:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We do indeed have a lot on our plate. If I understood correctly, we have three themes to explore. The first is the economic security of older women, which ties in with the whole question of unpaid work that I've already raised in this forum. This will allow us to look at employment insurance. As I indicated to you, there are 238,000 women in Canada who do not receive employment insurance, but who pay EI premiums.
We'll also have an opportunity to examine the budget of Status of Women Canada. Three or four years ago, this Office did some analyses of employment insurance, although its findings where not released at the time.
Violence against women is a critically important topic. However, by studying the economic security of older women, we would also be touching on this theme indirectly. I remind you that when an older women has no income security, she is the victim of a certain form of violence. I propose that the committee, for all of the reasons I mentioned, examine the economic security of older women and in so doing, it can broach subjects such as women and the justice system, access to legal aid, women and employment insurance and women and health care. We could touch on all of these themes.
In conclusion, Madam Chair, I want to say that for the past several years, in conjunction with my duties in the House of Commons, I have been working with women's groups in Canada and in Quebec. When we reconvene for the fall session, I think we could quickly address a number of irritants. I think that would make women's groups very happy.
That concludes my remarks.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the staff for the work plan. It's wonderful, and I agree that the economic security of senior women is very important and we should look at it carefully.
My concern is that we have a rather extensive plan here, and in view of the shortage of time, there's absolutely no way we can waste any time. It is always a concern when we lose time. So in that regard, I think it's very important that we look at violence against women. But I'd like to point out to the committee that there's already been a great deal of work done on human trafficking.
In fact, I have here a bill that was proclaimed in November 2005. On the Department of Justice website, a great deal of information is currently available. There's a pamphlet warning women, in 16 languages, about the perils of trusting people to bring them into the country--trafficking in persons, questions and answers. All kinds of information and work has already been done.
I must commend the Conservative caucus. If we look back at the Hansard from last week, Ms. Smith said that trafficking is a deplorable crime that the government is addressing, and a crime that won't be tolerated.
So if it has already been addressed and is currently being addressed, perhaps we can delete that section and move on to things that are perhaps more pertinent. We have very limited time, and I think it's incumbent upon us to strike new ground and move ahead. There are so many things we haven't done, and I would like to go forward rather than simply staying in place.
:
I would like to speak on the human trafficking issue. It's an issue I've been working on for the better part of 10 years, and I want to take a moment to explain that it has not been explored. What is happening right now is the former government passed a very useful bill on human trafficking, and it's very helpful. A few weeks ago in Solberg's shop he did the same.
I've been working with police officers. I've been working on three continents...Ukraine, Israel, and North America. I just met with the RCMP last week. They finally have a new video out. They're training their police officers on this, because it's a growing crime. What is happening is it's spreading in an insidious way. There were 800 women trafficked last year to Canada and over 2,200 trafficked through Canada to the U.S. It's a very serious issue. It is growing, and it's all about organized crime and drugs.
I think it's very important that we as a status of women committee examine human trafficking and take it seriously, because our daughters and the young boys are being affected today in our schoolyards.
There are aboriginal women. I just talked to one two days ago.
I had a big forum in Winnipeg two weeks ago on a Saturday. It was packed. The ambassador from Ukraine was there. I've been working with her. Ambassador Miller's chief of state for human trafficking was there. They're all saying the same thing. They're saying this is a crime. They're saying we have to put resources in and we have to examine...and I think the status of women committee is a perfect place for us as women to stand up and say we will not tolerate this horrendous crime.
I think, of course, we have to look at EI and aspects like that as well. So we do have limited time, I can understand that. I think it would be prudent of us to divide that time between maybe something like EI or some very important aspects of financial concerns, especially for senior women and immigrants. I think we do have to take, in this day and age, some concentrated time and bring witnesses in. I have the witnesses. I have listed them. They can come and educate us.
Each one of us as women parliamentarians needs to take a stand on this. We need to work on it and we have to stop it, ladies and gentlemen, because this is a crime that is growing.
