Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 2 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 10, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 10:03 a.m. to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Deputy Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: I would thank the co-chairs of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples of Canada for responding to the Chair's request to make a presentation on the recently released report to the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
In the past number of years, our committee has studied not only proposed legislation, we have tried to shed light on some of the issues facing aboriginal peoples and Canada as a whole.
We would like you to share with us information in the royal commission's report which you think would assist us. Are there certain areas the Senate could effectively study by way of a hearing that might be complementary to the facilitation of the report?
Unfortunately, Senator Marchand, who chairs this committee, is unable to attend today.
The Honourable René Dussault is a Justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal. He received his law degree from Laval University and a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and Political Science. He was Quebec's Deputy Minister of Justice from 1977 to 1980 and held the Laskin Chair in Public Law at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto from 1983 to 1984. He taught at the Quebec National School of Public Administration from 1981 to 1989 and has written several books on administrative law, including Administrative Law: A Treatise. In 1987, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and received the Quebec Bar Medal, the highest distinction bestowed by the Bar in recognition of outstanding contributions by Quebec jurists to the advancement of law and its practice.
Co-chair Georges Erasmus was the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations from 1985 to 1991 and president of the Dene Nation from 1976 to 1983. In 1983, he became the founding president of the Denendeh Development Corporation. He serves as a board member of a number of human rights and ecological organizations, such as Energy Probe Research Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund of Canada. Mr. Erasmus is the co-author of the book Drumbeat: Anger and Renewal in Indian Country. He was appointed to the Order of Canada in 1987.
The floor is yours, gentlemen.
Mr. René Dussault, Co-Chair, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: We thought it would be useful this morning to present a few slides which demonstrate the thrust of the report tabled in the House of Commons on November 21. We will then move to an open question period as to what should follow and what role the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, or the Senate itself, could play in the next couple of years. Without further ado I suggest we move to the slides.
The creation of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in late August of 1991 had the unanimous support of all parties then in the House of Commons. We have presented to the government four special reports, a couple of commentaries on constitutional aspects and, a month ago, we completed our final report which consists of five volumes.
Mr. Georges Erasmus, Co-Chair, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: The mandate can best be summarized as seeking ways to rebalance political authority and economic resources between aboriginal people and Canadian governments, on the one hand, and to rebuild skills and capacity in aboriginal individuals and within aboriginal communities and nations on the other.
Mr. Dussault: The root of the problem lies in what took place in the 19th century when aboriginal people were made wards of the state. In the early days of Canada's existence, various institutions, life's work and values, were deemed irrelevant at best, and for the most part a barrier to settlement.
The state used its power to overturn aboriginal peoples' institutions, eliminate their culture and singularly curtail their access to land and resources. They were just as effectively colonized as populations in the present Third World. Because of the lack of recognition of aboriginal institutions by Canadian governments throughout the last 150 years, Canadian institutions have little legitimacy in the eyes of aboriginal people. The thrust of our report is to restore that legitimacy through partnership.
Mr. Erasmus: At the time of Confederation, it was generally assumed that aboriginal people would disappear as distinctive peoples and, despite the treaties that were in place at the time, they were, without consultation, made the subjects of federal power under the British North America Act.
The Indian Act followed, giving the federal government extraordinary powers over the lives of individuals and communities. The clear objective was to undermine aboriginal societies and to assimilate aboriginal peoples' individuals into the mainstream. Their traditional governments were disrupted, generations of aboriginal children were forced into residential schools, scores of aboriginal communities were relocated, land that had been set aside in the treaties was taken away, and a system of welfare replaced any effort to permit them access to a self-reliant economic base.
Aboriginal people, in particular Indians, became clients of a department. All effective power resided in external bureaucracies and political systems in which they had no representation until they received a vote in 1960, and then only token representation thereafter.
Mr. Dussault: That aboriginal people pay because of economic and social marginalization is apparent in the statistics of poverty, unemployment, dependency, educational attainment, health, incarceration. We could go on and on. Earned income declined by $1,000 in the decade from 1981 to 1991. In all areas of social and economic performance, aboriginal people displayed the symptoms of disadvantage.
Mr. Erasmus: Today, expenditures by federal, provincial and the federal component of municipal governments comes to $13 billion annually, 50 per cent more than an equivalent number of non-aboriginal Canadians. Part of this relates to the fact that most aboriginal communities are isolated. However, a significant portion of this excessive cost, $2.5 billion of it, derives from excessive utilization of social and medical services and financial transfers because of poverty.
Governments also lose a significant amount of revenue they would have collected if aboriginal people earned income at the level of those who live in neighbouring communities. Altogether, the Canadian economy is $7.5 billion poorer than if aboriginal people enjoyed the same level of health and earning capacity as Canadians in equivalent regional settings.
Mr. Dussault: Demographic pressures alone will dramatically exacerbate this situation. The very high proportion of young people provides a real incentive to help young minds acquire attitudes and skills based on confidence and self-reliance. But clock is ticking. Every year that passes without effective change results in more of these young people sliding into despondency and alienation.
Mr. Erasmus: Renewal is not just a question of putting better programs in place. A fundamental chance to free aboriginal people from control by external agencies and to enable them to liberate themselves from the dependency that comes from being clients of a government department is what is required.
However, that requires the willingness to cede real authority over broad areas of jurisdiction and to relocate lands and resources, financial resources, so that they have a basis for self-reliance and to finance government. The relationship needs to be one where aboriginal communities exercise authority, responsibility and accountability to their own people, and where a nation-to-nation partnership exists within Canada based on shared sovereignty.
The solution will come with the implementation of a mutually reinforcing two-track strategy: on the one hand, a restoration of political authority and responsibility and of land and resources as the basis for self-reliant economies; and on the other, the rebuilding of skills and institutions to enable communities to function effectively. We believe that, if these strategies are followed, we will see profound and positive changes within 20 years.
Mr. Dussault: Self-government is justified on the basis of historic rights, rights that were implicitly recognized in treaties and that we firmly believed are existing rights as recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Equally persuasive is the fact that institutions of governments, if they are to be effective, must be moulded by the culture and values of those they seek to govern. These values in aboriginal societies are, in many respects, strikingly different from those of mainstream society.
The base out of Harvard University demonstrates that tribal governments in the U.S. that incorporated culturally authentic values and approaches were seen to be legitimate and produced much more stable societies which, in turn, resulted in greater economic and social progress. We see aboriginal governments exercising exclusive jurisdiction on their territory over matters that have a direct bearing on the identity and well-being of their people, such as health, education, land management and economic development.
There were interim agreements with federal and provincial governments in those areas that impacted on neighbouring communities, such as environmental regulations or aspects of criminal justice, and federal jurisdiction was recognized in matters of transcendent concerns ranging from monetary trade and foreign policy to cross-border smuggling.
