Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 2 - Evidence - Meeting of March 24, 2010
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:50 p.m. to examine the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: perspectives on the Gitxsan Alternative Governance Model).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. I would like to welcome all honourable senators, members of the public and all viewers across the country who are watching these proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or on the web.
I am Senator St. Germain, from British Columbia. I have the honour and privilege of chairing this committee.
The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, generally. This gives the committee a broad scope to look into issues of all types that touch on matters of concern to First Nations, Metis and Inuit.
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to hear evidence on a matter involving the Gitxsan Nation. The traditional territory of the Gitxsan Nation encompasses approximately 33,000 square kilometres in Northwestern British Columbia, along the upper reaches of the Skeena and Nass rivers. The population comprises approximately 13,000 members. The traditional governance system of the Gitxsan remains very strong. Alongside this traditional system exists a band council system.
Members will recall that last December we heard from witnesses from the Gitxsan Treaty Society who spoke to us about their Gitxsan alternative governance model. Their proposal would remove the Gitxsan from the Indian Act and eliminate registered Indian status, reserve land basis and the Indian Act government. The proposal, which falls outside the standard treaty model, has attracted national attention, to say the least.
The purpose of today's meeting is to obtain a briefing concerning the alternative governance model by those who are critical of the proposal advanced by the Gitxsan Treaty Society.
[Translation]
Before we hear our witnesses, I will introduce if I may the committee members who are here.
[English]
On my left, we have Senator Joyce Fairbairn, Senator Larry Campbell from British Columbia, and Senator Jacques Demers from the Province of Quebec. On my right is Senator Dennis Patterson from Nunavut, Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen from New Brunswick, Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick, and Senator Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witnesses and guests here tonight. We have Chief Marjorie McRae, from the Gitanmaax Band Council and Director of the Gitxsan Government Commission. With her is Geraldine McDougall, Gitxsan Hereditary Chief Spookw.
Chief McRae, if you have a presentation, please be so kind as to give it. It will be followed by questions from senators, if you agree to that. We would like you to keep your presentation as tight as possible — 10 minutes or so — to give more time for senators to ask pertinent questions.
Marjorie McRae, Chief, Director, Gitxsan Government Commission, Gitanmaax Band Council: Thank you.
[The witness spoke in her native language.]
First, I want to acknowledge the First Nations who are the traditional owners of this particular territory we are meeting on. I want to thank them for opening their territory for us to be here to speak to this Senate committee this evening. I also want to thank the Senate for the time that you have permitted for both Ms. McDougall and I to share with you some of the concerns and issues that we have within the Gitxsan territories surrounding the alternative governance.
I am the Chief Councillor for the community of Gitanmaax. We are one of the largest First Nation communities in Northwestern British Columbia. I have roughly 2,200 registered band members I am responsible for. For the purposes of the presentation this evening, I am also representing the communities of Glen Vowell, Kispiox, Gitwangak and the Gitxsan local services.
I am a member of the Gitxsan Government Commission. We are a four-member band, and we are the group that holds the agreement with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs for programs and services to all of our community members.
We understand that examinations of Canada's constitutional, treaty, policy and legal responsibilities to First Nations are currently underway. We are here today to give you the perspective of the Gitxsan people on Canada's obligations and its failure to honour these obligations while engaging in treaty negotiations. I am speaking more specifically about the Gitxsan alternative governance model.
The Gitxsan alternative governance model was tabled with both levels of government in May, I believe. That document was brought to the attention of the Gitxsan Government Commission in July. Shortly after, we had a legal analysis conducted on that document, and we asked the lawyers to examine the implications of that model for our grassroots people.
After that work was concluded, we started to have community meetings. We thought it was very important that our membership be advised and informed of what was being negotiated on their behalf. On a couple of occasions, we invited the Gitxsan Treaty Society, GTS, as well as the B.C. Treaty Commission, BCTC, to come to our public meetings.
We were never successful in having a public debate on the issue, because at any given meeting either BCTC or the GTS would not be able to be there. For information sharing and getting information out to the community members, we largely depended on face-to-face meetings in the community. We also put all the information on the Gitanmaax website, and then we also did mail-outs to all the off-reserve constituents.
