Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 19 - Evidence, February 10, 1999
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 10, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 5:45 to examine and report upon aboriginal self-government.
Senator Charlie Watt (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We will proceed now. Other senators will be coming here later, as they are busy on other committees at this time.
With us today, from the Makivik Corporation, is Pita Aatami, who will be assisted in his presentation by Harry Tulugak and George Berthe.
Please proceed, Mr. Aatami.
Mr. Pita Aatami, President, Makivik Corporation:
[Mr. Aatami spoke in his native language.]
As I just said in Inuktitut, my own language, to me that is self-governance, being able to use my own language.
We are appearing here today as part of the standing committee's special study on aboriginal governance. We thank you for this opportunity to speak on this important issue.
I am the president of Makivik Corporation. Assisting me today is Harry Tulugak, and our second vice-president, Johnny Peters, who will be saying something briefly in Inuktitut. In recent years, he has been the chief negotiator for Nunavik in our discussions with the federal and provincial government regarding the creation of a Nunavik assembly and government for our territory.
For the record, I should indicate that Makivik represents all of the Inuit of Nunavik or, more specifically, close to 9,000 Inuit beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. We are proud Canadians who have stood up for our country on more than one occasion. We are also full taxpayers at both the federal and provincial levels.
Moreover, we are entrepreneurs. Makivik, for example, operates two of the country's most successful aboriginal-owned airlines, namely, Air Inuit and First Air.
Nunavik is what we call our territory in Northern Quebec. It is an area where the Inuit are the overwhelming majority and includes the region of Quebec north of the 55th parallel.
In recent months we have often found ourselves explaining that Nunavik and Nunavut are two different places, despite the fact that they are both Inuit territories with similar names.
Makivik and its predecessor, the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, negotiated the creation of many of the non-ethnic public institutions that currently operate in Nunavik. These include the Kativik Regional Government and the Kativik School Board. These public bodies were put in place as part of our land claims agreement almost 25 years before the new Nunavut territory will see the light of day later this year.
Before going on with our presentation, we must emphasize that the question of governance constitutes only one component of our relationship with the federal government. Other components of this relationship include sections 35 and 91.24 of the relevant Constitution Acts, the federal government's fiduciary responsibilities to the Inuit, and our modern-day treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
It is impossible to fully examine the nature, extent and scope of self-government in isolation from these other aspects of our relationship with the federal government. In this context, there is a need to first evaluate the federal government's performance in honouring its obligations under other components of its relationship with the Inuit of Nunavik.
Unfortunately, the federal government's record in living up to its obligations to the Inuit of Nunavik is not good. For the better part of the past two decades, Makivik has been locked in an uphill battle to get the federal government to fully implement key provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Furthermore, during much of this period, we have also witnessed a succession of efforts by the federal government to deny its constitutional responsibilities to the Inuit living in Nunavik. From our standpoint, it is becoming painfully obvious that the federal government has adopted a policy of attempting to limit and reduce its relationship with the Inuit of Nunavik.
In recent years our problems with the federal government have escalated and it is not difficult to come up with examples. The marine infrastructure program for Nunavik was the subject of our original land claims agreement, as well as an implementation agreement signed many years later. Yet, after all this time, we are only being offered a program that is a mere shadow of what was originally envisaged. Instead of a $120 million program for all of Nunavik's 14 communities, we are only being given a $30 million program for three communities.
Our region's housing crisis is the most poignant example of how the federal government has turned its back on the Nunavik Inuit. In 1995, the federal government unilaterally and arbitrarily ended its program providing for the construction of new social housing for the Inuit of Nunavik. There was no justification for cutting the social housing for the Inuit while retaining a similar program for First Nations living in the provinces. The federal government has the same constitutional responsibility to the Inuit and the First Nations under section 91.24. Adding insult to injury, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement guarantees that we are entitled to a housing program on the same basis as the First Nations.
After exhausting all the usual means of resolving this matter, Makivik was left with no choice but to submit the issue to a formal dispute resolution mechanism in 1998.
In the meantime, almost five years have gone by since the federal government arbitrarily cut the social housing program in Nunavik. As a result, our region has an immediate need for 425 houses, and we are now getting reports of situations where as many as 23 people are being forced to live in a three-bedroom house.
I can assure members of this committee that we did not enter into the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and redefine our rights and relationships in Canada to get less than if we had not signed a land claims settlement.
Examples of how the federal government has let down the Inuit of Nunavik have also emerged in its approach to self-government issues. In 1987, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development surprised many people when he announced that the federal government had decided it would not have primary responsibility for negotiating and implementing self-government arrangements with Inuit in the provinces. The minister did eventually retract his position in the face of strenuous objections from Makivik and national Inuit organizations. However, last year, the current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made similar statements denying the federal government's primary responsibility for Inuit living in the provinces.
We have already felt the impact of this statement on the federal government's stance in our self-government discussions, and we now understand that, for the first time, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will no longer consider funding anything more than 50 per cent of our negotiating costs. Unfortunately, we are seeing elements of the minister's statement emerging with an alarming frequency in various federal initiatives, policies and communications.
As one can see, the federal government's track record in honouring its obligations to the Inuit of Nunavik leaves a lot to be desired. It is a source of uncertainty when it comes to exploring the development of new relationships based on aboriginal governance. With this caveat in mind, we are prepared to elaborate our views on Nunavik's desire to gain greater self-government and self-reliance.
Mr. Harry Tulugak, Executive Assistant to the President, Makivik Corporation: In the development of public government in Nunavik, our efforts to create the Nunavik assembly and government trace their origins back to the early days of the sixties, when people in Nunavik cooperated and began to get together to share their common problems and look for common solutions. In the 1970s, when we first established the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the original purpose was not to negotiate a land claims agreement, but rather to fight for a regional government and adequate representation in both Parliament and the Quebec National Assembly.
Shortly afterward, Quebec announced its plans to build the massive James Bay hydroelectric project. The fledging association was soon drawn into land claims negotiations. The Inuit took advantage of this process to negotiate various forms of non-ethnic institutions for their territory, including the Kativik School Board, the Kativik Regional Government, the Kativik Board of Health and Social Services, and numerous other organizations. Our negotiators intended to regroup all these institutions under one government headed by an elected assembly.
At the time, the federal and provincial governments were unsure about concentrating so much power in one body, and our negotiators eventually ran out of time and had to settle for a land claims agreement that fell short of providing a unified system of government for our territory.
The Inuit were not overly worried about this particular shortcoming in their land claims agreement because they believed it was only a matter of time before they would be able to bring all the public bodies under the jurisdiction of a single, elected assembly and government for the territory. Our distinguished chairman, Senator Watt, is well aware of that.
The 1980s saw numerous efforts to establish a process that would lead to the creation of a Nunavik assembly and government. However, serious tripartite negotiations did not start until 1994. The negotiations actually began when the Quebec Liberals were still in power, and they continued after the Parti Québécois was elected.
With the support of the Nunavik representatives, the federal government remained a party to all the negotiations, even when the newly elected Parti Québécois government attempted to propose otherwise.
Although there were some differences among the parties, these negotiations were remarkably successful. In a little less than one year, 75 per cent of the agreement took shape.
Quebec officials had even begun working on the necessary cabinet memorandum. Unfortunately, the entire process was sidetracked by the political developments surrounding the Quebec referendum, and our negotiations came to a standstill. Despite the best efforts of the Inuit of Nunavik, it proved impossible to revive the negotiations in the aftermath of the referendum.
Our process remained in limbo until the distinguished gentleman, Premier Bouchard, visited Nunavik in the summer of 1997. We took advantage of the opportunity to propose that a tripartite commission be established to make recommendations for the creation of a Nunavik assembly and government. We argued that the commission approach had been used successfully to prepare for the creation of the first government of the new Nunavut Territory. Both Quebec and Canada agreed with the idea of establishing a commission, and negotiations on the necessary political accord began in earnest early in 1998. It was supposed to be ready for signature four months later. However, last minute intransigence, first by the federal government and then by Quebec, meant that the accord was not be ready to be signed until late summer of 1998. By then, the Quebec general election was looming on the horizon, and once again our process fell by the wayside.
At this point in time, the federal government remains ready to sign but we are still waiting to hear from Quebec. The end result is that, after 25 years and two intense rounds of negotiations, we are no further ahead in our quest to bring all the public bodies in our territory under the jurisdiction of a single, elected assembly. We must emphasize that our negotiations have fallen apart on two separate occasions through no fault of our own.
As far as the role of the federal government is concerned, the Inuit of Nunavik clearly support a tripartite approach to negotiating and implementing self-government arrangements for our territory. Obviously we would have little difficulty in making a variety of recommendations that would also be applicable to the Government of Quebec. However, we believe this committee's report will have its greatest impact as it relates to federal policies and approaches concerning aboriginal governance. We will therefore focus our recommendations on the federal government's role in our efforts to create a Nunavik assembly and government.
In this respect, the federal government should do more than play the role of interested bystander in our negotiations. It is true that the federal government has usually been ready to participate in our negotiations, and it is currently ready to sign our political accord to establish a Nunavik commission. However, it rarely shows any signs of assuming any responsibility for driving the negotiation process to a successful conclusion. Rather, it tends to limit its role to protecting its own interests, and sometimes those of other aboriginal peoples.
If Quebec fails to sign the political accord, our experience indicates that the federal government will do little, if anything, to revive our stalled process. We find this particularly frustrating since the fiduciary obligations that go along with section 91.24 indicate that negotiating and implementing aboriginal governance is a primary responsibility of the federal government.
We of Nunavik are partners and pioneers in this respect. The federal government should clearly acknowledge its primary responsibility for Inuit living in the provinces.
Nunavik Inuit support the tripartite approach to resolving aboriginal issues. This was obvious 25 years ago when we negotiated our land claim agreement. Today, we continue to pursue non-ethnic institutions of self-government for our territory, an arrangement that allows for significant provincial participation in our affairs. Had we opted for purely aboriginal forms of self-government, much of this provincial participation in our affairs would have been unconstitutional.
Our approach would appear to be in keeping with the federal government's desire to address aboriginal issues through tripartite arrangements. Yet our willingness to embrace a tripartite approach is rewarded by a federal government that sees the situation as an opportunity to disown its primary responsibilities for Inuit living in provinces. The federal government's stance on this matter serves as a disincentive to embracing a tripartite approach.
The federal government should refrain from unilaterally offloading responsibilities or costs onto the regional or provincial governments. The need to be constantly on guard against this possibility can be a serious impediment to the successful conclusion of self-government agreements. Our experience with the cuts in our housing program, for instance, in Nunavik teaches us that the federal government will offload when given the opportunity, and that that can have dire consequences.
With the creation of Nunavut, the federal government should take steps to reaffirm its commitment to Nunavik and Labrador Inuit and Inuvialuit.
Makivik and the Inuit of Nunavik strongly support the creation of Nunavut and will join in the celebrations with our brothers and sisters when their new territory comes into being on April 1 of this year. We are green with envy over those upcoming celebrations and the fact that that region will now be retaining its own public institutions.
However, with the creation of this new territory, we do not want to see a situation where the federal government's initiatives and relationships with Inuit will automatically default to Nunavut. We do not want to be known simply as "the Inuit outside Nunavut." Unfortunately, we are already starting to see the first signs of this attitude in some federal departments.
While we recognize that our proposed Nunavik assembly will not operate on the same scale as the Nunavut legislative assembly, it is just as important to the future of our people.
The federal government should ensure jurisdictional space for aboriginal governance at the national level by inviting the national aboriginal leaders to participate in federal-provincial-territorial processes and discussions concerning the operation and future of the Canadian federation.
The standing committee's discussion paper indicates that the primary focus of self-government should be tangible initiatives at the local or regional level. We strongly agree, but not at the expense of reducing aboriginal participation in federal-provincial- territorial processes on national issues.
The federal government has chosen to exclude aboriginal peoples from direct participation in the current discussions about the social union and the administrative rebalancing of the Canadian federation. Grounds for such exclusion are not obvious, since it is easy to see how discussions on these issues can have a direct impact on aboriginal peoples and their institutions.
It should be noted that, in the past, national aboriginal leaders were invited to participate in constitutional conferences and other processes concerning the future of the Canadian federation. Since only governments are entitled to participate in such forums, aboriginal involvement in these processes was largely viewed as de facto recognition that aboriginal self-government constitutes a third order of government in Canada. Conversely, failure to provide for aboriginal participation in such forums could be viewed as downgrading the status of aboriginal governance within the federation.