The financing of these governments would increasingly, over time, come from their taxation of incomes generated on their territories and would be supplemented by fiscal arrangements similar to those that exist between the federal government and the provinces. Fiscal transfers would require a taxation effort by aboriginal governments commensurate with that of other recipient governments.
Mr. Erasmus: As we have noted, the concept of nation is deeply rooted in the history of aboriginal peoples. It is how they saw, and still see, themselves. It is the broad collective from which they draw strength. But there are very clear and contemporary practical reasons as well. Self-government would not work if the primary unit of governance were the individual village or community resulting in a thousand First Nation or Inuit or Métis communities.
Effective and efficient relations with other governments would not be possible. The economics of scale necessary to exercise broad mandates and to achieve self-reliance would not, in most cases, exist, and larger political units would be more conducive to fair and open government.
We see some 60 to 80 aboriginal nations emerging over time. However, there is nothing to say that the unit of government could not be a federation of nations, such as exists in the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.
Canada's obligations would no longer be to individual status Indians, but to aboriginal nations through government-to-government treaty agreements. Aboriginal governments would then decide how the treaty entitlements would be disbursed to their members. Gone would be the differences between status and non-status people. All would be citizens of their aboriginal nation as well as citizens of Canada. Government would not impose this model, but would proceed with those who wish to do so, and allow the power of example to persuade others.
Mr. Dussault: We would like to spend a moment on the process of reconstruction of aboriginal nations. We are proposing that aboriginal peoples reconstruct their political relationship by restoring their historic nations, Dene, Haida, Micmac, Algonquin, Inuit, et cetera. They face a great deal of work to create the institutions and processes to give this legitimacy.
When ready, we propose that we seek recognition from the federal government, and that the federal government exercise its authority to ensure that the nations are legitimate and that the processes and institutions proposed are fair. At recognition, the aboriginal nation would exercise jurisdiction in its exiting territory, the Indian Act would cease to have affect, and new fiscal arrangements would commence.
We propose that an interim governmental forum be created to arrive at agreements in principle to govern approaches to new negotiated arrangements with each aboriginal nation through a treaty process. To this end, we call for a meeting of first ministers and aboriginal leaders to be convened as soon as possible to set up a forum to work out a Canada-wide framework agreement for negotiating key elements of the agenda for change, especially principles to guide the redistribution of lands and resources, the scope of aboriginal jurisdiction, principles to guide fiscal arrangements, principles for the co-management of public land, and the nature of interim relief agreements when the treaty negotiations proceed to make sure that resources are not depleted. This forum should have till the year 2000 to complete its work.
Mr. Erasmus: Our report details initiatives in all of the areas shown on the slide that could begin to be developed in the near future.
Mr. Dussault: New funding for the opening years of this strategy would amount to between one-half and one per cent of annual program expenditures. Some of these funds could be sourced from national social priorities when the government no longer needs to borrow new funds on the market to finance its expenditures. In areas of other current considerations, like child poverty, for example, aboriginal needs are disproportionately high.
Mr. Erasmus: In the longer term, we will see the emergence of increasing numbers of aboriginal nation governments with growing effectiveness in their institutions. The reallocation of land and resources through treaty negotiations and enhanced economic development will lead to greater self-reliance of individuals and, through taxation, of nation governments. We propose special measures to involve public and private sector employers to provide subsidized on-the-job experience to overcome barriers to access to permanent jobs.
Some 300,000 new jobs will have to be found for aboriginal people in the next 20 years if they are to attain the current levels of employment that other Canadians have today. Programs modelled on the successful James Bay and Inuit programs with be required to provide income supplements for those in isolated communities who spend significant time in traditional hunting and gathering activities.
We believe it is economically and socially more beneficial to assist people to stay in their chosen community and life style than be forced to migrate to margins of cities. A major effort will be required to provide effective housing, to clarify ownership of such housing, and to require those who can afford to do so to contribute to the cost of their own housing.
Mr. Dussault: From the fifth year of the implementation of the strategy, which could start in 1998-1999, or as soon as possible, obviously, we see a requirement for additional investment of between $1.5 to $2 billion, including the cost of implementing land claims. With increased earnings and decreased remedial payments, we should see a reduction of 30 per cent in expenditure on programs like social assistance, policy and health care, from what they would have been in the absence of this strategy. This will result in a significant closing of the economic and social gap from about the tenth year on, thus reducing the government's net financial requirements.
The country needs an action of national symbolic significance to mark the turning point in this relationship. Some 230 years ago, the years after the first royal proclamation that set out the British Crown's relationship with aboriginal peoples in 1763, a new proclamation would recognize the aboriginal peoples' role in the life of this country, acknowledge the great mistakes and injustices of the past, and establish a principle for a new relationship.
The proclamation would commit the Government of Canada and, where appropriate, provincial governments, to introduce companion legislation to provide to aboriginal people the authority and the tools to structure their own political, social and economic future. This is crucial.
Trust and certainty are required to rebuild this relationship. Legislation is needed to replace the discretionary nature of the current policy process. This legislative framework should take the following form: An aboriginal nation recognition and government act would establish a process and criteria for recognition of each aboriginal nation; an aboriginal treaty implementation act would enable a recognized nation in negotiation with other Canadian governments to renew its exiting treaties or create new treaties, to establish its full jurisdiction as a member of an aboriginal order of government, and establish or expand its land and resource base. This act would establish several regional treaty commissions to facilitate and support treaty negotiations.
Aboriginal land and treaty tribunals establishing an independent tribunal will ensure fair treaty negotiations and be bestowed with the responsibility of dealing with specific claims which, up to now, were dealt with through the Land Claims Commission.
An aboriginal relations department act and an Indian and Inuit services department act would replace the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: The first to implement the new relationship with aboriginal nations; the second to administer continuing services for groups that have not yet opted for self-government.
Mr. Erasmus: Our key recommendations are designed to create a framework within which aboriginal people will have the authority and resources to design and implement their own solutions. Governance centres on the nation or group of nations. On recognition, as set out in the recognition act, the Indian Act would cease to have authority for that nation and the federal 91-24 power would be altered to reflect the jurisdiction of that nation.
The nation would institute its own regime of taxation of incomes earned on its territory, and the fiscal arrangements entered into with other governments would be adjusted to reflect its tax capacity and effort. Federal obligations that relate to treaty rights or fiscal arrangements would be with the nation government, with the aboriginal government determining how these resources should be allocated.
Mr. Dussault: When the nation has been recognized and its people are ready, new treaty processes should be instigated under the guidance of an aboriginal treaties implementation act. Provincial governments would participate fully in the process to negotiate long-term land and resource bases, jurisdiction and fiscal arrangements. Treaty commissions at arm's length from the government, similar to the B.C. Treaty Commission, would supervise and facilitate the process. However, the negotiation must be a political one between treaty partners. The commission can only offer assistance where sought, though it would have specific remedies in the event of an abuse of the treaty process.
