Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 2 - Evidence - Meeting of May 31, 2006
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 31, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:21 p.m. to examine and report on the involvement of Aboriginal communities and businesses in economic development activities in Canada.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.
We are continuing the economic development study that was initiated under the leadership of Senator Sibbeston. We have with us tonight witnesses from the Assembly of First Nations. They are Chief Jason Goodstriker, Regional Chief of Alberta; Judy Whiteduck, Director of Economic Development; and Dean Polchies, Policy Analyst, Economic Partnership Secretariat.
Welcome to the committee and please proceed.
Chief Jason Goodstriker, Regional Chief of Alberta, Assembly of First Nations: Thank you, chair. Good afternoon, senators. We are pleased to be appearing before you. We have prepared a formal presentation and will be pleased to participate in a question and answer session with you at the end of it.
I wish to thank you, on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations, for the invitation to appear here this evening. It is my pleasure to inform you of our work toward a First Nations economic blueprint.
With complete respect for the members of the committee, time did not permit us to translate our presentation into French. We have initiated the translation process and will send you the material within the next few days.
It has been almost one year since our last presentation to you. Much has transpired in the intervening time. As you may be aware, we have been a busy organization in this relatively brief period of time. Our organization worked toward a political accord. We sought a response to the residential school legacy. We participated in the first ministers' meeting, and in the lead-up process. We coordinated a phenomenal number of information opportunities and policy forums, one of which was dedicated to First Nations economies.
In my presentation to the Senate last June, I provided an early outline on the systems we need for economic change in our communities. I spoke on the need for new measures to better equip those of our economies that are presented with many added challenges. I also remarked on the shortcomings of some programs and services and our non-support of decisions to cut First Nations and Inuit economic development funding within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Today, in my role as Chairman of the Assembly of First Nations Chiefs Committee on Economic Development, I wish to leave you with three messages: first, the themes of the draft First Nations economic blueprint; second, views on why this blueprint now; and third, information on what next steps need to be taken and our requests of you.
Before beginning, I would like to acknowledge the effect a prosperous economy has on First Nations and economic regions around us.
Economic development is a forceful determinant of the social well-being of our communities. Indirect measures have resulted in indirect outcomes. Refocusing our efforts to a direct strategy, involving additional players, and seeking specific strategies with focused investments in First Nations will be that which describes the success of this model later.
Canada, as a civic-minded and socially conscious country, recognizes the dangers in allowing the standard of living gap to widen, the danger in allowing productivity opportunities to pass by, and costs to Canada in not taking active measures to engage every part of its workforce. The work of the blueprint seeks solutions to these dangers.
The blueprint took an important step forward in September 2005 through the Chiefs Committee on Economic Development. It was then that our committee began deliberations for a new economic strategy as mandated by the Chiefs in Assembly in July 2005.
We then gathered some very bright First Nations minds to begin an exercise of putting concepts to paper. They are our First Nations economic experts advisory group. The opening question posed to our advisers was this: If the slate were clean, then what would you include in a strategy to support our economies in their growth?
The first part of our presentation will inform you of their response to this question and to the direction provided to them by our chiefs committee.
The overarching goal of the blueprint is that it must be able to serve, encourage and respond to the diversity of First Nations and the unique circumstance of encouraging growth in First Nations economies.
The diversity in economies is identified in the blueprint by stages of growth. They are: developmental, emerging, and moving to dynamic economies. The blueprint is based on a 10-year timeline. It mirrors the time frame quoted in other national plans that we have designed. Economic targets are based on each theme area, with a companion set of forecasts and indicators that are being developed.
There are five theme areas in the blueprint. They include economic infrastructure, human resources and labour force development, corporate relations strategy, partnerships with non-governmental organizations and nation building.
The economic infrastructure theme encompasses physical infrastructure and government infrastructure that will support economic activity in and around First Nations. It was recognized by our experts that First Nations require a more energetic and robust underpinning to attract, serve and retain development, human capital and economic investments and to infuse capacity.
The physical infrastructure references the pipes, wires, bricks and mortar requirements for development. It also identifies costs and implements air, land, seaport, energy and telecommunications development options in regions and communities.
The government infrastructure theme proposes local and regional economic programs, services and incentives needed to support each stage of economic growth, i.e. developmental, emerging, and dynamic. Capacity to serve the economy within the government will be a critical achievement.
Capital requirements, land and resources development and jurisdictional issues are major sub-themes included as part of economic infrastructure planning from a government or physical perspective.
The human resources and labour force development theme proposes to bring together the First Nations government economic infrastructure theme and the First Nations human resources development theme to properly plan for economic and employment opportunities in communities and regions. There is presently not a concentrated relationship in enough areas to plan for young demographics.
Some of the subheadings under this part include establishing regional development planning forums with First Nations who are affected by the same developmental opportunities; engage participation with, and by, mainstream regional developmental planning forums; and establish regional employment needs assessments on three-year cycles.
The theme for a corporate relations strategy recommends taking the existing relationship with corporate Canada to a new level. Our advisers noted that a highly interactive approach between First Nations and the private sector is needed to ensure First Nations participate in economic sectors where the bulk of economic activity is controlled. To achieve interaction, it will mean establishing a plan to encourage, first, partnerships between mainstream and First Nations businesses to increase access to economic activity; second, investments by corporate bodies in First Nations to assist communities to develop capacity according to a local/regional development plan; third, procurement for First Nations to access corporate contracts and tenders, as well as trade options with corporate associates; fourth, employment for First Nations in direct and indirect development opportunities.
With regard to partnerships and non-governmental organizations, the need for improved research and data on which to base policy orientations is evident in many First Nations policy areas. The same is true for First Nations economic information. The advice of our experts is to establish a multilateral research strategy table, including NACCA, Conference Board of Canada, Institute on Governance, CANDO, Aboriginal Financial Officers Association, NAFA, CAMSC, and others, to identify and guide research plans for the benefit of First Nations and regional economies and to identify the statistical database and base data requirements.
Finally, with regard to nation building, the First Nations economic blueprint is organized to respect historical relationships and political efforts to engage government-to-government relationships and nation-to-nation relationships. This is achieved through increased coordination, communication and alignment of economic priorities of nations, treaties groups and community formations. The nation building theme respects First Nations' aspirations to coordinate their political and cultural priorities beyond Indian Act structures and provincial circumstances.
Increased access to resources is one of the most fundamental issues to improve political relationships and economic development of First Nations. This can be done through establishing frameworks to support access to resources and new fiscal arrangements as a component of government and nation relationships. Frameworks would be developed based on land use, resource revenue-sharing models and trade relationships.
There is much discussion from the experts on the new strategy, which also leads into the new investment.
The initial investment projections are identified at $760 million over five years. The figures represent AFN pre- budget submission estimates made in the fall of 2005. The blueprint's 6-to-10-year investment forecast is in development.
