain and we have the right to seek redress. When a high number of individuals of a group or community are in poverty, where are they going to find the resources to bring justice to the fore?
The Deputy Chair: On behalf of the committee, and because of lack of time, I would like to thank you all for appearing today. As with every witness, nothing precludes this from continuing. If you have some comments after pondering over the next couple of days or weeks that you would like to forward, please send them to the committee clerk.
I did not get a chance to ask any questions, but I would like to remind everyone that the committee is really looking at the human rights of off-reserve status Indians. That is what we were mandated to do. Whether we like it or not, the labels "on reserve" and "off reserve" do exist; they are a reality. I have always been of the opinion that even though we cannot change the past, we can certainly, collectively, and together, shape the future. This is the endeavor we are undertaking. This committee has the mandate and the power to recommend to government how to start dealing with these issues to fix them.
In respect for those who do live off reserve across this province and across Canada, I would ask you to do a little bit of thinking and perhaps forward your thoughts because it is a reality that many First Nations people who decide to move off the reserve do not have the same mobility rights as non-Aboriginal Canadians in terms of voting, in terms of access to programs and services. How do we start to remedy that? It is an ongoing problem in this country. We have to certainly, and this is the purpose of the mandate of this committee. We have to provide a voice for those peoples. Federal and provincial governments can fight until the cows come home, but at the same time people need to have their voice heard, and that is what we are trying to do.
How do we collectively work together? What recommendations would you give to this committee? We, in turn, will look at them, and form firm and strong recommendations on protecting the human rights of all of our peoples, whether they are on reserve or off reserve.
Honourable Senators, we are ready to hear testimony from our next panel: Sharon Slater, Co-Director of Human Resources from the Urban Circle Training Centre; Haven Stumpf, Intake Coordinator and Community Liaison; and the Native Women's Transition Centre via Ms. Bernice Cyr and Sonia Prevost-Derbecker, who is the Interim Director, Support. Finally, we have Marie Lands, Executive Director of Ikwe-Widdjiitiwin Shelter Inc.
Please proceed.
Sharon Slater, Co-Director of Human Resources, Urban Circle Training Centre: My name is Medicine Woman and I am from the Deer Clan. My colours are burgundy, blue, yellow and white. Meegwetch for allowing us to come here. You have asked of us to present Urban Circle Training Centre and what we do there. Ms. Stumpf has put together a wonderful PowerPoint, but we can see that this is not the place for it here today. We did give you folders with regard to what we are presenting.
We are an Aboriginal training centre for adults age 19 and up. We presently run five programs. Three of those programs are post-secondary. We have a mature grade 12 program, and we also have a partnership with Red River Early Childhood Education, a two-year diploma program. We also run a number of smaller programs, depending on the funding.
We are unique in that we have a holistic training centre. Not only are we dealing with our students mental abilities, we are also dealing with our students in a holistic approach.
We presently have two elders who guide us. We are a centre of approximately 150 Aboriginal students. Our staff is 85 per cent Aboriginal. One of the things that sets us apart from other training centres is that we mandate that all of our students are part of the life skills cultural awareness program. All of our programs have academic instructors as well as life skills counselors who help our students to succeed. When dealing with our students, we are not just dealing with academic abilities; we are also dealing with what is going on at home — their financial struggles, relocating to Winnipeg, finding appropriate housing, daycare.
One of the things we have been talking about is the difference between on-reserve and off-reserve urban Aboriginals. For a lot of our students funding is a huge issue. We have students with status who do not get funding. The majority of our students are single women with children. For many housing is inappropriate because of what they can afford. A lot of our students are children of residential school survivors, and that plays a huge role in their abilities to problem solve, to have that self-confidence and self-esteem.
Coming into the city there are things like lack of support, lack of families. A lot of students are told when applying for funding that first they need to exhaust all other avenues before they can receive funding from their communities. If the communities offer a program similar to ours, the students are told that they need to move back to their community. A lot of times in relocating back to their community there is not even housing for them. Those are some real issues.
Many of our students are undereducated when they arrive. Many of the teachers who teach on reserve are first-year, second-year teachers, and they do not want to deal with all of the issues that come with the students. That is a huge issue. When we talk about parenting children, if we do not learn how to parent, we cannot parent. We can only parent according to how we have been parented. We also teach our students about parenting, about addictions, how we can fall into the darker side of life, and why we pick partners who are abusive All of that is learned behavior.
I really did not feel like I was anyone until I received my name. To know that I actually belonged somewhere was really important. As we sit here, I am wondering how come there has never been an elders council as part of this process to guide, because that is really important. Our elders are very wise, and they do listen and do tell us what we need to do as individuals to be the best that we can be. Our elders guidance really helps us as a staff at Urban Circle to not only talk about what we do but walk the walk, because, if we cannot walk it, we cannot expect anyone else to. All of those ceremonies and teachings are important. That is not just to Aboriginal people, that is to all people. When we talk about respect, we talk about honesty, we talk about truth, and we talk about courage that is for everyone. There needs to be that type of awareness where we tell that to everybody and create respect for one another.