Within the Gitxsan territories, we were very prosperous several years ago when we relied on the fishing and forest industries. However, over the years our economy, as you might know, has been very depressed. In the majority of our communities, we have 85 per cent to 90 per cent unemployment. You are probably also aware of the social challenges we have had over the past two years with our high suicide rates. On a continual basis we are dealing with social problems.
The message that has been shared with us, with respect to the alternative governance model, is that this will change our lives and it will change our lives for the good. We are here this evening to let the Senate know that we do not agree with that sentiment.
When the GTS did a presentation here in December, I had the good fortune of reviewing and critiquing the transcript where they mentioned they had overwhelming support for alternative governance. That is not true. I have documentation to prove that "overwhelming support'' is not accurate.
With respect to each of the band councils that I spoke of earlier, we have all submitted band council resolutions to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC. Four years ago, under the Indian Act regulations, Gitanmaax held a referendum. In the referendum, 69 per cent of those band members who voted, voted against the Gitxsan Treaty Society representing our interests, and they also voted against the treaty concept completely.
Over the past few years, my band council has tried very hard to get the ear of government to hear what we have to say concerning the whole treaty process. Unfortunately, we have fallen on deaf ears.
With respect to the referendum, we sent all our documentation off to INAC. A week or two later, they shipped everything back to my band saying there was a process in place and the hereditary chiefs were in charge of the treaty. We were not very pleased with the results of our efforts.
Over the past few months, we have felt no other recourse but to move into litigation. I believe GTS spoke about that in December. The unfortunate reality is that if we had some commitment or some level of comfort from all levels of government that we would not lose what we currently have, we would not move into litigation. It is a total waste of money. It is money that could more wisely be used in our communities to develop and create opportunities for our people.
Given that we live in Northwestern B.C., we are isolated and remote. Therefore, in many cases it is our responsibility to create those opportunities for our people. Personally, I have the good fortune of being in the education field; that is my background. I have worked in that field for over 21 years. Not only am I involved in politics, but I am also a front-line worker, and I deal with young people every day. I deal with suicide, I deal with poverty, and I deal with homelessness on a daily basis.
As I said earlier, I look at myself as being quite fortunate because I am able to deal with both of those sectors as best I can. When I have been given marching orders by the membership by way of a motion that I am to do whatever I can to prevent the alternative governance from becoming a reality, then that is what I have to do.
My community band council is very proactive. We have quarterly meetings with our membership; we have an active website; we have newsletters; we engage our off-reserve membership wherever possible in decision making; and we are open and transparent. On a number of occasions, INAC has used Gitanmaax as a best practices site. I take great pride in knowing that we are open and transparent and try to get feedback from our band members.
With regard to alternative governance, some of the big concerns my members have is the loss of their status, the loss of reserve lands and the loss of the bare bones safety net that we call the Indian Act. I would be the first to admit that there are challenges and problems with the Indian Act. I would be the first to admit that there are challenges and problems with reserve life. However, I also believe that we all need to collectively work together to improve on those situations. I do not believe that we need to throw things out. I think that things can be negotiated. I think that options can be examined with our people that will be best suited for our communities and in meeting the needs of our people back home.
With that, I will allow a bit of time to talk about the traditional aspect of the process, because the GTS says they are utilizing the hereditary structure and system to represent us.
Geraldine McDougall, Gitxsan Hereditary Chief Spookw, as an individual: My hereditary name is Spookw. I became a chief in 2002. When I became chief, I was invited to the Gitxsan Treaty Society to be part of the organization. Right off the bat, I was invited to go to a meeting in regard to a watershed. They wanted me to sign an agreement for a 99-year trust agreement. I said I could not sign a trust agreement that would affect my wilp members unless I go back to my wilp and ask them if it is possible. What does it entail? I was no longer invited to the meetings. They took the trust agreement to my aunt, and she signed the agreement.
There were many other situations. I became chief in October, and in November, I witnessed another situation where there was a sit-in at the treaty office. It was November 2002. A group of chiefs sat outside the building because they were dissatisfied with what was happening. With respect to the way they were treated, they were banned from the treaty society. Around 27 of them were banned. There was one chief, who is on the litigation now, Suu Dee. She was thrown to the floor, handcuffed and removed from the building. She is a hereditary chief. Over and over again, the treaty society says they are inclusive and include all hereditary chiefs. This is not true. How can they honestly say that they include all hereditary chiefs if this is the type of thing that is happening? That is why I am fighting for my people.
