Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 22 - Evidence, March 10, 1999
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 10, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 5:45 p.m. to examine and report upon aboriginal self-government.
Senator Charlie Watt (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Mackay, we welcome you here this afternoon. Please proceed with your presentation.
Mr. Raoul Mackay, Ph.D.: It is an honour for me to be here. I am very pleased to be able to make a presentation on something that is very dear to my heart: the history and life of the Metis people in contemporary times.
To say the least, in my work and in my studies I have come to appreciate more our history. I have come to appreciate more what my ancestors did for this country and for themselves. I sent a summary of my discussion, but I thought I would take the liberty to wander a little bit. If you want to interrupt me, that is fine. There will be plenty of room for questions at the end and I would more than welcome those questions.
Originally, I am from a small community just west of Winnipeg called St. Eustache. It is one of the oldest communities in Canada. I am sure that my Cree and Ojibway ancestors lived there for many centuries. In the 1830s, Father Belcourt established a mission there. He did not stay there very long because of many difficulties that I may discuss later on. Later he went to Prince Edward Island and set up a National Bank. They were renovating that bank just recently and somebody wrote me a letter saying, "I understand that you are an ancestor of Father Belcourt." I said, "Not quite, but my grandfather was also from Quebec and they were of the same family."
When we look at the beginnings of the Metis people, it is uncertain when a national consciousness developed, but I think that it was probably at the end of the 18th century. We know for sure that in 1816, the people pronounced their nationalism when they defeated Governor Semple at the battle of Seven Oaks. That marked the beginning of a long process that involved the Metis in trying to protect their interest and in trying to develop economies that would sustain their people.
One of the primary economies at the time was buffalo hunting. I am only one or two generations removed from buffalo hunters. My grandfather was a buffalo hunter. My dad always told us stories about his dad. What I remember most about those stories is how people developed such strong values and how they permitted their leader to represent them. Cuthbert Grant won the battle of Seven Oaks and eventually became one of the leaders in his own community of St. François Xavier, which is less than 30 miles from St. Eustache.
The battle with the Metis was so significant that in 1821 the Hudson's Bay Company and the North West Company decided to form one company. That company then stated that it had a monopoly for furs, trade, buffalo hunting, et cetera. But the Metis people would have no part of that. They had strong leaders who sustained their rights to hunt, to fish and to trade. That is a very significant thing for us even today. It was so difficult for the Hudson's Bay Company to contain the Native people on the plains in the 1800s that they developed a two-price system for their furs -- one for the north and one for the south, for example.
The next leader who was important to the Metis people was Guillaume Sayer. He led the position of the Metis people on free trade against the Hudson's Bay Company for several years. His position and that of the Council of Assiniboia was undermined by the company. However, because of the strength of the Metis people, at his trial in 1849, the judge said that he was free to go, and our people declared free trade, which was in place for the next 25 years or so.
Louis Riel was only one leader of the Metis people during the 19th century who made a mark for our people. I do not want to minimize the importance of his role, but we have to realize that the way our people lived on the plains was not a one-man show. In fact, Louis Riel Sr. was also a very important leader in our communities in the mid-19th century.
When I look back on the stories that were told to us, I see certain traits that our people still have. I believe that we have pride despite the many derogatory books about our people and the teachings in schools by English-speaking and French-speaking people. We were always told to be proud of our nation. When we came back from the school and the teachers who had taught us not to use certain French words, we were soon told what words to use. I think of the word "manteau", for example. The nuns told us we had to say "manteau" rather than "capeau". It was only 30 years later, in the annals of history, that I found that the word was used extensively. That is only one point.
We were told that hard work and honesty mattered. Our parents would not take a penny from other people if it was not theirs. That is still true today. Our people were inventive. Have you ever seen a Red River cart? I challenge you to put one together some time. I remember that old Francis Richard in St. Eustache built a Red River cart that we used to play on. In fact, it is shown in some museums now. I found out in recent times that Mr. Richard's family were cartmakers going back three or four generations. It is important to know that.