The federal government should work with aboriginal peoples to develop national policies and measures to give provinces the confidence to fully engage in tripartite negotiations to develop new forms of government in Canada.
Those of us present today, including Senator Watt, are passionate about the fact that native self-governance in Nunavik is what we want to attain.
It is our objective, and will continue to be, until the day we attain it. We will celebrate along with our cousins to the north on April 1.
We have arrived at this conclusion because historically we have always attempted to break new ground in our negotiations to create a Nunavik assembly and government. While the establishment of a territorial assembly is nothing new for Canada, the creation of a second assembly within a province has never been done before. Therefore, we are at the threshold of setting new precedents.
It may be easier for the federal government to get a handle on such issues because it is used to dealing within an intergovernmental environment that involves provincial and territorial jurisdictions. By comparison, provinces are not used to sharing power or dealing with other jurisdictions within their borders. Most of their experience in this regard is limited to municipalities and purely delegated forms of authority. However, the municipal model is clearly an inappropriate starting point for negotiations concerning aboriginal self-government.
The federal government should be ready to work with aboriginal peoples and provincial governments to foster the innovative thinking required to negotiate and implement effective forms of aboriginal governance in Canada.
The Chairman: Thank you for your excellent presentation. The floor is open for questions from senators.
Mr. Aatami: Before you ask questions, Johnny Peters would like to say a few words on this issue, and his remarks will be translated into English by George Berthe, our corporate secretary.
Mr. Johnny Peters, Second Vice-President, Makivik Corporation (Interpretation): Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. The Nunavik peoples were the first to initiate modern-day land claims. Although we were the first people to undertake these agreements and negotiations, we have been left behind by our brothers in Nunavut. The government makes time for the people of Nunavut and they have taken several steps forward now. In Nunavik, we find ourselves behind the process.
The people of Nunavik pay some of the highest taxes in Canada. There is tax on every penny that we spend and that has had a tremendous impact on us. We accept that we should pay taxes, but we are one of the highest-taxed regions in Canada.
We are in a unique situation. Whenever the threat of separation is raised, we become a political pawn, but when separation is forgotten for a while, Nunavik is ignored again. It is just a void on the map. We would like to have more dialogue between governments during periods when separation or secession is not a hot issue, rather than only when it is at the fore.
The federal government has responsibility for aboriginal people. Aboriginal people living in Nunavik are totally abandoned by the federal government and the provincial government. They only deal with our issues when they want something from us. We feel abandoned and alone.
Senator Andreychuk: The Nunavut proposal is not a proposal for self-government. I have just come from the Legal Committee that is studying that issue. It is very clear that that is a system for all people within the territory, whether or not they are Inuit. Am I correct that you are asking for self-government within the existing structures of Quebec?
Mr. Aatami: This committee is studying aboriginal governance and obviously that is what we want. Over the past few years, we have been working toward something very similar to the Nunavut government. However, we would prefer self-government.
Senator Andreychuk: I understand that 85 per cent of the population of Nunavut are Inuit. In your jurisdiction, is everyone of Inuit descent or are there non-aboriginals as well?
Mr. Aatami: It would apply to all people in the region, regardless of their ancestry.
Senator Andreychuk: You rightly indicate in your report that one of your dilemmas is that you are negotiating within a federal-provincial structure. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples advocated a third level of government and that seems to be what you are suggesting.
You have said that you do not want this third level to be municipal but something else. Are you following the recommendations of the royal commission or are you veering away from them? If so, in what respect are you differing?
Mr. Tulugak: As I mentioned before, we are breaking new ground. It has been said that aboriginal peoples have a right to self-determination and this is what we have been discussing in Nunavik.
These discussions have been ongoing for the past 25 years. We propose a non-ethnic form of public government that has under its roof all the public entities that will deliver all services to any and all peoples living in the communities. It is not a new concept, but rather something similar to what Nunavut will be celebrating on April 1. In that respect, it is a form of government but it is public and non-ethnic. I do not know if I have answered your question.
Senator Andreychuk: I think so. I understand the royal commission is not advocating the Nunavut model. What you are trying to do is pattern something to suit you, but using Nunavut as your model rather than what is proposed in the royal commission report.
Mr. Tulugak: I can unequivocally tell you that we were one step ahead of our Nunavut cousins to the north in discussing the notion of a non-ethnic form of government. It is just that they got there first. As I mentioned before in an interview, I was personally under the naive impression that in the late 1980s we were very close to achieving what we wanted in Nunavik. The negotiations had moved about 75 per cent of the way toward attaining a form of government that would be established in Nunavik. I naively expected that they would come to us and ask how we did it. Yet here we are with reality facing us on April 1: They are getting it and we are just kind of mentioned in passing, and even shunted aside in some cases, because of the tripartite situation, and because, unfortunately or fortunately, we live in the province of Quebec that has its own political discussions.
Senator Andreychuk: We have often heard that the way that the federal government is approaching this does not suit the purposes of negotiation. The same people who have traditionally had the responsibility under the Indian Act, through the minister, for all other aboriginal services, are also the ones negotiating. Thus the "baggage," if I can call it that, and the history of the relationships comes with those people to the negotiating tabling. Some groups have suggested something similar to the Prime Minister's Office, or a new ministry set up for the purposes of definitively negotiating and concluding the outstanding land claims and self-government concepts. Would you advocate something like that? Or do you believe that the process itself is all right but that there is simply a lack of political will to push it to completion?
Mr. Tulugak: Such a move would be most welcome, and at this point we have seen a lack of political will to become completely immersed in the Nunavik endeavours to establish a public form of government. It would be most welcome and, of course, it would be less biased, if this scenario were to be presented. It would have a constancy that has been lacking in the past.
Senator Austin: I would like a little more background on the situation with the Province of Quebec. You mention in your brief that, at one point, they were even drafting a memorandum to their cabinet with respect to an agreement. I presume that what they were drafting, more or less, was what you had agreed to. Perhaps you could give us some detail on what you think the Province of Quebec is prepared to agree to with respect to what you describe in your brief as a third level of government.
Mr. Aatami: We did have a draft working document with the Province of Quebec on this proposed government, but changes of governments have always put a crimp in our talks. Now, with a separatist government in place, their desire to have their own form of negotiating has caused delays. We met with them a couple of weeks ago and they should be coming back to us next week with a new draft they are proposing. However, there is always something coming into play that puts a stop to our negotiating some form of self-government for the region.
Senator Austin: Your brief outlines, in a general way, the history of your negotiations, both with the federal and provincial governments. However, there is nothing in it to guide us in terms of the kind of role that a regional government would play in Nunavik. Are you looking for authority over schools, police services, and health care? Are you looking for the power to raise taxes to provide these services?
Can you just give us a sense of what self-government will mean, if you can achieve it?
Mr. Tulugak: It is precisely to identify these areas that we have proposed, both to our federal and provincial counterparts, that we establish a commission. We saw that it worked wonders in the Nunavut discussions, when they established a commission to identify in which areas the territory to be governed would have responsibilities. Currently in Nunavik, responsibilities have been delegated in health, education, police, social services, employment, and various other public services to be disbursed to the communities and to the citizens of the area.
Senator Austin: Is it the Kativik Regional Government that provides these services?
Mr. Tulugak: It is a super-municipal situation where the provincial government delegates its programs, and there is some federal funding that has been funneled through the province and passed on to the Kativik Regional Government, which administers certain of these public services.
Senator Austin: Funds are transferred by both the province and the federal government, along with these responsibilities?
Mr. Tulugak: Yes. They keep adding more and more, but the additions to these services to be provided for publicly have yet to be put permanently under one roof. This is our aspiration, a Nunavik assembly.
Senator Austin: What is the composition of the regional government at this time and how are its members chosen?
Mr. Tulugak: The members are elected from municipal corporations. There is a mayor in each community and they identify and appoint a member of their own council to the Kativik Regional Government. When they gather for the first time, they choose their executive. They have periodic meetings throughout the year, and after the municipal elections, a person is identified as a representative to the regional council. The regional council elects its own president, chair, vice-chair, and executive.
They are chosen from among people within the communities elected on a non-ethnic basis. This is not just a concept, it is a practice.
Senator Austin: Are we moving in the right direction? You would like a form of constitutional "envelope" to be put around the practices, plus some additional authority, I presume. Is that a summary of where you are going?
Mr. Tulugak: Maybe not necessarily constitutional, but an official recognition that a body such as an assembly will be acknowledged by both provincial and federal government levels. This assembly will be given a block of funds over a period of years and will administer them as they see fit.
Senator Austin: Do you want the Kativik Regional Government to be directly elected by people in the area rather than through the municipal councils, as takes place today? Is that a change you are looking for? Are you satisfied with the present method of selecting the representatives?
Mr. Tulugak: The present system of electing and appointing people to the Kativik regional council is sufficient for the time being, but we are here advocating a higher form of government for the future. This is where the commission that we expect to establish between the three parties, Nunavik, the federal representatives, and the provincial representatives, will identify precisely how these people are to be elected. I have been personally involved with this for many years now.
Mr. Berthe: To reiterate what Mr. Tulugak is saying, we do not want a "clerk" form of government, where another government says, "There is a program here, you distribute the funds, the program works." We want powers, too. That is the kind of government that we are assuming and that everyone is striving for.
If we continue with the super-municipal style, we will ultimately become government clerks with no trans-boundary powers.
Senator Austin: Define "trans-boundary power." What more things do you want to do than you are doing now?
Mr. Aatami: We want to be able to make our own decisions for our own region. At present, the decisions are made for us. Once that decision is rendered, we have no more say.
Governments are supposed to be able to make decisions for the region and that is what we want to be able to do. We know what we are, what we have been doing up there all these years. We want to be able to do these things on our own, to be able to make our decisions but still be part of Canada.
Mr. Tulugak: I have a specific example. In the area of health, there are two regional hospitals, one on the Hudson Bay coast and one on the Ungava coast. Recently we have seen horrendous situations where the only way a person needing immediate medical attention can be treated is by getting that person down to Montreal, which is the closest area that has specialists. Medivac is the only way to get a person out of the communities. The province provides air transportation in that respect, but there are airlines in addition to what the provincial government provides. They provide for the transportation by jet service.
Many hours can pass. Pilots must follow federal regulations that they fly only so many hours. That is a specific situation where I believe if the Nunavik assembly was responsible for health and the disbursement of its services, we would not encounter the amount of red tape that we currently do. They do not see and acknowledge the realities that we must face on a daily basis. That is a specific example.
Senator Pearson: It is difficult for me to see what levers you have and how we can help. Where are the levers with the federal government, for example?
Mr. Tulugak: I believe you are referring to levers such as representation by organizations that speak on behalf of the Nunavik; is that what you are alluding to?
Senator Pearson: I am thinking that when one is frustrated and wishes to move something along, one must look at the situation and determine the entry point and the point where you can apply some pressure that will produce some action. Have you been able to identify some of those that you can share with us and that we can consider?
Mr. Tulugak: In that regard, I believe we have two major levers or outlets where we can express our concerns. The Kativik Regional Government is one arena. The other is the Makivik Corporation, of which Mr. Aatami is the president, where regional representatives gather two or three times a year to discuss local problems and potential solutions.
These are the two points, through the chairman of the regional council, Kativik Regional Government, and the president and executive of the Makivik Corporation. The Kativik Regional Government is more provincially oriented and they pay regular visits to ministers and bureaucrats of the provincial government to express to them our concerns and needs and our potential solutions.
Makivik, on the other hand, has contacts in both the federal and provincial government. One example is the housing situation, which has implications for governance. The housing situation is deplorable. I do not think any other part of Canada would accept the state of our housing. Mr. Aatami has been expressing this dire situation to the federal government in recent meetings. We made similar representations this afternoon to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
These are potential levers that the people of Nunavik have been using to try to at least impress upon government some of the horrible situations in which we find ourselves.
Agreements that have not been fully implemented were intended to alleviate some of the problems we face today.
Senator Pearson: We had a presentation from the Cree-Naskapi Commission upon the implementation of land claims agreements. Do you have a similar commission? That is another lever. They may not be getting that far, but it is a lever. Would that be of interest, and do you have that?
Mr. Aatami: Something very similar to the Cree commission is the JPIO, the James Bay Implementation Office. We meet four times a year to look at the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and what still needs to be implemented.
When we met with Jane Stewart today, we spoke about striking a committee that will come up with something concrete, not just to discuss problems, but also to come up with solutions.
Senator Pearson: My second question is about education. I have known for some time about the Kativik School Board, partly because I have some interest in old Russia, the Russian north, and some of the connections made there at one stage.