When my uncle chose me to take his name Spookw, he told me that when you become a chief, you do not only represent our wilp, you represent all Gitxsan. It is all the Gitxsan that you will represent. He left us February 25, 2010. When we did our chief's farewell, we reminded the people that we will continue our fight to defend the Gitxsan.
The treaty society says that we wish to cease to be Indian. I read this over and over again. I keep thinking, all of my life I have been non-status. My dad had to give up his status when he joined the army. We got our status back in 1985. He did not get his back until later because he wanted to do some food fishing. He could not food fish because he did not have his status card. He finally got his status back 20 years ago.
My dad always told us that anything that we would have to work hard for anything we wanted. It did not matter. We went to school and we were always treated differently by our own people and by the White people. It did not matter. If they took my status card away, I would still be Gitxsan. What difference will it make if they take our status away? I do not see the purpose in that.
I am a social worker. That is what I do. I am a front-line worker. Ms. McRae works in education and I am a social worker. We have the privilege of working on the front line with our people. We see the poorest of the poor. We hear how poor they are. Someone must speak for them. You take away their reserves, but that is their safety net. It is thrown back in my face that I want to keep them poor by having the reserves. That is not true. This is all they know.
Yes, the Indian Act needs improvement. Let us work on that. I do not believe that the treaty society was ever intended to be a business. They started out negotiating a treaty, and I never could understand that because we won the Delgamuukw case, which gave us the right to negotiate. The Haida Gwaii have been successful in using the Delgamuukw. We could be successful too. We could negotiate anything we want with the government if it is done properly. We have the forestry agreement. If it will benefit only the select few and will not flow down to the people, then something is wrong.
My understanding is that any government, just like the one in Ottawa, has an opposition. You have your little fights in Parliament, but you are all friends when you walk outside. That is the way it should be. In our feast system, we do the same thing. You might have a squabble, but if there is a death, we are supposed to be in the feast hall to do our business. None of this bad stuff comes inside. The politics stay outside. That is the way it is supposed to be. I have many concerns.
I saw the presentation made here by Mr. Gibson, who spoke as a Gitxsan, but he is not a Gitxsan. That really bothered me because he was speaking about the white paper. That is how I interpreted it. We do not need the white paper. It was turned down, I believe, in 1969. Why do we need that? No one is listening to us. I was so happy when Ms. McRae got the call that this group was willing to listen to us. I am truly honoured to have this privilege.
One more thing I want to add is that Canada is known to be open and tolerant. You recall the Sikh gentleman who finally was able to wear his turban and sword. It meant that he was able to be who he was. The Chinese are able to have their Chinatown. They still say they are Canadian. Why can we not be who we are? We were here first. Why do we have to give up who we are?
When they say we want to give up who we are, that is wrong. Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. McRae, you made reference to all the communities that oppose this. You said that you have about 2,000 people in your council. What is the total population of the communities that you say are opposed to the alternative governance model?
Ms. McRae: It is 7,560, to be exact.
The Chair: Is that out of a total of 13,000?
Ms. McRae: Yes. I have a copy of the band registries for Gitanmaax, Glen Vowell, Kispiox and Gitwangak. The membership for Gitanmaax is 2,155; for Glen Vowell, it is 390; for Kispiox, it is 1,508; and for Gitwangak, it is 1,134. The band council resolutions that we submitted to the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and to the BCTC represent their membership. I am going by INAC'S membership list.
The Chair: For clarification, it is my understanding that those who are part of the alternative governance model say that they are hereditary. How many wilps, houses, do you have in the Gitxsan Nation?
Ms. McDougall: We have 61 wilps, but mysteriously it has increased to 78.
The Chair: From your perspective, what percentage would you say are in favour of the alternative governance model?
Ms. McDougall: As a chief, I cannot speak for other wilps. I am not allowed to go to the meetings because I am opposed to them. However, when I went to the meetings they talked about how we deal with consensus. When we are at meetings, many people do not express their opinions or ask questions. Often that is considered consensus. My interpretation of that is that they think that is consensus. There are usually about maybe 40 to 45 people at a meeting.
The Chair: Do they vote?
Ms. McDougall: No, they do not vote.
The Chair: They do not vote by the raising of hands or anything?
Ms. McDougall: No.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Campbell: I would like to apologize to the witnesses for having to leave. A number of us had a vote, so if you have the idea that we are organized on the Hill, we are not. We should not be having the vote when we have witnesses before the committee. I apologize for that.