Mr. Erasmus: An increase in aboriginal peoples' land base is essential. Currently, below the 60th parallel, they hold only one-third of the lands that were originally agreed to in historic treaties. The principles to determine land size must be negotiated. In common sense, this should reflect what is needed to create a basis for self-reliance and the opportunity to pursue the relevant lifestyle of the people concerned, as the land base of the Inuit in Labrador will likely look quite different from the Salishs in lower British Columbia. Aboriginal people should hold some of their traditional land in full ownership. Another portion of their traditional land could be subject to joint jurisdiction between the aboriginal nation and the province, with its benefits being shared. By far the largest amount of land would likely be Crown land.
Privately-held third party rights would generally be protected. Licensees would continue their arrangements, albeit in some areas now with aboriginal landlords.
Mr. Dussault: An independent federal tribunal or a tribunal set up by federal statute would have authority to act on specific claims which aboriginal nations want to address outside a broader treaty process, but it would also play a role in the broader treaty negotiations, assessing whether funding had been fairly provided, ruling on interim relief arrangements where parties could not agree, and on cases of non-compliance with treaty undertakings.
A permanent panel of the tribunal would have the responsibility to assess whether a group coming forward to seek federal recognition as a nation government had met the criteria under the recognition act and to so advise the federal government.
Mr. Erasmus: Self-reliance also requires accessing the skills and capital needed to generate income from corporations and individuals. Programs to assist this should be developed and managed by aboriginal organizations with other governments providing financial resources and advice. There is also a great need for highly sophisticated investment in aboriginal enterprises managed at arm's length from all governments to mobilize capital and expertise for large economic and strategic projects that should be implemented by a national aboriginal development bank.
We need a major campaign to persuade employers, both private and public, to provide workplaces to young, educated aboriginal people in those parts of the country where aboriginal people make up a significant part of the population. Approximately 300,000 jobs need to be created in 20 years for aboriginal people in these regions of the country. An urgent effort is needed to overcome discrimination on one side and alienation on the other.
Aboriginal nations need a wholly new level of access to the resources that have made this country wealthy, whether it be hydro power, the resources in the forests, mining, et cetera, both on their own expanded territory and on the lands on which they will share jurisdiction with the provinces.
Mr. Dussault: Within the context of the Canadian federation, the aboriginal governments would operate as sovereign in their own areas of jurisdiction. They would form another order of government on their territory. In the cities, they would not have law-making authority, but would operate as a community of interest delivering relevant education, health and social services with a delegated mandate from the province, territory or from a regionally-based aboriginal nation.
They would constitute a political and cultural community whose members identify themselves as members of that nation and be accepted as such, with appropriate appeal mechanisms. Blood-based or race-based criteria would not be acceptable as a general criteria for membership. Conflicts would be addressed through agreements between governments or, as a last resort, through the courts, as is the case elsewhere.
Mr. Erasmus: We are convinced the cost of inaction will be much more expensive in fiscal terms than the cost of speedy implementation. The demographics alone ensure this. We believe that, within 20 years, governments will generate significant financial gains from the approach we are advocating.
Mr. Dussault: There is agreement that the dominance of the Indian Act has diminished responsibility and thwarted initiative. Making aboriginal people clients of the federal government has diminished them and their institutions. Those institutions of governments, of education, health, social policy and justice, need to be structured in accordance with cultural values that are frequently very different from the mainstream. Only in that way will they be effective.
Making nations and treaties a cornerstone of the relationship assigns responsibility where it should be and provides the elements of certainty and respect that can fundamentally change a relationship. However, the foundation must be firmly laid through a major effort at providing a legislative framework.
Mr. Erasmus: We do not expect immediate consensus. Aboriginal people come to decisions through a process of much debate and discussion, and we think this will take some time. However, we are confident that what we are recommending is something on which a consensus will be reached over time. Our document respects the treaties, and it respects the role aboriginal people see for themselves in the life of this country. Some, we believe, will be ready to move quite rapidly towards the formation of nation government.
In fact, we firmly believe that the pathway we have laid out will provide the basis for a way through the confusion and confrontation that has characterized the relationship since the failure of the constitutional conferences in the mid-1980s. But it should be understood that there are many disappointed people and communities out there. Many have had their hopes raised in the past only to see them crumble again. This creates a climate of cynicism and despair. Some want to wait and see what emerges.
Some others will take aspects of what we propose, and finding that our proposals do not provide them with whatever they have come to believe they deserve, will attack it. Some will want to maintain the existing structure of chiefs in council. Others believe they should never have to pay tax to any government, aboriginal or otherwise. Others believe that their fiduciary relationship requires that they be taken care of by the Canadian government forever.
We believe that many of these ideas will fade as the new structure of the relationship begins to be understood. We hope to be able to help by speaking as widely as possible in the coming weeks and months.
Mr. Dussault: Never before have these issues been looked at so comprehensively. We are conscious of putting before you a very large challenge that will require long-term strategic thinking and planning and a consistency of effort.
These societal transformations have happened, and are happening in various places around the world, including in Canada. Quebec went through a revolution of its own society that has some parallels to what we envisage.
Mr. Erasmus: This is not a challenge that is too big for this country to undertake. We are asking you and others in Canada to take the time to absorb what we are saying and to debate its merits. We think there are new ideas here that can help open doors to solutions. We think you should encourage discussion rather than shutting down the process on the pretext that fiscal climate impedes all new thought and initiative.
We suggest a longer term view, which Canada is generally known for and has taken in the past when this country has been confronted with major economic and social challenges. We encourage you to take steps early to build the trust and confidence that are an essential foundation for this new relationship. Thank you.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you for that overview. I think those members who have not had the opportunity to study either the summary or the report will, nonetheless, pick up on the points you have raised and be able to question you.
Could copies of your speaking notes be made available for circulation to the committee?
Mr. Dussault: Of course.
Senator Beaudoin: We all agree this is a major issue. It is not new, and we have to do today what we did not do in 1867. We must restore certain constitutional protections. I have no problem with constitutional guarantees. There is, of course, your opinion that section 35 implicitly recognizes aboriginal self-government, and that may be the case.
The commission, in its deliberations, recognized the principle of human rights. Whether it is recognized in section 35 is, perhaps, debatable, but it should be recognized. There are two or three areas that I would like to study much more deeply, such as the concept of double citizenship, and duplication of the Criminal Code. I agree that there must be only one Charter of Rights.
A third level of government, of course, is unprecedented in the history of federations. That does not mean we should not consider it. We must be very open-minded regarding any possible solutions. For years I have always said that we, Canadians, need creative imagination, although we did demonstrate some in 1867. We need more of that in the future.
Why are you advocating something more than the usual constitutional protection; and why are you in favour of a third order of government? In your opinion, is this the only solution?
Mr. Dussault: The answer is yes in the sense of the need for recognition of the inherent right. In our report we say that we believe self-government is aboriginal and treaty rights being recognized under section 35. Of course, we do not know the scope of that, and we will not know until the Supreme Court of Canada gives us some indication.
