Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 3 - Evidence - Meeting of December 7, 2004
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 7, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine and report on the involvement of Aboriginal communities and businesses in economic development activities in Canada.
Senator Nick G. Sibbeston (Chairman) in the chair.
[Editor's Note: Some evidence was presented through a Dogrib interpreter.]
[English]
The Chairman: We would welcome Professor Anderson who is from the University of Regina in the faculty of administration. Professor Anderson has done research on entrepreneurship and economic development, resource management and sustainable development, Aboriginal land claims and economic development and corporate Aboriginal alliance, all the topics in which we have an interest. Welcome to our committee and please feel free to proceed with your presentation.
Mr. Bob Anderson, Associate Professor, Faculty of Administration, University of Regina: I am pleased to be here. My letter of invitation indicated that I might be able to assist you in arriving at a theoretical framework and/or developing a workable approach to your upcoming study of involvement of Aboriginal people in economic development. Perhaps I can offer something on both.
Of course, you are more than capable of tackling the second item, so most of my submission will deal with the theoretical perspective, something I have been wrestling with as part of the research and writing I have been doing. The theoretical perspective has been developed in an indigenous context, but it can be generalized to include community development in the new economy.
Before my current term at the University of Regina, I spent 10 years with the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, now the First Nations University of Canada. That is a terrific new building. It is a small version of your Museum of Civilization and it was designed by the same architect. I have been working with Aboriginal people and Aboriginal development for a number of years.
Not a lot has been written on the topic of indigenous economic development, although more is now being written. The literature is hard to find. The field is fairly small but growing. We will launch a new journal on indigenous development in the new year at a conference in February in Australia that will provide an outlet for more material. As an academic, I have worked on that for about five years. I have had a few SSHRC grants and have approximately 50 papers and conference presentations in and around the subject.
My interest is the same as yours. If I were to write out what I am doing and compare that to the one-paragraph mandate that was sent to me as part of the package that you have for the next several years, they would be look quite similar. A group of researchers and I, working under the SSHRC grant, are looking for a theoretical perspective and doing research under that perspective to try to understand what it looks like for Aboriginal people to do economic development in the new economy. The theoretical perspective we have developed is based around that idea.
That was the material that I sent. It was long and probably considerably duller than you would want to read, but it was what I had at hand. I believe it has been circulated. It may assist with the theoretical perspective.
The gist is that the study of development is a new phenomenon. It has only been studied since the end of the Second World War, and there have been two streams of thought for most of that time. One is the modernization perspective that suggests that the only way that a community can develop is if it sheds all its traditional ways and becomes pretty much like everyone else. That is the key to development — to modernize and build institutions and to look like the western model. When that happens, development will follow.
The other school of thought that ran through the 1950s to the 1980s is one that says, a pox on that, it does not work. It used to work but it does not work now. What happens to communities that attempt to follow the path that led to the core nations being developed is that they develop a dependent relationship, one that is an appendage to the core economy, where the flows are all to the core, the wealth is all transferred to the core, and the marginal populations are kept in a dependent state. Those two things were part of the theoretical debate for most of the mid- and later decades of the 20th century.
Clearly, neither one of those is what Aboriginal people are talking about when they talk about development. They want the opposite of both. They want to develop their communities on their own terms, based on their traditions, around the process of redeveloping their communities and around self-governance, as opposed to self-government, and self-determination — the opposite of dependency. People are out there doing things that are working that contradict both of those theoretical packages.
The theory that we developed as part of our research was looking for a perspective on development where that could be done, that is, not lose traditional values and not shed all of the things that make a population distinct. Those things can be retained and built on, and you can still participate strongly in the new global economy. There is a theoretical development called ``regulation theory,'' that say that is so. Part of this new economy involves a shift in the way it operates, and it accommodates a lot more local variation and individuality among people and groups.
Theoretically, it is entirely possible to argue that Aboriginal people and other people can develop in and along the ways they are doing. Certainly they can. However, theory should catch up to practice because it is clear, when you visit the communities with which I am familiar, such as the Osoyoos First Nation in the Okanagan Valley, or the Lac La Ronge First Nation in northern Saskatchewan, or the Muskeg Lake First Nation or Membertou — the list is endless — these communities are successfully doing economic development. That is where the exciting future will be. They are working very well.
There are many corporate Aboriginal partnerships. The group you will be hearing from next is part of the Aboriginal Pipeline Group. The Mackenzie Valley pipeline operates under a completely different set of circumstances from those outlined by the Berger commission. A whole different play is unfolding in the North around the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline which involves land rights, corporate Aboriginal partnerships and decisions about how to participate in the economy. This is a start to develop a theoretical perspective. I am not suggesting it would be yours, but if you are looking for a theoretical perspective, that one is out there.
The Chairman: The floor is open for questioning.
Senator Christensen: What would you say is the core that could be perceived as traditional economic development that could be then brought forward? What is the core that First Nations all have in common to some degree?