I will pass it over to Ms. Stumpf. Meegwetch.
Haven Stumpf, Intake Coordinator, Community Liaison, Urban Circle Training Centre: I am sure it has been a long afternoon for you listening to stories and all. First of all to introduce myself, I am not only employed with Urban Circle, but as well I am First Nations and considered an urban Aboriginal person. I have lived here in this part of town all of my life. I have never lived anywhere else. I can speak for those who live in urbanized areas from off-reserve. Personally, I fit the many stories that you have heard of single parents on social assistance struggling to get somewhere in life. Both my grandmother and my mother are residential school survivors. I always wondered how come I was raised in such poverty, how come I had to live a life like that.
I am also a student of Urban Circle a million years ago, back in 1995. When I first came there, I had no idea of who I was, of my identity. It was lost. Due to the racism here in the city toward Aboriginal persons, I was in denial of who I was and very shameful of ever identifying myself as Aboriginal. I was anything but Aboriginal. Being raised by my mother was a very difficult thing in our household. I have a brother, and both of my parents are alcoholics as well. They are both deceased. I always wondered how come my life was so hard. It was not until Urban Circle helped turn that light bulb on. It gave me insight into understanding why my mother was the way she was and why things took place the way they did and helped me to forgive my mother for the life that I was given.
It was up to me to make those changes. Urban Circle assisted me by empowering me by giving me not only my identity as being an Aboriginal person, but teaching me the life lessons, the coping skills and problem solving skills to be responsible and accountable to myself and to be a good mother. The Urban Circle offers much more than education. It helps students to gain those abilities to go further in life.
Being an intake coordinator, I work directly with our students to obtain funding from their First Nations bands. I have seen things from nepotism, old family wars going that have dragged on for years. Because the person is not living on-reserve, you are kind of put on the end of the list. All of the priorities are directed to the people on reserve. I truly understand that, but we also have to understand that we are slowly migrating to the cities for more and better opportunities, such as education and learning, to enhance our livelihoods. Working with students who do not have that funding really gives you an opportunity to get the inside scoop on things because they trust you and give you that information to help and assist them in whatever way you can.
Bernice Cyr, Executive Director, Native Women's Transition Centre: Senators Harb, Brazeau and Jaffer, thank you for having me here this afternoon. I am Executive Director of the Native Women's Transition Centre. I am new to the position but have worked in the north end and have worked in social services for 20 years. I was the former CEO of Metis Child and Family Services Authority. I have taught urban city studies, aboriginal governance, and for the last five years management and financial administration. I am actually here to narrow the scope a bit. I have heard broad presentations.
The Native Women's Transition Centre has been around for about 30 years, and they serve women who self-identify as First Nations, Metis and Inuit who live in the community, who may be in conflict with the law, struggling with addictions, child and family services involvement, EIA, and housing issues. The reality is that often times the Native Women's Transition Centre is the end result to failed systems. It is the start of their personal journey. That is where the women come in. I think the biggest piece that I have seen in my experience, is weighing safety with risk. A lot of women who have been victims of economic violence, systemic violence, violence by men are deemed at risk, as opposed to looking at safety networks.
This is a big philosophical change in attitude if we are looking legislatively. If we are looking at how to make change, we are very risk dominant in North America. We have to look at building safety networks around our families, our women our children. Apprehending kids is not always the answer. Working with families to build those safety networks, because they do return home, it is their home, whether be it be on reserve or in urban communities. This is a big piece when we look at how we fund, how we decide what sectors we serve, building safety networks and help agencies like the ones that are sitting in front of you today, if we are going to have that change in philosophy.
The other piece I wanted to speak to is around early planning. Our goal is not to jail women; not to punish women when they have endured lives of violence. Our goal is to help women find options out where they have safety within their communities, where they learn to be a safe parent with their children, safe members of their own family, safe to people in their community .
We need earlier planning. We need earlier stages in courts where we can find alternatives within the community to help serve women better. The violence that women endure, once they have been involved with criminal systems, is an ongoing, lifelong battle. It is very difficult to get out.
There are other options and I can speak for about three hours on them, but I will keep this fairly poignant and short.
The other piece is men's violence against women. We have seen extraordinarily high numbers. I could refer to several reports. They are all well-documented and published. It is changing the attitudes around the victimization of women, and we are acknowledging it as men's violence against women, men's violence against men. We have seen lack of programming and services for young men and young fathers to help them break those cycles.
I would like to talk about a paradigm shift in philosophy. I think our goal as a community, as a country, as a province, as a municipality, as a reserve, would be to build safety and put those safety networks in place, because the systems that we have right now — and you will hear all kinds of testimony — really have failed our families. These are old systems that we continue to perpetuate. It is time for some new thinking.