As to why this blueprint is happening now, our young population, and the formerly referenced balloon demographics, is aging and now arriving each year as new entrants into the workforce. Our economies represent a significant risk and opportunity for the Canadian economy in the short term, but more importantly, over the long term.
This is especially seen in three factors. They are: productivity gains or losses; cost of social programs without adequate investments in the economy; and uncertainties regarding land tenure, which also results in lost opportunity.
We propose a new approach premised by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and two key elements noted in the Recognition and Implementation of First Nation Governments and our plan to close the gap.
On the broader spectrum, we note this creates a mutual agenda with Canada's interest in accountability and fiscal balance.
The specific actions required are commitment to the blueprint elements I have listed to you.
From a program framework perspective, the last significant pan-federal strategy to support our economies was in 1989.
Elements of that strategy still exist today that should be maintained, such as the Indian and Northern Affairs' Community Economic Development Program, CEDP, where its main objective mixed well with First Nations principles. The CEDP planned for communities to hold the authority to determine, design and respond to their economic priorities instead of this authority being held in a federal department. This principle encourages and recognizes systems of government in First Nations and, as such, economic institutions.
This program objective respected the recommendations presented in the renowned Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development — before it was a paper.
However, some elements of the strategy are outdated or, in grouping First Nation programs in with all other Aboriginal constituents, have not served First Nations well, nor necessarily other groups' interests. Examples are seen in funding formulae without population and inflation variables, or in programs that cannot respond to a legislative framework that is specific to First Nations, when the framework is Aboriginal.
Did it help set the tone to develop economies in First Nations? Yes, it did. Is it time to consider a next strategy? The answer is also yes. We need to go on.
I would also like to reiterate a message from last year on the need for new investments towards long-term economic change. The federal government purports to invest more than $9 billion in Aboriginal peoples. Of this, about 0.03 per cent is aimed toward long-term economic change, and we note also up to 0.06 per cent for all Aboriginal economic initiatives.
My point is simply that new investments for long-term economic changes are needed. This is not to confuse others, nor is it to say funds from other First Nation health or social programs are to be stripped.
Our young population also places a new strain and a new opportunity on our economic position. We need to be prepared to bring together these untapped resources so they can be an important part of local and regional economies. Education and skill development are keys to economic progress in this regard.
It is time to focus on what works. The economy and private sector in Canada are working.
We have also noted the recent publications by the Auditor General and the United Nations. Both are important papers. Both advocate for greater economic participation of our communities based on our own design. In the Auditor General's report of May 16, she identified seven critical factors for success, specifically pointing to the need to develop and fund First Nation capacity in collaboration with First Nations, and that is what we are suggesting here today.
In closing, my final message is on what next steps need to be taken and my request to you as a Senate committee.
An approach that is driven by First Nations demonstrates success early through partnering and measured outcomes. Charting progress will be seen as a return on investments in stronger regional economies. Establishing these measurements is the next step.
We are building federal-First Nations processes. We are engaging in relationships with the private sector and NGOs to scope out the blueprint themes. These are also likely the next key steps.
My request to you is to work with us in our effort to build a model of change — a change that is, in essence, based on strengthening local economies and regional economic growth.
We ask you to table a paper with the federal government that advocates for a new strategy, and to do this before the next major national meeting, to be held in Saskatchewan in 2007, involving First Nations economic development.
On a final note, Kelowna was a great starting point for economic opportunities. We all recognized its importance and that much more was yet to come on the recommendations to support this priority.
This reminds me that Western premiers started off their meeting this week with a plea for the federal government to maintain and honour the agreement. Having had direct input into the negotiations, I understand their message. I join them in encouraging and soliciting the Senate's support and recommendations to the federal government to ensure its implementation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to members of the Senate.
The Chairman: Thank you, Chief Goodstriker.
Senator Sibbeston: Thank you for your presentation. It is a pleasure to see the representatives of AFN. Obviously, AFN, as the overall organization of First Nations in the country, is important.
Our committee has had the privilege, as it were, of going to different parts of the country. We had meetings in BC and Alberta last fall, where we saw many First Nations, Aboriginal, initiatives and businesses that have arisen in the last few years. It is encouraging and inspirational to see what First Nations have done. However, all of these happen out in the field, on location.
We are beginning to see that in order for Aboriginal people to succeed, certain things need to be present. There needs to be a good governance structure. There needs to be culturally appropriate institutions set up by them. There needs to be leadership and so forth. These things occur out in the field. Often, they do not happen alone but with the encouragement and cooperation of the private sector. Fort McMurray is probably a good example. In the Northwest Territories, where I come from, Diavik Mines have had a big hand in the First Nations people there being involved in all aspects of the mine.
I am just wondering about your role. Businesses are out there out in the field. Invariably, it takes leadership. It takes a chief or a group of people who are so inspired and determined to make these business initiatives happen that they eventually come about — after a lot of blood, sweat and tears. Considering that the action is out there in the field and any economic venture happens as a result of people's efforts out there, what role do you see for yourself, living here in Ottawa, part of a national organization? Do you see yourself as an advocate for all these little businesses and economic ventures out there? How do you see your role? We know government has a certain role, but what is your role in terms of helping First Nations out in the country to get into business and succeed?
Mr. Goodstriker: In our presentation, we wanted to also point out that the self-government position of the First Nation communities is integral to what changes it will affect and with whom we will effect change. That is important because the chiefs and the communities have been walking a road for the last number of years, especially in economic development.
You are quite correct in pointing out what has happened with the success of some of the projects that have been built in the past 15 or 20 years. In the North, we have the example of the diamonds. Some of our friends are in forestry, and some in fishing. These things have happened.
In terms of what has happened in the past, the Assembly of First Nations has been called upon on a number of occasions to bear witness or to help open up doors for some of the chiefs and the communities and to help create and set the table of a negotiation.
We have been integral to that and we would continue to encourage and to help create that climate so that the leadership, local and regional, have access to continuing development and to continue on.
We will continue to advocate on that point, because, as we pointed out in the presentation, economic development must have more of a priority in First Nation communities and it has to be seen as that priority with regard to the members of the house. It is an interesting dynamic when people can actually start to get at the climate in which change will be implemented.
Throughout our question session, we can draw from some of my associates here as well.
Senator Hubley: Welcome this evening. I had been on the Aboriginal committee before. I was off for a while, but I am back on it again. Unfortunately, I missed some of the study that has been done on the economic development issue.
I was most impressed with your presentation, and you are to be congratulated for the initiative that this shows on many levels. In order to produce a document of this stature, there had to be some groundwork and organization in place. There also had to be someone who could see the possibilities and had a vision of where you would like to go.
The first part of my question is how has this been applied? You have touched not only on economic development, but certainly on a sense of the social aspects as well when you mentioned that your organization was strong and able to set up negotiations for other parties.
