THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 8, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9 a.m. to study the new relationship between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
Senator Lillian Eva Dyck (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning,tansi. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, either here in the room or listening via the Web. I would like to acknowledge, for the sake of reconciliation, that we are meeting on the traditional, unceded lands of the Algonquin peoples.
I am Lilian Dyck from Saskatchewan, and I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
I now invite my fellow senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, Ontario.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum from Manitoba.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Today we return to our study of what a new relationship between the Government of Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada could look like. Today we are pleased to welcome, via video conference from Idle No More, Nina Wilson, Cofounder; and Jessica Gordon, Councillor, Pasqua First Nation in Saskatchewan.
You have the floor, to be followed by questions from senators. We will begin with Jessica Gordon.
Jessica Gordon, Councillor, Pasqua First Nation, Idle No More: I’m not sure how much time we have.
The Chair: You have 10 to 15 minutes.
Ms. Gordon: My name is translated to “woman who sits at the front.” I’m also called Jessica Gordon. I’m from the Treaty 4 territory and one of the members and cofounders of Idle No More. I am nêhiyawak and of the Nahkawē nation and I am a member of Pasqua First Nation.
First, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for allowing us to appear before the committee. Second, I would like to state that the time and the ability to gather and discuss matters of such importance is not a given. The Indigenous grassroots people are the ones most affected by any legislation and consequences of matters that the government, as well as Indian Act leadership, make decisions on. The ability, resources and capacity that grassroots people have are limited.
There are many nations who live on reserves in urban centres who know what is needed, not only for their own families but for the communities and generations yet to come.
The process is a different and difficult one. The ability to gather and facilitate discussions are few and far between. The grassroots have enormous amounts of knowledge that has been kept idle because their Indian Act leadership is constantly in crisis mode, just dealing with survival and tending to the basic needs of the people they are responsible for under the Indian Act administration.
This brings me to the fact that the Indian Act and its delegated authority over how we govern ourselves is not working. Much of the Indian Act leadership is not grounded or educated in treaty or inherent rights.
The Chair: Jessica, would you mind slowing down just a little bit? Our translators are having difficulty keeping up with you.
Ms. Gordon: Okay. I thought I was talking slowly.
The colonial imposition of our governance structures has clouded the way forward, and the ability to implement and enforce our jurisdiction inherent in treaty rights.
Our grassroots people need representatives and involvement in each and every sector, not only for administering programs but for treaty implementation, as well as the political will and pressure to have our rights not only recognized by all forms of government but executed by all forms of government and institutions. Our leadership and grassroots people cannot dig out of the deep when we are only given a spade to do so, and every time we make an effort more dirt is thrown at us. This will not work and hasn’t worked.
We have so much to offer, not only in our traditional governance structures but in the way we relate to all of the creator’s gifts of land, water, air and the four-legged. Developing our own authorities outside of the Indian Act and INAC is the first step toward meaningful implementation of our inherent and treaty rights. To do this, we require financing and political forums to implement our own jurisdiction. The new relationship that you are seeking to quantify won't come from any of us in any form that you are seeking to justify in your report, or in any colonial principles or terms.
This relationship is not new. Our sacred treaty relationship is what will continue to guide us, and the honour of the Crown is what your governments need to recognize and be reminded of in renewing this relationship. The government cannot be so blind and naive to think that we, as Indigenous peoples, would have given up all that you assert that we did for what we currently have.
You ask for a vision to help us move forward. Take a look at what would make sense to you. Hold that vision of having access to all the pristine waters, skies above, lands and animals and ways of governing your relations with all creation. These are ways that have assisted you and worked for you from time immemorial when you have given that up.
At the time of the treaty relationship, would that vision of the future be that your grandchildren would be hungry, abused, have their needs ignored and be sick, all because the ones who promised that your way of life would continue have refused to honour their relationship with you? I think not.
So you ask for a vision moving forward. Consider what you would want for your children as they sit hungry and hurting. It’s not reconciliation; it’s honouring what was promised.
I would like to quote Marie Smallboy from the Treaty 6 territory when she was stating a vision of the new relationship:
The sacred responsibility we have as a peoples to ensure our way of life remains a birthright for the unborn beyond 7 generations is a monumental task indeed. The voice and the vision of our ancestors has not clearly been enunciated to moniyaw in all its entirety. Its eloquence and wisdom is most times removed from its expression in colonial terms.