The other key thing -- and it annoys me sometimes the way our people act -- is the question of independence. In the 1940s, many of our people would not take welfare. They would die before they took welfare. But they were inventive, remember, so they did many things. From the buffalo hunters and the transporters of goods they learned a cycle of work. We developed one of the most elaborate transportation systems using the cart and canoes, which tied the entire West to Red River. That independence is important today.
Today we have to question who we are. The questions of identity and membership and our nationhood have to be resolved. It is not enough to know something about Riel. We are all proud of Louis Riel, but we have to go beyond that.
As a people, we are the buffalo hunters, French-speaking, Ojibway, Cree, English-speaking people who could speak in three languages. That is where we have to start. There is no problem looking at other groups that want to affiliate with this central group. For example, I know that the country-born have often joined Metis organizations and many non-status Indians have affiliated with Metis people. Clearly, however, we need to be self-identified.
It is not that hard. We can take a census. We have parish records. We can easily identify our peoples. For example, if I go to St. Eustache, I see French Canadians and I see Metis. I can count them. We could go beyond that to other communities, so that we can come up with some kind of formula that will once and for all determine who we are based on our heritage and our ancestry.
After identity and membership, the next important point is land. We had land. For a century, the Metis people protected their rights against foreigners, against the Hudson's Bay Company, against the North West Company partners. They protected their resources and their lands. They were not greedy. They shared. But it is important to know that they did that.
Father Belcourt ended up in Prince Edward Island because he sided with the Metis people in their fight against a monopoly that was a paper edict by the Hudson's Bay Company. He wrote their petitions. The bishop, of course, was on the side of the Hudson's Bay Company and Father Belcourt was soon removed.
We are able to pronounce our identity under the Metis Betterment Act. There are some real problems with that act, starting with how it was administered. The Canadian government persecuted our people after 1870 and we were removed from the land. Bishop Taché failed to honour the church's commitment of amnesty for our leaders. That was the end of our great leaderships.
I believe that today we can start again to build from the past and to work out land claims. The Canadian people owe the Metis people of Manitoba a great debt on land alone. I remember my two aunts who lost their husbands. Between the two of them they had eight children. They had two river lots. The Catholic Church said that those river lots would be no good for the two families because if they should die, the children would break the land into little lots that would be worthless. They went to court. The judge sided with the church and the church promised a few dollars and a few prayers. I hope to God they are still praying for me up there. But it is a violation of the rights of the people to the land. We have to redress that. We are not begging the Canadian government. We are saying that it has to be done.
I could tell you many more stories. In fact, right now we are doing research on the ownership of that land. A researcher phones me every week to say that they found another piece of land that was acquired by so and so fraudulently. The proof is there. I think that the will has to develop.
Now I want to talk about government. Based on our membership and on our lands, a Metis government at the local level is desperately needed. Some communities are 90 per cent or 100 per cent Metis. There is no reason that they could not have their own government. Right now a government run by the province usually decides the fate of our people. Frontier School Division is a case in point.
I believe that we can build a government on the principles of nationalism and democracy. There is no doubt that the buffalo hunt leadership was very democratic. They elected ten captains, and each day one of those captains would take over the trek to the buffalo hunt and then the buffalo hunt itself. I believe that all people have to be enfranchised, men and women. I want to stress that.
Women played a very important role in the buffalo hunt and in the management of the communities. They were in charge of production and they played a key role in the economics of the Metis people. We have to reinstitute that, perhaps on a different line.
I should like to stress the idea that the Metis people need institutions. For the last 30 years in Manitoba there has been talk of having a post-secondary institute like the one in Saskatchewan, the Gabriel Dumont Institute. Four years ago, a month or two before the election, the Conservative government decided to pass a law creating an institution for the Metis people to be called the Riel Institute. However, they did not put any money in it, so it is still a paper edict. I think that we should get beyond that point. It is kind of cynical actually.
In the development of the institution, we should look at the divisions of labour that have existed in our communities where both men and women play important roles. Right now at the political level in this country the Metis people do not have that. It is time that we rethink our activities on this.
