Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 23 - Evidence - September 26, 2012
SASKATOON, Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:14 a.m. to examine and report on the legal and political recognition of Metis identity in Canada.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I would like to welcome all the honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. They will be either watching in the audience here or on CPAC or possibly the web.
I am Gerry St. Germain from British Columbia, chair of your committee, originally born and raised in British Columbia and out in the Promised Land now.
We are very happy to embark on a series of hearings and fact-finding that takes us out of Ottawa to meet with Canadians from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. We are traveling as part of a study on Metis identity. We are very impressed with the amount of engagement in the Metis community, and appreciative of your efforts to attend to testify before us here today.
The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada generally. Today we will continue to explore Metis issues, particularly those relating to the evolving legal and political recognition of the collective identity and the rights of the Metis in Canada
[Translation]
Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to introduce the members of the committee here today.
To my right, the deputy chair from Saskatchewan, Senator Lillian Dyck. Right next to her, from British Columbia, we have Senator Nancy Greene Raine. To my left is Senator Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories.
[English]
Before we go any further, we have a bit of procedural business. We need a motion to allow for video by journalists in the room.
Senator Dyck: I so move.
The Chair: So moved by Senator Dyck and seconded by Senator Sibbeston.
All in favour? Opposed, if any? None.
Carried unanimously.
Members of the committee, our first panel is from the Métis Nation Saskatchewan. We welcome President Robert Doucette. With him are Vice-President Gerald Morin and Treasurer Louis Gardiner.
Gentlemen, we look forward to your presentation, and I am sure it will be followed by several questions from the senators. I hope you are prepared to respond to some of those questions if you see fit.
Robert Doucette, President, Métis Nation Saskatchewan: Good morning, senators. Thank you for having us this morning at this very important function.
Before we begin, as I do every day, I just want to give thanks to my wife and my family for supporting me all these years in our endeavors. Without them, you know, life is a little tougher to handle.
Also, let us thank the Creator for this beautiful day and for this opportunity to present ourselves in good, positive discussion and hopefully, present you with some more information that will help to deal with the Metis issues that we are currently having to deal with across Canada.
To keep it brief, this is also a follow-up to our discussions out at Batoche. I am not sure, I was pretty long-winded at Batoche, and I have said quite a bit already.
I want to give the opportunity to my newly elected and re-elected brothers. To my left is Vice-President Gerald Morin, who many of you know. He has a long history in dealing with Metis issues and has been a very good leader for Metis people for many years.
To my right is Treasurer Louis Gardiner, who is newly re-elected.
Louis Gardiner, Treasurer, Métis Nation Saskatchewan: Well, I was interim.
Mr. Doucette: Okay, so he was interim.
We will take turns speaking on some of our issues and then we will entertain some questions.
As it stands right now, there are a lot of issues that Metis people are faced with across Canada. Firstly and most importantly, we are a landless people. Although we are recognized under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, there is no provision federally for dealing with that issue right now.
There is no process to deal with specific or comprehensive issues or claims with respect to Metis land issues. That is not to say there are not some lands that were set aside for Metis people. In Alberta in the 1940s, the Alberta government set aside the Metis settlements for the exclusive use of the Metis, and that still exists today in, I think, eight Metis settlements. In Saskatchewan around the same time during the 1940s, they had set aside lands through orders in council for this exclusive use of Metis people.
Just as an example, east of Prince Albert, there was a Metis settlement called Glen Mary. Glen Mary was set aside for the exclusive — and you had Metis families out there; Umpervilles, Dechambeaus, Carriers all living out there, and they had signed 99-year leases. That was in 1944.
To the west of Saskatoon here about 60 or 70 kilometers, you have Willowfield; Ile-a-la-Crosse, Cumberland House, Lebret Metis farms and Mortlach. Mortlach was the home of the late chair, I cannot remember his name, but he was involved with the 2010 Olympics before he died.
Senator Raine: Jack Poole.
Mr. Doucette: Yes. He actually is from the community of Mortlach, Saskatchewan. You also have Green Lake. As an example in 1940-44, the Province of Saskatchewan had set aside 10 to 12 townships of land for the exclusive use for the Metis. That order in council has never been repealed, and it still stands on the books today. Yet, those 99-year leases that Metis people had signed are — are not being honoured today. We need to tackle that issue, because without land, really, how can you build any wealth up?
It all stems from the whole Metis scrip process, where Metis people were offered money or land scrips. My family, in particular, my ancestors did not receive the benefits of that Metis scrip. Yet, when they signed those scrips and affidavits in 1906, they actually became Aboriginal people with no title and no rights.
Many of our issues today emanate from that whole process, as opposed to the treaty process where lands were set aside for the collective use of First Nations people. No such process existed for Metis people. As a result, we are really a landless people with no rights or rights that are not being recognized and accommodated by both levels of government when it comes to specific issues; in particular, land. That is not to say that legislation and agreements do not exist today that could potentially help us deal with a lot of these issues.
One of those pieces of legislation I have handed out to you today is the Metis Act of 2001. It is provincial legislation. It sets out a process between the Metis Nation of Saskatchewan and the Province of Saskatchewan. It is the only one of its kind in Canada. We are looking forward to sitting down with the Province of Saskatchewan and the premier and the ministers and talking about how to operationalize and really give some teeth to that legislation.
It has the potential to really help Metis people in the Province of Saskatchewan. And as I said at one Senate hearing, you know, maybe it is time also for a federal Metis act. Maybe it is time to develop that process, that solid process that outlines the roles and responsibilities.
Vice-President Morin is going to talk about the bilateral protocol agreement that the Metis National Council had signed with the Metis and the Minister of — well, now, it is not Indian Affairs anymore.
Senator Dyck: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.
Mr. Doucette: Yes. It was Chuck Strahl at the time.
Aboriginal Affairs? Well, I call it ANCI — Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Canada.
There is an opportunity now. You have Metis leaders who are willing to sit down and hammer out these agreements and processes that will lead to benefits for all Metis people and Canadians alike across this great country and in the provinces.
I also handed out a copy of a 1944 edition of The Beaver. In it is a reference to a letter that James Sutherland wrote to the Hudson Bay Company. It attests to the nationhood of Metis people. It talks about the flag of the Metis being unfurled in September of 1815 in Fort Qu'Appelle. It is a red flag.
He says in here:
The other company were half-Breeds headed by Cuthbert Grant, a Half-Breed who has been regularly educated at Canada and has acted for several years as Clerk & still continues to act as such, to the N.W. Co. This tribe had another flag hoisted, of what nation I know not. It is red with a figure of 8 placed horizontally in the middle of it and is said to be a present from the N. W. Co.
Can you imagine that?
The Canadian flag did not come into being until 1867. In 2015, the Metis nation flag, the flag of the Metis people, is going to be 200 years old. It is one of the oldest flags indigenous to this country, to this continent. I think only one flag is actually older, and that is the American flags in the 1770s — 1776. I do not believe that there is any other flag that is indigenous to this continent. Of course, you have the fleur de lis flag that emanated from France and the British Union Jack, but they come from Europe.
My point in saying that is that when it comes to nationhood, Metis people fully realize and have had a nation for well over 200 years. I think today we have an opportunity now to deal with our issues in a good, positive way. That is why we are very thankful that the Senate is having these hearings across Canada, to listen to Metis people. I hope you actually ask us a lot of questions with respect to our rights, our land issues, and all the other issues that I actually did talk about at Batoche already with you.
With that, I will turn it over to Vice-President Morin for his comments.
Gerald Morin, Vice-President, Métis Nation Saskatchewan: Thank you, senators, for coming to Saskatoon and inviting us to appear as witnesses here to talk about Metis identity and Metis issues. Some of the senators I have seen over the years when I was involved in Metis politics. I do not know if this is the fourth or fifth or sixth round that I am having with some of you folks, but we have had many good discussions over the years, and I thank you for coming here. I am really not quite sure where to start in the limited time that we have.
We had a pretty good discussion with some of the senators in the restaurant this morning too, and I want to thank you for that discussion. Certainly in my case, it helped to stimulate my thinking and wake me up.
In a nutshell, I want to say that, given everything that has been said over the years and all the things that have happened with respect to the Metis and their engagement with particularly the federal government in pursuing our recognition as a distinct nation of people and our rights, the situation today for the Metis Nation unfortunately is quite bleak and dismal.
I took a 10-year break from politics and had lots of time to think about these things. Quite honestly, our situation today, if I can describe it in the brief time that I have, is our people from my perspective are the most discriminated- upon people in this country, and certainly are right up there with any other peoples in the international community in terms of the historic and entrenched discrimination that has been practiced against our people.
Today, as we sit here in Saskatoon, the Metis Nation is a landless people. We do not even have access to a negotiations process. We do not have a table. We are coming from a position where the Government of Canada historically — and this is entrenched in their policies, their laws, their actions or lack thereof — has denied the existence of our people, and as a result, has not negotiated in good faith the implementation of our rights. That is our situation today. We are a landless people living in poverty. We do not even have a land claims process to negotiate re- establishing our land and resource base in this country.
The only forums available to us unfortunately are the courts, and our people have used them from time to time. We do not have a process to negotiate self-government arrangements in our communities. Of the billions and billions of dollars of federal programs and services that are available to Aboriginal people, as they say, we merely get the crumbs that fall off the table.
This historic and entrenched discrimination by the Government of Canada has to end.
Their traditional interpretation of section 91.24 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which articulates the federal government's responsibility and role to engage and interface with Indians and lands reserved for Indians, has been that they have a responsibility, and they can engage with status Indians on reserve essentially. They have washed their hands of the Metis. They have washed their hands of non-status Indians, people who in every other respect are Indian people, but are not recognized as such by the federal government.
That is the situation that we find ourselves in. To this day there are, there is still a lot of evidence of the Government of Canada and provincial governments denying our existence as a people, and as a result, not having any kind of negotiations on the implementation of our rights.
I just want to say that with respect to the litigation, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Powley decision has recognized our people. The courts are ahead of the policy-makers on this one, have recognized our rights, and in that particular case recognized our harvesting rights in the Sault Ste. Marie area. The Manitoba Metis Federation has taken a case to the Supreme Court of Canada, which has been argued, and currently we are awaiting the decision from the Supreme Court.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has taken the Daniels case, the late Harry Daniels — a very good friend of mine, probably a friend of yours as well — to the Federal Court of Canada where they argued that the federal government does have responsibility for the Metis and non-status Indians under section 91.24. That has been argued, and we are awaiting that decision.