I would also like you to comment on the fact that you now see a need to go beyond this document. I would like to know what circumstances have brought you to that point. You have grown to a certain stage. Now you can see that there has to be more investment and you want to go further.
Would you comment on what your vision is now? You have been successful to this stage and you would like to go on.
Mr. Goodstriker: You are correct in stating that you have seen some prior material. We have mentioned the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report and what that had foreseen. There has also been a study — and perhaps Ms. Whiteduck can make reference to it at the end of my comments — called ``The Cost of Doing Nothing.'' It is exactly that. What happens in the roll-out of a process when there is no investment in economic development, graduation rates, health, education, child care or housing?
It is a very on-the-ground style of report. We can give references to provide this information.
In terms of focus, all those things have a large component of regional focus. It is the discussion of the first ministers and all the social and other implications.
We are here to offer that economic development can start to narrow the focus down. I am not saying that those are not important issues, but when the investment is concentrated on economic development, it will have its impacts on reducing some of the costs on the other side. We wholeheartedly believe it happens like that.
With respect to the second part of your question, going beyond what we do now, in the National Chiefs Committee on Economic Development, we knew that we had no engaging points. Maybe we had, but maybe some of the relationships have grown old and the strategies needed to be applied with a little more force. Our chiefs committee has convened and we have created this blueprint. We have updated some of our thoughts.
The program that was initiated in the 1980s had important components that were First Nations specific, strongly built programs. Since then, what has changed? We have a lot more people who are more professional, have more experience working in mines, just being senior people. We have a lot more government people on our side. We have access to a lot more experts, and that is why we convened an experts' forum.
We have people from Bay Street and lawyers who were at the heart of oil and gas negotiations. We have women business leaders who have done incredible things. We have started to generate these experts because they are in the know and they are on the ground enough to know that it changes people. It will change the focus of communities.
That is what we intend to continue to do: to go beyond and to keep implementing. However, things have changed. We have had people become effective for us, which is positive.
Judy Whiteduck, Director, Economic Development, Assembly of First Nations: Thank you for the question, and thank you, regional chief, for deferring to me.
I think you responded to the costs of doing nothing or explained the costs of doing nothing quite well and what the gist of that was. However, in terms of one of your questions on what would be the next steps in this work, I think we need to take it to the point where it becomes a new strategy to support First Nation economies and other economies. Right now we are dealing with largely the same dynamic, the same authorities that were in place in 1989. That was 17 years ago, and the economies all around us have changed. The global economy has changed, the national economies have changed, and regionally, but the underpinnings on which we base our economic systems of government have not changed. We need to have another discussion and introduce those kinds of systems of government that would promote a more invigorated economic infrastructure.
Senator Peterson: Presenters, welcome this evening. I am trying to get a sense of the timeline in your presentation. This really began when mandated by the chiefs in July of 2005, and you prepared the draft report, a rolling draft, in October of 2005. I do not know if it is a work in progress. Then you ask us to work with you in building this model and that we table a report with the federal government that advocates a new strategy, and to do this before your meeting next year.
I do not think we want to get too far ahead of the curve. That is where we got into trouble before. Maybe it is better that you put your material together and we work together, if that is what we are trying to get to, to develop financial controls. It is a matter of dealing with a timeline and what we can do.
Ms. Whiteduck: Certainly I think the timelines are quite narrow. We saw an opportunity to present our thinking on what the new strategy could include. The economic experts are very enthusiastic about the work that they are doing.
The draft that is included in your kit has been translated. There is another version that includes an action plan, so the work has progressed a little more than this document indicates. In terms of the blueprint, we are proposing taking it to the next stage, as I mentioned, but we are also asking the committee, in its report and findings on its study on Aboriginal economic development, to consider the need for a new strategy and whether it is time for the federal government to work on this new strategy. If so, will the elements we have proposed be part of that consideration?
Senator Watt: Welcome. I intend to follow along the line of the questions of Senator Peterson, focusing on your closing remarks.
You have indicated that the committee should help you develop a new economic strategy. You would like this committee to engage with you or similar organizations to focus on what changes have to be made in order to better reflect your needs.
You said that you are engaging in relationships with the private sector and NGOs. Are you engaging with the private sector in terms of developing a blueprint, or is that entering into business arrangements on a partnership or revenue-sharing basis? Could you help us understand that more clearly?
Mr. Goodstriker: With regard to timelines, I will remind members of the committee of what has happened. First Nations gaming is now a large concept here in Canada. That is economic development to which we previously did not have access, and we did not have a national strategy. There is now discussion of a national First Nations group, proposed by Chief Alphonse Bird of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. We have begun to gather this group. Gaming was not discussed 10 or 15 years ago; 20 to 25 First Nations now own and operate resorts and golf courses and are doing quite well. A number of First Nations have offered to answer economic development questions not only for their communities, but also for surrounding communities. That addresses employment and such.
There still has not been a national dialogue on financing with regard to First Nations land. That issue has never been resolved in terms of what we can borrow on the basis of our land because of the federal situation that exists. We have not solved that question. We need help from many organizations, including the Senate and other parts of the government, to find those answers.
Economic development does not only affect Indians in their communities, it affects entire regions that are suffering. As a chief from Alberta, I hear a lot about people leaving places like Saskatchewan to seek employment in Alberta. These questions must be answered.
In my region, there are 115,000 registered people in 47 bands. In addition to that, there are 20,000 to 25,000 First Nations people who have moved to Alberta to work in the projects and the cities. I have the dynamics of migration of people to consider with regard to economic development.
Senator Watt: To go a step further, with regard to the land issue, when you talk about business, you are talking about equity. You lack equity for financing from either financial institutions or the government. At times, you will also need risk capital. How do you access risk capital? Perhaps this committee can come up with some recommendations to the government in that area.
I am fully aware that you need capital in order to succeed in business. You must also have sufficient equity and a sufficient cash flow. I understand that.
I think you are asking us to explore avenues to see what the government can do to help you. You are asking us to make recommendations to the government on this in our report.
You cannot dispose of land because it is reserve land, so you cannot use it as equity to borrow money. Until the Indian Act is changed, that will remain the case. Since you cannot dispose of the land and cannot use it as equity, you would like us to find an alternate solution. If I understand you correctly, you are asking us to help you find the solution to that.
You are looking for two things. The first is how to deal with the issue of equity and the other is how to get risk capital.
Have I understood you correctly?
Mr. Goodstriker: You have understood perfectly. We cannot talk enough about risk and equity. In every economic development idea that has come forth to First Nations, equity is a consideration. I would say that more than half the ideas are shelved due to problems with equity and financing. That applies to many things. There are many lost opportunities.
When discussing wind plants and the erection of mills, we have to talk about the land they would be built on.
All those factors come into play in the big equation.
We have never had a dialogue with all the involved players on that part of the Indian Act. It is a very important topic. It should be considered as a priority because, in essence, land and equity issues form the basis of discussion on economic development for First Nations.
