Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 7 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, September 22, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:35 a.m. to study upon key legal issues affecting the subject of on-reserve matrimonial real property on the breakdown of a marriage or common law relationship and the policy context in which they are situated.
Senator Shirley Maheu (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning and welcome to all who are with us this morning as well as those who are listening to us on the radio and the television. The committee's Web site provides information on the progress of these meetings so that people across the country can be informed.
I should now like to introduce the members of our committee. With us this morning are Senator Beaudoin, Acting Deputy Chair of the committee; Senator Ferretti Barth, from Quebec; Senator Mobina Jaffer, from British Columbia; and Senator Thelma Chalifoux, from the Metis Nation and Alberta.
In June, the committee was authorized by the Senate to begin this important study on key legal issues affecting on- reserve matrimonial real property on the break-up of a marriage or of a common law relationship. More specifically, the committee received the mandate to examine the interplay between provincial and federal laws in addressing the division of on-reserve personal and real matrimonial property and, in particular, the enforcement of court decisions; the practice of land allotment on-reserve, in particular with respect to custom land allotment; in the case of marriage or common law relationships, the status of spouses and how real property is divided on the breakdown of a relationship; and the possible solutions that would balance individual and community interests. That is where you will be of great assistance to us.
[Translation]
In the coming months, the committee will hear from a certain number of witnesses representing various native groups, including national, provincial and territorial organizations. Just before the summer break, we had heard from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Honourable Robert Nault.
We will also have the opportunity to hear from departmental officials. We have already had one meeting with them, and there will no doubt be more such meetings before the end of the session.
I would like to highlight the presence of Senator Serge Joyal, who is from Quebec. I would also like to remind our viewers that you can submit a written opinion to the committee on the subject.
[English]
This committee would like to table its report by the end of December 2003. I assume that this will not be the final report, but it will at least be an insight into the answers we are looking for. In order to fulfil the mandate that we have been given, the committee has decided to focus on three areas: First Nations under the Indian Act; First Nations under the First Nations Land Management Act; and First Nations under self-government.
Today, we have with us four native women: Michèle Audette and Diane Soroka from the Quebec Native Women's Association; from Newfoundland, Ms. Dorothy George, president of the Native Women's Association; and Marilyn Sark from the Aboriginal Women's Association of Prince Edward Island.
Ms. Sark, would you like to begin?
Ms. Marilyn Sark, President, Aboriginal Women's Association of Prince Edward Island: Madam Chair and members of the Senate committee, as president of the Aboriginal Women's Association of Prince Edward Island, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation today. We request that our written submission form part of the official record of this committee's proceedings, but I will briefly highlight some items verbally.
The Aboriginal Women's Association of Prince Edward Island was incorporated in 1986 and represents over 200 Aboriginal women in Prince Edward Island. The association is governed by a voluntary board of directors, and its primary aims and objectives include: providing leadership and guidance to all Aboriginal women, and to represent their interests and concerns at all social, economic and political levels as a means of initiating reform; encouraging and assisting all Aboriginal women to become active participants in all facets of social, economic and political life, and in all the decisions that influence and govern their lives.
Although AWAPEI, which is the acronym for Aboriginal Women's Association of Prince Edward Island, provides many programs and services to its membership, there exists a chronic lack of funding. It is a matter of highest priority, since the discussion and development of the issues which are the subject to this committee's mandate are but a few of the many issues that face our membership on a daily basis.
We require much-needed capacity and resources in an effort to bring about real and effective change for the betterment of all Aboriginal women in Prince Edward Island. The provision of an adequate base of core funding for AWAPEI and similar organizations is a matter that must be addressed through this committee process. This leads to our first recommendation.
We recommend that sufficient funding and resources be provided to AWAPEI and similar Aboriginal organizations in order to carry out the research and discussions necessary to have an informed voice on the issues which are the subject of this committee process through all levels of government. We find that there has not been sufficient time or resources provided to our association and similar organizations to allow an informed position to be developed on these issues. Rigid timelines have forced us to present a submission in haste, but we do believe that some comment on this issue is more appropriate than no response at all.
Our membership has not been provided with meaningful or appropriate consultations on the substance of these issues or their related impacts. from both an individual and community perspective. That leads to our second recommendation. We recommend that the committee ensures that both appropriate and meaningful consultations take place with all AWAPEI members throughout the committee and government process.
In keeping with the committee's mandate to balance the collective and individual interests of First Nations communities on issues related to matrimonial real property on reserves, we suggest that there are two key issues. These are outlined in Ms. Cornet's report entitled, ``Discussion Paper: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve, 2002.'' On page 6, she provides the following comment:
The key question is what policy and legal responses are needed to address the needs and rights of people residing on-reserve in opposite-sex conjugal relationships.
On page 2 she states:
A key issue is how matrimonial real property reform should respond to the cultural interests of First Nations.
Any inquiry into matrimonial property issues must focus on the needs and rights of all reserve residents. It must also address the specific circumstances of Aboriginal women and children within a First Nations setting.
We appreciate the complexity of a number of issues that play a role in informed dialogue on matrimonial real property. For many Aboriginal women, the complexity of this situation cannot be solved by a one-size-fits-all approach.
The practice of government to impose a solution from the outside is well documented. This approach often results in the creation of more problems at the expense of the family unit, which is the backbone or foundation of Aboriginal societies. We only have to look at the tragedies that resulted from sending Aboriginal children to residential schools to realize that imposition from the outside is not always the answer. Apart from the abuse that children suffered at residential schools, the other real tragedy that came out of this was the breakup of the family unit.
However, lessons can be learned from the past. It is only through an approach that responds to the unique circumstances of different Aboriginal societies that a balance can be achieved in respecting the individual rights of Aboriginal women and the collective rights of a First Nation.
This presentation is being given on behalf of the Aboriginal women of P.E.I., the majority of whom are Mi'kmaq. The word Mi'kmaq translated means ``my family'' or ``my kin.'' Throughout history and today, the Mi'kmaq people identify themselves through their relationship within the family unit. There is no word for male or female gender in the Mi'kmaq language. However, AWAPEI does not intend to undervalue the legitimacy of gender issues. Rather, we would like to note their relevance from a Mi'kmaq cultural perspective. This position is also not meant to imply that there are not gender issues within our communities. We realize that change must take place. However, what is at issue is the manner in which change occurs.
To undermine a First Nations ability to exercise community choice is to disregard its internal processes in resolving disputes among its members. Although not a perfect process, the Mi'kmaq process, in resolving internal disputes regarding domestic and land-related issues, seeks to find a balance between the individual, family and collective interests of its members. The existing practices have been achieved in spite of the Indian Act and related policies. The Mi'kmaq custom of balancing the individual's role within a larger family and community setting has forced the Prince Edward Island Mi'kmaq to deal with family law issues on their own terms.
This has caused the development of a number of band policies that have fostered the development of positive community relations on issues that involve divorce, separation and death of community members. These policies are not a complete solution to all issues. The band councils have made some efforts to resolve issues that involve family violence situations. The council's decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, where the best interests of the child is taken into account.
A second item that has been pursued by the Lennox Island band is the recognition and enforcement of family support orders issued under the Family Law Act and the Divorce Act. The context in which Prince Edward Island First Nations have attempted to deal with a number of circumstances related to family breakup represents some positive developments within the First Nations of P.E.I. However, these initiatives are not nearly sufficient in recognizing the full interests and rights of Aboriginal women.
AWAPEI believes that, in order to move forward on these important issues, it is critical that First Nation communities feel a sense of ownership in any proposed legislation or policy change. It is extremely important for this committee to recognize that lessons can be learned from the past and that the government must now act honourably in its dealings with the affairs of Aboriginal people.
A number of options are available to the federal government to address many of the issues that face this committee. These options range from the development of government policies such as on-reserve housing, while others rest in the recognition of existing powers of First Nations through the Constitution, the Indian Act and other legal responsibilities derived through existing case law.
The report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples analysis includes jurisdiction over marriage and property rights in respect to First Nations lands as part of the core area of First Nations inherent jurisdiction that can be exercised without negotiations or agreement or other forms of recognition by federal or provincial governments. A policy statement on inherent rights is of no consequence if the federal government fails to recognize these very same rights.
Hence, we make recommendation number three. The AWAPEI recommends that the committee focus on the development of a policy statement that will foster the development of interim measures that focuses on the recognition of the each First Nations inherent right to govern over family law issue.
Recommendation four is that the committee provide explicit direction to cabinet to recognize a First Nations inherent right on family law issues within the context of self-government negotiations.
Honourable committee members, there must be a new approach developed with First Nations, one built on true recognition and respect of Aboriginal rights, cultures, values and traditions.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Michèle Audette, Quebec Native Women's Association: I would like to thank the committee for taking the time to hear from us.
Who are we? We are the Quebec Native Women's Association. This wonderful organization has been in existence for over 30 years. Next year, we will officially celebrate 30 years of victories and struggles. I hope to see you then in Montreal.
I am the mother of two handsome boys whom I greatly admire. Why did I become involved in the association? Because I learned very quickly that my son had more rights than I did under the act.
These battles were hard fought by Canadian women, but unfortunately, the fact remains that today our sons still have more rights than we do under the Indian Act. I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for taking the time to listen to us. It is nice to see men here, too.
The Chairman: We have the cream of the crop!
Ms. Audette: I am pleased that the Senate Committee on Human Rights has undertaken the study of the issue of matrimonial rights to real property on Indian reserves. This is an issue which has long been a source of extreme difficulty for first nations daughters, mothers and grandmothers.
The Quebec Native Women's Association has often asked the Government of Canada to address the issue. Our faces may change, but our demands do not. The difficulties faced by first nations women in regard to matrimonial property on Indian reserves are actually symptomatic of a much larger problem.
The underlying problem is that the Government of Canada continues to openly and knowingly discriminate against first nations women. This unfortunate type of leadership by example further encourages first nations governments to do so as well. I am living proof of this, as are many of my sisters here.
Since 1974, the Quebec Native Women's Association has actively denounced the injustices caused by the Indian Act. Since 1984, we have presented a number of briefs and position papers to various entities, including the first brief presented to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on Bill C-47 in 1994; a brief to the parliamentary Subcommittee on Equality Rights in 1995; a brief presented to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs in March 1986; the report on the implementation of Bill C-31 presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee in 1988; a brief presented to the First Nations Circle on the Constitution in 1992; a brief entitled ``Prendre la place qui nous revient'' filed with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1993. In 2000, we presented a brief on governance, which is still current, to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the Indian Act. We have been saying for a long time that Canada discriminates against first nations women and their children.
You know as well as I do that Canada is a party to several international treaties which guarantee equality between men and women and forbid all forms of discrimination. It is also party to a convention which specifically protects the rights of children. Canada is subject to the jurisdiction of several international institutions established to ensure that states which, like Canada, freely and voluntarily become parties to international legal instruments, respect their obligations. I hate to say it, but it is a sad realization that Canada does not adequately protect first nations women and their children against discrimination, which affects too many of these women and children. In fact, I would even say that it generally affects all native women.
The unequal patrimonial rights of spouses and the adverse consequences of this situation in a divorce are incompatible with Canada's international obligations. The international community has been saying this for many years. The Government of Canada has been repeatedly told for more than a decade that it is violating both the Constitution of Canada and its obligations under international law, yet it has refused to act to end the discrimination.
With regard to matrimonial real property on reserves, the Supreme Court of Canada has decided that provincial laws relating to division of property upon divorce cannot apply to real property on Indian reserves. The Indian Act is simply silent on this issue. Historically, lands and houses were usually registered by DIAND in the male spouse's name. This all too often leaves women with no economic power and, in the case of divorce, a woman and her children find themselves homeless.
As the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba pointed out, quite aside from questions of legality, the lack of protection and fair treatment for Aboriginal women encourages and leads to other forms of discrimination against them by both DIAND and by band councils.
Let me quote a section of the report:
There is no equal division of property upon marriage breakdown recognized under the Indian Act. This has to be rectified. While we recognize that amending the Indian Act is not a high priority for either the federal government or the Aboriginal leadership of Canada, we do believe that this matter warrants immediate attention. The act's failure to deal fairly and equitably with Aboriginal women is not only quite probably unconstitutional, but also appears to encourage administrative discrimination in the provision of housing and other services to Aboriginal women by the Department of Indian Affairs and local governments.
The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry specifically recommended that the Indian Act be amended to provide for the equal division of property upon marriage breakdown. Canada's failure to take these recommendations into account once again is contrary to its international obligations, as has been recalled by several committees, including, in March 2000, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
We are not the only ones who say this. I would also like to name the agreements and conventions Canada has violated: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and, of course, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
You may have heard some of our leaders and sisters suggest that we go back to our traditional ways. First nations women have always played a very important role in the economic development of their societies. True, we had our own laws and our own legal and educational systems, too. It is also true that men and women had clearly defined roles. It would have been impossible for us to live one without the other, and I still feel that has not changed today. We have unfortunately lost that balance. Why? European values, whereby men control access to goods and services, including land and lodging, were imposed. Of course, this new approach caused a great deal of upheaval with regard to our traditional native ways and families. The balance must be redressed, but it cannot be redressed by simply providing for a return to tradition, as some have suggested. This is a simplistic notion which will only cause more misery. Let me explain.
First nations societies can no more turn back the clock 600 years than can the rest of the world, and to naively suggest that they can is to invite disaster. Six hundred years ago, our hunting and gathering or agricultural societies had many fewer material goods, but much greater, and more egalitarian, access to land and resources than we have now. Canada has all too often refused to act to eliminate discrimination against first nations women on the pretext that it does not wish to interfere in the internal workings of first nations. I personally have already heard the Minister of Indian Affairs say that what goes on in our communities is our business. I do not believe that. Canada must accept that it is responsible for the present situation and must take measures to correct it.
However, the Government of Canada is bound by its own Constitution and by its obligations under international law. It cannot, on any pretext, create enclaves within its borders in which it permits the routine violation of basic human rights. Rather, it has a clear duty to act to protect the basic human rights of all those within its borders. This includes native women. We are saying that the Indian Act should be amended to provide for an equal division of matrimonial property upon the dissolution of marriage and must ensure that whichever parent has custody of the children, be it the father or the mother, is able to remain in the family home. We are clear on this issue. To this day, the refusal of the Government of Canada to guarantee basic human rights to first nations women and children has only encouraged first nations governments to exercise such discrimination.
Issues linked to matrimonial property cannot be examined separately. We expect the Government of Canada to take the initiative to amend the Indian Act so as to eliminate all discriminatory provisions and to put an end to discriminatory policies within the Department of Indian Affairs.
We have often repeated — and still do so today — that the government should respect the recommendations, or that it should closely and honestly examine the various reports it has received over the years. In 1981, the standing committee concluded that the Indian Act continued to discriminate against women. The report should be analyzed and its recommendations read. In the 1990s, the Minister of Indian Affairs admitted that there was continuing discrimination against women. This still has not changed in 2003. The report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba should be read, as well as the recommendations made by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, of course. In 1999, the committee concluded that the Indian Act discriminated against women.
The Quebec Native Women's Association therefore recommends the following: that the Indian Act be amended so as to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. This would require the reinstatement to both Indian status and band membership of not only the women who lost their status as a result of the historical discrimination against them, but also of their children and grand- children; that the Indian Act be amended to ensure equality between men and women in regard to matrimonial property and to ensure that there is equality in the division of assets in the case of the breakdown of the matrimonial relationship; that the Indian Act be amended to ensure that the parent having custody of the children be able to remain in the family home in the event of the breakdown of the matrimonial relationship; and that the Indian Act be amended to ensure that a woman whose first nation affiliation was changed as a result of her marriage to a man from another first nation, has an automatic right to be re-registered, along with her children, as a member of her original first nation, if she so wishes.