Mr. Anderson: There are many differences among groups. I believe there is a much stronger sense of collective responsibility. That is one of three factors. The other two are: a stronger sense of the economy and general life being mixed together, including things like sustainable development and the environment, not the economy and everything else but altogether including the economic activity; and the underlying package of Aboriginal rights that form a strong foundation and, probably, a real resource capacity base for people. Those three factors come to light.
Senator Christensen: How do you take those and translate them into national economic development practices?
Mr. Anderson: It is challenging because, even in a theoretical perspective, part of the argument is that much of what is done has to be sensitive to local and regional issues as opposed to national issues, which, in Canada, is normal. On a national level, it is a question of facilitating, recognizing land claims and other rights as a win-win proposition. The next group of witnesses has a wonderful land claim and is trying to build on that. Nationally, it is a policy of enablement and facilitation, allowing each group to find its own direction. It is a matter of issues of governance as opposed to government. How do you allow people to make decisions about how to use their own resources and control them within a national government without curtailing their decisions too much? It is more of a framework issue.
Senator Christensen: How do you put the framework on that because large projects, such as those the Northwest Territories and Yukon are facing on pipelines, which are national and international and joint venturing, involve large companies on a band or First Nation to First Nation basis. Time is money to these large companies and they want to move quickly. How can we help the First Nations in their efforts to make the larger companies understand the differences?
Mr. Anderson: In our research, we are pursuing that area. Corporations are far further ahead than we give them credit for in terms of understanding what they need to do. There are terrific companies out there which, when you identify what they did wrong, improve what they do. Shell in Nigeria, for example, had a horrible reputation but Shell's new chairman, with a wonderful new Shell policy on working with Aboriginal people, is improving the situation.
Corporations are ready for this. To some extent, corporations are saying that, if everyone else would get this worked out, they could move quicker. They tend to point at government more than Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal experience with joint ventures is strong.
Reference to case studies will be key to what you do. A tremendous number of case studies can be put forward to demonstrate best practices, such as, First Nations and Cameco, the Indian band Osoyoos and Vincor, a wine producer. There is also the number of joint ventures that PCL Constructionhas across the country with Aboriginal people.
There is a strong capacity and willingness on the Aboriginal side to form these joint ventures. It fits that theoretical perspective. It fits the new economy argument that says corporations in the new economy are more likely to be willing to partner and need to partner, to network, and to develop the capacity to form relationships as opposed to control the entire operation from start to finish. The theoretical perspective has something to offer because it is timely. A lot of that is now in place as a model. I do not think that anything needs to be done as a national policy so much as an education and a practice spreading process, a story telling process. There are terrific things going on all over.
Senator Christensen: One of the problems when you get into joint venturing in large projects and even medium projects is that it is easy to pay a lot of money to a First Nation to joint venture and that is where it stops. Jobs may be promised but they are lower-end jobs. There is no training or mentoring to assist people to improve their skills so that they can move up. A lot of money is thrown at it, but it is tokenism. That is not good. How do you overcome that?
Mr. Anderson: The companies that are effective do it themselves. I am thinking of Cameco and the shift, over time, in their attitude. They now claim that their ability to work with local communities, indigenous or otherwise, is key to their strategic success. That ability allows them to get licenses all around the world to do resource exploration. They point to their record and policies that address those things. That is not to say most companies do, a lot of companies do not.
With the Conference Board, we are conducting a best practices survey among corporations because there are state- of-the-art programs out there that do the right things. The companies that do them find them to be a strategic advantage. The company moves from the ``do-good'' pile to the ``do-well'' pile. Hewlett Packard is an example of that. The company wants to do well and it has decided that working well with local communities is the secret to doing well as a company. Almost as a natural outcome of that, you do good things in the community because you are doing better things for your company. That is starting to spread in the literature and is part of the theory. That process can be brought out in your research.
Senator Christensen: Could you provide a list of the companies that do that well, so that we may ask for copies of their policies?
Mr. Anderson: Yes. You could contact the people from the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business. The council is a corporate group, a group of Canadian corporations, and they have the PAR program, Progressive Aboriginal Relations. That program is an early attempt to set up an ISO-like arrangement for good corporate Aboriginal relations. They have done a lot of work on that and I think their people would be pleased to come in and speak to you about what they are doing. They are trying to find out what comprises the best package — what it looks like, with all the personnel issues that bring people up through management. That group could assist you.
Senator Gustafson: I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder. I see another new skyscraper being built beside where I live and I know it will comprise hundreds of offices filled with people who will not get long-term pensions. What appears to be happening — and I wonder if this is happening in our native communities — is that contract work is preferable. Everyone is working under contract, and they will not get any long-term benefits. They will have no long-term pensions. I find that, in the Aboriginal community, the same situation applies as that which applies to farmers. They are hard working. Working on a pipeline on a cold day is no fun. That is a real job. I do not think that those people are being looked after.
