Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 22 - Evidence, March 9, 1999
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 9, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 10:10 a.m. to examine and report upon aboriginal self-government.
Senator Charlie Watt (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. Today we will be hearing from Mr. Fred Martin, who is appearing as an individual.
Mr. Martin, please proceed.
Mr. Fred Martin, Individual presentation: Honourable senators, the views that I shall express today are 100 per cent my own. The president of the Metis Settlement General Council, who is here, will likely disavow some of them. I agreed to come here on the basis that I would answer questions to the best of my ability. The Metis settlements do not need me to speak for them.
I wish to quickly highlight a few points in the outline that I have distributed. I hope to spend most of my time answering questions.
I am a lawyer from Edmonton. My main areas of work include public utilities, oil and gas, as well as work with the Metis settlements on aboriginal government.
Years ago, I worked on Indian lands legislation on the process that started out in what is now before Parliament. At present, I am not certain at what stage it is.
Most of my time is spent working with the Metis settlements on practical and day-to-day issues. When I looked at the materials from yesterday's meeting, the discussion seemed to relate to a different planet than the one on which I work; therefore, I cannot be of much assistance in that regard.
I have been working with the Metis settlements for approximately 25 years. I have seen tremendous change in that period of time. The settlements are no longer Metis colonies run by Metis development branches of the Department of Social Services. There were offices on one or two settlements, but most settlements did not have offices.
The first year I worked with the settlements, I remember celebrating the graduation of the first person from high school. We now have lawyers in the Metis Settlements General Council who are settlement members. We also have principals of schools on the settlements who are members of councils. If you drive around and look at the changes, you will see that what has occurred in the last 25 years is unbelievable.
My purpose in appearing before this committee is to discuss the experience of implementing self-government on the Metis settlements. While there may be things on which the jury is still out, there are any possible implications for larger-scale policy as a result of our experience.
As a final note, your timing on this is somewhat off. If you had asked me 20 years ago, I would have had all the answers. However, now I do not have all the answers. The older I get, the less confidence I have in my opinions. Many people would say that is a good thing.
In summary, reflecting on our experience with the Metis settlements, there are three things that are crucial to success: an adequate foundation, quality leadership and constructive relationships.
By an adequate foundation, I mean that there is enough raw material, land, power and money to create the possibility of viable self-governance. I know it is somewhat crude to be so blunt, however, in discussions with the settlements in our negotiations, it was clear that this was about land, power and money, and after that we will take care of ourselves.
The second significant component is quality leadership, the character qualities to act on the possibility. You can have all the land, power and money in the world, but if you do not have the leadership to take advantage of it you will not succeed. The things that have made the settlements work have included character qualities that one could best summarize as decency, dignity and integrity.
Everyone who knew the older gentlemen who started the organization -- the first people I started working with in 1975 -- would say that they had decency, dignity and integrity as their outstanding characteristics. We have tried to maintain that ever since. I believe one of the things that is responsible for the success of the settlements is that those basic qualities have carried through to the leadership to today.
The third crucial component in my mind is the constructive relationships that are forged with capable others. Whether governments, neighbouring communities or industry, you find someone who is committed to a similar goal and you build a working partnership with them. It is amazing what you can get done. The relationship with the Province of Alberta has not always been sweetness and light, but it has been mostly constructive. It is important to create those partnerships with capable partners and to identify common goals and then proceed to get down to work.
I shall not spend much time talking about the settlements. By now you are familiar with them. They include approximately 1.25 million acres of land, eight settlements and 6,000 residents. These lands were set aside in 1939 under provincial legislation.
That was the result of a cooperative effort in the 1930s between the Metis and provincial leaders to find a solution to the problem of homeless and landless Metis. For 50 years after 1939, when the first legislation went into effect, the settlements were governed by the Metis development branch. The big change came in 1989 when an accord was signed with the province. That solved one of the greatest problems facing the Metis, that being protection of the land. Most of the discussion with the province was initiated by fear of losing the lands. Some settlements were wiped out and what was referred to on the settlements as "lifting the boundaries" drove the effort to find a solution. Therefore, the most significant achievement of the accord was constitutional protection of the land so that it would not be lost.
The accord created a new framework for self-government. I am using "self-government" as a very general term. I know that most people involved in the current processes would not call what settlements have "self-government," but it involves people elected locally making decisions with a fairly broad scope of powers. For our purposes, you could call it "qualified self-government." However, when I say "self-government," that is what I mean.
