Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 17 - Evidence, February 3, 1999
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 3, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 5:40 p.m. to examine and report upon aboriginal self-government.
Senator Charlie Watt (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the first witness is Mr. Obonsawin, and I would ask him to take his seat.
Our first witness represents O.I. Group of Companies.
Please proceed, Mr. Obonsawin.
Mr. Roger Obonsawin, President, O.I. Group of Companies:
(Mr. Obonsawin spoke in his native language)
[Translation]
Good afternoon, honourable senators. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to talk about Aboriginal self-government.
[English]
First, let me tell you about the O.I. Group. On the last page of our brief is an organization chart that defines the companies of which I am president. My partner, Ljuba Irwin, could not make it here today and sends regrets.
We are a self-sufficient company. We do not believe in government grants or subsidies. We have never accepted any, nor will we. We are not controlled by government. Since 1981, Obonsawin-Irwin Consulting has provided, to native organizations across Canada, consulting services, including program planning, evaluation, board training, board governance, and evaluations of major projects such as Head Start and Brighter Futures.
About eight years ago, we formed O.I. Employee Leasing Inc. and O.I. Personnel Services, which we describe as a self-supporting aboriginal network to help develop a network of native people providing services within native and non-native organizations and businesses. It is a human resource development company. We have over 600 employees at any one time under our Native Leasing Services, and in any one year about 1,500 individuals will make use of our services.
I will explain later our philosophy as a company because I think it does fit into the concept of self-sufficiency. The company was formed because of the high degree of dependence and fragmentation that occurs within native communities as a result, we feel, of government policies.
I want to address the questions that senators posed in their discussion paper in October 1998 and to look at real alternatives to self-sufficiency and self-determination based on our experiences. I refer to our experiences, not only as a company, but also, prior to that, in my work in native friendship centres. I was founding president of the National Association of Friendship Centres covering friendship centres across Canada. My partner was the coordinator, at a senior level in government, of the foreign communications program for funding of native political organizations and, later, the coordinator of the friendship centre program at that time called the Migrating Native Peoples Program. So we bring both a community-based and a government perspective to these issues.
It is difficult to look at self-government without looking at self-determination and self-sufficiency. In fact, if you put self-government ahead, you are putting the cart before the horse. If we are to be self-determining people, then we have the right to make those decisions about the type of government that will represent us and the structures that will be developed. That is the definition of self-determination. Self-sufficiency means using our own resources to do that independently.
I will touch briefly on the four-pillar policy -- if we can refer to the first overhead slide -- that was passed by the Mulroney government on September 25, 1990. We saw this really as a termination or extinguishment policy. We say it is an extinguishment policy because Canada still has not changed its overall policy toward native people, in spite of the Royal Commission recommendations. It is still a policy of domination and assimilation. We are expected to look at how we fit into the Canadian structure in a way that will continue to dominate and assimilate our people.
The policy of the four pillars was very well defined. Under the first pillar are the alternatives to the Indian Act which had a governance act, a lands act, a forestry act, a lands management act, all in the planning stages. Those acts were really designed under a framework built on domination and assimilation. The issue of land claims settlement was put on the fast track, in part because of Oka, but certainly the pressures have built up over the years and still we see no change in policy. The policy is still extinguishment.
Then came participation in the Canada Round of the constitutional process and the forum for Indian concerns and a Royal Commission.
I would like to look at an alternative policy. In the current policy direction, now being defined under "Gathering Strength," we really do not see that much difference because it does not address the basic issue of the overall policy. To be real policy makers, one must start with the central policy and then develop strategies from there. Until that policy is changed, there will no differences.
I find it very difficult to accept from Canada an apology without some real action. I am not referring to dollars but to a policy change, one of accommodation and cooperation. That is what I am requesting.
When I look around at the native governments that say they represent me, I say that I am over-governed and under-represented. People are coming to Ottawa looking for funds to provide programs and services to me, but when I need some representation, no one represents me. I work on reserves with reserve bands and have an office on reserve. I live in Toronto. Who represents me as a native person? Who fights for my rights? Well, obviously, I fight for them. Right now, we have a court case that has spent almost $1 million of our own money and our employees' money to fight for our rights. Where are those native organizations? They are busy making deals. I do not blame them; that is the way the structure is set up.
We must redefine Canada's policy. We must look at that new relationship. I would like to look at the second overhead slide, which defines how we can begin to achieve those changes. This is also in our written presentation.
We must look at a four-pillar policy that begins with dealing with impediments to change. The Penner report in the 1980s recommended that Indian Affairs not be involved in negotiating self-government but rather that a minister of state be established to negotiate a new relationship. Certainly that recommendation went into the garbage, because we are still negotiating with the Department of Indian Affairs. How can we negotiate with Indian Affairs when we are under the thumb of Indian Affairs both financially and in terms of the manipulation that happens in the process? Perhaps I am the only one representing myself because every one else is owing to the department. If they argue, they do not get their funds, or it gets pretty difficult. That is not cooperation.
Let us get Indian Affairs out of the picture. Let us get some trust established so that we can negotiate in good faith. That trust cannot be there with Indian Affairs. Our services are provided from the moneys we receive from our clients. We have never accepted any contracts from Indian Affairs, although we have from other departments. Our philosophies are too different, and we will not come under that thumb.
If we are to change the Indian Act, we cannot do it piecemeal, which is really what that policy was: Take a bit here, a bit there, a bit over there, and then we will have a new Indian Act or no Indian Act. You cannot change the Indian Act by using the Indian Act and the Indian Act system. It is not possible to do. Let us look at the Indian Act, as Mr. Penner said, not piecemeal but in its entirety. We must look at all aspects of it and redefine that relationship not using the system under the Indian Act.
The third impediment is public attitude. Yes, much work needs to be done in terms of changing public attitude, and that attitude is fostered by this government as well. Who defends us? Who talks about the real issues when someone says, "You want a government of race"? I do not see the minister defending that. This government has fed into the misinterpretations about native people for so long that they themselves believe it.
There is a responsibility there to work with native people to change that public attitude. There is a responsibility there not to say, "Yes, the Indians should change," but to use our trust responsibility to explain their position in a much better way, not reacting to every issue that comes up in the press in a way that is negative toward Indians.
The issue of native fragmentation needs to be addressed. Yes, we must agree that we are fragmented. That is why it is easy to negotiate deals based on "what works with one becomes a precedent for another." We are using the structures that divide us. That is where the fragmentation occurs.
Finally, we must come to an agreement on the definition of rights. I do not want to keep going to the courts to have rights defined for me. I believe that we can sit down as mature partners and negotiate those rights from a proper perspective, not saying section 35 is an empty box and we will fill it with your framework agreements while we see those rights being extinguished. That is not a way to start a new relationship.
As native people, we must look at democratic representation. There have been discussions about parliamentary seats. I believe that there should be such seats, but those seats should be elected by native people, to protect our rights, to educate, to define that relationship, and that there be "Nation" administration. Three options in the RCAP report are singled out in your paper. I believe that we should go to nationhood, having guaranteed those seats. Each nation would elect its representative the nation. A confederacy of nations could then be a law-making body that can oversee at the community level.
The worst thing you can do is to define the nations as you now do, First Nations, where you can see there is abuse at the community level. It is natural that there will be abuse because there are no checks and balances in the system. If you are on the in, you get the money and the others are out. The nations should be overseeing that and ensuring that, at the administrative level, those things do not happen.
That would include, then, the need for separation. Self-government really is a separation of three functions -- policy making or law making, control and delivery of programs and services; and dispute resolution or adjudication.
Right now, moneys going into Toronto for native organizations are defined as "self-government" moneys, because the Native Canadian Centre can provide services, therefore they are self-governing and therefore they have a right to provide that service to me, and we are self-governing in Toronto. On that basis, the Kiwanis club is self-governing. They have the inherent right to self-government. They have a charter under which they can work.
Let us get serious about it, because that is where the problem lies: You do not separate policy and service administration. The abuses happen there. At the federal level, you separate it. There are the politicians, and there are the bureaucrats, and there is a clear definition of who does what. That is not the case in native communities. The politicians are the bureaucrats. They control the funds and how they go out. They become, in effect, not political organizations but service-delivery agencies. That is wrong, and we need to address it.
I will now turn to the third policy area, protection of rights. Once we agree on that definition, we would recommend an ombudsman. The ombudsman would be accountable to Parliament, would protect rights, especially at the beginning when there will be all kinds of questions, and resolve disputes. There will be disputes, not only within the native communities, but also between natives and non-natives. Under the present system, we are depending on the courts to resolve those disputes, and it is costing a great deal of money. And what is the result? The result is bad feelings and a continued lack of understanding. The ombudsman should be dealing with these matters, not Indian Affairs.
Finally, the fourth policy area is to stimulate development. Economic priorities must be addressed. We cannot achieve true self-government without self-sufficiency, which means building a strong economic base. It also means healing of natives. Why are we, the victims, the ones that always are told to heal ourselves? What about the healing of non-natives? What about the attitude that has perpetuated this situation? I do not see that being healed; I see it getting worse. Why can we not look at it from that perspective?
There must be an agreement on that policy, and if that policy does not change from domination to assimilation, there is no use discussing everything else. We cannot look at self-determination within the framework I see defined there. Who will I elect?
In terms of how self-government will be financed, we highlight those principles of governance in the paper. Look at the financing of government. The main principle would be self-sufficiency. We must be careful that we do not place too much of the burden on the individual at this time, which is really what Bill C-36 does.
Bill C-36 is a taxation bill. It says, "Here are these people in poverty. They have to be like the rest of Canadians and pay taxes. Therefore we will let them tax themselves." According to Revenue Canada, they are the poorest of the poor. What kind of a policy is that? Whatever happened to the days when someone could build an empire before you start taxing that empire?
We have to look at it in perspective. Part of that is that revenue can be generated. There have to be agreements on resource sharing. It is not sharing -- it is resource control. Aboriginal title is there. Delgamuukw confirms it. Let us look at resource controls. We can control resources from which we generate revenues.