I have read your statement that we received. I have a couple of questions. Within your four clans, how are the wilps decided? Is the number of wilps in each of the four clans hereditary beyond our memory?
Ms. McDougall: It is since time immemorial.
Senator Campbell: I do not understand how it grew. If they have been since time immemorial, this must have been set up long before.
Ms. McDougall: We always had the wolf, the frog and the fireweed. Because of all the intermarriages happening in Kitwanga and Gitanyow, they let the eagles come in. We ended up having the eagles, too.
Senator Campbell: At one time, the eagles were of the other three clans.
Ms. McDougall: No, they were not. They were added. That is why we have the four.
Senator Campbell: I see. Can you tell us the main findings of the legal analysis that you had undertaken?
Ms. McRae: When we talked to the membership, they asked if we could get an analysis done on the implications of the document. There were a few key elements. First, the reserve as we know it today would be eliminated. Within a six- month time period, the land would become fee simple. The second issue was that our status would be gone. That is, we would no longer be status or have status under the Indian Act because the Indian Act would also be gone. We were told that all of the programs and services that we currently provide to our membership through the band council structure would be gone.
When I talked to the band membership about all the processes that would be eliminated, they had lots of questions about that, such as "What is going to happen to us? If all of this stuff becomes reality, what will happen to us?'' That is the biggest question right there that no one has answered. What will happen to us once the ink is dry?
Right now, regardless of what deals you make, it will not change the circumstances of the people. I firmly believe that if we want to deal effectively with our social problems, our suicide, and all of those issues, they have to be dealt with internally by us. We have to design and develop mechanisms for healing and for getting along with one another. I was telling Ms. McDougall that earlier today. I said, "You can throw as much money as you want at a problem, but the problem will not go away unless those who are suffering and hurting come up and develop what will be workable for them.'' For me, that is the key.
We have asked, "What will happen to us when the ink is dry?'' I am not concerned for myself, but I am really concerned for a good 85 per cent of my band members who do not have anything right now. If their land becomes fee simple, how will they cover those expenses? How will they take care of the different problems that come up in their lives?
Ms. McDougall mentioned earlier that we view the Indian Act, the reserve, and all of those things, as a modest safety net. That is how many of our people look at it now. It is a safety net that is being threatened right now, and there is nothing to take its place. We are being told that they want INAC to ship whatever money the band is currently receiving to the province and have the province deliver those services to our people. Tell me how that will work. How will it look? I have no doubt in my mind that the provincial government will not set up a separate process for us. They will not deal with us any differently than the way they are dealing with us right now.
Senator Campbell: I have to admit that I am confused after reading the document. Normally, First Nations who come before us cannot wait for the door to swing shut on the Indian Act and on Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. In four years, you are the first group to come here and express that INAC acts as a safety net and is actually beneficial to your people. I am having a little difficulty getting my head around all of that, because it would seem that everyone who has ever come before us has wanted to shut down that group, and you do not.
Ms. McRae: No. I have been criticized for that as well.
Senator Campbell: Believe me, I am not criticizing you.
Ms. McRae: No; I know that. However, I have been criticized for my position. That is fine. Where I am coming from is that when things are not working, it is best to look at it and to have your people look at it with you to decide how to fix it. Is that not right? That is where I come from. If it is not working, then you tell me how to fix it.
For example, in my community, I spent 21 years on council prior to becoming chief. I have now spent three consecutive terms as chief. My first order of business when I got into office was to develop policy. I wanted my band council to be open, transparent and fair. I wanted my band members to know that when they come to the band for help, it does not matter what their last name is or who they are; they will all be treated the same based on that policy. Every band member who goes to the band office knows that my name is McRae, so getting special treatment is not the way it works anymore.
I have told the members, "If something is not working, instead of being negative and ripping things apart, tell me how to fix it, and I will try and fix it.'' That is where I am with the Indian Act. That is all we know. Some people say it is a bad thing; some people say it is a good thing. That is not for me to decide. I would be really scared to have the responsibility if someone were to say, "Ms. McRae, you tell us what to do with the Indian Act for 2,100 people.'' No way. That is a huge responsibility to be affecting people's lives that way. That is how I view the alternative governance. I would never want the responsibility to affect a person's life in that way without asking them, "What do you think about that idea?''