Sonia Prevost-Derbecker, Interim Director, Support, Native Women's Transition Centre: Thanks for inviting us here. I am Sonia Prevost-Derbecker, Interim Executive Director. I will be leaving Native Women's Transition Centre since they found the new victorious leadership. I met you, Mr. Brazeau, in Chile at the Migration Summit when I was running Ndinawemaaganag Endaawad. I have worn several hats, so I am speaking from several places although I still have one foot in the door at Native Women's. I also ran the Point Douglas Revitalization Initiative. Point Douglas area is one of the poorest area codes in Canada with by far the lowest outcome in Canada on pretty well every front. That is where we are today.
Our educational outcomes are six to one compared to the rest of the population. We have the highest chronic disease in Canada. We have some of the highest recidivism in justice. We are often considered in competition with two other cities in Canada as the child poverty capital of Canada. We could go on.
Having been a previous executive director, I am also a previous school trustee. I was the only Aboriginal school trustee for about 25 years. What a tragic statement that is. The reality is that these outcomes are not because a lot of good people are not working really, really hard. As previous executive director, and as the other executive directors in line here would say, people are working harder than they have, and yet there are systemic barriers and issues. I would like to speak a little bit about that.
We have to look at the push and pull factors. While we have the lowest outcomes in Canada, we also have the highest Aboriginal urban population in Canada right now. The reasons for migration are many. Of course, lots of families will move here with their kids in order for their children to get an education. If the local area does not have a high school, many families will move rather than shipping your kid off alone. Health care is another big reason for people to be moving; jobs and community economic development, we could go on at length. There are some very remote communities where there are no jobs and no community economic development, and that absolutely needs to be addressed.
The fact that the funding formula for things like education and health care are two thirds of that provided off reserve is a discrimination that we could go on about. We can all see how that projects into community development, and the development of our biggest asset, which is human capital on any reserve or in any community.
We are now looking at, in the next 15 years, 80 percent of the Aboriginal population living in urban centers. In that case, all of these people moving to urban centers, like my family did and many of us have, we need to really take a look at how we are going to service these families. If these families cannot be serviced through treaty rights, then we need to be taking a look at that.
Also within that dialogue needs to be the dialogue around who gets included in the club. My father went to residential school and I have fought for years, well just started the fight with integrity, to get status myself. Yet my dad was in a residential school. I have a Metis card. Tragically, in many of the services I have run — I was also the executive director of All Nations Child and Family — many of the kids that we would have serviced would have been way browner than I am, way poorer than I am, without any education, and I would have more card than they would.
There is a real problem with who gets in the club, if we are discriminating against our most marginalized citizens, and I get more privilege. I just needed to say that. Who gets into the club needs to be addressed. I know you have mentioned that that is not one of the pieces that you are addressing, but I will be there to address it in any case.
We have many of these people moving into our communities, our urban setting communities. The issues that they bring, because they are not coming with supports necessarily, and our system has become overtaxed, they fall into the cracks as you can imagine. They end up costing our systems tenfold, what they normally would have cost. I am taking an economic perspective on this. However, the cost, right now, for Corrections in Manitoba is $107,000 a year. The cost to have a child in CFS care is $35,000 a year. The cost to have an adult in mental health for a year is $170,000.
There are a lot of services tied up in those three people that you could buy in an urban setting that would prevent a lot of that recidivism in what we call mandated services. In other words, if you can prevent bums in beds, if you could build capacity and support communities, you could do so much more, and if that means discussing transition of treaty rights, then I think that we are all better off.
The cost of those services being so very high, the fact that as peoples we have gone through years of oppression, it is no surprise that our reliance on services is higher than the average Canadian. If we want that to change, then we need to put the money into where the people are living. So I am actually in favour of continuing this dialogue. We currently have a very racist system that is penalizing our most marginalized. Meegwetch.
Marie Lands, Executive Director, Ikwe-Widdjiitiwin Shelter Inc.: I want to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights for giving me the historic opportunity to share my thoughts, views and concerns regarding First Nations Peoples issues living off reserve. My name is Marie Lands. I am the Executive Director for Ikwe-Widdjiitiwin Shelter in Winnipeg. We are a shelter that houses women leaving, fleeing domestic violence.
I know that our Senate is well briefed on the history the Aboriginal people, and in particular First Nations. In saying that, I will move on to provide the information that I can in the short time that I have.
I am able to relate to my own experience as a First Nations woman living off reserve from both a personal and professional perspective. Statistics Canada has profiled that there are more off-reserve First Nations than living on reserve. Many First Nations live in large urban cities like Winnipeg. The colonial effect, meaning the legacies of the residential school system, child welfare system, and justice systems, and many too numerous to name have affected all First Nations. For many First Nations it has impacted the quality of life and well-being that every other Canadian can enjoy, a quality of life that includes what I would call the three Ss: a sense of safety, security and stability.