Our faces are new, but our message is not. As a human being, mother and Innu woman, I hope to see the day when Canada meets its commitments, abides by its agreements and the Constitution, and ensures my son has the same rights as I do.
Senator LaPierre: Or that you have the same rights as your son.
Ms. Audette: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Dorothy George, President, Newfoundland Native Women's Association: It is a pleasure to be here this morning to have an opportunity to discuss the human rights issue and its affect upon women and children regarding the subject of on-reserve matrimonial real property upon the breakdown of a relationship.
I do not live on a reserve. Therefore, I do not have first-hand knowledge of this subject. However, I have sat in on discussions with many women who have knowledge and who have been affected by the division of real property on a reserve. To be honest, I have sat and listened in disbelief to hear women tell how their lives and the lives of their children have been affected by the breakdown of a relationship with a man living on a reserve.
I had the opportunity to read the minutes of the meeting of June 18, 2003, when Minister Nault addressed the standing Senate committee. He made some very astute comments regarding this matter. Most of the legal rights and remedies found in Canadian law relating to the matrimonial home that apply off-reserve are not available to people living in reserve communities. The Indian Act is silent on the issue, and the provinces do not have authority to legislate in respect of lands that fall under federal jurisdiction. The courts have no authority.
In reading these statements, it seems to drive home that, in Canada, there is no federal, provincial or legal protection for women living on-reserve with regard to the division of matrimonial property upon the breakdown of a relationship.
It may be argued by the Aboriginal community that Canada has no right to tell another nation how to govern its people.
I would suggest to the honourable members of the committee this morning that, if this were the position of Canada, then this committee would not have been put in place to consult with the Aboriginal women of Canada regarding this matter.
Is any nation today free from the scrutiny of other nations who feel that an injustice is being done to its citizens? Human rights are a priority not only for Canada but also for many nations, and trying to find a solution to these violations is a priority.
As an Aboriginal woman, regardless of the fact that I live off-reserve, I cannot allow this opportunity to speak out pass me by.
Before the 1860s, it was a matriarchal society in which the women made decisions, took care of the children and took responsibility for the survival of tribes. Family was paramount. The words ``immediate family, step-family'' or ``extended family'' were not known in the Aboriginal community. You were family, and family provided for and protected each other. The major focal point in any Aboriginal community is family.
Why have we done such a drastic turnaround in how we treat our women? Why, as women, have we allowed this disrespect to be shown to us? Where have the strength and the wisdom of our grandmothers gone? Is it dead? No, I see that strength present here today. Otherwise, the Aboriginal women present here today would not be discussing this rightly important topic.
Do we, as Aboriginal people, have to look externally at other nations to find the cause or blame, or do we look inward at ourselves to find out why we have gone to such an extreme? It is not simply a matter of the family home, it is how we treat the children and women, who must pay a heavy price for the consequences of the breakdown of a marriage or a common-law relationship.
I say why waste our precious time trying to find out how we went wrong. I say let us take an honest look at ourselves — and who cares if we have difficulty looking in the mirror — but let us admit to ourselves and to the world that we have failed our women and our children. Let us, as Aboriginal people, put in place the solution to this problem.
We cannot and must not allow our grandmothers, mothers, aunts, sisters and nieces to continue to live in the future as they have for the past approximately 140 years.
Common sense and math say take a look at the pre-1860s and at the achievements of the Aboriginal community. Do we need another 140 years of disrespect to be shown to our women before we wake up and realize that we are destroying ourselves? If we look at the pre-1860s, we may have more material things, and our lives may appear to be better but, at the end of the day, all that matters in life is the family and the memories that we leave behind. Material objects cannot have memories. Being human gives us our memories, our joys, as well as our sadness.
Our women have struggled over the years but have not given up, and our women will not give up as long as the disrespect and the abuse of the day is forced upon them. Life does not end here, and it is the spirit of our grandmothers, mothers, aunts and sisters that will force us to continue to battle to ensure that the women of the future do not have to endure the mistakes of the last 140 years.
I believe that the First Nations people must remedy the injustice being done to the women regarding the division of matrimonial property. We do not need others to tell us that we have a problem. We cannot pretend that nothing is wrong. We would not be here today if that were the case.
We cannot be intimidated by shame nor allow ourselves to hide our heads in the sand. If we do, not only Canada but also all other nations will point their fingers and ask us why we treat our women so differently. We who know better, we who for hundreds of years lived a life of equality by example, must, once again, go to back our ancestral ways, go back to the grandfathers and grandmothers of our communities. Listen, learn and you will have the answer.
The next question is this: Will we have the courage to find a solution to this problem and to find it swiftly? This is a complex matter, and I realize that it cannot be solved overnight, but I would hope that its complexity is not used as a reason to postpone taking immediate action at finding a solution.
Concern by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding matrimonial real property began in 2000. That was three years ago, and while this is not a long period of time, how many women and children have been affected in that time span by the breakdown of an on-reserve relationship? How many of these women and children have failed to find alternate living arrangements? How many have been forced to leave their husbands' reserves? We do not know the exact number or even an approximate number. There must be some method available for the women who are affected to make themselves known so that we can understand how many are affected.
Prior to 1985, women had no choice regarding their band membership. Women had to apply for membership to their husbands' reserves. This left them with no place to call home in the event of a marriage breakdown. However, today, a woman does have a choice of band membership. However, having the choice of band membership does not give the woman the right to have a safe place for herself and her children to live.
It would appear that, if there were a marriage breakdown, a woman can return to her reserve. Is that reality? Can the woman and her children simply return to her reserve, and that is the answer to her problem?
I believe that one of the basic rights we should be able to enjoy is the right to call a place, a community or a structure ``home.'' Home is a place where we are safe and protected by family and friends. It is our private spot, where we can lock out the cares of the world and enjoy one another. It is also the place where, as a couple, when we plan a family, we know that this is the place where they will be safe, protected and loved. As a couple, you take a structure, and with personal touches from each of you, you make this your private world. You open your private world to family and friends, making them feel welcome when they visit you. However, make no mistake, this place is your private world.
Imagine the stress on a woman who knows that, if this loving relationship ends, then her world will crumble. Imagine the stress when this woman has children, and she knows, that not only she but also her children will soon have to leave the place she and they call home, and in some cases, must leave the community.
It is not an easy choice to decide that a relationship is not working and that the relationship must end. Normally, while there is a certain degree of animosity, most couples know that they must work out a mutually agreed upon arrangement for the disposition of property, including the home.
This would not appear to be the case for on-reserve women, as they hold no interest in the family home. There is no choice as to who has to move. It is the woman and, in most cases, it is the woman and her children. What a choice: be homeless or be in a loveless relationship, maybe an abusive relationship. Is that what Aboriginal women deserve? No, it is not. Is it humane? It is definitely not.
What about the children affected by the breakdown of a marriage? Are these children afraid or stressed? As with any breakdown in any relationship, there are always difficult decisions to be made regarding the children. What happens to these children who must leave the family home and, in some cases, the only community they have known? Are children aware of how their lives will be affected by the breakdown of their parents' relationships? I believe that children today are smarter and much more aware of the life situations and the effects that some of them will have on them personally. Some children are very smart and sensitive at an early age, but definitely by the age of five, most children are aware of what is happening around them and the possible consequences upon their lives.
Children can understand turmoil within the home. They know fearful situations, for example, verbal arguments and physical abuse. Children are observant enough to see friends they know leave. They can understand that, before these children left, there was turmoil, fighting and abuse happening in the homes of their friends. They get up to go play with their friends and their friends are gone.
Do children understand the complexity of the situation? No. They may not understand all of life's complexities, but they know that, if there is fighting, physical abuse, et cetera, that one morning they may one of the friends who no longer lives where they lived yesterday when their friends come to visit.
Some women and children, against their will, will be removed from their homes. I do not believe that this should be the case. Is there a need for a solution to the situation? Yes. Should women and children wait 20 or 30 years for a solution to this problem? No. I believe that a resolution by the First Nations people should become a priority.
Are there .5 per cent, 1 per cent, 20 per cent or 50 per cent of the women and children living on-reserve falling into the category of being displaced by the breakdown of a relationship under the division of matrimonial property? Remember, percentages are numbers. Yes, they can give us an idea of the number affected by this problem. However, the real problem here is not the count, but the women and children affected. There must be a resolution to this problem, and it must come sooner, not later.
In reading the remarks made by Minister Nault on June 18, I see a minister who carries his responsibilities towards the First Nations people very seriously. In his remarks regarding the division of matrimonial property and its affect upon the women living on-reserve, Minister Nault says:
I expect you feel as I do, that this is an unacceptable situation, in fact an intolerable situation.
Who can disagree with this statement? Minister Nault, in his June 18 remarks on the number of research projects undertaken by INAC. One document is called ``Discussion Paper: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve,'' and another is entitled ``After Marriage Breakdown: Information on the on-reserve Matrimonial Home,'' and there are other research projects being conducted. In his remarks, he seems concerned about the length of time the research projects and any action taken regarding these projects.
Minister Nault recognizes the economic implications for all concerned regarding the changes to the division of matrimonial property on-reserve. However, change must come, and I believe the fact that it is a complex matter, with serious economic ramifications, should not be the reason for the delay or inaction on this matter.
In his remarks, Minister Nault states:
The current state of law under the Indian Act does not take into account the interests of both spouses or the interests of any children in the matrimonial home.
There appears to be some agreement by both spouses living on-reserve regarding the division of personal property, such as cash, cars or pensions, but not regarding the family home. However, to me, the family home should be a priority for division as the home is where the children should feel safe, loved and protected.
I know the strong relationship individuals feel for family land. Land that has been developed and passed on to succeeding generations is alive. It is not a piece of property, or dirt, or somewhere to live. Family land is precious. It is to be protected and passed on to family members for as long as possible. Possession of family land by anyone other than an immediate family member is a violation of the land by a family member. To give a piece of land to anyone other than a family member is betrayal in the highest form. The need to protect and keep family land in the family can be so strong, so determined, that it can cause irreparable rifts among family members; rifts so strong that even death does not guarantee forgiveness.
I do not know the percentage of children who leave the matrimonial home and in some places become displaced, but I firmly believe that the best interests of the children should be paramount when there is a breakdown in a relationship. Where is the right of children to live on the family land if, because of their age, they must leave with the mother? In Minister Nault's remarks, he states:
The law is obvious to some, but the fact that we have not implemented any of that as a federal parliament is also obvious...Sitting on the fence is killing people, men, women and children and that cannot continue...I will go to my 51 First Nations this summer, where 60% of the population are under 25, and 40% are under 15
Surely the youth will not allow this unfair treatment of women and children to continue. Do we have to wait another 10, 20, or 30 years before our youth speak out and make the necessary changes?
I am a wife, mother and grandmother. I have seen changes, some drastic, some minor, in how we raise our children. In my grandmother's day, providing a good home for her husband and children was paramount. That good home meant my grandmother helped plant gardens, feed animals, gathered fruits and vegetables. She cooked three meals each day, made bread every day and sewed her family's clothing.
My grandfather fished in the summer and winter, which meant cutting holes in the frozen ice to set nets, which had to be done every day. He cut wood and sold it to lumber companies, and he kept the family home supplied with wood, which was cut, packed away and brought into the home by men. He planted vegetables, mowed grass, and dried and packed this grass as feed for his animals. He hunted various animals that were used by the family for food. Both the men and women had to do the work and it got done.
If there was not enough of one gender to do the work, then whoever was there did the work. My grandparents had four sons and one adopted daughter. My parents had 11 children, nine of whom are living. My father was the sole provider until the youngest in our family was born. Then my mother decided she wanted to work, which she did for a short period of time. When she decided to quit, she did.
In my family the division of work was not so pronounced, as the four females were born first, followed by the seven males. Bringing wood, feeding animals, doing the dishes, did not fall to gender. Whoever was available did it. My father made his living working outside the community; therefore it was my mother who did most of the child-rearing. Maybe this is one reason why we do not place much emphasis on whether you are male or female, and on whether a job should be done by a male or a female.
My husband and I raised our two children not on gender but on both of them being able to look after themselves and their partners and their children, to the best of their abilities. Both were treated equally. One did not get anything more or less because of gender.
Am I alone in racing my children in this way? No. In speaking with other mothers and grandmothers, I know that our children are not being raised gender-specific. However, I do realize that equality for women is not yet complete. It does not matter where you reside, whether you are an Aboriginal or a non-Aboriginal, complete equality has yet to come. It has started and it is moving along better in some sectors, but it still has a long way to go.
Ownership of matrimonial property can no longer automatically fall to the man. Equality of ownership must happen. Women can no longer be ignored on this important matter. Ownership should not fall to a person because of gender.
The division of on-reserve matrimonial property must be resolved, and resolved satisfactorily for all concerned. Will this be a simple process? Maybe not, but it must be achieved. Over the years, women and their children have suffered injustices. This cannot be denied, or we would not have court challenges regarding the division of matrimonial property. Neither would we be here today if some strong and determined women were not dissatisfied with the division of on-reserve matrimonial property.
I will go so far as to say not only women, but also men are pushing for a change, wanting a change and, yes, demanding a change. Why is this not happening? Who has the control that keeps this from happening? I have two questions. Is it simple? No. Is it achievable? Most definitely.
First, can or will the federal government cause this change to happen for women living on First Nations reserves?
Second, can or will First Nations people resolve this issue of the division of matrimonial property?
I do not have the answer. However, I do know that one must be found. The voices of women have not been quiet in the last 140 years. I do not believe they will stop speaking after today.
We were a matriarchal line before the 1860s. History is known to repeat itself. I hope that, when history does repeat itself, it is kind, considerate, loving and protective of the women and children.
Honourable chair and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity today.
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin: I am shocked to constantly hear that the Indian Act is inadequate. All we hear about are amendments to the Indian Act. If the act is so flawed, why not simply revamp it? After all, there is a treaty. Everyone knows we do not pass legislation to implement treaties. The law of the land does not change, so the legislation must be amended.
If the Indian Act does not uphold any of the principles of equality between men and women, the act must be thoroughly reviewed. If there is a lawyer among you, I would certainly like to hear his opinion. In my view, we have reached the next stage, which involves drafting new legislation to eliminate this shocking scourge.
Ms. Audette: Ms. Soroka is a lawyer, a fully-fledged Canadian who donates her time to the Association des femmes autochtones du Québec. She could answer that question, but I will answer on behalf of the Association.
The Association des femmes autochtones du Québec thinks that the Indian Act is obsolete and paternalistic. The Association believes that the various aboriginal peoples are entitled to self-government and should be able to decide what is good for them and what is not.
But bear in mind that for more than 300 years now, our society has been brainwashed. There is a tendency to put everyone in the same boat, but there are both similarities and differences between the Innu and Dene nations.
When the legislation was drafted, it was all-encompassing, in the hope that the various nations would be included. We now have the Indian Act and it should slowly disappear because we believe it contains very few vested rights. The law must be replaced gradually, through steps culminating in self-government for the various nations. Right now, if our nations were granted self-government, women would not be part of that self-government. My fellow aboriginal women and I are proof thereof.
Senator Beaudoin: You used the word ``slowly.'' I disagree with you in that the act should be amended immediately because a huge part of it does not meet the commitments that were accepted by treaty. From a practical viewpoint, that is what we call an unconstitutional act. We must take the bull by the horns, draft a new Indian Act and meet the obligations that are prescribed by treaty.