There must be a form of constitutional recognition by the Canadian government on the status of the Metis people. We have the same status as First Nations and Inuit nations. I know that in the Charlottetown accord there was an agreement that we would get $10 billion. With less money than that we could still achieve quite a bit. If that is a starting point, maybe we could work down rather than up.
I should like to make a few summary points. First, on membership, I think we should establish a non-partisan membership committee to determine a process and devise a set of criteria that would identify who is a Metis. We need a mechanism and it must be non-partisan. The committee members should be nominated from Metis communities. Our membership should be recorded in a permanent registry, which would be easy to do with modern technology.
Regarding land claims, we should start by redressing the wrongs done by the Manitoba Act and its implementation. Also, we should in some way continue the negotiations that went on for the Charlottetown accord.
With respect to governance, we should establish a non-partisan Metis committee to review the composition of existing Metis organizations and to assess their ability to establish self-government for the Metis people at the municipal, provincial and national levels. I do not think that we have Metis government now. With all due respect to the organizations that we have, they are incorporated provincial or federal bodies. They do not represent the will or the franchise of the Metis people of this country. I may respect some of the things that they do, but the fact is that they are not geared to establish self-government. We have to start with the communities. We have to start with each community and then work up rather than work from the top down.
We should have a framework that addresses the voting franchise. We should have a system of democratic government, including a division of legislative, executive and judiciary powers.
Consider the severe conditions of the Metis people in this country. We should set aside all those beautiful things and address the most important thing, our children. We have to invest in our children. I know that what I am talking about will take two generations, but right now we should really take a good look at the needs of our children. I am a firm believer in self-initiation. We work with communities and with people to establish an economic system that will help people with social services and education. To me, those areas are key to the whole process.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Mackay. Before I ask senators to put questions to you, there is one area that I should like you to clarify. You said that men and women need to be enfranchised. Could you explain that in a bit more depth?
Mr. Mackay: Women play a minor role in the political processes of our system. Yet, in terms of social services, education, and dealing with child poverty, they are the frontliners. We have to go back in our history to look at how we value the role of women in all fields.
We need a broader franchise. Everybody should have a right not only to vote, but to be part of politics. When an organization like ours develops with power coming from the federal government down, then sometimes one group dominates. Right now, our organization happens to be dominated by men.
Senator Pearson: Yesterday we had a presentation from the Metis Settlements General Council of Alberta. It seems to me that they are further ahead on the kinds of things that you have been asking for.
Mr. Mackay: That is very ironic. The fact is that at the turn of the century, the Metis people in Manitoba were looking at the land question. It is all recorded in Histoire de la nation metisse dans l'Ouest canadien by Auguste Henri de Tremandan. They were more interested in doing social things as opposed to addressing political and economic questions of our people. Not very much was done about the land, although people kept asking, "What about my land?"
They developed a strong political organization quite early in Alberta, and in the 1930s they were able to deal with the provincial government and come up with the Metis Betterment Act. That act allowed the communities to create themselves and gave the community a land base. By then, we had lost the entire land base in Manitoba.
I mentioned my aunts as an example. My dad also lost land and we ended up with five acres. He went to the First World War. When he came back he was told that he could not have soldier's land because his parents had received script. There was no giving land after the script. We lost 90 per cent of the land. There was no power to redress that situation in Manitoba, because there was so much pressure on our leadership that they disappeared and nobody had the will to come back up.
Before Christmas, I interviewed a niece of Louis Riel. Her name is Albertine Abraham. She said the same thing about how another community had lost the land. The people were ashamed even to be Metis or to say Riel. They were afraid to say that they were Riel people.
I believe that today the basis is there for a satisfactory solution, but I am not sure that we, as a Metis people, have put enough pressure on provincial and federal governments to do anything about that.
Senator Pearson: They described eight different settlement areas.
Mr. Mackay: Yes.
Senator Pearson: Would you be able to identify a certain number of areas in Manitoba?