The court is dealing with this case by case, and group by group, and the latest data at the end of the summer -- at least from an Ontario ban on gaming -- shows that a workable proposal will not be achieved through the courts. Negotiations will have to take place.
If the right is implicitly recognized under section 35, with some scope -- and we think that particular areas that are vital to distinctive cultures and identity of a particular group are likely to be recognized under section 35 as an aboriginal right -- we think there is the premise for a third order of government and we recommend that the various governments of this country make room for this to happen through negotiation.
We believe that recognizing an inherent right means, in fact, recognizing a third order of government, something that is not delegated either by federal or provincial statute
Senator Beaudoin: By the Constitution itself.
Mr. Dussault: By the Constitution itself. We made a very early decision not to attach our report to constitutional amendment. Of course, that had consequences. The rules governing a royal commission are different from the rules governing a lawyer pleading his case before a judge. We had to challenge long-held ideas in justice circles. Obviously, we had to come up with, say, 10 or 12 significant legal optimums in our report. We hope most of them will be upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Senator Beaudoin: You say that section 35 implicitly deals with the inherent rights of self-government. In any event, if it is not in the section, the section could be amended so as to include it. That is not a major problem in my view.
You say that a third order of government is inevitable, although it is not to be found in any federation of the world.
Mr. Dussault: It starts from the right of self-determination as recognized through the emerging international norms and principles of public morality. We are saying is that individuals live in communities but the whole people of a nation should decide -- and we hammered out a transition process in our government structure -- whether they want to rebuild, reconnect their ties with the First Nations, in a contemporary fashion, obviously. We will not have a Cree Nation from coast to coast tomorrow. The James Bay Cree in Quebec, because of their particular geographical interest, will probably ask for recognition as a nation.
A decision will have to be made about whether to reconnect ties with the nations, and if they agree it should be done, then steps must be taken towards recognition, and then there will be the treaty process.
The third order of government will involve around 50, 60 or maybe 80 nations. There will not be 700 or 800 self-government agreements, as would have been the case under the Charlottetown Accord. We do not think it is practical and feasible to have single communities with provincial-like powers or those of some of the federal jurisdictions.
It makes sense to cluster self-government around the nation and to link it with the communities, the identities of the people, the languages and with a collective project. This is needed.
Senator Beaudoin: You have no problem with the creation of these nations?
Mr. Dussault: We are talking about sociological nations, and not nations defined as a state within the state, although some could cross borders between provinces. That means more provinces would have to be at the table along with the federal government and the nations such as the Micmac. However, we think this achievable.
We have the direction and the destination, but what is probably far more important is where Canada's obligation would be to the nation. The nation would have a territorial jurisdiction, an ability to tax the residents, both the members and the non-aboriginal residents in the territory. They will have to be represented. Some rights will have to be given to non-aboriginal residents. If we enlarge aboriginal lands, obviously more and more non-aboriginal people will be living on aboriginal lands and their rights will have to be protected. But the vision is to have nations that have a taxation base. With no taxation base, then we just close the book because nothing positive will happen.
With a taxation base they would have their own sources of revenue complemented by transfer payment by the federal government, just as the provinces and the federal government have an equalization formula. We think that this is much more natural within the framework of Canada than continuing into the next century with a situation where all the money goes into the communities through the Indian Act, and where you still have to define who is an aboriginal person because you attach individual benefits to the definition. You cannot have open-ended programs.
That is the overall direction we are putting forward. Of course, it needs a great deal of thought by the aboriginal peoples and by the country as such. We think it is more healthy and sound than the continuation of the present system which is highly frustrating and quite conflictivebecause it is a welfare system. The challenge is to turn this welfare system, because of the demographic pressure and for humanity's sake, into something that is productive.
In 20 years from now we will not be able to afford having 36 or 37 per cent of those young people under 15 on social assistance like their fathers or mothers. They will only be 35, but there will be more of them that there is in the current generation. Presently, the excess expenditure for social assistance is $800. In 1999 it will be a $1 billion and $1.2 billion in 2001. It will increase if nothing happens. We have destroyed the economies.
Senator Pearson: That leads directly to my question. Senator Beaudoin was talking about constitutional issues and you have been appropriately asked about the legislative base, since that is what we deal with. However my interest is primarily in young people.
I do not think anyone disagrees with your analysis. What kind of role do you envisage for young people in this process?
Mr. Erasmus: Close to 60 per cent of aboriginal people across the board are under 25 years old. The majority of aboriginal people are very young, therefore, the major leadership will be very young. When I was president of the Dene Nation I was in my mid-twenties. I could have been president of the Dene Nation probably when I was 19, if I had wanted it at the time. That also applies to Charlie and Walter, or whoever.
Young people make up the majority of aboriginal people. The big challenge is: How do you break the mould? Over the last 20 years there have been a fair number of attempts to change the situation amongst aboriginal people and, I guess, there has been some progress.
The fact is that most aboriginal people do not have the kind of academic background that would lead them into good jobs. Twenty years ago approximately 2 per cent or so had post-secondary education and now it is still only somewhere between 2 and 3 per cent.As I said, nearly 60 per cent of aboriginal people are under 25 years old. Not enough is being done. The plus is that aboriginal people are young, because with young people change can occur. With young people planning, training and good education can take place.
When I was going through grade school, it was extremely tough for aboriginal people to be in school. We were taught virtually nothing positive about our culture. We had to discard everything we knew -- everything from our language, our view of the world view, to the smallest thing such as how to conduct a meeting or socialize. Formal education told us that everything we knew was useless.
As time has passed, more and more aboriginal people have taken over some of their schools but, in every case, they remain under provincial jurisdiction, so they still have to work with the provincial curriculum. You can supplement or enhance the curriculum but there is no funding to do so.
The success rate of aboriginal people when they go into a school run by aboriginal people, is generally higher. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done. We want to focus on young people who are the majority.
We want their involvement in every aspect of life, from social and recreational activities, family activities, community activities to involvement in the decision making on major issues such as what life should be like in the communities and whether they should be encouraged to come together again as nations, and whether support should be provided by government. We expect that young people will be picking up the torch in many instances. We have discovered that the views of many young aboriginal people are not necessarily the views of their parents or of the generations before them. They are much more likely to want pan-aboriginal solutions, even though they are fiercely interested in their own nation and their own aboriginal nationality.
It seems that there is a lot of support for pan-aboriginal issues. There is a lot of work to be done in that area. I do not know if it can all be done at one time. It may have to be done piecemeal.
Expenditures will be higher because we must invest in things like training, education, economic development so that we can break the mould, and so that 20 years from now we are not saying that only 3 per cent of aboriginal people have post-secondary education."