Senator Watt: There was an announcement yesterday about an economic summit to be held in 2007. It is timely and important. You are the regional representatives of AFN.
At that time would you be prepared to receive an expression of interest from the private sector willing to explore the avenue of a joint venture or partnership arrangement? Would that be welcomed by your people? Perhaps that could take place at the same time the minister is meeting with the leaders of the First Nations.
Mr. Goodstriker: It is important that we walk together, and that we walk together with confidence. When we are talking about the constitutional groups, it is important that we succeed. Success is important for everybody.
I was asked a similar question in India. In India, the secretary of state asked: ``What is your interest in being part of Team Canada during your visit here?'' I replied, ``Obviously, we want to go forward.'' They were quite interested in the status of the ``red Indian,'' which is what we were called. I said, ``Honestly, we are here to try to build. We constitute the poorest communities in the country, and we want to reverse that.'' That was my simple answer to him.
Senator Segal: I wish to express my appreciation for the quality and content of the presentation. It is very impressive.
I wish to come at this in another way. This is as good a document on economic strategy as I have seen from any government source. I am sure that in its preparation you did not have access to the myriad resources that governments have. That is the good news.
Here is the bad news — and please tell me what I misunderstand about this. Aboriginal poverty rates are massive. The demographics for your population, our First Nations brothers and sisters, under the age of 25 are horrific in terms of the need to generate jobs at a rate that no Canadian economy can ever accommodate. The issues that you understand better than anyone who is not part of the First Nations community revolve around substance abuse, the massive overrepresentation of Aboriginals in our prison system — well above what the population should produce — difficulties in middle age with respect to diabetes and disease, the degree to which Aboriginal Canadians constitute far too large a piece of the rural poverty problem writ large, something which is a problem in many parts of the country and not just for our Aboriginal brothers and sisters.
What I see here is a superb macro-document. It presents the big picture. It is about a process and a series of policies to be elaborated and specified and about which financing issues are addressed. As an economic development subcommittee of the AFN, how do you sort out the difference between the macro and the micro, that is to say, the individuals whose lives are now in play on reservations and in our cities, those who are, in some ways, being economically dispossessed for reasons completely beyond their control?
I will reflect on a presentation made at a seminar at Queen's University not long ago by a vice-chief of a Saskatoon band council by the name of Lafond, who had given up on the land claims process and the constitutional process. He and others were just planning to focus on kids. They were involved with the elaboration and the development of what I think is called the squirrels' hockey league in that part of the world. You did not get to play on those wonderful hockey teams, which were largely Aboriginal, unless you had an 80 per cent average in school. The two issues were mutually reinforcing. He said that he felt much better making progress kid by kid, person by person, because he was not sure the macro answers could be translated fast enough to affect people whose lives are at stake as we speak.
I understand we are talking about economic development and you were asked to address that large question, which you have done superbly. Can I ask you to step out of that role and just reflect on that individual micro-problem and what you think this committee could address to, as Winston Churchill would say, action this day? Get something done now that would make a difference.
Mr. Goodstriker: On the situation at hand, there was a very important document that came out of my office. We prepared it in partnership with Indian Affairs in Alberta. It is called ``The Labour Market Strategy.'' We measured what is going on right now. One of the most glaring things that came out of it was how the 17-year-olds fell off the radar when it came to Grade 12.
Today, we had a discussion with Corrections Canada. We were going over some numbers with them. As you pointed out, they are pretty staggering. We are talking about trying to reverse trends like this.
As it affects Joe Band Member and what can happen today, the thing that I always reflect on and try to come back to in terms of what we want to deliver and how we will go forward is to create a climate. We want to create a climate in which young people, and others, will succeed. That involves employment opportunities and a number of other things. You can lead the horse to water. We just want to address that situation.
After that, the First Nations community, the chief, the band member, whoever, will have their choice. Right now, there are legislative issues, racial issues and a lot of other things that are holding up the barrier. That is the wall. You cannot see it but it is there.
We want to create that ultimate situation where people can get a job and finish high school and where the band can sign an agreement. We just want to create that kind of climate that will allow us to walk forward. That is important to us.
Ms. Whiteduck: I will elaborate on a couple of the points raised by the regional chief.
First, I draw your attention to the corporate relations theme and strategy, whereby we can engage the players who are out there already. I refer in particular to the areas that are already regionally and economically successful. In that way, we can make some of that macro picture happen at a micro level more quickly. We can ensure that there is procurement, investment, partnerships and employment prospects with corporate Canada. As the regional chief said, we want to focus on what is working. Canada's economy is working, and we want to be part of that.
If we were to create and build this theme component and relationship with corporate Canada, whereby inside of 10 years we would have staged investments into First Nations, that would set a challenge, possibly, by the Government of Canada to corporate Canada, saying, ``We want you to meet our investments into First Nations. We challenge corporate Canada to do that.'' That might be one way of achieving the micro level inside the macro picture.
The other level is ensuring that the government infrastructure exists within First Nation communities and the regional economic infrastructure that First Nation communities can work with to ensure that the economic opportunity is meeting up with the local capacity, or that there is a way to meet up with those interests. Right now we have a significant amount of attention on human resource development and equipping a labour force. When we compare the economic arm of a First Nation at the local or regional level, the economic arm is seriously underfunded and the labour force arm is a little better funded, but it is not at a stage where it can connect with those regional opportunities and ensure that employment happens.
Senator Peterson: When we were travelling in Alberta last year, we stopped in Calgary and met with a number of the bands there. They are quite successful. They would have a project that they were working on, and they developed it, and then they would go to Indian Affairs and ask them for money that Indian Affairs was holding in trust for them. Indian Affairs looked at it and said, ``We do not like your project,'' and they would not give them the money. As it turned out, the project was successful with somebody else. How much of your money are they holding? Have you encountered this same type of problem?
Mr. Goodstriker: This happens all the time. The revenue fund is held at the Bank of Canada. The minister has exclusive discretionary power over how the band can access it. If you are pulling revenues from your community, it is deemed to go to the capital and revenue fund, the CRF. We all have to ask politely to access our own dollars. We do that, and have done that ever since the Indian Act deemed it that way. It is the glaring reality of what we have to do as First Nations communities in going forward.
In some situations, legislation has been created so that some bands can access it through their own accounts. Those come with accountability measures, and the bands are friendly to that. They want to see that. We have no problem supporting those types of dynamics. That is a stark reality of what our chiefs have to deal with.
Senator Sibbeston: I have a tremendous amount of respect for business. I think it is a higher endeavour and calling than just getting a job, because you are marshalling your skills, organization, discipline, focus and determination in order to be successful.