Like I said, this relationship is not new. You just need to remove yourself from the colonial and paternalistic thinking that has led your lawmakers and policies to where we find ourselves now. Currently, we jump through hoops to only get thrown back with bruises and resentment.
You ask how the governments can prepare the groundwork for a relationship that should have always been there. Our answer is this: honour. Honour that our ancestors and wise ones made treaties to share and be kind to the newcomers. Our visionaries knew what their grandchildren would need to prepare a new way of life, but to still remain rooted in their laws and values. Do not make this life difficult for our people.
Our values and laws will guide us and assist you and your people to ensure that the future is a healthy and strong one for many generations to come. Work with our people, not only the Indian Act leadership and organizations, but, most importantly, work with the grassroots people: the mothers, the grandmothers, the youth, the brothers and sisters incarcerated, the children in care, the ones facing addictions and poverty. These are the ones who have the answers. These are the ones who live with the fallout of the government that has never honoured their part in the treaty relationship.
How do we implement and enforce this relationship? We begin by educating the grassroots on our traditional forms of governance and by choosing our leadership, not only in contemporary forms but guided by our values and traditions that have worked for us since time immemorial. From there, we build our justice systems and legal frameworks under our laws. The relationship will be built out of respect of our laws while considering the contemporary forums that will be needed to enforce such laws in all jurisdictions and sectors.
People I respect immensely, along with many current and past leaders, have already laid the groundwork for this relationship. What is holding you back from enforcing this? How serious are you when you refuse to finance these structures?
A treaty relationship renewal involves engaging governments, grassroots and First Nations in partnership and processes that ensure the spirit and intent of the treaties are honoured. Many of the grassroots demand access to land; food security; growing on the land; the medicines from the land; the ability to drink the water; building our own economies between communities and nations without restrictions; ability to care for our children in care; to follow our traditional and kinship laws, natural laws and accessing our sacred sites; learning on these sites; and re-establishing our laws, structures and societies.
Our ancestors see treaty as a way to adapt, to create certainty for future generations. This is self-determination, and the ability and capacity to govern ourselves without outside agencies encroaching on our inherent rights and responsibilities.
The most important ones that you need to request input from are the grassroots people. You must make every effort to speak with them and support them as they learn what governed us in the past and what is the best method forward. We still have clan systems and societies that enforce our dealings with one another. We all have inherent gifts that are bestowed upon us from the creator. The only way to begin this process is our people sharing and educating our own people on these structures and working from there. The only way forward is for your government to act honourably and support every effort. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will start questioning now, but because of IT difficulties, we may have to interrupt the session.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much for being here and for your clear vision and perspective. My question is geared more to your leadership in Idle No More and your vision for the future. Would you see Idle No More as one of the key ways in which the grassroots people can be heard and represented in the process we are looking at in terms of building the nation-to-nation relationship?
Ms. Gordon: I could see it as helping, assisting and facilitating dialogue, as well as building awareness as it did in the past. I believe there are efforts to have the grassroots people organize closer to home. It is much more important that way.
We’ve seen a lot of things in the past with the Idle No More leadership and across the country and Turtle Island. There are so many different issues and ways of moving forward that we can’t do it globally, setting up from Idle No More, the top-down structures and the way it has been done to us in the past. That was the great thing about Idle No More. There are many leaders, not just myself, Nina or the other cofounders. There are many out there. I recommend that you begin that groundwork to have people meet locally in their areas.
Senator McPhedran: You used the past tense just now in answering. You referred to Idle No More as “was,” so am I hearing you say that it is evolving, or it has evolved, into a different kind of process? Or am I hearing you say that Idle No More is not really an active force? And may I also ask whether funding for Idle No More resources is an issue?
Ms. Gordon: If I had said “was,” it may have been based on what happened in the past in speaking with other leaderships. It is still there. People are still meeting under the banner of Idle No More and working under that, so that structure is still there. The movement is still there. It’s not going anywhere. It has evolved in many different ways that neither I nor you can even imagine.
When you speak about financing, that’s where you have to start meeting locally with the grassroots people in their areas. For example, we have a group in Treaty 4 territory, and we call ourselves the “Treaty 4 People’s Caucus.” So a lot of people have been meeting in groups in their areas. You could seek out those groups, you could approach them.