Senator Pearson: I am totally sympathetic to all of that. My question really was about training, because a problem that I have with Canadian culture as a whole is we do not give adequate opportunities to young people, not only to express their views, but to have their views listened to. How do you envision building that in to your processes? In your report do you touch on the empowerment of young people so that they feel confident when they are 11, 12 or 13 to take responsibility for their future. That kind of acceptance of responsibility gives young people a sense of purpose.
Mr. Erasmus: Yes, absolutely. We talk about it in a number of ways. We talk about the type of education that is geared towards young people feeling more empowered. An education system where students are talked down to in a classroom, with all powers in the hands of the teacher, does not create a situation where there is horizontal power in the structure of the classroom. That is very foreign to aboriginal culture. That kind of power structure hardly exists in any aboriginal society anywhere in the world.
Aboriginal societies generally try to empower the young as fast as possible to assume responsibility, to accept things. The more you accept responsibility, the more self-reliant you become. You will accept responsibility for your community and for your family. You will be credited with more integrity and more respect will be given to you. Thus, your own self pride and self esteem as an individual develops.
The reverse of what happens in a classroom occurs. In that environment you virtually feel that the teacher does not expect you to do your homework. I found that a very alienating kind of experience. It was like being schizophrenic. You played one game in the classroom, and as soon as you walked out of there and went home, you played a completely different game. Your parents did not have that kind of power over you. They never wanted that kind of power over you. They wanted you to be responsible. However, in classroom you felt the teacher expected you to be irresponsible.
In this report we deal with the fact that, if we want our young people to be different, if we want a society in the future where people accept communal responsibility and individual responsibility, then you have to have a different education system.
Not all aboriginal societies are exactly the same, although there are strong currents of similarity. Even though we have an Inuit here and somebody from the prairies, none of us comes from the same nation. I suspect we have some similarities, but there are major differences among us. Aboriginal people must run their own show, they must do their own thing. However, we expect, when doing that, if they are true to their own culture as it used to be, we will see different, dynamic kinds of educational facilities.
We were able to listen to the educational experiences across the country. We heard of success stories, whether in the high schools in downtown Winnipeg or on reserves, where the aboriginal people have taken over schools. They are doing marvellous things.
The young people also made it clear to us that they want to be involved in the political process. They want to be taken seriously. They want to be consulted. What has happened, of course, is that, as the process of negotiation has gone on for land claims and so forth, the adults consulted among themselves, and because they had quite a task to bring people on side, often the young people did not have an opportunity to become involved.
It is not easy to consult with young people. We had young field workers and young people on staff. It was not always the easiest thing to get young people to want to talk. They would wonder why we would want to consult them.
We tried to take the same approach with street kids in cities, but it was very difficult. We did have a couple of forums where we were supposed to sit down and talk with street kids. Only a few showed up. We ended up talking to ex-street kids and those who were working with them. They were like the bridge linking the gap.
Senator Tkachuk: I would like clarification of a statement in your presentation On page 3, the third paragraph states that although positive change has occurred, too many still see aboriginal people as an unfortunate minority who only need better education and better tools to take their place alongside the majority, having adopted the majority's values.
I do not quite understand what you mean by that, because it seems to me that better education and better tools really has not much to do with majority values, it is a necessary part of all our values, whether we are aboriginal or non-aboriginal. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Dussault: We are saying that the Canadian approach for a century was to see aboriginal people as an impoverished minority that should have better tools, better education and that they would integrate into the mainstream and assimilate culturally. That has not worked, and we are saying that it is not going to work.
That applies to all the countries with aboriginal people in their midst. It need not be like that. We do not have to ask aboriginal people to commit a kind of cultural suicide to enter the mainstream.
Senator Tkachuk: I agree with you there. My question, however, related to what will happen in the future. Let us just skip the past and talk about better education and better tools so that young people can take their place within their own communities.
Mr. Dussault: I will give you an example. It struck us that there are very few young aboriginal people go into the resource centres, forestry, mining, hydroelectricity techniques, and so on. We met with a few thousand of them in the schools from grades 8 to 12 to talk about psychological barriers. There is no partnership with the resource industries. To work for a forestry company is still being seen as working for the enemy. The training to enable you to work for the forestry company is viewed in that same light. When you get back to your community on the weekend and this company is doing clear-cutting on traditional territory, you are not very popular. We have to break that, and one of the ways to do that is to have partnerships.
We have to break that cycle of giving royalty on resources so that aboriginal people see the economic interest in the development of their resources and at the same time establish a partnership for its development, so that cultural values are taken into account.
Senator Tkachuk: I am still lost.
Mr. Erasmus: I will try to deal with the question. We loaded a lot of information into that particular statement. One of the myths we were trying to deal with in the larger society was that aboriginal people are just another minority and their problem is simply that they are not properly educated. The philosophy is: give them the proper education and they will fit into society as individuals.
Yes, education is needed, but not the same kind of education that is required by the larger society. We need an education system that is controlled by aboriginal people so that their culture, which is distinctly different, is reflected in the process of the education system. Then there will be higher success rates.
Aboriginal peoples are the original peoples. They are not the minorities.
There are contracts, treaties and obligations. Some have self-government. We tried to load quite a few things in this report.
Senator Tkachuk: You did, and there many statements that are a little loaded, and because the statements are loaded, I sometimes think that, when we discuss issues such as self-government, for example, we are not on the same planet.
In this study you talk about a government that will not be race-based, it will be able to move back and forth. Who will be able to move back and forth? Will I take up residence on a reserve and will I pay taxes to the aboriginal government? Can we go back and forth?
Mr. Erasmus: About half of our people at the moment marry non-aboriginal people. This has been happening for quite a while. Back in the days when we had the Indian Act if the man married out, the spouse became aboriginal. When the women married out, everybody lost out. Those days must end.
Senator Beaudoin: Are you saying that it was different for a man marrying out?
Mr. Erasmus: That is the way it used to be under the old Indian Act.
Senator Beaudoin: I thought it was changed.
Mr. Erasmus: Yes, it was changed. We are looking down the road. We are proposing that aboriginal people reconfigure themselves in their nations again. It will mean that the many Dene communities will come together. The Inuit are already doing it.
If you have an expanded land base like the Inuit in Northern Quebec or the Inuit in the Northwest Territories, then you will have people who are non-aboriginal. What do you do respecting all these people who are marrying-in?
Senator Tkachuk: Why do anything? That is not abnormal.
Mr. Erasmus: Of course it is not abnormal. No one is saying it is abnormal.
Senator Tkachuk: I know, so why would you have to do anything? That is what I do not understand.
Mr. Erasmus: Could I answer the question, please?
Senator Tkachuk: I'm sorry.
Senator Taylor: He is agreeing with you, if you give him a chance.
Mr. Erasmus: We propose that the aboriginal nations' jurisdiction be clearly recognized. Let us say, for the sake of being brief, that it resembles a provincial jurisdiction and that it has an expanded territory. We are saying you have to decide who the citizens are of that nation, and we are suggesting that it should be broad. Descendancy is a qualification. Marriage-in is another and, obviously; adoption is another. Residency may even be considered.