In terms of funds from the government, the focus regarding the land claims should be on ways to stimulate more development within the native community. Even our native leaders do not have enough faith in their own businesses. They are entering into joint ventures where they can make quick bucks, but they are forgetting their own people. I cannot go to them for a loan -- not that I would. Maybe they will need a loan from me some day, but they really were not thinking straight in terms of fiscal restraints.
If we are to start taxing the individuals, in my opinion it should be when we achieve economic parity with the rest of Canada. That right is a right, and it is a right to be negotiated once parity is achieved. Then we will have some resources to share with the rest of Canada. We have shared them before and we will share them again. Let us be realistic about it, though. For our people, the 600 people about whom I spoke, their average salary is $15,000 a year. I am in court fighting to maintain their taxation rights. For the first time, someone is able to buy a house in Toronto because they are practising that right. They are becoming self-sufficient. They are financing our fight. We are doing it, so it can be achieved.
Transfer payments would be required, but they would be determined based on the economic situation, the same way transfer payments are determined in the rest of Canada.
I will just touch on the process outlined in our paper. I feel that a minister of state should be one part of that process. The other part of that process is a constituent assembly of native people, elected by native people, who can sit down separate from the structures we have now. The assembly will be made up of Métis, status Indians, Inuit, and others. They will be able to begin to put together our Constitution, really start to put together those systems that we feel can work in the communities. Then we can negotiate.
Up to now, when we go to negotiate, all we have is the term "self-government," and you define it as we go along. That is not how negotiations should take place. You have something in hand before you go, but our leaders do not have anything in hand except to say, "Give us more bucks," and that is what self-government is, or, "Transfer the money to us," and that is self-government. That is not self-government.
The O.I. Group has proven that we can be self-sufficient. Those 600 employees and the 1,500 last year are committed to that process. We will see it through. It is a sign of the future because, as we become self-sufficient, we will be able to define ourselves. If we were self-sufficient now, we would not have to appear before this committee. We would get together and pay for the whole shot and say, "This is how we will govern ourselves. Accept it or not, this is how we will do it." That is what is missing.
We need to get serious about self-government or else we will just repeat another round where we will come back to talk about the same thing.
Thank you for allowing me the time to make my presentation. I am open to any questions you might have.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Obonsawin, for your very pointed presentation. I think it will serve our committee as a guide in terms of what needs to be done.
I am also finding myself, as the chairman of this committee listening to you, because I have struggled as well to make a point to make changes that would be beneficial to the aboriginal people, as well as, in the large context, beneficial to Canada as a whole.
I can remember, I think it was before the federal election, I also made a specific recommendation to our Prime Minister but he, for some reason or other, did not act on it. My suggestion was exactly what you have put forward here, that is, establishing a minister of State. I felt the same, that the Department of Indian Affairs is not the instrument that should be used by the system to negotiate with aboriginal people. The department has had administrative responsibility over the years, under the Indian Act, and would be negotiating with itself if the government did not establish another department to deal with the new initiatives that need to be carried forward.
I am encouraged by what you have to say in that area.
On top of that, we are also very much aware that, without a sound economic base, whatever we do in terms of self-government will not be successful. That is the key. To be successful, you need to have an ability to generate revenues and to use the resources that you have at your disposal, to use them as collateral, if need be, even to go into the international community to seek investments. All those factors have to be taken into consideration. I am happy to hear what you have to say.
Senator St. Germain: Thank you, sir, for being here and for being so straightforward and candid and in your position.
I am from British Columbia. As you know, there is controversy brewing there right now over the Nisga'a agreement, and over certain happenings in certain Indian reserves there.
You raised up the fact of the racially based third level of government.
So that you understand where I am coming from, I am Métis from Manitoba. I am trying to keep an open mind, but I feel myself gravitating toward the opinion that if we do set up another level of government, we will have a real problem. How do we educate the people? You said we have to educate the non-natives. How do we change that attitude?
I am not trying to trap you here. I am asking a straightforward, honest question. Can you tell me how to do it? If you can, I will be most appreciative.
Mr. Obonsawin: That is a fair question and one which is central to the whole issue.
First, we have to change the attitudes at the government level, or else it will not matter at the community level. Many of the misunderstandings are fostered through that type of relationship. We keep hearing that we are getting aboriginal title to land, for the first time. It took hundreds of years to define it; however, we had that title. It was not terra nullius. It was not empty land. We owned it. How can someone turn around and say it is racial governance when it is not a racial issue but one of ownership?
If someone paying me rent starts taking advantage of me, and I am told I do not have any rights as the owner, then I do not care what race I am -- I will become upset. The conspiracy of silence perpetuated in Canada was that we were not civilized enough to take care of that land, so they had every right to take it. That attitude was perpetuated by the missionaries and the Hudson's Bay Company, and everyone down the line.
I make this presentation at universities, and students are shocked to learn that what they are taught in school is not their real history. A big piece of their history is missing.
How can we start educating them if governments will not acknowledge that history? If governments acknowledge it by changing the policy, then I say we can make a change and we can start working on that together.
I think those people will be educated. I have seen them change and come around when they start to learn.
Senator St. Germain: You have the mentality of the people who are here, and we have the realities of the day with which to deal. I understand what you are saying. Every part of Canada at one time or another was occupied by someone else prior to the European and Asian communities coming here. What you are saying, if I hear you correctly, is that all the lands of this country are owned by aboriginals. I put it to you that that is an extreme.
Mr. Obonsawin: The extreme is when governments react to the land claims. It still goes back to the notion that because we were less than human they could take the lands and not have to give them back. It was right in the Indian Act. You had to be a fit, civilized band to even talk about self-governance. What did "fit" mean? It meant agreeing with the department. That is how it was defined.
Your question is a central one, senator, but let us do it together. Do not leave it to the victim to always have to defend that, and the department does not defend that. It just feeds into it.
Senator St. Germain: I concur with you fully that, if this is to be dealt with, the Department of Indian Affairs must be disbanded because these people do play games. They buy off people and trade off dollars for concessions to maintain their existence. There is not a question of doubt in my mind that this exists to a certain extent. Unfortunately, I have never been right in the department, but I have to believe the information I receive.
How do aboriginal people attain self-sufficiency without mainstreaming and assimilating with the rest of society? I have posed this question to other native leaders and other natives. I leave it to you to try to respond. One response was quite interesting. Someone said, "With great, great difficulty." I ask you, how can this be done?
The chairman has indicated on numerous occasions that, without the economic viability and the self-sufficiency that is required, this is an exercise in futility. As you said earlier, in 100 years you will be administering the poverty that will exist if this does not take place. How does it take place, sir?
Mr. Obonsawin: Do I look like I am assimilated?
Senator St. Germain: Yes, very comfortably.
Mr. Obonsawin: I owe that comfort to the community, not the government. I pay into my community what I get back from the community. I have rights as an Indian, and I will pay those rights back to my community.
Why does assimilation always have to be one way? We have a lot of things to offer, too. It is integration.
We have a case going to court in May, which is based on the concept of home and nationhood. The lawyer is French, and he had a hard time understanding the concept of what we define as "home"that linked back to the home community. He did not understand until he started saying, "If I work in British Columbia, I still belong to Quebec. I am still a Quebecer." Finally, it sunk in. There are those things that are unique and distinct that belong to us, and we should be allowed to maintain them.
Of course, we need to change our economies. The idea of a totally trapping and hunting economy will no longer exist. Those economies will change. We have a sense of identity and a sense of home in traditional ways. When birth is given to a child on a reserve or in the home community, the placenta is taken away and buried, and that child is told that that is where he or she returns to; that matter where he or she goes, they come back to that home. That link between reserve and home community is an artificial one.
Senator St. Germain: Do you believe it is possible for aboriginal peoples to maintain their culture, their language, and various aspects within the community, and still mainstream economically to attain self-sufficiency? Is there a way of doing this without establishing a third level of government? Could there be a centre of recognition where the culture and the language were maintained yet assimilate within the community without establishing a third level of government and a hierarchy that could end up being confrontational with the rest of Canada?
Mr. Obonsawin: Unfortunately, the central issue will have to come to some kind of head. It will be that way.
My wife is from Yugoslavia, and she speaks her language with her parents. I have lost my native language. The Jewish people practise their ways in Canada. What is the difference? The difference is that my wife came to our land. We have allowed her to maintain her language, but she is now on our land.
When you say that assimilation means coming into our form of government, I say, wait a minute. You have forgotten that we had those there already. Those were part of the friendship treaties. We agreed that we would travel that same path together, and yet there is no recognition.
Yes, it will be a hard pill to swallow, but let us start educating people to understand what it means to Indian people and non-natives.
Senator St. Germain: As much as I would love to see this situation dealt with, we all occupy the earth as humans together, I also hear our aboriginal people wanting their rightful place in society.
Mr. Obonsawin: We were the first to share; we were the first to accommodate. And because we were so accommodating, we were stepped on. We will continue to be accommodating, but those arguments will keep coming.
The Chairman: Our immigration policy was too weak at the time, I guess.
Senator St. Germain: It should have been tougher.
Senator Andreychuk: I should like to ask a few questions as we grapple with the concept of self-government. If I understand you correctly, you say that we should not be preoccupied with self-government but that we should follow some of the principles.
There are many non-aboriginal people in Canada who agree with the principle of self-government for aboriginal people, myself included. We want to see it happen. However, when I speak to the aboriginal community about how they want it to happen, everyone has a slightly different view. We have heard that there is not one model for resolving this issue. You seem to be saying that there is. At one point, I heard you say "bring us all together." I have heard other aboriginals say that is not right because there are different historical rights in different geographic areas.
Am I correctly stating your position, that you think there is one model for reaching a conclusion?
Mr. Obansawin: Those treaties were signed with nations, not with band councils, but you are negotiating with bands councils. You should go back to the original nations to renegotiate those treaties, not to bands councils. There must be some policy shifts before the model can be effective. I consider the current way, which is simply "administer your own programs," to be very dangerous.