We initiated a Metis Nation test case in Northwestern Saskatchewan, the Morin case versus the Government of Canada and Saskatchewan, where we are putting forth a test case on behalf of the Metis Nation. Unfortunately, that has not gone to the courts yet, but we are hopeful that we can move that forward in the future.
In completing my comments, I want to say that I am certainly hopeful as a newly re-elected Metis leader in Western Canada within the Métis Nation Saskatchewan that, given the federal government's apology and reconciliation statement a few years ago, I hope that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada were sincere when they made that apology and that reconciliation statement to all the Aboriginal people in Canada, including the Metis. I applaud the Government of Canada for finally adopting and ratifying the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples within the U.N.
If you take those two initiatives and the sentiments and the statements surrounding them, I am hopeful, in spite of our dismal situation as I described to you, that the Government of Canada will move forward in the future in their spirit, that you will engage our nation; that you will recognize our "peoplehood,'' our nationhood; that you will recognize our rights and put in place negotiation processes so we can negotiate in good faith the implementation of our rights, whether it be to land, self-government or what have you.
I thank you very much for giving me this time.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morin.
We will now go to Mr. Gardiner.
Mr. Gardiner: Good morning, everyone. I just want to welcome the Senate committee to Saskatchewan in my Michif language.
[Mr. Morin spoke in Michif.]
What I said is that I welcome everyone on behalf of the Metis in Saskatchewan, that you are here today to come speak to us. I will not echo the previous comments my colleagues made, but being the treasurer, I will throw in a little bit of the money part.
In terms of our governance, we just finished our MNS election a couple of weeks ago. As to our governing structure, four executives are elected province wide, and then twelve regional directors are elected within their own regions. Throughout the province we have twelve regions and they are elected. Out of that we have roughly around 120 Metis locals in the Metis communities.
We feel that within Saskatchewan that there is about 80,000 Metis.
Under section 35; we are recognized as having the Aboriginal rights — First Nations, Inuit and Metis. However, the biggest challenge we see today is the governance capacity. The only core funding we receive is for the position of the four executives. To me, if we want to run a nation such that we feel we are a nation, government needs to start looking at that governance capacity.
I think it is very important that, in order to start moving the nation forward and then have that fair and equitable funding as per my colleagues — the First Nations and Inuit — we look at the governance capacity.
The other thing I want to add, and it is very important, is that as Metis people, we are taxpayers.
I think you are going to be in Ile-a-la-Crosse tomorrow. That is my hometown, a proud Metis community founded in 1776, with Cumberland House being the oldest in Western Canada.
Louis Riel's parents were born in Ile-a-la-Crosse and his sister is buried there. The history there really flows throughout Saskatchewan, and we are very proud of that.
Some of our affiliates under MNS are going to be presenting here in terms of the MFCJS — I am using the acronym — and the Gabriel Dumont Institute.
In terms of governance capacity, it is very important to echo that it is time that the Government of Canada start looking at the core funding that we need to receive. We do receive some project-by-project funding, but it is all project- related.
Basically, we cannot run the whole province of 80,000 Metis with four people. There is no way. We cannot do that.
I will leave it at that. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations.
President Doucette, you were saying that there are these various settlements and that 99-year leases were put into effect and signed by Metis people. Where is that issue at? Are you challenging? Are you working to reinitiate? Are there still Metis people on these 99-year leases? Is it Crown land, or is it land that has now been sold off to the non- Aboriginal community?
Mr. Doucette: Thank you for that question, Senator St. Germain. Just as an example, Cumberland House Metis farm and Ile-a-la-Crosse Metis farm were reverted back to the municipalities. Glen Mary, the order in council was rescinded in 1974, so they essentially took the land away from the Metis people. They subsequently were disbursed to primarily Cumberland House and Prince Albert.
The Chair: With compensation?
Mr. Doucette: With no compensation.
The Lebret Metis farm still exists today, but because one of the issues we are faced with, which is capacity, it finds itself in debt right now. It is an issue that we have to deal with. Mortlach was rescinded.
Ile-a-la-Crosse or Green Lake right now, there actually was a court action initiated a while back with respect to the townships. That community is still primarily Metis.
The order in council of 1944, I believe it is, was never rescinded. As far as I understand, the 99-year leases that were signed by some of my relations and Vice-President Morin's relations still exist today as far as we are concerned.
Let me give you some other examples of the reality of land issues that Metis are faced with. Primrose Lake bombing range came into being in 1950 through an agreement between the provincial government and the federal Government of Canada. The land was set aside land so that they could practice their bombing and strafing. My family, the McKays and the Cummings and many other families were removed from that bombing range and were never given any compensation.
First Nations were given some compensation. The Canoe Lake band and I think Waterhen and even non-Aboriginal people were given compensation. However, my family, the McKays in particular, were never given any compensation.
If you can imagine those people going from trapping and hunting and gathering along the McCusker River, which is now part of the bombing range, being kicked off that bombing range and being put onto somebody else's trap line, it must have caused so much hardship, not only for the McKays but also for the people that are actually on the existing trap lines. That issue still exists today. I know there have been a number of court cases with respect to the Primrose Lake bombing range.
There was even an agreement reached with the federal government for an economic development settlement package of $19 million, I think it was. The issue of compensation for those Metis people that were kicked out of the bombing range still exists today.
We actually are working with the provincial government, just as an example, through our harvesting negotiations to outline or to identify those Metis communities all across the province. As far as the position that we are taking, all of Saskatchewan actually is a Metis territory. You can find Metis people in every corner of this province, where we have existed since this country was opened up to development.
I just gave you an example this morning of the recognition of our nation through the Metis red flag in 1815. There are a lot of issues with respect to land. There have been some attempts to settle some of these issues, but because they were under provincial legislation, they could make orders in councils through the legislature and actually kick people off that land. The only province that actually has land set aside for the Metis is Alberta. The provincial Metis Act of 2001 has a line item in there that obligates the Province of Saskatchewan to sit down with the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan and talk about the issue of land right now.
Another example of federal legislation that had a huge impact on Metis and making us landless was the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement in 1930. It divested itself and gave the jurisdiction over lands and resources back to the province. I know that is a huge issue for First Nations too. I have done some research on that, looking at the presentations done when they were actually having consultations just like this back in the late 1920s and early 1930s. There was no consultation with Metis and no consultation with First Nations.
Now in 2012 we find ourselves in a similar situation with the, I think it is Bill C-38, the omnibus bill that was just before Parliament. PFRA actually has 60 community pastures that they have control over. Over the next 5 years they are going to divest themselves of over 1 million acres of land in central and southern Saskatchewan. We have taken the position that there is an actual duty to consult on this, and they should actually sit down with the Metis Nation Saskatchewan and Metis people of Saskatchewan and talk about how they are going to share that land and accommodate some of our needs to become a land-bearing people in this country.
To give you an example of why I think we should have that, south of Saskatoon about 40 kilometers is an old Metis settlement called Round Prairie. That settlement has been around since the 1840s. As a matter of fact, many of the explorers that got lost in what is now called Western Canada actually bumped into this place. According to Metis tradition, we helped them. We fed them; we clothed them and gave them guides and sent them on their merry way. On that PFRA lot right now, that old settlement exists. It is a cemetery, but it is more than that. It is a symbol, and it is a point of interest for Metis people. All across Saskatchewan, you have Red River cart trails; old Metis settlements and cemeteries that are on these community pastures.
One of the things that I would say to the Senate today is to talk to your colleagues in Ottawa. We have had one meeting with respect to Round Prairie with the Department of Justice and PFRA representatives. We have asked them to give back that Round Prairie Metis settlement to the Metis Nation of Saskatchewan to hold and to protect for the Metis citizens that now live in Saskatoon, the Carons, Trottiers, Ouelettes, Dumonts. They are all relations of people that have a connection to that land.
Senators, I ask you to talk to your colleagues in Ottawa and to remind them that there is an obligation to consult with people that have an interest in these matters.
That is an example potentially of another NRTA of 1930 happening again, not consulting over the divestment over a million acres of land in Central and Southern Saskatchewan right now.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for your presentation this morning, gentlemen. It was very good. The questions I have relate to the importance of land.
President Doucette, you were saying that land is necessary because it is a way of creating wealth. You also talked about how land was taken away, how there should be some land that should be given back, and there is no process for consultation. What do you think the process should be for consultation? If you were given the land — you mentioned that First Nations own land collectively — suppose land was transferred back to the Metis Nation; would that be collective title or family title, individual title? How do you envision that?
Mr. Doucette: Could I ask my other colleagues to make statements, too, with respect to this?
Senator Dyck: Definitely.
Mr. Doucette: Maybe we could all maybe just say something briefly. I will defer to Vice-President Morin and then to Treasurer Gardiner.
The Chair: President Doucette, I would like to get more questions in.
Mr. Doucette: We will keep it brief.
Mr. Morin: I guess for us in the Metis Nation, like I said, we currently do not have a land use process; we are a landless people. What we would like to do is, through negotiations with the federal government and the provinces concerned in Western Canada, put in place a Metis-specific land claims process. So through good faith negotiations, we can determine which lands we want. I would think that in the end result a negotiated arrangement would include land being set aside for the Metis.
There are certain lands we would not have access to because it has since been taken up. It would also include elements of compensation in lieu of land. Through that process we would have land set aside. We would also have the monies or the finances to be able to, say, purchase other lands if we wanted to or invest that money for economic development.
I want to point out, because President Doucette made reference to it in his opening remarks, that in 2008 the Metis National Council, which we are a part of, the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan and the five western provincial Metis organizations signed a protocol agreement with the Government of Canada. I think it was Chuck Strahl at the time. It is a Metis Nation protocol agreement which itemizes a lot of items that we would put in place a negotiating table, but it also included discussions around land and harvesting rights.
It also contemplated a multi-lateral process where, for example, the Government of Canada and the five western provincial governments could negotiate as part of a multi-lateral process rights such as land with the Metis nation. That is how we would see that happening in the future, I think.
Mr. Doucette: Land would be held collectively. To give you an example of a very good process right now for the Metis settlements: I lived actually on Kikino Metis settlement; the land is held collectively by the settlement's council and is protected by provincial legislation. The individuals that live on the land actually have sort of a, I do not know, quasi title to it.