The school board itself is in Dorval, is it not? You would want the school board offices, and everything else, to be up north, would you not?
Mr. Aatami: We would want everything up north. As I said earlier, we would like the decisions to be made up there. However, one of the stumbling blocks is that we are under provincial jurisdiction. The Kativik School Board is under provincial jurisdiction right now, and we have been negotiating for the last five years to get the school board up there. When money comes into play, it is the biggest stumbling block. We have that right now.
Senator Pearson: I am not entirely sure how Quebec works. Are the members of the school board elected?
Mr. Aatami: Yes. They are called commissioners and they are elected by all the communities. Each community elects a person to be its commissioner on the school board. It is very similar to the Kativik Regional Government. The commissioners elect an executive and a president from among themselves. They are all elected from the communities, but the majority of the time they have to come down south to meet. They can have meetings up north, but their head office, at the moment, is in Dorval. We are working toward moving it up north.
The Kativik School Board is also a non-ethnic organization.
[Senator Adams spoke in his native language]
Senator Adams: I want my colleagues to know that Pita Aatami is my nephew. They used to call me Aatami, too, and now they call me Adams. He got an Inuit name, and I got the English "Adams."
To his left is Johnny Peters. We are brothers, but he does not have grey hair yet. Maybe he is younger than I am, but every time we meet, we call ourselves brothers.
I left Kuujjuaq in 1953, and it is not part of Nunavik any more. I am now in Nunavut, the new territory.
This is an interesting discussion for me today. This evening we are hearing a Nunavik delegation. Earlier this afternoon, other senators and myself were at the committee meetings on Bill C-57, regarding the Nunavut Act.
I first came here in 1977, 20 years ago. Charlie Watt was the president of the Makivik Corporation at the time of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. At that time, funding from the federal government was to run for about 20 years, and I believe it expired about one year ago.
What has happened since the agreement for federal funding expired? Are negotiations ongoing?
[Mr. Aatami spoke in his native language]
[Senator Adams spoke in his native language]
Mr. Aatami: I wanted clarification on Senator Adams' question and it is always easier for us to speak in our native language.
In 1975, when we signed the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the funds were disbursed over the years. The last payment was in 1996 and we have not received any funds since then from any government. As much as possible, we tried to use the interest on the compensation dollars we received to do things in the north.
I know this is not the right place to speak about our grievances, but one of them has always been that the federal government is not sufficiently present. We have to use our own compensation dollars to build recreation centres and everything else. There is no federal presence up there. I wanted you to know that we have had to use our own dollars.
When we see government spending dollars for taxpayers down here, we point out that we are taxpayers as well. However, we never get the infrastructure that is needed up there, such as old age homes, youth centres and recreation centres. Those are just examples.
Senator Adams: I know that at the present time it is difficult for your people. Nunavut is coming on stream April 1. We have been controlled by the territorial government since 1966, when it moved to Yellowknife. What do you see in the future? You are still part of the Province of Quebec. How do you see the situation now? I do not want to talk about the separation of Quebec. You guys live up there. You know it is different from living in Montreal and Quebec City. You have your own culture and you are still recognized as part of the people of Quebec.
What do you see in the future? You speak your own language. What are you looking for from the Governments of Canada and Quebec? The only agreement you had was the James Bay agreement and it had nothing to do with a land claim. In the future, are you looking to run your own government and forget about the Province of Quebec?
Mr. Aatami: As we said in our brief, we are envious of Nunavut, but we are happy for them. That is what we want for our region. We would like the Province of Quebec and the federal government to work together. The government currently in power in the province is a separatist government. Be that as it may, we still have to work with it. We want to be able to run our own affairs and make our own decisions in the region, although it will be a non-ethnic government.
Senator Adams: Are you currently negotiating with the Department of Indian Affairs? I know that as long as Premier Bouchard is in power in Quebec, you do not want to talk about land claims. How will you be able to get started in your endeavours? Is the James Bay agreement blocking you in terms of a land claims agreement?
Mr. Aatami: We are in negotiations with both governments on this issue. We met with the provincial government a couple of weeks ago to see where we can go with this Nunavik government. We have discussed self-government in the past, but it will be for all people who live in the region. We are calling it the Nunavik government. We are looking into this with the Government of Quebec as well as with the federal government.
We are hoping that we can reach a conclusion and start studying the process of governing in the region within the next few months. I am optimistic that we will soon start planning a Nunavik government.
Senator Wilson: To change your situation, you are negotiating with both the provincial and the federal governments and you seem to be meeting a stone wall on several fronts. You will continue those efforts in any event, but in addition to that, what allies have you and what strategies are you developing?
Mr. Aatami: I could say that our ally is the federal government, since it is more understanding of our situation. Our strategy all along was to have a non-ethnic government so that it would be recognized. When you have an ethnic government, the world sees you as racist. We recognize all people living in the region and we want to work with them.
That will continue to be our strategy. It will be a regional government, but we will still be part of Quebec and Canada. We will continue to work with the governments in power.
Senator Wilson: You said that the federal government is your ally, but I have been hearing the opposite.
Mr. Aatami: We met with Jane Stewart, Minister of Indian Affairs, to discuss the political accord that we were ready to sign. I say that they are allies because they are at least ready to sign.
Senator Wilson: They are possible allies.
Mr. Aatami: Yes.
Mr. Tulugak: The alliances in the past between the federal and provincial representatives have teeter-tottered. They have reverted for one reason or another, but at this time the federal representation seems to be ready to sign off on the accord. However, it has moved reluctantly in the past. We would have liked to see more intense involvement, rather than simply playing along, since they were already at the table.
For instance, because we happen to be in the Province of Quebec, our funding has been cut, admittedly partly through our own fault, to 50 per cent of negotiating costs. We would like a reconsideration of that policy and a return to 100 per cent funding. That is one example.
Senator Wilson: When was the funding reduced to 50 per cent?
Mr. Tulugak: I cannot be specific, but it was a few years ago. It was done at the insistence of Quebec.
Mr. Peters: I am concerned about the small number of people present at this meeting. After asking their questions, most people have left. Is that normal procedure?
It seems that the government does not support us in the same way that it supports other aboriginals of Canada. What are you going to do about the situation we have been discussing with you?
The Chairman: Perhaps someone could respond to Mr. Peters on how we normally conduct our business here.
Senator Pearson: I will attempt it, Mr. Peters.
Senate committees are technically comprised of 12 members. There are several other committees currently in session and people go from one to the other. That does not mean that the members of this committee are any less interested in what is going on here. Fortunately, we will have a transcript of this meeting and everything being said is recorded.
Everything that you have been saying is not only being reported and will be in print, but it is also being recorded for television, so your audience is a lot bigger than you think it is. We can assure you that we will take everything you say into consideration and we will be combining it with the other things that we hear in order to respond.
We are not an executive group. We are really more like a court that listens and tries to evaluate and put together what we have heard and then make our own recommendations to government for execution.
Mr. Aatami: Thank you. I just heard you say there are normally 12 members in the committee. I do not know if Senator Losier-Cool is even on this committee. There are four senators here right at the moment. I would say now that if we are going to appear in front of a committee in the future, I would like to know how many are on the committee and what the quorum is. It is always better to get your point across when all the committee members are there. Yes, it is good that everything is being recorded, but there is always a better impact when people listen with their own ears instead of seeing it in print or on video. Yes, we are happy that we can make our presentation to you, but I agree with my colleague that committee members should make the time to attend. Yes, we understand you have other duties, but once you are appointed, you should attend. For example, I am an elected person. If I am appointed to a committee, I cannot just say that I cannot appear because of this or that. Next time I am to appear in something like this, I would like to know how many are on the committee, and what the quorum is, so that I can say my piece about what we are trying to do in our part of the world.
Senator Pearson: I assure you we do have quorum.
Mr. Aatami: I believe you had a quorum at the start.
Senator Pearson: Our quorum is four. I understand what you have been saying. I just have been co-chair of a joint parliamentary committee and many times we were quite small in number. It made no difference in the long run to the quality of the work that was produced because it was a long study, as is this. I understand how you feel because I have been on that side of the table, and I have come to committees where there were only four people and I was disappointed. However, you should not be disappointed, because there are lots of ears here and they will be paying attention to what you have said. Do not worry.
Mr. Aatami: The four committee members here listening are probably the strongest four on the committee.
Senator Pearson: That may be to your advantage.
The Chairman: I would like to ask some questions directly related, but also partly unrelated, to what is being brought forward. I think they are directly related to the day-to-day life of the Inuit of Nunavik. We all know that Nunavut is about to be realized in this country and it is also going to be assuming administrative responsibilities, even though the federal government will retain the jurisdiction in regard to their geographical area. I know that for some time, Makivik, on behalf of the Inuit of Nunavik, has negotiated with the federal government in regard to the offshore matters -- the sea, continental shelf, sea beds, and the islands, including the management of the environment and things of that nature. I would like to be brought up to date.
What is happening in your negotiations in terms of the new administrative structure? Is it going to be assuming administrative responsibility, up to the high-water mark, for that area which you rely on, on a daily basis, for your economic purposes? What is happening there?
[Mr. Aatami speaks in his native language.]
[Senator Watt speaks in his native language.]
Mr. Aatami: We are still in negotiations with the federal government on offshore matters. We have been having those negotiations with them for almost the last five years. We are at a point that we are ready, but there is a particular component that is missing. If you are going to be signing off on anything, you expect something in return. Without that in place, there will be no agreement. As I said, we have been negotiating for the last five years. It is a very comprehensive negotiation. There are many issues in the negotiations, but the biggest hurdle is compensation, and without agreement on that part, the negotiations will probably stall.
The Chairman: Will you then be allowed to participate in those management structures that have been negotiated between Nunavut and the Government of Canada?
Mr. Aatami: We already have an agreement with the people of Nunavut and the federal government, so we are already part of it. However, the negotiations that I am talking about are just for our particular area.
The Chairman: What about up to the high-water mark? Would it be recognized by the new administrative structure that you rely on that area on a daily basis for your livelihood? Is that acknowledged in some form?
Mr. Aatami: As two parties, we have an understanding that they recognize that we do have jurisdiction, as we have been saying all along.
The Chairman: When you say two parties, do you mean Nunavut and Nunavik or the federal government?
Mr. Aatami: Nunavut and Nunavik.
The Chairman: What about the federal government?
Mr. Aatami: I have been saying all along to the federal government, "You have been around 400 years; Inuit have been around for thousands of years. Who gave you the right to take over the islands, and when did the Inuit ever give them up? When did we ever sign off on those islands?" We do not recognize the federal government's jurisdiction over the islands.
The Chairman: Has the federal government at least acknowledged that this is an ongoing matter that needs to be resolved?
Mr. Aatami: Yes, they recognize that we have to resolve this issue. As I said earlier, we met with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to tackle this issue. We are still going to try to tackle it until we come to an acceptable conclusion for both parties. We are still talking.
The Chairman: Another question has more to do with the governance concept, being able to take control of your own destiny.
In the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, when we negotiated with the Government of Quebec, we ensured that the minister will never have a veto power over the Inuit in one area, and that is the language of instruction. I know that Kativik School Board has been refused funding by the ministry under that particular section. Is that still happening?
Mr. Aatami: We are aware there are some conditions being imposed by the Kativik School Board, but we are trying to come up with a solution. It is not stated anywhere in the agreement that it would be like that, and that is our problem. We are still going to keep on plugging away at teaching Inuktitut. That is who you are, your culture. Once you lose the language, it is like losing a part of your culture.
The Chairman: Senator Adams, I believe you want to ask a final question.
Senator Adams: Just to add on to your question, Mr. Chairman, I want to explain something to my friend Pita. I am on five committees, and sometimes I might be on five committees simultaneously. Some senators are only on one or two committees. I am sorry I am late tonight. I was interested in the proceedings of the other committee, which was dealing with Bill C-57, regarding the Nunavut Court of Justice. That is what happens sometimes.
People sometimes say senators are too old, and they fall asleep in the chamber. I think we do a lot of work. Some of the other senators and I were also on other committees this afternoon.
I have in my hand a map of Nunavut, which I received from the Justice department, and I see a dark mark on the map. Does that mean you have an agreement with Nunavut regarding some of the islands, and that they have already turned over responsibility for them to Nunavik?
Mr. Aatami: Yes. We have an overlap claims agreement with the people of Nunavut. We sit on some of the different Nunavut boards, such as the wildlife and water boards, et cetera. We are part of the different proceedings in Nunavut.
Senator Adams: What about your neighbours, the Cree? Is there any overlap between you and the Cree with regard to the land claims agreement or the James Bay agreement?