My son was in the ICE unit, the Integrated Child Exploitation Unit. I didn't know about this until he got into it--well, I knew about it before, but not to the extent I know now. I have to tell you that this is on our streets, and I think it behooves us to listen to the witnesses, to listen to the people who can come and tell us what's going on, because every child is in jeopardy in our country--if they go to school, if they're on the streets. It's not just some child who is on the streets on his own. You would be surprised if you heard these witnesses.
So I'm going to appeal to you to please support the study of human trafficking. It's important for all of us. It is not a party thing. It's important for all of us as women.
Let me talk first to the issue of trafficking. I put that in, when we talked about violence against women, as a key topic, so I believe we need to address it. However, I do know the research and the work that was done when the previous bill was put through the House. And in my recent discussions with Mr. Cotler, the former Minister of Justice who put forward the bill, he suggested to me he would make some amendments to the bill to strengthen certain sections.
So I think that's an area we could probably deal with. I'm not quite sure that it needs a huge amount of hearings, because a lot of the work has been done and the research is there. What we need to do is look at where we need to strengthen or add to what we did last time. We have September to November, basically, because then Christmas gets in the way and then you're finished. So we have three months, because we don't come back until September 18.
So my suggestion would be that we could carry two topics, as we did this session. We did do that, and we just got started on others. So we could deal with the issue of trafficking by first informing ourselves over the summer and getting information on the previous bill, on what it actually does, and then information from the ministry as to.... And I can ask our colleague, Mr. Cotler, what he meant when he suggested that he would make some improvements. Then we would be ready with information, and trafficking might be something we can address without having to take the whole of the fall on it. I don't think it requires that, given the fact that a great deal of work has already been done, as has already been mentioned. It may mean adjusting or adding certain aspects to close loopholes and to ensure that the police or others have certain powers they need to actually do their job.
The other key issue that I think we would deal with is, obviously, income security for women.
My question to you, Madam Chair, would be, do we want to address income security for existing seniors only, or do we want the committee to discuss income security for women in general, and then identify seniors' needs within that, as we go along? There are now women who are working and looking after family and/or others, including seniors. They are themselves going to be seniors very soon, so there's an issue there.
We've dealt with pay equity, for instance, if we're looking at income security. I'm looking here at some of the issues you want to focus on, but we've dealt with pay equity. Well, we've re-tabled it, and the issue has been studied, so I don't know that we need to go back to that as an issue, except to put it down as one of the major issues that need to be addressed in order to address income security.
Housing affects women's security. Unemployment insurance benefits also affect income security for women, because a lot of women don't qualify under the current legislation, so that's a major problem we need to look at. And there is the child care issue, and we need to see how effective we are in that area. Then, of course, the other is pay equity, which is a huge one. Unpaid work would be the other one. And there's pension-splitting.
So I think we would start focusing in on income security in terms of the different pieces that impact women's income security and income levels, and take them apart and make a list of them to see how we could get at them. That's what I would suggest, because I think in the three months we should identify three or four major areas that affect women's incomes the most, in terms of their security and their ability to both have a decent income while they're raising their families and then a decent income—at least comparable to that of men—when they are retired. You have to look at income security throughout their lives, not just in one snapshot.
We may want to give a bit of time to focus on current seniors, because they have no choice, as they're poor already; they're there now. They may require some more quick or immediate changes, or adjustments, to ensure they don't spend the last few years of their lives in dire poverty, as some of them are now.
So that's what I would say.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, I totally agree with Ms. Smith and Mis Minna that the committee must examine the problem of human trafficking. This problem has already been studied extensively. A bill was introduced and eventually, the provisions could be strengthened. I think we need to invite some people here to discuss this growing phenomenon with us, because the problem shows no signs of going away.
We mustn't delude ourselves into thinking that the problem is only prevalent in certain countries. Contrary to what some may believe, groups such as street gangs, biker gangs and the Italian mafia are engaged in human trafficking on a large scale right here in Canada. It's a major problem that we must not ignore.