Their families can live on it. They can give it to their descendants to live on, and they can thrive there. Now, let me just say this to you: When I lived on that settlement, the court case before the Alberta courts was happening. Subsequent to that, I had left, and they settled out of court for I think $300 million and 1.25 million hectares of land.
When I was living there, people were living in poverty. Then after, they had that extra, those resources. Now when you go to those settlements, they have companies; they have gravel pits; they have bison herds; they have timber. They are all developing it.
For me, as Vice-President Morin was saying, you could have two things: land and compensation in lieu of land, just like the treaty land entitlement processes. The land needs to be held in perpetuity because once you alienate land in a fee simple title, you are landless. That is what has happened to Metis people right now. We have no land or accommodation or recognition of it.
Senator Raine: I want to change the subject away from land and talk about the process in Saskatchewan for identifying who is a Metis and the registration, and how are you handling this issue? Do you agree that there should be one national registry for Metis people, or should it be different in different parts of Canada?
Mr. Gardiner: Presently, for a few years now we have been receiving federal funding in regards to the Powley decision. To date, I guess we do have a central registry, where previously each Metis local used to give out cards. Now, the process that we have today works similar to the First Nations, where everybody makes an application, and the process goes through to Vital Stats, and the genealogy people do all the research to ensure that people are of Aboriginal ancestry. I guess to your answer, I think we are working through that process.
We do have a central registry provincially now where everybody has to make an application to one location and one office, where previously we had 120 Metis locals and they gave out cards. There was just no process that was really accountable.
Since we received the funding — I think it was 2007 — to date about 6,000 Metis are in the process of getting cards. I think 2,200 have — about 4,000 are in the process with their application.
We still have a long ways to go, but I think it is starting to catch on. I think people are starting to really make an application now to get their Metis cards in.
The Chair: When you are establishing identity, do you see the descendants having to come from what is the traditional homeland, which includes Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and parts of B.C. and the Northwest Territories? Is that how identification should take place in your mind or is it broader than that?
Mr. Doucette: In, I believe it was 2001, the Metis governments actually adopted a definition where you had to hold yourself out; you had to be connected to an historic Metis community, and you had to be accepted by the Metis communities and not be a member of one of the other Aboriginal nations, Inuit or First Nation. As we all know, as the future unfolds, what is true today might not be true tomorrow. As an example, the Metis Nation homeland as it is now currently — what is the word I am looking for — recognized internally amongst ourselves. It includes those provinces, but not the Northwest Territories right now because they are not aligned with the Metis National Council, just parts of Northwest Territories and a little part of the United States.
When you look at the historical development of Metis peoples, of half breed peoples of Canada, how can we deny the existence of Metis people in Quebec, or even in the two Dakotas or in Minnesota? I know we do not speak for the United States Metis, but actually there are historical documents that validate that there were Metis people as far down as Missouri. As a matter of fact, the person that was leading the Louis and Clark expedition in 1804-05 was Baptist Charbonneau, a Metis guy, who was the husband of Sacagawea. They actually had a son they called Pompey, of all names. I do not know why, but they did. The reason I say that is that identity is really important, especially when it comes to registries.
As another historical fact, we actually have a book in our Metis Nation genealogical archival center; a French book that talks about the development of Metis communities along the St. Lawrence Seaway. Did you know that they used to call the St. Lawrence Seaway "la Grand River de Metis.'' Why it changed, I do not know. Probably the same reason after the war, they changed the names of all of the lakes and named them after soldiers who came back. They were just showing some recognition. That is what countries do, I guess.
It is vitally important for any future agreements that we have been talking about here with respect to harvesting programs and services, both levels of government need to have certainty about who they are representing and who they are negotiating with. These registries are vitally important to any future developments with respect to Metis people in the country called Canada and the Province of Saskatchewan. Should there be a national registry? Internally we are actually having those discussions right now about how to have a national registry. Is there a need for one? The resources that we receive from the federal government right now through the Powley agreements, we appreciate. It is creating a partnership and a process that is going to be a win-win for all of us. Vice-President Morin talked this morning about the MMF case and the Daniels case. If those cases come out in favour of the Metis, it is going to change the whole environment with respect to Metis in Canada and subsequent agreements that have to be negotiated in the wash of those court cases.
I do not know if that answers your questions, Senator Raine.
Senator Raine: Yes, thank you.
Senator Sibbeston: My question relates to where you see the Metis going. It will help us in terms of our recommendations to government. The Aboriginal rights referred to in the Constitution are being defined and interpreted by the courts of our country. This is a way that the First Nations and the Metis people are learning what their rights are.
In a sense, it is unfortunate because government should be making these decisions. Because they are not, then Aboriginal people have to go to court and have the courts make decisions as to what these Aboriginal rights are. It is obviously a very costly and slow process. Do you see movement towards eventually being recognized as Aboriginal people on the same basis as First Nations and Inuit people so that section 91.24 that refers to Indians and lands reserved for Indians will then include the Metis, so that you will benefit and derive the same benefits and care, as it were, as other Aboriginal people in our country? Is that the objective of your goal and movement?
Mr. Morin: It is a basic question but very complex as well.
To answer your question, yes, we strive and aspire to accomplish something similar in terms of recognition of our "peoplehood.'' I mean, collectively, the First Nations, the Metis Nation, the Inuit, comprise the indigenous peoples in Canada. Certainly from an international law perspective and within, for example, a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, it talks about our lands, our territories, our languages, our culture, our distinctiveness as peoples.
In many respects I guess, yes, we are striving for the same thing in terms of trying to accomplish a land base, recognition of "peoplehood,'' recognition of our rights which would encompass a land and resource base, a negotiation process in which we can negotiate and implement self-government arrangements across the Metis homeland, and access to federal programs and services to address our issues, whether it be in the area of health or our children or economic development, what have you. So in some respects, yes, but at the same time I think it is important to recognize in that process that the Metis Nation are a distinct people. We have our own distinct history, our own distinct political institutions, our own distinctive legal status in Canada.
In some respects there are similarities, the processes, the dynamics, the politics; the end results will be similar. It is really important certainly from my perspective that the federal government proceed on a Metis Nation-specific process, whether it be negotiating land, self-government or access to programs and services; and that our distinctiveness as a people and our unique histories always form the center piece of any negotiations process, moving forward.
Mr. Gardiner: As I mentioned earlier, coming from an historical community like Ile-a-la-Crosse, founded in 1776, we feel that as Metis people, we were a community before even Canada was a country. We are proud of that today, that we have hunting and fishing rights in that area. The language is very strong those communities. I think those are some of the things that we would like to carry on, that our forefathers left us. I think, going forward, that is what we want to leave for our children and grandchildren. I think it is very important.
We, as leaders today, have to challenge our governments. We have a lot of history, such as Cumberland House — 1774. It is reflecting back to that and then how this whole scrip system came about. In Ile-a-la-Crosse we were one people. You were not "First Nation'' or "Metis,'' just one people; that is how we lived.
Mr. Doucette: I want to applaud you, Senator Sibbeston, for that question and your analysis. It really is unfortunate that we have to go through the courts to get an interpretation of "what is'' and "what is not,'' when in fact I know what I have inherited from my mushum and my kokum and my mother and my father. I think that if there is a will between the federal and provincial governments — actually, we saw the Metis Act proclaimed into legislation in 2001 — there is a way to deal with these issues. There are a lot of issues that our people are faced with every day, such as homelessness.
My grandmother in Buffalo Narrows died when she was 88. I am sad to say that she died in a mold-infested house, always worrying about paying rent, paying for her drugs or buying food because the same recognition of her Aboriginal ethnicity, her rights and her distinctiveness is not being accommodated by the Government of Canada right now.
As an example, FNIHB is the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch; well, it should be "FNIMHB;'' there should be an "M'' in there. It should be "First Nations, Inuit and Metis Health Branch,'' because our people — and it has been proven now — the Metis in Saskatchewan, suffer the highest rates of chronic diseases of any Aboriginal group in Canada. Why do we leave these people on their own without helping them?
I was always raised to believe, as a Canadian and as a person of this province, that you always helped the less fortunate. You always dealt with the whole underdog issue; that you would look to accommodate and recognize an issue and deal with it in a good way. That is why I am hopeful. As Vice-President Morin and Treasurer Gardiner have said, over the last five years we have opened and had very good dialogue with the Province of Saskatchewan and to a certain degree with the federal government on certain issues with respect to Metis, but there is so much work to do.
Coming from an orally-based people, what is the problem of just sitting down and talking about our issues and coming to an agreement? In the long run, it is going to cost us a lot less than to go to court for 10 years and spend millions of dollars on lawyers, researchers and everybody else. Then at the end of the day, we do not see any benefit out of it, when we could have actually spent those tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on dealing with our issues such as poor housing, poor health, low labour participation and employment rates and education. All of these things we could do in a better way.
We do actually aspire to live at the same level as all other Canadians because why should we expect anything less?
Senator Sibbeston: Canadian society is organized on the basis that provincial and federal governments provide the basic services like education, social services, infrastructure, the highways and cities and so forth. For the First Nations and Inuit people in particular, government provides housing. They have secondary education. They have land. First Nations have reserve lands. In the area of social services, there is a lot of welfare in many of the communities.
When you talk about wanting to get the same rights and benefits as First Nations, I am sure that you will want to think about how you will deal with these services. In one respect, particularly on the remote reserves where there is not very much, there becomes a culture of apathy and a sense of entitlement, that the government owes us this. Welfare is not just because we are poor. It is really the government paying us for the use of our land, or whatever. There is a sense of entitlement.
A lot of the problems that exist with First Nations exist because of this feeling of the government owing them something and not wanting to work. Everybody in the world has to work in order to make a living. If you do not, and if you get something for nothing, you do not appreciate it as much.
If you are considered on the same basis as First Nations and Inuit and given similar entitlements, how will you do it differently so that the Metis do not fall into this trap? It is a trap and it creates apathy. It is a bad situation that exists in many of the First Nation areas. How will you deal with that so that it does not become a negative thing but really a successful venture, a successful life as it were for yourselves and your people?
Mr. Gardiner: You are visiting Ile-a-la-Crosse tomorrow, it is a Metis community. You will judge for yourself how well the community is run. The Metis community of Ile-a-la-Crosse is funded through the provincial government. It is a municipality structure. A lot of people still say, "Well, how do we go to a Metis settlement, more or less the model of Alberta, to identify what is needed?''
