Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 41 - Evidence - June 13, 2018
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 13, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:43 p.m. to study the new relationship between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
Senator Lillian Eva Dyck (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, I welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples either here in the room or listening via the web.
I acknowledge, for the sake of reconciliation, that we are meeting on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin peoples.
My name is Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan, and I have the honour and privilege of chairing this committee.
I will now invite my fellow senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.
Senator Christmas: Dan Christmas, Nova Scotia.
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Today, we continue our study on what a new relationship between the Government of Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples could look like.
We have, from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, National Chief Robert Bertrand, National Chief; Robert Russell, Senior Manager of Engagement; and Ron Swain.
You have the floor, National Chief Bertrand, and after your presentation we’ll have questions from the senators.
Robert Bertrand, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: I am National Chief Robert Bertrand of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples or, as we like to call it, CAP. I am pleased to be with all of you today and wish to acknowledge that we are on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples.
[Translation]
The teachings and wisdom of our ancestors are essential to guide our work and discussions today.
[English]
I would like to thank all committee members for allowing CAP to be present here today to speak to you. This committee has heard from witnesses reflecting the diversity of First Nations, Inuit and Metis people from urban, rural, remote and northern communities.
For over 47 years, CAP has committed itself to advocating for the rights and needs of off-reserve status and non-status Indians, Metis peoples and southern Inuit, the majority of whom live in urban, rural and remote areas.
CAP has also served as the national voice for its 11 provincial and territorial affiliates who are instrumental in providing us with direct connections to the priorities and the needs of our constituents.
[Translation]
From coast to coast to coast, CAP’s provincial and territorial affiliates play a leading role in providing us with a direct connection to the needs and interests of our constituents.
[English]
Since its formation, CAP has played a key role in fighting for and securing the rights of its people. The late Harry Daniels, former president of CAP, was a central figure in the constitutional talks leading up to the Constitution Act of 1982. Refusing to back down, Harry Daniels was ultimately successful in achieving his goals, and Metis were enshrined in the Constitution.
CAP also held a seat and was very active in negotiations of the constitutional forums, such as the 1992 Charlottetown Accord and the Kelowna Accord processes.
We have a long history of fighting for the off-reserve Indigenous peoples of Canada. We established a pivotal role for ourselves at the constitutional table and should play an equal role in all reconciliation tables undertaken by the federal government.
There is no question that the subject of today’s study, the new relationship between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, is one of vast importance to all Indigenous people living in this country. It is also a study whereupon we may only begin to explore the tip of the iceberg.
A new relationship between Canada and our people should be one that is inclusive and given room to grow over time. What are the principles that should guide the development of this new relationship?
A little over 20 years ago, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, RCAP, was tasked with investigating and responding to a similar question: What are the foundations of a fair and honourable relationship between the Aboriginal and the non-Aboriginal peoples of Canada?
I would advocate that the four principles for the basis of a renewed relationship proposed by the commission should be implemented into a new relationship between Canada and our people: recognition, respect, sharing and responsibility.
A great number of our people remain at a point of crisis, whether it be the denial of basic programs and services, rampant discrimination, escalating incarceration rates or a lack of available housing.
Reparation and reconciliation for Indigenous peoples, in the wake of such destructive colonial projects as the Indian Act, the residential schools system and the Sixties Scoop, are vital. These initiatives carry a lasting impact for our people.
[Translation]
Our vision is that all Indigenous people in Canada will enjoy a better quality of life, founded on the rebuilding of our nations. All Indigenous citizens will rightfully be treated with respect, dignity, integrity and equality.
[English]
Indigenous peoples have spent their entire lives fighting for rights: the right to claim their own Indigenous identity, the right to open and equal access for the same programs and services available to many other citizens of this country, and the right to determine their own place and future.
A number of models have been created to point the way for all levels of government to allow for the rights and determination of Indigenous peoples: the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Affairs, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and its 94 calls to action, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples, and NDP MP Romeo Saganash’s Bill C-262.
The most important piece in the establishment of a new relationship for CAP is the implementation of a working relationship with the federal government through its honouring the Supreme Court of Canada’s final decision in Daniels v. Canada, a legal victory for CAP, 17 years in the making. It was a unanimous decision of nine judges.
For years, both federal and provincial governments in Canada have denied having legislative authority over Metis and non-status Indians. The federal government, under the justification that section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, precluded them and the provincial governments from doing so on the basis that the issue was a federal one.
This left many Metis and non-status Indians in what the Supreme Court of Canada has characterized as a “ jurisdictional wasteland with significant and obvious disadvantaging consequences.”