Senator Andreychuk: How do we get at the constituents of the nation? How do we identify then from coast to coast to coast in Canada? Why are you telling me that I should not listen to those people who appear to be leaders of the aboriginal people? Are you saying that bands councils are not the leaders of the nation?
Mr. Obansawin: They are not the leaders of the nation. They administer the programs and services at the band council level, but "nation" is a much broader concept than a First Nation community.
Senator Andreychuk: How do we get at the nation then? You have not put that in your paper.
Mr. Obonsawin: First, we must send a strong message that the relationship will change, that it will not be with Indian Affairs. Let us set up a separate process because those people who can contribute valuable input into the process will not participate. It is not the nations that will participate; it is the Indian Act structure that will participate. That is the message that has to be sent. Let us change it. You will see that happen. You are seeing it happen now. The Crees are getting together in terms of starting to define what that means as a nation. You are starting to see it more and more in the community.
They are not part of the process of defining self-governance. That is to the government's advantage. If you throw everything in a pot and say that everyone can decide what to do, that is not self-government.
Senator Andreychuk: Do I understand that you would like to totally scrap what we are doing now? You say that you do not want to deal with the department. There is a minister in charge of a department and the minister is accountable for his department. You are saying that the process should not go through the department. Therefore, it would be the government of the day, be it the Prime Minister or designated ministers.
Whom do the aboriginal peoples reach out to to resolve this?
Mr. Obonsawin: There is no difficulty in reaching out. Everyone should have a say in choosing the people who will decide their future.
Senator Andreychuk: Are you suggesting that the Government of Canada make a statement that there will be a constituent assembly of all those people who determine themselves to be a nation?
Mr. Obonsawin: No. Part of the issue is the responsibility of the native community. I am saying that, if we take the existing impediments out of the way, that will happen. But we must send a strong signal. First, the central policy must change. It is not assimilation and it is not dominance. If we changed that policy, the minister would not be handing out money but would be negotiating agreements. When a minister hands out money on one hand and negotiates agreements on the other, there is an imbalance. Those are the two signals that will spark the native community to come together on many of these issues.
Senator Andreychuk: You are saying that our approach for dealing with those people who purport to be the leaders of the community is not the way to go.
Mr. Obonsawin: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: So you are putting us back to square one.
Mr. Obonsawin: I have never voted for anyone within the native community. I live in a city. Who would I vote for? I cannot vote for Phil Fontaine. I have never voted. Those organizations that purport to represent me have not given me confidence. They are scrambling to get the money to serve me. I do not have confidence in them. The first step in self-determination is for the people to have confidence in their leadership, a leadership in which they have had a say in choosing. Right now, they do not.
Senator Gill: Thank you very much for your presentation. This is a complex situation. It is difficult to deal with because many things have happened during the last 200 or 300 years.
I appreciate very much the way that you started your presentation. You said that if we want to have a government, we must be self-sustaining financially, et cetera. When I was young, my father never accepted anything from Indian Affairs, and I continued that tradition. However, I decided to go where I would be able to take some decisions.
You can set out what we should do, and I agree with that. However, if we want to see changes within the communities, we must act within the communities. What are you ready to do in that regard? I believe in that principle. It is not those who are strangers to the Indian world who will change things. It is the people themselves. What should we do to make changes? Where should we be?
Mr. Obonsawin: I have outlined what I am doing. We have over 600 people. There are no opportunities for working it out in the system. We have tried to talk to Revenue Canada, and they would not budge. We had to go forward with a court challenge -- it is the only way left to us -- and in so doing self-sufficiency is defeated because of the costs involved.
Last year, 1,400 people contributed to that court fight, which is the only reason we have been able to fight it. Revenue Canada has done everything they could to tear us apart. They are harassing people in their homes, when they are practising their rights, in an attempt to tear this company apart, and they have not been successful.
The community must decide that we will fight together and put some of our own money into it. These people have used their own money, and that is a very difficult thing in the native community. The message our company has been sending out is that we will only do it if we are independent.
That is what I am doing in the community. What others do is up to them. We will fight it in the courts.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: I agree with the whole process. We must have a relative measure of independence in relation to the non-Aboriginal system, in relation to the government. What are you prepared to do to achieve this relative independence and self-sufficiency? You cannot go it alone. You need people like you who are convinced and who pursue the same philosophy. You cannot pray all by yourself out in the desert. What must we do with the group? What responsibilities must be adopted?
Mr. Obonsawin: We took on this responsibility a couple of years ago.
[English]
I was in disagreement with privatizing reserve lands. We were able to mount a campaign across Canada by getting the right information out to people. That was very effective. We did not need political representation. Those people went to their band councils but they had the right information for a change -- not the propaganda from the department. They changed that. They blocked it. Now, you come back with another way of doing it.
I have worked within the system, as did my partner. Unless there is a policy change, you are beating your head against the wall. If there were a policy change, we could do more. I am looking for a message. If that message is there, we can be a lot more constructive. Until there is a policy change, I will do it through the courts and through getting information out there in our newsletter. We will mobilize people. We did it once and we will do it again. I am becoming more financially independent to do it. It is that simple: information, and power to the people.
Senator Johnson: This is following up on some of Senator Andreychuk's comments. You talk about removing Indian Affairs and establishing a ministry of state for First Nations relations. Who will run that ministry? Is this within the context of electing an aboriginal Parliament?
Mr. Obonsawin: No, this is at the federal level.
Senator Johnson: How will changing the name make a difference?
Mr. Obonsawin: It will not be a funding department. It will not hand out money on the one hand and then take it away. It will be separate. I said we needed a separate policy from administration. Right now, Indian Affairs does not separate policy. It pushes its policy by providing us with money. Let us get out of that relationship. Let us get true negotiations, with the federal government appointing a minister who has no funding authority but can negotiate. On our side, we will do our part.
Senator Johnson: Will that work?
Mr. Obonsawin: It has been recommended before.
Senator Johnson: Yes, but we have had recommendations for decades.
Mr. Obonsawin: But the recommendations that will work are never heard.
Senator Johnson: Who did you say will lead this initiative?
Mr. Obonsawin: All those recommendations were put forward in reports made previously by parliamentary committees, and no one every listens to them. They are no different now than they were then. It will work just as well now as it would have then, but there was not the political will to do it.
You must admit that we are equals in Canada. You are not prepared to admit that.
Senator Johnson: In regard to your company, you mentioned many problems associated with the public's attitude toward native people. How is the training your company provides helping to change those attitudes and the aboriginal people themselves?
Mr. Obonsawin: Our main focus is the self-supporting network, the independence. The training we provide is to the board of directors of organizations and to the individuals who work within those organizations. The training that we provide is part of the services that Native Leasing Services provides. They are our employees and we provide those services as well as the provision of information, et cetera. The hardest one to change, as I said before, is that when you are poor, you do not see many alternatives. It is hard to get people to understand the alternatives and that the alternatives are within themselves. We do that all the time.
Senator Adams: Is the O.I. Group a 100 per cent native organization?
Mr. Obonsawin: The company is 100 per cent native-owned.
Senator Adams: You do not have any other companies or chartered companies with the partnership?
Mr. Obonsawin: There are three companies: Native Leasing Services, O.I. Employee Leasing Inc., and Obonsawin-Irwin Consulting. They are all native-owned. I am the owner.
Senator Adams: In the meantime, you are working with other reserves and people in the community across Canada. Can you tell me if your work is on behalf of natives only, or do you do it for the whole community?
Mr. Obonsawin: Approximately 95 per cent of our work is with native communities, and native leasing would be 90 per cent native services.
Senator Adams: About 500 of you are 100 per cent native?
Mr. Obonsawin: Not all, maybe 90 per cent. They are not shareholders. I own the company. They are staff, but they contribute.
Senator Adams: You have approximately 600 reserves across Canada. You are talking about special seats in the House of Commons. You prefer natives to be elected to the House of Commons. I live in Nunavut and we have two members -- one from the west and one from the east. There is one for Inuk and the Dene and the Western Arctic. I heard that in New Zealand and in Australia, they have seats in Parliament.
You should have a native representative in the House of Commons. That person should be a native from Ontario or from Manitoba. Government tends to allow only one seat for natives across Canada. Do you feel that that person should be elected from anyone who runs across Canada?
Mr. Obonsawin: I think Australia has more than that. In fact, sometimes they have the balance of power to get a minority government.
Senator Adams: How many are you looking for in terms of seats?
Mr. Obonsawin: That would be part of the details to be worked out. What is the point of looking at it if people will not agree with the policy? You must first agree to the policy and then you can look at what would be represented.
That is how government works. You do not define the details until you agree on the policy. Let us agree on the policy and then discuss the details.
Senator Adams: I want to have some idea from you as to how many native members of Parliament there should be.
Mr. Obonsawin: I could say "10" or "all" if I wanted to do so, but those are things that can be worked out.
Senator St. Germain: How do we deal with a situation where some of the bands, which I know very well, do not wish to come into a self-government situation and are basically not that displeased with the status quo?
Also, did I hear you say that joint ventures with the white community were really not a recommendation that you would make? I know of some very successful ones in British Columbia with some of the people who were involved with the Delgamuukw case.
Mr. Obonsawin: I have talked to some of those people and they state the same reasons that I have set out here today as to why they do not want to be part of self-government. They see it as a smoke-and-mirrors exercise. I say to them that we should talk about it seriously. At some point in time, native people need to decide whether they are in or out, and those decisions will be made, just as Quebec will be making those decisions. They are decisions that the community does not have the opportunity to make now. Allow that to happen and many of those bands will start talking seriously.
Senator St. Germain: With regard to the joint ventures, I will give you one example where some natives were really in trouble and they entered into a logging scenario. It has turned around to be a job-creation program. The contract they have drawn up will lead to self-sufficiency, and they control the company. They own 51 per cent of the company.
Mr. Obonsawin: I have seen many companies come and many companies go. We have been operating since 1981. Job creation has never been the way to go in terms of self-sufficiency.