And yes, of course, financing is a big barrier to the way we organize, move forward and honour our knowledge keepers and our experts. So when we can’t bring in some of our experts because we don’t have that money to bring them in, then we’re left with no real movement to go forward. Yes, financing is a big key, but that’s where you have to do the leg work and you have to seek out these groups that have been organizing and that have been dedicated to our fight.
The Chair: You mentioned that you were meeting locally with Treaty 4 groups. Is that Treaty 4 group restricted to Saskatchewan or are you having intraprovincial meetings?
Ms. Gordon: We haven’t limited ourselves to those boundaries of Saskatchewan or Manitoba, so it is for anyone to come and attend and involve themselves. It is Treaty 4 territory, within those Treaty 4 boundaries. We have had people from Treaty 6 come and assist some of our work in Treaty 4.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Doyle: Thank you for being here. The old Indian Act is now gone and has been replaced by two different ministries of the federal government. Do you view that as a good thing, or will it be a good thing in improving the present, unequal relationship to one where we at least can talk to each other as equals?
Also, in your opinion, are we any closer today to each of us having a common understanding of the meaning of the word “sovereignty” as it applies to Canada and its Indigenous peoples?
Ms. Gordon: As for the splitting of INAC departments, that may work for a little bit for our organization but I don’t see it working for too much longer. When you mention sovereignty, I think there is that disconnect between what we feel is our way forward as grassroots people and our right to govern ourselves, as opposed to the colonial government’s views. The colonial government may just be doing lip service when you speak about sovereignty.
We know that we need to be able to cross those borders to Alberta to receive our children and to care for them when we’re living in Saskatchewan, but those borders and those agencies stop us from taking care of our own people, and that's sovereignty to us.
Going through organizations like FSIN, the tribal councils or the bands, some of our grandmothers sit and talk and they want to go take care of the children, but they can’t. They have to go through chief and council, they have to go to tribal councils. FSIN is supposed to do the work for them. That’s not working, so the grassroots need to be engaged and honoured for their work, time and commitment to moving forward.
Senator Doyle: In looking at some of the notes here, it said one of your responsibilities was to work to assert Indigenous sovereignty. Does your understanding of the word “sovereignty” include economic self-sufficiency in addition to self-governance?
Do you see a strong economic base as one of the contributing factors in building strong, sovereign Indigenous communities, independent and working on their own to achieve what they need to achieve for their people?
Ms. Gordon: Our economic base and that land base will help us achieve further sovereignty and self-determination, but when we’re limited by the Indian Act or bureaucrats we can’t move forward.
There’s legislation saying that we can’t do anything. If we have any kind of movement forward we’re stopped, or we get a new chief and council or new executives in the FSIN and then all of that good work has stopped.
So, yes, that economic base needs to be there along with support for our political will and our political people moving forward so they could do a lot of that work. So it’s not just our own economic base. We’ve been here for ages, yet we’re living in conditions where we need to be supported to get out of that. Like I said, we’re trying to dig ourselves out of this hole yet there is always dirt being thrown at us. We need to get up to level. We need that support so we can create those economic bases.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much, Jessica, for being here today. Does Treaty 8 cover only one Indigenous group of people? I know it goes across provincial boundaries, but the commonality inside Treaty 8 is the founding nation, if you like, that was all together before the colonial government came along. Is that correct?
Ms. Gordon: I’m not sure exactly what you are getting at, but I am from Treaty 4 and cannot speak on Treaty 8.
I guess what I could gather from your question is how many nations we have within Treaty 4 and whether we cross provincial boundaries. We have many nations, and I think what you may be getting at is which nations you need to deal with. That’s the question I should put forward, back to the Senate: You need to do your homework as well, and look at which nations are within those treaty territories. Those nations were there before making treaties. We gathered in those treaty areas during the negotiations in that treaty making.
Senator Raine: So the nations before the treaty were independent and each of the nations that joined together and made the treaty were organized and had their own government?
Ms. Gordon: Yes, and the bands of people would go around together and live together. We also had alliances with other nations. We know our history. I believe before these hearings you also heard from other people on the past and the history. If you need to go back and review some of that, maybe as part of your study you need to look more into our history to move forward. We had those nations and we had our ways of governing ourselves even before treaty making.
