Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 6 - Evidence - November 15, 2011
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:33 a.m. to examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
They will either be watching on CPAC or the web. I am Gerry St. Germain from British Columbia, and I have the honour of chairing this committee. The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation in matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally.
In order to understand the concerns of our constituents, we regularly invite representatives from national Aboriginal organizations to testify before us. Rather than assigning a topic for discussion, we leave the floor open to them to educate us as to their membership's most pressing issues. These sessions are invaluable in helping the committee to decide what future studies it will undertake to best serve the Aboriginal community of Canada.
This morning, we will hear from two witnesses. Our first is the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, the national Inuit women's association. Since its incorporation in 1984, Pauktuutit has worked to foster a greater awareness of the needs of Inuit women by advocating for equity and social improvements and by encouraging their participation in the community, regional and national life of Canada.
Our second witness is the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, CAP. CAP describes itself as the national voice of off- reserve Aboriginal people, advocating for the rights and interests of off-reserve and non-status Indians and Metis people living in urban, rural and remote areas of Canada.
[Translation]
However, before listening to the presentations, I would like to introduce the members of our committee who are here today.
[English]
We have Senator Cordy from Nova Scotia; Senator Ataullahjan, from Ontario; Senator Greene Raine, from British Columbia; Senator Nolin, from Quebec; and Senator Brazeau, from the Province of Quebec as well. Last, but definitely not least, we have Senator Demers, from Quebec.
Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witnesses. From Pauktuutit, we have Elisapee Sheutiapik, President, and Tracy O'Hearn, Executive Director. From the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, we have Betty Ann Lavallée, National Chief, and Dwight Dorey, National Vice-Chief.
Witnesses, we look forward to your presentations, which will be followed by questions from senators. I will ask Elisapee Sheutiapik to proceed.
Elisapee Sheutiapik, President, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada:
[Witness spoke in her native language.]
Good morning to the members. I am quite honoured to be here this morning in front of you as president of Pauktuutit. We have a broad mandate that addresses social, political, health and wellness priorities of Inuit women, our families and our communities.
We have a very short time today, and we are going to concentrate on violence and abuse prevention and on the underlying factors that also need to be addressed. Over the last 26 years, violence and abuse have consistently been identified by the Pauktuutit board of directors and the delegates at our AGM as priority issues. Inuit communities continue to report the need for crisis and long-term counselling, safe shelters and training for Inuit front-line workers in order to address these issues.
Mental health has been identified as the primary health issue facing the Inuit. This includes violence, abuse and unresolved trauma. The lack of sustained resources has meant that change is painfully slow. There is also a need for a gender-specific approach to mental health.
According to the 2004 general social survey, residents of the territories were three times more likely than provincial residents to experience violent victimization, such as sexual or physical assaults. Police-reported crime rates in the territories were substantially higher than rates in the rest of Canada. In 2005, crime rates in the North were over four times higher than rates in the provinces.
The resources available for Inuit women in the North who are victims of domestic violence and for their children fall short of meeting their needs; and safe shelters are not available to keep up with the demand for their services. The actual number of shelters in operation at any given time in Inuit regions in the Arctic can vary depending on their availability to operate for a number of reasons. Currently, there are four shelters in Nunavut, two in the Western Arctic region of the Northwest Territories, three in Nunavik and three in Nunatsiavut. Less than 30 per cent of the 53 Inuit communities in the Arctic have a safe shelter for women and children. There is no second-stage housing. Shelters across the North face particular challenges, such as very high operating costs, including utilities and shipping costs; human resource capacity issues; and lack of access to training and professional support. The lack of stable funding is a major barrier to ensuring the safety of women and their children through the provision of safe shelters in times of crisis. I know that women and children have lost their lives because they could not find shelters or have been turned away. Unfortunately, you may have heard of the incident in Iqaluit this year.
We must address the social determinants of health in a holistic way to make progress on these issues. Overcrowded housing and the lack of housing options, poverty, lack of employment or skills, substance abuse, and lasting effects of colonization — residential schools and integration trauma — are all key issues that further contribute to Inuit women being vulnerable and facing ongoing abuse. At the extreme, housing crisis in the Arctic often means for women living with violence in a home that there may be no other safe housing options. The cost of airfare to seek safety in another community can be prohibitive.
Many factors unique to the North can make Inuit women and children vulnerable to violence, abuse and exploitation. We have experienced many extremely rapid changes in our society and communities. Promises were made to our elders that have not been kept. Many of us are still trying to deal with the legacy of residential school abuses. We experience unacceptable high rates of addiction and violence and we have suicide rates that are nine times the national average. If this suicide epidemic among our youth were happening in southern urban centres, it would no doubt have a public urgency. We know in our hearts, but cannot yet prove through evidence, that many victims of child sexual abuse are choosing to end their pain by ending their lives. We also need to understand more about the specific circumstances and difficulties experienced by Inuit in urban centres across Canada.
A recent study estimates that domestic violence in Canada costs approximately $6.9 billion a year. These costs are averaged at $13,000 per woman per year. If the costs were calculated in the North, I would estimate the cost per person to be at least five times higher. We cannot afford to do nothing. Addressing violence and abuse in the North as a contributing factor is an investment in a positive sustainable future. We look to you as partners in helping us to address these issues.
It is a fundamental right of Canadian citizens. We have the right to be safe in our homes and in our communities. We lack some of the basic support and services that are taken for granted in southern Canada. We would be very happy to have more detailed discussions to provide additional information. I know we could talk about many other issues, such as health. Five minutes just does not cover it. I thank you once again for allowing us this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Sheutiapik. We will have the opportunity to discuss this further during questions and answers so that you may elaborate.