In 1999, CAP addressed this crucial stalemate directly by launching a legal challenge with Daniels v. Canada. On April 14, 2016, after a 17-year court battle, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Daniels v. Canada, declaring that the Metis and non-status Indians are Indians under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
This landmark ruling in the Daniels decision confirmed Canada’s jurisdiction and responsibility for Metis and non-status Indians. It affirmed that the federal government had a fiduciary relationship with the Metis and non-status Indians, just as it does with status Indians, and had the duty to consult and negotiate with them on matters that affect them.
The legal victory earned through the Daniels decision rightfully belongs to CAP and is the key for our people to gain the rights, programs and services that I say they are entitled to.
In the Supreme Court’s 2016 final decision on Daniels, Justice Michael Phelan acknowledged that these consequences produced a large population of collaterally damaged people as the result of their being deprived of programs, services, and intangible benefits, recognized by all governments as needed.
The Daniels decision had the potential to transform the framework and relationship in which Canada deals with Metis and non-status Indians.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated time and time again that “No relationship is more important to Canada than the one with Indigenous Peoples.” His government is working in partnership with Indigenous peoples to review federal laws and policies to ensure they respect both Canada’s constitutional obligations and international standards, including those set out in UNDRIP.
Regarding what the Government of Canada termed the “CAP/Daniels Decision,” the government stated:
We are studying the decision to determine next steps. We will be working in genuine partnership with Métis and non-Status Indians — based on recognition of rights, respect, and partnership — in order to meaningfully advance the work of reconciliation.
According to the government’s website, this statement was last modified on April 14, 2016, the same day that the Supreme Court handed down its final decision. As of today, Canada remains an inactive partner in engaging the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples on Daniels. CAP, and by extension the voices of Metis and non-status Indians, continues to experience exclusion from crucial discussions with the Canadian government that impacts the rights and lives of our constituents.
The federal government’s continued state of inaction on the Daniels decision underscores a lack of commitment to support and advance the rights of all Indigenous peoples, specifically those of CAP’s constituency.
Earlier this year, in February, the Government of Canada launched a national engagement strategy to develop a Recognition and Implementation of Rights Framework that would ensure the Government of Canada respects Indigenous rights and provides policies and mechanisms for Indigenous peoples to exercise their rights.
Despite the fact that consultations began immediately following the government’s announcement, CAP has still not yet been engaged in this crucial stepping stone between the Government of Canada and Indigenous peoples. Such an example illustrates Canada’s ongoing unilateral decision making on behalf of non-status Indians and the urban Indigenous peoples. This must come to an end as it is a direct violation of their fundamental human rights.
The federal government needs to abandon and move away from its paternalistic, litigious relationship with Indigenous peoples to one of complete reconciliation with all our people where it honours its constitutional and fiduciary responsibilities: a new relationship that relies on the honour of the Crown.
In the Supreme Court decision on Daniels, Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella stated:
As the curtain opens wider and wider on the history of Canada’s relationship with its Indigenous peoples, inequities are increasingly revealed and remedies urgently sought.
The Government of Canada has to recognize the changing face of Indigenous peoples and its new urban reality. Brought together in CAP’s legal victory in Daniels, Canada’s Constitution and UNDRIP will enable lasting and positive changes for our people.
The Government of Canada must respect the spirit and intent of the Daniels decision and fully recognize the rights of Metis and non-status peoples. The Government of Canada must immediately move toward a table of reconciliation with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to develop a relationship based on rights and recognition as in section 35 of the Constitution Act. There must be justice for all.
Meegwetch. Thank you for taking the time to listen to us.
Senator Tannas: My colleagues won’t be surprised at the question I’ll ask because it’s one that I stubbornly cling to and think holds the key to something. This is a complicated problem and, quite frankly, the Daniels decision just makes it that much more complicated from the perspective of the government and from the perspective of the country.
Complicated situations sometimes can only be solved by simple answers. I am wondering if you could provide some of your thinking around individual rights and entitlements as we look forward into recognition, recompense, sharing and all those kinds of things, versus the rights and entitlements that would accrue to a collective, to Aboriginal governments.
Have you given any thought as to where money and other entitlements should rest at the individual level versus at a government level?
Mr. Bertrand: You are absolutely right when you say that this is a very complicated question. Just to illustrate how complicated it is, when my two friends here and I were working on my notes this afternoon, we had quite a discussion. Not one of us could agree exactly on what everything meant.
These two gentlemen are from different parts of the country and I am from the Quebec side. What is good in Labrador, for instance, is perhaps not what is needed in British Columbia or in Newfoundland.
In my opinion, we have to start talking to our constituents, our people, to find out exactly what it means for them to be recognized as Indians. What entitlements, as you put it? Is it something that is owed to an individual or should we send it to a community?
In our group, we did not have the time to ask those questions. That’s why we said in my presentation that what has to be done right now is that we have to sit down before we even talk about entitlements. We have to start having an open discussion with the federal government and talking to legal scholars about what the Daniels decision actually means.