There is too much emphasis on gathering strength from partnerships. Everything is partnerships now; partnerships with non-natives is the answer. That is no different from saying we cannot handle our own affairs when we started all this and we had a partnership with Indian affairs. I know the business. I have worked with these people. I sat on their boards with Trevor Eyton and others. Their bottom line is: How will it benefit us? As Mr. Pocklington said, give it all to the Indians, we will get it all back anyway. That is how partnerships will occur.
Senator St. Germain: I know people out west like Don Ryan, Elmer Derrick, and others, and believe me, they will own Pocklington as far as I am concerned because these guys are bright.
Mr. Obonsawin: More power to them; however, you are throwing the lions to the wolves when you talk about partnerships as the only answer. We must look at running our own business our own way. We must crawl before we can walk and walk before we can run. If native businesses are to develop, it will be through the businesses surviving on their own and then looking at some partnerships later down the road. I am seeing some of them go under now. That 51 per cent, after the government money is gone, becomes 51 per cent the other way. I am seeing it happen. Do not put all your eggs in one basket. I am sure that Mr. Ryan is very good at ensuring that control is maintained.
Senator Mahovlich: The average age of a corporation is 40. We have heard from many witnesses. The Bank of Montreal has trained approximately 500 natives each year.
Mr. Obonsawin: Interns.
Senator Mahovlich: Interns. They last for approximately two years, and then they go back to their communities. In a way, that helps you. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Obonsawin: The more people trained, the better. I certainly agree with that.
Senator Mahovlich: What happens when no more money goes to the bands? I am not quite sure how much money they get, but all of a sudden we will stop giving them money. I believe there will be a powwow at your office.
Mr. Obonsawin: We have many powwows.
Senator Mahovlich: There will be one in front of these buildings.
Mr. Obonsawin: I hope I did not create the impression about stopping the giving of money. I said that you must put a process in place really works toward developing self-sufficiency.
Senator Mahovlich: How will you develop a process? If they have been given money all their lives, there is no other process.
Mr. Obonsawin: That is the challenge. They must change the basic premise in terms of how that money is provided and who has what responsibility. That is really the challenge. It is not an easy thing to do, but it needs to happen. If you stop giving money, what will happen is that you will be hitting the press overseas with the story of Indians in poverty. You will not be able to do that. Both sides are caught in a bind. Let us look realistically at how to get out of the bind.
Senator Mahovlich: How do you look upon me? I was born in Canada, I am Canadian, and my parents are from the same place as your wife. How does a native person look at me? It was not my idea to come here. I was born here.
The Chairman: The fact is, you are here and we accept you.
Senator Mahovlich: You must.
The Chairman: No choice.
Senator Mahovlich: What will you do with me if I do not cooperate?
Mr. Obonsawin: I am not as worried about you as I am about my wife.
Senator Mahovlich: You and me both.
The Chairman: Mr. Obonsawin, we will need to find some way of fitting you in to become a participant of the round table with the senators and, if there are concrete recommendations put forward by public hearings such as this, we would like to go into those areas in some depth before we conclude our work and make our recommendations.
We wish to invite you to become a permanent participant of that round table on governance. Your expertise and the way that you have outlined your presentation probably will also touch the leaders in such a way that they will need to think twice before they start coming up with concrete recommendations for the way in which they wish to work out the so-called partnership arrangements. If you would be kind enough to help us at that round table, you are very much welcome.
Before I wrap up, I have one question that I would like to answer now and another question that I would like you to think about and come back to us on later.
The one question I will put to you now involves what this committee has heard so far from the witnesses, especially from the treaty people that are administering the treaty. Before anything else happens in terms of self-government or land claim negotiations, they wish to give a clear message to the authorities, to Canada, that they wish to base the beginning of their discussion of finding the solution on a treaty that was signed many years ago. They feel that way because the treaty has never been implemented. That mechanism that was to be implemented through pieces of legislation by the Department of Indian Affairs has not been accomplished. For that reason, they would like to use a treaty as a base.
On one hand, you really have no problem with that, I assume.
Mr. Obonsawin: Treaties were negotiated with nations.
The Chairman: Again, that is based on the fact that if the thrust of the government or the system is changed to accommodate us, and even if it is necessary for the Government of Canada to create another department such as a ministry of state, that would deal with the initiative without eliminating the Department of Indian Affairs, as a start.
In my opinion, if you begin by eliminating the Department of Indian Affairs, you will alarm the system too greatly. We need to create another department to deal with the new initiatives without being bogged down with all the administrative responsibilities.
Would you be in agreement with that type of approach?
Mr. Obonsawin: Yes.
The Chairman: Thank you. How do we move in the direction of mobilizing our people? This country is vast. There are aboriginal populations all over the country. My own people, the Inuit, live in the Arctic, and that issue is easier to address. They live within a defined territory. At this point, they happen to be in the majority in that territory and they are opting for public government. That is okay for now but, later on, we will have something to worry about. They are not there yet.
Regarding treaty Indians, there are pockets of land that belong to them. Some of those pockets of land have been violated through various actions by the private sector, by third parties, by governments. Those problems need to be rectified.
We need to harness the energy of all the aboriginal people across the country. You mentioned that you do not appreciate the present representation by native groups because you feel that you are not being represented; that your specific interests are not being represented. The people themselves are not being clearly represented perhaps because they are fragmented and scattered all over the place.
In order to bring them together, someone must start talking about establishing an aboriginal political party. It may not materialize. It may materialize into an assembly of some form. Do you agree that this idea must be picked up by an individual who has an interest and who wants to move forward and who can harness the people to follow him or her? Would you agree to that?
Mr. Obonsawin: I have heard that argument and I have seen some attempts at doing it.
The Chairman: I am testing you out to see where you are.
Mr. Obonsawin: At this point in time, no, I am not necessarily in agreement. I am not ruling it out, but I am not necessarily agreeing. We need to get some broad agreements. We can look at the various methods of doing that later; that may be one of them.
The Chairman: You are not really clear in your own mind in terms of how to bring the people together under one umbrella?
Mr. Obonsawin: I refer to the nations such as the Cree nation, the Ojibway nation.
The Chairman: That needs to be worked on. You have answered my questions.
Thank you, Mr. Obonsawin. We appreciate your interest in being here. Your presentation was most enlightening.
We will now welcome representatives of the Aboriginal Women's Council.
Ms Leonie Rivers, Acting Administrator, Aboriginal Women's Council: We thank the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, in their special study respecting aboriginal governance, for this opportunity to present the views of the Aboriginal Women's Council in respect to the evolution of aboriginal governance in British Columbia.
I am the acting administrator for the Aboriginal Women's Council, and I am Manager of Aboriginal Relations for the BCR group of companies. I am Gitxsan by birth and maintain acquired rights by marriage in the Squamish Nation in which I have been an active member for 23 years.
With me is Lynne Widdows of the Sko'mish Women, Youth and Children, a new member group of the Aboriginal Women's Council. Lynne was born in Vancouver and is a member of the Squamish Nation by birth.
On behalf of the Aboriginal Women's Council, we acknowledge the B.C. Ministry of Women's Equality for their contribution in making this presentation possible.
In order for the Senate committee to have an appreciation of the Aboriginal Women's Council's approach, "Taking Our Place," in aboriginal governance, I will now provide you with a brief overview.
The Aboriginal Women's Council is a provincial organization with several years of experience in addressing the rights, needs and advocacy of aboriginal women in B.C. The council works in cooperation with its 10 member groups regionally located through out B.C. Our membership reflects the concerns of aboriginal women residing on and off reserves and in urban areas.
The Aboriginal Women's Council also aligns itself with the National Women's Association of Canada by its senior member, the B.C. Native Women's Society.
More recently, the Aboriginal Women's Council, through partnership and support from the Federal Status of Women's Directorate in Vancouver, completed a survey of aboriginal women residing in British Columbia regarding aboriginal women in self-government. The results of this survey form part of the basis of this presentation. Key points and recommendations from the survey as expressed by aboriginal women are reflected in this presentation.
The main focus of this submission is to ensure that B.C.'s aboriginal women's perspectives form part of the implementation of new relationships with aboriginal peoples in practical and meaningful ways through the self-government process. It is imperative that any introduction of a process for implementing self-government includes and recognizes the roles that aboriginal women have traditionally played and will play in self-governance. It is equally imperative that adequate resources and financing are targeted to aboriginal women to develop the capacity and representation to ensure active participation in self-government, regardless of residency.
Regarding B.C.'s social landscape, the social, political and economic environment in British Columbia provides many obstacles for aboriginal people in general and for aboriginal women specifically. This includes attitudes by the general public, First Nations and aboriginal organizations towards aboriginal women on and off reserves.
The people of British Columbia view urban aboriginal peoples, including women, somewhat differently from how they see the general aboriginal population. Two issues stand well apart from the rest -- racism and discrimination. Alcohol and drug abuse among urban aboriginal women is a close third, followed consecutively by unemployment, poverty, difficulties of integration into mainstream society, and assimilation.
In British Columbia, the land claims process and treaty negotiations are in the news on a daily basis; however, it is important to note the relative insignificance attributed to land claims and treaty process settlements as they pertain to urban aboriginal women. Only a small percentage of the public mention this issue compared to those who mention it within the context of the entire population.
The needs and aspirations of aboriginal women as related to home and family life, education, training and lack of start-up equity for economic development, are issues identified by aboriginal women.
There are other issues to be considered. We need to review issues like awareness, attitudes, employment equity, financial needs, healing, and current government relationships to appreciate impacts on aboriginal women.
British Columbia's public is only somewhat informed about issues and events dealing with aboriginal women. Many are not particularly knowledgeable about aboriginal women's issues in a specific context, with the exception of the media making reference to the Nisga'a land claim, residential schooling, the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, or the RCAP report, and the Supreme Court's Delgamuukw decision on aboriginal title. Each of these issues has an impact on aboriginal women regarding rights and current standards of living.