The other major component was access to funds in the neighbourhood of $310 million over 17 years to "catch up and keep up." That was structured with an initial catch-up period of approximately seven years followed by a reduced level of funding over 10 years, sort of a phase out, while own-source funds kicked in. The big advantage for the government, along with creating a framework for better government, was getting out of a lawsuit over oil and gas revenues on the settlements. That lawsuit was based on interpretation of the statute created at the time, not on an aboriginal rights claim.
The result of that accord was the passage of four pieces of legislation that created the structure currently in place, consisting of local elected settlement councils that elect a general council leadership. The general council provides framework laws for all eight settlements. There is then a Metis settlements appeal tribunal that handles disputes and deals with differences within communities, et cetera.
In many ways, Metis settlements government is very similar to municipal governments anywhere. It deals with the same sorts of things; keeping the roads ploughed, providing water and sewer systems, et cetera. There are some differences between the system on the settlements and municipal governments, and I would like to touch on them because they are the things that make it interesting.
One difference is the way in which local laws are made. The two interesting components of local law making are, first, that the people must approve the laws themselves. It is not like a city council where the council passes a bylaw. On the settlements, the council can recommend a bylaw, but the people must approve it at a general meeting. It is a public law, not a law made by representatives.
The second constraint on bylaws is that they must be consistent with general council policies. Once the 40 councillors have met as a general council assembly and passed a law, which is called a general council policy, local bylaws must be consistent with that and the settlement council cannot take any action inconsistent with that overriding policy. Therefore, it is a mix and, as in any federal system, there is always friction at the edges. However, I believe that the alternative is worse. Canada is a good example.
The land system is the other thing that is very different. We could not just incorporate the land system from general Canadian law, because it did not mesh. People on the Metis settlements were pretty clear that, although they do not own the land, they own the improvements. It was a great challenge to create a legal regime when you do not own the land but you own all the improvements on it. The only way we could enable people to define over time what that meant was to eliminate the common law from application and say that the only interests in lands are those created by statute or general council policy, and that is what we did.
Under the landholding system, you have fee simple, held by the general council under letters patent issued by the Crown, and stacked onto that you have other interests created by general council policy. So the underlying interest is fee simple, on top of which you put Metis title. Individuals hold Metis title, which is very much like fee simple off the settlement.
The Metis title can be sold or leased. It cannot be mortgaged, but it can be traded. There are other interests stacked on top of that. Only a member can hold title, and in order to eliminate large amassing of land, they are limited to one quarter section or, with little bit of work, two quarter sections per person. That is not a big handicap because a typical husband-and-wife family might have as much as four quarter sections held by Metis title.
That land limitation creates many problems for estates. If you want to will your quarter section to your daughter but she already has two quarters, what happens? The estate and transfer issues created by that are difficult, but we will figure those out as we go along.
The land registry system is state of the art and has worked very well. We used the system designed by all the registrars in Canada. They prepared a report after ten years of work on a model land registry system for all of Canada. We knew the people who worked on it and asked if we could implement it. They agreed. We spent a bit of time tweaking it, but the system we put in place was basically the recommendation of the land registrars of Canada.
It works well because we completely computerized it. We developed all the software and systems to manage it. You can walk into any settlement office and find out all the information about any quarter section. They are protected by an insurance fund, et cetera. That system has worked very well.
Senator Austin: Does the general council have the right of expropriation for community purposes?
Mr. Martin: The general council does not, but the settlement council does.
Senator Austin: The settlement council can take the leasehold, chattels or the fixed assets on property, if it is for community purposes, and pay compensation?
Mr. Martin: Yes. There is a regime for determining compensation, and if you do not think you are appropriately compensated you can have the appeal tribunal consider it. I cannot remember whether they can also review the actual taking.
The Chairman: Can the province expropriate land?
Mr. Martin: We worked out a process for the acquisition of interests by the province, but it is a pretty onerous process. If I remember correctly, there is a panel of the Metis settlements appeal tribunal that can deal with those issues.
We had a similar type of problem with existing mineral leases and access so we created a special panel of the Metis settlements tribunal on which there are representatives of the oil industry and other parties to deal with questions of access and compensation for existing mineral leases. I believe that we gave them a role in dealing with expropriation issues as well.
The Chairman: Does the minister who is responsible for natural resources have a disallowing power?
Mr. Martin: To disallow what?
The Chairman: If, for example, the general council makes a decision regarding land, does the minister have the power to disallow? Does he have a last say on the matter?
Mr. Martin: I do not believe he does. I would need to look at the legislation to refresh my memory. The only provision for something like that is in the case of mineral leases. If the Metis Settlements General Council decides to cancel a lease, then they must compensate. If I remember correctly, there is a compensation-sharing arrangement under which the province compensates them for part of the loss to the oil company, and the general council compensates them for the rest of the loss. That has never happened. Every time we have run into a difficult situation, we have come up with a solution.