You will see how well they have done as a Metis community in terms of paying their taxes and running things, and how well they fix the infrastructure and stuff like that. I think that will be a good model. That is why it is good that you are going to Ile-a-la-Crosse. You will see it as a Metis community, and it will kind of give the vision in terms of the questions you are asking.
The other challenge I see is the question of jurisdiction. Metis people are mentioned in the Constitution but we do not even know if we are federal jurisdiction or provincial jurisdiction. We keep getting bounced back and forth. To date, we still do not even know why we are in the Constitution if we are not federal jurisdiction. If we are, then we should be receiving the same kind of funding as what our Inuit and First Nations colleagues get. Those are important facts.
I just wanted to add that tomorrow, when you visit Ile-a-la-Crosse, you will see a Metis community and how well it has done and where it wants to go.
Mr. Doucette: Senator Sibbeston, let me just say this to you: From what I can see from history and from what I read and from what I have heard from elders, it has always been sort of a nation-to-nation discussion between the Metis and the federal government. Although it is at a different level now in 2012, I do not think anybody can deny the fact that without the Metis help in the 1800s, there might not be a Canada this way.
When I talk to people at the community level, this is what they say; this is as basic as I can put it, senator: They want both levels of government and the Metis government to deal with their basic issues. They want recognition of their traditional practices and their languages and their traditions affirmed and protected.
I have never, ever heard any Metis person or elder say to me that we have a sense of entitlement, ever, and I have never heard any First Nations say that, neither. I have never heard them say that.
We are a hard-working people. We love our families. We want all levels of government, and including our own leaders, to work together to deal with our issues. I am sure you have heard them mentioned all over the country, and I have even alluded to some today? What will that look like? Well, I do not know.
I would say this: Let us get to that point first, and let us have those discussions. Then let us go into our communities and ask them what they see as a good way, as a positive way to govern ourselves and to govern ourselves within a nation within a nation, so to speak. There are many models out there that are successful today, and we do not need to have discussions ad nauseam on what is the best way.
We have, like Treasurer Gardiner has said, very strong Metis communities today in Saskatchewan, and that includes Southern Saskatchewan.
I was talking with a Metis elder, and he was referring to 1885 as, in French, la guerre de nationale — the national war. That is being said even today in 2012, that they are still talking about 1885 as the national war between Canada and the Metis. So how will it look? I do not know how that will look right now, because we have not gotten to that point. We need to get to the point where we are actually discussing how we make those transfer payments right now.
Because what is it? Is it something like $9 billion for AANDC a year? I am not sure what it is now, $9 or $10 or $12 billion, to run that ministry, and Metis people see very little out of it — very little. What I hear from Metis people at the community level is they want respect and accommodation for land; they want their basic issues dealt with.
I will use myself as an example. When I went to university, I had a student loan and it came time to pay it back. I am not a deadbeat, I will say that, but I recognized that First Nations and the Inuit got four years of funding to get a degree and then another 12 months to get a master's degree. I said to myself, why am I being held to a debt? Then what happens is we become working poor, working middle class poor.
To make this long story short, I said to Canada Student Loans, I am not paying it back because I am Aboriginal under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. Under the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, you are discriminating against me. I think it is section 15 or 17, I am not sure. For 17 years we wrangled about it. I had a $15,000 loan. I had paid back $21,000. The federal government wanted another $23,000 on a $15,000 loan.
Now, to me, as a Canadian, when we see countries baling out banks, I do not understand that. We are not being treated on the same level as other Aboriginal peoples in this country. Metis people want to be treated with respect and they want their issues dealt with. We have higher rates of chronic diseases; no access to land; poor housing or no access to housing really, very little access to housing. Although the rates of resources for employment and training are going up, so are the labour force needs. So there needs to be further and larger investments in our community to deal with these issues.
At the end of the day, we will all win when you put Metis people to work and you deal with their issues, because it lessens the need for resources to deal with them.
I am sorry for being long-winded, Senator St. Germain and Senator Sibbeston. The bottom line is that Metis people just want to be treated with respect and to live like all Canadians.
The Chair: Thank you for the clarification. I thank you for your presentation, your presence here this morning.
Mr. Morin: May I say something real quick, please?
The Chair: Do you have something?
Mr. Morin: Yes, real quick.
My colleague President Doucette was describing the new Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and the acronym I guess is AANDC. For the record, I want to say that I would strongly urge that department not to be "antsy'' and to engage our nation so we can implement our rights and our issues.
The Chair: You want them to be AANDC instead of antsy? Okay.
Thank you again. On behalf of the three senators who are with me, we really appreciate your presence, your candid, straightforward responses. The way you qualified some of your responses will help us to write a report that hopefully the government cannot ignore.
Senator Dyck: Mr. Chair, with respect to the last panel, Senator Sibbeston was asking a question comparing First Nations and Metis and mentioned the idea of a sense of entitlement amongst First Nations. As a First Nation person living in Saskatchewan, which is the home of treaties, I felt that I had to say something to offset some of the remarks.
Although for some First Nations people — all First Nations people do have entitlement via the treaties — I believe that dependency on welfare is not a result of some sense of entitlement and that it is justified because the treaties have not been fulfilled by the federal government. That has created a welfare state on First Nation reserves. They are entitled to that welfare because the federal government has not in many cases lived up to its obligations to fulfill treaty rights.
That is all I wanted to say.
The Chair: I hear you loud and clear, and I concur with your remarks. I think President Doucette also clarified that situation when he said that he did not feel that Metis or First Nations lived with a mentality of entitlement.
Senator Dyck: Yes, he did.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have before us our second panel. From the Gabriel Dumont Institute of Native Studies and Applied Research, Lisa Wilson, director.
Lisa Wilson, Director, Gabriel Dumont Institute of Native Studies and Applied Research Inc.: I am one of five directors.
The Chair: As well, we have with us the Metis Family and Community Justice Services Saskatchewan Inc. They are represented by Lynn LaRose, Chief Executive Officer, and Nora Cummings, a Metis senator. My gosh, another senator. The place is overrun with senators.
Thank you for coming, and we are honoured to have you here. We look forward to your presentations. I ask you to keep them as concise and precise as possible to allow time for questions.
With that, we will start with Ms. Wilson.
Ms. Wilson: Good morning. I am pleased to be able to make this presentation to the committee on behalf of the Gabriel Dumont Institute. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are in Treaty 6 territory, traditionally occupied by the Cree, the Saulteaux, the Assiniboine and the Dakota. I would also like to acknowledge that the site of Saskatoon was part of the Metis "South Branch'' Settlement, known as Bois de Fleche, or Arrow Woods.
My name is Lisa Wilson, and I am a director at the Gabriel Dumont Institute in Saskatoon. I am a Metis woman, and I have spent most of my life in Saskatoon, although my family originates from the southern part of the province in the Qu'Appelle Lakes and Touchwood Hills area. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the issue of Metis identity both in my professional capacity as an administrator at the Gabriel Dumont Institute and in my personal capacity as a writer and an artist. I will tell you that I have a fiction book coming out this spring that has as its theme the notion of identity; and more specifically, Metis identity. I am always happy to have the chance to consider this subject more deeply.
The Gabriel Dumont Institute is the only Metis-specific educational institution in Saskatchewan, and the oldest and largest Metis educational institute in Canada. GDI was incorporated in 1980, after much lobbying by the Metis, and at a time when Aboriginal control over Aboriginal education was not widely supported. Since that time, GDI has graduated more than 1,000 teachers with their B.Ed. degrees and provided certificate and diploma training to thousands of Metis across Saskatchewan.
The GDI operates a publishing department to create Metis-specific historical, cultural and learning materials. We also offer a graduate studies program for Metis graduate students, a scholarship trust to administer Metis scholarships, and training and employment services to help Metis people prepare for careers. As you can see, the mandate of the institute is both broad and deep.
GDI holds contracts with both the provincial and federal governments. The province funds teacher training through the Saskatchewan Urban Native Teacher Education Program, SUNTEP, certificate and diploma programs through the Dumont Technical Institute, Metis-specific libraries and some of the publishing activities. Federal contracts include many of the publishing and cultural activities and the Metis ASETS agreement for Saskatchewan, which provides about $10 to $12 million a year for Metis training and employment services. For the most part, funding to GDI is targeted at the Metis. GDI operates as an arms-length affiliate owned by the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan.
Therefore, the question of Metis identity is part of what we consider in being accountable not only to the funding agents but also to our Metis community.
In Saskatchewan, the MNS definition of Metis has four parts. The definition is:
Metis means a person who self-identifies as Metis; is distinct from other Aboriginal peoples; is of historic Metis Nation ancestry; and is accepted by the Metis Nation.
All four parts of the MNS constitutional definition must be met in order to receive a MNS provincial citizenship card.
For GDI, the funding agreements sometimes dictate the way we approach the question of Metis identity. For instance, the federal ASETS agreement mandates that people requesting employment and training services self- identify. Anyone who self-identifies as Metis is eligible to receive services under the agreement. On the other hand, in provincially-funded programs the GDI board of governors establishes the criteria for applicants to demonstrate that they are Metis, and therefore eligible for programming.
For example, for SUNTEP our board has stipulated that candidates provide a letter or a membership card from the Metis local or as more people become registered from the provincial MNS registry. In this way, candidates establish their connection to the Metis community. You can see the differences in the two approaches, with the federally-funded programs being much more open, and much less about Metis community validation. The system based on pure self- identification tends to be too open and should be more regulated. From our perspective as an affiliate of the MNS, it would be better if the criteria for accessing federal Metis program resources aligned with the local community and/or MNS provincial validation that is preferred by our board of governors.
I also want to take a moment just to distinguish between some terms here, particularly as they apply to the education sector.
Identity is an individual thing and a necessary component, in many cases, for Metis educational success. "Metis identity'' and "Metis definition'' are not the same thing. "Metis identity'' has been the one constant when we look at what's important for successful Metis education programs. Keeping Metis kids in school is not about focusing on academics or teaching kids more math concepts; it is about recognizing, affirming, strengthening and practicing Metis identity. Academic success follows a strong, positive identity. The identity piece, the cultural piece is so very important. Metis identity is important to people's lives, day to day, here and now. It is a very practical and immediate consideration that has little to do with legal or political definition.