In the short time that I have, I would like to share the three key areas that contribute to our safety, security, and stability. First is education.
As off-reserve First Nations we are at a disadvantage in applying for post-secondary funding to go to college or university. The priority is on reserve. We have to take the opportunities that are offered through social assistance programs. For example, in Winnipeg, many are on assistance to attend a program that will you get you into entry level work, as opposed to going to an accredited professional degree like social work or one that can provide a career and help to move toward improving quality of life .
We do not have a fair process for off-reserve applicants to attend post-secondary education to get degrees and diplomas that are recognized in any career that we choose. We should not have to only accept programs just to survive. It is not equal to our individual treaty right when we can't have access to post-secondary funding and opportunities — not just taking out a student loan to get a degree or diploma as our treaty right was not meant to be a "loan right."
Most education authorities on First Nations have an application selection process; meaning applications for on-reserve First Nations are considered for funding first. The process does not seem to truly reflect inclusion of off-reserve applicants. There is always a waiting list. With an opportunity to have degrees and diplomas for a career, First Nations off reserve will have better outcomes. This will lead to better employment, better income levels, and this can address First Nation poverty off-reserve.
Second is housing. Many First Nations people have been off reserve most of their life, if not all of their life. Many cannot even connect to their own First Nations communities. To be able to return to community to apply for housing is not everyone's first choice, as they do not know the community and have been disconnected. When you place yourself on a list you are not the priority. Again housing on reserve is for on-reserve residents. They have a right to housing. Being off reserve we have a right to housing through a rental or leasing agreement, and many have to take what is within the means of their budget. Most First Nations cannot afford to buy a home due to barriers in accessing education in order for us to have better employment income.
Last, in my professional career I have witnessed violence as a major indicator for First Nations people off reserve. Having the right opportunities to make the best informed choices, and healthy living to improve their own quality of life is something they have not had an opportunity to get through education. All one needs to look at is statistics of the child welfare system, the justice system, the women's shelter system and so on to recognize that there is a problem for off-reserve First Nations.
In our work at Ikwe-Widdjiitiwin Shelter, women provide information that is related to their own history, and it is bleak. Society needs to provide hope and a sense of safety, security, and stability. The cycle of violence for them and their children will continue for future generations if we do not stop that. The stress placed on First Nation families trying to survive often creates hostile and unhealthy relationships amongst couples and extended families.
In closing I believe our issues can be addressed by the portability of individual treaty inherent rights to education and housing. We only want what the Creator gave us, and that is to live. In my language, minopimiiwatsiwin means "a good life."
I would like to end by saying that, as a survivor of two Aboriginal, Indian residential schools, the child welfare system and the justice system, sitting before you today, the best opportunity I had was education. Throughout that process I had to pay a lot back to the governments in spite of what was to be a treaty right. Having to go through many other systems such as the child welfare system and the justice system, I had a lot to regain. Being off reserve makes it that much more complex for many of our people we serve and advocate for on a daily basis. Our sister organizations have clearly pointed out the issues that we deal with on a daily basis.
I thank you for this opportunity. Meegwetch.
The Deputy Chair: Before I go to my colleagues, I will pose the first question. I apologize in advance, because it is somewhat loaded. We have heard some testimony previously and today as well about the fact that First Nations people who choose or are forced to live off reserve are sometimes not entitled to the same rights and benefits as their brothers and sisters who live on reserve, not only in terms of access to things like education and housing but basic general rights such as voting.
We can talk about the realities of colonialism, and all of the past wrongdoings, but we also have to talk about the realities of today, and what people have to go through on a daily basis in their struggles to try and get by. I fully understand that. I have been there and done that myself, as have you.
I would like to know what you would recommend to this committee, because it is a known fact that often times when an individual moves outside of the reserve; one, they park their rights at the reserve boundaries, and two, they are excluded from access to programs and services. On the one hand you might have Aboriginal leaders say they do not receive enough money, which could be true in certain instances, but it is also true that in other areas there is a per capita funding formula, where funding is received by them for the benefit of all of their members, regardless of where they live.
The federal government pumps in $10 billion a year for Aboriginal peoples, and it must also be said that the federal government also transfers funding to provincial governments for the benefit of all of their citizens, whether or not they are Aboriginal.
There are a lot of money issues in this question. Perhaps, on the one hand, it is because the political leadership in the off-reserve context is weak. It is a good thing we have service delivery organizations and people like yourselves who are at the front lines doing the work that is necessary, because people have nowhere else to go. What would you recommend that we say in our future report, to fix these inequities regardless of, I hate to use this, but regardless of what side of the fence you stand on. Are you on the on-reserve side of the fence or off-reserve. In my view, everybody should be treated equally and equitably.
Do you have any comments?