That is why Ms. McDougall and I are here today, because we have not been asked, "What do you think about the alternative governance?''
Ms. McDougall: I would like to add that we kept asking the treaty society to tell us what they are going to do differently. Put it on the table; tell us. They were invited to a few communities and they left. As soon as people started asking questions, they would leave. They could not tell us. If you believe in something, you will put it on the wall and say, "Yes, this is our plan. This is what we will do better. This is what will be good for our people.''
There are many flaws in what they are proposing. How realistic is it to assume that governments will give us all our territories when they have given us the postage stamp with all the other treaties? You get the reserves. What is so special about us that they will give us all our territory? We will be the landlords, but we will give up our reserves. That is where all the people are living. It does not make sense to me.
Senator Hubley: I, too, will extend my apologies for arriving a bit late.
I am not sure whether it was Chief McRae or Chief McDougall who mentioned that the Indian Act needs improvement.
Ms. McDougall: We both said it.
Senator Hubley: Yes, I think so. Can you share with us some of the major issues that you are facing with the Indian Act now? We were looking at governance, but what changes would you recommend to the Indian Act to address that issue?
Ms. McRae: I can respond first. Thank you very much for that question. Not very often are we asked about what we think.
I really believe that accountability and transparency are important. The Auditor General's report of last year talked about the billions of dollars provided through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the small amounts that trickle down to the people. I am all for transparency and accountability.
If there were more flexibility in the Indian Act with respect to developing our own policies, we could work with the government on that. As I said, my first order of business when I was elected chief was to develop our policies. I am very supportive of five-year agreements. You would not believe the awesome things that we have been able to do because we were fortunate enough to have the five-year agreement. It allows us the flexibility to plan. Rather than planning year to year, I can plan five years in advance, and I can count on a specific amount of money for specific purposes. Flexibility in the Indian Act would be very helpful.
Another thing that would be extremely helpful is the ability to develop our own standards and policies and for them to be federal rather than provincial. I speak tirelessly on that issue at the AFN and at the summit. I am always advocating for that. I am always asking my colleagues: "Why are we not developing our own standards? Why are we not developing our own policies and processes that work for us?''
We do not need to be in a melting pot. That is what makes us unique. As Ms. McDougall said, Canada is well known for its openness around diversity. We are a very multicultural country, and that is awesome, but in some cases there is room for improvement and for us to be partners. None of us is going anywhere. We need to get along and do joint planning for the benefit of everyone.
I have been asking the hereditary chiefs why the band councils are not working collaboratively with the hereditary chiefs. We both have important roles to play and we are serving the same people.
Senator Raine: Could either of you explain to us what the role of the elected chief is, what the role of the hereditary chief is and what their jurisdictions are?
Ms. McRae: That is an awesome question. I know what my role is because I am reminded of it all the time.
I am elected chief under the Indian Act. My jurisdiction and my role are limited to the reserve. The role of the hereditary chiefs is land and resources, the fee system, the traditional structure. I view my role as elected chief more as being an extension of INAC with respect to delivery of programs and services in the most fair and equitable way possible for our membership, who are our constituents.
In the elected system we are very much limited to the reserve, and our jurisdiction is very much on the reserve. There is currently quite a bit of controversy with myself and my band council over one of our extended reserves. We have an ancient reserve that was amalgamated in 1947 between the Gitanmaax chiefs and the Kisgegas chiefs. Individuals who were not band members went to our ancient reserve and started to construct an administration building. Our band council disagreed with that. We had the building removed, and rather than determining whose jurisdiction starts and ends where, they turned it into elected band councils against the hereditary chiefs, which is untrue. We have the utmost respect for the hereditary structure and the hereditary chiefs. I believe that both have very important roles to play.
Ms. McDougall: As a hereditary chief I have to protect our territory. We all have our fishing holes and berry patches, and we know all our territory. I am also responsible for our wilps. When there is a death, I am responsible to ensure that our wilp member is buried properly.
The Chair: Chief, we are neutral on this. We are trying to figure out what is happening. We were asked to do this by Elmer Derrick, whom I have known, along with other Gitxsan people, since the days of Nisga'a. We heard one side, and in the wisdom of the committee it was determined that we should hear both sides. This is not a one-way street.