"Metis definition,'' it seems to me, has more to do with politicians and governments. The pressure to have a definition is political and, it seems to me, a very colonial exercise to insist on cataloging and labeling and sorting people according to a rigid set of criteria.
I understand from your mandate that you want to talk political and legal definitions, but really what I want to say is that the identity issue is part of what will resolve the issue around the Aboriginal education gap, the employment gap — the things that are keeping Metis people from participating fully in the economy and from reaping those rewards. Once we find a way to deal with Metis identity for young kids in school, for post-secondary students, for adults — to really affirm and strengthen and validate that identity — then you are going to find that a lot of the other issues resolve themselves. We will have a healthy, employed, fulfilled, culturally-centered Metis population.
At this point, however, that scenario is decades away, and that is if we get started right now. There must be a practical way to mitigate the definition-versus-identity debate to ensure that educational, economic, and social inequities of Metis people can be alleviated. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wilson.
Would you go ahead, Ms. LaRose, please.
Lynn LaRose, Chief Executive Officer, Métis Family and Community Justice Services Saskatchewan Inc.: Thank you. I, too, am of Metis ancestry. Although I live in Saskatoon, I am originally from Battleford, not North Battleford, but they called it Pole Town. That is where I originate from. I am just going to give a little background information on our organization, as well as the definition that we recognize, and then some statistical information.
Métis Family and Community Justice Services Saskatchewan Inc, which we fondly call MFCJS, was incorporated in 1992 as an affiliate of the Métis Nation -Saskatchewan as a result of a recognition of the need to empower Metis communities to address the social and cultural well-being of Metis individuals, families and communities throughout Saskatchewan. MFCJS is responsible for the planning and coordination of Metis justice and social programs within the province. In conjunction with the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan's vision to establish a Metis government to oversee the affairs of its people, MFCJS seeks to empower Metis to plan, develop, implement and administer social and justice services by Metis for Metis.
The mission of MFCJS is to promote, strengthen and rebuild the Metis nation in the communities by supporting cultural and spiritual needs and empowering family-centered social and justice programs. As well, MFCJS is responsible in overseeing and coordinating the direction and development of Metis social and justice services. MFCJS, under its mandate, is responsible for facilitating, coordinating and supporting the planning, development, implementation, management and monitoring of local community justice and social programs. MFCJS may, on occasion, assume direct responsibility when other community structures are not yet available to administer programs.
The definition of the Metis: In September 2002 the Métis National Council adopted a definition of Metis that is consistent with the wishes of the nation. They said:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Métis Nation adopts the following defined terms for its national definition of Métis;
"Historic Métis Nation'' means the Aboriginal people then known as Métis or Half-Breeds who resided in Historic Métis Nation Homeland;
"Historic Métis Nation Homeland'' means the area of land in west central North America used and occupied as the traditional territory of the Métis or Half-Breeds as they were then known;
"Métis Nation'' means the Aboriginal people descended from the Historic Métis Nation, which is now comprised of all Metis Nation citizens and is "one of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada'' within s. 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.
"Distinct from other Aboriginal peoples'' means distinct for cultural and nationhood purposes.
That is from the Métis National Council Snapshot of the Nation 2002, page 6 and 7.
Statistical information: In Saskatchewan there are approximately 5,000 Aboriginal children in care. The numbers in Saskatchewan are highlighted in the Child and Family Services statistics provided by the Department of Social Services as of December 2009. The Department of Social Services and the Children's Advocate Office estimate 80 percent of children in care are Aboriginal. However, Métis Family and Community Justice Services Inc. estimate the number is closer to 85 percent. This is particularly true given the challenges and difficulties in identifying Metis children in Saskatchewan.
This discrepancy underscores the need for an effective and up-to-date registry of Metis citizens in the Province of Saskatchewan.
According to Stats Canada projections, by 2026, 36 per cent of children and youth in Saskatchewan will be Aboriginal.
Although it is more challenging to obtain Metis-specific statistics due to the difficulties in identifying Metis people in Canada, the indicators paint a similar profile of children and youth within the Metis Nation in Canada relative to the First Nations children.
In the 2006 census, 389,000 people identified themselves as Metis. This represents nearly a doubling of growth, which is a 91 per cent growth in the size of the Metis population since 1996. Higher birth rates and a greater tendency to self-identify as Metis on the census underline this increase in the Metis population over the past decade.
The Metis account for more than one-third of the overall Aboriginal population, up from just one-quarter in 1996. Over two-thirds of the Metis live in urban areas. Furthermore, one-quarter of the Metis children are under the age of 15, and more than one-third of Metis children under the age of 15 lived with one parent.
However, these numbers could grow with the inclusion of the self-identification of Metis on all government forms. This was taken from MFCJS Metis Children and Families Direct for the Future, which we submitted in June 2010 as the interim preliminary report to the Ministry of Social Services.
The issues that we face — and these are just a few — we are unable to get statistics on the number of Metis children in care. We are unable to get statistical information on the number of Metis families receiving services; Metis children being lost in the system because of the parents' failure to self-identify; Metis children growing up with a loss of cultural identity because of the foster care system — these same children are ending up in the justice system — difficulties receiving Metis-specific funding because of the lack of registry of Metis peoples in Saskatchewan. Thank you.
The Chair: Did you have something that you wanted to say, Senator Cummings?
Nora Cummings, Métis Senator, Métis Family and Community Justice Services Saskatchewan Inc.: I want to follow up on what my colleague said. I am also from Saskatoon. Welcome to our city. This is my home. I am a road allowance Metis in this city. I have lived here all my life and lived on a road allowance, and 40 families live in southeast Nutana. Today I am proud to say this is my home, my community, so I welcome you here.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Cummings: I want to follow up on what Ms. LaRose has been saying about our children in care, and I also want to further that with the Young Offenders Act. I think that will tie into that. I deal a lot with the justice system — I do a lot of the court sentencing circles — and I feel it is important that these two work together. I feel that our children are ending up in the system, and we are building more jails and more institutions for our children, which I feel is so sad because of the fact this is what's happening.
There are other ways. I think that the federal government should have come to us as Metis people and asked for some input into the Young Offenders Act so that we could have participated. I always say, if we are part of the problems, we should be part of the solutions. I feel that that was so unfair, that a lot of times that is taken away from us. I think when I look at our young people in the justice system, going through these correctional systems, I always say, once they go into the juvenile detentions and then they go into the correctionals and then they graduate into the penitentiaries, and we lose our young people. When I look at very young children in this system, it bothers me to see that.
By the way, I am a mother of 10 children and a grandmother of 28 and a kokum of 37 great grandchildren, and I am still working. I have worked for 25 years now after raising my children. I work with young people. I see the taxpayers' dollars that are put in place in these institutions, and they are not servicing these young people. I know that for a fact.
We have a detox center in Regina. You send them off there for three, four days, and they are sent back out and left in the cold. So these young people are left out on the street again, and it is so hard. Then you are just constantly picking them up. And the taxpayers' dollars are constantly being spent — let us utilize these dollars that will service our young people, our young children.
When I think about the institutionals, they are not doing that for our young people.
We need a culture center for our children that are going to work within the holistic approach from the bottom up. We need family input. There are a lot of families that are prepared to go to work. I know that because I have worked with a lot of the families. I know when I go into the courts and I see these young people there, and I see the mothers and the kokums and, that are sitting there that do not understand the system and do not know how to get up and help their children, we need to do something about this. When you look at our children, when you look at the waste, we cannot disregard it; we have got to pick that up. What it reminds me of is how our young people are seen as second- class citizens.
I do sentencing circles with those young people. When I am asked by the judges or the prosecutors to speak with these people, I say to them, I am here as an elder, but I want you to know you have a right, and I always make sure they have a given right and to tell them that. If they choose not to have me as an elder, then fine, I will remove myself, but I have never been removed.
That is the thing that is happening. That is stemming from what's happened with our Child Welfare Act.
I will stop there. If there are any questions, I would be sure to elaborate on them. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Cummings.
Senator Dyck: Ms. Wilson, I am sorry, but I could not hear part of your presentation. You were talking about the criteria between GDI, SUNTEP and the federal programming, that there were differences in terms of what was required in order to be classified, or to use your words, cataloged as Metis, and that the federal program was more open and that you felt it should align more with what the MMF board of governors had requested.
Do you see that having a federal program definition of Metis that is different than what the MMF has creates problems when people who are not Metis claim to be Metis, people getting benefits or getting into a program when they should not have been able to get in?
Ms. Wilson: I am sorry, when you say MMF, are you meaning MNS?
Senator Dyck: Yes.
Ms. Wilson: Sorry, all these acronyms.
Senator Dyck: Yes, I had to put my headphones on because I could not quite hear.
Ms. Wilson: I am sorry.
Well, I guess the difference between the federally funded programs is that they are based solely on the self-identity question. If a client comes into one of our offices and asks for service, self-identifies as a Metis person, then under that contract we are expected to provide them with service. Then the difference of course is that we use the self- identification and the community validation together in our other programs. That is the way that the GDI board of governors operates. The board of governors of course as an affiliate of the MNS provides political representation. So all of it filters back to that MNS definition and the preferences there.
I think you are raising the issue of people falsely identifying as Metis people and receiving services based on that.
Senator Dyck: Yes.
Ms. Wilson: I actually think if you did an audit or somehow were able to objectively consider the error rate that occurred in the programs, it would be my guess — I have no evidence for this — but it would honestly be my guess that your error rate would not be any more than error rates in other programs; for example, the EI program in terms of misuse, in terms of falsely claiming benefits that should not be available. I honestly do not think that our error rate would be significant. That is based on opinion and experience, I guess.
Senator Dyck: If there were to be more Metis-specific programming, would that error rate increase?
Ms. Wilson: I would imagine it would not increase in terms of its proportional amount of increased programming. I have not seen that in my experience to be a very large or significant error rate.
Senator Dyck: Okay.
The Chair: In your delivery you said "Metis definitions'' have more to do with politicians and governments. Well, the fact is that I am a Metis. I have been in government for 30 years. We initiated this study because there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the rights of Metis.
I often use the analogy — and maybe it is a poor one — but if you come from a geographical area called France or Poland, they either speak French and you come from a defined area. As government, if you are going to put out programs for a group of people, whether it would be the French or the Polish or whatever, you have to be able to define them.