The Chairman: Would that also apply to public servitude, such as an access corridor running through a piece of land?
Mr. Martin: It depends on what the access is for.
The Chairman: I am referring to public access for a public purpose.
Mr. Martin: If the settlement is public, then the settlement council can do it, and the recourse of the individual is to the appeals tribunal for determination of compensation.
The other interesting difference is the general council's policy-making powers. They are called general council policies because the philosophy in developing this legislation was to change as little as necessary and to build on what people were already comfortable with. We did not want to come in with a big, brilliant idea and say, "Here it is."
With respect to general council policy, for 10 to 15 years people have been referring to the idea of a federation and all settlements getting together to agree on a common approach. We would write it out, and then everyone would follow the policy. People were used to that, so when we changed into a legislative format, we called them general council policies. They are passed by the eight settlements and are binding on all the settlement councils. They create a framework and are subject to ministerial veto. That was the trade-off.
Some people refer to this as not being self-government. The government's proposal was for a control mechanism, and they therefore wanted to approve settlement bylaw s. That did not fly. However, there was an agreement whereby the minister could veto a general council policy. The settlement laws then had to be compatible.
General council policy has never been vetoed.We ran into one problem, and we just extended the veto period and sorted out the problem. This creates a potential standoff, but it also creates a mechanism for resolution. We have never had a problem with that.
The Chairman: You have a mechanism in place to deal with those issues.
Mr. Martin: Yes. During the last dispute, Mr. Noskey called the minister to ask how it would work, and we agreed to extend the period for the minister to use his veto. The way the legislation reads, he has 90 days to use his veto. We ran into a technical glitch with the Department of Justice, so we agreed to extend the veto period. We figured out a solution and away we went.
That has been a workable approach; it gives the government some comfort. If they feel it is necessary to use the veto, they can do so.
Important policies relating to oil and gas, the exploration development regime, and the property tax regime are worked out with industry and government in any event. We have never been in a veto situation because, in developing the policy on the property tax side, we included people who represented the industry. Industry had no problem with it and the government did not have any problem with it.
We also talked to oil companies to see if this was workable and we worked it out. Again, I think it is a workable partnership approach where we know that we have to be in business with the oil companies and the provincial government. Therefore, set up a framework and get on with it.
The only real difficulty with policies is the way they are structured. The need for unanimous consent is the death knell for any lawmaking body. Does anyone here have any experience working on the Canadian Constitution?
The most interesting thing about the model is the appeals tribunal. It is a quasi-judicial body made up mostly of settlement members. It was set up to reduce and resolve disputes, and given broad scope to get into mediation and innovative approaches to solving them.
The appeals tribunal has legislated jurisdiction over land and membership issues, but its jurisdiction can be expanded by general council policy, by provincial legislation, or by agreement of the parties. In practice, that means, for example, that with respect to the timber policy of the general council certain issues can be referred to the appeals tribunal. If a person says that the council did not follow a fair process in handing out timber licences -- in other words, we adopted a process in our bylaw and it was not followed by the council -- the matter can go to the appeals tribunal. The tribunal cannot decide the question of whether this individual should have received a timber licence, but it can look at whether the proper process was followed. Agreements with oil and gas companies include provisions whereby if there is a disagreement in this area it can go to the appeals tribunal.
Policies enable groups to slowly expand their jurisdiction. For example, we are currently engaged in a task force with the province on expanding the jurisdiction of the appeals tribunal to enable it to handle other issues. We are looking at preliminary criminal issues and issues related to family care.
The appeals tribunal has been around for eight years and has worked out many of its bugs. It has done a good job, in my view, and has gained confidence and respect from the community and the government. We want to build on it now. That is the incremental approach the settlements have always taken.
The Chairman: Have you experienced the council formulating legislation affecting the powers of the provincial government in the area of the general laws of application?
Mr. Martin: No, we have not yet had a problem like that, partly because the framework for local bylaw s is tied to the policy-making at the general council, which involves a lot of consultation.
When we draft policy, government representatives are always involved. A draft policy will go over to the Department of Energy or the Department of Justice, for example, and they will look at it. They may have a problem here and there, but we simply work it out.
It is also possible to include in a general council policy a model bylaw, which applies as if it were passed by settlement members. It was necessary to do that in order not to have a legal vacuum where, for example, we could create a policy on property taxes but it would never hit the ground because there was no local bylaw to implement it. We can therefore pass a general council policy with a model bylaw attached to it. That model bylaw kicks in and becomes the law until it is changed.