I was there when the Supreme Court decision came down. We were very happy. We had won. After an hour or two of everybody being okay, we won, what exactly was it that we won?
Last March, we had the Daniels symposium. People came from different parts of the country. Some people talked about fishing. Some people talked about taxation, housing and education. We have all down on paper, but we need to streamline it so that we will have ammunition to go back and talk with the federal government.
I hope I answered your question.
[Translation]
As I said, senator, it is very, very complicated.
[English]
Senator Doyle: Good to see you again, chief. I think the last time we met, you and I were in the House of Commons as colleagues for 12 years. Good to see you again.
Between 2013 and 2017, according to our notes here, you made a grassroots engagement tour. When you decided to do that tour, what were you hoping to find? What were you hoping to accomplish? What did you feel your mandate was in what you would discover from doing that tour?
Did the people you meet make many recommendations as to relationship they had with the federal government at that time? Could you tell us a bit about that?
Mr. Bertrand: Yes, the grassroots tour was started by the previous grand chief, a very fine gentleman by the name of Dwight Dorey who passed away a couple of weeks ago. There was an extensive report. If you would like, I will make sure that the office sends a copy to the chair and you can pass it out.
Senator Doyle: That would be good, yes.
Mr. Bertrand: The main items that came out were what I mentioned a while ago: housing, education and economic development. Another problem we heard quite often was that Indigenous peoples living off reserve do not have the financial tools to get ahead that regular Canadians have access to.
We didn’t mention it in my notes, but according to the Statistics Canada numbers over 70 per cent of Indigenous peoples now live off reserve. I will be the first one to admit that, yes, we have all seen the horrible poverty that exists on some Indian reserves. The government has done right in saying that it was there to help. Nobody could be against whatever help, whether it’s financial or otherwise, for the status peoples on reserve to have better lives. I always end up by saying, “Let’s not forget the other 70 per cent of the people who live off reserve.”
[Translation]
Statistics Canada’s data, the government’s own figures, tell us that 70 per cent of Indigenous people live off reserve right now.
It is also interesting that companies that need workers for the railways or the oil industry will hire young Indigenous people. Indigenous youth must have the same opportunities as other Canadians.
I have always said that CAP is in a very good position to help those living off reserve. Unfortunately, the Government of Canada is not always on the same page as us. We respect its decisions. I would like to point out that CAP was one of the first organizations created. As I recall, CAP was established in 1971. And I can assure you that we will be there for many years to come.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Welcome, and thank you very much for coming. You say that a legal victory has been earned through the Daniels decision which rightfully belongs to CAP. I know Joe Magnet and his team worked very hard on that decision. It was a grand decision, that’s for sure. You also talked about the federal government’s inaction in determining the rights and assisting in implementing anything within the Daniels decision.
Are you working with other national organizations to assist in creating a framework that will advance the rights of the constituents you represent? What about the Isaac report? It was a fairly comprehensive report, and I am wondering if you’ve been able to use it at all in trying to implement the Daniels decision in working with the federal government.
Mr. Bertrand: The Daniels decision touched mostly those off reserve. We did not try to work with other NIOs because it was mostly CAP’s constituents that were touched by this. In the time I’ve been there we have always had an open door. If any other Indigenous organization wants to work with CAP to help the Metis or the non-status living off reserve, our door is always open. We would be very willing to work with them.
Did we go out and call? No, I must say we did not because the main concern for that decision was CAP’s constituency.
Senator Boyer: I am wondering about the Metis, say the Métis Nation of Ontario that has been working in the area on the framework agreements. I am wondering if you’ve done any work with them in trying to advance the rights of your constituents.
Mr. Bertrand: We have PTOs in all the provinces. What is the one in Ontario called?
Ron Swain, Former National Vice-Chair, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: The Ontario Coalition of Indigenous Peoples.
Mr. Bertrand: They have their own communities, and that’s who we work with. If there are other groups that would like to help out, I don’t want to speak for them but I am sure their help or suggestions would be welcome.
Senator Boyer: The Métis Nation of Ontario has been working hard in that area with the Daniels decision and using the Isaac report. I am wondering why you wouldn’t team up with them if they’re actually advancing the rights of the Metis.
Mr. Swain: Senator, I’d like to comment on your good question. The national chief wasn’t aware that our former chief actually wrote letters to all the national groups — the Métis National Council, the Inuit Tapirisat and the Assembly of First Nations — asking them for a meeting to talk about the Metis issues and to have ongoing dialogue. The fact is that, as our national chief talks about, there has been very little work at the federal level on the Daniels case and the Metis and non-status. We’ve been basically shut out of those tables where a lot of that dialogue is taking place.
Those letters were written to try to get some dialogue going so we could be part of that conversation. The federal government has a bilateral relationship with those other national organizations. You probably weren’t aware of that, but we had written previously and we didn’t get responses.