Ms. Lavallée, please proceed.
Betty Ann Lavallée, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Good morning Mr. Chairperson, Senator St. Germain, and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
It is an honour to be here on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people to present to you some priority issues of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Today, I will share my presentation time with my vice-chief, Dwight Dorey. My part of our presentation will focus on the remaining discrimination in the Indian Act, matrimonial real property, band membership, Aboriginal citizenship, education and the long-gun registry. Many more issues will need to be discussed at a later date, such as health, economic development, housing, homelessness, language and culture.
Since 1971, the congress has been at the forefront of the Aboriginal people's movement in Canada advocating for our constituency of forgotten peoples. We advocate for the rights and interests of status and non-status Indians living off-reserve and Metis. The year 2011 marks the fortieth anniversary of the founding of our organization.
Despite the successes that have occurred over the last 40 years, the Canadian public continues to associate Aboriginal issues with Indians living on-reserve. The reality is that 80 per cent of the ancestral Aboriginal population live off-reserve, with 60 per cent in urban areas. This is the most significant demographic factor for policy-makers yet. It is the one where the least action takes place because of jurisdictional issues.
On May 18, we were pleased to learn that Prime Minister Harper had changed the name of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. This was an important step to better reflect the scope of the minister's responsibilities for all Aboriginal peoples. This type of straightforward thinking and inclusive decision making is what we need to make progress.
The Indian Act remains the principal expression of the federal government's jurisdictional policy over Indians and lands reversed for Indians under section 91.24 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The political and social reality affecting Aboriginal peoples is based, by and large, on this outdated legislation.
The Indian Act status and membership rules have a long history of impacting the lives of all Aboriginal peoples. For example, of the almost $10 billion per year that the federal government invests in Aboriginal-specific programming, almost 90 per cent goes to assist on-reserve status Indians. This outdated policy framework needs to be reshaped and recast to reflect the fact that the federal government has the responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity for all Aboriginal peoples. This was the central finding of the largest and most extensive inquiry undertaken in Canadian history — the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. In 1996, it reported that the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal peoples needs to be fundamentally restructured. The facts of Aboriginal life have changed, and it is time for policies and frameworks to reflect the new reality.
CAP is pleased that the government will reintroduce Bill S-2 concerning matrimonial real property. The bill will address a long-standing gap and will better protect the rights of Aboriginal people, particularly women living on- reserve. For many years, we have been calling for an effective MRP regime on-reserve. For many years, Aboriginal people, especially women, on-reserve face unfair and unconstitutional discrimination in the exercise of their rights to a fair share of matrimonial real property after the breakup of a marriage or common-law relationship. We view the bill as a positive step to ensuring that Aboriginal women and children receive an equitable distribution of matrimonial real property assets in the event of divorce, separation, family violence or death.
The congress has never bought into the Indian Act; and we have a long history of fighting this legislation. Back in 1974, with financial assistance from our organization, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell was the first non-status woman to bring a challenge against the Indian Act. Today, our women continue to be discriminated against through the Indian Act; but through the brave work of people like Sharon McIvor, Sandra Lovelace Nicholas and many others, we are taking this legislation apart piece by piece.
I am a registered section 6(2) Indian. Under the law, my son is not entitled to be registered as an Indian. We are graded like cattle or grades of beef. It is unadulterated discrimination, and fighting this is a central priority for CAP.
In January of this year, Canada proclaimed into force Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. This was a direct result of the McIvor decision, which took 20 years to move through the courts. Because this legislation is narrow in scope, sex discrimination remains in the status registration provisions. Not all descendants of Indian women who lost status through marrying out have regained status. The first generation was covered by Bill C-31 in 1985 and the second generation through this year's Bill C-3, but farther generations remain cut off from Indian status, and the only way to be sure that sex discrimination is eliminated from the Indian Act is to place descendants of status Indian women on the same footing as descendants of Indian men. Today, Aboriginal women are still not treated equally as transmitters of status. As a result of this discrimination, thousands of their descendants once again have been forgotten. Because this longstanding issue of discrimination against Aboriginal women remains unsolved, Sharon McIvor has filed a complaint against Canada at the UN Human Rights Committee.
Another remaining problem relates to the post-1985 Indian Act registration rules and how they operate in cases of unstated paternity. In 1985 Canada went from a one-parent descent rule, which favoured Indian men, to a new system called the second-generation cut-off rule. Now, whether you are an Indian man or an Indian woman, mixed parenting is allowed only for one generation. After the second generation of mixed parenting, a person is no longer an Indian. So today when a status Indian mother does not disclose the father's identity, the child's registration can only be based on the mother's entitlement. From 1985 to 1999, this resulted in either the downgrading or outright loss of Indian status to approximately 50,000 Indian children.
The new second-generation cut-off rule will result in a drastic reduction of the status Indian population over the course of a few generations. Status Indians, like many other Canadian citizens, fall in love and have children with people from other cultures. This common social occurrence, when paired with the second-generation cut-off rule, has the perverse result of depriving the children of these unions of either their Indian status or the ability to pass status on to their own child. It has been estimated that in 60 years only one third of the descendants of the current status Indian population will be entitled to status. That number will continue to decline. Academics and demographers alike have argued that the Indian registration rules introduced in 1985 will lead to the legislative extinction of status Indians. A clear solution to this problem would be for Canada to return to a one-parent descent rule for Indian status applied equally to men and women.