Senator Austin: The structure you are describing is quite attractive, but outside that structure is the question of entitlement to membership in the settlements. There is no question about recognized residents, but the definition of "Metis community" is broad and amorphous.
In the document you circulated, according to the Metis Settlements Act, which is the system you are describing, a Metis person is a person of Canadian aboriginal ancestry who identifies with the Metis system and culture.
My question is this: Is anyone who declares themselves to be a Metis therefore entitled to become a member of a settlement and to claim the rights and privileges of those who are already settled on Metis lands?
How does the Métis Settlements Act define who is included and who is excluded from participation?
Mr. Martin: That definition is a two-part test. The objective element is that you must be of Métis ancestry. The subjective test is that you must identify with Métis history and culture.
We did not know what else to do. We battled with the definition to the bitter end. It is not foolproof. In reality, people apply and the settlement council requires evidence that you are not a registered Indian and that you are of aboriginal ancestry. Most of the time, that is not difficult to provide. That part is doable. I do not know how you would decide that you are not eligible because you do not identify with Métis history and culture. We have never run into that.
The debatable applications have been where there is a concern about establishing aboriginal ancestry. Some of those have fallen down because someone says, "I am a descendant of the Chippewan Nation of Oklahoma," or "I am Cherokee." Those applications are more difficult to prove. However, we have not had nearly the number of appeals to the tribunal that we thought we would have.
Senator Mahovlich: Is there anything like a certificate? Do you hand out certificates for membership?
Mr. Martin: You do get a card that says you are a member.
Senator Mahovlich: If I have a friend who is a Métis, in Timmins, and he wants to be a member, what does he do?
Mr. Martin: He must go through all the residence requirements and have a place to live. That is the first place that heads people off because you must have a place to live if you are there for a while.
Senator Mahovlich: This looks like a pretty good situation. It will attract many Métis across the country.
Mr. Martin: You must be in Alberta for a while.
Senator Mahovlich: Try to tell that to a Métis up in Timmins.
Senator Austin: How long must you be a resident in Alberta before you can begin the process?
Mr. Martin: Five years. It has been that way for 50 years.
Senator Mahovlich: Does Ontario have anything like this?
Mr. Martin: No. This is totally unique to Alberta. It all happened back in the 1930s. The province said we must do something about the situation. They had a UN convention that involved the Métis and the province. They tried to get the federal government involved. The federal government did not want anything to do with this because they did not want to be stuck with the bill. The federal government did tag along as long as they were not included as part of it. There were letters back and forth from Alberta and Saskatchewan threatening to sue the federal government in an attempt to obtain their involvement, but that was to no avail.
Senator Austin: How many people in Alberta do you recognize as Métis who are not living in the settlements?
Mr. Martin: I have no idea. The settlements do not get into that. They do a census of their own population to ensure that they know what is going on. The population research laboratory at the University of Alberta does that census.
Senator Austin: You mentioned a number of 6,000.
Mr. Martin: That is the number of people living there, but they are not necessarily members. To be a member you must be an adult. A fair number of status Indians live on the settlements because they have lived there and no one wishes to throw them out of the community or because they are married to a Métis person.
Senator Austin: The same would be true of non-aboriginal people: they could be married to Métis people but they would not be members; is that correct?
Mr. Martin: They are not members, which means that they cannot own a Métis title and cannot own the lands.
Senator Austin: Do they not gain status as a Métis by marrying a Métis?
Mr. Martin: No.
Senator Austin: Do they have property rights of inheritance?
Mr. Martin: They have things like dower rights. For example, if a Métis man is married to a non-Métis woman and the man dies, then the woman has a life estate in the lands for as long as she wants it. She cannot be removed from the land because the Métis component of the unit has disappeared.
Senator Mahovlich: What about her children?
Mr. Martin: They are Métis. Some settlements will put the land in trust and say that you can live there. When the kids grow up, one of them will get it.
Senator Pearson: What about divorce?
Mr. Martin: We are still trying to figure out what to do in that case. There are many conflicting laws. We try to set up a situation in which the settlement council can arrive at something that is fair to everyone. If it is not fair, then the appeal tribunal can take a second look at it.
As soon as you pass a law that is the answer to a specific question X, you have a mess. You never see specific question X again; you see Y and X plus one and all the other cases.
We have suggested general rules and guidelines to handle the estate. Those rules should be followed as closely as possible and if you wind up in a mess, people are referred to the appeals tribunal. Ironclad rules cannot be passed to deal with all of those situations. We will eventually get there. The way it is handled right now, the settlement council has been asked to do the best they can to make everyone happy. If they are not successful, they refer it to the appeals tribunal.