On the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Thomas Isaac report, the Thomas Isaac report was basically an investigation that took place out of the Manitoba land claims process. It was a follow-up to the Supreme Court decision. When Thomas Isaac went around, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples hadn’t been engaged very much with him. We didn’t actually get a meeting going with him. We were set to sit down and have a conversation with him, but an election was called and they called off the meeting.
I was actually founding president of the Métis Nation of Ontario and worked with a colleague named Tony Belcourt years ago to create the Métis Nation. I keep track of what’s going on there. I have lots of friends and colleagues within the Métis Nation of Ontario. They’ve been successful in having a relationship with the federal and provincial governments through the Métis Nation, which is the Métis National Council. As the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, we support the Métis National Council. They represent a certain definition of Metis. They call them Metis from the Métis Nation. Our definitions are broader.
We want to have a conversation and a process with the federal government that speak to the people that we represent, which is the Metis outside the Métis National Council and the Métis Nation. Nobody in Canada has advocated and spoken on behalf of the non-status Indians except for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
There’s a lot of work to be done there. We have to talk about definitions and enumeration. We have to identify that constituency. That’s why the congress is very disappointed that since the Supreme Court decision there’s not a more formal process to start that work. Even the Métis Nation of Ontario has come up with their definition, and we support it. They define themselves as a specific homeland in certain terms.
Our definitions are different across the country, but they still speak to the fact that we want to have Metis and non-status Indians being able to exercise section 35 Aboriginal and Indigenous rights and the ability to perform and be part of self-governing institutions.
That is new. Our national chief spoke in his briefing notes about there being a new reality in Canada. It comes from 150 years of gender inequality in the Indian Act and all the different policies that have forced Indigenous women out of their communities.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is actually a 47-year-old institution created by those women and their descendants. Every one of us is a descendant from either those First Nations women who were disenfranchised or from Metis groups or communities that are not part of the Métis National Council or Metis homeland.
That’s kind of a long, convoluted explanation. Senator, you’re right that it’s a complex situation. Because our constituency is so complex in the congress, it’s very hard to do business or to interact with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Provincial governments and the federal government tend to work with something that’s simpler.
My colleague explained very well this afternoon how the federal government wants to work with the three distinct groups because it’s very simple. He articulated it very well.
Robert Russell, Senior Manager of Engagement, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: It’s exactly what Ron Swain was saying. Every government wants, as you mentioned earlier, senator, an easy approach to what this issue could look like. The reality for our community, the non-status community, is that it’s going to look very different right across the board. In every province there might be a different approach. When we come to meetings like this one, we’re asked what self-government looks like for that person and what self-determination look like for that group or individual.
We really don’t know, not in a general sense. We know we have constituencies and members who have Indigenous rights in this country. We would like an approach. In the chief’s speech, what he is really speaking to is that we want a relationship with this government. How many times do we have to tell this government that we’re Indigenous people with Indigenous rights? Over 100 years they’ve been hearing this, and they still haven’t made progress on what those Indigenous rights look like for the non-status community.
We take them to court, and we still don’t get any satisfaction, any kind of commitment, any kind of obligation or any show of good faith that says the government really wants to work with us. It’s as simple as saying that we would like to sit down to speak to you at a table. It’s as simple as that, but we haven’t even had that. How far do we have to go?
We go to the Supreme Court of Canada, and they say, “Yes, they’re Indigenous people. They have Indigenous rights like any other Indigenous group out there.” Then, we go to government and they say, “We’re thinking about it.” After 100 years of thinking about it, I think it’s time they really started to show a sign of good faith and at least sit down to speak with us.
Senator Boyer: What is your next step, then, if you’re not getting any action now? What steps are you taking now to get some action to represent those rights?
Mr. Bertrand: We’re constantly asking INAC to sit down and talk. We hope. It will have to come sometime. If you’re asking us whether we thinking of going to court again, no. I’ve always said that in court cases the only ones that win are the lawyers. It takes a long time. It takes a lot of money. If we take the Daniels case, we won but there doesn’t seem to be any action. If we take it to court again and win and the government doesn’t go forward to talk to us, what is left? What else are we to do?
Our approach in what we’re doing is: Let’s keep knocking on those doors on Parliament Hill. Sooner or later somebody will open the door and we will start discussing. As I mentioned to Senator Doyle, I was there whenever the Daniels decision came down. I said to myself that this was good. We didn’t know what we had won, like I mentioned before, but I figured in four or five months we would be asked to come in to start negotiating what the Daniels decision means for those off reserve whether or not you are Metis. Legally there’s no more Metis and non-status. According to the Daniels decision, we’re all considered Indians.
I figured we should start negotiating, but nothing is being done. As Ron Swain said, in a lot of instances we are sort of pushed aside. The federal government only deals with certain NIOs, and they push some other ones aside. They’re segregating certain portions of the Indigenous peoples.