In my humble opinion, we need to take a two-pronged approach. I don't mean that we should address the problem in two days, but in two stages. The first step would be for committee members to agree on a global vision. Where does Canada stand on this question? What's happening here in Canada compared to other world countries? Subsequently, we could move on to more specific points.
Is human trafficking growing in countries that have decriminalized prostitution? What connection is there, if any, between the decriminalization of prostitution, the legalization of prostitution and human trafficking? Personally, I haven't seen any data on this, unless you have some information you can share with me. I'm not talking about research that may have been done, but about studies Parliament may have done.
What possible link might there be between human trafficking and other forms of criminal activity, be it drug trafficking or terrorism, since all of these activities are connected? I think it's important to have a good grasp of the issue if we plan to strengthen the legislation or formulate other solutions. In my opinion, our first priority should be to focus on human trafficking.
As Ms. Minna was saying, the committee should also turn its overall attention to the economic situation of women. For one day, we could focus on the plight of older women. In fact, during this session, we set aside two days to examine issues pertaining to older women. Eventually, we could hear again from certain individuals about the economic situation older women face.
Social housing is another very important topic, as is employment insurance and day care. These are three very interesting themes, in addition to the status of older women.
In terms of our timetable and schedule, I do hope that the committee will not set aside four meetings to explore human trafficking, and spend a total of nine weeks on the economic situation of women. At the very least, I hope we can hear from a range of witnesses with different viewpoints and insights. I find the list submitted to be quite interesting because its covers the spectrum. It's important, in my view, that we hear from a cross-section of the population.
Getting back to the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws which is going to sit in September, I think it's very important for us to explore the whole question of human trafficking within the context of solicitation. We would need to set aside at least one day to examine possible links between the increase in human trafficking and the decriminalization, or legalization, of prostitution. I didn't see any mention of this in the material handed to me. I feel that we need to devote an entire day to exploring this important theme. We could study human trafficking from September until the end of October, and then turn our attention for a period of four or five weeks in November and December to the economic situation of women.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll begin by apologizing for being late. I got caught in a telephone conversation, so I don't know what's been said.
We have a huge agenda to undertake, and my concern is that we do something real that makes a difference in the lives of Canadian women.
I was hearkening back, and I realized that many members who are here today were not part of the consultation process that went on last year, when we met with approximately 60 different women's groups across the country to try to prioritize what the issues were for women in Canada.
I don't know whether we received them...I haven't reread it, so I don't know, but I think it's important to go back to that. My own preference would be to try to focus on the whole issue of economic security. I think that encompasses so much for Canadian women and makes a difference to so many aspects.
We talk about the issue of trafficking. I listened to Ms. Mourani fairly carefully and she linked it back to the subcommittee that is looking at solicitation.
There is legislation in place, and I'm trying to think how one might deal with it. I looked at the list of witnesses put forward by members of the committee to deal with the issue of human trafficking, and it strikes me that while it's not unimportant that it's missing a whole component...if we're going on a global basis, we have nothing from Southeast Asia, Cambodia, the Philippines, and Thailand, where we know of the prevalence and brutality of human trafficking.
We have nothing here in terms of aboriginal young people. Today's headline in the Globe and Mail--and I haven't read the story--deals with the highway of tears in British Columbia. It has pictures of nine women who were brutally murdered.
I know in my own city I have met with a number of individuals, and I know the gang activity...well, it's really solicitation and prostitution that potentially moves into some aspect of trafficking, but it's growing, and it's growing in impact in the inner city of Winnipeg.
I would like to either do something small and concrete, that we look at the existing legislation and make some suggestions on how to improve the existing legislation, or we do a much broader consultation that includes the various other parties to trafficking, both at home and abroad.
It's part of the trafficking and prostitution issue, but we heard a great deal about the issues of violence against women, aboriginal women and all women, when we heard from the women's groups.
I would be very happy if we could come up with some concrete recommendations to the government, either in terms of service or potential review, although it's been studied to death and the studies are out there. That would certainly be a priority for me, to look at the whole matter of domestic violence and perhaps look at some of the links into trafficking.