I would like to hear what you have to say. I believe we are moving farther away from looking after people. The oil fields have been booming as a result of the high cost of oil but most employment is under contract. The minute the boom is over they say, "Thanks. Take your truck and find another job.''
Mr. Anderson: It is a mixed blessing. That is a characteristic of the new economy. Aboriginal communities are turning contracting out into a plus because they are finding that corporations are willing to do exactly what they say.
That is serving as a powerful opportunity for Aboriginal communities to develop companies in capacity. What they do within their companies is avoid that sort of problem. Senator Christensen asked what makes Aboriginal companies different. I would say that at least some of them have different policies toward employment and the way they treat the community. You can translate the corporate, ``get the job done and abandon the place immediately,'' through subcontracts to an Aboriginal group. They can translate what would have been ethereal benefits into lasting benefits. They are trying to apply that to the employment in the diamond mines in the North. BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, the two companies behind Diavik and Ekati in the North, are contracting out a great deal of work in the five communities around the diamond mines. The work is such that, after the diamonds are extracted and all is cleaned up, the companies would leave and the communities would be no better off than before, and probably worse off. Contracting out allows the communities to build economies that last after the diamond mines are finished. The very force you are talking about is creating good opportunities for Aboriginal communities to build companies. What they do with them depends on what we were talking about before.
Senator Gustafson: You are saying that they build an external umbrella company that takes care of details and offers, say, a long-term pension and some stability. That is not happening to the white community in the oil fields. Those people are on their own.
Mr. Anderson: That is partly due to the different purpose with which companies begin and the sense that the company is community owned. That is probably based on the recognition of Aboriginal land rights. Companies that are likely to develop the community and to offer employment and training prospects consciously to in with the idea of going beyond the diamond mine and building roads, for example, or to become a municipal contractor in other places.
A little First Nation, English River, in northern Saskatchewan is a joint venture partner in a hard rock mine drilling company now. They did it as part of the opportunity to work with one of the uranium mines. Now they are part of a company that does the preliminary work on mines throughout the North. When one project, Cluff Lake Mine, died, the corporation left, but because of these company spin-offs, they have left behind some capacity in the North among the communities to continue the work. That characteristic of the new economy is turning out to be a terrific opportunity for some Aboriginal people to form their own businesses.
Senator Gustafson: Is the Aboriginal community receiving a portion of the resource to be able to do that?
Mr. Anderson: It depends on the circumstances. Most often there is corporate recognition such that ``If we don't partner with the Aboriginal communities, we will not get it done.'' Quite often it is done through the environmental process, at least in the diamond mines. The two major corporations know that, if they want environmental approval, then they have to bring the communities on side, and they happen to be Aboriginal. The best way to proceed is to partner with the communities, and the communities want the opportunity to build more than simply entry-level jobs. Northern communities want to build economically. They want companies and capacity for the future and not just jobs. Communities will worry about how to do that. Companies do not have to worry about it. They can walk away when they are finished. Communities will build the roads and worry about the environmental issues. Communities will worry about trap lines being crossed. Communities will build a business around all of that.
Another one that works is in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, where the Meadow Lake Tribal Council has the forest licence management agreement from the provincial government for most of the northwest corner of the province. Millar Western, an Alberta pulp company, wanted to build a pulp mill. They said they would build the pipeline and install the surrounding fence; and then the tribal council could look after all of the things on the land under contract with them, such as road-building and making decisions about whether to clear-cut or patch-cut the forest. The company said they did not care how it was done. They simply wanted the logs delivered at the right capacity and price, and the tribal council could manage everything else. It has been a wonderful partnership.
There has been a great deal of argument within the Aboriginal community about how to log and there have been blockades, but all of it has been within the seven First Nations communities that compose the tribal council. The arguments have raised the points of traditional values, practices and how to deal with issues managed at the tribal council level. The pulp mill has managed to delegate all of the problematic issues that generally accompany their kind of work. The people who would have raised the problems are dealing with them directly. Thus, it is a terrific model and it is repeated in many regions.
Senator Gustafson: ``Globalization'' is a big word, in my opinion, for what it is worth. Canada is falling behind in many areas. I am now turning my attention to agriculture. We do not have a clue about what is happening in the area of agriculture in a global sense with the Americans and Europeans, for example. Is there an effect on the Aboriginal community as to where we are moving or where we are not moving?
Mr. Anderson: That is interesting. The answer is almost the same as before. The very forces of globalization that appear to be a challenge are also present terrific opportunities. It is one of those processes whereby a success in one place leads to increased knowledge, ability and awareness.
It is interesting how much of this turns out to be working with corporations. In the end, corporations and governments are the face of the community, and I work from the community side. The Shell Corporation had a great deal of trouble in Nigeria. Eventually Shell learned and became more sensitive to the forces of a region.
