Discrimination claims in court

Page 11

Two Aboriginal women's groups are still waiting to hear whether descrimination charges against the federal government will be dealt with in court.

The charges are the subject of a hearing in the trial division of the Federal Court of Canada in Vancouver. The hearing, which began June 30, is being held to decide if the case will proceed to trial.

The prothonotary in the hearing is being asked to decide if the statement of claim put forward by the groups will stand, and if the two groups launching the claim - the B.C. Native Women's Society and Pauktuutit, Inuit Women's Association - can be party to the case. The hearing will also decide if the two groups can ask both for a declaration that Canada has discriminated against them, as well as for payment of damages.

The two groups charge the federal government has discriminated against Inuit and Indian women through Human Resources Development Canada's (HRDC) funding agreements for job creation and training initiatives.

Viola Thomas is president of the United Native Nations, a B.C. based organization that, among other things, lobbies government on behalf of Aboriginal people.

Although the decision has yet to be rendered, Thomas said she is optimistic the case will proceed.

According to a press release issued by Thomas, the two women's groups are claiming Canada has discriminated against Indian and Inuit women under it's new Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy (AHRDS), which started up in April 1999.

The groups launched a similar case in 1998 charging discrimination in the department's Post-Pathways program, predecessor to the AHRDS program, but the case did not proceed because the Post-Pathways program ended before the case was heard.

In the current case, the groups claim AHRDS discriminates against off reserve Indians, a situation that has existed for more than 10 years under various incarnations of job creation programs.

Under AHRDS, HRDC has allocated more than $200 million for job creation, but only a fraction of that amount will be spent to help Aboriginal people living off reserve, Thomas said.

"Today, two-thirds of Aboriginal peoples live in urban centres, off Indian reserves and outside Inuit communities, and yet they will have less job creation funds available to them than on-reserve Indians," Thomas states in the press release.

The plaintiffs argue AHRDS discriminates against Indian women living off reserve because agreements for program delivery were signed with "male-dominated Aboriginal organizations," and because less funding is being provided to organizations representing Aboriginal women than to groups representing Aboriginal men. They contend that, by allocating fewer funds for use by people living off reserve, AHRDS infringes on mobility rights of Aboriginal women as guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and also infringes on their Charter rights to sexual equality through under-representation of Aboriginal women in both management of the AHRDS programs and in receiving the benefits of the programs. They further argue that, by infringing on the other Charter guaranteed rights, Canada is also infringing on their rights to security of person, by limiting their ability to escape from possibly violent environments by limiting their ability to relocate and limiting access to programs to improve their education and employment opportunities.

Thomas said she has no problem with the First Nations having jurisdiction over the programs, but provisions have to be made to ensure equity of access.