Mr. Mackay: I have no problem identifying the numbers. All you have to do is go through those communities and see who lost the land. Much research has been done. The Canadian government has spent millions and millions of dollars doing research, but the Metis organizations have not delivered.
In the Charlottetown agreement, Brian Mulroney promised $10 billion to the Metis people of Manitoba. I do not see the $10 billion being spent by the Canadian government. Also, I know that in the presentation to the aboriginal commission, they again said that they want to arrive at a solution. However, had we been able to have the communities involved, those people would have put forward a stronger position than what we have right now.
Senator Pearson: You have identified a lack of community-based leadership at the moment.
Mr. Mackay: That is right.
Senator Pearson: Therefore, the most practical or effective way to move now would be to try to figure out some mechanisms to create the environment out of which that would emerge. Is that right?
Mr. Mackay: That is exactly right.
Senator Pearson: What would those mechanisms be? What would be helpful?
Mr. Mackay: I suggested, as an example, that we have a framework for setting up governance. Many of the communities have local councils that deal with questions of education, social services, et cetera. I would see no difficulty dealing directly with those councils.
Senator Pearson: It would be a question of persuading somebody at the provincial level. I gather from the Alberta presentation that there is a tripartite arrangement?
Mr. Mackay: Yes.
Senator Pearson: Who would actually take that on as a task and say, "Let us spend two, three or four years establishing these frameworks." Would that be the kind of thing?
Mr. Mackay: Yes, I think so.
Senator Pearson: At the moment, is there no one doing that?
Mr. Mackay: I do not think so.
Senator Pearson: Not at the provincial level?
Mr. Mackay: That is right.
Senator Pearson: Does the province of Manitoba have a particular department that deals with those responsible?
Mr. Mackay: They have a Department of Native Affairs, but 90 per cent of the interests are with First Nations people. They have not really addressed the Metis question very well.
Senator Pearson: Where are you based?
Mr. Mackay: Winnipeg.
Senator Pearson: There must be many Metis within Winnipeg.
Mr. Mackay: Oh yes. There are many Metis communities within 150 miles of Winnipeg. That is where most of them are.
Senator Pearson: It would be practicable, because there are not Metis people way up north. Is that right?
Mr. Mackay: They are mostly within the area around Winnipeg. However, even if there were communities up north, there would be no problem because communication is now so sophisticated.
Senator Pearson: How do you envisage the relationship between the Metis who live in Winnipeg and the Metis who live in small towns and settlements?
Mr. Mackay: The fact is that about half of the Metis people within the greater Winnipeg area were born in communities like St. Vital and St. Boniface. The other half are sort of in the outskirts of Winnipeg.
Senator Pearson: Is there any way of organizing them from a governance point of view?
Mr. Mackay: I would think so. The Manitoba Metis Federation was not organized that way. It was organized from the top. When they first came to being in the 1960s, the first leaders were status Indians. Then they developed a committee and set up an organization. There were some social problems in Winnipeg at the time, so the Secretary of State said that they would deal with the situation, and since they had lots of money at the time, they gave them some money. Therefore, it developed from there and not through the people. As I mentioned in my paper, I consider that kind of organization oligarchic. We have to become democratic.
Senator Pearson: Have you been able to stimulate some of your students?
Mr. Mackay: Over the years I have influenced a number of people. I have always taught the equality of communities. I do not believe in Margaret Mead scales or anything like that. We evolve as peoples in the world as equals. I see a plain and my people are here and your people are there. They are equal. That is why over the years I refused to teach courses in cross-culture education, for example. I taught one in 1972 in Brandon, Manitoba. I said never again because I saw myself down here and the rest of the people up here. If I could become really good, then I would be okay.
If you look at more recent theoretical development regarding societies, what you see is equality of societies. In 1890, in his book MacEachen talked about strong medicine. In Canada we had a healthy people using healthy methods -- bathing in the lake all the time, for example. Remember that in 1890 in England there was an epidemic. The people did not know too much and they had put the intake pipe to their water system below the outtake pipe. They had all kind of problems until they reversed the pipes. People had scientific knowledge here.