Globalization also includes the civil sectors. Greenpeace and others are forcing changes upon corporations, which is one of the more promising aspects of globalization. It is not simply a case of corporations needing to ``do good,'' it is also a case of them needing to ``do well.'' In order to succeed it is increasingly apparent to corporations that they have to take into account the communities or the regions in which they work. It is not only the nations that they need be concerned about but also the local communities, because they can likely put them in conflict with the national government.
There is a story about the U'wa Nation in Colombia. The Colombian government wanted oil exploration in the territory of an indigenous group that did not want it. Occidental Petroleum Corporation and the Colombian government came to an agreement. The U'wa said ``no,'' and Occidental pulled out because it could not work the deal — although the government was on side — unless the U'wa was on side as well. Occidental determined that it could work in many other areas with the local communities and find a winning proposition.
Globalization increasingly sets up both sides: the possibility for some awful things to happen; and the opportunity for many good things to happen. The benefits and opportunities depend on the circumstances in a particular place.
Senator Gustafson: It seems to me that we are hearing from you just the opposite of what we used to hear — that the big conglomerates are growing. Each morning we read about it in the newspaper. You are saying they become so powerful that they almost become a government.
Mr. Anderson: Globalization certainly gives them the power to move around governments.
Senator Gustafson: It also gives them the power to force governments to move in a direction favourable to them.
Mr. Anderson: No matter how big they are, they always do something and they always hit the ground somewhere. There is still potential for working out good arrangements because they are networked, they have shed the core issues, and they are lean. They know that they need to strike good relationships with the peoples of any region where they wish to work. Increasingly, that is becoming part of globalization. As odd as it may seem and as powerful as these corporations are, they are more at the mercy of good relations in areas around the world than ever before. That does not mean that they will not whipsaw. They certainly will whipsaw. They do it all the time. I hear stories about auto plants here and in the southern States. They will certainly try to play one place against the other.
At least there are opportunities, especially where resources are concerned, and especially where they have to operate on the land. There is a reason that ``here'' is important, and you cannot be ``there'' at the same time, in that there are powerful opportunities for locals.
The companies that have good relations tend to have something to do with the land. They are usually resource companies or pipeline companies for which being in one place or the other is most important. Some of those that are less likely to have good partnerships are retailers and so on. We will not look to Walmart for the best example of this. They do not need it, and they will not need it. However, with its Northern stores the Bay is developing the kind of personnel policies we were talking about. Instead of bringing in Scotsmen to be managers of the Bay Northern stores, as they did 10 to 15 years ago, they have recognized that they must bring northerners up through their ranks.
Senator Gustafson: Thank you, professor. Coming from Regina, you obviously are a practical person.
Senator Watt: I will continue on the subject of globalization and I will also touch on capital requirements.
We need to establish a level playing field for Aboriginals to participate in the international community. You talked about different signals that exist for more expedient and successful entrepreneurship.
What do you think needs to take place between the Aboriginal people and the Government of Canada in order to eliminate the barriers that exist, such as international and domestic regulations? Another barrier is the differing objectives in dealing with land and natural resources. I think you understand my point on this.
What would it take to bring the Government of Canada around to deal with those hurdles so that we can begin to move ahead?
My second question is with regard to capital requirement. At times we have to use land claims money for capital to enable us to move ahead with economic activity. From time to time, the Government of Canada establishes funding in a piecemeal fashion, but it never fulfils the objective. The aspect of security is always missing and the amount of capital is insufficient.
What do you think of the idea of establishing a national financial capital corporation under the federal government with the goal of eventually eliminating the Department of Indian Affairs? As you know, Indian Affairs has existed nearly as long as the country and it does not really serve any good purpose other than employing an unlimited number of bureaucrats.
Mr. Anderson: I will begin by saying that I would rather see the business development and the opportunity pursuit. In the study of small business, which is entrepreneurship and economic development in general, we find that access to financing and capital is not the most serious barrier to development. It is, generally speaking, the identification of good opportunities and the development of a good plan to pursue that opportunity. The funding will often follow the plan, although that does not mean that there are not all kinds of obstacles that need to be addressed in terms of equal access to funding.
As you all know better than I, land claims settlements have a large economic aspect. As I understand it, the federal policy explicitly says that one of the expected outcomes of land claim settlements is the fostering of economic development in the communities. However, that applies to only some communities.
The two communities I mentioned, the Osoyoos Indian band and the Lac La Ronge First Nation, did not have a land claims settlement. They pursued interesting business opportunities. They aggressively searched for financing wherever and however they could, and they ran into the obstacles you talked about and found a way around them. Obstacles to financing good business ideas are the norm, not the exception.
I think the federal government could set up something on a business basis with sufficient funding to fund good business opportunities. Aboriginal Business Canada does that, but on a very small scale in terms of the amount of money. On Thursday, I will work with six Aboriginal people who are putting together proposals to Aboriginal Business Canada for $5,000 to $15,000. Something larger that provided access to business opportunities would be important.