Everyone here can acknowledge that the capacity of the courts to deal with these issues is limited. CAP is seeking a political commitment to examine and address Aboriginal citizenship and all the associated broader questions that would go with it. With the passage of Bill C-3 in December 2010, the federal government launched the exploratory process. It is not a consultative process and I am very pleased to say the government has not predetermined or predefined the agenda or questions in regard to Indian registration, band membership and Aboriginal citizenship. CAP is currently engaged with the process and we are hosting dialogue sessions across Canada.
Section 74 of the Indian Act allows bands to elect their chiefs and councils according to their own customs. Currently about 30 per cent of bands have adopted their own custom codes. Under these rules a band can admit to membership people who are not status Indians. They can also deny membership to any status Indian, except Indian women restored to status under section 6(1)(c) of the Indian Act. Despite this apparent opportunity to break away from the Indian Act, 30 per cent of the bands have adopted membership rules that are more restrictive than the Indian Act itself.
CAP was pleased when the Conservative government delivered on its promise to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Since 1977, section 67 has shielded bands from complaints of discrimination stemming from membership codes. In June of this year the transition period ended and we expect that many of the custom election codes will now be challenged under the Canadian Human Rights Act. My understanding is that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has not provided any resources to the bands to review and update their membership codes to ensure that they are compliant with the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In regard to Aboriginal citizenship, CAP takes the position that the right of Aboriginal peoples to determine our own citizenship is an inherent right derived from the creator and protected under both section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 and under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our right to self-government was never extinguished.
The issues surrounding Aboriginal citizenship are varied and complex, and more work needs to be done to clearly define concepts to understand their meaning and implications. We view the exploratory process as the beginning of a long process of questioning and thinking as we move toward self-determination and citizenship.
The possible self-government structures for urban Aboriginal people are wide-ranging. CAP has been working on these challenging issues for many years and at the same time struggling with the reserve focus of federal government policies and programs. Federal and provincial wrangling has slowed progress for urban Aboriginal populations. With the resolution of the federal government's responsibility for Metis and non-status Indians, Aboriginal and state relationships will be clear and some of the on- and off-reserve distinctions will be resolved.
In 1982, our leader, Harry Daniels, was responsible for the entrenchment of Metis into section 35(2) of the Canadian Constitution. The concept of Metis citizenship is linked to Metis self-government and Metis self-determination. The issue of who are Metis has been the subject of much debate. CAP has always maintained that Metis and Indian identity are not watertight and are separate identities.
It is not surprising to us that some individuals who are Metis also happen to be eligible for Indian status. Excluding peoples or persons with Indian status from the definition of Metis is simply discrimination. Resolving these issues will be a long-term process with many legal and political challenges along the way. We have some hard terrain to cover, but we are determined to cover it.
The education of our children and youth is a priority of the first order. Aboriginal youth have the highest dropout rates, the lowest levels of literacy and the lowest levels of skills development. The odds are better that our youth will end up in jail than graduate from high school. It is education that will improve our economic situation and our lives. It is education that is integral to reducing poverty in our communities and eliminating our dependency on federal handouts.
At the Aboriginal summit on education held in February, we were encouraged at the discussions concerning strengthening Aboriginal successes in education. The provincial and territorial ministers of education have recognized that in the next 15 years Aboriginal students will represent over 25 per cent of the elementary student population in some provinces and territories. We encourage the Prime Minister to call a first ministers' meeting on education where an inter-jurisdictional committee could be mobilized to improve school experiences for our students.
Finally, I would like to talk to you about the Canadian Firearms Registry. Currently Aboriginal firearm owners who are not compliant with the Firearms Act have incurred criminal liability for unauthorized possession of non-restricted firearms under sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code. Last week the government gave notice concerning the bill to abolish the long gun registry. CAP joins many other Aboriginal organizations across Canada in calling for an end to the long gun registry. We view the licensing and registration requirements imposed by the registry as an infringement of our right to hunt. Aboriginal hunters and harvesters are not part of the crime problem, and the registry is ineffective and wasteful. Any infringement on Aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt, trap or fish is not acceptable to our organization. CAP remains supportive of regulations requiring hunters and harvesters to secure an acquisition licence and to follow rules for the safe storage of firearms.
In conclusion, I wish to express our appreciation for the attention that the Prime Minister has brought to Aboriginal issues by meeting with national Aboriginal leaders. In the days ahead, we look forward to active engagement with the House of Commons standing committee, which will happen today immediately following this meeting, which has an important role to play, and continued involvement with your committee.
I will now turn the presentation over to my colleague.
The Chair: Mr. Dorey, in fairness to the other presenters who were restricted in time, I would like you to be as precise and concise in your presentation as possible, please. The clerk advises me that she had informed you prior to the meeting that you would be given so much time for presentations, and I would like senators to have time to ask questions of both of you.
Dwight Dorey, National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you concerning the Daniels case and section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. This case concerns Aboriginal peoples who assert that they are owed a fiduciary duty by the Queen and entitled to be negotiated with in good faith by the federal government.
CAP continues to engage in negotiations with the federal government concerning the rights, interests and needs of Metis, non-status and dislocated First Nations people. However, these negotiations have been and continue to be frustrated and hampered by the federal government's denial that Metis and non-status Indians are owed a fiduciary duty based on section 91(24) of the British North America Act.
In the 17th century, the term "Metis" was used by Champlain. In 1615, he actively encouraged the intermixing of French and Indians, and many offspring resulted from those marriages. During Champlain's lifetime, the children of these mixed unions began to be called Metis. His dream has often been repeated: Our sons will marry with your daughters and we will be a single people. Today, the Metis are Aboriginal people who happen to be interwoven with other distinctive cultures and communities across Canada.