Mr. Aatami: We are starting to talk with the Cree on this particular issue, especially in one of our communities, Kuujjuarapik, which has both Cree and Inuit residents. It is something we have to tackle. Even though the James Bay agreement was clear, there are always grievances on the part of one side or the other. It is something we are discussing with the Cree.
Senator Adams: Do they have a claim to some of the territory as well as to the offshore?
Mr. Aatami: They have some claims concerning the offshore areas that have been recognized by the federal government. It is also something we will have to tackle in the future.
The Chairman: We really appreciate your presentation and we will definitely get back to you. As you know, your national organization, ITC, also has a role to play in what we are undertaking in another forum, the round table on governance. You are welcome to continue to deal with your governance concepts and to try to come up with some conclusions and help us to come up with some concrete recommendations.
Mr. Aatami: Thank you for giving us the time to make our presentation.
The Chairman: Our next group of witnesses this evening is from the Métis National Council of Women.
Introduce your delegation, please, and then proceed with your presentation.
Ms Sheila D. Genaille, President, Métis National Council of Women, Inc.: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. With me tonight are Marie Anne Piché, who is a member and director of our organization from British Columbia, and Alma Adams, from Ontario, who is vice-president.
You have probably heard much about Métis history. From the time the first government formed in Canada, federal governments have had difficulty coming to terms with the Métis in a political process as a result of conditions directed against the Métis that created more than a century of dispossession. There has been a systematic federal policy of displacing the Métis from their traditional lands in western Canada. The issue of identifying the Métis population and legally protecting the criteria for Métis citizenship reflects ongoing efforts by the Métis to counteract the federal government's previous efforts to define the Métis out of existence. The issue of section 91.24 of the Constitution Act of 1867 and the federal jurisdiction over the Métis shows Ottawa's continuing efforts to ignore its historic and constitutional responsibility for the Métis as one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Many historians have written that the Métis nation began nine months after the first European and Amerindians met. Since offspring of those unions often married within their own group, it was not long before they became a force to contend with. There were two groups of Métis, descendants of the Anglo-Indian unions known as half-breeds, and descendants of Franco-Indian unions known as Métis. The two formed a closely-knit group, bound by their common Indian origin, the fur trade and their western homeland.
Not until the Métis felt the infringement upon their way of life did they form a strong nationalist movement. It was those people, our ancestors, so often referred to as "half-breed savages," who rose to fight for their rights in 1816, 1849, 1870 and again in 1885. Before the 1816 skirmish, however, the Métis considered themselves a unique race. After the victorious battle at Seven Oaks in what is present day Manitoba, they reaffirmed their distinctness and declared, "Nous sommes la nouvelle nation"-- "We are the new nation."
On the plains of the West, the mixed bloods increased in numbers and married among themselves, developed a new culture -- neither European nor Indian, but a mixing of the two -- and a new identity, Métis. That new culture included traditions, their own language, Michif, which is a combination of French, Cree, Ojibway and, in some cases, Gaelic, and music and dance that combined steps from their Indian, Scottish and French ancestry.
With their traditions and their command of both European and Indian languages, the Métis played valuable roles in the commercial relationship between the European and Indian peoples. Métis women were also recognized for their role in the development of the west. With her dual heritage, the Métis woman possessed the ideal qualifications for a fur trader's wife and for fur trade life. Acclimatized to life in the west and familiar with Indian ways, she could also make a successful adaptation to white culture.
Métis women were often excellent interpreters, and familiarity with the Indian customs and language caused the role of intermediary between the Indians and whites to grow. Occasionally, the Métis wife was known to have saved the life of her husband due to her understanding of Indian customs and characteristics. For example, John Haldane, a Nor'Wester, was reportedly spared his scalp because his Métis wife was able to intercede with some hostile Indians during an incident at Rat Portage.
The Métis were a key socio-economic and political force in Red River. One of the most important activities in the area was the buffalo hunt, organized and administered with expertise by the Métis. Those hunts were organized with military precision and involved the whole Métis community. The hunt was essential to the entire fur trade in the Northwest because it provided inexpensive and plentiful provisions in the form of pemmican for the maintenance of the trading posts and boat brigades.
The fur trade had a great impact on the development of this federation we call Canada. By the mid 19th century, Métis villages had appeared in and around 1,000 fur trade posts from the Great Lakes to the Mackenzie Delta. Then, as now, Métis communities shared a common link of historical circumstances, but the well-documented events in Manitoba and Saskatchewan in the 19th century best illustrate the struggle of the Métis.
Beginning in 1811, the Hudson's Bay Company made a land grant to Lord Selkirk of 116,000 square miles of land in the Red River Valley, which today is southern Manitoba. The Métis feared that an influx of settlers would disrupt their economy and displace them from their territory. History records the efforts of the settlers to restrict Métis from hunting and trading, leading to their defeat in 1816 at the Battle of Seven Oaks.
In 1821, the amalgamation of the rival fur companies, the Hudson's Bay Company and the North West Company, closed many posts. As a result, in the French Métis and the Anglo Métis relocated to the Red River Settlement. Here, the two groups joined to defend common interests and their ties were reinforced by frequent intermarriage.
From 1821 to 1869, demographic changes contributed to the growth of group consciousness among the Métis. In the Red River Settlement between 1820 and 1870, Europeans and Indians were absorbed by the Métis. By 1869, the population of the Red River Settlement, one of the largest, consisted of 5,720 French Métis, 4,080 English Métis and 1,600 non-natives.
In 1845, the Hudson's Bay Company had to recognize the land-holding system that the Métis used, which was the river-lot system practised in Quebec. The Métis tradition was to settle on the lots without formal legal title.
Métis free traders and merchants became the most articulate proponents of a growing Métis nationalism. They petitioned the governor of the Red River Settlement for recognition of their special status. The struggle to retain their lands and identity continued for the Métis.
In 1846, 1,000 people of the Métis nation signed a petition which was sent to the Queen of England to lobby for changes concerning the following: the absence of legal rights for the Métis in the Red River Settlement; the lack of schools for the children of the Métis in the Red River Settlement; the refusal of the Hudson's Bay Company to allow Métis hunters and trappers to trade with whomever they wanted; the high prices the Métis people in the Red River Settlement were forced to pay for the goods they bought. Neither the Crown nor the Canadian government paid any attention to this petition.
After arriving on the shores of North America, the Hudson's Bay Company tried to enforce its monopoly over the fur trade. Ultimately, that resulted in clashes with Métis free traders. The Métis believed that they, along with the Indians, were the true owners of the western plains and that they possessed certain rights that the Hudson's Bay Company had not respected. The Métis challenged the control and monopoly of the Hudson's Bay Company. In 1849, Guillaume Sayer, a Métis, was charged with violating that monopoly and the company insisted that he be prosecuted for trading with the Indians in the United States. The Métis led an armed body and surrounded the courthouse. Sayer was found guilty of the charge, but the authorities did not attempt to hold or punish him. As he left the court, the crowd shouted, "Le commerce est libre," and thus ended the Hudson's Bay Company's trade monopoly.
In 1869, the British Parliament passed the Rupert's Land Act under the provisions of which the Hudson's Bay Company sold the Northwest to the Dominion of Canada. During the negotiations preceding the sale, no reference was made to the rights of the Métis majority in Red River. In the words of the historian W.L. Morton:
One of the greatest transfers of territory and sovereignty in history was conducted as a mere transaction in real estate.
It was expected that the settlement would become a Canadian colony without self-government. Faced with the acquisition of their homeland by an alien government seeking to promote the Western immigration of white settlers from Ontario, the Métis resisted.
The Canadian government sent surveyors to mark off land in the West so that it could be made available to new settlers, again without consulting the Métis or without permission from the Métis who were already living on the land. That fanned the fire of resentment.
In October of that year, the Métis formed the Métis National Committee and called for an independent republic of the Métis Nation. The committee was composed of John Bruce as president and Louis Riel as secretary, but in fact it is speculated that Riel was the real leader of the movement. Active members were Father Richtot, John O'Donaoghue and Ambroise Lepine. The committee was to bargain with the Canadian government to ensure that Métis lands and freedoms would be protected.
Negotiations did not go well; in order to control the Red River area, the Métis would have to control Fort Garry. On November 2, Riel and his followers took over the fort without a single shot being fired. On December 8, the committee became a provisional government.
The Chairman: Please be sure to leave time for senators to ask you some questions.
Ms Genaille: I wanted to read this because I did not know how many senators were aware of the history of the Métis people. I will go past the history.
Senator Pearson: We promise to read it.
Senator Wilson: I am from Manitoba, so I know about it.
Ms Genaille: As a brief overview, I gave you an outlook of who the Métis were, their struggles against successive federal and provincial governments, and the deaf ear the government has turned when it comes to Métis people. It was building up to what happened. I will jump ahead to page 17 of my brief and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
I would particularly point out recommendation 4.5.1, that political negotiation on a nation-to-nation or analogous basis be the primary method of revolving Métis issues. We agree with that and would remind the federal government that the Métis must take the lead role to define their process. The federal government should not dictate to the Métis what non-government organization represents them either nationally or regionally. There are Métis organizations in most provinces and territories, and some of those are members of national organizations while others are not. The Métis National Council of Women suggests, however, that most Métis people do not belong to any organization.
Concerning recognition of nationhood, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report stated:
There are sharp differences of opinion about the nation status of communities other than the Métis Nation.
I am making the assumption that their definition of a Métis nation would be what they call the Métis homeland, which would be the Western part of Canada. I am guessing, but I believe that is what they meant.
Although it is not easy to list definitively all the essential attributes of peoplehood or nationhood, they certainly include social cohesiveness, collective self-consciousness, cultural distinctiveness and effective political organization. While many are convinced that some of the other Métis collectives already possess these essential attributes of nationhood, others doubt that stage has been reached by any community outside the Métis Nation. The Commission is not in a position to resolve this controversy.
I believe the federal government is also not in a position to solve this controversy. There are Métis people resident across this country, from the West Coast to the East Coast to the North Coast. The commission said that they were not in the position to resolve this controversy, and we ask that the federal government not assume that they are in a position to resolve this controversy. The only people who decide who are the Métis Nation are the Métis people themselves, and we have not had the opportunity to do so.
Further, the commission wrote:
Recognition of nationhood is an essentially political function about which we commented at length ... Having recommended a general recognition policy for application to all Aboriginal nations, it would be inappropriate for us to attempt here to settle controversial questions relating to the status of particular groups with the Métis population of Canada. That said, we do intend to offer a few observations on the subject of Métis nationhood for those whose task it will be to implement the recognition policy.
They write about the different rights, and they refer again to the Métis Nation and to the Labrador Métis. I wish to quote this, because it is interesting and crucial.
... In some cases, the decision would be obvious. Suppose that federal and provincial governments proposed to discuss a constitutional amendment or changes in legislation or policy that could affect the rights of all Canadian Métis but that the representatives of the Métis Nation and the Labrador Métis had no mandate to speak for anyone beyond the geographic boundaries of their respective homelands. It would then be imperative to invite to the bargaining table representatives of other Métis communities.
We should like to add this statement about no mandate to speak for anyone beyond the geographic boundaries. I am sure statistics would back up our position that it is not geographic boundaries but members within their own organizations. That an organization has geographic boundaries that could constitute a small region does not mean that all Métis people in that particular area are members of the organization, so we dispute that fact.
A more problematic situation would arise where a large group of self-identified Métis people disputed its exclusion from membership in a nation or demanded separate participation in negotiations.
Again, the situation of Métis women in this country is very problematic, especially considering the exclusionary practices of some of the national and regional Métis organizations across the country who purport in one breath to speak for the Métis women and in the next breath exclude them and the exclusionary practices of some federal government departments that listen to this rhetoric.
We strongly concur with the commission's following statement:
The role of aboriginal women in nation building cannot be underestimated and must not be ignored. As we have observed, many aboriginal women play a special role in articulating visions of nationhood founded on the best of past traditions and culture. These visions must guide the present leadership if aboriginal nationhood within a renewed Canadian federation is to become a living, vibrant and egalitarian reality.
They recommend further that Canada provide funding to aboriginal women's organizations. In January of 1998, Canada responded that they would provide funding to aboriginal women's groups, although they did not tell us in what decade or century they would let go of the purse strings, because the Métis National Council of Women has still either been ignored or directed to other non-profit organizations, be they Métis-exclusive or other aboriginal organizations.