I think the trafficking proposal that's here right now is broad but not broad enough. My suggestion would be to either narrow it much more or broaden it substantially.
I don't know whether that's coherent or not, but those are my thoughts.
:
I don't wish to cast aspersions on anyone, but I would like to call to mind the mandate of our committee. If I'm not mistaken, fundamentally, our mission is to speak to the government for Canadian women. When representatives of CARAL and FAFIA came to see us five years ago, -- at least, they came to see me, as well as Judy Wasylycia-Leis from the NDP and some Conservative Party MPs as well -- they called for a status of women committee. These women were experiencing first hand a number of problems that they wanted brought to the government's attention.
While human trafficking is a problem that affects women, there are also other problems that typically affect Canadian and Quebec women and these cannot be ignored.
If we remember our mandate and what women's groups want, and if, as Ms. Neville was saying, we really want to do something tangible, we must use last year's consultations and the priorities identified by women's groups as a starting point. It's important for us to have that information at hand. That shouldn't be too difficult.
I see a representative of FAFIA in the room. I asked her which topic she'd opt to examine. Obviously, the economic security of older women would be a very interesting choice, because it ties in with all kinds of issues related to the status of women.
I remind you that last year's Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws couldn't come to an agreement. Moreover, the public perception of this committee was very negative because women's groups argued that certain problems affected all Canadian women. There was also the whole question of financial considerations associated with the committee.
What is it that we want as federal MPs representing Canadian women? There's no denying that solicitation is a serious problem, but perhaps we could hold off and focus our attention on the problems affecting all Canadian and Quebec women.
Furthermore, the new government has never made its position known on matters such as the economic security of older women. Hearings would give us the opportunity to ask our new government to state its position on the status of women and share its plans with us.
As we know, the Vice-Chair of this committee is a staunch feminist. Does she stand alone in advocating for women's issues? Women's groups are demanding protection and demanding to have their voice heard on issues of concern to them.
I'll say no more. It's up to you to decide, but you'll have to live with the consequences.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Chair, colleagues, and fellow parliamentarians.
Let me just begin by saying that the steps we announced this week in respect of moving forward on matrimonial property are steps that I regard as extremely important. This is an initiative that I regard as very important. In the time that I've been in Parliament, prior to the time, even, that we were in government, I have been moved by the people I've met concerning this issue, many who would describe themselves as the poorest of the poor in our society and who I think deserve our attention as parliamentarians in dealing with this issue.
It's an issue that cuts across party lines. I've had discussions with all of the critics from each party in the House of Commons, and I think there's a high degree of consensus surrounding this issue and a great deal of goodwill. I certainly hope that carries through in the process. I'm pretty confident in saying that every single person who's at this table today probably shares my desire to see us move forward on this issue, move forward expeditiously, do it in a way that we'll have broad support in the country and that the rights of aboriginal women will be brought in line with other Canadian women. I just make those comments as I begin.
I would like to thank the standing committee formally for the opportunity to be here, and to highlight how we're going to go forward and what we're doing to help resolve this issue of matrimonial real property as it affects aboriginal women and children and families on reserve.
[Translation]
The government is deeply concerned about all forms of discrimination and violence against Aboriginal women. We are committed to providing support where it is needed and we are determined to resolve, once and for all, the longstanding issue of matrimonial real property on reserves.
For me, personally, this is an extremely important issue. During my years in politics I have spent a great deal of time talking to the members of the Native Women's Association and their voices have moved me. I want to ensure that Aboriginal women are protected and that there are matrimonial property rights for Aboriginal women living on reserves.
[English]
Evidence shows that the issue of matrimonial real property affects a disproportionate number of first nations women and children, especially those experiencing family violence. When a marriage or a common law relationship breaks down, many women who live on reserve do not hold a certificate of possession, or do not have ownership, by custom, of the family home, and they are forced to leave. When there's no alternative to on-reserve housing, these women and children are forced to leave their communities.