Normally, the children would stay with the mother and they must have a place to live. They would likely keep the house and the father would continue to farm the surrounding lands. That is a fairly common solution.
I have not yet mentioned the elders' advisory committee. Although it is not in the legislation, that is another body that has started to be used along with the appeals tribunal, the land system and the general council policy framework. It has been a real success.
Something like an elders' advisory committee does not just happen; it cannot be legislated. That committee eliminates many of the long-term planning problems. If they are not elected, the members of that committee do not have to respond to short time frames. As they are appointed, they can represent the whole spectrum of major families in the community and they have time to deliberate on big issues like land use planning, resource allocation and that sort of thing. Like senators, in my opinion, elders' committees have the great virtue of being appointed rather than elected.
Senator Mahovlich: What about education? Do the Métis educate themselves?
Mr. Martin: That was a difficult area. When we had community meetings to put legislation together, people wanted to be clear that there were three things that were not to be a part of self-government: education, social services and health. People are pretty conservative and cautious and they wanted to set up the government and see how it works. They did not want to mess with the life-and-death stuff -- the schools for the kids, the hospital and the social services sorts of things. Those are slowly becoming more incorporated over time. The incremental approach is a good model: you get it working, get the bugs out and add a bit more.
For example, on family and social services, Alberta was divided into regions and Métis settlements are one of those regions. For Métis settlements, Region 18 is responsible for child services. That is made up of the eight Métis settlements.
With regard to education, some time ago we looked into having a Métis settlement school board. After some discussion, we decided that the matter required further thought. It is still a possibility. One of the big changes is that there are now schools on all the settlements that go to grade 7 in most cases, and further in some cases. We are looking toward high schools eventually.
That has made a real difference. In some of the schools, the principal is a local member. That is good because the kids are at home rather than riding the buses and you have the flexibility to incorporate local issues into the school system.
Senator Mahovlich: Is the education system controlled by the province?
Mr. Martin: Yes, it is controlled by the province but most people do not have a big problem with that. They just want the schools to be good, to generate a quality product, and to ensure that the kids are proud of being Métis and know about their history and culture.
If the Region 18 model works after three or four years, we will probably move toward that.
The Chairman: Is language of instruction left in the hands of the minister?
Mr. Martin: The language of instruction is English. One settlement had a few people who spoke French, but that is disappearing. I believe that there is only one settlement where Cree is a major language. On most of the settlements, English is by far the most predominant language. In my opinion, the loss of the Cree language is unfortunate. We have tried various things to slow that down, but the problem is that the kids all watch television and it would take a heroic effort to stem that tide.
Cree language instruction is included in a number of the schools, but a few hours in school versus 40 hours a week of television is not an equal balance. Perhaps the new aboriginal channel will help, but it is very difficult in the modern age of technology and communications.
We are finding that the public approval of by-laws is a mixed blessing. It is almost too democratic and can stall effective action. It is democratic but that is not always 100 per cent good.
Local elections have not reached the place they need to be. One problem is that the annual election system politicizes everything. We elect two people every year who serve for either two or three years in order that there always be experienced people on council. We originally thought that we needed that continuity, but that time has passed. It creates too many problems in making tough, long-range decisions and in doing such things as budgeting.
The other problem with local elections -- and this has not yet been completely solved -- is how to ensure that all interest groups in the community are represented. An elders' committee can provide that full representation, but there is still the problem that a very powerful family can take over and everyone else is frozen out. We are still trying to figure out how to address that.
The need for unanimous agreement with general council policies is death, as I said, because you do not build a consensus in the normal way. When we used to make federation policies, everyone had to do some horse-trading. Because majority ruled, they had to work out a deal. This way, everyone has veto power and if they do not get what they want, they can walk. It discourages constructive government.
We are still working on settlement administration development. That is very difficult because you need economies of scale. You are dealing with complex systems that require professional administration, but you have job insecurity and high turnover. We are still trying to figure out how to get the necessary kinds of administrative systems in place. Every year they improve, but they are still a long way from what is needed. These were formerly operations with an annual budget of $20,000 or $30,000. Now there is not a single settlement that does not have a multi-million-dollar budget.
In long-term funding we are trying to come up with gap funding. Every community needs basic services -- roads, water, sewer, et cetera. They also have a capacity to generate revenue. On the settlements they do not call them taxes; they call them user fees. Everyone pays user fees. We have a property tax regime that is called a business property contributions policy. Businesses are required to make contributions.