Non-status Indians are Indians to whom, from time to time, the Indian Act does not apply or with whom the federal government or its agencies has decided that the Indian Act does not extend to.
The categories of Aboriginal peoples and definitions that are too numerous to list here are not watertight compartments. Growing up and being of mixed blood, I myself was often referred to as a half-breed or a Metis, though technically speaking I was a non-status Indian but in fact a Mi'kmaq from birth. In 1985, after Bill C-31 was passed, I became entitled to be a registered Indian and to live on the reserve and I even served as a band councillor for several years. When the 1752 pre-Confederation treaty was recognized in Regina v. Simon, I became a treaty Indian. I might add that my claim to fame at that point in my life, having been a registered Indian for two years, is that I shot my first moose as a two-year-old Indian.
When the Dominion of Canada was created through the Constitution Act, 1867, section 91(24) stated that the Parliament of Canada may make laws relating to "Indians and lands reserved for Indians." The federal government's position is that this phrase means that they have jurisdiction over status Indians but not Metis and non-status Indians. Still, the federal government has asserted that it has the authority to define Aboriginal Indians by virtue of section 91(24). Our concerted efforts with the governments over the years concerning the rights, interests and needs of these forgotten peoples have been constantly frustrated and hampered by the Crown's denial that Metis and non-status Indians are included in section 91(24). Consequently, we keep getting caught up in the division of federal and provincial powers and the issue of fiduciary duty.
Harry Daniels, a Metis from the Prairies who rose to national prominence from the ideological shadows of the great Louis Riel, twice served as the national leader of the congress, or Native Council of Canada, as it was known in earlier years. When I was a policy adviser to Harry, we worked closely on the right of Aboriginal peoples to fully participate as partners in the political and economic structures of Canada. Our objective was to draw attention to the suppression of historical Aboriginal rights and interests by an inflexible and discriminatory federalist system.
In 1982, Harry Daniels was responsible for the inclusion of Metis in section 35(2) of the Constitution. As a result of his efforts, the Canadian constitution refers to Metis peoples as Aboriginal peoples and recognizes and affirms their Aboriginal and treaty rights. This was a crowning achievement of his career and a major achievement for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
In the absence of a defined constitutional process to finish the work we started in 1983, the courts remain the only vehicle to obtain legal recognition of our rights. It was Harry who, in 1997, said, "Enough is enough of the systemic denial of our birth rights." He used his leadership position at the time as the means to say to the Government of Canada, "No more. We will no longer be forgotten." In 1999, Harry Daniels and CAP launched an action before the federal court, seeking, one, recognition of CAP's constituency as Aboriginal people within Canada's jurisdiction; and two, acknowledgment of Canada's fiduciary duty towards CAP's constituency, and the right of CAP and its constituency to be negotiated with by Canada as to their rights, interests and needs as Aboriginal people.
In 2005, there was an agreement between the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to put the case under the Test Case Funding Program, under which the Government of Canada paid the costs from 1999 to 2005 and then ongoing to date.
The law surrounding Crown and Aboriginal relations is a work-in-progress that is slow moving. We can now see the potential impact of the judicial outcome of Daniels v. the Queen, and it will be significant. I believe that several critical issues must be resolved before we are on the right path.
First, the federal government must once and for all acknowledge their federal fiduciary responsibility and declare that section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, is a federal jurisdiction which applies to all Aboriginal peoples.
Second, the federal government needs to make a bold declaration that all Aboriginal people are entitled to be treated fairly on the basis of equality of rights and the principles of equity of access.
Third, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development needs to work with all Aboriginal people to transform the diverse range of communities into self-governing entities.
CAP recognizes that change is not easy and it will not happen overnight. We are encouraged, however, by the words of Prime Minister Harper that we do not need new relationships but need to respect the existing relationships, including the treaties, and make them work. CAP is also pleased that the Conservative Party agrees with the necessity of reassessing the federal responsibilities in section 91(24) and 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
After the Prime Minister stood in the House of Commons and delivered a formal apology to Aboriginal peoples who suffered in the residential school system, Canadians from all backgrounds understood that a profound injustice had been done to the original inhabitants of this country.
It is time for the outdated Indian Act to be abandoned and for negotiations to take place with all beneficiaries regarding treaties and Aboriginal rights.
I believe the future holds hope for all Aboriginal people and that we will take our place as distinctive and capable communities empowered with the political tools for protection of our identities, cultures and societies. We ask here today that you not allow this nor future generations of Aboriginal Canadians to be forgotten.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentations.
Senator Cordy: I am not a member of this committee, but I am delighted to be here this morning. Thank you all. A special welcome to Dwight Dorey, a fellow Nova Scotian.
Both groups mentioned housing and homelessness, and I think Ms. Sheutiapik spoke about a housing crisis. You talked about there not being enough housing. In addition to that, you spoke about violence. When you were speaking about violence, you spoke about women remaining in homes that are not safe for them or for their children because there is nowhere else to go. It is not like in a city, where you can just find a neighbour, friend or shelter you can go to.
I am on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, and we did a study on housing and homelessness. As part of that committee, we all recognize the dire necessity of people to have safe housing.
How many units of housing are being built in the North at this time, and how many housing units are needed in the North? My understanding is that housing needs are not being met currently and that the need is growing and growing because not enough homes are being built each year.