We ask this government, where is your responsibility? We did not elect any of those non-profit organizations to sit in the House of Commons to decide where we, as taxpayers, want our dollars spent. The people of Canada elected members to the House to make those decisions. If they do not take that responsibility, then we suggest that they not run in the next election. Obviously they should not be sitting in the House of Commons and making decisions for the people of this country if they shirk their responsibilities.
The Métis National Council of Women suggests that the Government of Canada has ignored this recommendation. Their document "Gathering Strength" said that they would make funds available to the organizations.
We often hear the bureaucrats say, "We recognize seven national aboriginal organizations." They look at us. Are we non-entities? Do we fade into the furniture? Are we not smart enough?
Canada has gone on record signing international conventions assuring the women of this country equality. Yet, in the next breath, because we are aboriginal women, we are third-class Canadian citizens. They do not pay attention. They ignore us. They hope we will go away. They hope we will be quiet.
We will not go away. We will not be quiet. You do not see us yelling in the streets or going to the press. We come before people like you and make our voices heard.
I do not know what side of the house you senators sit on, whether you are Liberal or Conservative; I know not independent.
Senator Wilson: I am.
Ms Genaille: The Métis National Council of Women asks the Government of Canada: Why do you recognize certain non-profit organizations as governments?
The majority of Métis people from across this country have not had the opportunity to decide what type of Métis government is best for the Métis. How will this government serve our best interest? You have not even taken the time to go out and talk to the people. You have not given us the courtesy of allowing us to tell you what we see. You pick certain organizations and say, "Métis woman, that is your political party." We say, "No, it is not. We will decide. You do not dictate to us."
In conclusion, we do recognize that successful negotiations have been conducted by several organizations over the years since the beginning of the Métis Nation. However, as I believe some of the Inuit before us have put it succinctly, administrations change. The last government listened to the Métis National Council of Women and wanted to hear our voices. Some of the aboriginal organizations wanted to ensure that our voices were heard. Governments change, administrations and organizations change, as does the goodwill.
We wish to ensure that women who follow us in the next century will not need to appear before a Senate committee or a House of Commons committee 50 years down the road to regurgitate what we are saying and what the Métis people have been saying since the inception of the Métis Nation.
Again, we reiterate strongly that it is inappropriate for any government, whether the Government of Canada or any provincial government, to dictate the form or forms that Métis self-government should take by recognizing a select few.
The Senate committee listed the items that you wished to discuss including developing mechanisms and defining strategies for financing. The Métis people and the Canadian people probably have no idea as to what the cost of a Métis government would be. We are diverse from sea to sea to sea geographically. There is little land base.
We do not wish to parrot governments in Canada. Yet this government is directing us to a national organization or a provincial organization. Where will the money come from? The Government of Canada is what they perceive as our government. They have never sat down to discuss what part of my tax dollars as a Métis woman will go to finance our government.
As a Métis Nation, we have not had an opportunity to have a comprehensive, informed look at the issues that you have set out to determine what we think.
Some of the aboriginal people in Canada are miles ahead of us. Nunavut is a prime example, as are some of the treaties with some of the Indian people.
The Métis people are far behind. We are asking for the opportunity to define and develop the approaches, to define mechanisms for negotiating and implementing, to define strategies for financing, to define the structure and the government that the Métis require.
The royal commission reported that the 20th century began with the people of the Métis nation uprooted, fragmented and dispirited. They are determined that before it closes they will have regained their rightful place as a self-governing, self-sufficient, culturally vibrant aboriginal people inside a more equality-conscious Canadian society. They were very optimistic. We are not; we are very pessimistic.
The 20th century is closing and we are neither self-sufficient nor self-governing. We do not have a rightful place in the Canadian federation. Are we inside an equality-conscious Canadian economy? I do not think so. I am very pessimistic about that, as are many of the women in this room.
The royal commission also said that the women's voices heard have many commonalities. They were talking about aboriginal women, despite their diverse backgrounds in diverse geographic locations. Aboriginal women share a concern for the well-being of their children, families and community as well as a concern that encompasses all the issues of our mandate -- education, justice, land, resources, governance, health and environment.
Statistics show that the majority of aboriginal women in this country are below the poverty line. As their testimony reveals, aboriginal women have often been excluded from their home communities, from decision-making and from have a say in their and their children's future. Their determination to change the situation and to be included in those areas and more is a powerful message to the royal Commission.
The tripartite process to negotiate self-government is flawed. Many Métis organizations in the provinces, including women's organizations, are again not recognized by the provincial Métis councils that Canada and the provinces have empowered to enter into tripartite negotiations on behalf of all Métis people. Thus, Métis organizations and women's organizations not recognized by provincial organization are disenfranchized from the process of developing and implementing self-government.
That is especially unfair when you consider that the extent of self-governance for Métis people today is limited to the areas of social service. It is women who primarily deliver these services on a volunteer basis. The Métis National Council of Women will continue to voice its opposition to the exclusion of Métis women and Métis women's organizations from the development of self-government for the Métis.
We thank you, but we will not be silent. We will continue to voice our opinion. I believe Senator Wilson asked one of the previous presenters who their ally was. We were listening, and our answer to that question is that our allies are the courts of this country. If the Government of Canada or the provincial governments will not listen to us, the courts certainly will.
My colleagues and I are willing to take questions.
Senator Pearson: Your presentation was fascinating, and we need to know much more. I would agree, and I am sure that my colleague Senator Wilson would agree, that women should not be excluded in any way from discussions about the process for developing and implementing self-government.
Why is this such a problem in your community? Why have women been excluded? It is one thing to say that this is what the governments have recognized. I understand that point, and it is well taken. However, existing organizations are not recognized by the provincial Métis council. Why is that the case?
Ms Genaille: I cannot answer for them. As organizations change, so do the leaders. To put it in a lighter tone, contrary to popular belief, the good old boys' club is alive and well in the aboriginal world.
Senator Pearson: That is quite an eloquent statement, which I think is true. We should try to change the degree to which the government colludes in that. It may be happening, but there is no way that we should be responsible for reinforcing that kind of division. I do not know how we will deal with this situation, but we will look at it very intensely.
The question of nation-to-nation negotiation seems to depend on how the nation is defined. If women do not have much part in its definition, it is a faulty process. Would you have a comment on that?
Ms Marie Anne Piché, Director, Métis National Council of Women, Inc.: I believe part of the reason is the way that Métis organizations are structured. For example, in British Columbia we have the Métis provincial council, which takes part in the tripartite negotiations with the federal government and the province to negotiate a form of self-governance. One problem is that not all of the organizations get along. Some organizations are excluded and do not have an opportunity to partake in any of the decision making that goes with negotiations. My concern is that later on, as self-government is negotiated, the particular groups that are not included will not have had adequate say in the development or implementation of the process.
With respect to Métis women in particular, the process is still patriarchal and the main organization is run largely by men. We do not have good and fair representation of women when it comes to negotiations for self-government. I should like to see women have an opportunity to work on the development of self-government and in any policy related to the development of self-government.
In addition, women's organization should be independent from major organizations. They should be an entity unto themselves. For example, the Métis National Council of Women has worked very hard over the last 10 years to develop a cohesive women's group that works to further Métis women's causes. That group also works at the international level. I believe they are doing a good job and they should be included in the tripartite process of negotiating self-government.
Ms Alma Adams, Vice-President, Métis National Council of Women Inc.: I am one of the founding directors of the Métis Nation of Ontario. I was chairperson of the school board where I lived for 22 years. I am a commercial fisherwoman. In order for me to keep my position on the MNO, I had to resign from those other committees because I had to belong exclusively to the MNO. I worked very hard to be chairperson of the board, taking care of children, but they booted me out.
At the same time, what was Secretary of State, now Heritage Canada, gave us money for a gathering of women. The women voted that we form our own organization and incorporate. We wanted autonomy. We wanted to fall under the same umbrella as the MNO, but they said no, that we were on our own. They said, "You cannot get incorporated. You have to stay with us." All the grants must go through them. We just said no. We wanted to do it our way, yet we still wished to stay under the umbrella of the MNO. To date, it has not happened.
A senator asked one of our Inuit brothers what power means. I will tell you what power means. Power means that we want to ensure the well-being of our children and our families. Power means good education and good housing.
There are many single mothers and married mothers. I have been married for 26 years, I am happy to say. The national movements composed of men do not see the well-being of our communities, our children and our women.
As all you of know, women are a very important basis in our society. We are mothers, grandmothers and wives. This issue is of grave concern to us. It is a big mandate.
Education is another important issue. We have assistance only in one area of education, law school, which we can receive after two years. Therefore, if you want a good education, you must come from a fairly well off family.
As far as health care goes, I live on the outskirts of the reserve. They have a medical centre, which I am not allowed into, and that is fine. We must fly 160 miles to have a baby. In the north, we have to fly in. Although this may not be a concern for men, women like to have their husbands beside them when they have a baby. Also, cancer patients have to travel 200 miles or 300 miles to get treatment.
Those are the things that we care about and the things that we want you to see. We cannot hide in our condos in our villages of 50. We have to face those women and our children.
We are here so that you can hear us. Please do not forget us. I have met a few of you before, but I think you have forgotten me. I hope that you will remember me next time. We will be back. We care about everyone. We care about our sisters -- Inuit, aboriginal, native, Métis and white.
I hope that I have been well heard. All we want is autonomy over our lives. We want a say about self-government. We want at least to be allowed to sit with the men. They will not let us do even that, although it is women who give birth to them.
I hope that you understand what I have said. I am going to be a grandmother in June and I want to ensure that my grandchild is protected. There are many treaty people whose children will become Métis. They need to wake up as well.
Senator Wilson: I cut my teeth on Seven Oaks in Winnipeg and took my children there for history lessons. I lived in Manitoba for half of my life and am therefore well aware of and interested in your situation.
I believe that the nub of your presentation is on page 20 where you address recommendation 4.2.1 of the royal commission which says, in effect, that the Government of Canada should provide funding to aboriginal women's organizations, including urban-based groups, to improve their research capacity and to enable them to participate fully in all aspects of nation building. You say that the Government of Canada has ignored this recommendation. Therefore, as Métis people, you have not been able to decide what type of Métis government is best for you.
I appreciate your response that the courts are your allies, but do you have any strategies to break through the problem of only seven aboriginal organizations being recognized? Would you have to litigate that or is that a priority for you?
Ms Genaille: In a sense, it is a priority because, since we are a national organization, there is a domino effect. If the Privy Council Office does not recognize you, other government departments will follow suit. Therefore, it is important.
The most important thing is that there is no Métis government in Canada. There has been no signing of any modern day treaties. There has been no constitutional change to include us in amendments to the Constitution. As far as I am aware, no federal legislation recognizes a Métis government.
I do not know how to make politicians understand the difference between a non-government organization or a non-profit organization and a government. We want recognition not only for this organization but for the women at the regional organizations who may not be members of this organization or who may be members of a small community organization. We want the government to recognize that there is no Métis government and to let the Métis people decide.
Do the Métis of Labrador belong to a Métis organization? I spoke to a women's group in Goose Bay. They have no national voice. They are a local community Métis organization. If the Government of Canada tells the Métis people that a certain non-profit organization is their political spokesperson, but that group in Labrador has never heard of that political spokesperson, who speaks for them? Who speaks for the 75 per cent of Métis people in this country who do not belong to any organization?
Why do politicians think that aboriginal people are different? Canada is allowed the luxury of having political parties. This committee is a good example. There are PCs and Liberals on this committee. Did the aboriginal people tell you that you must all belong to one party, that you must all subscribe to the same ideals and ideologies?
Yet, to you, the Métis people are somehow different. We are all supposed to subscribe to the same views; we should not have opposition. It is healthy to have opposing ideas from different parts of a group. Why does government think that aboriginals are different?
Senator Adams, what makes them think that we are different?
Senator Wilson: Before we respond to that, I should like to say that I was interested in the information about Canada signing on to the convention to end discrimination against women. I am going from here to a women's caucus in Ottawa. Forty women's organizations are planning strategies to monitor and scrutinize Canada's compliance with that. I will take your presentation along.
Ms Genaille: Senator Wilson, the top priority of the Métis National Council of Women is at home, but we are involved at the international level. In fact, I am going to New York to hear what Canada says at the United Nations.
Senator Adams: In your brief, you mentioned the Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association. That organization was very strong in the land claims in Nunavut. When we were considering how Nunavut would be governed, it was decided that the legislature would be comprised 50 per cent of men and 50 per cent of women. I do not understand why you women do not have the same rights as your husbands.
This afternoon I was glad about Bill C-57, the Nunavut Justice Act. We have mostly women on the committee. There are 50 ministers in the Nunavut government, and I was glad to see those people come here today to explain how their system will work in Nunavut.