That is not as goofy as it sounds. When I was given the job of writing up this tax policy, I was instructed not to use the word "tax." I went to the Oxford dictionary and looked up the word tax. It talked about required contributions, so that is what it is. It is a complete required-contributions regime that is related to provincial assessments and the standard assessment regime in the province. Industry said it looked okay, so that is the system that we put in place.
Even with that money, there is a gap. When we studied the demographics of the settlement, we saw that even with the normal tax rates of the neighbouring communities we could not close the gap between what you need and what you have for the immediate future, although we hope to be able to over time.
Therefore, we have that need-capacity gap and the challenge is to close it so that the needs of the community can be met, which means that you are adding to what local effort will produce in order to meet the needs. The problem is that if the gap gets too big, local efforts disappear. If you know that contributing your $30 or $50 a month will not enable you to reach the goal, you will not be motivated to do it. We have tried to establish a reasonable level of local contribution. We have tried to determine the need and how to fill the gap in such a way that people will feel that if they do their bit the goal will actually be achieved.
The gap funding for which we have provided is currently coming from three places. We originally had a system of matching grants designed in the accord package that provided that every dollar raised locally would be matched with $2 from the government. That was for after we went off the initial seven-year high capital input phase to get the infrastructure up to standard, after which there was a 10-year period of moving to local self-reliance. For the first five years, there were the two-for-one matching grants. For the next five years, there were one-for-one matching grants. We changed the two-for-one matching grant system last year because it was too complex. It seemed that it would be almost impossible to administer. To head it off, we went to a business plan approach instead.
The business plan approach was simply that the settlements worked out a business plan with the province. There is a holdback and if you meet your business plan objective, you get your money. It is similar to the process that the province uses in doing its business plan. Therefore, business plan money is part of it.
Another part is the future funds that the settlements have. Under the accord, for the first five years the province would put $5 million into a fund held by the general council. That fund could not be touched until 2007. That money has been invested in standard investment vehicles. It has increased to approximately $65 million now. Projections indicate that it should be around $110 million by the time it can be tapped in 2007. The earnings on that fund will help fill that gap.
The third thing that provides funding or resources for that gap is the Resco oil and gas company, which was created by the settlements to take advantage of the oil and gas development opportunities on the settlements. It operates like any other oil company. It can buy land, develop land, and go into joint venture partnerships with the industry. It collects royalties and makes money on oil and gas wells. That pot of money is available through dividends or other investments to spin off money for the settlements. That is the long-term plan with respect to where revenue can be found to help close the gap. It will come down to what we can raise locally, and the rest will be enough to get us through.
In closing, I should like to talk about the components of a successful model. I have listed four -- citizen ownership of government; a means of quickly and fairly resolving differences; efficient apolitical administration; and access to resources in a partnership context.
With respect to citizen ownership of government, people must think that this government is ours. They are using our money to serve our community and doing a reasonably good job. Citizens are never happy with their governments, but a good chunk of the population should be able to say, "They took our money and put it to good use."
It is also crucial to have a means of quickly and fairly resolving disputes. No matter how good the system, people will fight with people, people will fight with councils, and councils will fight with each other. That is inevitable. We need a place where ordinary citizens who understand the community can deal with these things. We do not need high-priced lawyers and fancy administrative law techniques. We need a fair process and an organization that people respect. They should be able to say, "I am not too happy with the result, but I feel I got a fair shot."
I think the appeals tribunal has done that. People can go there, and they do not need a lot of money. The process happens quickly. If someone does not like the decision, they can go to the court of appeal.
Efficient and apolitical administrations are key. Settlement offices must operate efficiently and must provide good information to the council and the community so that people know what is going on and that the job is getting done.
Finally, with respect to access to adequate resources in a partnership context, there must be a revenue-sharing regime that meets three basic criteria. First, it must be relatively stable and predictable over a budget cycle of three years to five years. The settlement council must know the revenue they are looking at over a three- to five-year planning period. We cannot have a system whereby we know what we have this year but not next year.
Second, adequate resourcing must be based on a working partnership. That means that it is not a grant system. I have always disliked grants. I hated the grant system when we were applying for grants because it did not feel right. It should be a case of sharing revenue on some realistic government-to-government basis. Ideally, in a situation of First Nations and Métis settlements, it should be tied to some interest in land where that interest is recognized. Then we are in an equal relationship, not in a relationship whereby we have to prove that we badly need the grant. The grant destroys the giver and the receiver -- it always does. Therefore, we need a working partnership.
We are looking at sharing resource taxes. That is what happens on the settlements with respect to royalties on oil and gas. We can negotiate overriding royalties. The province will take their royalty, but there may be another 10 per cent royalty, which can amount to millions of dollars each year. It is tied to an interest in the land. Even though we could not win ownership of the oil and gas in the accord agreement, we still are able to share that resource to earn income.