Ms. Sheutiapik: Social housing has been built. I have to talk about affordable housing, because there could be fair- market rentals being built. However, if a common person, who earns minimum wage, cannot afford to rent them, what good are these fair-market rentals? Social housing has not been built for many years. They only started building it in the last few years. Unfortunately, you probably have heard of some of the challenges in our territory.
I was fortunate to sit on the social housing board. That is the hardest, when you have second and third generations in a home. Something you might find interesting to read is about pan-territory hidden homelessness. Little Voices, it is called. It is sad to read some of the statements made by people living in these overcrowded units. Certainly there would be statistics in those reports. I could not tell you offhand, but we could certainly find them and make them available.
Senator Cordy: Ms. Lavallée, you also mentioned homelessness as an issue. You would be looking at it from a different perspective, because you said 80 per cent of people are off-reserve. How are the needs of off-reserve Aboriginal peoples being met? Is there a special program? You briefly threw it out and did not give many details. Could you expand on that a little bit because you would have special needs?
Ms. Lavallée: Exactly. Our needs are not much different from our colleagues in the North. Our Aboriginal women and men — it is not just a phenomenon against women anymore; men are also experiencing violence today, unfortunately — have very few Aboriginal shelters to seek refuge in. No social housing units have been built except in the last few years. Unfortunately, for those of us who reside off-reserve, the monies are transferred to the provinces. The provinces decide who the real Aboriginal people are. If you are not a band, you are going to miss out. In the last go-round of social housing, we had to fight tooth and nail to get access to the social-housing monies. Funnily enough, once we got them, we won an award that year for one of the best social housing projects by CMHC across Canada. Unfortunately, the rest of my colleagues across Canada were not as fortunate in accessing those funds. Therefore, it seems that the money disappears into the provincial coffers, and we do not see the funds to build the social housing that we need.
This speaks to the subject that my colleague Mr. Dorey spoke to — the section 91(24) issue. If the social housing funds were delivered directly to us, as in the past, this type of issue would be avoided. In New Brunswick alone, we have one of the top non-profit housing societies off-reserve, with assets of over $10 million. That was built on the first urban and rural native housing. There are other housing societies, one right here in Ottawa, called Gignul Non-Profit Housing Corporation. If we had the direct transfer from CMHC, as we had in the past, it would lessen the issue for us.
Senator Cordy: Instead of its going to the province, it would be a direct transfer from CMHC. Would that make a major difference?
Ms. Lavallée: It definitely would, because when it goes to the province, it goes to the general coffers. They decide who the real Indians are. Unfortunately, those of us who do not live on-reserve and are not registered end up missing out.
Senator Cordy: I would like to move now to a question related to mental health and mental illness. This would tie into the suicide rates you spoke of, which are nine times higher in the North. Social Affairs also did a report on mental health and mental illness a few years ago, and Senator Kirby was our chair. He is now the head of the Mental Health Commission. Interestingly enough, one of the first things they were dealing with, related to mental health and mental illness, was housing. It is like the social determinants of health, which you mentioned earlier. They all tie in.
At that time, I know that human resources were extremely low for mental health and mental illness overall, but specifically related to Aboriginal First Nations. There were not enough doctors dealing with mental health issues, psychiatrists or psychologists. We recognized that that was a major problem. Has that changed at all in the past eight to ten years?
Ms. Sheutiapik: I can say, as an Inuit, that it has only been two generations since we settled into communities. We have had to deal with forced settlements, relocations, dog slaughters, residential schools, surnames, promised housing, the welfare system, TB, and having midwifery taken away. That is only in the last two generations. You can imagine post-traumatic stress coming out of that. We know it will take more than one or two generations to overcome that. Unfortunately, when it comes to mental health, there is a lack in each community. We have nursing stations in communities. In Nunavut alone, we have the hospital in Iqaluit, but we do not necessarily have the areas of expertise or treatment for mental health. That would be a starting point.
We cut our presentation. We could sit here and talk about health and housing. Education is also key. The underlying issues are all these real challenges happening in just two generations. How long will it take us? We need to be proactive. We look at this as a need to invest in dealing with these issues. There are a lot of social ills in our communities because of this post-traumatic stress.
I have a sister who has worked in it for so long. There is a fine line between mental health and post-traumatic stress. Unfortunately, because of a lack of services, misdiagnosis happens in our communities.
Senator Patterson: I would like to bring a special welcome to Elisapee Sheutiapik and Pauktuutit. I have a couple of questions.
It has always puzzled me. There are five national organizations recognized by the Government of Canada through AANDC, the new name for INAC. AANDC has a policy on funding to Aboriginal organizations — Assembly of First Nations, Metis National Council, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Native Women's Association of Canada — but not to Inuit Women of Canada. Is this of concern to Pauktuutit?
Ms. Sheutiapik: In Inuvik this year, at the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami Inuit Circumpolar Council's annual general meeting, we brought forward a motion that was supported. I understand the great work that NWAC does but, as a former mayor, the only female on council, and given my challenge as a woman in politics, I went to join Pauktuutit. It was only then that I heard of NWAC. As an Inuit woman, I brought the motion forward to start including Pauktuutit at the provincial-territorial ministers' meetings; and it received support around the table.
Senator Patterson: You are receiving core funding from AANDC. They have managed to find a way to fund your important work.
Ms. Sheutiapik: We have some funding, yes.