People also always had a concept of progress. The aboriginal people in North America were progressive in their own way. They did not destroy the environment: they worked with it. That was fundamental to their spiritual approach to life.
When we talk about negotiations, we should respect the nationhood of people. That is what I teach my students. I am convinced that we are a nation. That does not mean that we have absolute sovereignty. We have limited sovereignty, as Canada has limited sovereignty. I am not sure how much the Queen plays a role in this country just now.
Senator Pearson: That is another whole issue.
Senator Robertson: Dr. Mackay, I listened carefully to your comments. I want to know if you sense a consensus among the Metis organizations as to the nature or the kind of self-government that the Metis should have. I did not quite catch that.
Mr. Mackay: I am not sure. I have not been directly involved with Metis organizations for quite a while. To tell the truth, I lost faith in them.
Senator Robertson: In the people?
Mr. Mackay: In the leaders. There is no leadership. I come with these values. Honesty and integrity are so important.
I remember discussing an event with Leslie Silko, a well-known North American Indian writer. She told me about two young women in the North who had been violated by a storekeeper. At night they went up to the store, goaded that individual and then ran across the river and jumped over the fissure, and he ran behind them and fell in and drowned. They were charged with murder. When they appeared in court the judge said, "All you have to do is plead that you did not know the man was going to fall in." The two women said, "We made him fall in. We are guilty." That is integrity.
When we interviewed Albertine Abraham before Christmas about Louis Riel, the reporter asked her, "Do you think Riel would carry on a third resistance?" She said, "Why do you ask me? He died for the second one." That is integrity.
When the woman told me the story, I said, "I am going to tell you a story about this great man in Manitoba." I told her about Riel. She had heard the name but that was it. We need that kind of integrity.
Senator Robertson: If I am hearing correctly, you were suggesting that the leadership does not present any commonality of self-government process?
Mr. Mackay: They do that, but they do not represent the constituents. That is the problem.
Senator Robertson: How did the leaders get there, then?
Mr. Mackay: God knows how they get there.
Senator Robertson: They must get there some way. They do not drop from heaven. How do you get your leaders?
Mr. Mackay: I do not know. It is a fundamental problem, and that is why we are here. I do not want to be cynical or to say that they are a bunch of goons. I am sure that they have their own agendas. However, I have studied this subject for many years and I know that in the Metis organizations we do not have government, nor do we have representation by population.
David Chartrand commented that his organization represents 10,000 Metis people in Manitoba. That is not the majority, I am sorry to say.
Senator Robertson: How many are there, approximately?
Mr. Mackay: It varies considerably because we do not have a registry, but a conservative guess is 50,000.
Senator Robertson: It is curious that those leaders have been allowed to continue to lead. Why have the people not said, "Get out. Let us replace you with something else"?
Mr. Mackay: For many years I have been involved in trying to get people elected at different levels of government. We say that if only the native vote would come out, we would win. I have supported people on school boards in Winnipeg, people in communities, provincial legislatures and the federal government. There are many reasons. Until Martin Luther King came along, blacks in the United States faced the same kinds of problems. As I say, we have to rebuild our pride. It is very close to being there. We have to recognize our history.
People may be poor, but they still have an interest. Sometimes people say that the poor do not want to vote. I do not buy that. There are other factors. Perhaps we should start from the bottom up: build from the communities to have regional and then national committees. Then you can talk about commonality from one region to another.
In the 1970s, I was the history advisor to the Native Council of Canada and I saw the same problem. The commonality was not there and therefore the situation just disintegrated. They were good people; there was nothing wrong with the people. However, the situation was just not there for them to really pull those things together.
My thinking is that we have to set up a theoretical framework and then find practical ways to achieve it. For example, if you elect a committee to do good work on education and they get involved at the local level, then people graduate. Why does this system have municipal boards? They are primarily to train people at the provincial and federal levels. Otherwise we could do without municipal boards. That argument has been put forward in 0many textbooks.
Senator Robertson: If I understand correctly, the educational centre that you spoke of earlier might be a step in the right direction because you would have an opportunity to get, or keep, young people interested in their heritage and where they want to go. Now you have to find the cooperation to have that centre built.