I do not know how many sections there are in the act, but if half of the sections are unconstitutional and inconsistent with the signed treaties, it is time to completely overhaul the act. I have often heard that the act is obsolete and inadequate. So you would be more successful by pushing for a new act rather than an amendment.
Ms. Audette: I used the word ``slowly'' in case we had the option of self-government. But if we are to change the Indian Act, I agree that the act should be overhauled immediately because my body, my heart and soul can no longer endure this unacceptable legislation.
I fully agree with Senator Beaudoin that we should proceed immediately if the goal is to eliminate all of the discriminatory aspects of the act with a view toward living in harmony and feeling we are part of a society where one can speak of democracy.
Senator Beaudoin: To sum up: enough is enough.
[English]
Senator LaPierre: I am at a loss. I am tired of being on your back. I am tired of being the bouc émissaire of everything that goes wrong with and is wrong in the native society of Canada. For 40 years I have demanded that this law be repealed, that this government department be abolished and that the native people have the right to be fully self- governing. I have fought for a third level of government over and over and over again, and I have the scars to prove it.
I now find out that one minister is attempting to change the situation, and is attempting to get me off your back. Your male leaders have fought and insulted him. They have completely disavowed him, delaying any changes to the Indian Act for at least one generation by their colossal stupidity. I am not responsible if you are being mistreated.
[Translation]
You say you are mistreated on your reserves and your rights are not respected. We have the Charter of Human Rights, we have a Charter of Human Rights. Last week we were told that the Charter of Human Rights may be necessary, but not necessarily the Charter of Human Rights because the traditions and rights you have taken away from us must be taken into account.
I don't want to take anything away from you, I want to give everything back to you, do what you have to do.
[English]
You must start by getting rid of these men who govern you and who have done very little, as we were told last week, to change the conditions even within the context of the law. Help me out here. Will you ask this committee to propose that this law be revoked, that the powers be returned or be given to the native communities under three fundamental principles? I refer to accountability, democracy and the Charter of Human Rights. If that were done, we would have peace forever.
I know many of your people. I have lived in British Columbia. Senator Chalifoux knows that. In fact, I have just returned from British Columbia. I went to the east end of Vancouver and I saw your young men and young women giving themselves away for a nickel. I saw the great artist Morrisseau selling his art for a bottle of gin. I went on television and I tried to stop it and I could not. I want this martyrdom, this masssive injustice, to end, but I cannot do it by myself. You must tell me what to do. No one has tried to do anything.
You have quoted the minister with great respect and I admire you for that. You are one of the few who has. He is a great man and he is making valiant efforts, but you should see the scars on his back. Help me out.
To our witnesses today from Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Newfoundland, I would propose that you say to the chair of this committee, ``Get rid of this act and let us do what we need to do ourselves.'' Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Audette: I may not be as passionate as Senator LaPierre, but I am convinced. You say this legislation should have disappeared 40 years ago! However, if it were to disappear and our nations were to have full autonomy overnight, huge numbers of women and children would no longer be on the band list because of the discriminatory provisions. This injustice must be remedied by reinstating those women and children. It's very important.
Don't forget that since 1985, those women can be reinstated with the Department of Indian Affairs, but the community can now refuse to go along with that reinstatement. That was the case in one Montreal community and in another in Alberta. Nine out of ten people have not yet been reinstated with their community. How will they vote for a change in leadership? What is more, it is hard to ask a woman to go into politics when there is family violence in 80 per cent of our communities and 50 per cent of women and children are victims of sexual assault. The mental, physical, emotional and spiritual health of everyone must not be neglected.
It takes a holistic view to change the leadership. It is not just a matter of the division of physical property. I am not putting all of that on your shoulders, but if you believe in Canada and since you are senators, we can work together.
[English]
Ms. Sark: Changes need to be made. At the same time, we must make changes carefully enough so that we are not set up for failure. Our communities must be ready to deal with these changes. I do live on-reserve and we have a woman chief. Our council consists of two other women councillors and one male. One of the women counsellors represents the off-reserve membership. We are fairly progressive in that way. We are also fairly progressive in that we do have policies in place for the disposition of the family home upon marriage break up.
Having said that, our solutions are not all perfect. We run into problems, but we are working toward rectifying those problems. We believe that we need to continue to work in this direction. Many things need to be done, but we need the capacity to do those things. It is easy to say that when marriage breaks up the family home needs to be divided. In our community, whoever has the children stays in the home. The other person must find housing. However, some communities do not have housing available. This presents a number of difficult problems.
Sometimes the woman does not want to stay in the community. If there has been family violence, she may have access to the home, but she does not feel comfortable. We have had marriage breakups where both members of the couple stay in the community and that creates another set of issues. Many things need to be considered.
The Indian Act is not perfect. It required many amendments, but we must do that carefully. To rush in and do it quickly may create more problems than we are ready to face.
Ms. George: I think a good majority of people would agree with the honourable senator that the Indian Act must be changed.
I do not live on-reserve, but I certainly know fear and intimidation. It does not matter where you are. Being on- reserve is probably more difficult if the stories that I have been hearing from the women are true, and I believe they are. You can be intimidated by the fact that you do not have a home, money, food or friends. Unfortunately, not all women are able to speak up and fight for themselves because they are too downtrodden.
I would agree that the majority of our problems do come from the men. Why do we keep putting them in power? We probably need to encourage our women to educate themselves further. We outnumber men, and yet we are constantly being told what to do and how to do it.
P.E.I. is a wonderful example of a place where women are becoming more active. Certain reserves are responsible, and I strongly believe that is because of the influence of women in those reserves. However, others are a nightmare. I do not know the solution. Things need to be done.
There must be some middle ground between delaying and rushing. You cannot put everything off for another 10 years, and you cannot go in tomorrow morning. There must be a happy medium, and I am sure we are capable of finding that.
Ms. Sark: In passing, I would mention that our present housing policies were put in place while we had a male chief in power. Some men are sensitive to the needs of women. We cannot paint them all with one brush.
Senator LaPierre: Yes.
The Chairman: Exactly.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Thank you, Ms. Audette, for raising the issue of the rights of children so eloquently and clearly. As I was listening to you and Ms. Sark, I had section 35 of the Constitution in front of me; it provides that aboriginal women and men are entitled to the benefit of aboriginal and treaty rights. I was trying to see how aboriginal children could have guaranteed rights under the provision, because in practice, according to the contemporary concept of the child, children are also subjects of law, just as aboriginal women are subjects of law on an equal footing with men. The rights of children of both genders must be guaranteed by the same provision, section 35.
Nevertheless, in terms of the solution we have to work on together, the status of aboriginal children has to be viewed within the context of settling family disputes. We have not yet had the status of aboriginal children's rights clarified.
[English]
Ms. George also mentioned in her testimony that previously many Aboriginal peoples lived in a matriarchal society. One could conclude from that that the children were under the tutorship or responsibility of the women. However, in the context of the recognition of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, the child has his or her own rights as such.
It would be helpful and important to our study to hear your views on the status of the child. When we make our recommendations, we will certainly want specific attention paid to the status of the child in the context of matrimonial settlement.
[Translation]
Based on your experience in the communities, can you give us more information about the list of international conventions you rely on to protect the status of aboriginal women, and more specifically, children?
Ms. Audette: The heart, the experience and the expertise will continue. I have often seen women married to non- aboriginal men in various Quebec communities get a letter saying they could no longer live in the community because it was a mixed marriage. We are very concerned about this, because it has occurred to us that this also strips the children of those women of the right to choose whether or not to get involved in the aboriginal community. They were stripped of this right simply because they had a non-aboriginal father or mother.
Since then, we have decided to include young people too, and that is important. We believe the same situation occurs across Canada, in communities where the Indian Act is applied rigidly.
I will now let Ms. Soroka say more from the local or legal perspective. However, it is clear that children are part of the family unit and should also have the right to live in the community and have access to its programs, services, culture and traditions.
[English]
Ms. Diane Soroka, Counsel, Hutchins, Soroka, Dionne: I do not know if I have a great deal to add. When Bill C-31 was proposed, it was the Quebec native women who had to insist upon the right of minor children to be allowed to live with their parents. In fact, they did not want it limited to minor children and they wanted women who were reinstated to have the right to have their children live with them, whether those children were considered to be members of the band or not. We had to argue for that. A compromise was reached such that minor children would be permitted to live with a family member who was a member of that band but, because the law had been proposed, there was actually no right for children to live with their mother if the children had not been accepted as members of the band. It was actually Quebec native women who fought for that amendment and who got it.
The impact of all of this — dividing the family, destroying marriages and women who are told they can only return to their reserves if their husbands die or if they divorce them — has been terrible. One counsellor put it this way: The woman either divorces her husband or kills him and then she can come back. The whole issue of whether children will be permitted to live with their parents and residency rights is absolutely appalling. The effects of these actions have been awful. I could list them for you The certainly violate international obligations. They violate international conventions that talk about the family being the cornerstone of society — the building block of society. They also violate the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in which a child has a right to his identity by precluding him from being able to have the identity that he may wish to have.
Those are excellent questions, Senator Joyal, about the impact on the children. The effect has been truly awful. Even in cases where women do return with their minor children, those children are often harassed and often excluded. There is a community where such unaccepted children are not permitted to swim in the local swimming pool. Things such as the emphasis on defining and separating status and non-status — who you are married to and who you are not married to; who your child is and who your child is not; who the father of that child is; and whether you are prepared to say who the father of that child is — in terms which paragraph in the law you happen to be slotted into, has had a terribly destructive effect.
Senator Joyal: Perhaps, Madam Chair, your research assistant could look into the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the basis of this testimony. I think it should be part of our consideration and of our eventual report.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Joyal: When we hear from representatives of status Indians and First Nations and listen to such a discussion by adults, it seems as though it is a fight over control of the purse strings — who has the goods, the land, the house, the car, et cetera. However, the fact is that there are children and they have rights. Previous approaches did not pay enough attention to the fact that the rights of the child must be respected as much as the equality of men and women. Children are legally entitled to their rights, and so we want to recognize and protect that approach to human rights..
My next question is relevant to the comment made by Senator Beaudoin and Senator LaPierre in respect of the overall responsibility of the Canadian government in relation to Aboriginal people — First Nations, Inuit and Metis.
I always felt, and I am convinced, that there is a fundamental confusion of roles in the hands of the federal government. The federal government has put in place the Indian Act that is a policy for reserves. The federal government is involved in the negotiation of land claims with Indian representatives in Canada. It will soon be involved, following last Friday, in important negotiations with the Metis people on the same basis to give effect to the definition of ``Indians in Canada.'' When the federal government acts on that basis, according to its constitutional responsibility under section 91, there results a fundamental conflict with its interest to speak for the whole of Canada — non-Aboriginal people, the majority.
Its other constitutional responsibility, and here I will use 18th century language, is in the Royal Proclamation to uphold the honour of the Crown. Essentially, since time immemorial, there has been recognition by the Crown — by the sovereignty of Canada — that, in all its actions, the Crown has to protect the Indian people because the Indian people have never been conquered. They have been recognized to exist and co-exist with our European ancestors. Today, we face a situation whereby the might of the Canadian government has been used to promote the interests of Canada as a whole but not in such a way as to uphold the status, the way of life and the self-government of the Indian people.
We always try, on the one hand, to solve the problems created by the Indian Act and, on the other hand, to uphold the trustee responsibility of the Crown.
The Metis decision what was made this Friday past was an incredible reversal of history. The Canadian Department of Justice was fighting the Metis people. Who stood up for the Metis people? The Metis people. Nobody was the spokesperson to protect the honour of the Crown, that is, no one spoke for the Indian people. I must say that I was dismayed to read the pleadings put forward by the Attorney General of Canada because, in fact, they were speaking on behalf of the non-Aboriginal people in Canada. Nobody on the government side — no ombudsman, no officer of the Crown, no privy counsellor — was there to uphold the honour of the Crown, and that is based on the concept that, because we were welcomed by the Aboriginal people, we owe it to them to respect and uphold their rights.
When we listen to you and try to find a solution and react as my colleagues have earlier this morning, we are, in fact, caught in exactly the same kind of dynamics. As Ms. Sark said in her brief, we want the solution to be administered and monitored by the First Nations themselves. This is part of their responsibility in a proper self-government context. However, at the same time, as Ms. Audette and Ms. George said, we want to address the immediate situation where human beings are violated — raped, subjected to violence, expelled from the reserve and so forth — which is totally unacceptable by human rights standards. We are wrestling with that.
If we are to make progress, there are principles that we have to recognize as being the fundamental basis of our approach with Aboriginal people. Thanks to the Supreme Court last Friday, we will move on the issue of Metis people in a way that will bring back to the Metis people all their rights and dignity. We tried to do something 20 years ago, but it took 20 years before we recognized the fundamental rights of fishing and hunting. We are not talking about of claiming half of Winnipeg; we are just talking about giving them the means to survive.
We are trying to address a fundamental tension in our history. Each time we are faced with human problems, we all ask ourselves, as Senators Beaudoin and LaPierre have asked, why have we arrived at the point whereby Canada's reputation is as it is with respect to maintaining the dignity of its Aboriginal people and its citizens. A human rights problem is a problem for any human being, Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal. A human rights problem in Canada touches everyone.
How we reconcile that with the overall governance of Canada is, to me, the most compelling, difficult issue. The assistance of the Aboriginal people in that is of paramount importance, because, as Senator LaPierre has said, and as Ms. George has mentioned, ministers of the Crown are not badly motivated when they act, but they act, of course, from the perspective of the Canadian government, as a whole. They have always faced the difficult issue of respecting the status of the Aboriginal people, and at the same time, trying to solve the daily problems of governance in Canada. How we balance the two on a daily basis and ensure we make progress, is certainly the most difficult question we must ask ourselves. That also applies to the issues of the matrimonial rights of Aboriginal peoples, and especially, of course, women.
The Chairman: Thank you, senator. Since time is advancing, and I still have two senators who would like to ask questions, with your permission, we will delay lunch a little, and ask Senator Ferretti Barth to proceed.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: I am deeply saddened by this situation. How is it that you are still having to deal with all of these social and human problems today?
I agree with Senators Beaudoin and LaPierre when they say that the Indian Act has to be amended. You said it would take time to solve certain situations. No way! You will be waiting for years. The change has to be radical and immediate. You know what problems aboriginal women are facing. And the new act will allow you to solve them. I feel strongly about your situation, and I would like this committee to be able to prompt change and give you as much help as possible.
The government has been a silent witness to everything that occurs on the reserves. It is as if you were invisible. The problems were hidden, and no one wanted to talk about them until now.
Ms. Audette: When I said that changes had to be made slowly, gradually, I was talking about self-government. As for changes to the Indian Act, those should have been made 100 years ago. I want to be understood correctly before I go home to my family and tell them: ``I have finally met some people who are going to turn things around for us.'' I want that to be clear, it is the Indian Act that needs to be changed. Do not give us legislation that says ``Here is self- government'' when our nations are suffering. Although there are not a lot of them, there are some people who are saving lives in our communities. I believe in self-government, I want to see it happen, but we are not there yet. The Indian Act needs changing.
I have often heard it said that the Minister of Indian Affairs is arrogant. When I saw him attempting to change the Indian Act with C-7, the governance act, I said to myself that this was the minister we needed. A fearless minister. Aboriginal women in Quebec did not participate in the Bill C-7 process because of the way certain things were imposed on the organization. We want transparency — to know what is going on in our communities, democracy, protection, the right to speak — and that is not necessarily the case everywhere.