We just cannot see, in that kind of context, people demanding that a citizen must be someone with a quarter-blood aboriginal or a half-blood aboriginal. We just cannot see that happening.
We think that would be unfair. Over time, we believe that all spouses, whether they are male or female, will be recognized, should be, and that the normal human rights that are reflected in the charter will apply to aboriginal nation governments. We think that those nations that try to go against that, will be challenged and lose.
It will not be race-based. We are talking about political, cultural, identity. Like the modern Quebec nation, you will have the modern Dene nation, the modern Inuit nation, and so forth. Intermarriage has been happening for a long time. It is occurring at a rate of about 50 per cent right now and it will continue.
This is about ideas, concepts, and culture. Quebec has been saying it for a long time. It is the same amongst aboriginal peoples. The Dene say that if you can live on the land like people did in the past, and understand the wildlife, how to live with ecology and all the rest of it, if you can live in harmony, you are a Dene. It has nothing to do with blood. That is what we are talking about.
Even with that expanded concept of nation, you will probably find people coming to work on the territory. They will work for either the mining company operating on your land, or for the government because people from the outside will be hired. What rights will they have?
We think they should have some rights. The Sechelt community has one way of dealing with non-aboriginal people, non-members. Nation governments will have to find different ways to ensure that, if they tax the people living in their area and their laws are going to apply, there must be some way in which those people will be able to participate in the nation government.
Senator Tkachuk: They will be able to vote. If I travel to any other part of Canada I have rights and that is recognized by my government. If I stepped into, say, a territory of the Dene nation, would I have full Canadian citizenship rights?
Mr. Erasmus: The charter would apply to the nation. We have a number of models of government. One model of government that the Inuit are pursuing, and it seems they are going to continue to pursue, is a public, open government. While there will be public, open government, the Inuit will also have certain aboriginal rights. They have certain structures that have been created to protect their hunting, fishing, and so forth, and they might have higher than normal residency requirements.
Another model might be where, as a nation the nation's members may have more rights. Since we are talking about the country of Canada, people living in your territory would have to have certain rights. You might have a different kind of structure where non-members can vote and participate, or even elect a body that will work in conjunction with the nation government.
There are numerous ways of doing it. The point is you cannot simply say to someone who is a non-member and who has been living in the area for a long time, that they have no rights at all.
Senator Watt: You say that you had discussions as people to people, nation to nation, but not nation state to nation state. What does that mean? You also mentioned the fact that you would have outright ownership of the land, but there is also the question of jurisdiction. How do those two interrelate?
Mr. Erasmus: Obviously, the nation state here is Canada. We firmly believe aboriginal people, as nations, or peoples in the international concept, have the right to self-determination. That would give us a whole bundle of rights. In addition, the Canadian constitution has section 35 which recognizes aboriginal rights and treaty rights.
We are firmly convinced that the original jurisdiction, the original sovereignty that aboriginal nations had here, has been captured by section 35. That is the inherent right column, but you also have the self-determination column.
You can come to the table as a nation of people to negotiate freely on terms with Canada, in terms of union, if you will, and the kind of governmental structures you want with Canada. That right of self-determination, while it applies to the Inuit, the Cree, the Dene, Haida, does not mean that we have the ability to dismember the single nation state that now exists, except under very terrible conditions.
If we are being oppressed to such a point that we have no other alternative, and we have made every possible attempt to change the situation and the state oppresses us even more, those are not the conditions aboriginal people in Canada can live with. If the state itself is dismembering, then it liberates the conditions under which aboriginal people are tied to Canada. In those instances you have choices.
We have two documents which deal with categories of land. One came out last year. It is a suggestion from us, it is not mandatory by any means, but we aboriginal people coming to the table with a big territory that they traditionally use. We think it should be approached by carving it up into three areas. In the first area, as the nation that you are is clearly recognized, your jurisdiction would apply virtually exclusively. Federal jurisdiction would obviously apply to some degree also, but there at least you will presumably oust most of the provincial influence and, of course, you would have to negotiate that at the table. We have a number of tables here.
Let us say, for easy discussion, most of the powers that nations would exercise would be the same as those exercised by provinces. For example, the Nisga'a in the Nass Valley in British Columbia, if the land they have is category 1, would oust the province of British Columbia. That is what we mean by "category 1".
Then we say there should be another part of the territory in respect of which you would sit down with the province and the federal government and agree to govern it together. How can that be done? The agreement might be that the aboriginal people, as with the Nisga'a, control all the hunting, fishing, trapping, all of the activities on the land, and all the renewable resources and they can control the subsurface and other things. There might be a set of joint structures with a 50-per-cent split. That could be negotiated.
Then the third category is the part of the territory where the province's laws apply primarily and it is the same old order of the day. This is where the province has control. But still you, as an aboriginal nation, for example, the Nisga'a, will continue to have some influence and rights over hunting, fishing, trapping, and perhaps ceremonial activity. They may say that no one can enter the territory and do something in Nass valley that does not involve the aboriginal people. That was the concept in the Nisga's case.
Senator Watt: Section 35 of the Constitution applies to the aboriginal people. Flowing out of section 35 is a certain set of criteria recognizing those three separate land categories: category 1, category 2, and category 3 land. Are you saying that land falls under the provincial domain?
Mr. Erasmus: No, that would be aboriginal.
Senator Watt: Under section 35?
Mr. Erasmus: That will be the aboriginal territory, the aboriginal land. That is where the aboriginal jurisdiction would be.
Senator Watt: You are saying that the restrictions on outright ownership which would normally apply to land acquired as the result of a claim would no longer apply. Often in negotiations there would be so many restrictions on outright ownership that rights would be so severely diminished that economic negotiation would be impossible. That was the situation I had to confront during the land claims settlements 20 years ago.
Mr. Erasmus: We looked at the claims process and we discovered some serious problems with the comprehensive claims approach. This is not the same categories of land that you negotiated some 20 years ago. Twenty years ago what existed was, more or less, a large municipal government in Northern Quebec, but you were still under the jurisdiction of the province. You really did not have the ability, for instance, to set up your own school board. The school board is still under the power of the Quebec government. The minister of education can change the laws.
In this system the Quebec minister cannot do that. The Cree or the Inuit minister will do that.You will have your own government. With category 1 land, you would not have to have all of the former rights and restrictions because it would be the provincial land of the Northern Quebec Inuit, and it would be the provincial land of the Northern Quebec Cree. It would be your territory. Your laws would apply. You will be able to make the laws governing education, health and social services, or whatever your jurisdiction covers. That applies to the territorial base.
You have the ability make economic decisions to create business, control development, and so forth.
Senator Watt: Is the central focus of this report based on a desire to establish self-government?
Mr. Erasmus: That is what we are talking about. It is an enormous document and we have not yet reached volume three.