Mr. Mackay: Yes.
Senator Robertson: I want to touch more specifically on something that Senator Pearson alluded to. In your vast experience with your people, do you think that the Metis youth have the same passion for belonging to a Metis community as their parents or grandparents did? Or is the assimilation taking its toll, as it has done in certain communities like the ones you referred to in the United States?
Mr. Mackay: It is not so much assimilation, but for various reasons being set apart.
Years ago on a show Don McIver was asked why he insisted on being a Metis and being different. He said, "I will be that way until you people stop calling me a Metis and making me different." He said that what he objected to specifically was racism.
Youth in poverty have very few choices. The leadership is not there. When they built the jail at Stony Mountain, we were sitting at a committee right here in Ottawa and we told Prime Minister Trudeau's committee, "Don't build the jail. Build us a community college in Prince Albert." They built the jail, they filled it, and they will fill many more.
Native gangs are in high profile in Winnipeg right now. Those gangs are smarter than the police. They fill the jail with 30 or 40 people and the police do not know what to do with them. They do not have the money to prosecute them. Why not build a school?
I will tell you another story, the flip side of the coin. I am one of the fundraisers for the aboriginal youth dinner that is held every year. A couple of years ago I was sitting at my table when the ceremony was about to start and I saw a bunch of relatively well-dressed kids over there. I asked them why they were there. They said that they were the ushers. When I suggested they should sit at their table, they said, "Oh no, we will wait for ten minutes because we think someone else might come in and we will help them." Those kids were gangs members or not too far removed from the gangs.
The dinner is electrifying, even for a person like me. It is a youth-driven program. Last year we sold 1,300 tickets and were sold out two weeks before the dinner. It is one of the best dinners in Winnipeg. Those are the kinds of things that have to happen.
This morning I read an article in the library about how the government decided some 20 years ago to build hockey rinks right across the North in order to do something for youth. Here we are not talking about $10 billion. We are talking about some money, but you need to develop that pride and you need to develop a positive commitment.
Right now many kids have a negative commitment towards the gangs. The gangs are doing very well; they make good money. We need to redirect that energy and I believe that it has to come from the grassroots.
The Chairman: Senator Robertson, those were very pointed questions that apply not only to the Metis but also to the Inuit and the status and non-status Indians.
Getting back to your brief, Mr. Mackay, you said that the Metis could consider the Alberta settlement model or the economic initiatives in Saskatchewan as a starting point. When you say that phrase, I know where you are coming from. I share your view regarding taking a model and trying to move that forward.
That model has been in existence in Alberta since 1936. I had a chance to review that in depth. I see a lot of similarities between what is happening in Alberta and what is happening in northern Quebec. You probably remember the time that you and I met many years ago. It was in the 1970s. Shortly after we met, we got into litigation as a group of Inuit because the opportunity presented itself. If that opportunity had not presented itself at that time, I am not sure whether we would be where we are today.
We have learned to evaluate what we have acquired through the negotiations. At first we put pressure through the legal avenue in the form of litigation. We were quite capable of entering into negotiations with the Quebec government and the federal government. The opportunity was there because there was pressure on both sides. We took every advantage of that and we were able to materialize the so-called governing structure that would apply to that particular region within that geographical area of northern Quebec.
As you know, that same piece of territory was given to the Province of Quebec by the federal government in 1912 without the consent of the aboriginal people. So we had a good basis. We were able to materialize that.
We negotiated in such a way that we separated the native component from the public institutions. We also advanced the concern of how we will be involved with a bigger society. That deals with questions of health, education, the environment, economic development and political representation. There are many similarities, and it works.
Mr. Mackay: That is why I talk about models. I have followed over the years the development in Quebec -- the Nunavik development, the creation of a new order. There is nothing wrong with having a third or fourth order of government or whatever. The fact is that we need to respond to the people.