I told the minister that if he worked on membership, the division of matrimonial property, recognition, children's rights, on the things aboriginal women have been calling for for decades, I would stand with him, with my head held high, even if some chief were opposed. Why? Because in 1867, the government enacted the Indian Act; the Government of Canada still administers that legislation; it has a fiduciary responsibility toward first nations and is responsible for their land; it should fix the legislation. We have solutions, you have the power to make the change.
Senator Chaput: I would like to tell you how impressed I was with your presentations, despite the fact that you have always experienced this discrimination. You are well informed. You gave us presentations full of facts and concrete examples. You have my deep admiration and support.
The Chairman: I thank all the witnesses. You all made very impressive presentations. You may rest assured that we will follow up on them.
[English]
This afternoon, we have Ms. JoAnne Ahenakew, Ms. Teressa Nahanee, Ms. Elizabeth Fleming and Ms. Dorris Peters.
Welcome to our meeting. I hope you were able to hear some of this morning's intervention. If one of you would like to begin, we can start.
Ms. Teressa Nahanee, British Columbia Native Women's Society: I listened to your terms of reference, and I did submit a paper in writing that followed your topics. In my brief I cover the Paul and Derrickson decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, 1986. I will briefly mention the B.C. Native Women's Society case that was filed in the federal court in 1997. I understand that our lawyer, Barbara Findlay, has been invited to give you an update on that case.
I will briefly touch on a study that was done by Mavis Erickson, a special representative for the Minister of Indian Affairs. I also wanted to comment on the Wendy Cornet study. This study was also commissioned by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and it has been widely circulated.
I know that your committee is looking at the relationship between provincial and federal law, and I want to comment on that. I also will be commenting on the custom land allotments and how that is related to matrimonial property. You are also looking at marriages, divorces and the division of property. I believe you are also covering common law marriages and how they may be affected by any changes to the law.
Finally, I want to give a recommendation on filling the gap in federal law on matrimonial property. Additionally, I want to comment on balancing the individual and community interest.
I will not go through my entire paper, but I would like to make some comment and discuss a couple of recommendations that had been made by the B.C. Native Women's Society.
I am a member of the B.C. Native Women's Society. They did have a meeting of the board, and they did ask me if I would come and represent them on this committee. We represent women of B.C. Indian ancestry. That means that we have a lot of native women in British Columbia, some of whom do not come from British Columbia. We are not representing native women who are not from the Province of British Columbia. We are representing the First Nations women of British Columbia. That is because we have about 11 native women's organizations in the province of B.C.
The premise of our understanding and of your understanding should be that the Indian Act and all the lands where the Indians are located come under the Indian Act. When you start talking about communal interest and custom land allotments, they do not legally exist. The only thing that exists out there is the regime that was put in place by the Government of Canada in the 1850s. With respect to all of the Indian Acts that have been passed from that period, that is all that exists in terms of law on the Indian reserves in Canada and for the status Indian population.
As to the land relationships that exist, they have a certificate of possession under section 20. Most bands have not given out those certificates for over 20 years. You are talking about a land regime that was in place for 100 years and that, basically, stopped 20 years ago. If there are people getting CPs today in British Columbia, it is because they are either chiefs or council members or they are someone related to those people. An ordinary Indian on the reserve without those political ties, will not have a certificate of possession.
A woman would have a certificate of possession because her husband, father, brother or uncle died, leaving only her to inherit that certificate of possession.
You also need to recognize that the Indian Act itself is a patriarchal piece of legislation. If you were a man you could vote. If you were a man you could get a certificate of possession but if you were a woman you could not get it. Before 1985, if you married into another band, you were transferred into that other band. If you were a non-Indian woman, you became an Indian by marriage before 1985.
The land holding system that you have in place today came out of that regime. Our lawyer will tell you that in a study she did of the records at Indian Affairs for the Squamish Indian Band, she found that 80 per cent of these certificates of possession are held my men. The women who hold them are, as I mentioned, those whose husband has died, or their brother, father or grandfather died. When you talk about division of matrimonial property, this is the kind of land that you are talking about dividing. You are talking about a man's interest in land and where it goes after that.
The reality on the reserves has been that if a woman is from another reserve, people do not expect that she will inherit that land. If she is a non-native woman, even if she became an Indian before 1985, people are not going to want her to have that land. Even if she has lived common law with her husband for 25 years, for sure, she will not get that land. Those are the realities we face when look at the division of matrimonial property.
Since 1986, in the Paul v. Paul case in the Supreme Court of Canada, and in the Derrickson v. Derrickson in the Supreme Court of Canada, the court decided that the family relations law of the provinces do not apply on Indian lands because Indian lands are governed by the federal Indian Act, and where you have a conflict of laws — a provincial family relations act versus the Indian Act — the Indian Act takes precedence.
The ministers of Indian Affairs have known since 1986 that spouses on the Indian reserves have no rights in the division of matrimonial property. In 2003 the minister has done nothing to bring the Indian Act in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which would mean that spouses on the Indian reserves would have equal matrimonial property rights to those living off the reserves — other Canadians. There is one law for Canadians and there is no law for any woman married to an Indian on a reserve. That situation has been very well known to the Government of Canada since 1986.
The B.C. Native Women's Society launched its court case in 1987. It was against the discrimination in the Indian Act dealing with matrimonial property rights. The discrimination is the result of an act of omission. The government has simply omitted to pass any laws dealing with matrimonial property rights. As I said, our lawyer, Barbara Findlay, will be here to talk about where we are with respect to that case.
The minister did hire Mavis Erickson, a lawyer from Prince George B.C., who studied this matter for the minister. I believe she had a budget of $96,000, which was not enough money to do much of a study. She got to take a few plane trips here and there in Canada. She got to meet with a few people, and she put together the report that she could produce with that kind of money. You might wish to look at the fact situation that Ms. Erickson talks about, and some of the recommendations that she made are worth looking at, but it was an extremely limited study.
Mavis Erickson made a recommendation on interim possession of matrimonial property, but she recommended that the bands be given bylaw-making powers to deal with interim possession. In our view, that would be a big mistake. Band councils are a delegated government of the Department of Indian Affairs. They are nowhere near the self- government that they may wish they were. The minister delegates to them, and the minister would simply be delegating his form of discrimination to the band council level. The recommendation of Mavis Erickson to allow the band chiefs and councils to pass bylaws on matrimonial property would not be an acceptable alternative.
I did not mention in this part of paper, but I do mention it later, chiefs today are using their powers of band council resolution to get spouses off the reserve. If a chief wants to split up with his wife, if he is tired of the marriage and he wants to marry someone else, then he can get the council to pass a band council resolution that puts the wife at the end of the reserve and out there with nothing. They are doing that today. Therefore if you give the power to the chief and council to deal with matrimonial property, you are not only delegating the discrimination, but you also give them unfettered powers with no governance on the kind of laws that they can pass. As I said, they are doing this by their examples today. I have no doubt the minister has the resources to go and study this phenomenon on the reserves today.
Ms. Erickson also recommended that there be an advocacy office to deal with matrimonial property on the reserves. It would be our recommendation that, instead of an advocacy office, the provincial courts be open to spouses on reserves to deal with interim possession and matrimonial property rights.
This is important because I have been litigating in the federal courts for over five years now against discrimination by Canada. There is no end to the resources of 2,000 lawyers in the Department of Justice to keep your case from being heard, and it is very expensive. The ordinary spouse off the reserve can go to the provincial courts with the family relations law and get an order for interim possession of the home. They can proceed on an emergency basis, or they can do it in a matter of months. If you put this kind of litigation to the federal courts, 18 months, or two years later, a wife might get an order. However, it is too cumbersome to put this through the federal courts and it will not be worth anyone's while to put it through an advocacy office at a band level. This would be like putting up an advocacy office here in the City of Ottawa for spouses who are married here in the City of Ottawa to go and deal with an advocate with respect to their rights.
I do not know if you can imagine that kind of regime. We have 663 Indian bands in Canada. There are that many band governments in Canada with their own chiefs and council. You would not delegate the City of Vanier, the City of Ottawa, the City of Vancouver or the City of Merritt to deal with matrimonial property rights of the citizens of one of those cities. Why would we give such authority to a band council?
On some reserves, there might be 100 people, 60 of them from one family. We are dealing with tiny units of people. To delegate that authority to an advocacy office on a reserve of 150 people where you are not related to anyone, or you are a non-Indian and you want to talk to the band about your matrimonial property rights, you will not get much of a hearing.
The recommendation we make regarding interim possession is that you open up the provincial courts to people at the community level.
With respect to a division of matrimonial property on reserves, we are asking that either the family relations laws of the provinces be referentially incorporated under section 88 of the Indian Act, or that your committee recommend changes to the Indian Act to deal with matrimonial property rights or family relations that would also include interim possession, and that the provincial courts be the avenue to get the order, but that band councils also would enforce the court orders.
The band councils have been very good at not enforcing court orders for maintenance, for example. If a non-native spouse with three children from her Indian husband on a reserve gets a maintenance order and goes to the band council where the husband is employed, what they have done in some cases is to fire him and then rehire him under contract so as not to enforce the maintenance order. That takes it out of their jurisdiction to enforce because it is a matter of a private contract. There has to be some restrictions on the enforcement of court orders.
I told my good friend Wendy who did a study for the Department of Indian Affairs that I did have some criticism of the study that was completed for the department. I have covered that in the brief. There are a lot of red herrings in the study. We are concerned about the study because it has been widely circulated throughout the Indian communities. It requires that spouses on reserve be treated differently from all other Canadians. What we are saying is that when you make recommendations you should be careful you do not continue the discrimination that has been taking place for the last 100 years.
One of the red herrings is that there is a shortage of housing on Indian reserves. That has nothing to do with matrimonial property rights. There are a lot of homeless people living all over Canada, which has no impact on the matrimonial property rights of people who are married throughout this country. We have a huge homeless problem. You can take care of the homeless problem, but you cannot take care of it in the context of matrimonial property law. We are only talking about married people with property. We are not talking about married people who have no property.
Some 75 per cent of our population is on social assistance. If they are living in social housing, they do not own the property. We are not dealing with that problem. We are dealing with landowners.
On page 12 of our presentation I recommend that you look at the recent amendments to the Indian estate regulations. The word ``spouse'' was removed from the regulation and it was replaced with the word ``survivor.'' In terms of Indian estates, if you have been in a one-year conjugal relationship, then you are a survivor to that person's estate.
When you are looking at those married by common law and you are looking for a length of time, that has already been established in the Indian estate regulations as a one-year period. Our question therefore is: Why would a survivor have more rights than a divorcing spouse? For married people, that is already clearly defined. For those married under the common law, we are asking that you take a look at the Indian estate regulations.
With respect to point 6, the relation between provincial law and the Indian Act, we recommend that divorcing or separating couples on reserve who own a matrimonial home go through the provincial courts. We do not want to go through the federal courts on something like interim possession or an order for possession.
Concerning point 7, custom land allotments do not exist in law. If they are custom land allotments, the whole notion is they do not exist in your law at all. If they exist in your law, they are not custom. You cannot have it both ways. It is either western legal or it is custom.
The Indian Act is western legal. It is your law, Canada's law. This is not to say that among the native people there does not exist in theory custom land allotments. I can tell you what is happening with the custom land allotments. If a chief and council wants your custom land allotment, he has merely to pass a band council resolution to give it to themselves. If the chief wants your custom land, he just has to describe your land and pass a band council resolution, register it with the minister and the minister will recognize his title. There are many native people who are fighting their own chief and council who have taken away their custom land allotments. Because the chief and council is a delegated government they know that your custom land allotment is worth nothing in court. If it is worth nothing in court, it is not worth anything anywhere.
To say that custom land allotments will interfere with matrimonial property rights is not right.
What we need is a law in place that deals with matrimonial property rights. That is all that I would like to say on that subject.
I believe I have covered most of what I would like to say. In any event, you have our written brief.
Ms. Dorris Peters, British Columbia Native Women's Society: Honourable senators, I am Coast Salish and I am an Elder with the British Columbia Native Women's Society. Many of the things that I heard this morning affected me in many ways. I got married when I was very young and I lost my status. My brother who is married to a non-status person has full status. I am divorced and I cannot go back to the reserve.
My reserve is one of the smallest in B.C. I believe the population is less than 100. There is only 300 acres of swamp in the middle of the area.
There has been so much discrimination. I was around when the Royal Commission was around. There were all these women who were moved out of their homes from the reservation with their children, and who were staying in hotels and motels in slum areas, where there was great danger. The police protected them, supposedly. It was quite an experience for me to be there. All these things that are happening in regard to discrimination against women should be rectified.
I also wish to say something about the Indian Act. I work. I bought my own home when I was 59 and I still work. One of the things that I wanted to caution you about is that somebody mentioned getting rid of the Indian Act right away. We must go slowly. Many things that happen are done quickly.
We do not have much time to do a proper presentation today. I would say that, because we are talking about discrimination, an opening prayer should be said this morning. I make that recommendation as a native person. This discussion is about us. It is so important to remember those things. We must remember that we are human beings. This subject affects all of us.
I really appreciated the presentations that were made by the other ladies this morning. It is so nice to see my friend Ms. Nahanee here today. I caution people to go slowly with the Indian Act.
In regard to the matrimonial cases, I have many friends who have been in difficult marriage situations. I was a teenage bride and I got married properly. We fell under Bill C-31 at that time. My children have status, but my grandchildren are nothing. It is very sad to say that. My oldest daughter is a lawyer and my children are very successful people. It is important to have help. It is our inherent right to get an education, and to also continue it with our grandchildren, because they are our tomorrow.
We think about those things when we are talking today. I do not want us to be hasty and change things too quickly. We lose. I will not speak too much on the Indian Act, because I work all over the place and I have not studied it that much.
I am very glad to be here today. Thank you very much for listening.
Ms. Elizabeth Fleming, Past President, Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba: Honourable senators, my friend Toni Lightning and I are pleased to be here this afternoon. The Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba was pleased to learn that the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs has asked this Senate standing committee to consider and report on this important topic.
In the context of human rights, the matrimonial property rights for women on reserves would appear to be close to non-existent. What many fought for in other parts of the country not so long ago and are fighting for in other parts of the world is being fought for once again in Canada today by our Aboriginal sisters. Our intention is not to speak for First Nations, but to bring forward the issues, as we understand them, and to support their voices being heard.
There is little disagreement with the conclusions regarding the injustices done to First Nations women. This has been reported on by many knowledgeable people, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. The history of colonization, jurisdictional wrangles, the legislative framework, the Indian Act and Bill C-31 — there are many factors that have led to the deplorable situation that we find today.
Even the United Nations, the recent CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, report was critical of Canada with respect to its treatment of First Nations women.
We have prepared a brief. As others, we were rather in a hurry, but we did copy it and I hope you have copies. Rather than go through the entire document, there is a section on the background of the Provincial Council of Women, and why we have become involved with Aboriginal women.
Basically, we have had an interest all along in building bridges, and we have run programs on that. More recently, we have been receiving telephone calls from Aboriginal women seeking help. That is not because we are particularly able to help, it is because they are so desperate and have nowhere else to turn.
We have decided as a council that we can offer assistance, what little support we can, in areas that affect their human rights, democracy and their physical safety, all of which are major factors coming to our attention. We have come to know and befriend women from different reserves in Manitoba and some in Ontario over the last few years.
The next part of the brief is a short history of the women's lobby for gender equality in family laws in Manitoba. This was a battle that was fought in each province. Ours was conducted in the 1970s and is acutely within living memory. The woman who prepared this part of the brief was one of the women who fought. A book has been written on the struggle that they had to change the matrimonial property laws in Manitoba. The fight continues today.