Senator Watt: I realize that the Royal Commission has dealt with and is dealing with many subject areas. Is there a need to move quickly to introduce an instrument which would be required so that these measures can be implemented through section 35?
Mr. Erasmus: Yes, we need the legislation that we talked about, the recognition legislation, the treaty implementation legislation, so we can get the treaty discussions underway, along with a tribunal to change the process of claims and to support the treaty process. I am sure you know how long negotiations take. Some negotiations have taken a long time.
While that is going on, the other areas mentioned in our report could be implemented. I am thinking specifically of our young people, and how we must approach that whole area of education and training. We do not want to lose another generation.
Up to now, upon the completion of negotiations, when new institutions are set up, the jobs created have been filled by non-members. The training for all of the positions that should have been Inuit should have started 20 years ago. Everybody at the table would know that, but it made no difference. Nothing was done.
We want to see this process in place all across the country so that everybody can get a larger land base. We could have the original treaties implemented, and negotiate new treaties in the Atlantic region where they have never dealt with land issues.
However, the goal is to ensure that skilled, young people who have been educated in a culturally appropriate forum.
Senator Watt: Section 35 has been interpreted in slightly different ways in the past. There are three nations covered under section 35, Indians, Inuit and the Métis. There have always been two schools of thought as to how we might restructure ourselves under that umbrella, such as establishing an assembly, or establishing a parliament within the parliament. You might call it a "mini-parliament."
Are you proposing that we should take the least expensive route and establish one assembly rather than setting up three assemblies under section 35?
Mr. Erasmus: The deal that was originally made by the treaties was co-existence -- we would let the newcomers in with their institutions and they could govern themselves, but we were to govern ourselves.
That will largely be taken care of by an expanded land base, recognizing that aboriginal people are nations, creating another order of government and putting in place fiscal arrangements. You would have small, provincial-type governments all across the country.
However, what would our situation be in terms of the government of the country? The reality is that, because of the numerical weakness of aboriginal people, something like only 11 aboriginal members have ever been elected to the House of Commons. We could have only one more aboriginal senator. That kind of participation, we think, is not enough.
How are we to change that? We could follow the recommendations of the committee on parliamentary participation by ensuring that so many aboriginal members are elected across the country. You might bring the number up to, say, a dozen. Presently, the NDP have nine members, and we don't hear very much about them. If they had three more members I don't think it would make much difference. They do not have much influence in Ottawa.
The bargain that was made with the newcomers to this country was that we were going to govern the land together. How are we to do that? Having more seats in parliament will not achieve that, although there might be better participation. It will never be the kind of partnership that Quebec thinks it has with the country, and that aboriginal people think they have with non-aboriginal people. How do we do it? We do it by creating another house.
Senator Watt: A third one.
Mr. Erasmus: A third one. At the very least, those pieces of legislation that are specifically important to aboriginal people should be dealt with in that forum. Perhaps that third house should have a veto in certain areas, for example, with respect to proposed amendments to section 35.
Senator Beaudoin: The Senate does not have that right now.
Mr. Erasmus: We see it as a two-step process. The first step should be, because we must move quickly, perhaps, setting up an advisory board which can deal with legislation. However, as soon as the Constitution amended, a third house should be created.
You would start with an aboriginal parliament and end up with an assembly of aboriginal peoples where each nation would be represented.
Senator Taylor: I worked for a few years in Greenland. Haveyou discussed this with them? They have had home rule.
Mr. Dussault: It is one of the two countries that we visited outside Canada. We went to Greenland in February 1993. We met with people to look at the evolution process through their Home Rule Act. As you know, all of the land in Greenland is collective, as reserve land is in Canada. However, there are ways to mortgage what is on the surface.
We were very interested, in relation to economic development, in what was going on in Greenland. This was the reason we went there. In fact, in our report you will find quite a few ideas which are the result of our visit to Greenland. In particular in relation to how to get clarification of tenure on the surface so as to be able to mortgage your house, or get a loan from the bank to start a small business, and so forth, through long term leases.
Senator Taylor: The former Yugoslavia had a third house, but that is hardly a fair comparison. Did you look at their three-house system?
Mr. Dussault: We looked at the situation in Yugoslavia in relation to some of the studies we did. We did a couple of studies on what would be the fiduciary duties of the federal government if Quebec were exercising full sovereignty, domestically and internationally. The latter would involve a consideration of the Yugoslavian situation. However, this is not in the report itself.
Senator Johnson: Being from the province of Manitoba, I have worked with young people, both aboriginal and otherwise.
Role models, of course, are critical for all young people. As you know, recently, we have been running into some very difficult problems in the city of Winnipeg. The number of gangs and their size are increasing all the time. People work with them to try to encourage them to focus their energies on other activities rather continuing in the current activities.
Is a separate aboriginal educational system with aboriginal teachers, leaders and resource people for the young people the only solution? How will this play out down the road in terms of our overall Canadian society?
As you know, in my province, 45,000 aboriginals now live in the city of Winnipeg out of a total population of 91,000 aboriginal people in the province. In five years I think one in five or six Manitobans will have an aboriginal background. It is a major factor for us to consider and, as you know, the young people form the biggest proportion of people with aboriginal backgrounds.
Mr. Dussault: At the moment, 52 per cent of the schools on reserves that are a federal responsibility are aboriginally controlled, but we still have 70 per cent of aboriginal people attending provincial schools. There are good examples of aboriginally controlled schools in Winnipeg. Most have a higher retention rate than provincial schools. Therefore, we should push for more of aboriginal schools which have a culturally appropriate curriculum. In our report, we put great emphasis on the need for the mainstream schools to not only to adjust their values, their curricula, but also to adjust the way they receive young aboriginal people. That is critical because, as Georges Erasmus said, when you go to a school that is totally foreign to your culture, it is very harmful.
Senator Johnson: Will it be a mix?
Mr. Dussault: It has to be a mix.
Mr. Erasmus: All the way across, whether it is justice or health or whatever.
Senator Johnson: That is what I assumed. Your commission, basically, calls for political and economic separation to a large extent, including an aboriginal parliament.
My question focuses on land claims settlements, so that the aboriginal peoples can start looking after their own problems. Land base, I assume, is key to your future and your success. Does this mean that self-government on your own land base is neither subordinate nor supreme to federal and provincial governments? Am I understanding this correctly, to say that, as you see it, native communities have core responsibilities for, all matters that are of vital concern to the life and welfare of a particular aboriginal people, its culture and identity, but which does not have a major impact on adjacent jurisdictions and are not otherwise the objective of federal and provincial concern? What would happen in a conflict?
Mr. Dussault: First of all, the challenge is to bring aboriginal people as partners into Confederation. Ideally, it should have been done in 1867. How to do it in a contemporary fashion, that is the real issue. What we say in our report is that we think that the collectives of the aboriginal peoples, as well as the individuals, could be accommodated through self-government, harmonized within Canada with provincial and federal jurisdiction in a way that will be be productive.