Senator Raine: I understand that. Words are funny. Right now, what was called an Indian band is now called a First Nation. But in fact, those are groups that were segmented artificially through the enactment of the Indian Act.
Knowing the history and going back to the original cultural groupings is very important in order to move forward, because each of those groupings have a slightly different vision and governance system. I think that’s probably the first step.
Ms. Gordon: Yes, that’s the first step for your committee, as well as supporting the vision coming from the grassroots people. We had clans and societies as well. And with our own grassroots people, not many of us know that history. That would also be the part of Canada’s government, if you want to talk about reconciliation, supporting that education.
We have a lot of people with vision and a lot of people who are willing to move forward, but they also need to be educated on their history. And what needs to come first is educating not only the Senate, the government, the settlers, but also our very own people.
Senator Raine: I appreciate that, because a lot of time has gone by and it has been disrupted.
You talk about the grassroots people. For any government at a national level, if you look at Canada as it exists today, to work with grassroots people, there needs to be a structure in place so that the representation comes from the grassroots to the national leadership.
I’m getting a feeling from you that this is not happening in the existing Assembly of First Nations. Can you comment on that?
Ms. Gordon: If you want to find a way to move forward, you have to start with the grassroots people. The AFN, the FSIN, some of the tribal councils, know our voices aren’t being heard at that level. Sometimes it’s purposeful. Sometimes it’s not. Some of our leaders are sitting in Grade 12 classrooms. Some of our leaders are working the front lines at needle exchanges. So many of our leaders need to be engaged, and it doesn’t always come from those national or provincial organizations.
If you want to look at a way of restructuring, yes, begin at that grassroots level and move up from there. There could be ways of meeting as treaty groups, treaty territory groups, as nations in an area or even surrounding areas of Regina or Saskatoon. There’s a lot of legwork that needs to be done on behalf of the Government of Canada. We have those answers. You just need to help facilitate those answers and help us gather.
Senator Raine: I think many people in Canada feel the Assembly of First Nations is the body, the structure that should be used for a national government, but I’m sensing that it isn’t structured properly or somehow it needs to change or be replaced and that’s a difficult thing to do.
Ms. Gordon: Going through the AFN is the easiest way for the government, as well as some of our leadership. They defer a lot of decision-making on the AFN. Like I said in my presentation, our leadership on the ground is busy and living in crisis mode. It’s chaotic. We rely on organizations like the AFN and FSIN to do that work for us.
We are supposed to be able to give that direction to them and have them follow through. That hasn’t been working. The grassroots people are very upset at how the AFN has been working with the Government of Canada without checking with the true title and rights holders on the ground. There’s not only engagement that needs to come from the Government of Canada, but also those structures like AFN, FSIN and the tribal councils.
I do not give much fault to the band chief and councillors, because over the past few years I’ve seen how we live in survival mode and are very busy on the ground. So we have to rely sometimes on AFN and FSIN, but they don’t follow through enough with the things that we need.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much for joining us, Councillor Gordon. The sense of frustration that you’re expressing with some of our questions is understandable, and I’m going to ask you some that I hope don’t make you further frustrated. In the interests of looking at some of what we could be doing, because of the area I worked in historically I am interested in the over incarceration of Indigenous peoples.
I know there have been a number of Idle No More protests on prison grounds. In particular, I know there was one in 2013 on the grounds of the old prison for women and across from the Kingston Penitentiary. There have been many groups involved with Idle No More that have raised concern about the over incarceration of Indigenous peoples and the fact that protest is often resulting in criminalization when people are trying to uphold their human rights or treaty rights.
What type of approach do you recommend that we look at in terms of undoing that damage, particularly when we talk about those who are incarcerated? If we could “decarcerate,” what would that look like from your perspective?
Ms. Gordon: Are you speaking of land rights defenders and water protectors who are being arrested because of these protests and these acts? Is that who you’re speaking about? Or are you speaking about people who are incarcerated because they’re carrying a couple of joints? I’m not sure what your question is.
Senator Pate: My apologies for not being clear. I’m talking about the whole range: the criminalization of people who are protesting but also the fact that 25 per cent of the federal prison population overall is Indigenous, and it’s up to 36 or 39 per cent when we’re talking about women.