The next section we have worked on is the current situation in Manitoba. This information comes from what we hear and what we have been able to research through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
There are 62 bands in Manitoba. The registered Indian population, as of December 31, 2002, in our province was 112,430 people, with approximately 64 per cent of them living on-reserve. That is higher than the 57 per cent in the Canadian average living on-reserve. There is a great diversity among Manitoba's bands. There are different cultures, languages and histories. Population size on reserves ranges from about 4,000, in Cross Lake, to fewer than 100 people in each of three First Nations communities in Manitoba. Size does make a difference.
We have some stats on poverty amongst Aboriginal people in Manitoba. Those figures are in there for honourable senators to read. This is a serious problem. The poorest of the poor are women, often single mothers, who have come from reserve and are struggling either in the city or trying to make it on their own on-reserve.
Everything that we have heard seems to come back to the Indian Act. Section 6 of the Indian Act is the definition of the registration of Indians. This is a huge issue, as honourable senators are hearing first hand from many more capable than me who tell you about what is happening in regard to blatant gender inequality on the membership issue. This inequality is being written right into the legislation, and that must change.
Sections 20 to 29 of the act deal with possession of lands in reserves. Then we looked into the books with Indian Affairs data. There are only 1,256 certificates of possession in all of the 62 First Nations communities. Of these, just two bands hold the vast majority, with a handful for about eight other reserves. The majority have none. There is no such thing as a certificate of occupation. As was said eloquently earlier, custom band allotment has no legal meaning at all.
We have no records of the vast part of on-reserve lands in Manitoba. There is no reliable system in place for tracking real on-reserve property. Sections 81.1(i) and (p.2) of the Indian Act deal with the powers of the band council. This brings us to the thorny problem of band politics. We would agree that, as some people said, some bands are doing a good job in governance, and they are doing their best on transparency and accountability. Including their members in decisions, as we understand it, was the way things were done in the past. Also, there are similarities with our democratic systems in the West. Those are happening on a few reserves but, of course, for the women we are hearing from, there is no such thing.
We are finding that our housing allocation on a number of reserves is decided and implemented solely by chief and council. Housing policy that would guide the allocation of housing and a set of criteria for tenancy agreements are not always written down, approved by or even shared with all band members. A band election can mean a change in chief and council and a change in housing policy overnight. There is, therefore, nothing to hang your hat on in respect of a housing policy where no governance is in place. It becomes arbitrary and political.
Sections 88 to 90 of the Indian Act deal with legal rights. We have heard from lawyers about the application of provincial family laws on reserve. Obviously, when it comes to real property on-reserve, there are no laws.
Under section 88 of the Indian Act, in case law described in the discussion paper, provincial marital property legislation can apply on reserves; however, women's access to legal protection varies hugely. That application is to movable assets and not to real property.
From the north to the south in Manitoba, including Winnipeg, there is great variation. The physical distances and terrain are such that it is prohibitive for many Aboriginal women on northern reserves to seek and obtain legal remedies. I will take Island Lakes as an example. We received a letter from an Aboriginal lawyer who worked in family law for four years in the North and he knows of what he speaks. Please read those details. The administration of the courts in Manitoba is such that it is difficult for women on-reserve to secure legal remedies. It is a challenge for the lawyers in the North to meet the required, tight filing deadlines in certain cases. Legal aid may be able to help a woman with child support and spousal support cases. However, if property is involved, legal aid is not applicable because it is then considered that there are assets from which to pay a lawyer. The majority of Aboriginal women cannot afford to hire a lawyer.
Unenforceable legislation is of no help to Aboriginal, on-reserve women and it arguably works against them. Matrimonial real property, they are told, is a matter for the band to deal with. Some of those few certificates of possession are in First Nations names, some may be in the man's name and some may be in the woman's name, or both. Basically, we were told that they only deal with estates if a spouse dies. I said to the man on the phone that that is rather final, is it not? He told me that that is the way it is. After martial breakdown or the breakup of a common-law relationship, there is no recourse, either.
Family violence has been touched upon. Many of the cases we hear involve horrendous incidents of family violence. It is particularly problematic in a matrimonial home when there are no other options or protections for women. I would ask you to read the section on housing and education and about housing on-reserve. Lawyers who are asked to act for Aboriginal men and women on real property matters have told us that their clients are under the impression that their house belongs to them. They do not always know that the band chief and council allotted their houses to them and that they do not own the houses because there is no formal ownership in place. They are also unaware of band policies and bylaws.
I will say a word about gender equality analysis because we have had recent experience with this. There is, fortunately, a policy at the Department of Indian Affairs, and gender equality analysis was carried out on Bill C-7, which will be called the First Nations Governance Act. However we, as a provincial council, have found that we could not get the complete analysis. We had to go before the Information Commissioner of Canada to try to find out what is in it. We find that particularly deplorable, and we have written to the ministers involved. On our Web site, which we cited in the brief, are the letters to ministers Nault and Augustine in respect of the status of women in Canada.
There is no point in doing a gender analysis of bills and legislation, unless we can all see what is in them and unless we can know how the proposed legislation will affect both women and men. It is not just for men; it is for women as well. We would hope that would be a recommendation of this committee.
On the subject of marriage and common-law relationships, it is interesting that, for the past year, proposed legislation to amend a variety of Manitoba acts, including the Marital Property Act and the Family Maintenance Act, has been passed. Those amendments extend property rights and obligations of spouses to common-law partners so that, when a marriage breaks down or when one of the partners dies, common-law partners would be able to share the property accumulated during the relationship.
We included a case study of one of our friends. This is from somebody who lives on a small troubled reserve in Manitoba. Some people have argued that the reserve has so many problems and so it is not typical. However, from everything we hear, this reserve is not alone. This is happening time and time again across reserves, but not everybody has the courage to speak out. Incidentally, four of these women and one man went to the Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and spoke to a bill to extend Aboriginal policing on reserves. Two days later, the Aboriginal police on the reserve put them in jail overnight. Those charges still have gone nowhere. It is difficult to speak out. These women who come to us to try to speak out on their behalf are brave. We do not mind speaking out for them, and we trust that we will not be in jail in a day or two.
We will go straight to the recommendations for future directions. We have a policy on human rights for Aboriginal peoples in Canada. We feel that no matter what happens to Bill C-7, the part that deals with eliminating section 67 of the Human Rights Act of Canada should be struck because, no matter what happens, this is — as people have said this morning — a universal matter of human rights. We feel that should come out.
We would also recommend that the committee consider including grounds of discrimination on political matters and political beliefs. We have found that, in many instances, matters are political and that this should be included as grounds for discrimination. It is in many other countries' legislation and in many provinces.
On membership issues, many related topics must be dealt with in the context of the lives and rights of First Nation's women, such as the clear injustices of Bill C-31. The separation of band membership from status registration and the new class created by the passage of Bill C-31, clause 6.(2) are examples.
For land registry, both the Indian Act and the first Nations Land Management Act have provisions for land reserve registers. A vacuum exists for 60 of the 62 bands in Manitoba. If a band's custom allotment system fails to secure matrimonial property rights, a comprehensive land register system for on-reserve land is essential to even begin to help women.
Concerning band politics, integral to any solution are band codes that provide certainty and fairness to land allocations, housing policies, tenant agreements, et cetera, and that provide for marital provision on the breakdown of the marriage. All band codes need to be developed with the equal participation of Aboriginal women and with openly- arrived-at and shared gender equality analysis of the band codes and the administration of band lands. I would point out that, to be involved, Aboriginal women need to be funded. It is very difficult for them to get to places and to prepare if they have no resources.
On the topic of family violence, we suggest that more shelters and housing on-reserve would accommodate families suffering from family breakup and ease the tensions for women who are desperate to leave an abusive relationship. A marital property code should protect such women's homes, safety and children. Temporary housing for violent spouses is another possibility provided that the safety of the victim takes priority.
I now turn to community education and capacity-building on-reserve. We commended Indian Affairs for their published information booklet. There may be a demand for information that is less technical, but it all helps. People need to know what their rights are, and who owns the house and where they can go.
Regarding accessibility for legal aid services, First Nations women need uniform access to legal information and legal aid services, particularly when seeking an equal division of real property interests and sole possession of the marital home. Both the provincial and federal governments need to review and improve Manitoba's legal administration and representation systems, founded on a gender-based analysis, to ensure that it is meeting the needs of First Nations women on reserves.
They should consider designing a separately funded program specifically for the purpose of providing individual legal advice and representation to First Nations, and educational initiatives on reserves.
I will leave the conclusions for the committee to read.
Ms. Toni Lightning, Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba: I live on-reserve at Buffalo Point, which is on the Manitoba-Minnesota border on Lake of the Woods. Ms. Fleming was kind enough to invite me to accompany her to this committee meeting.
Having read all the material and listened to the various speakers, I think a major overhaul of the Indian Act is in order, or that it should be tossed out. First and foremost, however, we must remember that we will continue to be a disenfranchised population if we are not guaranteed the rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You cannot have a double standard.
My reserve is probably an example of what can go wrong. We have a chief who appointed himself a chief for life in 1997 without the benefit of an election. He appointed his father the other councillor, and we have one other councillor. As a result, the chief and his father as councillor outvote the other councillor. We have no say in how things are done, or the direction that the reserve is taking.
We entered into a head lease, and 250 cottage lots have been leased out. That was supposed to generate money for housing and jobs. We are a resort, but the reality is that we have very little housing. Millions of dollars have gone into building a golf course, but we have elders who do not have homes. Some of them are dying; some of them need to come home because they are medically unfit. I know one person who lives on an island, and he needs to be closer to medical attention.
Our band is also one where the chief and his council control the membership. As a result, they make the decisions on who is a voting member and who is not. I am fortunate because I am not a ``C-31.'' I gained my membership through my paternal line, so I am a full voting member. However, I have other women my age who are ``6(2)s.'' Their children are members, but their grandchildren will not be. I am not in that vote. I am a beneficiary of the paternal system.
I would reiterate that we need to overhaul the Indian Act to adhere to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Thank you.
Ms. JoAnne Ahenakew, Alberta Aboriginal Women's Society: I would just mention that I have been travelling for a week. I flew in last night. Someone has my portfolio, so I will submit copies of the report, hopefully, by tomorrow morning. In the meantime, I spent the morning writing down what I could remember.
Good afternoon, standing Senate committee participants. I represent the Aboriginal Women's Society of Alberta. I am the vice-president of the Edmonton chapter.
I am a young leader. We are a grassroots group. By that I mean that we target issues at the community level. Our main focus currently is a halfway house for battered women, which is connected to this larger issue.
I am a treaty Indian. I am a Dene-Cree woman from the Treaty 10 region. I am a proud member of the English River First Nation. I am from the North, and I maintain close ties to the North, to my community and to my family. This is the perspective that I bring.
It is very encouraging that the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights has chosen to address the issue of matrimonial rights to real property on Indian reserves. This issue needs to be addressed, because not only does it affect Aboriginal women, but it also affects our children. I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
The Alberta Aboriginal Women's Society agrees with the Quebec Native Women's Association's stand regarding discrimination against women. Canada is a party to several international treaties that guarantee equality between men and women and forbid all forms of discrimination. It is also party to a convention that specifically protects the rights of children. Furthermore, it is subject to the jurisdiction of several international institutions established to ensure that states, which, like Canada, freely and voluntarily become parties to international legal instruments, respect their obligations.
Discrimination against the children and grandchildren of First Nations women who regain their status under section 6(2) of the Indian Act and the unequal patrimonial rights of spouses, with the adverse consequences of this situation in a divorce, are incompatible with Canada's international obligations.
The idea of a person or persons owning land in the sense that we think of it today was not part of our traditional society. Various bands had territories, and at times warfare ensued over territories, but there was much sharing of accessed resources as well. The idea of ownership on paper is an ideal that has been imposed on Aboriginal society, and it is something with which we still struggle.
The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that provincial laws relating to the division of property upon divorce do not apply to real property on Indian reserves. The Indian Act does not address this issue. Historically, lands and houses have usually been registered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the male spouse's name. The breakdown of a marriage commonly leaves a woman, and usually her children, without a place to live. If she is not from that reserve, she most likely feels that she is no longer welcome.
These factors contribute to some of the migration of Aboriginal families to the larger urban settings, because they are left with little choice. These women and their families are now homeless, and there is little in place to assist these women in the state of transformation, with regards to counselling and job placement.
Our society did a study on women applying to get an apartment — single women with families moving from reserves for these very reasons. We took a non-Aboriginal woman and an Aboriginal woman and did a test. We applied for apartments, and the Aboriginal woman was turned down more often than the non-Aboriginal woman.
I have an example. I know of a woman — I will not use any names to implicate anyone — who married a man from another reserve. When she got married, she was automatically registered under her spouse's band membership list. She divorced the man 10 years later — you know the laws have changed — and she approached her maiden band for transfer back. A vote was taken and her maiden band voted unanimously in favour of her return. She approached her spouse's band for transfer out, and was denied. She approached them again, and she was told that they would begin proceedings when they got the chance. This was five years ago. This example is not uncommon. She cannot access any resources from her ex-spouse's band, and she cannot access resources from her maiden band, so she is right in the middle.
When divorce occurs, children suffer as well. Their quality of life is subject to change, usually a negative change. Many single mothers are single-handedly raising their families at or below the poverty levels in our communities. There is little access to counsel for these women and their children to deal with the domestic violence and other forms of abuse they may have suffered prior to marriage breakdown.
Not all married Aboriginal women on reserves are employed. They are homemakers and mothers to their children. Their role in the marriage is just as important as that of their male counterparts, and this needs to be recognized. Traditionally, in Aboriginal society, males and females had their roles and both were necessary for survival. They were valued as such. Today it is really no different. A family cannot thrive without the input of both partners. However, returning to our old ways or traditional lifestyle pattern is not possible or even realistic.
We would recommend that the Indian Act be amended to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. This would require the reinstatement of both Indian status and band membership of not only the women who lost their status as a result of the historical discrimination against them, but also of their children and grandchildren.
The Indian Act should be amended to ensure equality between men and women with regard to matrimonial property and to ensure that there is equality in the division of assets in the case of divorce.
The Indian Act should be amended to ensure that the parent having custody of the children is able to remain in the family home in the event of the breakdown of a marriage.
The Indian Act must be amended in order that a woman whose First Nation affiliation was changed as a result of marriage to a man from another First Nation has an automatic right to re-register, along with her children, as a member of her original First Nation.
Our last recommendation is to implement or assist with programming and counselling to help these Aboriginal women and families to make this transition, because it is difficult.
Senator Beaudoin: It must be very difficult, in practice, to know exactly which law applies because it varies from one province to another. It varies within the province, and there are many reserves. There is nothing in the Indian Act on this, if I am not mistaken. How do you know which law applies? It must be really difficult.
In Quebec, we have the Civil Code. Common law applies in the other provinces. With all the variations you have described, how do you know which law applies?
Ms. Nahanee: There is no law on the reserves.
Senator Beaudoin: No general law?
Ms. Nahanee: There is no general law on the reserves. That has been recognized since 1986. The provincial laws, although they differ from each other, do not apply on any Indian reserves with respect to matrimonial property. There is no law at all.
Senator Beaudoin: How do you solve your conflicts in practice?
Ms. Nahanee: People are kicked off the reserve. People are just told to leave.
Senator Joyal: That is what happened with Ms. Peters.
Ms. Ahenakew: We are at the whim of the band council that is in place at the time and subject to any decisions they make. As was mentioned before, a new council comes in every two years, and major changes are always made.