Aboriginal women have individual rights that can be considered in most cases to be portable rights. These rights need to be defined in consultation with aboriginal women and protected in the self-government policies which the First Nations and urban First Nations are struggling with in their limited capacity in the implementation and recognition of such rights.
In many government-published reports and surveys, it is evident that no real consensus exists among the public or First Nations' populations as to aboriginal self-government or rights of aboriginal peoples, including the rights of aboriginal women to govern themselves or participate in meaningful and active ways.
Concurrently, it appears that an alarming number of aboriginal women are only somewhat informed about issues that affect them -- past and current legislation, government commissions regarding many issues that impact on their current and future rights, and the ability to participate in self-government processes. This situation is even more alarming in respect of young aboriginal women who are coming into their childbearing years or are in the pursuit of education or their perception of their role in self-government. This predicament flies in the face of the aboriginal organizations in British Columbia that, similar to First Nations, have participated in the numbers game in order to secure administrative dollars while claiming to provide programs, services, consultations and representation of off-reserve or urban aboriginal women and their children.
The Indian Act, Bill C-31, the proposed Bill C-49, the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, "Gathering Strength," the Supreme Court decisions in Guerin, Sparrow and Delgamuukw, to name but a few, are areas where aboriginal women, old and young, on or off reserve, have limited knowledge and limited access to information. However, the significance of these documents, judgments and initiatives will shape and impact the daily lives of aboriginal women and their children for the next several generations. In this decade, with technological advances and sophisticated communication devices, why are many aboriginal women so ill-informed? Is it because of a lack of consultation or communication, or because of low literacy levels, poor education and information, apathy, or a lack of funding, or is it viewed as knowledge and power and control over issues First Nation governments only need to know and will address?
Whatever the case may be, it is evident that, unless aboriginal women are properly educated, consulted and involved, they may not be able to participate in self-government negotiations or arrangements in meaningful ways.
The attitudes of the public towards aboriginal self-government provide a paradox of views. These attitudes reveal a mix of wanting to give aboriginal people, including aboriginal women, greater control over their own future, yet combined with a lingering sense of paternalism, that government should retain some responsibility for making sure that everything works out for aboriginal peoples. The majority of the B.C. general public believes that aboriginal women are fully capable of governing themselves if given the opportunity to equally participate in the decision-making processes currently allocated to their male counterparts.
Within the private and public sectors, First Nation and aboriginal organizations, the concepts of employment equity and pay equity are discussed and understood; however, in situations involving aboriginal women, especially in the middle or senior management positions, they are neither practised nor adhered to. It is very difficult to believe that, as we move into a new millennium, these archaic and prehistoric practices by the public and private sectors appear to continue in their treatment of aboriginal women in their employ.
The concept of paying aboriginal women the same wage as their non-native female or male counterparts or, in some aboriginal structures, the same as aboriginal males for the same work, needs to be put into practice. Equity issues will become more critical as aboriginal government agreements come into play.
Whether located on or off reserve, aboriginal women, especially those who are head of households or single parents, must deal with a variety of issues -- childcare, parenting, housing, health care -- on a day-to-day basis. In order for them to participate in self-government in a meaningful and active way, the lack of financial support for childcare subsidy is a key issue that must be addressed. Many aboriginal women currently in the workforce are on the poverty line and do not qualify for daycare subsidies. With the growing number of women residing off reserve, due to their search for employment, education or training, or for health or other reasons beyond their control, many single parents or heads of households find that adequate childcare subsidies are a real concern. For example, single income earners must pay for such basic needs as rent, utilities, childcare, transportation, incidentals, and from what little is left provide the family with a healthy diet. Many aboriginal women have to turn to community agencies, such as food banks and second-hand stores, or in some cases to family to obtain needed assistance to augment limited remaining resources.
Aboriginal women are becoming further marginalized in terms of socio-economic factors. These factors, combined with other factors, contribute to an increased level of stress and higher incidences of physical or mental ailments.
Throughout the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and its supporting documents there are comments that the concerns of aboriginal women are considered an integral part of its approach in every area of its mandate. One issue of importance was identified as "healing," with full inclusion of aboriginal women in all areas of aboriginal society. For many aboriginal people, "healing" is viewed as a necessary first step in rebuilding First Nations for harmony and equality. Significant policy issues from urban aboriginal women's perspectives need to be addressed. It is not clear how the RCAP findings on aboriginal women will be implemented.
Since the beginning of relations between aboriginal people and the Government of Canada and other non-aboriginal governments, band-based First Nations have dominated the government's financial resources. Today, documented government reports and surveys from British Columbia identify that over half of all aboriginal people live in cities or small towns in British Columbia and that this trend will continue in the new millennium. A significant percentage of off-reserve band members are aboriginal women with their children.
The federal Government of Canada, possibly through cabinet, must clearly address aboriginal women's issues with serious attention when addressing off-reserve or urban governance. On an annual basis, in order to justify band budgets and expenditures, a significant number of First Nations continue with the per capita-based membership count, which in turn perpetuates their dominance and control of government financial resources. The federal Government of Canada allows this practice to continue despite documented reports that recognize and affirm the existence of aboriginal women and their children residing off reserve in substandard conditions.
These current policies and practices have produced an imbalance for aboriginal women off reserve and in urban areas and have resulted in disproportionate levels of unemployment, substandard education, poverty, welfare, and economic hardship.
For many aboriginal women, the right to vote in band elections and referendums, and the right to participate fully in general or special band meetings is not consistently recognized and varies from First Nation to First Nation in B.C. This right to participate as a full band member legally registered on a band list creates a double-edged sword in being able to participate, discuss, or debate self-government issues. How does one learn about, discuss or debate self-government if one is excluded because of residency or gender? How does one participate or prepare to participate in a meaningful way to pursue the appropriate field of study if they are purposely excluded? The frustrating issues of consultation, awareness and participation confront aboriginal women daily.
Bill C-49, when enacted, will ratify and bring into effect the framework agreement on First Nation land management. This act will provide for the establishment of an alternative land management regime that will give the community of First Nations control over the lands and resources within their reserves. It will also give First Nations the power to enact laws respecting interests in licences in relation to First Nation land and respecting the development, conservation, protection, management, use, and possession of that land. The proposed enactment will provide for a community approval to enable First Nation members to vote on a proposed land code and an individual agreement between a First Nation and Canada. The community process is anticipated to be monitored by a verifier jointly appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and the First Nation. This act would have a major impact on First Nation members, including aboriginal women. Our particular concern would be with the obligation of the First Nation under the rules for the breakdown of marriage and dissolution of property and assets.
Adequate community consultation on this bill and ratification of it presently are slim to none in our community, even though it would have a major impact on aboriginal women.
According to clause 17(1) of Bill C-49, a consultation process is identified as part of the rules and procedures in cases of breakdown of marriage, respecting the use, occupation and possession of First Nation land and the division of interests in that land.
It is obvious that the intent of Bill C-49, the First Nations Land Management Act, may be of worth to First Nation governments; however, its implications for aboriginal women with respect to their land interests would indicate that aboriginal women are forgotten once again.
Disputes will arise relating to the establishment of these proposed general rules and procedures under this act. The question will be in reference to an independent arbitrator in accordance with the Framework Agreement, whether or not he or she will be able to deal with such disputes adequately, fairly and to the satisfaction of all aboriginal women affected.
Will this First Nations Land Management Act, once approved in a few days, move completely away from any provincial land jurisdiction and provincial regulations that currently protect aboriginal women, such as the Divorce Act, the various family and provincial maintenance acts, and the Canadian Human Rights Act?
If I may, I will now indicate what we consider could be the approaches to self-government for aboriginal women:
Design creative and innovative programs to address the social issues of First Nations with an emphasis on aboriginal women.
Implement training programs to address the needs of aboriginal women in the workforce.
Provide increased subsidies to aboriginal women so that they can return to the workforce, whether it is for educational training, counselling, healing sessions, personal development, on-the-job work experience or child care.
Set a policy to utilize existing social programs' financial resources to create regional aboriginal women's centres to deliver such programs by aboriginal women themselves.
Appoint aboriginal women to the Senate of Canada to assist in law making.
Appoint additional aboriginal women to decision-making senior positions to ensure gender equity issues and employment equity policies are implemented.
Include in the Public Service of Canada federal initiatives to interest professional aboriginal women to seek out opportunities, and target aboriginal women for succession planning.
Provide women's programs with curricula and resources to address aboriginal women's interests and aspirations to succeed.
Let me discuss some basic principles for self-government for aboriginal women. We should approach government arrangements through protocol, and cooperative and tripartite agreements. This could be a positive approach acceptable to aboriginal women in B.C.
Key comparisons can be drawn from past experience; for example, there was the 1996 signing of the first tripartite agreement on urban and off-reserve self-government negotiations and the implementation of self-government agreements in British Columbia. This tripartite agreement was between the Province of British Columbia, represented by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the Government of Canada, represented by the federal interlocutor for Métis and non-status Indians, and the Presidents' Council, provincially based organizations.
This process was severely underfunded by both levels of government right from the start until its demise. There were insufficient financial resources to ensure that consultation occurred between the member organizations; the organizations' resources were so extremely limited that they often affected the goodwill of each of the organizations to piggy-back on other meeting formats.
Despite the organizations' commitment to the process of working together while respecting different mandates, the process failed terribly and created a rift within the provincial groups in B.C. that still affects the ability of the groups to work together on common issues. This failure can be directly attributed to the poor introduction and the rollout of the new relationship to the stakeholders in B.C. Despite the terms of the tripartite agreement to evaluate and negotiate, areas of the agreement processes were not working. Both levels of government, after approximately one year of silence, withdrew from the tripartite process, leaving in its wake significant and outstanding financial commitments and discord and bad feelings between the member organizations.
The Aboriginal Women's Council was not only a signatory to that tripartite agreement, but was one of the founding members, who, through the support of its membership, committed itself to working on self-government issues for aboriginal women despite the lack of core funding from any level of government for its operations.
Currently, the situation leaves many aboriginal women without any other recourse than to participate in urban self-government agreements that are currently being carried out on a contribution agreement basis with provincial organizations that do not have an aboriginal women's focus, and without any long-term ability or resources to make any meaningful difference.