Again, I think all of us around the table are fully aware of how many women are living in urban Canada very often in circumstances of poverty. They have essentially been driven there by the circumstances of a lack of protection for their matrimonial home. Matrimonial real property on reserves is therefore obviously a pressing equality issue, and it's a human rights issue that we are all committed to resolving. Human rights have to be protected, regardless of where people live in Canada.
The Indian Act does not include provisions for the division of matrimonial real property in the event of a marital breakdown, and provincial law is also limited on reserve with regard to these issues. I think everyone is aware that this extends back, as I recall, to 1986 and the Derrickson case, a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that essentially said that provincial matrimonial property laws do not apply on reserve.
Moreover, self-government agreements do provide an opportunity to address the legislative gap, but of course we do not have self-government agreements in place in most first nations. There are 617 first nations across Canada. At this point, there are, as I recall, only 17 that have self-government agreements in place.
So obviously that is not a fulsome protection of matrimonial property rights. There are essentially close to 600 first nations with no protection.
Self-government agreements will specify that first nations will develop rules and procedures to address matrimonial real property. Westbank is a good example of that, specifically with respect to the use, occupation, and possession of reserve land and the division of interests in the case of marital breakdown.
[Translation]
And while the Indian Act currently is silent with respect to the division of the matrimonial home upon marriage breakdown, the First Nations Land Management Initiative enables participating First Nations to enact laws with respect to matrimonial real property. But more needs to be done.
[English]
As committee members are aware, on June 20 I announced a series of measures that we will be proceeding with to help improve the lives of aboriginal women, and particularly aboriginal women and children, by ensuring that their fundamental rights are respected. These are measures that will tackle some of the devastating obstacles, including the issue of matrimonial real property, that for far too long have hampered the lives of aboriginal women and their children and the health of their communities.
Our first measure directly addresses the issue of matrimonial real property and its potential negative impacts on women, children, and families. Under this measure, consultations on this issue involving Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations, and other organizations will begin this fall. The objectives will be to bring forward options, including specific legislative options that can be introduced into the House of Commons.
I'm very pleased to confirm that Ms. Wendy Grant-John has agreed to assist in the consultation process as my ministerial representative. She will be essentially responsible for the consultation process as my personal designate, responsible to shepherd the consultations along, responsible to bring back to me as the minister a legislative solution that I can bring to you as parliamentarians to decide upon in the House of Commons.
Ms. Grant-John will work with the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations in developing first a plan of consultation that will help facilitate the process to ensure that all interested parties are heard. She will then present specific recommendations for action, including legislative solutions.
[Translation]
Ms. Grant-John is very knowledgeable about this issue and is well-known and respected by Aboriginal organizations and communities. A former Chief of the Musqueam First Nation, she is a National Aboriginal Achievement Award recipient who has devoted her 30-year career to strengthening First Nations communities, cultures and economies.
As you know, the Government of Canada has already done a lot of work examining the issue, including research reports by my department and information sessions across the country with First Nations communities and Aboriginal organizations.
[English]
In addition to the work of your committee, the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights held hearings on matrimonial real property and provided us with the valuable and insightful report that has really been of great assistance to my department and to all of us as parliamentarians. I think we're all also aware of the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in the last Parliament that increased our store of knowledge and clarified perspectives on this issue.
I think it's worth pointing out that the approach we are following is essentially the approach that was recommended in the last Parliament by the standing committee, in terms of proceeding with consultations.The result is that consultations will therefore build on a solid foundation of research, hearings, and reports, but, most importantly, we know the time has arrived for concrete action and for real change.
As the title of the standing Senate committee report encapsulates it, “Walking Arm-in-Arm” is our way forward. Working together with the aboriginal organizations, with NWAC and the AFN and the communities, we will succeed in bringing down the barriers that continue to impede aboriginal women and children in this country from exercising their full rights as Canadian citizens.