Senator Beaudoin: If you disagree, do you go before the court? What do you do? Is there an authority to which you can appeal?
Ms. Ahenakew: No.
Senator Joyal: It is the band council.
Senator Beaudoin: Each band has its own constitution, in a way.
Ms. Ahenakew: There is nothing in writing either. If you were to ask a band what their stance was on divorce and the division of property, it probably could not produce anything for you because the decisions are made off the tops of their heads.
Senator Beaudoin: However, suppose you disagree with another person? Who solves the problem?
Ms. Ahenakew: There is no mediator. There is no intermediary.
Senator LaPierre: Do you not have a circle for resolution?
Senator Beaudoin: There must be a system somewhere.
The Chairman: No, there is nothing.
Senator Beaudoin: We start from nothing?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Senator Joyal: We start with the Constitution.
Senator Beaudoin: Of course! Far be it for me to say that the Constitution is not there. It is there. Section 35 is there. The fact is that each reserve has its own law in a way, or absence of law. This is the first time in my life that I have heard of this.
Senator Joyal: I am happy to see Ms. Peters. I have not seen her for a long time. I would also welcome Ms. Nahanee.
In your brief, in the middle of page 22, you have identified an important element that we will need to take into account in our recommendations, which is item 11. You did not have time to elaborate enough on that aspect of your paper. The question states:
Is there a need to balance community and individual interests in division of matrimonial property upon divorce of couples, one or more of whom may own property on reserve?
That question is so fundamental. We must decide how we will balance community and individual interests. From the testimony that we have heard since this morning, there is a need to intervene immediately, because human rights are involved.
Human rights are at stake in a acute way because, as you and other witnesses have said, women are kicked off of reserves and their children loose their rights and their identity. They lose their identity rights. There is violence committed upon individuals. In the end, there is a loss of dignity — a loss of human Aboriginal dignity.
You have raised a question in a way that challenges us as a committee and as an institution — as a Senate and as senators individually — and that is how we can address and reconcile those two compelling objectives of respecting the First Nations self-government objective and, at the same time, address the immediate problem of discrimination. That is my first point.
Ms. Fleming, you also raised an important point in your presentation, and that is a matrimonial code. To me, this is an important element as a complimentary initiative to the amendments to the Indian Act.
If we are to recommend to Parliament, through the minister, amendments to the Indian Act, from your testimony it does not seem that those will be adequate to address the different aspects of the total situation, such as the need for shelter and alternative support. When there is a divorce and violence is involved, the spouse, as is the case in our non- Aboriginal society, must have psychological support and counselling, because it is a shock.
Divorce causes a major disturbance of family life. An entire set of initiatives must be taken in order to protect the education of the children and to give a fair chance to the spouse to re-establish herself and go on with her life.
On the basis on your experience, would you elaborate more on your understanding of the term ``matrimonial code,'' which is the term you used in your presentation?
Ms. Nahanee: I am not sure if the minister asked you to look at how to balance community and individual interests, but if the minister did ask you to consider that question, I would say that, with respect to married couples, there is no communal interest. If you are married here in the City of Ottawa or in the City of Montreal, you are not married to the City of Ottawa or to the City of Montreal. No one in the City of Ottawa has any interest in your matrimonial property. That is your right; that is your land. That is property owned between you and your spouse.
However, on Indian reserves, probably 80 per cent of the Indian population lives on social welfare: the husband, wife and children; or the wife and the children because the husband or father or man has gone. Some communities do provide social housing through the social welfare system. These people are not landowners. My reserve has 40 condominiums, and people on social assistance will live in those condominiums, but if they are a married couple that divorces, they will not split up the social housing. That will be a problem for the community.
Any amendments that we are talking about do not deal with social housing, people living on welfare or people who do not own houses, even if they are married people.
The custom land allotments are not legal entities that are recognized in federal or provincial law. Communal housing and matrimonial property are two different things. That is not a consideration for any amendments to the Indian Act.
One other category of land other than social housing is communal land or common property of the band. For example, my band, Squamish, owns the land under which is situated the Park Royal Shopping Mall. That is our common property and we get common income from it. That is a band concern. However, the amendments in the Indian Act will deal with an individual family that has a certificate of possession, which is usually in the name of the husband. We say that the law should be the same for those people who are married and on-reserve as it is for those off- reserve. We are only dealing with married people with individually held property. We are not talking about the 80 per cent of the people who live on social welfare.
We are not asking for a big, unwieldy piece of legislation. If the minister made these amendments, the entire world would not change. It would only change for spouses with property. As was mentioned before, in the Province of Manitoba you might have only 1,000 with a certificate of possession. I believe we mentioned how many Indian people there are in the Province of Manitoba. This is what we are dealing with. The balance of community and individual interest will not become affected if we only deal with married people with property. Social housing and the commonly held property will not be affected. The custom held land will not be affected by it, because it does not exist legally.
Ms. Peters: I want to comment on what Ms. Nahanee was saying. I have a job. I bought a house when I was 59 years old. I had quite a time getting a loan because I am a native and a senior, but I have a solution for that. There is a lot of Crown land in British Columbia which is good property. I think we should be able to get some land from the Crown to build houses for these people who have been forced out of their reserves and would like to have their own place. I believe some of the reserves in British Columbia have been given money to buy land to make the reserves bigger, but the money was used for something else. I do not know what was bought, but I know that happened. We should be able to own our own houses. I pay taxes like anyone else and have done so all my life.
Senator Joyal: I want an opportunity to hear from Ms. Fleming.
Ms. Fleming: I was not quite sure what Senator Joyal meant by the ``matrimonial code.''
Senator Joyal: That is the note I made.
Ms. Fleming: I may have misspoken.
Senator Joyal: You were talking about the gender analysis of Bill C-7: family violence; housing issues on reserve; and the need for shelter. In passing, you mentioned the matrimonial code. I wanted to hear, on the basis of your experience, what you had in mind for a matrimonial code. How can we address that approach or that kind of ``solution'' to alleviate some of the problems that have been described to us by the various witnesses?
Ms. Fleming: I may have misspoken myself on the matrimonial code. I am not sure what that is.
We are asking for Aboriginal women to have the same remedies and recourses that non-Aboriginal women have, and that women in the north and the south of Manitoba and in Winnipeg have the same access to legal aid services to do that. We are still flummoxed by the fact that the land is not registered, and that anything we do under provincial legislation is based on our land registration system. We do not have anything in place because certificates of possession simply do not count. Indian Affairs has them and deals with the estates of spouses where the partner has died; yet there is nothing for a woman on the breakdown of a marriage. We want that recourse and those same rights for women.
The points you made earlier this morning and the emphasis on the welfare of the children on the breakup of a marriage is something we have not had at all for Aboriginal women and their families. That is very important. We do have it in provincial law, but not for Aboriginal women. Access to legal aid is a matter of money, or lack of money. Also, in our province, the administration of legal aid services, which, luckily, is not your responsibility, is something about which you may wish to consider recommendations.
Does that answer your question?
Senator Joyal: Yes, but I am still at a loss to define a ``matrimonial code.'' I am just thinking out loud.
The issue of legal assistance is a compelling one. There is the issue, as was raised by Ms. Nahanee, about arbitration when there is a conflict between an Aboriginal woman and the band that holds the capacity to transfer the certificate, and so on. We need an arbitrator in that type of instance; otherwise, we will simply maintain a discriminatory system against women.
There is the issue of shelter, which I think is important because we know from experience — Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal — about the difficult situation that exists when there is a breakdown in a marriage and there are children. This includes the matter of what kind of assistance we have to bring to the spouse who ends up with the responsibility, and the capacity to get the minimum amount of support to maintain the children, even though, as Ms. Nahanee has mentioned, the vast majority of Aboriginal people live with social assistance. Then, as you said, there is the issue of the rights of the children.
This is a very important issue. If we are to address the overall issue of everything that is implied in a marriage that breaks up, we cannot ignore the status of the children. It was raised by Ms. Audette this morning, and mentioned by other witnesses, but it is an aspect that should be covered, too.
If we are to address the issue of matrimonial code in a fruitful and helpful way, we must not — as Ms. Nahanee and other witnesses have said — think that we have fixed the problem if we have addressed only one issue. We may have satisfied ourselves but, in fact, we have not done much to re-establish Aboriginal women on an equal footing with non- Aboriginal women.
I am thinking aloud about how we can make recommendations to the minister and to Parliament on a wider basis — beyond making amendments to the Indian Act — that might help to alleviate the situation?
Ms. Fleming: We have found that although the Indian Act provides for things such as registering lands in other areas, it is really up to each band whether they decide to take advantage of that or not. In our case, for land registration they definitely are not interested except for two bands. Therefore, it obviously needs to be stronger than that. One of the routes that we are seeing that afford some hope is the First Nations Land Management Act. I am not sure if it says ``may'' or ``must,'' but it ought to say ``must'' if they are to go this way under the framework agreement. They must have provision in their codes for the division of matrimonial real property on the break up of a marriage or common- law relationship.
That is a starting point. After that, you want to be able to actually implement the provision. There must be more than just words and laws. There must be backup to help women and bands accomplish this. Only four out of the hundreds of bands have actually done that. One band has come up with a band code for matrimonial property rights that is quite good. Therefore, one might follow the progress of that and see if it actually works. That was a step in the right direction.
Senator Jaffer: As I understand it, the certificate of possession is given to the male, right? Then the issue that we are looking at is whether there should be exclusive possession of the house, and how that certificate of possession is divided. Is that what you were alluding to?
Ms. Nahanee: I was saying that most bands —as you can see, in Manitoba — do not use the certificate of possession any more. In British Columbia, they have stopped using them. I believe they have stopped using them because the chief and band council want to keep all the lands as communal lands. You do not even own the land. You can only use and possess the land; you can never have ownership. The certificate of possession, CP, gave the right to use and possess only, but the bands still think that is going too far so they will no longer even issue a certificate of possession. The CPs that exist are those that have been given out in the last 100 years and passed down through families.
This amendment that we are looking at would be a brand-new amendment, and it would only affect real landholders. Anyone who is not a landholder today will not be affected by any changes in the legislation. There are not a lot of those around so exclusive possession goes to the landholder. Interim possession only would affect families where one or both are the landholders. It is not going to affect every partnership in Indian country.
Senator Jaffer: When you were explaining the matter to Senator Joyal, you were talking about married couples. I understand that there is a majority of people who live common law on the reserves. Perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong. Were you specifically referring to married couples? Obviously, as you know, for common law in B.C., property rights do not apply to people living common law. I wanted your reflections on that.
Ms. Nahanee: That is true. We would not want the provincial standard in that case. We do not want the provincial standard if we do not like the provincial standard.
In respect of people living in common law relationships, I said that we should look at the amendments for estates. As my friend from Manitoba mentioned, you only get a right if someone dies. There is something wrong with that. Even for the people living in common law relationships, they have a right on reserve if their partner dies, if they have been in a relationship for one year only.
When you are looking at amendments here, look at what was done to the Indian estate regulations and see if you can do something comparable for living people — not just for the dead. There needs to be balance between the rights of a person in a common law relationship upon the death of a partner of one year, comparable to their right to division of matrimonial property after they have lived together in a relationship for one year. I say that because in British Columbia the person from a common law relationship off the reserve would not have any rights.
I would like to comment on the subject of legal aid. There are now fewer dollars going to legal aid. In any event funding from legal aid cannot be used for matrimonial property matters. It can use it if there is violence, it can be used in some custody cases if there is violence involved, but a person cannot go to the Legal Services Society and say that they want their half of the property. There is no eligibility for matrimonial property matters. If a person wants to do something they would need to look at that specifically.
Concerning the First Nations Land Management Act, you might want to talk to Barbara Findley about that legislation because we did sue the minister over that law as well. It is because of that lawsuit that matrimonial property is in that piece of legislation.
Senator Chalifoux: I would like your comments on what is happening with the First Nations Land Management Act. When it was passed, it appeared to be a good first step in defining the matrimonial property and also the division of matrimonial property. What is your comment on that whole bill?
Ms. Nahanee: As you know, when the bill started there was nothing in it about matrimonial property. Because of the BCNWS case, the minister made it a requirement that a band deal with it.
With respect to the environment, the minister required the First Nations — and there are only 14 of them — to meet a standard. They cannot have just any environmental law. As for matrimonial property, we said that they should set a standard that they must meet. Then, at least the division of property would fall under provincial law. If they are doing at least that much, then that is an improvement over the nothing that is in place right now.
Senator Chalifoux: Another one, too, is the Nisga'a agreement. When the Nisga'a agreement was signed, there was a lot of debate regarding matrimonial property and the inclusion of women and children. That act stated that from its passing to the present, provincial laws would supersede anything else in it. As a result, women now have the right to proceed under the Human Rights Act in B.C. to deal with the division of property and other issues. Do you know anything about that? If you do, what do you think about it?
Ms. Nahanee: No, I do not really know anything about that agreement.
Senator Chalifoux: They can use the human rights provisions.
Ms. Nahanee: That is a good thing. However, if the family relations legislation in British Columbia cannot be imposed upon them through the Nisga'a agreement, then they are in the same situation as the rest of us.
Senator Chalifoux: Would you respond to this committee regarding the Nisga'a agreement and the First Nations Land Management Act? Would you say that that is a beginning, or would you ask us to reconsider it, or to make recommendations?
Ms. Nahanee: We want you to make recommendations with respect to the First Nations Land Management Act since that legislation is in place. There are 14 bands involved. If there are another 50 that want to get involved, then perhaps the committee could oversee what is going on with respect to that legislation to ensure that the matrimonial property rights are at a standard similar to that of the provinces.
Senator Chalifoux: I would like to thank Elder Peters for appearing here today and for suggesting that a small prayer be said. In dealing with our children and our grandchildren, it is important that we consider the greater power of our Creator when we are debating and deliberating.
I wish to welcome our Alberta representative. You, young lady, are the future. We older people welcome you coming onboard and fighting for the rights. Thank you very much.
Senator LaPierre: Did you say that you have a golf course?
Ms. Lightning: Yes.
Senator LaPierre: Does it belong to you?
Ms. Lightning: It belongs to the corporation.
Senator LaPierre: Of which you are a shareholder.
Ms. Lightning: The chief and council are.
Senator LaPierre: Do you get much money from it?
Ms. Lightning: I get nothing.
Senator LaPierre: Why are they robbing you?
Ms. Lightning: That is my exact question.
Senator LaPierre: These thieves should be arrested.
Even if we make recommendations until doomsday, we will not be able to alter the Indian Act for quite some time because most bands — run by men, as far as women are concerned — will oppose it. They will use the mantle of custom, nationhood, and ``Canada is imposing its will again.'' All of these are the refuge of scoundrels. Nevertheless, it will continue.
Can we recommend that there be a preamble to the Indian Act that may declare the need to correct it? In the meantime, bands could be ordered, within the shortest possible period of time, to alter every custom or tradition in favour of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and of the full rights of women? That is my first point.
Second, I find it difficult to believe that if you own this land communally that this thing you call a certificate of possession should not grant an inalienable right to every person who belongs to that tribal family from the moment of their birth. Is that valid or am I dreaming in colour?
Ms. Lightning: I would say you are probably dreaming in colour.
Senator LaPierre: It is not the first time.