You spoke of 85 per cent to 90 per cent unemployment, suicide rates that are unacceptable, homelessness and social problems that are nearly unheard of elsewhere in Canada other than perhaps on other First Nations reserves.
You are living this. We are considering doing a study on education. You said, chief, that you are an educator. Is there a possibility that the solution lies in education?
The levels of unemployment in themselves are unacceptable, let alone the other problems. Getting rid of the Indian Act is like trying to move by hand an elephant that does not want to go.
What is your suggestion that this committee could consider or recommend? I hope you do not mind me asking you that question.
Ms. McRae: No, it is an awesome question. Education, training and capacity building are the key. I am a strong advocate of capacity building. Within the dynamics of my community I utilize all of my band members. I take great pride in saying that all of my employees are band members. If they do not possess the skill, we invest in capacity building. Education and training is the key because knowledge is power. Understanding also comes with knowledge. With the challenges we have in the community right now, this is so true. I live, breathe and eat this stuff every day.
A great number of our young people who have committed suicide were students at my school. We have been working tirelessly on a mentorship program, and we are trying to extend it to the other communities. In that way the young people decide themselves what is working, what is not working and how to fix it. I tell them that I am not here to fix it: You need to tell me how to fix it and I will help you help yourself. That is the key.
That is what the Senate needs to understand; that is what INAC needs to understand; that is what treaty people need to understand. We do not need money or people or things thrown at us. We need the opportunity to gain those tools and skills and examine what will work for us and get them from the grassroots people.
We see that prescribing remedies does not work. When I was talking to Ms. McDougall about this last night, I said one of the things I always find so troublesome, and I tell this to my students all the time, is the blaming. Stop the blame. We have all been hurt, myself included. I was a victim of abuse as a child, but you see where I am today, and this is what I tell my students: You see where I am today. We have to stop the blaming. If you want your life to be different and you want the lives of your children to be different, then you need to do something to change that, so pull up your bootstraps and get busy. Where does that start? It all starts from somewhere, and you need a knowledge base.
The culture, the stuff that Ms. McDougall is sharing, is the key to that, which means that the land is the key issue. Land is where everything comes from for the First Nations people. Once you empower the young people and show them what they are capable of doing, I have no doubt that things will change; I see that every day in my school. It is a matter of motivating people, empowering them and letting them know they can make things better for themselves. No one can come here and fix us. We must fix it and give everyone the tools they need to do it themselves. It is an issue of how I can help you help yourself. That, to me, is the key.
Throwing us out with the Indian Act or throwing out what little we have right now will not solve the problem because you are not getting at the root, and when you look at the suicide, all of the social problems that we have, I personally — this is my own opinion — attribute a lot of that to multi-generational abuse. There is a huge gap. It is not just First Nations who have these ills. It is across all society sectors. Sexual abuse and violence is not unique to First Nations people. It is across the board, but how do we deal with it? How do people deal with it? We will all have different methods and strategies of doing that, but it must come from the people.
The Chair: How long can we wait? We will lose another generation. Some will rise through all the obstacles, like you have, but how do we accelerate the process? How do we fill that gap? Inasmuch as there are problems in all levels of society, no other group has an ongoing unemployment level of 85 per cent to 90 per cent or a suicide problem that is unacceptable and basically horrific like that of the First Nations.
I am taking the liberty of asking you this, and I know you have come to speak to the governance issue and I should stay focused as the chairman on the issue, but we do not often get the opportunity to speak to the people, so I am taking this opportunity to ask you how we fill that gap. What should be done to properly get the show on the road?
Ms. McRae: We need to start talking and meeting, and people have to be open and willing to go outside the box. I am talking about INAC, the provincial government and all levels of government with the ability to create that change for us. We can make change happen collectively if we are given the opportunity to do that, which means we need flexibility. We need some flexibility in the Indian Act and in the way programs and services and policies and legislation are designed.
Why can we not be a part of that design? Those things are being designed for us. I ask my grandson what plans we have for the weekend. I do not say we are going to do this and this. I ask him what he wants to do on the weekend, and so then I am doing the stuff he would like to make him happy for those few days. In simple terms, that is what I am asking for. Why can we not be a part of designing those opportunities? Why can we not help you do that? Why can we not help the government do that? To me it is a win-win situation, because the government wants us to be accountable and transparent, and the Auditor General wants to see money is being spent properly. To me it is a win-win; we work together collectively. We design and create these opportunities for change. Change will not happen if we are all in our little private silos. Change will not happen. People have to be willing to go outside the paradigm as well.