Given that many federal- or provincial-government-funded First Nations' summits, meetings and workshops are afforded to chiefs, bands and tribal councils, the representation of aboriginal women's views and concerns ranges from "severely limited" to "virtually non-existent." It is imperative that a review be carried out regarding established agreements in order to identify where duplication of funding exists. Specifically, funds targeted for aboriginal women in self-government that are not being utilized for that purpose may be allocated to B.C. aboriginal women's groups that could implement a public education campaign to ensure that consultations and communications would be implemented with aboriginal women.
Negotiation with aboriginal women is essential for political leaders, policy developers, decision makers and government agencies in order to ensure that there is proper representation of aboriginal women in all levels or stages of the self-government process.
If I may, I will now suggest a few recommendations for new structural relationships.
To make this process successful, there must be a work plan with components to ensure that it is effective and affordable and, at the same time, meets the needs and expectations of aboriginal women in British Columbia; to that end, a 15-year commitment is necessary.
This work plan would include multi-year funding for this period of time, with three five-year reviews of the contribution arrangements.
Specific, measurable outcomes, concrete results, evaluation processes and sound financial and administrative management would be approved mutually by all parties through annual strategic action plans.
Existing programs need to be reviewed and utilized to implement aboriginal women's programs and regional women's centres in British Columbia.
Existing institutions need to complement existing women's programs to target aboriginal women's issues and programs.
Existing government equity programs need to address aboriginal women mentor programs.
In closing, I would like to stress that constitutional protection is necessary for aboriginal women in all levels of government, whether it be provincial, federal, urban, off-reserve or on-reserve First Nations governments. Aboriginal women envision a new government structure being a combination of a broad range of jurisdictions or powers while at the same time having the ability to implement community-based agencies like regional women's centres to deliver social services to aboriginal women.
To ensure that aboriginal women's views are heard and that their recommendations form an integral part of the self-government process, the levels of awareness, knowledge and participation of aboriginal women must increase to a level equal to that of their aboriginal male counterparts to enable aboriginal women to make informed decisions.
This process must be effective, efficient and affordable, and at the same time meet the needs and expectations of aboriginal women in British Columbia, regardless of residency. Participation of aboriginal women in all aspects and levels of governments will demonstrate the gathering of strength of First Nations and aboriginal women taking their place in self-government.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for your presentation. You have given us both your philosophy and some specific recommendations for us to consider, and for that I thank you, because what we are trying to do here is get some concrete recommendations that we can work with, and your report stands out in that respect.
I am inclined to agree with most of what you say as to the report. I would make the comment, however, that some of the issues that you speak about, such as being disadvantaged both in the negotiation process and in society, are really issues that all women face. Consequently, lack of training, of education, and of being part of a political process are not unique to the women of the aboriginal community; they may be unique to being a woman. I think women have a long way to go, not only in the aboriginal women's group, but elsewhere.
You heard the previous witness say -- and we have also heard this from other witnesses, although not so much in these hearings as in other hearings of this committee -- that we should respect the processes that the aboriginal people want and have had historically, with respect to band councils, and so on. However, every time the government has moved to put in a condition to include women in negotiations, the rebuttal has been, "You are imposing your structures on our structures. We have methods of integrating women into our band structures and our negotiating teams that are different from yours. Do not put your aspects on us."
How do we incorporate many of the suggestions you have made and still respect what seems to be the overall aboriginal community's rebuttal of not changing their negotiating dynamics and getting us in an argument between two aboriginal constituents?
If we did say that a pre-condition on all these further negotiations would be an injection of the aboriginal women's perspective, both in British Columbia and elsewhere would we not be faulted by people like the gentleman who spoke before you, who said that the federal government has no right to tell the aboriginals how to govern? Are you asking us, therefore, by this pre-condition, to stop the whole process that we are involved in now in terms of negotiations and to create all new concepts?
Ms Rivers: There are patrilineal and matrilineal lines. I am from the matrilineal line, which is, perhaps, why I am so outspoken. First Nations must be respected. We are not saying that you should close the process down. What we are saying is that aboriginal women's issues need to be involved in the process, and that is not happening. Even though we have token women involved in situations where they are coming to ask for some feedback, I do not think that represents fully the women's concerns as identified.
Senator Andreychuk: I think it is easier for a committee like ours to say to the federal government that the aboriginal women's perspective must be ensured and put in place, but I find myself rather uncomfortable making that same statement to the First Nations, for example.
Ms Rivers: The focus is on off-reserve urban women who have actually departed from the First Nations process. We could be self-sustaining if we had similar resources; that is, if they were at the same level as what First Nation governments receive right now. What I am saying is that we need to be part of that process. We are focusing on off-reserve aboriginals as opposed to on-reserve.
We are not being disrespectful of First Nations. If anything, we are trying to work in concert with First Nations chiefs in B.C. right now with this tripartite agreement with off-reserve initiatives.
Senator Andreychuk: Are you saying that the impediment is the financial wherewithal to get to the table, which you think you could handle yourself at the table, something with which I am inclined to agree?
Ms Rivers: That is true, if you want the job done.
The second question you asked concerned pre-conditions. I do not believe there are pre-conditions every step of the way. I am very respectful of the chiefs. I come from two chiefs, who are my grandparents. Thus, I follow that matrilineal process all along. Protocol is very important in our process. All we want is to be heard. We see people making decisions for us. In order for us to be self-sufficient, we need to make those decisions ourselves. That is what we are saying.
Ms Lynne Widdows, Technician, Sko'mish, Aboriginal Women's Council: I want to return to a comment made by the chairman. He asked how we get things happening in the community. I think it is fairly common knowledge that, if you want something to happen in aboriginal communities, it is the aboriginal women who move it forward.
Certainly, in our community, our women are employed in instrumental positions within our administration. However, that still does not go far enough. Certainly, the Sko'mish nation is ahead of many groups across Canada, and I say that quite proudly. My father, who has passed away, came from a line of hereditary chiefs; so that flows within our family.
As I was growing up, my father made it very clear that it did not matter if you were male or female; you had an obligation to speak out to ensure that your voice was heard. Within our community, we have many women who are asking: "What does self-government mean?" One elder recently said to Ms Rivers, "I am getting too old for this. You women have to start speaking out." When I look at her, I still see her through the eyes of a child. She is very outspoken. She gets people's backs up, but she also gets her point across.
As a result of the survey on which we worked, it really concerns me when I see these young women pursuing education, for example, at the University of British Columbia in the First Nations Program. They do not understand Bill C-31 or its implications for themselves, their aunts or their cousins.
We had a fifth-year education student working on the survey with us. I do not think she ever picked up the RCAP report until we said, "This is the type of work we have." She spent a lot of time with her fellow students out at UBC, new ones and fifth-year ones.
Ms Rivers and I recently travelled through British Columbia meeting with different groups. There are some who are well informed and there are others who say, "When did this happen?"
Senator Adams: Do you have any idea of the number of people living off reserve in B.C.? A witness from the Bank of Montreal yesterday told me that approximately 50,000 natives live in the City of Toronto. I was kind of shocked when he told me that.
Your organization has done quite a bit of work with social services, dealing with people who come from the reserve to live in the city. I know that there are many problems, and not only with natives, in terms of drugs and alcohol and things like that, especially in B.C. How are you able to contact people living off reserve and in the city? Are you connected with any of the social service organizations?
Ms Rivers: I hold another position with the BCR Group of Companies. We work with 28 First Nations. You talked about the number of aboriginal people living off reserve. There is starting to be a higher percentage of aboriginal people living off reserve because there is no housing on reserve, and there is no employment on reserve. In order to work, they need to come to the cities or small towns, wherever employment is available.
In terms of how we as an organization work with other groups, it is through word of mouth. We act as a referral centre and as an advocacy group to help people out. We do help individual women who come into town and do not have anywhere to go. We assist them in that respect.
What we do not have, which four organizations in B.C. have, is a funding base to provide those programs and resources to them. We are working on a volunteer basis for the majority of groups. However, our connections with our 10 regional groups within the province of B.C. make a big difference. The communication network is very important. It is important for us.
Senator Adams: You mentioned your financial problems and the funding by Treasury Board. How does it work with your organization? Do you receive help from anyone? I know you need to get money to help people.
Ms Rivers: Right now, non-aboriginal programs as well as native women's organizations work with projects. We take an administration fee, which goes towards our overhead costs, and that is basically it. There is no funding formula or any kind of base. We have requested that for the last few years, and the response we always receive is: "No more provincial organizations will be recognized at this time." That has nothing to do with us. There is limited funding, given the processes that the government has at the moment.
Senator Adams: Does the Nisga'a agreement affect you or the funding of your organization?
Ms Rivers: We have some members who are Nisga'a. We have an organization from Canyon City, the Nisga'a Women's Association. They are a member group, a fairly new one. They are an advocate for Northwest British Columbia. They have their own process and an active committee that meets on an annual basis.
In answer to your question, no, we do not have any particular funding from them, although we do have different groups set up in the lower mainland to address some of the needs for the off-reserve members. That is starting. It is more for the cultural side of things, such as dancing or social perspectives.
Senator Adams: I know you have a big problem. You are talking about separation of families and issues such as that. If you are married to a white person living in the city and separate from your family, who takes care of that? Is it the Department of Indian Affairs?
Ms Rivers: Right now, they have a fiduciary responsibility. The social programs give a percentage to the bands, but the First Nations have taken over the administration of those social programs. The focus then becomes such that, if natives are off-reserve, they may not be entitled to some of those programs.
The point I was trying to make in the document is that, when the numbers are counted each year, if there are 1,200 members and 600 of them are off-reserve, they still get money for the 1,200 members, not just for 600. That is how it works.
Senator Johnson: Thank you for your excellent presentation. The Aboriginal Women's Council of British Columbia is obviously very together and is getting many things accomplished. I am very impressed. As women, we must be ever vigilant and persistent to achieve our ends.