Senator McCallum: I have two questions. First, I don’t know very much about CAP. I was wondering about your membership number and the range of citizens. Is it all across Canada?
Mr. Bertrand: You said you had two questions.
Senator McCallum: I will ask the other one after.
Mr. Bertrand: In CAP, as I mentioned, we have 11 PTOs or provincial territorial organizations. Every PTO is autonomous and is responsible for its membership. It has its own bylaws. They hold their own AGAs. It is pretty well the same as what CAP does, but they’re a very autonomous organization. Membership is left up to them. Every year, they have to submit compliance requests to belong to CAP, and they do that. As far as membership goes, they’re in charge of it.
If I can speak about where I was before as national chief at NAQ, the Native Alliance of Quebec, we had the province divided into five areas. Every area had its own community or its own membership. When I left, we had about 22,000 or 23,000 people spread across Quebec. For the other ones, they keep their numbers to themselves.
Ron Swain worked with Ontario. Maybe he could explain how Ontario works.
Mr. Swain: I will give you the background of the Ontario Coalition of Indigenous Peoples. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples used to be called the Native Council of Canada. They’ve been around for 47 years, the longest of any Indigenous off-reserve or First Nations off-reserve community organization. Over the years each province organizes. I’ll give you a bit of the history of Ontario.
In Ontario, it used to be called the Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association. Its short name was OMAA. Basically, all Indigenous people who lived off First Nations communities were part of it. The Metis, the non-status and status living off reserve were part of that organization. It collapsed financially about 14 years ago, and we created the Ontario Coalition of Indigenous Peoples as sort of flowing from that.
It’s very difficult to run a proper membership without proper funding. I would say that’s probably one of our big issues at the congress that we want to address with the federal government when we create a table. It’s all volunteers. From Ontario west, none of the affiliates of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples get any core funding from the federal or provincial governments. They’re all volunteers. We have our membership criteria, which is basically a lot like INAC, to produce documents, birth certificates and lineages back to Indigenous parents or grandparents. Each one is slightly different, but we do our best to achieve that. It’s a slow process. It’s labour intensive. With volunteers, you have people coming and going who have certain expertise and it goes with those people.
I’ll give you an example when I was part of the Métis Nation of Ontario. They were a very successful organization because they had lots of resources from the federal government. The federal government is actually funding their registry process to get section 35 rights. We want to create a table to get to that point. For the Métis Nation of Canada, the MNC, each one of its provincial organizations gets millions of dollars for their registries. Their registries are very expensive.
It’s important, post the Daniels case, for the Metis, the non-status Indians, and especially the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, to have the capacity to start identifying who are these people, these citizens of our communities, and who are the Metis and non-status Indians. When you start creating self-government organizations, you need to have a mandate from legitimate Indigenous people. This is why we’re so anxious to create these tables.
The Métis Nation of Ontario has a very good relationship with the provincial government and the federal government. They have created those tables. They have created that framework. A lot of it came from the Thomas Isaac report. They have created a process building on their registry. Their registry is the key to that organization’s success and some of the success of the Métis National Council throughout the Western provinces. We made proposals to the federal government to test a registry process, and we were turned down. That was pre-Daniels, mind you.
I just wanted to make one comment about the very comprehensive Thomas Isaac report commissioned prior to the Daniels decision coming down. It doesn’t speak in a meaningful way to what the Daniels decision means and who those individuals are, the Metis and the non-status Indians. For the Thomas Isaac report, he and his team consulted with the Métis National Council affiliates Ontario west. It’s a very good picture of the Métis National Council and its particular philosophy of a Metis homeland in certain areas.
It doesn’t capture any of our affiliates in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia or the Maritime provinces when talking about Metis. It’s basically silent on that because there wasn’t capacity within the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples or within our affiliates throughout the different provinces going west. We’re basically volunteers doing our best. One senator asked what we do. To combat not having proper tables or forums with the federal government and the different provinces, we’re basically just organizing and having community meetings to talk about the Daniels case in our limited way and our limited scope.
There was the grassroots tours where prior national chiefs from the congress went on for three years. I will make sure the chief gives you a copy of that report because it prioritizes what was wanted by the grassroots people in these grassroots tours right across Canada. The number one, when talking about Daniels, was housing, education and all the different issues that our Indigenous people living off the First Nations community are suffering. Going east with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the affiliates have core funding, so there was a stronger capacity from Quebec east in the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
Mr. Bertrand: I know we talked a lot about CAP. If you permit me, Madam Chair, I would like to come back to it. CAP was formed in 1971. It was the start of a lot of the organizations out there now. CAP was started by MNC. They were members of CAP, and after a while they decided to go on their own. When AFN was started I believe it was called the Indian Brotherhood at the time. They were also part of CAP.