You live at home and you can see what is happening in the family. Women have power. We see that with our aboriginal women. Some of your organizations, such as the Métis, should be coming to us to help us settle how this will be done. That is my idea. We recognize our women. Men should be hunting and you women look after the kitchen and everything at home. That is your job.
Ms Genaille: Are you asking us about this?
Senator Adams: That is my feeling. How do the provincial government and the federal government have the power to say that they do not recognize your organization? You never signed any treaties. Why do they not recognize you?
Ms Genaille: It is not up to the government to recognize who should be our government.
I am happy to hear that Nunavut is including the Inuit women; however, Pauktuutits have not had it easy and they still do not on the federal level. The past president and I were colleagues, as is the new president. When it comes to various initiatives, the Pauktuutit are told at the federal level, "Go see the Inuit Tapirisat." That is common knowledge.
We have dialogue with the Inuit women. I am glad Nunavut is saying that the Inuit women are there, but the Pauktuutit is on the national level with the federal government and doors are being closed just like they are with us on certain initiatives with the federal government. I included it here because we hear it time and time again. There are seven national organizations in this country. We are saying that you forgot two: the Inuit women and the Pauktuutit, which is a national autonomous organization, and us. We are a national soul. There are still many problems. I believe they look at us as a political party, which we have never professed to be. We are watchdogs to ensure that women are heard and that they are contributing members.
The Chairman: If no other senator wishes to ask questions, I feel obligated to answer the question you put forward: Who are we and what are we?
First, it is always difficult to be included when you are at the transitional period. As for today and where we are as aboriginal people, many of us are administering to our people and trying to represent our people through non-profit corporations. Those instruments are no more than tools; they are not a government. However, when they speak on behalf of our people they do not say, "We are the government as organizations." In a sense, they attempt to say, "We are the government as a people." That is the way I understand it. When various organizations operate in such a way toward a people when they do not know much about their lifestyles or about how the system works in our own backyard, people tend to say, "We are the government." I do not think that they are trying to say, "We are a government as an organization."
I say that because I have some experience of going through various transitional periods. When we had nothing in Nunavik, we formed an organization and we used that instrument as a tool for litigation and, after the litigation, negotiation. The negotiation concluded, but that organization is still incorporated today and still has a charitable number. We just put it on the shelf back in 1979. Corporations such as Makivik can be profitable; as well as being a business organization they can, at the same time, have a political arm to administer the acquired rights and monitor the implementation side. Makivik was created and ended up administering millions of dollars. It also has a responsibility to create a business and add to the economy. With that organization we have been able to create several airline companies and we have been involved in fishing, in petroleum and in all sorts of businesses.
We have another instrument -- the so-called regional government. At this point it is nothing more than a delegated government from the Province of Quebec.
You heard today from the other presenters about a unified system. What does that mean? It means that they are trying to take certain matters from under two jurisdictions and put them under their own jurisdiction. That is what is happening on the outside, in the Inuit world.
The movement down the road still must happen. I call it the "ethnicization" of the government when it is put in place. That will happen at a later date. You say, "We are excluded from men's organizations." I wonder if that is an internal problem that must be dealt with by the Métis people -- that is, the men and women -- while women still maintain your organizations independent from the men's organizations, whatever they may be. Either you enter into a democratic system or you do not. You must decide. It is not the government's responsibility.
I wish to tell you who you are and what you are. The more I listen to you, the more I understand and the more I wish to help and to reach out to the people who are stopping you from participating in the meaningful society in which you need to have a say. If you need a middle person to deal with that issue, I would even be prepared to volunteer, aside from being a senator.
Ms Genaille: I wish to comment on what you just said. I appreciate your comments. I do not believe the Métis people are in the transitional period yet. You said, "become part of." Yes, we do want that. However, take a look at the demographics of Métis people in this country, particularly Métis women. It is fine and dandy to say "Get involved, become part of it." We have tried. You are very well aware, Mr. Chairman, of some of the exclusionary practices that we have faced, even in this committee.
It is fine to say, "Get the women involved," but when the Government of Canada tips the scales in favour of the exclusionary practice of organizations, we do not have any recourse. When the Government of Canada says in their "Gathering Strength" document that they will make funds available to aboriginal women, we should ask them in what year they will do this. Will it be within our lifetime? Will it be before the turn of the century? Am I pessimistic? Yes, very much so, because we have not had one thin dime from this government to examine what women want or do not want.
Yes, we wish to be involved, and we want to become a part of the overall picture, but when we get so-called leaders out there saying, "I do not recognize you as president of the Métis National Council of Women," that says to me that they do not recognize the right of Métis women in this country to form or to belong to any organization. As my colleague to my right said, she had to give up her seat on the Métis Nation of Ontario organization because they wanted her off the school board. Yes, we wish to be involved, but when Canada tips the scales and we drop to the bottom, it takes us a while to get back up again. I do appreciate your comments.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. I am sure that this will not end here. We must move in the direction of finding the solutions to the problems you have highlighted. As I mentioned, some of us are prepared to assist you in any way we can.
Senator Forrestall: I was taken somewhat aback a moment ago when you said that you had not received a single dime from the federal Government of Canada. Would it be improper for me to ask how you are funded now?
Ms Genaille: Perhaps you misunderstood. I was talking about Minister Goodale and the document "Gathering Strength." Both said that Canada would make funds available to aboriginal women for the study of self-governance issues.
Senator Forrestall: And have they not done that?
Ms Genaille: No.
Senator Forrestall: That does not answer my other question. Do you receive some money now?
Ms Genaille: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: You are here and it is a long way from home.
Ms Genaille: I was referring specifically to the "Gathering Strength" document. Going back to our presentation, we do not believe that the Métis people, much less women, have had the opportunity to address that. We are saying that Canada promised that aboriginal women's voices would be heard in respect to governance.
Ms Adams: As to the presidents of the organizations in the provinces, most of that work is voluntary. Our phone calls, faxes and so on all come out of our own pockets.
Senator Forrestall: You are to be commended for that.
Ms Adams: We believe in this cause.
Senator Forrestall: Go for it.
Ms Adams: One more thing, Mr. Chairman: Next time your colleagues go to Geneva and say that women have equal rights in Canada, tell them it is not true.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation.
Our next witnesses are from the Native Council of Canada, specifically from Alberta.
Ms Doris Ronnenburg, President, Native Council of Canada: Good evening, honourable senators. I and my Indian colleagues, Keith Chiefmoon and Barbara Wendt, and our technician Richard Long, thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak before you on aboriginal governance. In 1991, the Native Council of Canada (Alberta) was a funded participant in the work of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples on the subject of six ways of funding aboriginal self-government outside the taxpayer. Now, eight years later, we are pleased to continue that year-long effort by addressing the related issues of aboriginal governance.
We understand that the Senate's terms of reference include the following: first, the new structural relationships required between aboriginal peoples and federal, provincial and municipal levels of government and between the various aboriginal communities themselves; and second, the mechanisms for implementing such new structural relationships and the models of aboriginal self-government required to respond to the needs of aboriginal peoples and to complement those new structural relationships.
The Senate and this committee have taken on quite a task. We commend you for that. Also, we note the involvement here of senators of aboriginal origin. I do not know all of the senators sitting around the table but I know some of you.
We have decided to make our submission in four areas: one, governance and Bill S-14, First Nations Government Act, and six accountability concerns; two, governance and Indian band-owned companies -- the issue of shareholder rights at high level and elsewhere; three, governance problems in national organizations such as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples; and four, five recommendations for new structural accountability relationships needed both between and within aboriginal communities.
Mr. Long will begin by discussing our six accountability concerns with Bill S-14 as it is now drafted. We will then have Barbara Wendt, assisted by Mr. Long, discuss the issue of shareholders rights of band members at Beaver-owned companies generally. Mr. Chiefmoon will then discuss governance accountability problems in national aboriginal organizations, using Congress of Aboriginal Peoples as an example. I will conclude by explaining the five specific recommendations that NCCA wishes to make here tonight. We are prepared to elaborate further on another day, adding additional topics on this huge subject.
First, let us turn to the six accountability questions regarding Senate Bill S-14.
Mr. Richard Long, Executive Director, Native Council of Canada: Good evening, honourable senators. As I was coming here, I noticed the snow sculptures outside. The Alberta snow sculpture is a big block of ice. I asked those carving the sculpture what it was and they told me that it was "white" and that I should come back in a couple of days. Perhaps that is what self-government is -- a big block of ice and we are all trying to carve a sculpture.
Before coming to Ottawa, I was asked to comment on a technical matter. I intend to do that, if I can, with your indulgence. Bill S-14 is before the Senate and your job is to look at it and consider it. My job tonight is to present to you some technical opinions about the bill itself.
The bill is an important document. In fact, it is a revolutionary document. We have analyzed it carefully. As senators, you are being asked to consider a revolutionary change in how you look at Indian government. I believe it goes without saying that we are in a time of great change. You may all wish to go down and buy the current edition of Time magazine that is on the newsstands throughout the United States and Canada. The feature article, a 10-page cover story, is relevant to what you are doing here. I assure you I have nothing to do with the editors of the magazine. It is a very comprehensive article discussing Indian self-government. It deals with land claims, the AFN, and everything you are struggling with as a committee.
Senator Pearson: It is probably the Canadian edition.
Mr. Long: There is material on America as well.
What we are trying to do tonight, and what you are trying to do as the Senate, is take a serious look at this evolutionary process of emerging self-government processes for Indian people. You are trying to figure out what is the best way to go. I wish to say very clearly that what you are doing here is very important. I hope, if you will bear with me, that we can contribute to your process.
I note that my speech is on page 23 of the magazine. What I am about to tell you is right here in this article.
In the move toward Indian self-government, and the understanding of Canadians generally, what we have been doing for 100 years is not working very well. We can all agree on that. Thus, we look to what we can do differently. Bill S-14 is a very well-drafted bill. It is excellent. It is first class. It attempts to set forth a position moving away from the Indian Act and looking to the 21st century and how Indian people will govern themselves in the future.
Senator Tkachuk, who I do not see in the room, introduced this bill. It has gone through several renumberings. He has collaborated with one of your late colleagues, Senator Twinn, a person whom I knew very well indeed, and I believe this bill represents what he wished to see when he was alive.
The first thing I wish to say about the bill is that in understanding Bill S-14, you must understand that the Indian Act is still the law of Canada. In 1985, the federal government, under the leadership of David Crombie, a Conservative, amended the Indian Act -- what we all call Bill C-31 -- to eliminate the discriminatory sections. The motivation is not relevant, but that is what happened. Most Indian First Nations bands accepted that. Women had lost their rights to band membership and their status through marriage to non-Indians, and so did their male and female children. I believe that offended everyone. It was wrong. I will point out that there was a consensus at the time between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party that this was wrong and that it should go. As a result, it went. I attended the clause-by-clause study of this bill, which went on for two weeks. The Governor General signed it and it became the law of Canada.
These amendments were accepted in most parts of Canada, but not in Alberta. We are a bit different out there. The problem is that 90 per cent of Indian money is in Alberta. The last time I looked, it amounted to approximately $5 billion. I am not talking about taxpayers' money, but Indian money. That is no accident. It is there because of oil and gas.
The few bands who have access to that money decided to fight the amendments. Senator Twinn, of whom I thought the world, told me himself that he had 26 members of the Sawridge Band in Slave Lake, Alberta and $100 million dollars. He had 200 applicants for band membership in Sawridge. He said, "They will get in, hire a good lawyer, hold a meeting and turf me out. They will sell my hotels, cut themselves a cheque, and go to Acapulco." He saw Bill C-31 as a threat to his empire. He was not interested in Indian rights or you people, he was interested in the work he had done. Quite frankly, it was a brilliant use of Indian money and you must respect a person like that. He built hotels, water plants and truck stops. He had the knack.
The four Hobbema bands in Wetaskiwin, Alberta, which are equally wealthy, sided with him. They did not want to include the new people.
Walter Twinn and his colleagues decided in 1986 to launch a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Canada. That was some 13 years ago. I must tell you that it is still there as we speak.
The Native Council of Canada in Alberta, for whom I am speaking tonight, decided to try to support the women and kids affected by the legislation. We obtained intervener status and we are involved in that lawsuit today.
We had a big trial in 1992. We produced 27 witnesses and Walter Twinn produced approximately 20. The trial judge found in favour of our group. Essentially, the judge said, "Mr. Twinn may have the money, but you have the argument."