The people from the North will be able to tell you more about it. The funding for the Aboriginal pipeline group in the North, which is not yet completely finished, was a challenge, but it was negotiated. It did not come from government but, rather, from members of the group. TransCanada PipeLines saw wonderful business opportunities in the pipeline and provided some of the interim financing for the project.
If we focused on capacity, models for development and feeding into what is already a very successful process, it would become a question of making sufficient money available for viable business projects. It could be done with a model such as the Federal Business Development Bank, which may be getting closer to what you are talking about, or Export Development Canada where the money is not given but rather used to finance and bridge gaps.
The Indian equity foundations across the country are very successful, and very small. The Saskatchewan Indian Equity Foundation is a wonderful small organization. It is highly successful in providing funding to a small number of successful businesses. It is a question of providing a pool of capital that is a little easier to access.
One of the successes around the world is the Grameen Bank. The scale is small, but the notion is that, if you get money into the hands of people who are anxious to build businesses and have good ideas, you will not lose. The Grameen Bank record of getting repayment is wonderful. It is just as good as that of the most hard-headed investment banks in the world.
Things like that, where the mechanism to get the money out in terms of debt, but debt with some kind of sense to it, that understood what was going on and was a little more patient than pure bank debt, might work. I do not think it is a huge challenge. It is more a question of making enough money available. It would take a lot. There are many wonderful opportunities out there just waiting to be funded.
Senator Léger: How do government and corporations gradually change the mentality surrounding this question? I think that will never happen. You told us that Greenpeace is obliging us to think differently, but we have a long road to travel. Aboriginal rights are in place. Are the corporations participating in educating people also?
Mr. Anderson: The corporations can be relied on to do a pretty good job of the initial training and they are increasingly looking at moving people up from entry-level positions to higher level positions within the organization, but that's it.
You mentioned Aboriginal rights. Perhaps my bias showing because of my long connection with the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College and their budget travails over the years. However, the most idiotic response I have seen from government is the nitpicking approach to the right of education. It makes no sense to me whatsoever why we are starving the Aboriginal community of education. It is a community that is full of people who are now completing Grade 12 through band-funded schools. It is a terrific emerging education system that is doing a wonderful job.
However, there are many problems. For example, in a school north of Regina, there was a sit-in by the parents who felt that the standards were not high enough at their local school, that they were not teaching strong enough math and science programs. Although the school was staying within the provincial requirements, the parents wanted better and more powerful programs for their kids. This is from the community.
There is a real wall at the end, because the Aboriginal students who graduate from Grade 12 and want to go on to post-secondary are not getting there. I do not know what fraction of students that would be. I would guess that 25 per cent are funded. I have many young friends who have gone back to the communities and worked in post-secondary education in the communities, and there are waiting lists for those students who go to school. They are there; they are bright and willing and want to go to school. Until that happens, there will be difficulties. I think that the answer lies in funding, and that the payback will be enormous.
Senator Léger: Can the corporations teach the government?
Mr. Anderson: I think they could. That is one of the things that will come from some work we are doing with the Conference Board and best models among companies and CCAB, the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business. One of their big programs is the seventh-generation program. Another one is FAAY. You can get it from them. Both are programs for corporate participation in bringing young people through the education system, but it is very small.
Senator Pearson: You mentioned the Grameen Bank, and I was thinking, after a visit to some reserves north of Sioux Lookout, about the models we have used abroad in microfinancing for women. I am specifically talking about women in this case. I saw, in one of the reserves, they had built up a nice little business around crafts. There must be more opportunities for women. Is there anything of that sort going on specifically for women?
Mr. Anderson: There is not and there could be. We often focus on large-scale projects. A lot of what happens in the communities involves small-scale financing. We do not have a local version of the Grameen Bank that makes it simple and thinks in terms of $2,000 or $3,000. I think it is the same as in the mainstream in that it is much easier to borrow $1 million than it is to borrow $50,000. We are just not set up to deal with these small numbers.
Senator Pearson: I was thinking of a couple of reserves where the climate is harsh. I lived in northern Russia where they grow lots of vegetables. It do not believe that we grow vegetables in our northern reserves. Perhaps some women could be encouraged to consider doing that. Does that sound like a viable idea?
Mr. Anderson: I think so. You might want to hear from Dr. Wanda Wuttunee, an an Aboriginal person from Saskatchewan. She is a lawyer who also has a Ph.D. She is at the University of Manitoba. She has always worked on small business and women's issues. She would have some most interesting comments about those issues. I know she would be anxious to speak to you. She is a wonderful lady.
The Chairman: That concludes the questioning. I want to thank you, Mr. Anderson, for the information you have given us today. The committee will be travelling through different parts of the country. When we go to Saskatchewan, we will make it a point to be in touch with you.
Mr. Anderson: I appreciated this opportunity. I quite enjoyed myself. You are following a wonderful path. I will follow, with interest, the work of the committee and look for your findings.