I mentioned Manitoba because we have the Manitoba Act. We have a framework around which to build. We can use models from Alberta and northern Quebec. Rather than spend millions and millions of dollars looking at this topic, let us move on and solve the problem. That is how I feel. We do have some very good examples. Not only that, but in the long term, we are going to remove a number of social problems. Right now, Manitoba is the centre of child poverty in Canada. Manitoba also is the centre of much economic activity.
There is wealth there. We have to share a little bit. That is important. It may sound infantile but sharing is part of our society, it is part of world communities, and we have to do a little better. As a child I would go to my grandmother's for supper and I had to say the rosary because I had four uncles in the war, two in Japan. My uncles who had been in Japan were very disappointed when Brian Mulroney compensated Japanese people but did not recognize our Metis right and the rights of compensation for what they had suffered.
We have to look at how we distribute the wealth that we have. It is no secret that the Metis people often call themselves the forgotten people. There is a degree of truth in that, but we cannot just lie down and feel sorry for ourselves and die. I see in my people a lot of energy and a lot of interest. It is time to take a second look at the confrontation that exists particularly between the provincial government and the Metis people. We must arrive at some solutions. I hope that we are here for that.
The Chairman: Mr. Mackay, the purpose of this committee is to try to materialize what we hear from the various witnesses and move that forward to constructive recommendations. Our power as a committee is only to make recommendations. There are many good senators on this committee who are sincere and serious, but our power is limited to making recommendations.
As a native person, I have been involved in many activities. I feel that I have to do a little bit more than just make a recommendation. How we structure our recommendation will be the key.
You highlight a very important element, I think, when you raise the issue of lack of representation by your own people. On the one hand, I could say that the onus is on you, but, on the other hand, I also see the constraint on you as an individual person to try to move forward.
Mr. Mackay: I am an educator. Somebody asked me what influence I have had.
The Chairman: I was going to get to that. Enough recognition exists in this country, right up to the highest level of order, the Constitution. However, the onus is on us to come up with a constructive solution. There must also be political will on our part and on the part of the government in order to do things.
You also need to develop a political will within your people in Manitoba. You are also correct that you need an instrument. If you are not happy with the instrument that you have, you might force your leadership to take a good look at it. I would recommend that you do that in order to help us in that area, because we will definitely addressing those issues in our report.
You have been very helpful by describing what you consider to be the problems and the solutions. The situation does not have to remain the way it is today. We can improve it. It can be economically beneficial to Canada as a whole. The aboriginals are not tapped. They need to be tapped for economic purposes. In return, we will get something out of it so that it is a bigger society. If you call it a genuine partnership, then that is the way to go.
Senator Pearson: We hear you loud and clear. How can your population get past some of your leadership so that we can hear all of them as well?
Mr. Mackay: I think it will happen because there is more and more interest in the kind of service people want to get. There is an explosion of information and technology all over the country. It is happening in our communities. People see what others get and what they can do.
Despite the many problems that we see with youth, many youth are doing really good work. There are many educated Metis, many Metis people in university or community college, but I still have a lot of respect for good old common sense. We have to work with those people. I think of the old days with the MMF or other organizations and the people who devoted their lives and who really did many good things. However, at this stage, we have to get back to the community roots. That is easy to do because of the communications that we have from one people to another.
Senator Robertson: I have a quick observation that reinforces your presentation and Senator Watt's intervention.
You mentioned, sir, that Manitoba has the highest rate of child poverty. I read recently that there is virtually no unemployment in Manitoba. They are in the middle of a boom of some sort. Obviously, there must be a big gap there screaming to be addressed. It does not make sense.
Mr. Mackay: Maybe I should ask the sociologist here, my daughter, about unemployment statistics. She used to work in Manitoba. The fact is that there is a lot of poverty still. We know that.
When you talk about full employment, you have to remember that many native people do not register. Also, we are talking about very low paying jobs. If you work at McDonald's, statistically you are an employed person but the wages are extremely low.
Senator Robertson: The situation demands an immediate resolution to get the young people in particular into educational environments. That is just a comment. I found it rather interesting.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Mackay.
The committee adjourned.