Senator Patterson: I was reflecting during your presentation, which I have had a chance to go over. Obviously, serious social, health and wellness, and housing issues are affecting Inuit women. Could you step back a bit and tell me if Inuit women, in your view, have gained strength in leadership in political office? I know there are few Inuit women elected to municipal councils or the Nunavut legislative assembly. As we know, we have a woman M.P. who is a senior cabinet minister representing Nunavut; a woman premier in Nunavut; a very capable woman who is leader of Inuit Tapirisat of Canada; you, a former mayor; and a woman who is the current mayor of Iqaluit. Are Inuit women gaining recognition and credibility in leadership positions in the Inuit world? Is this a trend?
Ms. Sheutiapik: I think so. We are few in numbers, but the positions we hold are up there. When I was president of the Nunavut Association of Municipalities, I had a unilingual gentleman come to me and tell me how proud he was that as an Inuit woman leading a capital city for a second term, I had proven that women can lead. I had to take a step back and remind him that it is only since it has become a Western form of leadership.
Back in the day, when men would hunt for three or four days at a time, who did they leave in charge of the community? It was the women. It is only since it has become Western-style leadership because the women would always stay at home taking care of the family. Times have changed. I certainly have been vocal in the sense that the skills used in the home are the same skills used in an office environment. More are getting educated, so there is certainly more confidence coming. Women like me are encouraging others to come to the table, which certainly helps.
The Chair: The levels of violence that you have described, Ms. Sheutiapik, have to be a major concern. Is this an evolutionary process as a result of the Western style moving in on the Inuit people? Historically, as you described, women took control of the communities when the men were out hunting. Have any studies been done to determine why violence has risen to its current level? It has to be disturbing to everyone, including the men.
Ms. Sheutiapik: It is disturbing. It has only been two generations of settlement to these communities, and a lot has happened. Elders today talk about the promises that were made to them. Of course, those promises have been passed on to the first and second generations who then have the same expectations. Unfortunately, yes, there were residential schools, but many did not go. Those people who do not have formal education or have minimal education are not benefiting. I can speak clearly about the capital of Nunavut, Iqaluit, where they might be few in number, but original Iqaluit people are not benefiting because they do not have minimum education. That is where the social ills are. They are the ones in overcrowded housing and who have the addictions because they grew up with grandparents. The way the welfare system was started was with the RCMP and missionaries coming to the community and asking what the needs were and to provide a list. Eventually those items came, and people were told that is the way the system would be. Just give us your needs.
When housing was brought in — the 5 by 12 matchboxes, we call them — the people were told they would cost $2 to $5 a month. Now, they pay according to their wages.
The surname: I am A72267. There are many different factors, but unfortunately, because of expectations, they have not been dealt with. As we try to move forward, I see this as a struggle for me as a leader because I am not a psychiatrist or a doctor. Certainly, we need those people to assist us moving forward. The stories continue, and the expectations are the same. Unfortunately, as we grow, there is an influx of other people from across Canada, which is great, but when they do not understand why the social ills exist, it is hard for them to help. It is also about educating others.
Senator Ataullahjan: Ms. Sheutiapik, your most recent initiatives include violence and abuse prevention, early childhood development and health programming. You are well versed in the social and economic factors affecting your people. Many times we have come across the idea of hopelessness and mistrust in the government. What can we do to correct this and to reinvigorate hope and trust in a comprehensive educational system?
Ms. Sheutiapik: After the murder-suicide in our community I was interviewed and asked if we would give up. Never will we give up. Our ancestors, my grandparents, did not have a store to get food. When I asked my mother if she had a choice to live today or in the past, she picked modern society because she saw starvation in the past. Yes, we have challenges, but we have to have hope. I certainly will not give up. In our territory, we have the highest rates but you have to remember that government was not created in one term. It does not happen overnight. Sometimes we forget to be patient. Believe me, our ancestors were patient. They learned to be patient when standing around a seal hole for days waiting for the seal to come. Those skills were taught on the land. Sometimes, because we are in an office environment, we lose some of those skills, like patience and working together.
I can honestly say that there was a lot of divide and ownership of different levels of government. However, ultimately we all have similar mandates and are trying to achieve the same goal. We have to remove the silos.
Senator Demers: Thank you very much for your presentation.
Ms. Lavallée, I do not accept violence against women. That is one thing that I came to the Senate to work on, and we will succeed. I like your courage, by the way.
I may have misunderstood something that you said. You said that money disappears. What does that mean? If it disappears, you do not know where it is going.
Ms. Lavallée: In talking about transfers to the province, depending on the transfer policy that the province has negotiated with the federal government, the province determines how it will utilize the funds. If the policy is that the money will be for the general public with an Aboriginal component, nine times out of ten the province will automatically go to the Indian Act chiefs and the reserves. I can tell you from experience that the last pot of money that came into the province of New Brunswick was going to be dumped into their economic development corporation for housing, and they were going to put out tenders to the Indian Act chiefs to build social housing off-reserve when there was already a 40-year history of Skigin-Elnoog, the off-reserve social housing corporation that had over $10 million of assets and had won numerous awards throughout the years for providing safe and affordable housing for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples.
Due to the attitudes of provincial governments on who real Indians are, off-reserve Indians very seldom see a penny of any federal transfers to the province. We had to fight tooth and nail to get a portion of the funds in order to do another award-winning project, which we called affordable housing. It allowed those who we call the working poor to get out of social housing where they were because they were above the income cut-off but not rich enough to get a mortgage. With a small grant they were able to purchase their first home and be a homeowner. As long as they remained in that home for five years, they did not have to pay the grant back.
From that little bit of money that we fought hard for, close to 50 families were able to move out of social housing into home ownership. It was quite extraordinary to see some families being able to say, for the first time, "This is mine; this is my home." We won a national award for that.
When government works with us, we are able to do amazing things.