Senator Demers: I was abused, so I know what you are talking about. Outside of Montreal, in Caughnawaga, which is Kahnawake now, I took a bunch of young kids who were running in the streets — and it is not all about me. When I finish you will understand what I am trying to say — and who did not know where to go, and we made a championship team where all the province of Quebec talked about those — at the time they used the word "Indian'' — kids. We know that.
The most important thing I found was to give them structure. Money does not make it all the time. I have seen it. I went on the Indian reserve and saw how it was, and it was booze and all kinds of stuff, and the most important thing I found was we gave them hope.
If the government was to give a bunch of money, then who knows. I am totally for this, and that is why I am on this committee, but we have to give the kids hope and structure and give them a situation where they know there is something at the end that will be positive. Young women and young men are committing suicide. I went to schools across Canada to talk, and the first thing they would say is, "Coach, we do not have any hope.'' We have to give them hope.
Land, money, those are all wonderful things, but we need structure too. Do you know Joé Juneau, the hockey player who went up and North and spent time with the kids and sacrificed? He is a multi-millionaire. He played in the NHL, just to remind you, but he went there, had structure, gave the kids hope and took them off the street. It is not possible to do that in every case, but that is what we need, to have structure and give hope that something good could happen to them.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have heard from both sides now. I would say that we should discuss in camera, possibly, whether we continue with this particular issue.
At this time, I would personally like to thank the chief and Ms. McDougall, also the hereditary chief, for their excellent presentation and for their candid, straightforward and honest responses.
We could go on asking you questions about the social dilemma. I think that hopefully in the heart of hearts of those seeking an alternative they are including everyone and that would be for the better. However, it is not for us to judge. We can only hear the evidence. We will, as a committee, discuss it further in camera, as we often do on certain issues.
With that, thank you again. Travel safely. There may come a day that we as a committee will come up to the Gitxsan Nation. Some of us, such as Senator Campbell and Senator Raine and others who have travelled up there, know how beautiful it is. Look after it. We wish you all the very best.
Ms. McRae: Just before we leave, I did mention to the committee clerk that we will send you a package. In that package, we will provide all of the documentation to substantiate what we have said today with regard to the opposition to the alternative governance, our band council resolutions, our referendum information and the petitions and things like that. We will get that all sent off.
I thank each and every one of you for your time. I appreciated the questions, because it is not very often that we have the opportunity to share with people what we think. I am hopeful. I totally agree that what is lacking is hope. However, hope only comes with change, and change only comes when people are willing to make that happen. We want that to happen. We want to do it in a good way so it is long-lasting. Thank you for your time and for inviting us here today.
The Chair: It is important that we heard both sides of the story. I thank senators for their participation in this very contentious but important debate.
Are there any other questions or comments, colleagues?
Senator Raine: Just before you leave, would you mind bringing us up to date with the legal action in the B.C. Supreme Court?
Ms. McRae: As I mentioned in some of my opening comments, we had tried to utilize the processes that were afforded to us through the Indian Act with the referendum and the band council resolutions and things like that. Unfortunately, those did not go anywhere.
With the litigation, we are hoping, along with the hereditary chiefs, to prevent this alternative governance from becoming a reality. That is the key. I have a motion from the membership that says that we are to take whatever means necessary to protect the people and the reserve. That is why we have moved into the litigation. As I said earlier, it is unfortunate, but if people are not willing to work with us and to hear what we have to say, then sometimes there is no alternative but to go down that road. The judge agreed with our statement of claim a month and a half ago. From what we understand now, it is with the court registry to determine which judge will have enough time for the trial. They estimated 3.5 days or something like that.
Senator Raine: Good luck.
Ms. McRae: Thank you.
Ms. McDougall: I would like to thank you as well.
The Chair: You are most welcome, Chief Spookw.
Ms. McDougall: Can I tell you what my name means? When I asked my uncle what my name means, he said that when Spookw ran away from the territory they came from because of a murder, Spookw was out of breath when he got to the top of the hill. My uncle said, "Since you talk so much and get out of breath, you were chosen and given that name.''
The Chair: All right. Senators, we will suspend for three or four minutes, and then we will go in camera for a very short session.
(The committee continued in camera.)