There is so much controversy. At one time in Labrador they were calling themselves Metis. Now, all of a sudden, they have decided they do not want to be Metis; they are going back to being something else. That unpredictability undermines the ability of Metis people to get what is rightfully theirs in Canada. That is my feeling. I am not speaking for other members of the committee here.
Ms. Wilson, you seem to think that politicians should not be part of this equation. David Chartrand, the President of MMF, says that the citizenship should be decided by the Metis themselves. I do not think anybody objects to that, but how do we as Metis groups make this work right across the country? That is really what we are searching for as a committee, I think, partly, anyway.
Ms. Wilson: I have a few ideas. I guess what I am trying to get at, as someone coming from a program and service delivery perspective and an educational perspective is I would have some concerns — I do not even know really how to say this.
I guess the identity piece is critical to people who are working on receiving their education on becoming, you know, economically independent and employed and getting jobs and participating, you know, socially and in the economy.
The GDI has been in operation in Saskatchewan for 32 years, and one of the gifts and one of the most important things that the founders of the institute did was to understand the absolutely essential connection between culture and education, and the institute was set up as an education and a cultural institute. The thing that our programs have found over the years is how absolutely critical that identity piece is. We have an education gap in the elementary and the high school system and there are kids in schools who are struggling, trying to find their identities.
Lynn talked about the fact that we have Metis students, Metis young people, who are really disenfranchised, really disconnected from their identity and their cultures and their communities through no fault of their own. They are raised in foster care and that sort of thing. I think that we have these kids in schools, and from a practical perspective, we have to find a way to deal with that. GDI has found that Metis identity has been the way to deal with that issue around helping kids to find out who they are and then to become successful in school. Those two things are connected.
The Chair: There is a definite connection between culture and education with First Nations as well. The committee has studied education to no end, and Senator Sibbeston headed up an economic development study.
Senator Raine: Ms. Wilson, I appreciate what the Dumont Institute has done, because it is really an anchor for the culture of Metis people. You can see that coming across. We were at Batoche last summer, and you could see how important it is, especially for children who have become disconnected from their culture. The ability to rebuild is one facet, but that involves more advanced education in many ways. However, because you are training the teachers, it feeds downward as the teachers teach at the entry level.
Could you give us an update on what is happening with early childhood education for Metis people, especially the Metis culture. Are there good head-start type programs available for pre-school? I have this feeling that pre-school children are at an age where they can absorb and take to heart things that will stay with them forever. Perhaps all three of you could comment on the state of early childhood education and culture.
Ms. Wilson: In terms of early childhood education, that has not been an area where GDI has been mandated. However, we have done some work to take a look at what's going on in early childhood education, and we are in the process right now of preparing a report.
A joint task force on First Nations and Metis education is going around the province right now. The commissioners on that task force are Rita Bouvier, Gary Merasty, and I am sorry, I forget the other fellow's name.
Senator Dyck: George LaFond?
Ms. Wilson: No, it is somebody from the school boards.
The Chair: Don Hoium?
Ms. Wilson: Yes, Don Hoium.
Senator Raine: Is it focused on early childhood education?
Ms. Wilson: It is focused on four facets of life-long learning: early childhood, K-12, post-secondary and employment.
In terms of early childhood, some of the issues around the Metis have been that there are no targeted Metis early childhood head-start programs coming from federal funding. That is the sort of issue that has plagued the Metis. What happens is the money comes to the province, and the province puts on programs and says that the Metis are served through those programs. There is no accountability to those Metis numbers or how exactly the Metis are being served, how many of the Metis are being served? Those are issues where I think there are gaps in early childhood support.
The other piece around early childhood connects to our ASETS agreement, which is the federal labour market agreement. There are provisions in those agreements for the First Nations that are different than they are for the Metis, and there are provisions that are for childcare and early learning resources. The Metis are specifically excluded from those resources. That would be a gap and an area of concern as well for the Metis.
The Chair: Have you any comments, ladies?
Ms. LaRose: I certainly do. We were very involved with the child welfare review in 2010, and this is seen as a huge gap, that there is no childhood development in the Metis communities. However, we do know that there is some CAPC programming out there, but they are not necessarily Metis-specific, unless they are primarily in a Metis community, because I believe there is one in Beauval, Saskatchewan. So early childhood development in the cap seat is not Metis- specific. It is a status blind early childhood.
The Chair: I think it is fair to say that if this committee has ever focused on anything, especially the senators who are here, it is education. Under the leadership of all senators on the committee — and I am not speaking just of myself here by any stretch of the imagination — we have focused on education.
Senator Nora Cummings, if we did raise the level of education amongst our Metis younger people, I think your problem would diminish considerably. If you get an educated society of people, I think that they assume responsibility and they find pride in accomplishment. They go out in the work force, and they do not end up in the correctional institutions that you made reference to.
Is there anything you want to say before I introduce our next panel?
Ms. Cummings: I would just like to say that the education system is great, but you must remember there is a lot of damage, stuff going on out there that has to be dealt with. I am a sole survivor of fighting for my young people in the justice system. There has to be a way for the federal government to let our people in, so that we can address these issues with them, and never mind just putting out a bill that will suit that.
I think it is important that we as Metis people have that right to address some of the issues, that we partner with the federal government to make a better living for our young people. I am very strongly supportive of that.
The school system, is very limiting when it comes to our culture within the schools. I sit with some of the boards and talk with some of the teachers. It is getting better, but I think there is more work to be done. Thank you.
The Chair: I take great pride in you as an elder coming here this morning and sharing some of your knowledge and experiences with us. I thank you.
Senators, our third panel comprises two witnesses from the University of Saskatchewan. We have with us Assistant Professor Marilyn Poitras, and Valerie Arnault-Pelletier, Aboriginal Coordinator, College of Medicine, also from the University of Saskatchewan.
Welcome, ladies.
Marilyn Poitras, Assistant Professor, University of Saskatchewan, as an individual: Thank you for taking the time and inviting me to speak to the committee. I am happy to share some thoughts with you. I am a law professor at the University of Saskatchewan.
I have been quite involved, for the last 15 or so years, with regard to election issues with Metis people in Saskatchewan, and I teach Aboriginal law. I have looked at constitutional issues for Metis people as well.
I have some appreciation as a Metis person for the question that you are asking and the issue that you are wrestling with. I have an appreciation as a researcher and a lawyer with the depth and the complexity of what you are looking at right now.
I want to be very clear, after looking at this and living with it in my family, that there is no silver bullet answer. I think you will all come to that conclusion. The understanding of who Metis people are in Canada is based on the relationships that we have with everybody else. I understand that we have to come to an understanding about who Metis people are for all the reasons that you heard this morning: our identity culturally, who we are; what we have contributed; our role historically and contemporarily within Canadian society as to what we have contributed to the creation of this nation; access to education and employment; the fact that we are recognized under Section 35 and what that actually means.
We have this unique bi-racial history, and that is what makes this question really complex. We have this First Nation connection within our country, and we have external European connections as well. I want you to know that I think the question is a really important one.
When we start to have a conversation about who Metis people are and the identity question, the answer will change depending on who asks the question and why they are asking the question.
There is this genealogical cultural question: What is your genealogy? It is not very hard to find Metis people who go back to treaty signatories, chiefs who insisted that their daughters, their children and their husbands were signatories to treaties, so we have people who had this bi-racial existence who were part of treaties. We also have Metis people who lived on reserves who were never part of treaties. We have a history in this country of including non-status people in the definition of Metis. We have seen people drift on and off of that list on a regular basis, quite high-profile people. People who were denied status for various sexist reasons in the past were lumped in. It was a catch-all for some time about where you were going to fit. You were Metis if you did not fit in under a First Nation's category. You can see when you look at our history that that still happens.
We have recent court decisions over the last 25 years that show people moving from one place to another, and so I want to think about this in terms of future questions: What happens in the future if you are a 6.1 or 6.2 under the Indian Act and you lose your status? Will you move back into the Metis family? What will happen with that? There is a hierarchy. I think we would be in denial if we did not deal with the fact that there are a lot of Metis people that are termed Metis that are trying to get on a First Nation's registry because they have been denied that historically. They see that that is a much more solid way to prove your identity. I just say all of this in terms of how complex it is.
My personal experience in terms of the genealogical question. I have been married twice. My first husband is of Swiss and French descent, and we have three children. To use a word that I think we would use in modern day society, my first husband is white, and my three children from that marriage are Metis kids. They are registered. My children identify as Metis. We have very strong family connections. They were raised with their grandparents, with my parents who have been a very strong influence in their lives. They are adults now.
I am married for the second time to a man from Sweetgrass First Nation here in Saskatchewan, and we also have a son. My son is registered at the Sweetgrass First Nation. Because of the way the identity's been set up with the Métis Nation -Saskatchewan and the Métis National Council, the baby that I carried in my body for 9 months and gave birth to, just like my first three children, will never be a half-breed. He is being denied the right to be Metis because he is on an Indian registry. I do not think German and Irish people get married and say, "Pick, honey. Either he is going to be with your family or my family.'' Genealogically, biologically, we do not do that to people unless you are Metis, and we deny that you can do that. I have pressured our political leadership to think about that.
When the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan and the Métis Nation of Alberta set up their registry system — and I have studied these systems; I have interviewed these people; I have looked through the database — the question they ask is: Are you First Nation or Inuit? They take that application that you put together, and they send it off to the federal government. The federal government gets their long list of registered Indians out and says, "Marilyn Poitras wants to register as a Metis person. Is she Metis?'' They go down the list. "Is she First Nation?'' They go down their First Nation Santa Claus list, and they say, "No, she is not on this list. Because she is not on this list, then she can be registered as a Metis person,'' and the paperwork all comes back. Well, there are a few things going on. You cannot claim that you are Inuit either, but we have no way to register Inuit people to check the list. There is no magic Inuit list available to the federal government to check against.
Some of our leadership will say, "Well, we do not have a problem with people being Metis and Inuit at the same time. That is not the real issue. The real issue is if you are Metis and First Nation at the same time.'' Well, why is that? "Well, that is because you might double-dip. Well, what do you mean, you might double-dip? Well, you might try to get financing for education as a First Nations person, and you might try to get it as a Metis person.'' Well, surely to goodness in the day and age of computers, we could check if you have made two applications, if you are getting two cheques. There is this standard that I do not really understand that is going to become more and more problematic, so dual citizenship does not seem to be an option for Metis people.