Mr. Justice Muldoon of the Federal Court, who is Irish, as I am -- and I do not apologize for that -- was somewhat exuberant in his judgment.
In order to become a member of the Sawridge Band, you must fill out a 100-page questionnaire on who you are, where you are from, your religious and sexual history and preferences. Justice Muldoon said in open court that the document was Nazi-like. He was right, of course, but you do not say that in our politically correct 1990s. By the way, there were 78 witnesses, including Indian people from all walks of life, and the judgment stands today. He clearly said that in the 1990s, we do not wish to go back to discrimination. In the appeal, one lawyer said, "Before we start, I wish to object to the judge. He is biased because he called us Nazi-like." The Appellate Court agreed, and the whole trial stopped. They set aside the trial judge's decision, with the clear understanding that it was correct in law, but they sent us back for a new trial. Now we are told we will not get to trial until September of the year 2000. I used to think that death and taxes were the only certain things in life, and now I think it is death, taxes and the Twinn case. We will be sitting here in the year 2010 talking about this case.
I do not mean to be facetious, because this deals with an important matter. Many women and their children were denied band membership. Why is this relevant to what you are doing here? Bill S-14 was designed by the Sawridge Band, and Chief Twinn and his colleagues, as a second track. They instructed their lawyers to stall and fight, and at the same time, to introduce this bill, which would effectively allow them, and other wealthy bands, to opt out of the Indian Act. If they opt out of the Indian Act, they opt out of the Bill C-31 amendments and the problem.
I do not wish to be sinister here, but that is what happened. This is one of the most well-crafted bills I have ever read, and it is one of the few I have read that was not crafted by the drafters of the Senate or the House of Commons. It was drafted by Twinn and his colleagues.
Now, what is wrong with the bill? That is the history. It is important for you to understand that if you pass this bill, you will make the court case moot. That will mean there is no more case to be heard, at least for Sawridge and Ermineskin and the other big bands that are trying to push the bill. They will, under the regime of Bill S-14, simply have a referendum, opt out of the Indian Act, adopt the First Nations government act, and set up their own membership rules -- end of story.
Perhaps that is not wrong. I think it is wrong because of the poor people it would affect, but maybe we should look at the larger issue. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that that is not relevant. What is wrong with the bill itself? What is the problem with the bill? The problem for the Republican managers in the Lewinsky case is that they cannot quite get to what is wrong. They say he is a bad guy and that he should not have done certain things, but when they get down to proving perjury and obstruction of justice, they do not quite get there. I will try and get there with you. I would like you to hear me on six specific reasons why the bill is wrong on a generic, national basis. Remember, if this bill goes through the Senate, it will affect every Indian First Nation and band in this country, not just Sawridge, and not just in Alberta.
The first problem we have with it is clause 19. I have it here, and I will not bore you with legalisms if I can avoid it. Clause 19(1) of Bill S-14 allows the First Nation that opts into this regime, if I might use that word, to sell the reservations or to encumber them through a mortgage. The surrender provisions of the Indian Act disappear. There is no more minister and no more referendum. It allows the control of the sale and mortgaging of Indian reserves to be placed in the hands of the chief and council. It says there will be a constitution and laws, but we all know that will mean, in fact, the chief and council. Walter Twinn liked that because, frankly, he did not care about the Department of Indian Affairs on his small reserve in northern Alberta. He had been cut off from the department and the surrender provisions for years when he was alive, and the same applies to his widow and Ermineskin and Hobbema.
I wish to go back in time to when Dwight Eisenhower was president of the United States in the 1950s and Richard Nixon was his vice president. They were Republicans. They were visited by some Indian tribal chiefs in 1954 who wanted exactly the clause 19(1) idea. They said, "We are tired of the paternalism of the federal government, the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We are a grown-up people. This is our land. We want to be able to sell it or mortgage it or work with it in any way we want, so butt out." The Republican administration of Eisenhower and Nixon agreed, and the Congress of the United States passed a law to that effect. Two years later, that law was repealed. In the meantime, 26 American tribal groups lost their land. As soon as the people had the power to sell their reserves or mortgage them, the big oil and coal companies descended on them with suitcases full of cash and joint-venturing deals. It was an unequal contest. They came with money, lawyers, and, "Let's make a deal."
The Congress repealed the law because these people were rendered homeless. They are still homeless. If you start to tinker with the reserve land of this country, you are tinkering with the fundamental reason Indians have been able to survive, however poorly. If you give away their reserve, you give away power without any protection. You can call it paternalism, and many people think the Indian Act is paternalistic in the sense that the minister must consent to a surrender that has been agreed to by a referendum. Here we are in 1999, and we do have 600-some bands that have land. If you take away their lands or jeopardize them, you run the risk of making Indian people homeless, which will cause them to lose their identity. The one thing you must be most careful with is the reserve land. That is number one.
There are some Indian chiefs, like Chief Twinn, who have the mental skills and integrity, which I have the greatest respect for, to probably succeed, but we are talking about 615 chiefs and councils, many of them inexperienced, who might enter into development deals where the joint venture partner says to the Indian band, "Well, you must put up collateral at the bank." They put up collateral, the scheme goes belly up, and the bank grabs the reserve.
I am not for paternalism. I hate it. I am not for the Indian Act. I hate it. But I say to you that if you adopt 19(1), you should put the power, in law, in the hands of the people, the band members, not the chief and council. If you take away the minister and the surrender provisions, replace it with a high threshold. I am suggesting, in this paper, 90 per cent. If 90 per cent of the members of a band want to mortgage their reserves or sell them, we can say that is their land and they should deal with it. Do not make it 50 or 60 per cent. Make it 90 per cent.
One of the reasons the President will not be impeached tomorrow is it takes a majority of 75 per cent to turf him out. If it took 50 per cent, he would be out of there, with 55 Republicans in the Senate. The framers of their constitution wanted to make it hard to do that. All I am asking you to do is, if you are going to pass clause 19(1), or consider it, make it hard to sell the reserve or mortgage it. Make it difficult. Do not let some 50 per cent carry the day.
The second problem with the bill is in Schedule I, clauses 15(7), 16(k), 16(l), 17(h), 17(j) and 18. They all deal with money. The idea is that Indians should not have to go, as they do now with their capital and revenue accounts, to the Department of Indian Affairs and get permission to spend their own money. I am sure people appearing before you have said that. It is paternalistic. Why do we have to be treated like children? It is our money, after all. There have been problems with that. We all know that the Department of Indians Affairs invested Indian money in oil schemes in the far north. You know that, and they lost a lot of money. The white managers lost a lot of money. Interest was not properly paid. There have been lawsuits about that, with the Hobbema band in Wetaskiwin. I do not have to repeat this. The Indian people say it is their money and they will spend it in the way they want. It is not the chief's money or the council's money. It is the band members' money.
Clause 18 of the bill talks about "unfettered discretion." The clause states:
In making investments of capital or revenue, the Council has unfettered discretion in choosing investments and is not limited to investments authorized for investment in any applicable legislation other than the laws of the First Nation and this Constitution.
That is done for emphasis.
What happens if the council, in many cases dominated by one or two people, invests the money in junk bonds, the stock market, or in a corporation which is set out in clause 16 and 17 where the chief and council have an interest? It is unfettered.
If as a non-Indian you have an investment banker, he takes your instructions. If it is a trust -- and, remember, Indian money is a trust for all band members -- there are rules. Some investments are not permitted, and there are certainly rules about conflict of interest.
In looking at the land and money provisions of Bill S-14, I ran into the financial accountability clauses. Clauses 19 to 26 talk at great length about accountability. Certain financial documents must be prepared. They can be accessed, and you can bring your lawyer and accountant to look at the books. These clauses are quite elaborate, but there is one problem with them.
If you look at the beginning of the bill, access is limited to a citizen of a First Nation and/or an elector. The word "elector" is the key to the kingdom. If you are not an elector of a band of Indians, under this regime, you have no access at all. You can show up at the band office with your lawyer and accountant to look at the books, and they will not let you in.
If we look at the elector clauses, they are the most important part of this entire bill. They are, in effect, the people who elect the chief and council, the people who can run for chief and council, and the people who can access the books.
The elector clause requires that you be ordinarily resident on the reservation in order to vote for chief and council, run for chief and council, or access the records. You can be a band member.
A recent Time magazine article, which I urge you to read, states that 43 per cent of Indians in Canada live off reserve. We all know that that is increasing rather than diminishing.
Many off-reserve Indians, band members -- and I am not talking about Métis here or non-status, but Indian people with a status card from the government and band membership -- resent the fact that when they move off the reserve, they lose their rights to vote.
In September of last year, the Corbiere case was argued in the Federal Court of Canada. Corbiere was an Indian chief in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. He was an elected chief, and he decided that he wanted a job in Sault Ste. Marie. If you go there today, he is the greeter in the casino. He wears a tuxedo and he greets you. He gets paid twice as much as when he was chief. I know John, and he is a good guy. He decided to go where he could get a better salary. Batchewana is the name of the band. As soon as he moved into Sault Ste. Marie, they had an election and said that not only could he not run for chief, but he could not vote.
He took the department and the band to court. Through his lawyers, he attacked section 74 of the Indian Act, which says you must be ordinarily resident on the reservation to vote if you are a member of a band under the jurisdiction of that act. He won.
Mr. Justice Strayer of the Federal Court of Canada, in a 93-page judgment, which I urge you to read, went through the whole business of who should and should not vote. He concluded that section 15 of the Constitution Act, which many of you participated in writing, states that we are all equal. It is one of our fundamental rights, to be equal to each other. For example, men are equal to women. Mr. Justice Strayer said this creates two regimes -- an Indian who can vote and one who cannot, based on residence.
He said that in certain local, municipal matters, such as a sewer system or a school, or fixing a back lane, there could be a residency requirement to spend money. However, in the case of band money and land, all band members should vote on those matters.
The Court of Appeal of the Federal Court of Canada unanimously upheld that ruling. Last September, after leave to appeal was granted, all nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, chaired by Mr. Justice Lamer, heard arguments for six days. I was there. The decision has not yet come down.
My point is this: It is clear in the trial and appellate courts that Indians who live off reserve have a vote.
Bill S-14 it states that in order to be an elector, you must be ordinarily resident on the reservation. It flies in the face of current thinking in the judiciary, and it also flies in the face of common sense.
If you adopt Bill S-14, why would you deny off-reserve Indians the franchise? We are living in the 20th century, going into the 21st century, and we all believe in democracy. Do you not think Indians believe in democracy?
We have circulated to you what we call a "montage," a newsletter we produced last year. In there we describe something from the Enoch Cree Nation in Alberta.
In light of Corbiere, last year they opened up their voting process to off-reserve Indians in Edmonton and 700 came out to vote. They had an election and the world did not end. They elected a chief and council who were more attuned to the needs of off-reserve, urban Indians.
In my judgment, Bill S-14 turns the clock back. Members of Indian bands should be able to elect their leadership and should also have access to the financial records set out in this law. They should be able to deal with their land and money and they should be able to run for chief and council.
Finally, I come to the question of the Canadian Human Rights Act. You really have to look for that in the bill. I read it about seven times and did not see it until the last reading. Some Indian leaders think that the Canadian Human Rights Commission does not apply to Indians. Clause 30(4) of this bill provides that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply in respect of anything done under this act.
Why does it not? Do you want to have governments that do not fall under Canadian human rights laws? If so, what protection does that give individual Indians against their own governments? The Canadian Human Rights Commission deals with complaints about abuse, directed usually against the government. Where does an Indian go if he feels aggrieved? Why would you not give him the right to go to the Human Rights Commission?
Under this regime, funding for lawyers is controlled by the chief and council. If the Human Rights Commission thinks that you have a legitimate complaint, it will send an officer to work with you and will pay the cost. We deal with many poor Indians who do not have money for lawyers. However, the band can pay a lawyer to oppose an individual Indian.
The Human Rights Commission is one of the few places individual Indians can go. In the past year, the Human Rights Commission has begun to set aside section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. If the band has a membership code and there are complaints about membership, the commission will now take that case. At present, if an individual Indian has no money, there is a place to which they can go for help. This law would cut off that avenue.
Some think that rights have no connection with money. However, if you have no money, you have no rights. Some law firms might take your case pro bono or on a contingency fee, but if you want to fight your band, which will cost thousands and thousands of dollars, the lawyers will want some money from you. This law cuts off one of the few avenues available to an individual Indian who feels aggrieved.
The Native Council of Canada (Alberta) has raised $418,000 in the past 13 years for legal fees. We have done everything we can to raise funds because the people we represent have no money. Senator Twinn's widow can write a cheque for $10 million.