Senator Demers: Thank you so much.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much to you all for being here. It is good for us to hear from you directly.
I have one question for Elisapee Sheutiapik. You have given us a clear and sad picture of the issues facing your people with regard to family and other violence. I know that you have also done work on early childhood development.
You have an early childhood development program for running daycare centres in Inuit communities. Are there these facilities in each community? Could you describe that program briefly?
Have you thought of attaching a safe house to a daycare so that there would be more community help around it? I would like to hear from you on the early childhood initiative that you are undertaking.
Ms. Sheutiapik: We certainly do not have daycare in each community, unfortunately. Ms. O'Hearn has more history on the project itself.
Tracy O'Hearn, Executive Director, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada: Thank you for the question.
In the 1990s, Pauktuutit worked closely with what is now HRSDC in a major initiative to establish Inuit-oriented and Inuit-run child care centres. They are not in every community, but it was a start to getting Inuit-specific services in the communities.
More recently we have been working with officials of AAND in developing Inuit-specific resources for child care centres for our children and our future. It is a resource manual for child care centre workers covering thing like how to work with children who may be impacted by fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, for example. All the resources are in English and at least one dialect of Inuktitut. All of our published resources are bilingual in a minimum of one dialect. It has become a smaller project within our organization, but it continues to be very important.
Senator Raine: There is much evidence that damage done when children suffer severe trauma lasts for generations. There are genetic markers. The women of the next generation are already carrying that pain and it is transferred to their children. Anything that you can do to help with early childhood support programs would really make improvements in the future.
Ms. O'Hearn: There are some very innovative programs in various regions. In Hopedale, Nunatsiavut, for example, they have the Language Nest program. It is only in Inuktitut and is completely immersed in Inuit culture. It gives children grounding and immersion in their language and culture. There are some innovative programs happening in different regions.
Senator Raine: Are you getting funding for Language Nest programs?
Ms. O'Hearn: No. That is delivered at the regional or national level because Pauktuutit works nationally. We work closely with the regions, but that sort of funding is at the regional or community level.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you and good morning to all of you.
Mr. Dorey talked about the Daniels case, of which I am very well aware. For the benefit of my colleagues and perhaps the viewers, can you explain why the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples rather than the Métis National Council brought this case against the federal government in an effort to have Metis peoples and non-status Indians recognized under section 91(24)?
Mr. Dorey: As indicated in my presentation, it was Mr. Daniels who negotiated with the first ministers on getting the term "Metis" into the Constitution. He was recognized as taking the lead on that as the head of the Congress of Aboriginal People. The Métis National Council and other Metis leaders since then have been pressing this issue as well. In the fundamental process that we went through for several years of meetings with the most senior levels of the federal government, there was a denial of that fiduciary responsibility. On the basis of trying to follow up on what was deemed to be the overdue recognition of our rights as Aboriginal people in the Constitution and Mr. Daniels having negotiated the term "Metis," it was felt by himself that it was the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples that should be pressing this issue, not only for the Metis again but for the point of non-status Indians as well.
Senator Brazeau: My second question will deal with the hypothetical, but I am assuming that the resolution that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is seeking with this case is to have non-status Indians and Metis people recognized under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act. Having said this, there is currently, and I am sure you will agree, approximately $10 billion being spent on Aboriginal peoples per year. Whether it is being equitably distributed is another issue. If the congress is successful with this case, is the congress going to be approaching the federal government for increased funding because of the fiduciary responsibility, or will CAP be seeking a more equitable distribution of funds that are currently being spent? As you are well aware, and as was referenced, approximately for every $8 spent on-reserve, $1 is spent off-reserve. Will you be seeking additional funds or just a redistribution of what is currently being spent by the federal government?
Mr. Dorey: The answer to that is not for us to say or determine. It is not for the congress as an advocacy group to suggest one or the other. We see it as an issue where the federal government makes its declaration in the process of meetings of first ministers where there are divisions of powers. That would have to be raised by all first ministers in light of the fact that certain areas of jurisdiction fall within the provinces, such as health care or education. The bottom line or the point is that we are looking for fair and equitable treatment of all Aboriginal people. You cannot arbitrarily, as Chief Lavallée pointed out with respect to the Indian Act, just draw a line saying, "You are recognized as a status Indian, and you, your son or your daughter are not."
It is the point of section 91(24) recognizing the Aboriginal peoples of Canada as Indian, Inuit and Metis, and those people should all be equally treated and provided with the same services. When you look at the social and economic conditions, whether housing or health, alcohol and drug abuse, low education or high unemployment rates, there is no distinction, and there have been many studies to indicate that. If there are no distinctions between the issues and the socio-economic problems of the Aboriginal people, there should be no distinction or separation or division of the benefits or services that those people should be getting. That is what it boils down to.
Senator Brazeau: Perhaps I could reword the question. If the congress is successful with the Daniels case under section 91(24), regardless of which government is in power, and the status quo remains, then what will the congress be seeking?
Mr. Dorey: I think we would be basically, as I stated, looking for fair and equitable treatment when it comes to the benefits, programs and services or otherwise that go to the other Aboriginal people in the country. It is a matter of closing the gap right across the board. Again, it is for the higher powers to determine how that would be resourced. It has to start somewhere, where we are not constantly being tossed back and forth, as the saying goes, and where you, because you do not have a card, whether you are Aboriginal or not, come under the federal jurisdiction, and let them worry about you, or whether you have a card and you are on a reserve, now you come under our jurisdiction.