Core areas of jurisdiction are areas that relate to particular, distinctive cultures, and that goe very deeply to the identity of aboriginal people. Certainly there is, from our point of view, under section 35, an aboriginal right of governance.
In peripheral areas you have to enter into agreements with the other governments. Obviously, all this has to be worked out through a treaty process where the jurisdictions, the land and resource base, as well as the financial agreements will have to be addressed. We are not talking about creating enclaves where other people cannot participate. Quite the contrary. We are talking about territorial jurisdiction.
Obviously, to have, ultimately, a third order of government is something which is quite challenging. However, we think it can be achieved. It could be done under the framework of the Canadian Charter of Rights. It could be done in a way where there is reciprocity; in the educational field, for example, in the justice field, and so forth, in order that there is peace and harmony, but respect for the collectivity at the same time as for the individuals. We think it could work well. That is our idea of what it would look like.
Senator Johnson: I think what struck me the most is that there is so much in there that can be worked on, as opposed to being divisive. Although I have not studied it in detail, that was my first reaction to the report.
How do you view what has happened in Manitoba in terms of the self-government thus far, because it is one of the first provinces where things have started? I have been privy to some of these discussions. Are you happy with what has happened there so far?
Mr. Dussault: It is headed in the right direction, but it covers only the aboriginal field. It is a federal evolution. It does not include the provinces at the moment. It is evolving.
Senator Johnson: Is it evolving as any kind of a model?
Mr. Dussault: It is certainly something that is going in the right direction.
Senator Johnson: Do you think it is a form that could be used?
Mr. Dussault: Yes.
Mr. Erasmus: It could expand over time because, on the aboriginal side, most of the things that are in our report they had wanted to deal with at some point or another. When we talked to both sides, we found that the interpretation of rules is different but, on the aboriginal side, it is closer to all of the agenda items.
Senator Johnson: It could be incorporated.
Senator Twinn: You mentioned a figure of $13 billion for the aboriginal people. Do you sort of have a breakdown of how that is spent?
Mr. Erasmus: You mean between the aboriginal peoples?
Senator Twinn: How is this $13 billion spent?
Mr. Dussault: It goes to social-economic measures and to the settlement of land claims and institutions that need to be created, such as tribunals.
Senator Twinn: Do you have a percentage breakdown?
Mr. Dussault: The latest year where we could reconcile provincial and federal spending was 1992-1993. It was $6 billion for the feds and $5.6 billion for the provinces. This covers targeted programs and also the level of use of general programs, which is much higher in health and justice areas, services and so forth, by the aboriginal peoples.
Senator Twinn: My point is that a large percentage goes to the bureaucracy and royal commissions and so on and that not very much of it goes to the 300,000 Indian people living on reservations.
When we talk about a third form of government, what concerns me is that we create more bureaucracy. I am not singling out the Department of Indian Affairs.
Mr. Dussault: It is largely, if I may, a question of accountability. At the moment, all the money comes from the federal government. When the aboriginal have a tax base, the accountability will shift to the constituents, the members of the nations, the residents on the territory. The difficulty at the moment is that there is no economic base on most aboriginal lands.
You may spend a transfer payment unwisely, but if you make a blunder and taxes have to be increased, then people feel it much more and they become concerned and involved.
Mr. Erasmus: We are not talking about the bureaucracy in Ottawa. What we are talking about is recognizing that there are nations out there who should govern. The nations would be responsible for own situations and make their own laws. The federal government should propose legislation that recognizes that aboriginal nations are self-governing. The federal government recognizes that aboriginal people have an inherent right. As soon as they recognize an aboriginal nation, they can legislate this.
You create the kind of government structure you want. If you do not want a bureaucracy, you do not create a bureaucracy. The kind of power that now exists in Ottawa in a federal department because there is the Indian Act empowers the federal government to be involved in all the minute detail of our lives, everything from birth to death. That would end. What you would have is a government-to-government relationship and the aboriginal government would make its laws and create whatever structures are necessary.
Senator Twinn: You will love Bill S-12.
Senator Watt: At this point in time, have our people contemplated and considered what internal changes have to be made to be prepared to implement these changes?
Mr. Dussault: There is a section under "transition" which outlines the various steps that must be taken. First of all, people have to decide if they want to reconnect and act as a nation. That decision must come from the actual membership in all the communities. Second, they must design the constitution, consider the splitting or division of powers between the community and the centre. They must establish membership codes. This has been hammered out in great detail in the report. All of this is very important, and it has to be done in an orderly and fair fashion for everybody involved and concerned.
The Deputy Chairman: We are just about at the end of the meeting. I would thank the two co-chairs for sharing their perspectives with us. I would also thank the entire commission for challenging both the aboriginal leadership and the non-aboriginal leadership to consider new ways to live in this country. I hope that the Royal Commission on aboriginal peoples will restore to its rightful place on the agenda our need to deal with this issue, both at the federal government level and the provincial government level.
For those of us who come from provinces where we are confronted with the issue daily, we accept our responsibilities in this area. However, I am concerned that, as the demographics change elsewhere, particularly in large cities such as Toronto, the issues will be eliminated from the agendas by political leaders. I hope your report will put it back fairly where it should be as one of the key issues confronting Canada. It will not go away until there is some imaginative leadership is demonstrated. I thank both of you for showing that kind of leadership.
Beyond studying your report, is there anything further that we, as senators, can do to push for the reforms you have outlined?
Mr. Erasmus: A lot t needs to be done to create trust in the aboriginal community. There is a tremendous amount of mistrust and cynicism. Many aboriginal people are waiting for action from the government. There will be a period of time, after all of its consideration and deliberation, when the government will be expected to act. As one of the two houses in Ottawa you virtually have 50 per cent of the ability to encourage them to act. You can introduce legislation. If the government does not act, you can.
Mr. Dussault: We should not undermine what it means to give this report the hard look it deserves. If people conclude the direction and the principle upon which it is based is sound, measures should be taken to maintain the momentum. Obviously, the danger is that, because it is seen as a complex and major issue, we will try to muddle through without significantly changing the relationship. It must be rebalanced as it relates to the individuals and the collectives. There is much that senators could do to promote a better understanding of the issues. That is the first hurdle.
Then the next one is to promote some of the items that people think are sound and valid.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to appear before your committee this morning.
Mr. Erasmus: A very quick comment. The senator said I would love his bill. We do deal with what individual bands might want to do that either do not want to go the nation route, or else, for them, it is on the back burner; it is not their priority right now. Other communities and bands will do many different things. Individual communities will move forward to achieve their own priorities, whether it is moving towards individual self-government for their band, economic priorities, social priorities, or dealing with sexual abuse which is the case in some communities in Northern Manitoba. That is, obviously, the way it is going to occur.
We have no problem with that. We are suggesting that the government move quickly in all of those areas, because the structural changes to implement those historic treaties, setting up tables to implement them, dealing with an extended land base and a third order of government, will take long time.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.