If we look at community-based options, what could we look at that would deal both with individuals who may be a risk but also individuals who are not a risk but are being criminalized because of other issues?
Ms. Gordon: It starts with the communities. Prevention is one of the biggest terms we could look at if you want to lower those incarceration rates. It’s not just prevention when you see them at risk; it’s prevention from pre-k, kindergarten through high school. You support these children and you know they have faced trauma for years. Their families and generations have faced a lot of trauma, and it is understanding that we need to work with that trauma to heal, otherwise our incarceration rates will keep rising and we will lose a lot of our people that way.
We have many gifted people we need to help support, but they’re labelled as ADD or troublemakers. Those are the gifted ones, and the school system, our social workers and child protection workers, need to consider that when they’re referring somebody to a group home or when they call the RCMP. We need to be more understanding of our gifted people.
That prevention is the biggest piece, if you want to look at lower incarceration rates. It is not just that buzz word of “prevention,” but understanding and working with them, thinking outside the box. When a kid is gifted, sitting for six hours in a classroom doesn’t work for them. Implementing more of our land-based education is a good start as well.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much for that. One of the challenges we’ve seen with women trying to go back to their communities after incarceration is a lack of support for that, and some of the things we could be doing to try and alleviate and help women bridge those relationships back with their communities. Do you have any suggestions there? It’s part of the broader nation to nation as well, I would think.
Ms. Gordon: More reintegration programs. I hate for it to come down to money, but I have the justice portfolio for my First Nation. We have nothing to assist our inmates who are released — not only the women, but the men and the youth coming out of the system. We could work with other departments, but to help them reintegrate and support them so they do not feel the need to go out and do a B and E to support their family or to deal drugs. We need to support them back at home so that doesn’t happen again.
I’ve seen some people come out of jail, and they want to work their butts off, but there’s nothing for them on the reserve, even a house. They have to live with family members who are still facing addictions and living in chaos. At the band and community level, even in the cities, we need a lot more financial support for reintegration.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation, Councillor Gordon. My concern is about the voices of the grassroots people. I worked on my reserve for about eight years as a dentist and understand how the system works and how sometimes the political leadership doesn’t carry those voices forward. I’ve had difficulty when we’ve had our hearings about how we resolve this issue because we hear from different people, different organizations, and we still have people saying that this is not consultation.
As the Senate, the senators in this room, how do we get to those voices that you’re talking about? I’m really at a loss.
When I look at my community — and I’ve gone to all the communities in Manitoba — they all have their own unique crisis they’re trying to deal with, so all the voices have different messages. How do we put that together and move it forward? Because that is the missing link, I realize that, and sometimes the voices aren’t there because people are in survival mode when they’re in crisis. What would you suggest that I could do to move this forward?
Ms. Gordon: Thank you for your question, Senator McCallum. I believe that Idle No More is still there. What we could do is to help facilitate and gather our grassroots people, have them begin organizing and meeting like they did and continue to do, but more in a structured way. We could say we’re going to meet in Treaty 4 and discuss topics ranging from incarceration and care to addictions to governance structures to justice systems.
That discussion could happen with the help of the co-founders of Idle No More as well as our organizers across the country. We could set up those dialogue sessions and let the grassroots people know that these discussions are not consultations. You see that they don’t want to participate because they do not trust the Government of Canada. Let them know these are for our own discussion purposes, to create dialogue.
If we feel that we want to present our findings, discussions and solutions to the Senate and the Government of Canada, then we will. If we decide not to, then we won’t. But to have that support in having those meetings needs to be there regardless of whether we’re going to support any dialogue or framework or renewed relationship.
If the Senate and the Government of Canada could promise that none of what we say in these dialogue sessions is going to be construed as some kind of consultation where we’re going to be backed into a corner and be forced to deal with something we didn’t have the time or opportunity or capacity to discuss fully, then I think we could do that as long as we had that guarantee that this isn’t going to be used against us. I’m pretty sure you’re more concerned about the consultation process that we don't trust.
Senator McCallum: Idle No More’s website from 2014 raises concerns over the approach to self-government as First Nations are converted into municipal-type governments where federal and provincial powers will dominate First Nations powers. The committee also heard similar concerns from the Siksika Nation, which has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain self-government twice. To what extent is it possible to achieve self-government under the current policies and programs?