If you require any background material, you know how to get in touch with me. I will look for a list of names of corporations.
The Chairman: We will take a moment and ask our next panel to come forward.
We have a delegation from the Dogrib council from the Northwest Territories. Just to set them at ease, since they are a long way from home, I will say a few words in the Dene language.
I just said that they have come from a long way, and I wanted to set them at ease. We do not perfectly understand the language because there is a different dialect, however, it is similar enough that our witnesses can understand my message.
I welcome you to Ottawa. You are a long way from home on an important matter.
I would ask Mr. Zoe to introduce the delegation.
Mr. John B. Zoe, Chief Negotiator, Dogrib Treaty 11 Council: Honourable senators, I am the chief negotiator for the Tlicho Agreement. With me today are Ms. Bertha Rabesca Zoe, legal counsel; Elder Harry Simpson; Elder Alexis Arrowmaker from Wekweti; and Mr. James Rabesca, from Rae-Edzo, who will help us interpret for the elders. I wish to provide a summary of our participation in economic development and then I would ask Mr. Arrowmaker to provide a summary.
The last time that I did anything major for a chair of a committee, was in the early 1980s when he was the Premier of the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly. At the time we were setting up what we used to call "regional and tribal councils,'' a new ordinance under the Government of the Northwest Territories. Senator Sibbeston was then responsible for that portfolio.
Being new to those kinds of organizations we were not familiar with the way business was being done. Senator Sibbeston invited me, as Chair of the Tribal Council at the time, and Charles Den to accompany him to see how the Inuit were conducting regional councils. We travelled to Resolute and Pond Inlet. We had a chance to sit down with the Baffin Regional Council to see how business was done. Generally, it was an education for us to learn how to use such an organization to elicit issues in a meaningful way and to give us a platform where we did not have one before.
It has since developed into the current Dogrib Treaty 11 Council. We are using that as a basis for advancing the Tlicho Agreement. It has been an educational experience and many people have contributed to it over the years.
I would like to talk about who we are and how we approach economic development, which has not happened overnight but rather over time. We have agreements in our history, the latest of which is the Tlicho Agreement. We know that the history of the people in the Mackenzie Valley, including the Dogrib and the Tlicho, is based on how things developed in the old days when we had the responsibility of ensuring that the environment and the animals were taken care of. We have the land and we have the responsibility of ensuring that the animals are protected in their habitat. Those laws are built into the landscape. We have places where the elders sat down to create those laws and places where all those things exist.
In our first early agreement, we talked about the coexistence agreement that we have with the animals to ensure our stewardship. Sometimes things might be abused to the point where the animals might not come around any more. That possibility makes us go deeper into our own areas. When that occurred, the risk was higher. In those days, when Aboriginal groups met, the encounter might be brief and brutal. Those are the realities of the old days before contact.
We took care of those disagreements with peace treaties, agreements with other Aboriginal groups. In this case, it would be between Edzo and Akaitcho. We have place names to describe how those agreements came to be. It is all written onto the landscape. We also know that the early fur trade enhanced this agreement. Right across Canada, early contact with the Aboriginal groups always involved the pillaging of the next group. That was taken care of when, after the peace treaties, the Tlicho people organized themselves under trading chiefs whereby the trade was done on a collective basis. That gave far more bargaining clout to our group. In a sense, we approached early trade on a business basis such that we harvested, collected and traded on our own behalf. Our culture has adapted to that lifestyle of the time.
When the first treaties were reached in 1921, Chief Monfwi represented us. Our view of the world provided us with a way to represent ourselves. We used that as the basis to represent ourselves in the pipeline hearings in the 1970s. We also represented ourselves in the politics of the day when working with other Aboriginal groups and the mining companies on how we represented ourselves. We have come to agreements with mining companies not only on economic development but also on jobs and training.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, one of our chiefs, Chief Bruno, wanted to approach education in a way whereby we would put education into culture so that we would not lose our identity when we brought new tools into our culture and not have a basis for continuing as who we are. Those things that were said by our representatives back to the early days are basic principles and core thinking that we use even today.
In the 1960s and 1970s, job availability in the communities was basically non-existent. The only income that people had was from activities on the land, that is, trapping and fishing, the products of which they traded with the traders.
In the early 1970s, when they were trying to organize our participation in economic development for our people, they built on the concept of our own history of doing things on a collective basis, and we borrowed from other Aboriginal groups ideas for how to bring that forth.
We traveled to Arizona where we studied tribal structures and economic development in the mining industry and how they represented themselves. We brought back ideas and set up a development corporation. The idea was not to make a profit, although if it did that was fine, but, rather, to train and employ our own people so that we could set up a market that did not exist since we did not have the necessary skills. That corporation is still alive and well, and has given us enough experience to deal with contracting opportunities with the resource development companies that exist today.
Today, we are working on an extension of all those activities from the past. We are trying to achieve recognition of who we are and how we approach resource development and training in our area.