Ms. Lightning: I had never heard of a certificate of possession until Elizabeth Fleming started to draft her paper and gave it to me in draft form. I said, ``I have to learn more about a certificate of possession.'' I live in a band-owned house in which an employee was living prior. He was the greens keeper on the golf course. At the time I moved into the house, I was living in my car. I had nowhere to go. Someone said, ``The house is vacant. I know it is a band house. We will move you right in.'' That is how I gained access to the house. I had made my request in writing and in person to the chief going back to 1997. I did not get this house until I saw it was vacant and moved into it on my own.
Senator LaPierre: You took possession of your property. I love that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Jaffer: I want to thank all of you for being here. The challenge we have is, generally, we are hearing two opinions. One is to leave it to the bands. This morning we started with leaving it to the individual bands. They will decide on how it is done and be culturally sensitive. Obviously, we want to be culturally sensitive, but we need to do something as well.
Perhaps Elder Peters or Ms. Nahanee can explain something to me. How do we deal with this issue? Some presenters are saying, ``Be culturally sensitive and let the bands decide.'' Then we had the most powerful testimony from Ms. Lightning about the challenges she faces. It is tough. Whichever way we go we will be criticized. That is fine. Criticism is good. It is a challenge that we face. We want to be respectful, yet we want all women in Canada to be equal. That is our challenge.
Ms. Nahanee: I would give a caution. With respect to being culturally sensitive, you have to accept that we are living in your world. I refer not only to us as First Nations. Everybody who has immigrated to Canada is living in Canada subject to Canadian law. They benefit from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They benefit from the human rights laws of this country. They benefit from all the international covenants that Canada has signed with the United Nations. We want that same benefit.
We do not want you to disregard totally the culture of the First Nations.
Senator LaPierre: Yet we might have to.
Ms. Nahanee: You have to remember that we have been living subject to your laws from the beginning and that will not change tomorrow.
Senator LaPierre: The laws are not dictating this terrorism under which you are living.
Ms. Nahanee: We are living under that law, but we would like you to make it better.
Senator LaPierre: Would that alter significantly your tribal customs? I am sorry; we are told essentially that these take precedence on Canadian law. This is Canada and this is you. Therefore, our hands are tied. I do not see how it is possible for us to repair, only through the Indian Act, the great damage that is done to your human rights every day.
The Indian Act is only one element of abuse. There is another element that abuses your rights, which is, if I understand correctly, part of your native traditions, part of the male dominated, patriarchal society that has been exposed there. Therefore, how can I deal with this?
The Chairman: It was the men who told us to not butt too much into the Indian customs.
Senator LaPierre: There you are. Are you telling me that I must get both abusers out of your life?
Ms. Nahanee: No. When I talked to the president of the B.C. Native Women before I came here, she said that the Aboriginal tradition that they know is that the matrimonial home would go to the woman. The children and the home go to the woman. According to our custom, you could amend the law to give everything to the woman. However, if you want compromise, then we will split it in half with the men.
Senator LaPierre: I do not want to compromise. There are no compromises on human rights — neither religion, sovereignty, nor custom can interfere with a person's human rights.
The Chairman: On that note, colleagues, we will have to close this part of our hearings today. Thank you so much. I wish we had another two hours to go on. Unfortunately, we have another group who is waiting to appear.
Ms. Lightning: Could we close with a prayer since we did not begin with one?
Ms. Peters: I will do a very short one. I am newly retired as the Aboriginal Healing Foundation as an elder.
[Prayer]
The Chairman: We will now hear from Ms. Gina Dolphus of the Native Women's Association of the N.W.T. Ms. Dolphus, please proceed.
Ms. Gina Dolphus, President, Native Women's Association of the NWT: I am the President of the Native Women's Association of the Northwest Territories. I gave copies of my report to the Clerk of the Committee.
The Native Women's Association of the Northwest Territories represents Aboriginal women of the Eastern and Western Arctic. The six regions of the Northwest Territories include 33 communities with a total of 41,389 people. The eight official languages of the Northwest Territories are: Cree, Chipewyan, Inuvialuit, Dogrib, Slavey, Gwch'in, English and French. First Nations, Inuit and Metis make up 51 per cent the territorial population. I am from North Slavey in the Sahtu region. First Nation Inuit and Metis make up 51 per cent of territorial population.
Though we have only one reserve, Hay River, more than 90 per cent of the population outside of the capital city of Yellowknife is Aboriginal. Most of our communities incorporate traditional practices such as hunting, fishing, trapping, drumming and beading arts and crafts in our daily lives. Due to the large percentage of Aboriginal representation in the Northwest Territories, territory leadership and decision-makers include 17 MLAs in the territorial governments, 29 Dene chiefs and one MP.
In the mid-1970s, the Northwest Territories were posed for a change from the promise of pipelines, roads and government expansion. Communities were growing rapidly and local governments were becoming entrenched. At the time, it was clear to Aboriginal women throughout the Northwest Territories that social and cultural issues were not the concern of industry or governments. Prospects and the impacts of change encouraged Aboriginal women to organize and work collectively to have their voices heard. In 1976, Aboriginal women began to work toward an organization that would give them a collective voice on their concerns. Two years later, on March 15, 1978, the Native Women's Association of the NWT was registered as a territorial non-profit organization under the Society Act of the Northwest Territories.
Over the past 25 years, the lives of territorial Aboriginal women have changed. Some changes have been positive. Aboriginal women run our schools, teach our children, nurse our ill, lead and counsel our people, and serve our communities in many other ways. Other changes have not been positive in the Northwest Territories. Aboriginal women endured incredibly high rates of abuse, violence, poverty and poor health. Celebrating the positive and overcoming the negative changes and circumstance in the lives of Aboriginal women and their families continue to shape the work of the Native Women's Association of the Northwest Territories today.
This presentation is a brief summary of our position on the importance of addressing the current gap in legislative governance over the division of matrimonial real property on reserve and how resolution can influence leaders and decision-makers in the Northwest Territories with a positive outcome for Aboriginal women. In this paper, the historical and legislative contacts are based on the review of the discussion paper ``Matrimonial Real Property On Reserve'' and discussions and recommendations are drawn from the needs and realities of Aboriginal families in the Northwest Territories.
I will speak to historical and background legislation. When I ask a Slavey man of the Sahtu region about matrimonial real property and the dissolution of a marriage, he said, ``Do you know what happened traditionally?'' He told me that the woman would put her spouse's things outside of the teepee. In that way, the whole community knew that the relationship was over.
If we look at the origins of the Indian Act, it is evident that the assimilation of First Nations people was, at best, the goal. There is no consideration for traditional First Nations governance or practice. Land use and land entitlement took on the European settlers' practice of land ownership. Across Canada, people living off reserve were claiming land as their own and Canadian matrimonial real property legislation was born.
In 1876, Canadian women were not yet emancipated and, according to the Indian Act of the same year, an Indian man was not even a Canadian. While First Nations men were deemed second-class citizens, First Nations women and children were invisible. Given this context, it is no wonderer that the Indian Act does not address family issues such as matrimonial real property.
Knowing that the Indian Act neither recognizes First Nations law-making authority over matrimonial real property nor addresses law-making authority in respect to situations of family violence. A precedent has been set for subsequent decision-making by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal leaders.
Land management for Aboriginal people of the Northwest Territories is governed under the Indian Act, the First Nations Land Management Act and self-government agreements. Community legislation varies in each region and is based on treaty agreements and current First Nations-Crown agreements. Essentially, the First Nations Land Management Act and self-government agreements are by-products of the Indian Act.
Next, I will speak to the discussion and recommendations. The Northwest Territories Sixth Session, Fourteenth Legislative Assembly of the NWT is presently adopting Bill 21 in respect of the family violence protection act. This bill will establish a simple procedure for application to a designated justice for an emergency protection order to protect a person from family violence.
Within the bill, in regard to matrimonial property, it states under section 4(3) that:
An emergency protection order may contain any or all of the following provisions:
(b) a provision granting the applicant exclusive occupation of a residence;
(c) a provision directing a peace officer, immediately or within a specified period of time, to remove the respondent from the residence;
(d) a provision directing a peace officer, within a specified period of time, to accompany the applicant, respondent or other specified person to a residence or other location and to supervise the removal of the belongings;
(e) a provision granting the applicant or respondent temporary possession and exclusive use of specified personal property;
(f) a provision restraining the respondent from taking, converting, damaging or otherwise dealing with property in which the applicant has an interest.
This bill does not affect the property ownership. Under section 13, it states:
An emergency protection order or a protection order does not in any manner affect the title to or an ownership interest in any real or personal property jointly held by the applicant and respondent or solely held by one of them.
Family violence in the Northwest Territories is five times the national average. Heavy alcohol consumption is double the national average. Our communities face high rates of suicide, teen pregnancies and illiteracy, all of which have adverse consequences on the family and the stability of a matrimonial home. A legacy of colonization and legislative isolation has brought us a unique hybrid of traditional pride and Crown policy in the Northwest Territories. At this time, when our nations are negotiating First Nations land management and receiving self-government, the legacy of the Indian Act in the domestic arena needs to be addressed. For these reasons, the Native Women's Association of the Northwest Territories makes the following five recommendations:
(1) Recommendation on education: That Aboriginal women are educated on their rights and responsibilities when entering a matrimonial relationship, specifically entitlement to matrimonial real property such as a certificate of possession or other such deed.
(2) Recommendation on family violence: That the Family Violence Protection Act be recognized when dealing with family violence.
(3) Recommendation on matrimonial property rights under the Indian Act: That the Indian Act be amended in such a way that the rights of Aboriginal women living on reserve are protected, and equality is ensured in family issues such as matrimonial real property.
(4) Recommendation on matrimonial property rights under the First Nations Land Management Act: That the First Nations Land Management Act is amended in such a way that the band councils protect the matrimonial property rights of First Nations people to the same extent as provincial matrimonial property laws.
(5) Recommendation on matrimonial property rights under self-government agreements: That self- government agreements guarantee the gender equality that is stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically in regards to matrimonial property rights.
I hope and wish every one of you have listened to the words that I have said today in my presentation, not only for now but for the future. I would like to thank the Chair and the Senate. I am a Dene woman and treaty beneficiary. I have inherent rights of the native women of the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
The Chairman: We now have Ms. Pierre. Please proceed.
Ms. Marlene Pierre, Board Member, Ontario Native Women's Association: I have also held various positions with the Native Women's Association of Canada. I was president of that organization on several occasions. I have also resided as president of the Ontario Native Women's Association. I describe myself as a ``homegrown'' lady. I established, in my own community, the women's group there, and was responsible for the development of women's groups in my region, as well as establishing the first Aboriginal shelter in Ontario in Thunder Bay.
I have taken a lot of criticism and heat because of my honesty and clarity in describing the conditions of Aboriginal women and children and all the families, especially during a very controversial awakening that was launched by my association when we broke the report entitled ``Breaking Free,'' which was a report on family violence in Ontario.
The Ontario Native Women's Association was established in 1971 to represent Aboriginal women — Metis, First Nations and Inuit — in the Province of Ontario. We work to improve the livelihood and living conditions of women and their families, relating to the economic, social and political well-being for both on and off reserve. We have used that term ``on and off reserve'' since the beginning of our association, because status women had to leave reserves for a number of reasons, mostly economic and for their protection.
We have struggled as women leaders for over 30 years, searching for answers that would address our unique political relationship within our communities and also within the broader context of Canadian society. At the same time, we had to deal with the disarray and dysfunction of our families in the broader society. We were forced to be quiet while we lived in our own communities. We were forced to be quiet because if we were not, we would get beaten. There were many times when our children were also subjected to the abuse that was caused by alienable forces such residential schools. We learnt well from the dysfunction that that has caused.
Today, we still have to contend with what is now known as ''lateral dysfunctional violence'' toward us — not only by our own families and relatives and other community members. We also have to live with the discrimination and racism and the systemic violence.
I spoke earlier of the report called ``Breaking Free.'' It was an astounding moment when we broke that report to the public right across Canada. That report revealed that eight out of 10 — although many of us believe that to be much higher, that is, 10 out of 10 — women were faced with violent situations every day. Approximately four out of 10 children were also revealed to suffer that abuse. How can four out of 10 be a logical figure when your mother and your grandmother and your aunties — eight out of 10 of those women —were also being subjected to violence, so they had to be subjected to violence. Many women across the country agree with us that the violence was higher than eight out of 10. Every one of us was affected in some way by violence. Our women — our young women especially — were subjected to beatings, rapes and all kinds of physical violence.
We took our story to the Government of Ontario and, needless to say, they were astounded. Needless to say, they hung their heads in shame as we spoke in vivid terms about the conditions in our communities. Immediately, they drew together government officials from four ministries. Unfortunately for us, they also included the other seven political organizations in Ontario.
However, we were pleased that this government committed $49 million in the first year to address the violence in our families. Every year since 1992, millions of dollars have been sunk into our communities in Ontario to build healing lodges and to do all kinds of positive, constructive programming to relieve the violence in our families.
We are beginning discussions to see whether all this money that has gone into our communities has actually had any effect on the levels of violence. We believe that it has not. We believe that only 3 per cent of overall funds that have been established in Ontario for these programs has been set aside. The remainder has gone to friendship centres and status organizations, which are dominated by the males, the chiefs.
When we try to say, ``Hey, we got beaten up for this money. Where is our equitable share?'' We do not get it because we are only one vote out of eight people. We do not have a good relationship there. We will go political with that one.
All this money has not worked because there is a lack of legislation that addresses the problems that we are talking about today. Women are unsafe in their communities. I have been to remote communities over the past 30 years. I have talked to women who have unbelievable stories about how they have to live. They are scared. They cannot fight the system because everyone on in control of the band council business is somehow connected to the perpetrators. The people in control are the ones who do the harm.
I will have to defend what I am saying here today to the Senate committee for its bluntness. What I am saying is an extension of the reality of what is written.
In preparation for this presentation, I read many documents. We have addressed the matrimonial issue on and off reserve. We have continually raised the topic of equality every since I was a little person in this movement. I have read many documents. I have read the discussion paper entitled ``Matrimonial Real Property On Reserve'' by Cornet Consulting & Mediation and the Aboriginal Women's' Justice Consultation, final report 2001. I read the evidence provided in the record of your meeting of September 15, 2003, and the presentation of NWAC, our parent organization.
I gave good thought to the approach that I would take here because all of these documents were indeed eloquent. They spoke legalistically finally that which would take months for me to write. The people who have come before me, and those who will come after me, state in good ways what should be done, what can be done and how we see ourselves addressing this particular problem of on-reserve matrimonial situations.
The report the far most striking to me was the Chief Mavis Erickson's report, ``Where are the Women?'' I had a hard time getting the report. I think that the department is keeping tabs on who actually gets the report. It contains 144 recommendations in it. Every one of those recommendations addresses holistically and realistically every aspect of the factors that connect us with the lack of matrimonial protection. We hope that you will examine each one of those recommendations and support them, as we have.
As there will be a federal election soon, there will be representatives in the house. There may be a new minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is striking that the minister has had this report for a while. There has been no public address regarding how the department intends to deal with these recommendations. If we looked at these recommendations closely, we would find that there are things that could be done immediately. There are things that may take longer, especially those situations that require legislative change.
We want you to ensure that that report not be shelved. I have been to many meetings where we gave our best shot. We do not have too many shots as Aboriginal women to make our case to committees such as this. When we make the pitch, we want to ensure that what we said has been heard and that it will be acted upon.
We are hoping that the department will make an honest effort to do something with the recommendations contained in that report and that the integrity of that report will be upheld. It was commissioned by DIAND at great expense. They are obligated to the Canadian public to address those recommendations.
It is necessary for Canada to demonstrate that they are sincere in their effort to maintain their official standing in the international community as being the number one country. I reminded our MP on the plane during our way here that Canada has lost its number one standing because of its treatment of Aboriginal people. Of course, there was no response to that.