Ms. Gordon: Starting with the grassroots members and seeing if their definition of self-governance is the same as how the Government of Canada views it, currently I don’t see that. Government seems to impose these restrictions on how we govern ourselves. We may govern ourselves in a different territory from somebody out East. We may refer to our grandmothers first. Some communities and nations may refer to their youth first. Putting a box around and a label and definition of self-governance, that’s where that colonial and paternalistic thinking has to end.
Like I said previously, and with all due respect — I mean no disrespect to you whatsoever, senator — is that you all need to do that work in supporting those grassroots efforts, having us organize and ensuring that what we say will be followed through on or not construed or used to back us into a corner.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
Senator Christmas: It is a pleasure to meet you, Councillor Gordon. I apologize for missing introductions; I came in a little late.
I’m a Mi’kmaq from the Membertou First Nation in Nova Scotia. My family has roots in our traditional Mi’kmaq forms of government, the Grand Council, and my family has also been heavily involved in the Indian Act form of government. I’m familiar with both forms of government.
What I really appreciate about what you have said was the role of our traditional forms of government in the future. I want you to spend a few minutes with that. Can you outline the movement’s vision on how traditional forms of government can strengthen our nation and our peoples and how not only Canadians but also our own Indigenous people can embrace and engage and learn about our traditional forms of government and what it brings to us as a people?
Ms. Gordon: If you want to look immediately, yes, the education of our grassroots people needs to happen in dialogue sessions and presentations and gathering as grassroots members. If you want to look at building those governance structures and educating our Indigenous people for that self-identity, you start pre-K, you start in daycare, so they understand these are our values; this is how we govern ourselves effectively because it had worked for us in the past. It still works for us in different communities. That educating piece is very important, not only immediately, but in the long term. You need to incorporate that into our education systems, our institutions and our jails.
Many of our incarcerated people sit there, and they don’t understand their true identity. If they did, I really don’t think they would be there as frequently or as long as they are, because that self-identity surely raises the success rates.
All of this has been documented and studied — that language and self-identity. Education is a big piece. It needs to be incorporated all across the board.
Senator Christmas: The other question always rolling around in my mind is how we engage our urban Indigenous people. It seems to me they are sometimes isolated or alienated from their own communities. How do we engage those people who choose to live in urban areas? How do we get them connected and involved?
I don’t even know who properly represents them. Is it the friendship centres?
I would like to get your thoughts on how you feel about how urban Indigenous people should be involved.
Ms. Gordon: They’re the ones who are left out quite often. They live in poor conditions and face a lot of stigmata and racism every day.
Nobody truly represents them, and that’s the sad thing. There’s no one advocating for them. There are organizations in the city that tend to help and support them in different ways, but there’s no real organization that could support them.
Like you said, some are disconnected. Some of them may choose not to ever be connected again to their First Nation or to others in their community, but there are some who are desperately reaching out for some connection.
Some of the ways you can do that is that Idle No More and grassroots organizations can help gather people, begin these dialogue sessions and get a good feel for what they want for themselves in the future and who they want to represent them.
I can’t answer for everybody, but I’ve been an “urban Indian,” I guess, for most of my life. That connection is really hard to get back, as is that trust and being able to approach elders. Either taking the urban people out to the First Nations or bringing the elders into the urban centres are a good start. Supporting that learning is a good start.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Councillor Gordon.
Senator McPhedran: Councillor Gordon, I would like to ask for some of your thoughts on women’s leadership at this point in time, particularly in relation to the building of nation-to-nation relationships and agreements.
I want to acknowledge with great admiration and appreciation the women’s leadership in founding Idle No More, including your leadership. This committee will be hearing from Dr. Carolyn Bennett, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs in a couple of weeks on Bill S-3, which started out entitled “a bill to eradicate sex-based inequities in the Indian Act,” but it didn’t stay that way. It ended up being framed and adopted as law to respond to the Descheneaux case out of Quebec — that specific case.
One of the concerns many people have is that the law as adopted talks about the goal of eradication. It talks about going bigger than the facts of the Descheneaux case and eradicating, but there is no timeline; it’s a statement of a goal.
I’m just wondering if you have anything to share with us about the inclusion of women in the leadership and where you see that going. I would also be very interested on anything you wanted to comment on in terms of youth leadership.