I could speak to you for hours about this subject, but time is limited. We will probably be talking to you later in the game as well.
Let me ask you specifically about leadership on-reserve. Power resides in the leadership roles. How are you women doing in achieving leadership roles, both within your province and in the context of the country? For women to be involved, to lead and to accomplish the things we want, including self-government, we must play roles in which we can be an influence. We must have some power. How is that coming along? I know that you have specifics in your document, but tell me about that.
Ms Rivers: The best scenario I can give you would be this: If the choice was to hire either two gentlemen or one woman to do that process, then if you hired the one woman, the job would be done; if the two men were hired, they would still be in a discussion.
Senator Johnson: Is that why everything is taking so long?
Ms Rivers: It has been said that, if you want to get the work done, hire two woman and go forward.
Seriously, we do have women who are leaders in our province of British Columbia. We have five newly elected chiefs, and we are proud to have those women working with the other chiefs.
We do not have any treaties in British Columbia. We are working on those, and we have 197 bands. It takes a long time to understand the politics and the process, and to get through that, but they have been oriented in the last two years.
My concern is that, through the summits, we have a different political regime happening in B.C. We have Treaty 8 bands; we have independent bands, and we also have bands that follow the First Nations Summit. About 62 per cent of those First Nation leaders follow the summit. Then we have the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who represent about 42 bands. It may be fewer, depending on whether any pulled out or not.
It is critical that we have a relationship established with our First Nations chiefs, and we do respect them. Our band is the Squamish First Nation, and Chief Joe Mathias is our hereditary chief and leader when it comes to negotiations with governments. He has done a wonderful job, but at the same time, women are slowly working ahead. There is some recognition now from the summit.
In the tripartite process for urban First Nations, we have been trying to work with the chiefs. It has taken us a year and a half to get on the agenda, and we should be on this next month. We made the request last February, and it is now a year later. We are really quite excited that it is starting to move, but the pace is slow. We have to be patient. That is all I can say at this point.
The urban leadership for women may happen later, if we get into processes where women are recognized.
Senator Johnson: Do not stop doing what you are doing.
I noticed that the childcare issue is very important in terms of your being able to pursue some of these goals with regard to being involved with self-government. That, as we all know, is a universal problem for women and families. However, to achieve all our ends, we must walk side by side, men and women, to accomplish what we want in this particular process.
My last question is about your healing work and rebuilding the First Nations. I feel this is critical to all the work that is being done. How do you feel that is coming along within your community?
Ms Rivers: Personally, the denial has been there for many years, but now there is a recognition and an awareness and understanding of what needs to be done. We are going through a huge shift right now, but I think it will take another 10 years to really start seeing results. I do not think things will happen overnight or until people become whole and understand the holistic process of family. We have children having children, and they never have parenting skills. That is a huge issue. Life skills have also been a major concern. We have many people getting into areas of social work or for specific issues of counselling.
The idea of healing centres would be excellent. That has been raised.
We have concerns about the certification of elders, and the matter of language was raised as well.
Senator Johnson: Are elders and clan mothers involved in this process?
Ms Rivers: Quite a few elders and clan mothers are involved in quite a few areas of the First Nations. I am not an expert on this issue, but a proposal is sitting before Health and Welfare Canada, and hopefully it will be funded. We must get resources into the healing initiative. How it will be approached or what the results will be remains to be seen. There are some good people in that area who can help us.
We are watching and monitoring that closely. It will not happen overnight. It will take time because there is an attitude that we have always been given everything, such as free homes and schooling. That is a myth. We have a long way to go, but once we get through those myths, we will be okay.
Senator Gill: My question is related to Bill C-31. You mentioned this bill in your presentation. I was chief on my reserve at that time, and this bill created much discussion because the population was approximately 2,000 people and went to almost 4,000.
I would like to know what kind of impact this change has had in your area, on and off reserve. Was it positive or is it something you have still to deal with? Is it settled?
Ms Widdows: Are you asking specifically about how it was handled within the Sko'mish nation?
Senator Gill: Yes, in the area that you are familiar with in British Columbia.
Ms Widdows: Bill C-31 caused concern right across Canada. I know that in Alberta it caused much concern. In our nation, our council started working fairly quickly with our band membership to look at membership codes and how to deal with the potential influx.
However, many women who were considered "Bill C-31 women" were already residing on the reserve. It created some heartache. It is still there, but is somewhat more subtle. Some have the attitude that children of so-called "Bill C-31 women" may not be entitled to certain benefits. That is creating hardship within the communities.
In my community, our housing list contains 600 or 700 names. Some expressed concern that the Bill C-31 people would get houses before those who have lived on the reserve all their lives. I believe that feeling exists throughout B.C.
I do not think our community reacted in the same way as did other communities across Canada. I know that, certainly in Alberta, sentiments were pretty strong.
Ms Rivers: From my personal experience, I was working with the band to ensure that all Bill C-31 individuals were registered. Most of them were women who had married out -- daughters or mothers of status members. We were pleased to have Bill C-31 individuals recognized. It was a good bill, but the repercussions that Ms Widdows spoke of are still trickling down. Those who are band members by birth look down at the married-in women, considering them second-class citizens. It causes a rift that way. That is the best example I can give you.
The Chairman: I am encouraged by your presentation. We can do further work on your specific recommendations and ideas.
I would like to invite you to become a permanent participant in the round table dealing with governance. You would have to work through your national organization. I am sure that you already have a relationship with that organization.
Ms Rivers: Yes, we are a member.
The Chairman: So you have no problem there.
Ms Rivers: Not at all.
The Chairman: We would very much like to have you as a permanent participant so that we can continue to build on the ideas you have brought forward.
Ms Rivers: We thank you and we look forward to that process.
The Chairman: Our next witness is Mr. John Amagoalik, Chief Commissioner of the N.W.T. on the Nunavut Implementation Commission.
Mr. John Amagoalik, Chief Commissioner, Nunavut Implementation Commission: Honourable senators, I will spend a few minutes reviewing events of the past 29 years. The modern-day Inuit political movement started around 1970. Senator Watt and Senator Adams were very much involved in organizing the first Inuit organizations in Canada.
The idea of dividing the N.W.T. is not a new one. It was discussed in Parliament when John Diefenbaker was still Prime Minister. Prime Minister Diefenbaker appointed a three-man commission to study the issue of dividing the N.W.T. and creating two new territories. The commission's recommendation was that the issue be re-examined in another 10 years. It was about 10 years later that the idea of creating Nunavut again picked up steam.
I also want to mention the oil and gas development in Alaska and Arctic Canada because that had a big effect on the political leadership of the day, mainly because it made us realize how helpless and powerless we were when multinational corporations came to our land and did basically anything they wanted, with the permission of the governments. It was a wake-up call for many of us. Therefore, it is an important aspect of the beginning.
The Alaska land settlement in 1970 also had an effect on the Inuit leadership in Canada in that it made them realize that if Alaskan Inuit could sign a modern treaty, why could they not. That was encouraging for them.
I mentioned the birth of Inuit organizations around 1970 with the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the regional Inuit associations, including the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, of which Senator Watt was president, and which negotiated the first modern treaty in Canada.
The Calder case is also important from a historical perspective because it also encouraged us on the legal front. As we all remember, this was an important case in British Columbia.
The land claims negotiations in the early 1970s, as we all remember, were all stops and starts because many times the two sides were groping in the dark and did not know how to deal with this new process. It was very new in those days.
As I mentioned, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was the first modern treaty in Canada, and it was followed by the Inuvialuit Agreement. Both of those agreements were very much modelled on the Alaska settlement, but they provided the starting point for subsequent negotiations.
The first real obstacle that we faced in the creation of Nunavut was in the spring of 1982 when the N.W.T. population was asked to vote on the question of division. As we all remember, the "yes" side won. That was the first major obstacle that we overcame.
I also wish to mention the national constitutional negotiations of the 1980s, the ones which were televised. Although they did not succeed in the definition of aboriginal self-government or aboriginal rights, they were very important in that they educated Canadians as they had never been educated before. Here we were, aboriginal political leaders sitting across the table from the Prime Minister and the premiers, having very serious discussions, and it really educated the Canadian public on aboriginal issues.
The boundary of Nunavut, which had been in negotiation for 10 years, was ratified by a public vote in 1992, and we reached an agreement in principle in 1991. The final agreement was signed in the spring of 1993. That Nunavut Act was passed by Parliament in June of 1993 and created the Nunavut Implementation Commission, of which I am chairman. The mandate was from 1993 until April 1, 1999 -- until the day Nunavut is created.
For the last two years, the interim commissioner, Jack Anawak, who is a former member of Parliament has been doing most of the detailed work that needed to be done in preparation for April 1. We will be holding our first elections on February 15, just 12 days from now, and we are busy preparing for celebrations on April 1.
I hope that assists in terms of a historical overview. There are a few more comments I wish to make to ensure that people understand what the Nunavut government is or is not. It is a public government. It is subject to the Canadian Constitution and it will respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It will have 19 members in the legislative assembly and 10 government departments. The premier and the speaker will be elected by the MLAs, and the cabinet will be chosen by the premier.
The Nunavut government will be decentralized among the 10 largest communities in Nunavut. The construction of the infrastructure in Iqaluit and other communities are underway. The new legislative assembly will be complete in a few months. We now have a flag and a coat of arms. They will be unveiled on April 1. The Nunavut government will recognize Canada's two official languages. The working languages of the government will be Inuktitut and English.
Nunavut is approximately 2 million square kilometres in area, or approximately 20 per cent of the land mass in Canada. It has three time zones. The population is approximately 25,000, of which 85 per cent is Inuit. Iqaluit was chosen by plebiscite to be the capital three years ago.
I also wish to mention how Nunavut differs from other parts of Canada. Whereas your contact with the Europeans has been going on for hundreds of years in the southern part of the country, that type of contact has only happened to us in the last 40 or 50 years, therefore, we have a different history.