I would like to hear your opinion. You sit here in Ottawa and perhaps see the entire national scene. You have the advantage, probably, of going to all parts of the country. In the last 10 to 15 years, I have seen the phenomenon of Aboriginal people getting into business. It is a tough calling. My uncle used to say that to be a good businessman you need a heart of steel. It is a dog-eat-dog world out there. You have to be tough in order to succeed. I have been in business, but I had to learn. By nature, I am gentle. I am conscious of not offending somebody, and I am not aggressive when it comes to economics and business. I have had to learn that in the business world, that is par for the course. That is the way you have to be to be successful.
In Canada, is this phenomenon we are seeing of Aboriginal people getting into business simply the result of Aboriginal people being educated? Is it the result of Aboriginal people suddenly realizing that we have no choice and we have to get into the industrial world like anybody else, or else we will go under? To what would you ascribe this phenomenon of Aboriginal people getting into business? How would you describe it?
Mr. Goodstriker: After years and years of just being band members, one thing has happened. Many of our membership have gone on to university, in staggering numbers from where we were 15 or 20 years ago. In the late 1970s, we had a handful of 50 or 60 graduates from university, and now we are closing in on 30,000 across the country. I am not doing justice to the exact numbers. They are way up there.
It is the product of progress.
Economic development and jobs have always been there. Moms and dads have had to bring home paycheques throughout our existence. They have had to provide a living for their families. The real speed bump we have run into has only been around for the last 30 years, which is dealing with the after-effects of the social welfare system. We have had a hard time with that, but we are starting to come out of it. Through education and progress, the chiefs and community leaders have knowledge of what it means. We are starting to relive that life again.
I have been involved in a couple of corporations, one of which is the Blood Tribe agriculture and irrigation project. We provided 400 jobs over 12 or 13 years for First Nations members.
Families are most important when it comes to succeeding on a project. The pride is immeasurable, and the children are affected by seeing their parents coming home with paycheques. That is economic development. That is as basic as it gets, but something we are all trying to work towards is to have healthy families and grow healthy people. That is what economic development can do for us.
The Chairman: Senator Segal and I were at a Foreign Affairs meeting last night. It was pointed out to us by the ambassador in Rome that 3 trillion euros have been spent on 14 million people in East Germany, and they were still only halfway through. That is an indication of how much it takes to bring a group of people back into the economic flow of things. I was shocked at the amount. It is an indication of how much work we have to do as Canadians to make certain that you share in the economy and the well-being of this country the way you should.
We thank you very much for your presentation. There is a possibility that we may be getting back to you through our researchers to fine-tune some of the information that we cannot possibly handle in a meeting like this. I hope you will be prepared to work with us, Chief Goodstriker, in that capacity.
Mr. Goodstriker: Most definitely. I thank you. In closing, I acknowledge your comments in regards to the international scene. Internationally, everybody knows the Red Indian. Internationally, we want to walk a strong road as Canadians and we want to succeed. We do not want to live with a black eye, where another country would look at us as Canadians and say, ``Is that how they are treated or is that their situation?'' We do not want to wake up to that. We want to succeed. Industry is changed now. We have more players. We are starting to be involved industry. We are starting to do things, and we want to continue walking that road.
The Chairman: I can assure you, chief, I know all the members on this committee, the Senate members who work on this committee, and that is where their heart and soul lies, in ensuring you have your rightful place in our society. Thank you.
Our next panel of witnesses is from the National Aboriginal Forestry Association: Lorraine A. Rekmans, Executive Director; and Harry Bombay, Director of Strategic Initiatives.
Welcome to our Senate committee meeting. We presume that you have a presentation that you would like to make. After you have made your presentation, the senators may wish to question you on it. However, if it is perfect, you may not get any questions. Should it be close to perfection, you will still get a lot of questions.
Lorraine A. Rekmans, Executive Director, National Aboriginal Forestry Association: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, distinguished senators, for the invitation to be here today.
On behalf of NAFA, we are pleased to represent a First Nation-controlled, non-profit NGO. We have had a number of discussions in the last week or so about how NGOs are marginal organizations, especially Aboriginal non- governmental organizations. We are in a category all our own.
We have our unique challenges when we look at the role that NGOs play in the context of nation building. I think one of the senators touched on it earlier when he said institutions are required to support governance, and to support good governance, you need good institutions.
To begin, I would like to give you an overview of NAFA. We have been around since 1991. We are incorporated as a non-profit. There was a meeting in British Columbia where First Nations called for some type of institution or organization to deal specifically with forest policy issues, looking at how Aboriginal and treaty rights could be represented effectively in forest policy.
In discussions preparing for this submission, we looked at some of the big questions about why Aboriginal people are underrepresented in the forest sector and what are some of the barriers.
The issue goes back quite a way, but it was not until 1991 that NAFA was incorporated.
Our members are First Nations, tribal councils and other Aboriginal organizations. We have some Aboriginal- owned forest enterprises, entrepreneurs, educational institutions, academic types and individuals who are members of our association. We have different classes of membership. However, we are essentially First Nation-controlled and our board of directors represents the regions of Canada.
Many of the people who are involved with NAFA see Aboriginal involvement in the forest sector as fundamental to the development of First Nation communities. In our view, meaningful participation in the forest sector is not just an opportunity to improve our economic conditions; it is also the most direct means by which we can retain our relationship with the land.
It is also a way for us to utilize and protect our people's traditional knowledge and derive benefits that will foster cultural retention and social harmony.
These are points that NAFA has made in correspondence with the Minister of Industry through the economic development round table that was held in December of 2004. NAFA participated in that discussion, in concert with other parties, including industry.
Our concern was that Aboriginal forestry issues not be looked at solely within the context of economic development. Those issues were connected to other issues, such as health, education, culture.
Sustainable development in the forest sector is our priority, as our relationship with the land is strongly linked to the preservation of biological diversity and ecological functions and services provided by healthy forests. As forestry continues to evolve and change in Canada, we recognize that the scope of issues becomes broader. As an organization we are now dealing with issues like climate change. There are new issues emerging, such as the discussion around biofuels, non-timber forest products, protection for traditional ecological knowledge, and even issues of food security and proprietary access to non-timber forest products.
Just briefly, before Mr. Bombay proceeds with all the nuts and bolts of the presentation, I want to say that our primary objective as an organization is to work with people in Canada, other stakeholders, industry, governments and academics, to build a policy framework that enables First Nation communities to effectively participate in the forest sector and all that it encompasses.
This is a complex matter, as it involves various levels of governmental jurisdiction, institutional arrangements that strongly favour the established industry players, changing public views on how forests should be managed, and the reliance on science in forest research to find solutions to pressing forest sector issues.
Our presentation today will focus on several of the key forest management and forest sector issues and describe their impact on Aboriginal communities, and we will suggest the types of actions necessary to accelerate Aboriginal participation in sustainable forest management.
Harry Bombay, Director, Strategic Initiatives, National Aboriginal Forestry Association: I would like to break my discussion down in terms of some of the key issues in the forest sector now, beginning with economic issues and the established industry in Canada. We all know this is an important sector in Canada, constituting 3 per cent of our GDP. There are 1 million jobs in the sector, both direct and indirect. We know that the competitive position of the industry in Canada today is decreasing as a result of rising wood supply, labour, energy and environmental costs. Added to that is the rising Canadian dollar, which has caused problems, in particular in trade with the U.S.