Geography as one of the bases of identity has likely been raised with you several times in terms of, are you part of the Metis homeland? We know that there are people within the Northwest Territories and within the Eastern provinces — some of whom I have worked with — that there are Metis organizations and Metis registries in all of those areas. There are people in the Yukon who consider themselves Metis, who actually have access to federal funding for education and health care that is not available to Metis people in the South.
Then we come to the national definition and the provincial definitions of Metis. If you are not part of the Metis homeland, then you are not actually Metis, so we have this internal war about whether you are really Metis or not. Are you from Ontario or Quebec or one of the Eastern provinces? Are you from a territory that we do not recognize? There is a real problem with that.
It is of real importance to recognize and understand that there has actually been war over this issue; that the Metis struggled in terms of land and government structure, and that they want to maintain, with considerable pride, that they have actually gone to battle for these rights. So there is a real strong political patriotic call to having a homeland connection.
However, the problem with the definition of being connected to the homeland is that it actually denies who we are. It denies that we actually were very nomadic, that we were one of the key supporters of the fur trade in this country; the truism that the highways in this country were based on Metis Red River cart roads. We have this legacy of being all over North America, and now we are going to deny it and start to talk about the homeland. I really think that we need to be honest about who we have been.
Another aspect of who asks the question about who Metis people are is the political definition. One of the questions that you talked about with the last panel was who decides who is Metis, and should it be left to our politicians? I was one of the people who worked on election issues in Saskatchewan. I have been around the province twice now, interviewing people about how you get on and off the list, whether or not you can vote and where your rights come from.
The old system where locals or the smaller governance units in Saskatchewan made decisions about who was on and off the list became quite political. There were internal or family fights even. People could be easily taken on and off the list.
Another problem that arose was that the provincial organizations would be sent these long lists from the locals, and they would register these people and send back a master list to the locals, and the list would be changed. There was no trust about whether your name was going to legitimately be on or off of that list.
When a political body like the federal or provincial government asks who you are as an Aboriginal person, we end up with decisions like re Eskimos. We end up with decisions that are based on who is financially responsible for you. That is what we are looking for here. Is it the federal government's responsibility or is it the provincial government's responsibility? Then we get into the questions that you asked earlier about whether you are an Indian under section 91.24, because if you are, then we are going to put you fully under the financial responsibility of the federal government. If you are not, then we have got this kind of gray area, and are you provincial or are you not provincial? It gets really complicated.
We also end up with things like section 6 of the Indian Act. It has a couple of names that I want to share, one in fun, of course, and this happens at almost every First Nation governance meeting. They call this the "marry-your-cousin'' clause because if you do not marry your cousin, you are going to lose status. So we have got to keep these blood lines going. I actually refer to it as the "law of diminishing Indians,'' because we are creating a system where there will be fewer and fewer First Nation people on a registry.
We talk about having a federal list of Metis people, which could be easily created, mind you, because Metis organizations are sending lists of people to the federal government right now. I am sure the list is being created as we speak. However, is that the best way to keep track of who Metis people are, when there have been so many problems with that type of registry for First Nations people? I am personally very nervous about that kind of thing.
The political question about whether we are entitled to anything, whether we have Aboriginal rights when we are Metis people, is a very live issue. I have been working with negotiating harvesting rights in Saskatchewan. There are people in the North of Saskatchewan who, because of some court cases, have recognized harvesting rights as Metis people. In the South, they are not recognized. We are trying to figure out, does that Powley definition work? Now we are bringing a judicial interpretation, a legal interpretation about who Metis people are. It is really complex because we want to have a community-based identity, and you can only hunt within a certain perimeter of that community. I understand the community connection because that is where identity comes from, but to limit Metis people geographically is a complete denial of who Metis people were historically. They were not limited geographically. In fact, they were the prime instigators of the fur trade.
It also interferes with section 6 mobility rights. Nobody is talking about the rest of the Constitution. Sometimes we get so focused on section 35 that we forget to say, why are we limiting Metis people's rights that way? We do not do it to First Nation's people when they harvest. Why are we doing it to Metis people?
The judicial component of it is such that it is sad for me to see that we have reduced ourselves to having the judiciary decide who Metis people are. I think if Aboriginal people have any form of self-government, any sort of sovereignty, the most basic thing you would be sovereign over is who your people are, so we need to be able to trust our political leadership to take that on and to make those definitions.
Historically, when we were looking at who Aboriginal people are, it was to do things like send them to residential school, take their children away, deny their mobility within the province, deny them employment, ensure incarceration. We are in a time when it is not such a bad thing to be an Aboriginal person. In fact, you should be proud of it. The sword will not swing the other way. That is interesting to me, that we cannot say, "I am Metis, and so I have a right to harvest in this country. That is my historic right.'' Then the government says, "Whoa, just a minute here. We are going to start to really look at whether you are Metis or not.''
When you look at incarceration rates of Aboriginal people and you see the statistic for Metis people, do you think they sat and scrutinized whether or not those are Metis people to the same extent they do when they want to give them harvesting rights? I doubt very highly that they did that. So who is going to decide? I really want it to be our political leadership. I want to be able to trust our political leaders.
I want the onus to be on our leadership, because our traditional form of governance in the Metis nation was grassroots. The people made the decisions and the power went up from the people. It was not tipped on its head and having leadership force decisions on grassroots people.
Following our historic governance system I think would be the best way for it to happen. I might have rose-coloured glasses on here, but I am prepared to acknowledge that. Thank you.
Valerie Arnault-Pelletier, Aboriginal Coordinator, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan: I thank you for the opportunity to present today. My remarks are specific to the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine and our admissions process.
I want to start by introducing myself. My name is Val Arnault-Pelletier. I am married into a strong Metis family, but I myself am from Beardy's Okemasis First Nation, my grandmother's community. My mother was from Waterhen First Nation, so I have strong ties into Saskatchewan. When Marilyn said something about marrying your cousin, like it does get a bit worrisome.
I am here today to present on the topic of Aboriginal identity, and particularly Metis identity and our admissions process at the University of Saskatchewan. Currently, we have ten equity seats in the College of Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, and those seats are designated specifically for First Nations, Metis and Inuit people. The seats are sanctioned by the Human Rights Commission of Saskatchewan, and the applicants for our equity seats must meet the same admissions requirements as any other applicant to our College of Medicine. The only difference is that our equity pool competes within itself. We have a responsibility and obligation to ensure those seats are filled by applicants with verifiable proof of ancestry as First Nations, Metis and Inuit individuals.
To this date we have not had applicants that I am aware of — and I have been working at the university for almost 20 years — who self-identified as Inuit. And I am talking about the College of Medicine. Our First Nations applicants with treaty or status cards have really not presented an issue at this point in time in terms of accessing our seats. It is been fairly clear, I think, although one could maybe argue that point. The applicant pool though that we have encountered concerns with most recently are the self-identified Metis applicants.
At the College of Medicine we have historically not placed any parameters around how we accept Metis applicants to our college, nor have we had any restrictions on what is acceptable proof in terms of Metis applicants. We have accepted cards from various locals, Métis Nation-Saskatchewan, letters, genealogy charts and other Metis cards from across Canada. This past admission cycle, we flagged a couple of applications that were questioned by our admissions team, which includes our admissions director, our admissions coordinator and me.
The applicants to our college provided cards that were issued by organizations that could also issue membership or affiliate cards. These cards could be purchased for a cost for anyone who wished to belong to their organization. So you would not have to be an Aboriginal person to get one of these cards.
Most notable was the language on one of the websites of one of the organizations of one of these cards that we flagged that stated they could issue Aboriginal status cards. I am not sure what that is, but apparently it is a recognized card. Members receiving these Aboriginal status cards were identified as being from a Metis tribe, using terminology like "feather,'' "painted'' and "tribe.''
To this date, I have not been able to determine if this is an actual tribal group or an actual Metis community. It concerns me greatly that we have potentially individuals who are taking advantage of our equity seats for their own purposes. They have not indicated any intention of reciprocity or pay it forward, as our admissions director so eloquently states, to the Aboriginal community.
I think in the Western provinces and I think right across Canada, our Aboriginal communities are very cognizant of Aboriginal identity, kinship ties, and familial roots.
When the files of these Metis applicants were flagged by our admissions team, we began to take a closer look at the cards issued by the organizations formed outside of the Métis National Council and its provincial counterparts and locals. The organizations identified, again I stress, each had the purview to issue affiliate membership cards. As far as I can determine, again, these could be approved for anyone wishing to be a member of those particular Metis organizations. These cards could potentially be used for purposes of entering post-secondary, other training education institutions; accessing scholarships, bursaries and tuition dollars designated specifically for Metis people.
At our college, because we accept out-of-province Metis students, this presents an issue because we do not really have a way of verifying their background and genealogy, particularly the two applicants that I mentioned earlier. One of the individuals indicated the roots of his family tree had a great-grandmother from a tribal group in the Northeastern United States, and one of his parents was a health professional from another country. I am still unclear as to how this translates into the ability to obtain a Metis card.
As part of our consultation process, we contacted the Aboriginal Student Center, the U of S Registrar, Métis Nation-Saskatchewan, Métis National Council, the Human Rights Commission, the education and equity consultant for the province, Student Enrollment Services and our own U. of S. legal counsel. As a result of many meetings, phone calls, emails and discussions, we crafted a new policy for our website that reads as follows:
Applicants will be required to identify themselves on the application for admission to be eligible to compete within the Aboriginal Equity Program.
Acceptable proofs of ancestry include: Status or Treaty Card, Métis Membership card, Nunavut Trust Service Card, or Inuit role number. The College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, will ONLY recognize Metis cards from the provincial counterparts of the Métis National Council.
Genealogies may be requested and the decisions of the Admissions Committee are final.
The Chair: Here, here.
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier: This has been sanctioned in writing by the Human Rights Commission which designates our equity seats.
We hope by placing a more stringent process in place, we will capture the students our community's identity as truly Metis to ensure the integrity of our equity seats. I find it inexcusable when we have applicants that are using our equity programs to further their own personal interests.
We must work together to ensure our equity programs are all striving for an impartial process that ensures that recognized Metis people have fair access to education and jobs. We are accountable to our communities, families and elders.