Ms. Prevost-Derbecker: I want to point out that every organization here and the previous panels that I saw you interview operate from a status blind perspective. That means that at this point they do not operate their service saying, "Okay, all of the Treaty Indians line up over here, all Inuit line up here, and you Metis over here." I assume that you are asking whether or not you would be willing to separate those populations?
The Deputy Chair: No, absolutely not.
Ms. Prevost-Derbecker: I know I am coming back with something a little political, but at the same time, of course, we are servicing our community on or off reserve. Right? I mean, as a former educator, I can say I would have taught when we started Ndinawe Transitional School, we took kids without status and with status. People need to be able to walk with their rights, and that would be my personal answer.
However, it has to be the same for off-reserve Aboriginal people. I have never known of an organization that says, "Sorry, you are not in the right club, you go line up there." That is really how it works here in Winnipeg.
The Deputy Chair: Just to be crystal clear, because I certainly do not want to be misquoted on this. I proposed this study, but my view is that whether we agree with it or not, whether we like it or not, there is still discrimination by our own leaders once individuals move off the reserves. If we are going to tackle these issues, I firmly believe that we have to be very respectful but truthful about what is going on, because if we are not, then the discussion will always be swept under the rug. I certainly do not want that to happen with this study. This is why I am asking for advice and recommendations on how we address these issues, because they need to be addressed.
Ms. Cyr: I would like to go back to a very fundamental principle in child welfare, Jordan's principle. We have seen jurisdictional issues create systemic barriers for family, women, children, and men across our country. If you are looking at desegregation of Metis, Inuit and First Nations when you talk about practical service delivery and creation of policy, jurisdictional issues are one of the biggest barriers to education, health and social services. Although this is a very finite view, there are so many other contributing and complicating factors to that whole discussion.
Ms. Stumpf: From my perspective as an intake coordinator working directly with students, I hold people accountable for what they are telling our students. I get that in writing. A written letter, of course, could really be swept under the rug as well, but something in writing holds a little more than something said verbally.
I know our students have been told come back next year, we do not have funding, you are now in such and such a place in the line. We need to hold some of our leaders more accountable in regard to the fairness of distributing funds. We know that they get a certain percentile for each treaty person registered. When it comes down to the bottom line, it is all about accountability and fairness.
The Deputy Chair: What would you say to all of those First Nations individuals who would like to say something but are fearful of retribution, or something happening to them. That too is a reality that a lot of First Nations people face.
Ms. Stumpf: I understand that as well. I support anybody who comes through my door in regard to handling issues like that. From my point of view, definitely, we have to stand together, step up and be honest. I am a pretty vocal person, so I bite my tongue. I was biting my tongue out there and saying to myself, "Don't even take me there."
In regard to helping our people move forward, there has to be a starting point, and the starting point has to be honesty. Those are our seven teachings that we have learned, and are starting to relearn again because those have all been taken away from us. They are very true words in themselves. So, again, to be honest as leaders in our community wanting to help our people move forward, not to move forward in your own essence, but with the view that the power of one is the power of all. It is very unfortunate, and we try to empower our students through that teaching.
We had a student who came back and got his grade 12, then went off to Red River Community College and took the governance program. He went back to his reserve four years later, ran for council, and now sits on council. When he was sitting at one of the chief and council meetings at the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, he actually stood up and he said something. Everybody clapped for him, and he was wondering why is everybody clapping for me? The reason was that not one person who had ever sat in that chief and council position had ever spoken up. He happened to speak up. I mean that is empowering our students and empowering our people, and that is what we need more of.
Ms. Lands: I just want to talk about my comments on the portability of our treaty rights. That is an issue that really needs to be looked at.
You talked in depth of the Constitution Act, 1982, and we now have what people look upon as a pan-Aboriginal approach for First Nations under the Constitution. I think we need to really start taking a good look at some of those things. I am not afraid to take on those challenges. I have taken a lot of political hits personally and professionally to try and hold our own leaders accountable.
Also, when we are talking about portability and voting rights, we have those voting rights now. They are on and off, but how are they really being scrutinized? We have the same leaders going through the same — we have the same outcomes in leadership. Absolutely, I think that was a gain for Aboriginal people. We do have that opportunity to vote for our leaders of the community. However, I still think a lot more needs to be done around portability of our own inherent treaty rights. I am sitting here talking about myself now in terms of my own First Nations treaty rights, but my generations to follow, my grandsons are the ones who are going to have to carry on respecting what our ancestors signed on to, not just the First Nations but the newcomers as well.
We also have to be respectful by making sure we have security and stability, and a good life for the rest of our lives, and we must start looking at that seriously. I think that is being said and done every day. We who offer direct services see the impacts daily, and there is not a day that goes by that you do not think of stability and safety for women and children so they can have a home and go to school. However, they are at the bottom of the barrel because they cannot have access to housing, they cannot have access to education. They are the most deprived. These are the people we speak on behalf of.