These types of conditions are responsible for much of the industry change at this time. We see much change in how the industry operates. We see more contracting out of services by large companies and mergers and acquisitions occurring daily within the forest sector. For example, in Ontario, eight companies use approximately 90 per cent of the wood, while in 1991, 24 companies processed 90 per cent of the wood.
We have had many mill closures and other changes in the industry. However, the key players in the sector, namely, government and industry, are determined to maintain industry competitiveness, and the federal government is supportive of that. In the recent budget, $400 million was identified for the forest sector. We have recently had a new framework agreement on softwood lumber with the U.S., although it has not yet been ratified. These kinds of developments are among the major issues that will determine forest policy in Canada for years to come.
The impact on Aboriginal communities of the changes occurring in the industry means that we must deal more with the private sector companies on the use of resources. Because these companies are larger, they have more forest management responsibility delegated to them by provincial governments, and Aboriginal people have to talk to them about key issues of forest resource use.
Aboriginal people find themselves largely entrenched in certain aspects of the industry; that is, logging, silviculture and firefighting. We find that our businesses are not much involved on the processing side. Aboriginal people do own a few mills across the country. However, generally speaking, Aboriginal people are not involved in the downstream marketing, promotion and distribution of forest products, and this is an area we have to get into.
Government is supporting science and technology initiatives and forest research programs and, by doing that, further abetting and entrenching the dominance of the existing forest industry.
The industry package that the government produced does not do much for the Aboriginal community in the forest sector. In fact, it may have the effect of further excluding us from some of the key areas of growth in the sector.
Our future is impacted by how government supports industry, and we think it is important that government consider Aboriginal issues — our traditional uses of the land and other interests we have in the land, including on the economic side — in the development of policies and things such as the framework agreement on softwood lumber trade with the U.S.
We have other issues to deal with in the forest sector, including environmental issues. The cumulative impacts of development across the country — agriculture conversion, forest harvesting, access roads, mining, petroleum development, hydro, et cetera — all have effects on the forests and on Aboriginal people.
Ms. Rekmans mentioned climate change. We believe that climate change issues around mitigation and adaptation strategies should be addressed in the forest management context and that Aboriginal people should be involved in those strategies.
Forest conservation is another major issue on the environmental side that is causing much concern lately. Environmental groups in Canada are heralding forest conservation as the answer to all environmental issues. It does address issues of biodiversity, water filtration and carbon storage. However, there are downsides from the point of view of Aboriginal people in terms of the pressure it might put on natural forests through the taking up of land, thereby reducing Aboriginal use. Also, conservation measures have had the effect of increasing fire and insect infestation risks across the country.
There are NGOs pushing the Canadian Boreal Initiative. They are suggesting that 50 per cent of the boreal forests be set aside as parks and protected areas. The impact of this on Aboriginal communities would be enormous, in that their use of traditional territories would probably be reduced by 50 per cent.
We want to make the point that the dependence of Aboriginal communities on forest resources makes them particularly vulnerable to environmental change and changes in forest land use. Therefore, Aboriginal communities should be strongly supported in their efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change and they should be involved in forest and biodiversity conservation initiatives as key players.
The engagement of Aboriginal communities in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies or biodiversity conservation initiatives begins with Aboriginal communities themselves undertaking key research, particularly with respect to their traditional land use and occupancy. This is needed for effective Aboriginal participation.
Another area with which we are currently concerned within the forest sector is non-timber forest products. We believe there is a great deal of potential for Aboriginal communities to get involved in using certain non-timber forest resources to develop products. I do not think enough development work has been done in these areas.
I am talking about such things as natural foods, medicinal plants, herbs, floral greenery, decorative craft products, landscaping products, maple syrup, mushrooms, wild rice and berries. Aboriginal people have some advantages in terms of commercialization of those things, but it becomes a question of access to these resources so that they can be developed.
Another growth area, and one that we must again look at from the Aboriginal point of view, is the development of forest bio-products. These products are derived from the use of biotechnology and natural resources — basically forest biomass. They include many pharmaceuticals, biofuels, recycled products, bio-pesticides and other such things.
There is a lot of controversy in some of these areas, particularly when it involves genetic engineering, which is basically the transfer of genes between organisms. The controversy here revolves around ethical and legal questions about genetically modified organisms, GMOs, which can have an adverse impact on natural ecosystems, biodiversity and, ultimately, the people who live in those ecosystems. For a large part of Canada, that is Aboriginal people.
While there are opportunities in this area, there are also dangers. From the point of view of Aboriginal people, there is a great deal of research and study that must go on to determine appropriate approaches to involvement in the biotechnology area.
An example of what I am talking about is eastern yew. You may know about eastern yew. It is a plant used by Aboriginal people for medicinal purposes. It is now being harvested by large corporations in Canada to produce an element used in chemotherapy treatment for cancer. It is an example of an Aboriginal plant that has been used to the benefit of some large companies without appropriate benefits to Aboriginal peoples.
I will now cut to the chase. All of these types of activities are now going on in what is called the emerging forest sector. I say ``the emerging forest sector'' because there is now a decreasing importance being placed on what has been known as the traditional forest industry as opposed to value-added processing, including forest bio-products and other types of uses of the forest. This is causing shifts within the institutional arrangements that shape the forest sector, that is, legislation, tenure arrangements, forest practices and other things are undergoing some change right now within provincial governments. As these changes occur, it is important that Aboriginal issues be brought into focus.
There is opportunity now in the industry, and I talk about the industry broadly here. If certain things are done, Aboriginal people can reap some of those benefits. As Ms. Rekmans mentioned earlier, the matter of Aboriginal treaty rights comes into play here.
Supreme Court decisions in Canada have dealt primarily with forestry issues. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but major court cases such as Delgamuukw, Halfway River, Haida, Bernard and Mikisew have been about resource use and the denial of Aboriginals of the use of their land or the infringement of their rights to their land. That is what has come before the Supreme Court.
The courts have said that there is a Crown duty to consult specifically with First Nations. The Crown must act honourably in its dealings with First Nations. Aboriginal rights and interests are to be accommodated in certain circumstances. Governments' power to manage lands and resources must be reconciled with Aboriginal interests and with broader public interests.
There is some broad direction there for governments to follow in terms of land and resources issues.
To this point, institutional arrangements in the forest sector have not addressed Aboriginal treaty rights. There are exceptions in some of the land claim areas, for example, in the North. The new relationships being negotiated and implemented in British Columbia are beginning to look at how such things as forest tenure, stumpage issues and revenue sharing have to change to address Aboriginal forest interests.