The second measure that I announced on Tuesday will focus on strengthening programming to prevent family violence through a broad range of services for aboriginal women, children, and families. To this end, my department is currently working with other federal departments, aboriginal organizations in the provinces and territories, as well as experts in the field of family violence, including experts who administer and operate shelters. By early fall, I plan to be back to articulate options for improved programming that will be more effective in reducing family violence.
[Translation]
I will be proud to champion all these measures which will help Aboriginal women and their children to feel safe and secure in their own homes and communities, and to enjoy their fundamental rights as Canadian citizens. That is very important.
[English]
Thank you once again, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity to address this important issue. As we work forward, I very much look forward to having the support of this committee and all of the people at the table. As I said in my opening remarks, I have spoken to enough of you to know that you share my desire that this Parliament act on this issue and that this Parliament translate the good work that's been previously done across party lines, in the Senate and in the House of Commons, into specific action that is going to protect aboriginal women.
Thank you.
:
I can speak French when discussing political matters, but not when it comes to discussing legal questions.
[English]
The questions you've asked are very important. The Indian Act has been described as a piece of colonial legislation. That's not language I use in particular, but I've been very critical in saying that the Indian Act is a compilation of pre-Confederation statutes. It's not acceptable for 500,000 to 600,000 people in this country to have their lives governed by a legislative base that was developed 150 years ago. We have to move beyond that collectively as parliamentarians.
I think there's agreement on that. The issue is really to try to achieve a consensus on how to go forward, and I hope we can all make some progress on that. I'm a very strong believer in self-government, and I've been committed to the self-government progress. But that can only go so far so quickly. As I mentioned in my introductory comments, we have really close to 600 first nations in Canada that are not at this point operating under a self-government regime; they are still under the Indian Act, which is not working very satisfactorily.
The process we are following here will help us arrive at legislative solutions that will break away from the discrimination you've spoken about. I don't wish to pre-judge what those solutions are. I know that previously, in both the Senate work and the House of Commons work, suggested drafts were put forward. A private member's bill has been tabled in the House. There have been previous private members' bills, all of which propose language. One of the common themes is the need for some sort of default code or default legislation that would apply until a first nation put a self-government regime in place.
So it's that interim period that is most difficult. If all first nations end up where Westbank is, for example, where matrimonial property laws are in place through a self-government agreement, that would be wonderful. Of real concern is the interim period, which could be lengthy for many first nations. During that period we need to ensure that there are matrimonial property rights that are consistent with the provincial rights that neighbouring women enjoy. So generally speaking, that's the target.
:
Thank you very much, and I acknowledge the great work you have done on this cause as well, Joy.
This has been discussed a long time, ladies and gentlemen. It has reached the point where, as a nation, we have an obligation to deal with this. The law was changed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1986. That's a long time ago. Several years later in Manitoba--in 1988, as I recall--the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba called for legislative action on this; it hasn't happened. RCAP, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, called for legislative action; it hasn't happened. The standing committees of the Senate and the House have called for action on this, and it hasn't happened. So it behooves us to move forward and to be the Parliament that deals with it.
There have been various discussions about the length of the consultative process, and to address this question squarely, why is there a consultative process? There are several reasons. One is that it's good policy to do so. There is also the Supreme Court of Canada reasoning that would suggest that it is necessary, from a constitutional perspective, to do this. But it's not simply that. It's the process of building a consensus and support for matrimonial property rights, and that's why we're proceeding down this road.
I've asked Wendy Grant-John to come back to me in about December. She will be spending the next couple of months getting the process up and running. She will then be into a period of consultation through September, October, November, and December. We will take stock of where we are in December and determine if further consultation is necessary into January.
My hope is that we will be finished the consultation process at that stage and we will be in a position to introduce legislation into the House of Commons in the late winter or early spring. It's my hope that there will be a consensus around that legislation and that this Parliament will be prepared to act and to do so with integrity and dispatch.
:
Thank you very much for those comments.
I think the first and most important thing is to have a person heading up the process who will keep it focused and targeted. Frankly, in determining the way forward here, we made a conscious choice to have a process that was headed up by someone who would represent me as minister. There were other models that were looked at, but I felt very strongly that having a respected Canadian take the lead on this would give it the focus you're talking about and the sense of direction you're talking about.