CAP has been there since the beginning, helping out the Indigenous people. I have to be honest. I don’t want to speak for my two friends here, but it upsets me when I see the resources the federal government is giving to other organizations and an organization like CAP is being pushed aside. It’s one of the reasons I found it important to have this discussion with you tonight.
We need help to convince the central government, as I mentioned before, that it is important to help those on reserve, but, in my opinion, it is as important to help the people off reserve. CAP is that organization. As I have mentioned, we are there. We want to help. We want to help our constituents whether they’re in B.C. or Toronto, but we need the resources. That’s why we decided to come here to meet with you tonight.
Ladies and gentlemen, we need help. We need partners that will convince the government that CAP is a viable, good organization. We need their help.
Senator McCallum: Indigenous people have spent their entire lives fighting for rights, as you said. Citizens that are raised with a life of conflict and trauma in their communities tend to adapt behaviour which allows them to cope with the trauma. Part of that behaviour is to accept the paternalistic relationship as normal.
In the move to undergo transformation toward self-determination, change needs to occur in individuals, municipalities, regions, provinces and national bodies. How do you encourage this change when membership is widespread and the social determinants to life are buried in all your municipalities in the different provinces?
Mr. Bertrand: It is very complex. As you are aware, Canada is a huge country. I have had the benefit of travelling to every province and every territory. In my opinion, you need to have alliances with different organizations.
To give you an example, last year we went to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They are ready to work with us to help train young people in the area of housing. I believe part of the solution is to get these organizations to work with us so that we find solutions for those off reserve.
I mentioned the Federation of Canadian Municipalities but there is also the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Perrin Beatty, President. These people see the vast potential of the young Indigenous peoples now living off reserve. There is an old saying that you can spend the money now or you can spend a lot more later. This idea comes from them. This is the time we have to start training young people so that they will be able to take over different jobs, have better lives, be able to take care of their children and maybe become equal in future generations. That’s how I see it.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for the tremendous work that you do.
Mr. Bertrand: Thank you very much.
Senator Coyle: It is really a pleasure to have all of you with us this evening.
Mr. Bertrand, it sounds like you are in quite a sticky situation and that you have been in it for quite a while, if I am understanding correctly. You mentioned a couple of things. You said it’s important to help the off-reserve Indigenous peoples in Canada and CAP is that organization. You just said that. You also said that the Government of Canada is not engaging with CAP. I am trying, as I am sure are all of us including you, to understand why. We have heard about other organizations such as the Métis National Council and the various constituent bodies of the Métis Nation of Ontario, et cetera. We believe the Government of Canada is engaging with those organizations.
I am trying to understand this picture. I know there was a split off at one point and that formed out of your group the Métis National Council. I don’t purport to know a lot but I know a bit. I am trying to pick up on the whys of this situation. Why are you finding yourself in this situation?
Mr. Swain mentioned what could be considered messiness, the complicated messiness of the various constituents that actually come together. They are not a very uniform group because it isn’t a very uniform group. There is this kind of messiness to your constituency, which is not to denigrate them but just to characterize it.
Then there are other organizations that seem to be recognized. Their legitimacy is not questioned. They are not seen as messy. Is it the messiness? Is it a question of your legitimacy? What would you say is at the core of the reluctance or the resistance you’re encountering?
Mr. Russell: I guess I can speak to it somewhat. I agree that we do look messy and that our constituency looks complex, but I also believe that all constituencies are complex: AFN, MNC and ITK. The reality is ours is more costly. When this committee or when the Senate lifted the 1951 cutoff date in the new legislation on sex discrimination in the act, it actually opened a door for 250,000 more people to become status Indians. Those people, today, are non-status Indians, people who could actually be members of our organizations or who are members of many of our organizations. It’s a huge cost to government. I truly believe that’s a portion of why we have been left aside.
The idea that we’re somehow so complex you can’t deal with us is an excuse for not acting. You have a responsibility to people regardless if it is messy, sticky or complex. They still have an obligation to whom we are as Indigenous peoples. I think that’s where it comes from to some degree.
You’re right. We have some responsibility in the part we play in that our constituency isn’t as easy to identify as MNC’s, ITK’s or AFN’s constituency. They also have complex issues to deal with themselves. The majority of First Nations people now are living off reserve. There will be a point at some time when off-reserve people will be upset with on-reserve people and on-settlement people will be upset with off-settlement people. It’s the reality that we have a very changing dynamic in our Indigenous population in this country.
The government’s refusing to deal with us is really refusing to deal with the situation as it exists in this country. We will not be that easy, remote, off-reserve, isolated community that has traditional Indigenous rights. They might be complex and different. In the cities, an Indigenous right might look one way and in an off-reserve northern community it might look totally different in another way. The only thing we have ever asked of this government is they sit down to have the conversation and talk about what the complexities look like and what are our opportunities. These are real opportunities.