The population is also different. As I mentioned, 85 per cent of our population are Inuit, so we are a majority in every community in which we live. I also wish to mention third parties, such as existing governments, exploration companies, and business corporations. We have not had major difficulties with third parties because their presence has not been as long in our homeland as it has been in other parts of Canada.
Also, the non-Inuit population of Nunavut has always supported our land claims negotiations and the creation of Nunavut. In the Nisga'a case, which is very similar to the Nunavut treaty, many citizens in British Columbia were up in arms. However, in Nunavut, the situation is very different. The non-Inuit population is very much in support of Nunavut. As a matter of fact, they played a very large role in the creation of the new territory itself.
I also wish to mention that Nunavut is attracting a significant amount of attention from the international community. European countries are very interested, especially France, and also we have heard interest expressed from the Far East. Some people have been wondering if Nunavut is the answer to the situation in Tibet. I do not know if that is possible or not. However, people from other countries are watching with interest.
Australia is watching very closely. Australia, of course, is where the term "aboriginal rights" originated. As well, the Americans are very interested in what is happening. It is a big event for North Americans.
One last point I wish to touch on is that we feel that the creation of Nunavut is an historical event. It will change the map of Canada for the first time in 50 years, since Newfoundland joined Confederation. I really hope that it is a beginning of a new era in the relationship between aboriginal peoples and others who have come to call this country their nation. I hope it is the beginning of a reconciliation. I know that Nunavut is not a perfect example for all situations, but it is something that appears to be working. We want Canadians to feel a part of this and know that they have a big stake in it, that it is not only ours, that it belongs to the whole country.
Senator Gill: Can you compare the Government of Nunavut to the Government of the Northwest Territories? Is it similar?
Mr. Amagoalik: It is identical to the existing territorial government. Under the Constitution it has the same powers and jurisdiction as the Yukon and as the existing N.W.T. government.
The only difference that I might point out is that the terms of the land claims agreement puts certain obligations on both levels of government, the federal government and the territorial government, and the new government must respect that settlement. In that sense, it has an added responsibility.
Senator Adams: I have known Mr. Amagoalik for a long time, in fact, since before 1970, at the beginning of ITC and the negotiations of the land claims.
In 1953, I left Kuujjuaq and began working in the high Arctic. There were seven of us up in Churchill, Manitoba.
The Chairman: You mean to say that he was on the same ship?
Senator Adams: I did not know John back then because he was too young. At that time I was 19 and I think John was still on the back of his mother. He was about five years old in 1953. John was born at Inukjuak which was previously Fort Harrison. He moved up to Resolute Bay. Living in Northern Quebec, you are used to seven or eight hours of daylight, but up there in the wintertime, you do not see the sun for three or four months, maybe more.
Mr. Amagoalik did much work in organizing for so many years that we called him the "Godfather of Nunavut." Now he has a title -- Dr. John Amagoalik -- but I still call him Godfather because he did so much for us in negotiating land claims.
I hope you will have a title with the Nunavut government, perhaps Lieutenant Governor of Nunavut.
Earlier you mentioned the elections in Nunavut. Some 19 members will be elected this month and they will begin to make policy for Nunavut. Some communities still have problems relating to the companies that are up there. Do you foresee some changes happening with, perhaps, some phasing out and some new people taking over the businesses?
Will we have stronger policies? Will the people of Nunavut have more power and more control over their lives and their businesses within the communities?
Mr. Amagoalik: I certainly hope that our people will be involved in small business. We all know that small businesses create more jobs than anyone else. In regard to the business organizations that are already there, we hope that they will stay and be comfortable because we believe that there is room for everyone. We certainly hope that the diversification of our economy will create more economic activity and more jobs. Of course, we need the skills that these existing companies have. I hope they will feel welcome and stay and help us create jobs.
Senator Adams: We will have two official languages and Iqaluit will be the capital of Nunavut. Many French-speaking people have settled up there, especially in Iqaluit. The francophone people living in Iqaluit have already formed an association. Do you think that will continue, bearing in mind that only Inuktitut and English will be the official languages. Can you see problems with the other official language of Canada, French?
Mr. Amagoalik: I do not see that as a major problem. You are quite correct that the two working languages will be English and Inuktitut because those are the two languages spoken by the vast majority of our citizens. As for the francophone community, mainly in Iqaluit, they have been around for a long time. They seem to feel comfortable. As you say, they have their own francophone association to lobby for them and to look after their interests.
A new French school is being built in the community. The francophones have expressed an interest in including Inuktitut as part of their curriculum.
The relationship with the francophone community is good. I do not see any reason for them to have any worries because we intend to ensure that their rights as Canadian citizens are respected.
Senator Adams: I want to talk a little more about mining and oil exploration. More companies have been coming in since the Nunavut agreement was signed. They still get their permits from Ottawa. How do you see those companies operating?
We have in the past met with some representatives from various mining companies. We heard about the construction of their camps and such. There was even a reception and dinner held a few years ago in the Château Laurier.
From what I hear in Ottawa, they are not really creating jobs for people in the community. Will the new Government of Nunavut write policies to control the activities of exploration or mining companies? Rather than those people controlling themselves, will they be controlled by the Government of Nunavut?
Mr. Amagoalik: Before the land claims agreement was signed, the rules of the game for exploration and business operations were very unclear. The question of who owns the land and who owns the resources was always hanging over everyone's head. Now that the agreement has been signed, the rules have been clarified. Everyone knows the rules now.
I hope, for that reason, companies will be willing to invest in Nunavut, but they also must understand that, if they want to come north to Nunavut to develop resources, they must deal with the Inuit organizations. It is in the agreements. They have to negotiate impact review and benefit agreements and environmental requirements and that sort of thing.
Things will not be done the same old way. The local people will be involved in negotiating agreements and ensuring that jobs go to local people where it is possible.
Senator Adams: Two more bills have yet to be passed in the Senate. One is Bill C-57, to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice. I think you will agree with everything in there. It was introduced before Christmas. The second one is Bill C-62 which deals with water and surface rights. It has 140 clauses. Once those two bills pass, you will have more control of your land. Those two bills are in Senate committee right now.
Mr. Amagoalik: I do not have any comment about the water bill because I do not know very much about it. However, concerning the justice bill, it has support in Nunavut. The different interests had a conference a year ago to talk about justice and having a single-level justice system. It is being supported by the people in the system. I think it is the first of various changes that will probably happen in the next few years.
Senator Mahovlich: I congratulate Mr. Amagoalik for his presentation and the Inuit people for showing such great courage and fortitude in going ahead to govern themselves.
Who chose the date April 1? That is April Fool's Day around the world. Was that you?
Mr. Amagoalik: No, the decision was made by a committee.
The Chairman: I would congratulate Mr. Amagoalik, because he has been instrumental on behalf of his people all the years I have known him. As a matter of fact I was a supervisor in Churchill, Manitoba, when John Amagoalik was the number-one student. Mr. Amagoalik has always had the idea that what is do-able today can also be do-able tomorrow. If there are things that were done wrong, they can also be fixed. If it was done by human beings, it can be fixed by human beings. Mr. Amagoalik, I congratulate you for your success in making this a reality.
As well, as an Inuit who lives in the Arctic, I believe that we are fortunate to have arrived at this stage. The other aboriginal groups in the country may not have the same opportunity as the Inuit of N.W.T. The Inuit of N.W.T. are in a very defined territory and they are the majority in that particular territory.
It could be said that this is a "test case." A great deal of interest in what is happening will be generated over the years to come from the other aboriginal groups in Canada. They may even wish to try to utilize your example to their benefit. You are a majority and you will be governing your own society. You are taking control of your own destiny.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the future when national standards are being dealt with by the national government. This particular instrument that comes into being on April 1, 1999 will probably be the only instrument in this country that will have an capability to challenge the national government in its setting up of national standards. As aboriginal people, we all know that, when national standards are established, sometimes those in the minority are hurt badly. Let me use as an example certain steps that have been taken since I have been in the system. I have seen various laws passed and have tried to convince the politicians and the authorities not to pass them because they have a social and economic impact on our people. Most of the time they did not listen because they were making decisions which were relevant to the central part of Canada, not the North. They have very little understanding of what is happening in the Arctic. This new instrument which is to be christened in April, 1999 will be an important step forward.
Again, Mr. Amagoalik I congratulate you. I plan to be a participant in your celebrations in Iqualuit. I wanted to say thank you.
Senator Adams: Mr. Amagoalik mentioned that 19 people will be elected next week I just want to put on the record that we have 71 people running for that election. It will be interesting to see how that process goes.
Mr. Amagoalik: There are very different types of people running, and we certainly hope that we end up with a good cross-section of the population.
It is true, Mr. Chairman, that we have come through a lot. We have come a long way. I remember the first time we met in 1963 or 1964. I met Senator Adams in 1953. Sitting here today, it is a whole different world, mainly because of changing attitudes. Attitudes in Canada have very slowly but definitely changed over the last 30 years. We do not see the same Canada that we saw back in the 1960s and 1970s. We have come a long way.
The last thing I wanted to mention was that I usually feel much more comfortable appearing before such committees; however, I must admit that I am naturally nervous at this point because I did not expect to be sitting before a hockey legend.
Senator Mahovlich: I wish these other fellows would show the same respect.
The Chairman: In closing, I would like to acknowledge the students behind Mr. Amagoalik. Those students, who are here attending training programs, are our future. A great many young people are developing an interest in Nunavut. I congratulate you all.
Lastly, Mr. Amagoalik, I would very much like you to become a permanent participant of the round table on governance. We will need your input and experience to assist us in understanding some of the critical issues with which we will be dealing.
This round table will be a public hearing where we hear what the people have to say and, if any specific recommendations are brought forward which we think, as senators, might be workable, then we go into them in depth and try to develop recommendations for the government.
We would very much encourage you to become a permanent member of that round table.
Representatives of various elected national organizations will be part of our round-table discussions. We will ask leaders by inheritance, clan mothers and people of that nature to participate. You would be a participant through ITC because you were, I believe, president of that organization twice.
The committee adjourned.