Ms. Gordon: It starts with the women. I have seen that leadership grow a lot and women being empowered a lot in the past few years.
Many of people seem to refer to men and the loud speakers; the people who talk the most and the loudest seem to be men. If you want to get a sense of the way forward, you meet with the women, grandmothers, aunties and our young women. We have that natural instinct to support our young and move forward to ensure that our generations continue. Meeting with women, you will get a lot more answers than you would from some of these men.
I love our men. I love the things they have done for us, the ways they protect us and that they will continue to protect us, but it’s been far too long that you have been referring to men when you seek guidance. Speak to the women, grandmothers, aunties and our young women. One of the best first steps when speaking to the grassroots is to gather the grandmothers and the moms.
I can’t speak too much. Our women,their voices are very sacred. Make that effort to approach them first.
When the other senators were asking how to meet and have a dialogue with the grassroots people, begin with the women. I realize that, especially after your question, that those are the ones you need to speak with, the women, the grassroots members, the aunties, the kôhkoms.
Senator McPhedran: Could I ask you to respond to my point about Bill S-3, the Indian Act and addressing the sex-based inequities, in particular the registration portion of the Indian Act, which is the focus of Bill S-3? Is that a topic of conversation among you, women leaders or council?
Ms. Gordon: It’s every day, how it’s imposed on us, how our membership is selected, that fear that my granddaughter's kids will not have status. I didn’t hear a direct question, so I’m not sure what you’re looking for, but we need a dialogue. We have major concerns for any legislation that comes out, especially to do with these generations coming forward. Anything that affects our people, especially that status and our identity, it’s very important to discuss that.
Senator McPhedran: Maybe I could try to be clearer in my question. It was quite specific to you as a leader within your community and the council and whether there’s discussion going on in your community and at your council that relates to this new law that focuses on sex-based inequities in the registration process of the Indian Act.
One of the commitments made by the government was to “consult,” and there is supposed to be a process going on right now of those consultations. Have you heard of that? Has your council been contacted? Has there been any communication with any of the women leaders — you or others — on Bill S-3?
Ms. Gordon: We do have informal dialogue regarding any bills that come through. As for Bill S-3, I haven’t heard enough discussion about that, maybe because organizations that you rely on to get out this information to be secretariats or to facilitate these dialogues aren’t happening. Maybe it is happening; maybe I just missed the facts.
Those conversations are happening and those concerns exist around the council table, as well as with the women that I meet with from time to time.
The Chair: I’d like to ask a supplementary question following that line of thought.
Counsellor Gordon, you talk about the need to speak to the grandmothers, the aunties and the mothers. Under traditional governance, what would the role of women be? Could you flesh that out a little bit? My understanding is that our societies were more matriarchal and one of the ways of destabilizing, of course, is to get rid of the women. When they marry out they leave, and that destabilizes your society. Could you comment on that? How do you see the role of women changing in a newly restored traditional mode of governance?
Ms. Gordon: I’m not sure across the nations or on Turtle Island, but I know a lot of the decision-making came from the women and they directed the leadership or the men to bring that voice forward. So a lot of the decision-making ought to be with the women — the aunties and grandmothers — because, like I said, we know what our families need. We want to continue those generations and it’s inherent in us to make sure that continues. So, yes, we should be included first and foremost.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Raine: I’m going to continue on the same line of thinking, because I agree that the leadership with women has been somewhat sidelined. We do have NWAC, the Native Women’s Association of Canada. We can only have so many national organizations, and what we want is to hear from the aunties and the grandmothers and the grassroots. Can that work with NWAC, or do we need a new structure?
Ms. Gordon: Maybe they serve a purpose right now and maybe they will continue in the future, but my goal is always to have the grassroots people’s voices heard. I don’t know much about that organization. I haven’t been involved with it, but I do know that you need the engage on the ground at the levels of the grassroots people in their territories to hear those voices. A lot gets lost when it’s funnelled through different territorial or national organizations.
Senator Raine: Would your ideal situation of self-governance be where you went back to the traditional leadership where the grassroots were being heard?
Ms. Gordon: You could have that, along with some kind of administrative structure — you have a chief and council right now — or a different way of selecting those leaders to administer some areas. And then you have the traditional forms of governance and decision-making, be that either the mothers or the clans or the different societies all coming together.