Not so long ago, the notion was that, when you entered land claims negotiations, you had to give up everything at the start and then you would be given back what you negotiated. However, for us that is called finality, that is, you sever your ties with the past in order to remake yourself into this new thing and hopefully you will do well. That concept was against our principle that an agreement is an extension of what has pre-existed.
The idea of inherency is that, if you inherent something from your parents or grandparents, the law recognizes what you inherent, be it a home or whatever, and protects it until it is transferred to you. It is yours to do with what you want, and you have the ability to pass it on. In the Aboriginal world, there is no recognition of our inherency, so through land claims agreements we are trying to gain recognition of what we inherited in the past and of our right to pass it on to future generations.
This is true even with economic development. We want to pass on what we have learned in resource development in order that future generations can build on it and make it better as an extension of our inherent right.
When we were originally setting up economic development, Chief Charlie Charlo said that economic development is not something new, that it actually goes back to the beginning of Tlicho history. The first trader that came into our area set up shop at Nishi, which is called Old Fort Ray in English. The Hudson's Bay Company originally set up shop in the Dogrib area not to trade for furs but for the purpose of getting caribou meat, tongues and hides to the trading posts to provision boats going up the Mackenzie River. Only later did they start trading for fur.
In the late 1970s, the initial trading complex set up by Chief Charlie Charlo was named Nishi. We were grasping early economic development and adopting it into our culture. Nishi was the name of the building, and it was designed after the contours of the landscape of the area. Its structure is similar to the landscape that existed at the beginning of our history.
What we are doing today is built on our principles from the beginning of time. We are not putting our culture into economic development; rather, we are putting economic development into our culture so that we go forward in strength and not on the concept of finality where we have to give up who we are in order to gain from economic development. We should retain who we are through our inherency and go into the future with strength, because it is all built on our dearly held principles.
With those remarks, I will turn the floor over to Mr. Arrowmaker.
[Interpretation]
Mr. Alexis Arrowmaker, Elder Advisor, Dogrib Treaty 11 Council: I am grateful to appear before the Senate on December 7, 2004. I am happy to see a lot of bright faces; the senators always have welcoming smiles when we meet with them, and hopefully we bring some warm welcomes to you people as well.
At home, I thought of a lot of different ways about how I could support society. When society is good to you, somehow you must return something to society.
Being an elder, I have to make myself available to the future generations, so people in the future can cherish the things we have to offer them. In that respect, I have always donated my time to being an advisor to our land claim negotiating team. I have supported it in that capacity. Certainly when we have a society that is always good to us, we have to return something.
The same goes for the Senate. They are here for those reasons. We also have the members of Parliament who are out there to do the work on our behalf. I think they have done a tremendous job over the years. I think the Senate is doing a tremendous job too.
I have often thought about them when I am at home, wondering who they are and when it will be my time to appear before them. Finally, the day has come and I am grateful to know that we are pretty well represented here in the House of Commons and in the Senate. I am happy about that.
As an elder, I believe we do have to support one another. As Aboriginal people who live above the tree line where I come from, the community of Wekweti, when the early explorers were out there, they survived with the help of our Aboriginal people. We gave them directions and, in return, they helped us with some equipment they brought along with them, and their expertise. In turn, we showed them where to go and how to survive on the land. That is how we supported one another, and that is how we would like to see the senators support us — by giving some advice on how they think the future should go.
Today, we are negotiating our land claims, which have been pretty well concluded, in good faith. We heard a lot of people in the House of Commons yesterday, mostly people opposing the land claims through the Conservative Party. However, at times, they touched on the pipeline and economic activities out there. Where we are, we are not impacted by the pipeline as much as some other people. Certainly, with the economic activities in our area, we always want to share the North with other Aboriginal peoples and the people coming into the North.
When the pipeline goes through, we would certainly like to have a share in it. Maybe we could get some spin-offs from it. Most of us are looking forward to that.
Over time, we need the support of the federal government, and they need our support from time to time as well. Every four years we support them by electing them. We need their help and, certainly, they need our help too. The whole thing I have touched on is built into our land claims.
Back in 1971, I had the opportunity to travel to Italy to meet the Pope. I have a great deal of travel experience, in that I have gone to other parts of the world, and I find that comes in handy for the land claims negotiating team. Regarding the history of the relationship with the government and treaty agreements, it has always been good up to now. The land claim is pretty well negotiated. We had good negotiating teams. Four elder advisers from the four communities worked with the negotiating team. They did a great job. There has been a lot of negotiation with the Government of Canada, with the Government of Northwest Territories and with neighbouring tribes.
I am now about 84 years old and I have done my share of the work for the Aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories. For many years I worked with the Dene in an advisory capacity. I was Chief of the Dogrib Nation for many years, and I worked with many organizations that I hope will be able to achieve their territorial claims. Apparently, that fell apart back in 1990 but now with the regional claims, I am sure that we will see the light at the end of the tunnel soon. We had good relationships with the negotiators and we could always meet them eye to eye, gratefully, because the negotiations must continue.