By removing the Canadian Human Rights Commission option, Bill S-14 makes it almost impossible for individual Indians to oppose their bands. Under this regime, everything will be decided by the chief and council. They will be able to sell or mortgage the land. They will be able to use band money to give houses and jobs to their friends.
Obviously, I do not like Bill S-14.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. As chairman of this committee, I appreciate your remarks on the bill. I will not say anything more at this point because this matter is still being dealt with and I do not think that it will automatically be passed. You know how the system works here in Ottawa. Things move quite slowly.
I believe that Bill S-14 will be given much more scrutiny. You have highlighted the effects that it will have on individuals and what it will mean in the future for people who are trying to achieve self-government in order to control their own destiny. Your remarks have ensured that we will take a very in-depth look at it.
Senator Pearson: Although time is limited, I would like to hear what Barbara Wendt and Keith Chiefmoon have to say.
Senator Gustafson: I have one question. Do you know Senator Chalifoux?
Ms Ronnenburg: Oh, yes.
Ms Barbara Wendt, Councillor, Beaver First Nation: Honourable senators, I would first like to explain that I ran for council in order to give our members back their self-esteem, humanity, dignity and unity. The Beaver First Nation has two reserves, which are split by approximately six miles of farmland. We have Boyer River Reserve and Child Lake Reserve. The chief lives on Boyer River Reserve, so Boyer gets everything. I live there too.
I also wanted my people to have freedom of speech. I want them to be able to voice their opinions without fear of denial of the services to which they are entitled or the loss of their jobs.
As an example of that, when I was first elected, the chief did not agree with my intentions as a councillor so he tried to fire me. He told me to resign from council. I told him that he did not have the authority to fire me and that I was not going to resign. He fired my husband from his position as a truck driver and further retaliated by appealing the election, with basically no grounds.
As of today, the election is still under appeal.
As newly elected councillors of Beaver First Nation, we have been trying in vain to proceed with band business. Our elected chief has been stonewalling these attempts by continually missing meetings and ignoring the other three councillors. Any attempt by the new council to proceed with band business is met by threats, accusations and intimidation.
The chief holds the positions of band and farm manager, and also controls Rocky Lane Cattle Company. We have been unable to find out the legal status of the farm and the cattle company is tying our hands in any dealings with them.
We do know that money from the band has, in the past, been channelled to these companies. Until such time as the council knows the legal status and beneficiary of these holdings, there can be no accountability to the band members. Since there has been no information forthcoming on these companies, the following action was taken: At a council meeting unattended by the chief by his own choice, signing authorities were changed to give better accountability of band accounts. Three signatures were requested.
In spite of repeated attempts by the new council to get information on band business and accounts of any existing programs and their history, only partial and selective information has been provided.
As a council, we require a history of all programs in order to deal with them in a consistent manner. The council has been voted in by the people of the band and are operating under the supervision of the electors to stop some of the injustices that have been occurring. The council has hired a lawyer to draft a list of bylaws for the band in an attempt to clarify band dealings and eliminate future conflict.
All dealings we have had, or are trying to have, with the chief have been in the interests of doing things for the band that are accountable and legal. We have tried to work with the chief. However, because of his refusal to reappear, we seem to be at a stalemate.
We have contacted INAC with a request for help in solving this issue, but they seem to be reluctant to step in and assist.
To a point, I understand their hesitation. However, we have contacted them as a quorum and feel they should respect our request and at least consider our situation and advise us on a course of action.
I know there have been troubles in the past within the politics of Beaver First Nation and they have always seemed to work their way out, suggesting the problem is more personal than business related. Unfortunately, they have not always worked out for the grassroots band member but have managed to make the dictatorship on this reserve more powerful. The fact that there have been so many attempts at changing the existing system should indicate there is a need to at least check it out.
The reason we are asking for this help is not that we want anyone to do any dirty work, but rather we want to be assured that we are working within our legal rights. Therefore, we are approaching this in a rational and proper manner so as to make the reserve a place where all people are treated fairly and equally, based on membership and not name.
I have personally worked with four Beaver First Nation offices for the past four years and have seen some of the discrepancies that occur. I am only now in a position to deal with these issues, at great physical risk to myself. I have been repeatedly threatened and have had to obtain a court order against the chief's father due to a death threat made by him.
As you can see, the other councillors are not doing this for the good of their health.
In closing, I thank you all for listening to me tonight. If I might ask, I would like a one-to-one meeting with the senators tomorrow night. I will have to be at the airport by four o'clock.
Mr. Keith Chiefmoon, Board Member of the Native Council of Canada, Alberta:
[Spoke in his native language.]
Greetings to all of you. I explained in my statement that Blackfoot is my first language. I wish to thank the senators for allowing us this time to address some of our concerns.
In 1994 and 1997, I wanted to talk about the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. I was a delegate for both. As you know, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is a national organization. Sir John A. Macdonald once made a statement that the Indians are under the special guardianship of Parliament. It is the duty of the government to protect the red man and to see that he gets full justice.
He said that shortly after Confederation, and I wish to highlight the spirit of that statement. There must be some accountability, is the thrust of my comments.
In 1994 and 1997, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, CAP, adopted a set of bylaws, with over 200 aboriginal people in the room on both occasions. I have these bylaws here. In effect, they are the governing structure of CAP. The many aboriginal communities represented on CAP came together and established constitutional bylaws, and then formally registered with the federal government. I was privileged to be selected co-chair of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples Independent Electoral Commission. Leaving aside the great bulk of CAP bylaws that I have here -- and I will share these with any senator if I am asked to do so -- I would like to explain three governance events that have happened within CAP since the last annual general meeting in March of 1997.
These three governance events illustrate the need for some attention to be paid to the structural realities within aboriginal organizations.
First, there is the oath of office. The CAP requires the president and vice-president to swear an officer's oath of office to CAP bylaw no. 5, which is attached. The vice-president swore his oath, but the current president of CAP, Harry Daniels, refuses to sign. Why? Because it would make him accountable to the board and assembly.
Second, there was the issue of the direct election of CAP president and vice-president. In 1997, delegates created a CAP Independent Electoral Commission, of which I was co-chair. Our job was to prepare a report showing how to finance and organize a direct election across Canada for CAP president and vice-president. A budget of $50,000 was allocated by the CAP assembly, and two extraordinary resolutions were passed setting out the terms of reference of the independent electoral commission and the one-year term of the CAP executive.
The CAP president, Mr. Harry Daniels, refused to register either extraordinary resolution -- the copy is attached -- or to release the $50,000 approved budget of the CAP Independent Electoral Commission for seven months, making our job impossible.
He did this so as to retain his office and salary and to frustrate an accountability mechanism agreed to by over 200 aboriginal delegates in 1994 and 1997 meetings.
Third, in November 1997, Human Resources Development Canada signed a large $7 million agreement with the CAP president, a copy of which is attached, obtained through the Access to Information Act to date by the board.
CAP is named as a party to this agreement. No full disclosure of these funds has been made to the CAP board by the CAP executive, although it has been frequently requested. The CAP president continues to stonewall.
In short, at CAP there is a blatant refusal to follow the aboriginal bylaws governing the organization, and secrecy about how $7 million in training and employment funding has been spent.
I now turn the microphone back to our president, Doris Ronnenburg, to make the five recommendations.
Ms Ronnenburg: There are five recommendations. The last two speakers were talking about accountability mechanisms within the band-owned companies to on and off-reserve shareholders. Mr. Chiefmoon was talking about accountability mechanisms within aboriginal organizations, because both must be accountable to the people.
Our first recommendation is that the issue of off-reserve voting and running for chief and council of a First Nation be made a separate part of this committee's report, due November 30, 1999.
Second, that an aboriginal bill of rights, setting out the rights of individual Indian citizens of all First Nations, be developed.
Third, that Senate Bill S-14 be the subject of community hearings, particularly as it relates to selling or encumbering reserve land.
Fourth, that a national conference be convened on the subject of band-owned corporations with a particular focus on individual band shareholders' rights.
Fifth, that an examination of accountability mechanisms within existing national organizations be reviewed using existing laws as a reference.
Those are the five recommendations that we are tabling with you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: As I said earlier, we heard what you said in regard to Bill S-14 and we will look at this proposed legislation in more depth.
Also, we will have time to deal with those basic recommendations that have been put forward, either by calling you again or, as you know, you also have a place to participate through your national organizations. I know that you are highlighting some problems in relation to your national organization. At times, being an aboriginal person puts me in the position of needing to say something to you.
I know that there is a significant amount of rearrangement that must take place within our own society. I fully recognize that. I also fully recognize that we should be accountable for our own actions as a people. Sometimes we may not take those matters seriously. I also wish our people would move in the direction of dealing with some of the critical issues that are in-house matters. It would be appropriate for us as an aboriginal people to establish our own forum to deal with those grievances as much as possible. We have a larger arena to deal with and a larger society to which we must find some way of accommodating ourselves. We will not disappear tomorrow. There must be a solution found soon before we start going in a direction that may not have a positive outcome. That worries and preoccupies me.
We must all help to try to eliminate some of our internal problems and deal with them in-house as much as we can. If we do not have the forum to deal with those, especially such problems as Ms Wendt outlined she was having with her chief, we need to determine what we can do to reach out and help those people who need help.
Hopefully, with this exercise, we will be able to tackle some of those areas. As you know, we will not be able to clean up so many years of problems that we have inherited.
Senator Pearson: I will go on the record to tell Doris Ronnenburg that she is the reason I am here today. Twenty years ago, when we were both commissioners on the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child, Doris opened my eyes to issues around aboriginal children and women that I had not known of before. It had a tremendous impact on me and I thank her now for what she taught me at that time. I cannot tell you how pleased I am to see Doris here tonight.
Second, I thank you for the courage that you have shown in sharing your stories with us. It is courageous. I wish to reassure you that everything that is said in this room, while it is public, is also protected by parliamentary privilege. You can feel that it is quite safe for you to speak to us. The information that you have given to us will be made available. We may not individually be able to intervene; however, your presentation has been very helpful.
Ms Ronnenburg: I hear you loudly and clearly in terms of trying to settle problems internally. We were trying to present the view that accountability and responsibility must be strengthened as we move forward with aboriginal self-government. After all, it should not be just aboriginal self-government, it should be good self-government. That is the point that we are attempting to leave with you.
It takes an extraordinary amount of courage for the Barbara Wendts of this world to go against their own peer group when they are living amongst them. It is not a question of hating this person or that person, but a question of doing what is right and being accountable, being responsible, and trying to implement something at the local level that will do that. That is the issue.
I saw my colleague, Mr. Chiefmoon, get very frustrated in attempting to deal with that issue. It is not a question of trying to be mean to Harry; that is not the point. It is a question of, as an organization, that organization must also be accountable and responsible, as we must be in our provinces.
Senator Adams: I have a short question, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned some of those clauses in Bill S-14. With those amendments that you have asked for, do you foresee the bill being passed? I do not know whether the bill will be passed in the Senate, let alone the House of Commons. However, should it pass, will you be able to deal with all the amendments that you have requested?
Mr. Long: I want honourable senators to do the best they can and do what is right. I do not see myself as a particularly negative person or a critic. I would like to have a different regime from that established under the Indian Act. We should think about how we do that. Many people believe the Indian Act is paternalistic and wrong. However, I feel it is incumbent on me to point out that in my 30 years in this work, I have learned that this situation is fraught with great danger. I am asking you, when you debate these issues, to keep in mind the rights of the individual Indian as paramount.
After all, it is not the chief and council or the Indian Act or the Senate who have to live with what you decide to do; it is people like Barbara and Keith, who are members of their bands. What we have recommended that you hold community hearings on something as important as that. I would certainly be prepared to assist you in any way I can.
Senator Gustafson: I have one question. If this bill were amended and corrected as you indicated, and passed, would that mean that the Indian Act would need to be changed?
Mr. Long: With respect, senator, if this bill were amended and passed, I suggest to you that the Indian Act would probably disappear. The reason I say that, sir, is because a simple majority, 50 per cent, is needed to get into this regime. I was a band manager with the Bigstone Cree Band in Desmarais, Alberta, with 2,500 Indian people. I know the power of the chief and council to influence a referendum. They have all the power there, in that they can hand out jobs and so on. If you want to do something like this, then you should increase the threshold. Make it 75 per cent at least, so you have a clear majority of people who want this. Do not say 50 per cent. I can get you a 50 per cent vote for a ham sandwich.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation.
The committee adjourned.