As an Aboriginal woman, I do not take those kinds of things too lightly. I push for fighting for children and women on a daily basis. I think it is time we start to say, what about their rights? They are breached every day through the violence they experience and through many other forms of violence they have to experience.
Then you take it to a larger level and you look at the world of capitalism and how that all trickles down to the level of work we do. We can come at it from many different angles, but at the end of the day it is going to come to the inherent right of that treaty person who was born into this.
I would just like to say we need to make the rights portable. I am not talking about the 1969 white paper; I am talking about consulting every treaty First Nation. The Assembly of First Nations does not speak on my behalf. My territorial council does not speak on my behalf. I speak on my behalf.
Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: If I may, I will start with you, Ms. Prevost-Derbecker, and follow-up on your comments on status. This committee heard a proposal from a witness, Mr. Peach, you may have heard of him. He is an expert on Aboriginal issues. He is originally from Saskatchewan. He said that the federal government should stop defining Indian status because of its divisive impact on Aboriginal communities, and because the distinctions it creates may violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What do you think of his proposal? Would it help increase access to programs for First Nations off reserve?
Ms. Prevost-Derbecker: Well, first of all, I do not know of too many programs that ask for status cards or some kind of membership. I mean, our most marginalized populations often do not have all of their IDs. You would be really denying a large percentage of service, if that is the way you rolled or if that was your approach. I do not know Mr. Peach. I have not read his submission, but I would gladly read it and let you know. It is true that the dialogue has gone on for some time about why we are the only ones who need a membership to define ourselves.
If you recall, that went on at great length in Chile. What are the gifts and the burdens or the barriers of limitation? Certainly, the community you come from always comes up in any conversation within the Aboriginal community, or when you are introducing yourself. As to exclusion, or you are only, or are you not, or you are, Inuit or Metis or treaty, it seems somewhat ridiculous that we allocate service or even consider the allocation of service based on categories. If you are Aboriginal, you are Aboriginal. If you want to receive service from an Aboriginal health unit, great. I do not think anybody really would want to have that criterion in terms of defining or rejecting someone a service.
In terms of how we personally identify ourselves, it is often on a community level. I think it is going to be a much more heated dialogue in the future as we move into urban settings and Bill C-31 becomes more and more watered down.
I think the next big challenge — maybe I will be the one to make it — will be how did you know that your ancestors, three generations ago, who once married out, and then everybody married back in, was going to cause a ruffle in the wave of blood quantum theory? What on earth does that have to do with who you are and the community you come from and how you identify? In many countries in the world that identification just comes from the community. "Yes, she is one of ours, enough said." We are not going to do some genetic testing, but if that is what it came down to, so be it, let us get genetic.
I really have objection to some scribe's document in some church that may or may not have burned down, that you may or may not be able to leg wrestle in the parking lot to get the long birth certificate. It becomes such an archivist's encounter: "I am trying to get the right for my auntie before she dies." How tragic is that? That does not mean we will limit how we define ourselves, but it is a bit of a warped model that needs to be looked at.
Senator Jaffer: We will send his presentation, and would appreciate your comments.
Senator Harb: I have one simple question dealing with this whole notion of status Indian, and non-status Indian, and rights of status Indians to vote on reserve, and so on. From your presentation it does not appear to be an issue at all and is sort of passé. What advantages would off reserve status have? What are some of the advantages they will have, in your view, if any?
Ms. Prevost-Derbecker: There would be lots.
Ms. Lands: I can say what we do not have. We have very minimal health care, and we have to qualify via a means test, of course. We have to go through the First Nations Health and Inuit Branch before we can qualify for a prescription. As I said, it is means testing and if you do not qualify, you do not qualify. You do not always have a clerk turning a blind eye over there, and just processing it. There really are those challenges. There really is not a lot of benefit for off-reserve First Nations people. As I said, a lot of our people are on income assistance, so they get covered that way, but it is very minimal. We do not enjoy everything that every Canadian gets.
Senator Harb: In general, given that Winnipeg has the largest Aboriginal urban community in Canada, do many of your members consider themselves status?
Ms. Lands: Off-reserve First Nations people with treaty status is who I am talking about. Under the Constitution we have the four categories. Being treaty, being off-reserve, and this is the focus of our discussions here, we do not have that portability of our rights. As I said, I can vote for my chief but I cannot vote for a councillor. Every treaty area has different ways of doing things. Some bands can vote for their chief and council. Some bands can vote for only a chief. In my particular community I am only allowed to vote for my chief, and we cannot run. I know that we can run, but most of the ones who run are much closer, and we are entitled to vote. That needs to be reviewed and looked at a little bit more carefully and examined to see how it actually does work. If I were a councillor off reserve, how would I actually be able to connect to the First Nations' level as well. A lot of things need to be reviewed there.