For many years there was anxiety with the various levels of government for a reason. There was much criticism among the Aboriginal people within our community. Now, we want to put that aside and try to work a new deal. We have a good start to a better relationship with other claimant groups from the Northwest Territories.
I thank senators for this opportunity to appear before the committee, which I never thought would happen. There are many other Aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories. We are an arm of the AFN, and there are also the Dene nations. Some of those groups might wish to appear before the committee. I am hopeful that we will have a good relationship with senators, with the Government of Canada and with the rest of the country.
[English]
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee I would like to say that we are pleased that you were able to appear before us today. It is interesting because some of us come from the North. We see each other up North but to see one another in Ottawa is special. I wanted to be sure that you are welcomed in Ottawa and I appreciate your coming to speak to the Tlicho agreement.
This Senate committee is beginning its study of how Aboriginal people get into business and deal with economic development. The Dogrib people in the Northwest Territories are probably the most traditional of all the Aboriginal people in the North. They live on and use the land, hunt and trap, and use the natural resources. In the late 1980s, there was talk of opening a diamond mine in the North, and there was talk about prospecting and work. Eventually a diamond mine was built and the Dogrib people were able to make the jump from a traditional way of life to an industrial way of life.
I would like to hear from Mr. Arrowmaker and from Mr. Simpson on that. I know that it is easy to say reject new ideas and continue with the old way of life on the land. You could have told the mining company to leave you alone. However, you recognized the prospect of development, took advantage of it, and benefited from it. You made the jump to industrial development. I would like to hear what made the Tlicho people make that transition.
I know that Mr. Rabesca and Ms. Rabesca-Zoe have the answers but I would like to hear the comments of both Mr. Arrowmaker and Mr. Simpson.
[Interpretation]
Mr. Arrowmaker: The traditions and economic activity within the Dogrib area is not something new to us. As the chairman said, we have been living with it, and we have experienced it.
The chairman touched on the issue of the traditional economy, and spoke about trapping, fishing and hunting. We consider that to be the traditional economy. Mr. Zoe referred to Chief Bruno building, the school, and the idea behind it. All of the people can still live on the traditional economy. The opportunity is there to do so. Accordingly, if they want to live off the Tlicho economy, the opportunity will be there for them. That is why Chief Bruno made the statement about being a strong person.
We also spoke about our history — how the fur trade operated within our area when the first European people came. Without our guidance, I do not think they could have survived in the wilderness. Without our expertise, they would not have made it back. It was a good trade-off, with both parties working together. We even had a mail run from our area all the way down to Edmonton. They would haul freight into the Edmonton area. Since then we have seen many changes. That is how the peace treaty developed.
During the days when I used to trap, there were too many trappers in the area. It was difficult to find an area to trap. At times I had to go without catching anything, but somehow I had to live with the surrounding people, who used to help one another.
In regard to the mining activity, we had to have an agreement built into it. Employment and training aspects had to be included. That is what we have with the mining companies.
Another consideration was the fact that we do not know how long the mining operation will last. We do not know the life of the mine. We are not certain how long the mine will last.
I am happy to give you the history in the area. Since we have a time limit, I will try to address all of the things I want to say.
[English]
The Chairman: We have until about 11:15 and then another meeting is scheduled to sit in this room.
If Mr. Arrowmaker is finished, would Mr. Simpson be prepared to say a few words?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Harry Simpson, Elder, Dogrib Treaty 11 Council: I am one of the elders on the advisory committee to the negotiating team. I am descended from the Fort Simpson area. That is why I got the name "Simpson.'' My parents used to travel with me down to the Sahtu area where we lived on the traditional lands and trapped and hunted. We covered a large tract of land in the Dogrib area with the surrounding neighbourhood tribes.
What we are doing here today is not new, but we have to work together in order to make good decisions for future generations.
I am thankful to be here. Many people respect us, and we respect you in return. That is part of our tradition. Without the negotiating team, I do not think we would be here. We never thought we would meet you people, but we are thankful to be here today. We are thankful to our negotiating team for bringing us here and for the opportunity to appear before you.
Christmas is coming soon and we hope that everyone will have a good Christmas holiday.
There are challenges to be met every day. There is no use in being scared of development because something good may come out of it. We have to meet challenges. That is how we look at the new era that we are approaching. Our challenge is to make the current land claim process work for us. That is the reason we are here, and that is important to remember.
We do not want to lose our traditions, culture, language or religion. These are important things that we live by every day. We teach students about living on the land every time we have an opportunity. Every year we hold assemblies. The people who are able to travel on the land take students into the communities by canoe. Every night, they talk to them about the history of the Dogrib. That is how we keep our culture and tradition alive in the young people.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Next week, our committee will be dealing with the Tlicho agreement and we will be seeing more of you then.
The committee adjourned.