However, in most of the country, governments have been quite silent. They have been reluctant to recognize that Aboriginal rights do have this economic element and that they should be reflected where they exist, which basically is in the forests.
There is a key intergovernmental role that the federal government should play in terms of supporting First Nations' negotiations with provincial governments with respect to lands and resource use.
I would like to suggest three areas where we can start. The first is forest research. New institutional arrangements for the forest sector will have to be well thought out. They will have to be based on science, traditional knowledge and much of the past experience in the forest sector. Right now, governments in Canada spend over $300 million annually on forest research. Less than 0.2 per cent of those forest research dollars go to Aboriginal forest research issues. We need a research capacity so that Aboriginal people can play a key role in the development of new institutional arrangements.
The only federal program that supports First Nations participation in the forest sector is the First Nations Forestry Program, which is a joint program of Indian Affairs and the Canadian Forest Service, part of Natural Resources Canada. It is a five-year program with a budget of less than $5 million per year for the entire country. This program is to sunset March 31, 2008. It has been a successful program on a project-by-project basis. However, it has not addressed some of the key issues that First Nations communities have.
It does not deal with forest research. It does not address the capacity-building needs in First Nations communities so that they can take advantage of some of the forest sector opportunities. It does not deal with sustainable forest management of Indian reserve forests. Indian reserve forests are clearly a federal issue and one that Indian Affairs does not address in any way at this time.
These three areas are some of the key starting points we could raise collectively with the current government.
The key point we would like to make is that institutional support for Aboriginal forestry, including policy, organizational and research support, is vastly inadequate. We are hopeful that this committee will help make this point.
In closing, I will refer to a couple of studies that have been done that echo some of the things that we have just said. The first is entitled, Boreal Futures: Governance, Conservation and Development in Canada's Boreal. It is a 2005 report of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. It made seven key recommendations. Two of the seven recommendations on forest management dealt with Aboriginal issues. One was on capacity building and the other was on institutional development support.
Another key document that we would ask you to review is from Canada's National Forest Strategy, 2003-08, entitled, A Sustainable Forest, the Canadian Commitment. In that document, under theme 3, which is entitled, ``Rights and Participation of Aboriginal Peoples,'' there are several key recommendations and action items. They deal with some of the key issues, including rights, capacity and institutional development.
The National Forest Strategy document was developed by forest stakeholders, not necessarily governments alone. We find a lack of government commitment to implementing the National Forest Strategy. We would ask you to review it and, perhaps, identify key areas where you feel the government is not making any commitment. We can help you with that.
NAFA has done several other studies over the years. They deal with many of the issues we have raised here tonight. We can make those available to you at any time.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation.
I happen to be from British Columbia, Mr. Bombay, so I am familiar with what is happening out there. I can tell fellow senators that considerable progress is being made. The present Government of British Columbia is working with the federal government in trying to make certain that Aboriginals are in a position to capitalize on the resources of the forest industry.
I think the $400 million you referred to in the budget, or most of it, was basically earmarked for the pine beetle infestation.
Senator Sibbeston: Is the involvement of Aboriginal people in the forestry industry dependent, in part, on the First Nations' interest in traditional lands that they can leverage with government and the industry to ensure that they participate in the business? If so, has it been set, or is it evolving so that there will be more opportunity in the future for Aboriginal people to be even further involved in the industry?
Ms. Rekmans: We made the point in our presentation that most of the instruments that enable First Nation participation in forest development do not necessarily accommodate Aboriginal rights and interest in the lands. Someone talked about equity positions. I have experience in working with communities that try to assert their rights in their traditional territory and use that as a form of equity to engage industry in a partnership, basically to no avail. We are finding that the existing instruments do not necessarily enable Aboriginal participation in that way. We are looking at economic relationships primarily, and not equitable relationships, we might add.
When we look at the mountain pine beetle situation in British Columbia, we are seeing short-term, unsustainable tenures being allocated in response to that crisis.
Some research has been done that looks at relationships. A paper by Peggy Smith and Monique Ross talks about how, at times, these industrial relationships create a lot of division in communities. There is sometimes conflict at the community level whereby people might see their interest in their traditional territories as a collective and a communal right, which is at odds with the concepts of privatization and entrepreneurial development. In private enterprise, these things do not fit well together.
When we talk about research, we think it is critical to look at these questions in great detail. What is culturally appropriate when we talk about economic development? What kinds of instruments are necessary to enable healthy and equitable relationships?
We have a difficult time tracking Aboriginal participation. We submitted a paper to senators for review in which we tried to assess the baseline of where Aboriginal people are in the forest sector. How do we measure and track that? Part of the commitment to closing the gap includes a responsibility to figure out where we are so we can see how far we have come and measure progress that way.
Mr. Bombay: I think the interest is evolving. Different communities take different approaches to forestry, depending on where they are and what their relationship with the industry has been over the years. Southern areas are more involved with the industry, and the North is more about traditional use. The significant point is that First Nations people require a degree of control over their traditional territories so that traditional and contemporary aspects can be balanced from their perspective and they can derive economic and social benefits from the use of that land.
Senator Sibbeston: I believe the area in B.C. you were thinking about, Senator St. Germain, is the Great Bear Rainforest, which has been set aside in cooperation with First Nations, environmentalists and forest companies. This just happened last winter. There is a large area in the middle of B.C. that has been set aside with the cooperation of all the parties mentioned. That is a good sign.
I think B.C. has made progress in this area. Do you see signs in other parts of the country or other provinces that Aboriginal people could, in the future, have much greater involvement in the forest industry?
Mr. Bombay: As you know, each province has different approaches. For example, in Quebec, it is about government-to-government agreements, such as with the James Bay Cree. There are several other agreements in Quebec. Others take a kind of industrial approach, such as in Saskatchewan, where First Nations hold some of the forest management agreements. Well, there is one, plus the promise of another.
B.C. is, by far, the one jurisdiction recognizing the key issue of First Nations' rights. That is quite different. That is reflected in their treaty process, their inter-measures agreements, and now their forest arrangement agreements in this new document that the chairman referred to, which is guiding the relationships between the First Nations and the B.C. government when it comes to forestry.
Senator Segal: Thank you very much for that presentation, both the overview and the specifics. I want to ask three questions.
From my sense of the documentation and your own organization's report with respect to Aboriginal-held forest tenures, the organization's focus is on Aboriginal participation in industry and ownership, not necessarily in the number of Aboriginal Canadians employed in the industry. I would be interested in knowing if you have any sense grosso moto how many Aboriginal Canadians now depend on the industry for some measure of employment or regular income.
We have been doing a lot of work in the Agriculture Committee on the forestry issue as it relates to biofuels and forest waste products. We are coming up to an institutional problem, which is that the automobile industry wants to produce cars that run on these fuels, and there are all kinds of reasons to do so, but the oil companies are not so excited about these fuels. There seems to be a market failure and an opportunity for co-ops, Aboriginal groups and others to engage in the system. In the U.S., the large range of stations built for ethanol have been built, essentially, by grain producers and others who have an interest in the survival of that new fuel. Has your organization had a chance to reflect on any of those issues to do with waste products associated with forests?