I have to state that Aboriginal women are the least of the least when it comes to Aboriginal communities and the state of our livelihood. We often stop to take a look at where we are as Aboriginal women. Fifteen years ago, 50 per cent of Aboriginal women were single parents. I had to ask myself why that is. Why are we raising our children by ourselves when there are partners who have an obligation to look after their children and they are not there?
Many years ago, our yearly income was something like $8,000 per year; 68 per cent of us were on some form of social assistance. That is incredible. That is unacceptable.
We went back and took another look at where native women were at, only to find, again, only a very slight improvement of 1 per cent. Now, instead of a family of five, we have a family of four that we are trying to feed, ten years later, on $12,000 per year. That is unacceptable.
What would be the word to describe those people who are at the top? Whoever they are, they live very high, and yet, there is so much poverty in Indian women's families. That should not be.
After you complete your task, I will be asked what will happen with this report. We want certainty. We want involvement in the development of any legislation that comes from your work. We want a process established to do that. We have seen what happened with Bill C-31 when it was passed by the legislature. Many of us believe that it is the White Paper of 1969 in action again. Many of us believe that, considering the way the legislation was established, there will be no more Indians — especially as we know ourselves today. We feel that the First Nations Land Management Act is another one of those kinds of documents. We are very frightened of these documents and the legislation, because we do not know the future impact. Many of us feel they will desecrate our nationhood.
When your task is finished, I assume that further steps will be taken. We would like to see a nice package of good words indicating, ``The native women must have this and must have that.'' We think that there has to be some coordination in making sure that the women are involved, as well as the relevant ministries, such as the Minister of Justice.
Many of us have already thought about what we would want to protect us. Sometimes we should not accept immediacy, but this has gone on much too long. We feel we might look at the provincial laws and use those as a tool or guide to be used in the development of any legislation that would protect Aboriginal women on the reserve.
In 1980, I was fortunate to be involved in the Canadian constitutional discussions. At one major conference, Aboriginal women in Ontario said that, as Aboriginal women, we should fight to have a third order of government, and that we should fight for an Aboriginal Charter of Rights. We raised this at the constitutional discussions. That statement did not get the attention that it deserved. However, we were successful in lobbying the provincial governments and the Aboriginal organizations to get the equality clause in the Canadian constitution. That was not difficult. It was a motherhood issue; everybody knew that we needed it. That was not a fight. That was a very good exercise. Everybody agreed on the equality clause.
We also realize that a first ministers' conference would have to make the Aboriginal charter a priority, as well as the national Aboriginal leaders. We see that the Aboriginal charter is the next logical step to raise the bar in protection of rights for our families, no matter where we live, as First Nations, Metis or Inuit.
There must be great care in the development of legislation. One issue that was raised is the inheritance aspect of land: That land must be passed to band members, not to non-band members, especially where land has been leased to non-band members who are not Indians. This has been a predominant pattern in the United States, where I have seen through visits that the reservation ends up being some kind of patchwork, with a lot of non-native leased land here and Indian land there. I said, ``Why does that house look so nice?'' I was told, ``That is because non-native people are living in there.'' It is brick. Right next to this house, there is what we call an ``Indian house.'' It is not brick; it is broken down. I asked why they live so close together. They explained about the leased land. This also exists in Kettle Point in Canada, where the beachfront has been leased to non-natives, who keep on passing it down through a leasing agreement with the band.
There are other complications there, but the whole idea is that Indian land is Indian land. It must stay in the families and not be passed over to other forces.
As Aboriginal women in Ontario, we have made our views known to this committee of the Senate. On behalf of future generations, I thank you for your effort to protect our rights as women, and for the children now and to come.
As a final note, we would like to have responses to some of the questions posed in our presentation.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Pierre.
Senator Beaudoin: I have a question for Ms. Dolphus.
Your fourth recommendation suggests, ``That the First Nations Land Management Act is amended in such a way that Band Councils protect the matrimonial property rights of First Nations people to the same extent as provincial matrimonial property laws.'' That is a very good point. We have provincial systems, but it will apply to everybody in that province. That is to a great extent what we have now.
It is true that we have the Civil Code in Quebec, but the other provinces have common law. The statutory laws may also vary a little bit from one province to another. However, there is nothing wrong with that. At least, we will have a system that does not vary from one reserve to the other. I agree entirely.
Ms. Pierre, I think you are quite right when you suggest that we do not forget the children. We have studied the question of the rights of children in the legal committee with Senator Pearson. The rights of children are of great importance, and they were missing in our legal system. I suggest that we go further than that start our legislation to implement the rights of the children in the provinces where it is applicable. We have not done so and that is a terrible mistake.
Some months ago, we adopted the Kyoto accord, but to my knowledge, we have only ratified it; to date, there has been no implementation of those rights. If we do that for the children, and if we do that for the Aboriginals, we should also legislate in order to implement the rights of the Aboriginals in our country and to implement the rights of the children in Canada. That is a very good idea.
Ms. Pierre: I agree that we need to develop legislation for women and the protection of children. I would also like to be cautious on what we implement because we have to recognize the sovereignty of our people, our nations, and we have to ensure that we are not throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. We have to be careful in ensuring that that women and their children get the protection that they need, while making sure that we respect all the aspects of section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.
I am trying to envision what would happen if the federal government were to set up a process. I would like to see, for instance, in Ontario and other provinces, that we come together with the relevant provincial government agencies — including the attorney general, justice people, the native affairs secretariat and the relevant women's groups — and have the input of the status organization representatives. However, this time I want it to be our story that is addressed and that it is our legislation — not something that is thrown together or something that acquiesces to the chiefs or to the federal or the provincial governments. The women want to be in control of what will govern these kinds of situations of matrimonial breakdown and so forth.
Senator Beaudoin: It will come for the women one day or another because, as I said, section 28 of the Charter is so well done and so perfect. There is nothing so perfect in any other constitution, because they say ``notwithstanding anything in this act,'' that is the Charter, ``the laws apply equally to men and women.'' It cannot be better than that and it will apply one day everywhere.
With regard to children, I am not entirely satisfied with what we have done with Bill C-7. As Senator Joyal suggested some time ago, and there is a case in the Court of Appeal of Quebec on this: One section of Bill C-7 was declared unconstitutional. While we have done a pretty good job with Bill C-7, it is not perfect. The rights of children should be implemented.
The rights of women will come, because it is embedded in the heart of the Constitution, but it is not perfect on the rights of children.
Senator LaPierre: You have depressed me all day. I cannot really believe that these things are happening in my country. I find it heart-rending that such injustices occur in this beautiful, magnificent, glorious country.
I applauded the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because I believe in it Charter. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is magnificent. However, there must be a preamble to the Indian Act that embodies those rights — including the rights of the native people as people — the rights of native women and the rights of native children, and all the necessary instruments to realize these rights.
I consider these rights to be inalienable. These rights are both collective and individual. Consequently, you carry them with you wherever you go. Therefore, I would like that to be — and I certainly intend to recommend that to my colleagues when the time comes.
We can do all of this. We can get more magnificent ministers of Indian Affairs — which I believe is a horrible name to use, anyhow — and we can have the best laws possible and the best guarantees possible. However, I would like you both, Ms. Dolphus and Ms. Pierre, to indulge me: It seems it is also a question of mentality — the mentality that exists among the males of your society, and about the interpretations of the customs of your society.
I do not make a ``procès verbal'' about yours. I am a French Canadian and I was born a Roman Catholic, and I consider that there was there abuse of astonishing dimension — my mother, my aunts and children and so forth in the society in which I grew up. Things have changed considerably since then. Consequently, I do not pass judgment but there is a need for a change of mentality.
How do how do you, Ms. Pierre and Ms. Dolphus, change the mentality that you have demonstrated exists among the male population of your lands?
Ms. Pierre: That is a very difficult question to answer. A person can change one only person's mind, and that is his or own. Quite often, we only change our minds when we are faced with critical or astounding kinds of situations. Thus far, we have not enjoyed any change in the mentality of our male counterparts to any degree that I can be happy about. I have been around here for 30 years, and I have met some fairly decent leaders who are willing to go that extra mile, but they are few and far between.
We need a lot of change. I am sure my mother and my grandparents said the same thing. Perhaps it will take another 30 years before we see change. I may not even be around by the time we see any really significant change due to legislation that will be forthcoming from here. I do not know how to answer your question. That is my best effort.
Ms. Dolphus: In the Northwest Territories, we are still very strongly entrenched in traditional culture. The men are over here and the women are over here. Things are changing. I have to be honest, it is changing a little bit. We are involved with them and we want to make decisions. We are still not happy with many of the policies and the legislation at the territorial level. However, we want to work with them because there are changes. Many women are coming out in leadership roles. They are trying to work with the band council, the chief in council, the Metis organization and the municipal governments. Things are changing, but very slowly. It will take time.
We need to work together because we are different. Every community is different. We need to share the solution of working within our communities. We need to share that so we can help one another and have a better place to live in for our children and the generations to come.
We have eight languages in the Northwest Territories. I am North Slavey. We have to work with all those languages. We always have a lack of funding.
I am really happy you invited the Northwest Territories to make a presentation. We rarely come to these committees. Perhaps some organizations do, I am not sure. This is my second time in a different committee. I am glad to be here.
I would like to invite the Senate committee to come to the Northwest Territories. Many times, the leadership makes solutions or laws on behalf of us but they have never seen us. They have never heard of us. You have to see where I live, what I eat, what I do, how I make bannock and how I dry fish and meat. You have to see our community. You have to help us. We have to work together.
Senator Chalifoux: Senator Sibbeston had many of us up there. I was not able to go because of health reasons. However, I do many relations up there. They were up there this summer.
Senator Jaffer: I want to thank both of you for being here. Ms. Pierre, thank you for sharing your concerns and your challenges.
I have a question of Ms. Dolphus concerning your second recommendation, that ``family violence protection act be recognized when dealing with family violence.'' Are talking about national recognition? It is already recognized in the Northwest Territories?
Ms. Dolphus: Yes, they are working on it. It is good to share it with the federal government.
Senator Jaffer: Are you saying that it should be national?
Ms. Dolphus: Yes, please.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: Like my colleague Senator LaPierre, I am very saddened by this situation. It seems like a scenario enacted on a stage that does not belong to Canada. It is appalling. I am at a loss for words.
I hope that you will attain your goals in the future. It will take much perseverance. You must not slow down even if you are making gains. You must carry on with the strong intention to reach your goals. I am profoundly shaken.
I would like to acquaint myself with the 144 recommendations contained in the Erickson report. Is this report available? I think that the 144 recommendations cover all of your concerns.
[English]
Senator Joyal: It is a pleasure to see you today. I remember very well our discussion around a charter of rights for Aboriginal people some 20 years ago. I remember very well that proposal. The main argument at the time was that human rights are human rights and, wherever you happen to be in terms of your origin, human dignity is the same and equality is the same.
Equality of race is the same, whatever the race. Equality of the sexes is the same, whoever you happen to be in terms of origin. At that time, it was left open because the issue of self-government was nebulous in many people's minds. Today, we talk about it. However, 20 years ago, it was not even an abstract concept. It was an unknown concept.
Today, after 20 years of negotiation and painful representation, we have come to some settlement that recognizes the paramountcy of human rights. In that regard, Senator Chalifoux referred to the Nisga'a treaty. I share with you and my colleagues the conviction that there can be no self-government without first recognizing human rights. In terms of Aboriginal women, that is a very compelling obligation — even more so, probably, than in non-Aboriginal Canadian society.
You have given us all the background that I do not need to repeat. We must ensure that when we draft legislation, the principles must be sound. If we establish the principles on a sound basis, the institution can always function properly when there is proper protection afforded. I do share your despair that after 20 years it seems that no one has paid sufficient attention to section 35(4), which reaffirms the quality of benefits for Aboriginal women, Aboriginal and treaty rights. However, I also celebrate because for 20 years the Metis people had to fight for themselves against their own government, which is supposed to protect them, and we have recently seen the light at the end of the tunnel.
I read in the paper today that Mr. Powley, the spearhead of the case, said, ``Now I have achieved something. There are other generations coming who will take it from there and continue.'' Sometimes these things take time.
I am a male and I speak from a so-called ``dominant'' position. In the Senate, women were recognized as being entitled, as women, to sit in the Senate in 1929. That is almost 75 years ago. It has only been in the last 10 years that, finally, a prime minister realized that, in Parliament today, there must be a fair balance of gender. We have been moving forward. I do not think we have moved far enough; we should have a truly balanced chamber.
However, where the principles are sound, you continue to make presentations. When you are a minority, you must rely on the sense of fairness of the majority, plus the right protection in the institution. If you do not have that, you will always be trying to catch up and you will remain at the whim of the majority.
If we are to find the correct solution, it will be to reaffirm the fundamental principles. At least we can believe in the institution being right and effective, having, within the institutional process, the power to be effective and to allow redress. You will be able to believe that there is a future for Aboriginal women in dignity and respect of the cultural and Aboriginal identity. In the meantime, you will not have to leave Aboriginal reserves and be blended into general Canadian society to affirm your status as a Canadian Indian woman who is raising and educating her children and contributing to the life of the reserve.
This is the fundamental reflection we must have as we listening to you. At some points, we might be tempted to despair, however, as I said to Senator Chalifoux, after 20 years we have been able to break through.
The Canadian dream is still valid. That dream is, essentially, to keep human beings in Canada on the same level of human dignity. Each life in Canada is worth everything. We fight for this. We believe in this. This is entrenched in the Charter.
Therefore, instead of saying falling to despair and thinking you have done enough and walk away, you might be on the verge of seeing the end. It might be the last drop we need to fill the machine and trigger the wheel to roll.
My colleagues around the table, if I may express their views, are very concerned to do justice. When we seek justice, we must ensure that what we put in place will outlast us. That is the challenge of what we do.
The principles that were stated today by you and your colleagues from other provinces could establish a permanent solution to what you claim is your share of dignity that you expect from a country as good as Canada, as you said in your opening remarks.
You should remain vigilant. We have heard you. We should continue to give honest testimony to your effort to ensure that we can amend the legislation in the proper time. Although governments change, the good thing about the Senate is that the Senate lasts.
You were here 20 years ago and I am still here. My colleagues Senator Jaffer and Senator Ferretti Barth and all of us around the table have lasted to this point. Perhaps our challenge is to keep the pressure on the system, to ensure that what we put forward as recommendations will be effectively acted upon.
You should leave this room today with this message. I hope that you will continue to maintain the hope that this country will serve you well, as much as any other Canadian.
Ms. Dolphus: Thank you. You give me hope.
The Chairman: I wish to thank our witnesses today for their testimony.
Ms. Peters: I should like to thank all the senators here, especially Senator Chalifoux. She saved me because I was lost and I did not know where to go. It was my first time here. I also appreciate the young man here with his comments about children.
The Chairman: He is special.
Ms. Peters: Those comments are important because children are tomorrow's future. If they are raised and guided in a good way physically, spiritually mentally, a lot of healing is happening in the world today and in Canada. We have a good future. I work in the healing world. There are nine people here: six women and three men. It is a real honour for me to be here, Madam chair. Thank you very much.
I am sitting up here because as an elder, I always stand with the person when something is going on. My friend here was alone and so was my other friend there. It is important to support them. Thank you very much.
Ms. Dolphus: I would like to think everyone here and also I forgot to mention that my colleagues who were here at 11:30 and 1:30, I support them too. We all work together. Thank you.
The committee adjourned.