As Chief Lavallée has indicated on the question about housing, we used to have a rural and native housing program that I think was doing a very good job at serving the needs of all Aboriginal people, on and off reserve. The Congress of Aboriginal People's organizations were delivery agents of those. In the division of powers and the wisdom of the first ministers, the housing issue went to the provinces, and the federal government pretty much got out of the housing business. We found then, as Chief Lavallée has pointed out, that the amount of housing units, resources, repairs or whatever that had been in the past going to Aboriginal people off-reserve, Metis and non-status in particular, almost stopped.
The Chair: I have a supplementary to that. I have sat here, as many others have, for a number of years and been advised that health care on reserves often is not to the same level as the provincial coverage. In my case, being a Metis person who grew up in Manitoba, I was exposed to the health care programs, and then I moved to British Columbia. You are saying that, in health care, for instance, you would like to go under the 91(24) that would bring you under the Indian Act. Am I understanding this correctly? To me, health care at the provincial level has provided excellent health care to most Canadians, whether we be Metis, off-reserve natives or whoever in the country. You are saying that you are wanting to be recognized under 91(24) that would bring you under a system that really is not providing that. In the view of Aboriginal peoples, they are not getting the proper health care in certain instances. Could you clarify that for me, please?
Ms. Lavallée: What we are talking about, more in particular, senator, is the fact that if you live off-reserve as a non- status, you do not have — in some cases, some status people too now — access to uninsured health benefits. I will use my parents as an example. They are low-income and both diabetic. Come toward the end of month, they are waiting for my father's veteran's cheque to come in. Thank God they both share the same type of medicine, because they will share their medication to get them over until the money comes in so they can purchase their medications and their strips and the equipment that they need for testing for their diabetic sugar levels every day. This is quite normal within off-reserve Aboriginal families because of the social or the economic situation for many of them. It becomes sometimes a choice between medication, food or rent. It is programs like that that we are seeking to have access to for some of our families who are at the lower socio-economic rung of the ladder.
As for provincial health care systems, we are not criticizing the provincial governments' health care systems per se. We are saying that some of our people do not feel comfortable. On reserve, you have preventive programs and community nurses who will meet with the family and will do counselling with them for living healthy lifestyles and education on certain health issues. Those are the types of programs we would also like to have access to, and it will also allow us to help us to work hand in hand with provincial governments to address some of the health care problems of our people.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. Ms. Lavallée, you describe the, I think, very dramatic threat to the population of status Indians as a result of the second-generation cut-off rule. I gather that you see some possibilities for addressing these inequities through bands admitting non-status Indians under section 74 or, via the Human Rights Act, forcing the redefinition of membership codes. However, there are no guarantees, I guess, from those possibilities.
Did I understand you to express some hope that a promising way of addressing these inequities is through the Bill C- 3 exploratory process? Could you elaborate a bit more on that? Is there a time frame? Is the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples playing a lead role in these consultations?
Ms. Lavallée: We are participating in the process. Currently, across Canada, we are hosting discussion sessions. We were given the funding. It was not quite what we had hoped to do. We would have liked to have done a more extensive process. However, we do have some funding from AAND. As I said in my presentation, there were no predetermined questions or process by AAND. It was left up to us. We have developed a survey ourselves. We have posted it on our website so that anybody across Canada can access it to respond to it. We see this as a beginning to dialogue to come up with ideas as to how, once and for all, we could resolve this issue of who is a member of the Mi'kmaq. I will use my own nation, the Mi'kmaq Nation, as an example. We will decide whether membership should be determined by AAND, under section 16, or whether that should be a function of the nation. When I say nation, I am talking of the historic nation. Reserves use the term "First Nation," but they are not a nation unto themselves; they are part of the whole nation. We are hoping that, at some point, there could be some discussions among both on- and off-reserve peoples across Canada, in particular through the traditional nation concept, to determine who would or who would not have citizenship. We hope this would result in some sort of federal policy that would, once and for all, solve the issue.
You had alluded to some of the codes that some bands have instituted. Yes, it is excluding people, but some bands are more proactive. You have actually got some who have had the grandparents adopt the children so that the children gain status, and so that the band does not to lose another generation and can have them put on the band membership. You have some communities who have rejected people like myself who are 6(2)s. They feel we do not belong there. We got what we deserved by marrying out. We are hoping the process will not only form a second educational process but also heal some of the hurt that has occurred over a couple of generations among our peoples and come up with a resolution once and for all.
Senator Patterson: Time frame?
Ms. Lavallée: Our first report is due to AAND on January 15. We hope to have the sessions tied up across Canada by the end of November. Then there will be a process of writing and submission to AAND hopefully prior to Christmas, if not shortly thereafter. Then we will wait and see what the end results are.
Senator Brazeau: We have heard a lot of talk about membership and citizenship issues and people being left out through the second-generation cuff-off rule. Does the congress have any position on non-Aboriginal women who gained status throughout the years because of past legislation under the Indian Act?
Ms. Lavallée: At this point, the congress has not adopted a national position on those women who have gained status. There are various individual opinions out there, which I am sure will come out in the sessions across Canada, as to what to do with those people. I have been brought up to believe that, traditionally, when those individuals came into our communities, whether they were male or female, as long as they abided by the community's societal rules and adopted our way of life, they were deemed to be members of our community and treated as such.
The Chair: Thank you colleagues. Thank you for the questions.
I would like to thank the presenters for their presentations and their responses to the questions placed by the senators.
Colleagues, we have the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada coming. It will be an informal meeting, so we are going to clear the room. At 11 o'clock, in five minutes, we will convene with the doctors from that organization.
I adjourn this meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)