We should have an opportunity to have an off-reserve First Nations community in this province where many of us could live — not just one particular treaty or band membership, but many of us. We are going into different directions now to meet the needs of our people, and if we are going to continue to hang on to our treaty rights in that way, we need to look at different ways of taking care of our people off reserve. Eventually, we are going to overpopulate our communities and run out of land.
Ms. Stumpf: I wanted to make a comment with regard to being off reserve. I know that it is a very sad, but I am just going to be honest here. It is not what you know, it is who you know when you are looking at going back home. That is the go-to person that you are going to go to see in regard to meeting your needs. Here, off reserve, education funding is very limited and it has to be full time, otherwise you do not qualify in many ways.
Unfortunately, working people like myself do not have that opportunity to go to school full time on the minimal amount of funding that they are willing to pay me. I just cannot afford to quit and do that. When it comes to education, the funding is very minimal. When it comes to health it is very minimal.
When you are talking about urbanized Aboriginal people, they lose a lot of things when they are living here in the city. Again, that is the connection with their community.
I know I have a sense of loss as well there. I purposely have to make the time to go back to my home reserve to reconnect with family members. I have no idea of some of my family members I am just meeting in today's life. Again, it is that whole distance thing and reconnecting with my roots, and finding out who my family is.
Ms. Prevost-Derbecker: No one has really mentioned this, but transportable rights mean transportable tax rights. That is the obvious advantage, right? Enough said.
Senator Jaffer: Ms. Cyr, in my past life I worked with your organization when I was part of the panel on violence against women, and I really appreciated it when you talked about building the safety network. We do not have much time, but maybe you can for the record speak about what exactly the network would look like. I just love it when you said that we not do a risk assessment, but build a safety network. Since you said that, I have been wondering what should be in place to have that safety network.
Ms. Cyr: Well, the idea of risk versus safety network, first of all, risk revolves around the victimization. It keeps women in those places. Safety networks are constructs of extended family, neighbors, community service providers, other case managers and other systems where the woman is the center of the plan. We know that when a lot of our women leave transitional houses, or halfway homes or addictions treatment, there are drop-offs in services. We know that oftentimes a woman who is in a very vulnerable position will have difficulty advocating for herself. They wind up falling between the cracks, particularly if you are looking at large educational institutions or Child Family Services. These are broad systems, and there is very little advocacy We have seen these kind of chronic cycles of women living in violent relationships within the family or intimate partner, may wind up having children apprehended because there may be other warrants or orders, or protection orders in place where the partner may be in the home. Manitoba Housing winds up evicting them. EIA winds up cutting them off. They end up homeless and accessing our services. The whole idea comes from the point that she is at risk, instead of bringing people together in the early stages through safety networks. They do not have to all be care providers, they can be grandmas. We have to start relying on those, because even if women are mandated through corrections, through CFS, what we find is that they access community resources.
Now, it is sort of the same sense of belonging when women become gang involved, because they do not have a sense of belonging or support systems in their own life or in their family. It is sort of rebuilding those systems. It would take policy work. If you look at child welfare alone, around section 76 of the act of confidentiality, corrections, security clearance in order to share information we have very "siloed" services. I am a mother of four and I live in the north end, they would call me high risk. I have teenagers that I have to advocate for, and I am high functioning. I cannot imagine if there was a plethora of issues and trying to get through your daily life.
We see what we call prescriptions or the holy trinity of anger management, addiction treatment and parenting. We have taken your children away, and we are expecting you to parent. We are separating families, and expecting them to function if they take these treatments. It is a really old way of thinking. It perpetuates the situations we have seen generationally. The idea and the concept around building safety networks is having inclusivity of all those supports and resources with the woman at the center of that case plan, where she has ownership over that plan as well. It is a dialogue we can certainly have. I have written and actually published some work around it with a colleague, around signs of success, signs of safety, and safety building and safety networking.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much. What you have said today is going to stick with us. There are so many other questions I could ask, but we are running out of time. When I saw the five of you sitting here, and I say this humbly, I could see the heavy load that you carry on behalf of all of us.
I am going to quickly share this story with you: During the Olympics in my province, in Vancouver, Whistler, we were trying to prevent women coming from Eastern Europe to be trafficked into Vancouver. As you know, with the Olympics goes men, women being trafficked for men's enjoyment in the evening. We succeeded and were very proud. Then we saw that the girls came from the reserves and how we had let down the girls of our own country. So I know that I speak for the whole committee in saying thank you for all of the work you do. We all have a lot of work to do. Obviously this dialogue is going to continue.
The Deputy Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you all for your presentation here this afternoon. It was very insightful, and one of the best panels that we have had thus far. Congratulations, and thank you again.
Now, we have two individuals before us who would like to make a statement. Welcome to Elliott Cobiness and Robert Kakaygeesick Junior for being here.
Sirs, I hear you would like to make a statement, so I give you the floor.