I know of the work Wendy Grant-John has done. She's extremely well respected by the Assembly of First Nations and by NWAC. She is a former chief of the Musqueam First Nation and has that experience as well. She is, to my mind, essentially the best person in Canada to do this. I know that she'll keep it targeted. Certainly other issues will be discussed. I expect we will stay focused on the whole issue of empowering aboriginal women to move forward their communities and their children.
I have a very strong-willed mother, four strong-willed sisters, and three strong-willed daughters, so I'm firmly of the view that a big part of social progress here lies in empowering aboriginal women to advance the interests of themselves and their children in the education and political processes. We have more women emerging as chiefs in communities, and they're doing an extraordinary job, without exception, in those communities.
I think things like section 67 of the Human Rights Act and the matrimonial property reform create a more level playing field so that the interests of women, and thereby the interests of families, can be advanced. I predict, ladies and gentlemen, that if we take some of the steps we're talking about here today, in ten years you'll see enormous changes.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ladies, Mr. Minister, welcome to the committee.
We've heard a great deal about you , sir, in particular about your expertise on Aboriginal rights. We're pleased that you could join us.
I'd like to speak to you first about Ms. Wendy Grant-John. Could you clarify her mandate? Is she expected to achieve some results? If so, what are they? What do you expect of her by the end of her mandate?
You pointed out in your opening statement that the Government of Canada has already done a lot of work examining the question of rights for Aboriginal women. Many reports have been produced, considerable research has been done, and countless hearings have been held. Don't you think that there have already been too many consultations, if we include Ms. Grant-John's consultation process, given that women continue to wait for some results?
You are a man of considerable experience. Do you know if the rights issue was discussed at all in the Erasmus-Dussault report?
If the rights of Aboriginal people were recognized, as Aboriginals are now asking the UN to do, could we not, in your opinion, come to some sort of arrangement with First Nations so that Canada would no longer have to pass laws and keep Aboriginal peoples under their control?
:
I'll respond in English.
[English]
The mandate of Wendy Grant-John is very specific. We've asked her to be responsible for the consultation process and to bring back a specific recommendation on a legislative solution. She's been asked to come back to me in a very specific way, initially in December. If it takes a little longer in terms of consultation, we'll extend the period, but we've asked her to essentially ensure that we have a legislative recommendation from her before us in the early winter, late winter, early spring of 2007. So that's her mandate.
To address your question of why further consultation, there are really two reasons. As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Haida and Taku cases in 2004 set forth a principle that if legislation is going to be introduced that affects aboriginal rights, there is a constitutional obligation to have consultation. Those cases did not relate to matrimonial real property obviously; they related actually to resource development situations.
So one can argue the legal niceties of how far that duty to consult goes, but at the end of the day, I think most legal scholars agree that there is a duty of some description to proceed with consultation, and frankly, nothing could impact more directly on aboriginal rights than the difficult questions of matrimonial real property and the division of assets between spouses. So I think it's only proper that we proceed with recognition of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Secondly, though, consultation is important to try to work towards building a consensus. As I said, I don't think unanimity is possible, but I think going through community-level consultation will help build support for this initiative. It will ensure that there's buy-in for it--maybe not everywhere, but I think it will help show people that this is not something to be feared. It is something that will ensure that the rights of aboriginal women are consistent with the rights of other Canadian women. I think there will be some positive benefits from that.
In terms of your other question about proceeding with agreement, it is fair to say that there is no agreement in this country at this point on this issue. There have been lengthy reports from both the Senate and the House of Commons standing committees. There is no unanimity on this subject. There are people who do not agree that aboriginal women on reserves should have property rights that are commensurate with those of non-aboriginal women off reserve, and I suspect some of those people will disagree when this matter arrives at the House of Commons.
So I don't think agreement is achievable. I think we're talking about consultation, broadly based, community-based, followed by the House of Commons accepting its responsibility to act in the interests of equality and protecting women.