Like the chief referred to, the business community really understands that. The reality is we have the fastest growing segment of the population. It’s active. It’s moving into communities. Pretty soon your next-door neighbour will be an Indigenous person. It’s a good chance, if you were to go home today, that you might actually have an Indigenous person living next door to you. That changing face is a reality.
We can only move forward as Canadians if we work together to find some kind of reconciliation. The distinction-based approach the government purports is the only way to go forward is actually another way to discriminate. They have actually passed the discrimination baton from themselves to Indigenous communities, saying that, “Now you have to discriminate by saying those people can’t be a part of your community.” Whereas, in the last 100 years they have been saying that to us.
We don’t believe we are that complex or that we’re hard to identify. It just means we really haven’t had the opportunity.
Mr. Bertrand: In our discussions this afternoon I learned a lot of new stuff. Robert Russell was saying that 50 per cent of the population in Winnipeg were Indigenous right now. This will only increase in the future. Instead of looking at it as being a problem, maybe we should start looking at it as being an immense potential to get it better. I may sometimes have a bit of trouble with English, but you understand what I mean. There is so much we could do.
Senator Patterson: It’s interesting to hear the criticism of the distinctions-based approach because our committee has been told by the president of ITK that the distinction-based approach to the way in which we talk about Indigenous peoples in this country is essential for the new relationship to work.
I am not trying to criticize his point of view because the Inuit are homogenous and have a common language. It makes sense for them, perhaps or probably. You have explained clearly it doesn’t work for you because of your constituency being so varied across the country.
What should be the new approach by the federal government to treat you with the respect that you talked about in your presentation?
Mr. Swain: We respect that the distinction-based approach is working for those groups. As Indigenous people our organization respect the fact that AFN takes a certain position.
One of the reasons goes back to when another senator was asking her question. It’s easier to deal with a distinction-based group. They have legislation under the Indian Act to deal with this certain land-based group, and they have certain issues. To be quite honest, the Indian Act has been around for 150 years. There is a priority on the federal government. They have a responsibility to interact with that group in a meaningful way.
It gets a bit more complicated when we start talking about non-status Indians. I have seen the communications of some of the Assembly of First Nations in which they are starting to talk about representing non-status Indians. They never have. I am not criticizing. Their legislation really restricted them to First Nations communities. The 150 years of sexism in the Indian Act has not only affected all of Canadian society. It also affects those First Nations institutions and my brothers and sisters. It’s a fact of life that those communities have been tainted by the sexism of the Indian Act.
They are dealing with it. It’s easy for government. Even for myself, I can wrap my mind around it. The Constitution says the Indigenous or Aboriginal people of Canada are the Indians, the Inuit and the Metis. It’s very easy for the federal government and Prime Minister Trudeau. I am not putting words in his mouth. I am trying to reflect on where I think he is going with this. It’s easy to adopt that distinction base, but the reality for all these years since Confederation is that all the policies of the federal government have been to reduce their liability when it comes to Indigenous people. They have created the environment of the residential schools, the Sixties Scoop and the sexism in the Indian Act. They have forced our people out of our own communities.
There is a new reality, and they have created this new reality. We have had generations and generations of Indigenous people — First Nations, Inuit and Innu — who don’t live in their communities and would never go back.
We have nothing against the Métis National Council. We support 100 per cent how successful they are. It’s easier for them to organize when they have one definition of one people. You’re right that it’s messier and more complex with the Congress of Aboriginal People. When you have a discussion at an assembly about a definition, you’re talking about a whole pile of definitions. It’s really hard to get consensus. Whereas the Métis National Council has been very successful with its concept of those definitions and the ideological concept of having a Metis land base and a territory. That works a lot easier.
From Ontario west on those lands the MNC claim to be Metis lands there are lots of our constituents in our communities who don’t want to be part of that community and don’t agree with their definitions. We have our communities. Some 47 years ago, they organized around the concept of labour unions. At the beginning they were called locals and communities. It was a labour movement organization. That organizational structure still exists in a lot of our communities. We will have mixed communities of Metis, non-status and status people organizing themselves in kind of a labour structure. It works because we get work done. We get to communicate with people. We pass on that knowledge from generation to generation in a volunteer way.
I take senators back to the Charlottetown constitutional process. I am not a politician like my colleague here and the senator who were in the house for 12 years and got used to talking. Unfortunately, I think it will take a complex process. Unfortunately the Charlottetown constitutional process failed as a referendum. When it addressed the Indigenous issues and Indigenous self-government, it didn’t say what they were. It didn’t put in what were section 35 rights. It was a process of how to get to self-government. Communities, nations and organizations could opt into that process and negotiate with the federal government.