Robert Kakaygeesick Jr., Buffalo Point First Nation: Thank you very much. I come from Buffalo Point, a Manitoba First Nation. Since this is a human rights panel, I would like to bring forward some abuses that we have experienced from our leadership at Buffalo Point.
I have a packet here for each of the senators. We would like to share that with you. We have more information, and if need be, we can fax it to you to review, and make a recommendation on how to solve this situation that we face. Right now it is under heredity, but the people have no Native blood in them. So to me that is an abuse of the word "hereditary." If you have no bloodline, it is not hereditary. We have documents that support our claims.
We would like to have this panel, if they can — and I am sure you can — recommend to the Minister of Indian Affairs, Aboriginal Affairs, to have a custom election. That is what we had before and it worked beautifully. The year 1969 was the last time there was what we call a custom election, and now it is hereditary, passed down from father, to son, to grandson, and so forth and so on. That is one of the things why we are here, and we want to make you aware of it.
I have sent letters, faxed letters to the minister, and I have had no response. I check my mail every day. We would like to have the senators make him aware. We want that. I mean, you have the power to recommend and we are depending on you.
We have a lot of band members. There are about 104, maybe 105; I do not know the exact number. Decision making does not involve the band membership. That is what is happening right now.
I would like to turn it over to Elliott Cobiness so he can make this brief. We would like to speak with you afterward, maybe privately, because we have a lot of things to say. Thank you.
Elliott Cobiness, Buffalo Point First Nation: My name is Elliott Cobiness and I am from Buffalo Point. We are here today because our basic human rights have been stripped away from us. We have elders. The oldest one is 91 years old but she has not had a right to vote, not once in her life. We would just like to step forward, have some kind of motion pushed forward for, like Robert was saying, for a custom election at Buffalo Point. It is because all of the injustice that is happening there, dictatorship, you know. It is just basic, no human rights whatsoever. We would like to propose that the Senate push forward for democratic election at Buffalo Point. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much to both of you for your statements. Obviously, I am not aware of the entire file, so I cannot comment However, you mentioned that the community used to have a custom election.
Mr. Kakaygeesick: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: Now it is hereditary. Can you expand on how long it has been hereditary, is this practice in essence new, or has it been going on for several years?
Mr. Kakaygeesick: It changed in 1969. That family made it hereditary. I really do not know the full story, but we have elders and other community members who could make that story clearer.
All I can tell you is that it started in 1969, and since then, we have not had any rights. Like Elliott said, we were stripped of certain rights. I lived off reserve for a while, for most of my life. I have been on the reserve for close to 20 years. Now, I feel that we have no rights at all, when I am on that reserve right now. No Native person, First Nation person is employed by the First Nation. None of us. Do you know what we are living on? We are living on social assistance. We are all capable as human beings to work. I want to work, I am in my sixties. I am not going to give up working. That is my right as a human being. I have rights on that reserve and I want those rights back. If it takes the minister to do it, that is what I want, not just for me, but for my children, my grandchildren, and great grandchildren who are going to be there, who are going to live there. I do not want to see them under the same thumb as I have, and my dad or my mother. My mother has never voted for anything, yet she has never been asked. They say, "Oh, you are not a full band member.", but she is a full band member, as I am. They say that my brothers and sisters are not band members, or whatever. They choose and pick.
I know they do not have any bloodline. They say, "Well we are one sixteenth." What is that, your finger nail? I mean, if that man is a Dutch person by heritage, fine, that is great. I am an Ojibway. I am full blooded Ojibway, and I am proud of that. It is like you are under somebody's gun, or their thumb, and it affects your health. Anxiety sets in, all of these uncertainties.
You do not know what is going to happen, or what he is going to do, or that tribal council meeting, you have no idea. People should not be that way, should not have to live like that. What our band membership needs is that election process, custom election. We are traditional people who live there, and we will never give that up. We are very proud of who we are. We have our differences, but that is good. That is competition and competition is always good. We do not want to live under dictatorship. Did I answer your question?
Senator Harb: Obviously, you are going through a very challenging time, and we appreciate that. We would very much like to have the documents that you have with you and any other documents you also may have.
Mr. Kakaygeesick: We will send it to you.
Senator Harb: We will be very much interested in any further information about this issue.
Mr. Kakaygeesick: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to both of you for the information you presented. We have received it and we have heard it. Obviously, we need some time to look at it and digest it. One of the purposes of these hearings and this study is to look at the discrimination that occurs across the country. Because First Nations people deserve their rights. That is what we are doing.
thank you very much to both of you .
Mr. Cobiness: Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Before we adjourn, I would like to remind those in attendance that we will return at 7 p.m. to hear a final group of witnesses. Afterwards we will open the floor for those who wish to make three-minute comments. If you want to do so, you merely have to complete a registration form, which is on the desk at the back.
(The committee adjourned.)