I can’t speak for every nation across Turtle Island, but those are some of the concepts and ideas that I have heard since co-founding Idle No More. I’ve heard a lot, and a lot of them say that the best way forward is to restore those traditional governments.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much.
Senator Pate: Councillor Gordon, the final bit of your response to my earlier question has prompted me to ask a bit more. You mentioned you’re on your community’s justice council or justice committee. I’m curious, because there are actually provisions to provide funding for the sorts of things you were talking about, but corrections’ policy has limited very much how communities can access them.
How much information do you have about what funding is available and what possibilities there are to challenge the incarceration? There are provisions in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that governs federal prisoners to allow for Indigenous communities to bring prisoners to serve their sentence in the community, as well as community integration for part of their conditional release or parole. How much information about that has been transmitted to your justice committee?
Ms. Gordon: I know there are programs federally. As for information that gets down to us, I’ve taken it upon myself to try to find funding. It’s not directed to us to say, “This is what you can apply for and this is another source.” I’m busy as a councillor dealing with our membership, yet I still have to find grants to write proposals for. That takes a lot out of me, my family and my community because I’m busy searching for these funding opportunities.
So, no, that information isn’t getting to us, not clearly and not enough. If it’s out there, I’m requesting that now not just for me but for all the communities. We need more information and support directed to us.
We have another group of people that have been meeting and we’re calling ourselves the justice alliance. These are the File Hills Qu’Appelle grassroots people and some people that work with the tribal council and Indian Act leadership. They have been doing some visioning and goals for what they want.
A lot of it comes down to having our own court system, our own tribunals and our own structures where we have people who were incarcerated or who are facing charges. They come to us as the tribunal and we take care of them. We help support them, rather than throwing them into the justice system and jails and having all these conditions that have not worked for them. Just look at the incarceration rates.
We’re looking at a new enforcement and prevention area in justice, and that’s the justice alliance of File Hills Qu’Appelle. If you want more information on that type of stuff and what we’re organizing as, you can call or email me and I can give you more information. You could even have somebody come down to one of our meetings.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much. If you were here I would give you my card, but I will definitely get your contact information and be in touch.
Ms. Gordon: Nina wasn’t able to connect but she sent me some text that she wanted presented, if I could do that.
The Chair: Please do that.
Ms. Gordon: She says:
Please tell them on my behalf to honour the original treaties, to refrain from making decisions regarding land designation without true grassroots involvement or many people will be harmed from decisions made without the people.
The people do not consent to any development on our lands through final authority of the Indian Act chiefs. Please let them know that barriers affect our own people’s involvement and if the true people’s involvement is required, then there needs to be supports and resources set in place to make that happen.
Even the seemingly easy enough teleconference has big barriers for those on reserves.
As we were speaking and discussing the questions directed to me, I noticed Nina Wilson was in the conference and was dropped from it. She has such a valuable voice, and I was praying that she would be able to be on video conference but that didn’t happen. Her knowledge is immense, and I was wishing that she was able to present here, but this is what we face. She lives on a reserve and her connection isn’t good.
I’m a mother of six and a grandmother of one, and I need to attend a class right now that I’m going to be late for. It’s nice that I’m able to wake up at 6 o’clock in the morning to get ready for a 7 o’clock presentation with the standing committee, but I would hope that because of these efforts that we as grassroots women make, those same efforts could be made by your committee, the Government of Canada, for you to come to us.
It’s very important and shows a lot of respect and faith that your government is willing to work with us. So I’m hoping that if we weren’t able to define, to give you any indication of a relationship moving forward, the best thing to do is follow up and meet us in our home territory. Both Nina and I are from Treaty 4 territory. That may be a good start. We have many grassroots leaders that we could bring together if you wanted to discuss a way forward. If you want to have a relationship, it’s there. It always has been there. It just needs to be renewed.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Councillor Gordon. We have heard your words that you would like us to meet with people on their territory. I’m sorry you have to leave. I’m sure there are other questions. We appreciate you taking the time, and we will try to follow up with Nina Wilson and see if we can get her hooked up again at some other opportunity.
With that, on behalf of all senators, I want to thank you so much for agreeing to participating in this hearing.
(The committee adjourned.)