We are also working on sharing the carbon tax. As money goes into carbon sinks on lands, some of that revenue would be available to the people with an interest in the land. We could also design a sharing of income tax on resource companies.
We could have a partnership arrangement whereby we shared revenue from those land-related sources. However, we would wind up in the same place as if we went through the grant process, except that we would know what we would be receiving and it would be based on the recognition that we are equals.
That is much easier to say than to do. It is fraught with a million problems, but if we start with that perspective, then we can solve the problems.
The third vital component of adequate resourcing is enabling self-reliant government. It makes hope reasonable. The people in the communities are not stupid. If they need $1 million to run a community and they know that if we all throw in a $100 we will have a $100,000, why bother throwing in my $100? It is hopeless. There must be the hope that my effort will enable the goal to be reached.
This concept must also amplify local effort. The starting point is "What do you want and how much are you prepared to put in?" If you are prepared to put your little bit into the pot, it amplifies the effort. You then feel that the reason this is happening is because of what you did, not because some skilful people went to Ottawa and got some money. The concept must support citizen ownership. It must make people say, "These are my people, my money and my government. I own it and I support it. If I do not support it, I will get someone who will."
Moving from general principles to actually making this work is the challenge. However, these are not insurmountable challenges. As long as you know the basic guiding principles, you work at it. That is what we have been saying on the settlements for the last 25 years. That is the solution. We know the direction we are headed.
Senator Chalifoux: I remember that when we were negotiating for the federation, women were not allowed in the negotiating room at the Mayfair Hotel. What about women's involvement at the political level? We were always involved, but we were never allowed to sit at the table.
As well, have you developed a police service within the settlements?
Mr. Martin: I do not understand your first question. When the federation was set up, Albina Jacknife was on the executive of the federation. She was there from the beginning and was the chair of the Elizabeth Council. Florence Wanuch was chair at Paddle Prairie for quite a while. However, if women were councillors, they were there the same as every other councillor.
Senator Chalifoux: This was before that time, when Sam Johnson and Stan Daniels were there.
Mr. Martin: I do not know about anything before 1975. Since then, it is strictly who gets elected.
Mr. Ken Noskey, President, Métis Settlements General Council: Currently, we have 11 elected representatives out of 40 council members sitting around the general council table. Of the four executive members at the present time one is a woman. Of the 44 elected representatives that govern our communities, 12 are women. At various times there are 17 or 20 women, or similar numbers of women. Our women are very much involved in our governance structures.
Senator Chalifoux: I ask this question to emphasize the ability of the federation and the general council to move forward in that area compared to the non-aboriginal people. It is a good recognition in that area.
Mr. Martin: To be honest, it has never been an issue. No one ever addressed it as an issue over the time because it was just whoever got elected. As far back as when I started, women were running for council and getting elected to council. They were just there. There were certainly difficult issues on some settlements about land ownership but they have been resolved.
On policing, there has been some effort to work with adjacent First Nations on joint policing efforts. They have gone sideways somewhat; however, more work will be done on them. There is also the justice initiative to work with the federal and provincial governments on policing initiatives as part of a tripartite relationship. Mr. Noskey will know more about that than I do.
Senator Chalifoux: I am a member of the Paddle Prairie Settlement. Regarding self-government, given the legislation that was passed by Alberta for all the Métis, is it necessary for other nations who want self-government to establish a good partnership with the dominant government?
Mr. Martin: Whenever you are trying to govern people, those people have two other governments, whether you like it or not. They have a federal government and a provincial government. Unless those three governments work together you are just asking for trouble.
Our approach has simply been to say that the federal government does some things, the provincial government does some things, the settlement government does some things and we have to make this work with a minimum amount of confusion and a maximum amount of efficiency. Those are the realities of day-to-day life.
Senator Pearson: My question goes back to education, future planning and some of the problems that you talked about regarding council policy needing to be unanimous. If you eventually get your own school board, will the council set some of the future directions and make some long-term plans as we move from land-based and power-based economies to knowledge-based economies?
Mr. Martin: The general councils adopted a business plan approximately four years ago. They looked at all of the issues they were involved in and decided to put a hold on things. We must stick to the issue that we are here for -- government -- and spin off non-government issues to appropriate bodies. Right now, social and educational issues come under the Region 18 body, which has its own board of directors and is constituted separately.It is still eight settlements but it is not run directly by the general council.