If this committee could get the government of the day to do one thing it is not now doing, or, conversely, to stop doing one thing it is doing, that would have the most impact on the interests you represent so ably here this evening, what would that be? Please do not say a study, a commission, research.
Do not get caught up in the Ottawa bureaucratic mentality because it will kill us all. Beyond that, what would it be?
Ms. Rekmans: I would like to respond to the first question, Mr. Bombay will respond to the question on biofuels and, if we may, each of us will have a crack at the third question.
I want to talk a little about how we measure success. We had significant challenges with the tenure paper because we were trying to standardize a report across many jurisdictions. We had to come up with criteria and ask what the test would be and what the level of participation in decision making would be. Essentially, that is what we would envision as a healthy relationship. We set out classes to try to define that. We put people into certain categories.
It comes down to the issue of indicators of success, which are critical. We have difficulty with one item — Canada's criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management in a document developed by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. In it, Canada sets out to define ``sustainable forest management'' and to paint a picture of what that looks like. The document contains a criterion that deals with Aboriginal issues and treaty rights. We met with little success in trying to influence the indicators, because that is where we think the rubber hits the road, so to speak, or where we can actually begin to measure something. Indicators are critical and Aboriginal involvement in developing appropriate indicators is essential.
Mr. Bombay: Part of your question dealt with employment. We estimate that approximately 15,000 Aboriginal people are employed in the forest sector. Although we do not have the indicator or the kind of information that Ms. Rekmans spoke of, we think that other than Aboriginal governments and the Aboriginal public service, as you might call it, the forest sector is the largest employer of Aboriginal people in Canada. However, as I said, we do not have reliable data on that. I pointed out earlier that we are mainly in the low-skill labour kind of work such as tree planting and firefighting, not the lucrative processing, marketing or distribution kinds of jobs also available in the forest sector.
In the document, we distinguish between Aboriginal-held tenures and Aboriginal-forest tenures. Aboriginal-held tenures are industrial harvesting licences granted by provincial governments. We see a need in this country for an Aboriginal-forest tenure that would allow First Nation forest values to be the primary forest management objective, and that is different. We have had only three or four Aboriginal-forest tenures in this country, and we hold about 120 licences for other kinds of harvesting contracts.
On your second point, with respect to biofuels and the use of bio-products, the forest industry is using quite a lot of its waste for its own energy generation in some of the mills that are still operating. There is also much greater use of bio-pesticides in controlling certain insects. The industry is feeding itself in that respect, but in terms of its widespread use for automobiles, I do not think there are proper government incentives for going in that direction right now.
With respect to Aboriginal people in the forest sector, if I had a wish it would be that the federal government, in one way or another, would coerce the provinces into implementing a process of resource access for First Nations. In other words, come up with this kind of Aboriginal-forest tenure and grant it widely to First Nations so they could develop their own economies. It will never be done on reserve lands because most of them are no bigger than a large farm. How could 700 people live off what one non-Aboriginal person farms?
Ms. Rekmans: We had some time to dream about a perfect world when we put together the National Forest Strategy, and there is quite an extensive wish list in theme 3. I spent much of my time thinking about the capacity question because it factors into everything else, such as the duty of consultation and the honour of the Crown, which is at stake. It always comes down to the question with whom does the Crown consult? We have to have the capacity on the other side of the table to deal with the issues. We have to have the foresters, the biologists and the ecologists to make decisions on behalf of the communities. In response, I would say a commitment to institutional support and capacity building for the forest sector in the Aboriginal community.
Senator Peterson: My sense is that you view harvesting the forest differently than a company such as CANFOR would view it. You said that 0.2 per cent of the research funding goes into Aboriginal forest research. Are you looking for separate guidelines or structures to facilitate this?
Mr. Bombay: Yes, that is what we are looking for. The Aboriginal forest values and the importance they attach to traditional use, with their social and cultural practices, mean that they will manage for different purposes. It might be for the medicines or the plants of the forest. Those management objectives may differ from simply reaping X cubic meters of wood per hectare of land, as forest companies do. The priorities would be different, but that is not to say we would not harvest wood. Many communities are dependent on that and would be prepared, if they had access to resources, to enter into wood supply agreements with non-Aboriginal companies, provided the forest tenure they receive allows them to meet some of their social and cultural goals as well.
Senator Peterson: Are you a stand-alone organization? What is your relationship with the First Nations of each province?
Ms. Rekmans: I will give you some background. NAFA was created in 1991 and supported by a resolution of the Assembly of First Nations. Currently, we are in the process of negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the AFN. We are a non-governmental, non-profit, non-partisan association. We have 380 First Nation members across the country and our board of directors is elected by our First Nation membership in the regions across Canada. We are an independent NGO.
Mr. Bombay: We have worked for the last 12 to 15 years jointly with AFN on a number of issues and completed joint position papers. I have accompanied several of the national chiefs on speaking engagements and that kind of activity. When the forestry sector had to be addressed, we worked jointly on many issues.
We have turned to the AFN for political support from time to time, depending on the issue. We have done that on a host of different issues over time.
The working relationship has been good. The MOU that Ms. Rekmans spoke of is an attempt to formalize that relationship.
The Chairman: I would like to thank the witnesses. As a former federal Minister of Forestry, I am cognizant of the challenges that are out there. As was pointed out during your presentation, the Delgamuukw decision and many of the decisions coming down from the courts have clarified a great many issues for our Aboriginal peoples.
It is a complex situation because in many cases, the resources are controlled by our provinces. Mr. Bombay and Ms. Rekmans said that we should ``coerce'' our provincial colleagues into working closely with us. I was born in Manitoba, but I lived in British Columbia for most of my life, that is where I was elected as a member of Parliament and it is the region I represent now. We are making great strides in dealing with our Aboriginal issues. I know that in the North, where Senator Sibbeston is from, tremendous strides are being made. We worked on the Tlicho bill and with various other nations there, such as the Gwich'in and the Sahtu.
The future is promising. I want to thank you for your presentation here today. As I said to the AFN, it is possible we may be getting back to you for further information because you cannot cover everything in a meeting of this nature. I hope we will not be presumptuous in having our researchers talk to your organization or to you two to further our study and ensure we do the best we can for our Aboriginal peoples.
Ms. Rekmans: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would be happy to do that.
The Chairman: Are honourable senators satisfied?
We have some housekeeping to do. There is a proposed update of our economic development study to put on our website. You have received copies of it. It is consistent with the terms of reference. I would like a motion that we update this. Would one of you so move?
It was moved by Senator Peterson, seconded by Senator Sibbeston. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. At the next meeting we will be dealing with budgetary items. I thank you for your patience in expediting these proceedings.
The committee adjourned.