In February of 2011, the Minister of Indian Affairs tried to take the lead on defining Metis. I came across an article when I was doing a bit of research in this area. It became clear that this was a contentious issue, as Metis leaders were outraged at the government trying to take leadership on this important issue. So as I read this article, it led me to think of some questions. Who is monitoring the Government of Canada website that recognizes individuals or groups that are issuing Metis cards? Can this fall under the purview of the Métis National Council, an already established and recognized council for Canada? Are the individuals or individual in charge of this portfolio aware of the importance of genealogy, lineage, historic Metis homeland and the distinct group the Metis are? Are the Metis people not the ones who should be able to determine membership?
One last thought I will leave with you is that, at the College of Medicine, we are exploring the idea of also forming a community panel to discuss with our Aboriginal applicants their connection to community, their interests or thoughts about culture and the history of Aboriginal people in Saskatchewan and Canada. It is a work in progress. We do not have all the answers, but we are striving to ensure a fairer process for our applicants in terms of our equity seats. We welcome thoughts and ideas from you and from the Metis community.
Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, many people have been asking, why we are doing this? If there is one reason, there is a good one right here. I think this reinforces the need to do something in this area.
Senator Sibbeston: This is kind of a fundamental question, and I will just ask Marilyn Poitras this: How significant is it that the Metis are included as one of the Aboriginal peoples in the Constitution? Is it just a matter of time before the courts eventually make decisions and basically force the federal government to recognize Metis under section 91.24?
Ms. Poitras: I think that the courts have been very reluctant to do that. I would be very surprised to see that. If you look at the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People, there are definitely seeds of that thinking being planted in that commission.
Metis people have had this history of not quite being Indian and not quite being White, and so needing to have our own identity and our own recognition. I think the political battle over section 35 and how that would be included and the agreements that came between the leadership of the Inuit, the First Nations and the Metis at the time was a significant step forward for Aboriginal people, because we are not one large homogenous group in this country. I think that we are forced to be, in situations like that. I think the best foot went forward in the creation of section 35.
I think politically within our own communities, there are people who say, "I am not an Indian; I am a Metis.'' There is a lot of racism within our own communities about that. That is sad for me. It is extremely significant that Metis are part of section 35.
I think it is a recognition of the historic reality of the contributions that we have made and the future that we can offer.
I was listening to Lisa Wilson's presentation this morning and thinking that Gabriel Dumont Institute is a fundamental Aboriginal education institution that has a fabulous history and very strong abilities to move forward. Why are not we talking about things like that? Where are our celebrations around things like that?
I teach in the Native Law Program at the University of Saskatchewan, where we have all Aboriginal students that want to go into law. Over half of the students this summer of our 40-some students want to get into politics. They want to have a voice for Aboriginal people. Section 35 will always be the thing that we can go to, to say we have to have a voice. If the courts move in that direction, then the political leadership will have to, but I am not a betting person.
Senator Sibbeston: When I talk or think about the Metis being included under 91.24, it would not necessarily be on the same basis that the Indian First Nations are treated in Canada with respect to reserves and so forth. It is much like the Inuit people in the Arctic; they fall under section 91.24, but they were not placed on reserves and they have a whole different history.
I think they are in many ways the most fortunate of the Aboriginal people in our country, because with the creation of Nunavut, they have accomplished what every Aboriginal group or indigenous groups in the world would like. They have self-government; they have self-determination.
I have always been amazed that this can happen in Canada. In that regard, it is a great country, without a spear being thrown or an arrow shot from a bow between the Dene and the Inuit in the North. So surely, in our country, as Metis rights are becoming recognized and as the federal government is forced to take responsibility for them, the things that the Metis ask for — land, not on the same basis as reserves, but financial resources; benefits from resource development; education and so forth — can be achieved differently, in the Metis style. I think that is possible.
That is what I think we should be looking forward to and dealing with, because the Metis are different; they are independent. If they were given opportunities, they would absolutely flourish as a people because they have the basis; they have the independence, culture, pride and determination to succeed in our Canadian society.
I look at it that way. It just means at some point, somebody in the federal government — I do not think it would ever be the provincial government — has to take responsibility for them and give them the resources and opportunities to succeed. I think that is what we look forward to, and that is the hope, I think, of the Metis people in our country. Do you want to comment on that?
Ms. Poitras: I think that section 91.24 can be used in a way that recognizes that there are differences. Look at the Inuit situation: There are Inuit all over the North of Canada, and they are certainly not the same people. They do have the ability to create their own community membership. They have the ability to deal with their internal issues in their own way.
When I travel and work all over the world, I use Nunavut as the example of Aboriginal self-government in our country.
I agree absolutely with what you have said. There would be space for that. That would be a great thing.
Senator Dyck: We have heard a lot over the last little while about education and employment, and how important that is for the advancement of Aboriginal people and the Metis people in specific.
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier brought up the human rights aspect of it and the equity issue. As we progress, those equity issues, those equity seats are going to get bigger and bigger. The question of identity and who those seats are reserved for is going to get bigger and more important.
Your presentation was strictly to do with the College of Medicine. What about the rest of the university? Do other colleges, like the College of Law, have equity seats? Do you have a definition? What about the College of Arts and Sciences? What about the university as a whole? What about universities and colleges across Canada? Has anyone looked at that? I know you have.
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier: I have actually brought it to the senior people at the university, our registrar's office. Right now we are crafting a new policy that we are hoping other colleges will accept, and we will be challenging other colleges to take a look at how they are accepting Aboriginal students into those equity seats.
One other thing I did not mention is, on the Government of Canada website, this particular group that is issuing these affiliate membership cards is recognized on our Government of Canada website.
Senator Raine: Could you tell us who the group is?
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier: It is the Ontario Métis Family Records Centre. If you take a look at the language on their website, I believe it is a husband-and-wife team who is issuing the membership cards.
The Chair: Are you surprised that the federal government would make a mistake?
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier: I am very surprised that they are recognized.
The Chair: Hello?
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier: I do not know if we are going to be legally challenged around this because —
Senator Dyck: So you would make the recommendation that we look into that, I would guess?
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier: That was my recommendation.
Senator Dyck: Yes.
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier: That is why I asked the question: Who is monitoring the Government of Canada website?
Senator Dyck: We will.
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier: Who is recognizing these institutions and organizations?
The Chair: Senator Dyck is like a little pit bull. She will just grab it and just shake it to death.
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier: It creates a lot of issues for education institutions, in particular because I do not think a lot of people know about this.
Ms. Poitras: It is happening at the College of Law as well. I sit on the admissions committee for the College of Law. This was my first year on the committee. We had a large number of Aboriginal applicants. They said to me, "How do we know these people are Aboriginal? This guy is saying he is Aboriginal.'' I said, "Let us get some information from him. We would like a letter speaking to his ancestry. We would like to understand the community that he has come from. Is there anybody in the community that could write letters back?'' They were like, "Whoa, what do you mean? We need all that?'' The university is very much silos. We have all got our own independent ways of assessing things, and we do not play very well together in terms of sharing power over things like that. That is definitely something that is going to have to happen.
It is a bigger issue than you realize, because the University of Saskatchewan asks that Metis students have Metis cards. If you are from Saskatchewan, you need a Metis card to get into the College of Medicine. The Metis Nation of Saskatchewan has currently run out of money, so they have shut their registry down. Those who do not have their card cannot register and they are stuck. It has happened many times already.
There are many problems with that. Somebody from another province applying as an Aboriginal person who does not have a registry might have better access than our own people in the Province of Saskatchewan because we did not have enough money to put you in the registry. It is complicated.
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier: In Saskatchewan, we are fortunate in that many of us know each other and we understand the kinship ties. At least we understand the relationships. You can usually get a genealogy letter from the community.
Senator Raine: Thank you both very much. We really appreciate what you have brought to our study.
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier, would you mind sending us any documentation you have on crafting this new policy? That would be very helpful for the committee. I think you can do a better job defining it than we can. Could you share that with us?
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier: Yes, we certainly can. It is already crafted, and we already have our letter from the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. It is already on our website.
Senator Raine: Now what you want to do is share this with other organizations?
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier: Yes.
Senator Raine: That would help us.
Ms. Arnault-Pelletier: I will be attending a national meeting in Vancouver with the other Aboriginal coordinators from the schools of medicine from across Canada. I fully intend to bring this matter to their attention, and to have a good discussion at that table.
Senator Raine: Great, thank you.
The Chair: I have one more question in regard to the homeland. You talked about the homeland being bigger than this, that or the other thing. However, if you look at the chronology of events — 1816, Cuthbert Grant at Seven Oaks, Louis Riel in 1869-1870, then the war of 1884 at Batoche — there was a distinct community and a language.
I use the analogy: If you are from France, you come from this area in Europe; you speak a language, and regardless of where you go, you are French. Now, there could be Metis all over the place.
Do you not think that a homeland, the homeland of where Riel and Grant and the various other leaders of the Metis movement originated and formed government — the Manitoba Act of 1870 — do you not think that that defines an actual homeland and basis of where these people came from?
Ms. Poitras: I am very torn over that issue because I personally have no problem going to Batoche and finding my ancestors buried in the graveyard there. For me, it is not a question about whether I am or not. My worry is for the people who did not have that connection, people from other places in Canada who were suffering in the same way that we were here in Saskatchewan, but were not able to come together and organize politically that way. So am I the person in my generation to be able to say, "You do not qualify as a Metis person because of that.'' Or they moved away because of family, and they live in St. Louis, Missouri now, so their ancestry is easier to trace through the mother, who has lived in Quebec all her life?
I think it is too loaded. I think as Aboriginal people we are so interested in cutting off the definition of who we are and not assimilating people into our culture and our life.
The Chair: Assimilation is what Val Arnault-Pelletier spoke about here. If you try this major assimilation with no controls; then you have no control. There has to be a definition.
Ms. Poitras: Yes, I agree.
The Chair: It has to be defined. If you cannot define it, it is like a monster with two heads. I would like you to think about it.
If either one of you can add anything to this study by way of sending us correspondence, or if something comes up, get a hold of our clerk, Marcy Zlotnick. You may want to come to Ottawa to give further evidence if you think of something that would relate and help make this report as effective and as relative as possible to the subject of the Metis in Canada.
Ms. Poitras: Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation and your answers.
(The committee adjourned.)