We don’t have to recreate the wheel. We have had the royal commission. We have had a couple of constitutional processes. We had the Kelowna Accord that speaks to a lot of this. Really, the royal commission, to me, is a bible. That was the most comprehensive analysis of our Indigenous issues, and nothing has changed in 20 years. What has really changed is that the definitions have become more distinct with a landmark thing like the Daniels case. Now we don’t have to worry about Metis and non-status Indians being outside of section 91(24). They are there. I am not saying to redo the constitutional process, but there is a lot to be learned in having sophisticated processes.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has been at every one of those tables. In fact, my national chief made reference to Harry Daniels. He was at the first constitutional table. He was the one who got Metis into the Constitution under one of those three definitions. Without that, we wouldn’t have won the Daniels case, and the Métis National Council probably wouldn’t even exist right now. The Congress has had an incredible role in advocating and championing Indigenous issues.
I still think we have a role for negotiating these big, complex processes, not just for our members but for all Indigenous people living off First Nations communities. I have always had a tradition. I believe in the legitimacy, from 47 years of doing this, of creating tables to negotiate those kinds of bigger agreements like self-government framework agreements. They also have an ability to get some mandate or ratification by creating forums so Indigenous people can come to vote and say that this is something they agree with.
I am a really big believer in opting-in processes. One of the things I liked about the Charlottetown constitutional process was that communities and nations could opt in if they wanted. Then there was a framework on how to negotiate self-government agreements.
I see the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples being more than just a national organization. It is an organization that has been negotiating for 47 years big concepts like a constitutional process or Charlottetown process. We want a table to start talking about big, broad categories and big, broad visionary ideas. Our people are the poorest people. When they move off the First Nations communities and the Metis settlements into urban areas, the Metis and the non-status, unfortunately statistics prove that our people are the poorest, the most uneducated and have the worst health conditions.
I don’t have to ask my colleagues, but we have been organizing and doing this for 47 years is that we want to bring ourselves out of poverty. You can talk about Indigenous rights or section 35 rights, but the number one goal is to bring ourselves out of poverty through education, exercising our rights and exercising how to repair the damages from the residential school system. We believe our communities have to make decisions on ideas to repair our damaged communities and damaged individuals.
You might think it’s a volunteer organization that doesn’t have much capacity. As my national chief spoke about, we have evidence of being very inclusive and very successful at all these processes. Even though the Métis National Council say they won the Daniels case, they didn’t. We were the ones who were there 14 years. Unfortunately, and I hate to say this, I know for a fact that the Métis National Council and the Assembly of First Nations were intervenors speaking against our broader definitions and different processes. They weren’t very helpful in that litigation.
A senator mentioned Joe Magnet. Yes, he was our number one lawyer. He has worked with the Congress of Aboriginal People on many cases. We are very grateful for his expertise and diligence in winning that case.
Senator Patterson: If I may, this is your case. You were the plaintiff. MNC was an intervenor, as were others. You were at the constitutional tables with the repatriation, with the Charlottetown Accord and with the Kelowna Accord. I must say I was shocked to hear there was no dialogue going on with you as plaintiffs in a case that you thought was a victory. It reminds me of Bill S-3 where the litigants were left out of the consultation following another important case on gender discrimination.
What do you want us to recommend here? Is it simply that the federal government must negotiate with a significant group of Aboriginal people who have so far been left out of the dialogue? Is that what we need to recommend? I think you told us that the feds are negotiating with the Métis National Council, which is great, but not you; you’re left out. We’re going to do a report to the government. Is that what you want us to say?
Mr. Bertrand: I think Robert Russell said it extremely well. We would like to open up negotiations. Let’s sit down. We are, to use the expression, a messy group. If we are to start talking on how to bring our people up to a better standard of living, we have to start discussions with the federal government. If your report could recommend this and we get action on it, I would be the happiest person in the world, senator.
Senator Patterson: Another thing that surprised me was your statement that 70 per cent of Aboriginals live off reserve. We have heard in some of the evidence what I always thought was the case, that over half of the Indigenous population lived in a metropolitan area off reserve. I think Statistics Canada said 51.8 per cent, but you’re saying the number is 70 per cent. Are you talking about the people who don’t live in the urban areas?
Mr. Bertrand: Those who live off reserve.
Senator Patterson: They don’t live in cities comprising at least 30,000 people. Is that where you get the 70 per cent?
Mr. Bertrand: We got the numbers from StatsCan. They were not necessarily in cities of over 30,000. It was across the board, namely, Indigenous people living in small towns and in big cities. That’s where the 70 per cent comes from.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses this evening. On behalf of all the senators. I would like to thank National Chief Robert Bertrand; Robert Russell, Senior Manager of Engagement; and Ron Swain for presenting information to us regarding the history of CAP and the vision forward.
(The committee adjourned.)