Similarly, Settlement Sooniyaw Corporation, which is the economic development arm, is owned by the eight settlements and handles business. The same is true for oil and gas. They set up Resco Oil and Gas to take care of oil and gas. That is not government: that is a business.
In other areas they have done the same thing so that there is a kind of delineation of areas of responsibility. Government, the general council, handles education and things like that. They will help get them started but then they spin them off.
If we followed precedent, the school board system would go the same way, I assume. That is, we would work with the governments to come up with a suitable model. We would get it up and running and then it would continue on its own. It would be a school board and they would set the agenda and the general council essentially would be out of the business.
Senator Pearson: Is it within the interests of the whole population to ensure that you are building the social capital necessary for the future?
Mr. Martin: That happens right now with things like the strategic training initiative, even though it is somewhat independent. The major issues still always come back to the general council table because it is a table like this with 44 councillors sitting around, and the big issues always land there. Even though another company or board is theoretically independent, the people on it are appointed by the settlements and it tends to be quite influenced by what happens around the big table.
Senator Pearson: Do you have a youth council or youth advisory?
Mr. Noskey: We have annual youth conferences and in various communities we also have committees that are set up by the local council. We have a lot of youth involvement, although I would encourage more.
I wish to comment on the item you touched on regarding the future and the fact that the economy is turning more to an informational type of economy.
Senator Pearson: It is not actually informational technology. The driving motion of many businesses now is the knowledge that is added to the business, whether it is technology or other kinds of knowledge. Therefore, education is becoming very important.
Mr. Noskey: Many of our young people are in universities at the present time and we are being funded by the local councils and the general council each and every year, so we are involved in the technology areas.
Senator Mahovlich: I have a simple question regarding your oil company. Do you operate only in your area, or do you go off and do some research in other parts of the country?
Mr. Martin: At the moment Resco operates only on the Métis settlements because that is the best opportunity for them. We have a competitive advantage on the settlements and, therefore, there is still a fair amount of potential. It was clear in the business plan for Resco when it got started that it would use that as the way of building up enough capital and enough size to start moving off the settlements. The most successful approach for Resco and the one that was adopted is the strategic partnership approach where you identify a few people and you do joint ventures with them. Resco can bring something to the table and others can bring something to the table. Resco has qualified people, MBAs, engineers and chartered accountants, with 17 to 20 years experience in the business. It is a credible oil company.
Senator Gill: You have already signed an agreement with the provincial government. I imagine that most of your relations are with the provincial government and companies in Alberta. What about your relationship with the federal government? If we succeed in having changes at the national level, what should you like to have eventually instead of dealing with different departments? If you could have your national organization and be able to deal with your national organization, what would you propose there?
Mr. Martin: We were very much involved in the Charlottetown Accord process. We had a difficult position there because the Métis settlements have always taken the position, and it was a conscious decision back in the late 1970s, that provincial jurisdiction applied to the Métis and the Métis settlements in Alberta. That is in conflict with the national Métis organizations. However, that was a decision that was made. As you say, most of the relations have been with the provincial government.
Many things are developing with the federal government. In the Charlottetown process, we had to come forward with some way of resolving this problem. If the Supreme Court of Canada or some agreement at the level of the Constitution said that the Métis are included in section 91.24 as Indians, then they and the lands reserved for them are exclusively federal jurisdiction. Thus, all of the Métis legislation in Alberta is ultra vires and meaningless.
When the constitutional process was gearing up and we signed the accord, it could all of a sudden have been blown out of the water by a decision that said that the provincial government had no jurisdiction in the first place. Essentially, we worked out a solution that said that the federal government would adopt what had been done in Alberta as their own and thereby give it status. That is what happened.
Our real emphasis is not on the outer reaches of the constitutionality elements, it is more on the practical measure of how we make things work. We have a tripartite process that says there are some areas, such as justice, labour market training and children's services, where the province does some things and the federal government does some things and we must determine how to put it together to avoid duplication. It is a practical, problem-solving matter. What can each party bring to the table and how can we put it together?
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation, I have many questions but we are running out of time.
Judging from the witnesses we have heard, there are similarities between what is happening in your area and what is happening in the northern Quebec area in terms of infrastructure, physical arrangements, dealing with the provincial government and so on. At some point, it might be good for the two bodies to meet and to exchange their experience and knowledge. Areas where you could have significant input include the dispute resolution mechanism and the subject of membership. I would be prepared to help you to connect to with the people in the North to meet and exchange views.
Mr. Noskey: I would be very interested in that dialogue and that sharing of information. I spoke to the people who made the presentation from the Quebec Cree yesterday. I would appreciate any effort you could make in achieving that end.
The committee adjourned.