Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 8 - Evidence, October 25, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 25, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:30 a.m. to study the development of a strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil to eastern Canadian refineries and to ports on the East and West coasts of Canada.
Senator Michael L. MacDonald (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, this morning the Transport and Communications Committee is continuing its study on the development of a strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil to Eastern Canadian refineries and to ports on the East and West coasts of Canada. I wish to welcome our witness, Ontario Regional Chief Isadore Day. He's from Serpent River First Nation, located midway between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury, involved in various sports, committees and volunteer positions over the past 15 years. I invite Regional Chief Day to make his presentation, and afterwards the senators will have questions.
Isadore Day, Ontario Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Editor's Note: The witness spoke in his native language.]
I first of all want to acknowledge the traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples. These are unceded lands. It's a very important territory in the history of our indigenous people on these very lands where the federal government does its deliberations on a daily basis.
I also want to acknowledge the Creator, the Creation, the prayers and the protocols of the people in this territory. I opened specifically, Mr. Chair, mentioning my clan, the Pipe Clan, which I think is quite appropriate given the fact that we are talking about the health of the environment, that we're talking about the sustenance of life, that we're talking about the protection of our cultures and our languages. It's certainly fitting and appropriate that I introduce and bring respectful greetings on behalf of First Nations across the country.
First of all, Mr. Chair, I must give an opening qualification on this issue. It is a very sensitive issue, and I will read into the record my notes which have been distributed for the committee. I want to tell you that coming here I opened up my social media Facebook to questions and comments from those who want to pay attention and contribute to this discussion, and I can tell you without a doubt, and you know as well as I do, as do your committee colleagues, that this is a very critical issue and one of greatest importance to Canadians. It's also one that indigenous people have taken to task. We know for sure that we have some major issues and concerns with respect to the issue of fossil fuels.
I want to underscore a couple of complex quandaries, if you will. I'll be very simple in how I say this. There is an underlying general concern of environment that when you take crude oil out of the ground and you run it through pipelines, we know we're seeing issues and impacts of the infrastructure as it ruptures and breaks. These pipelines are even in the Great Lakes.
It's not just the spill, however, that we're concerned about; it's the fact that we're in a dire situation as humanity. There's only so much of the biosphere that can handle the impact: land, air and water. I think the one that we're really not looking at here in any great detail when we look at the issue of pipelines and whether or not to proceed with development is the fact that even if there isn't a spill in that pipeline, we're still emitting carbon into the air, and we are in a very critical time as a species. All living things on this planet require air, and climate change being what it is, we also know that pipelines also affect climate.
I do want to go forward here to express that. You've invited me here as a representative of 133 First Nations across Ontario to speak on four critical issues. Together these issues clearly impact the rights and interests of First Nations in Ontario. But I also want to underscore that one of my portfolios as the Ontario Regional Chief is I have the lead on the national review of the NEB, as well as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Navigable Waters Act, which has a different name, and the Fisheries Act. At the Assembly of First Nations, I'm working with the environment unit to ensure that we're coordinating that process for First Nations across the country. I do want to say that.
We are frustrated with this issue, Mr. Chair. I'll go through the list of why that is. But do not mistake the fact that we are not objective and articulate about these issues. Yes, there's frustration, but we're also putting great thought to these issues and concerns. I was provided less than a week to prepare a position on these four things: one, how to improve public confidence in the pipeline review process; two, how meaningful involvement by indigenous people and decisions related to transport of crude oil might be facilitated; three, what the key elements of a national strategy for the pipeline review process might look like; and four, an opinion on how the risks and benefits of crude oil transportation might be shared with Canada's indigenous peoples.
To the contrary, the unreasonableness of the timeline of this request is representative of all that is wrong with the way that First Nations are engaged and consulted on matters of significant importance to us. We are consistently given inadequate time to prepare our views. We are forced to comply with arbitrary timelines set unilaterally by the federal government, its agencies, like the National Energy Board, and now this legislative body in process. This approach creates the perception that our views are not truly valued, that you are not interested in truly engaging us and that you are simply looking for a check box that says that you consulted First Nations.
This is not consultation. This is not meaningful. It is not respectful, and it does not foster reconciliation. Again, I want to underscore, Mr. Chair, and your colleagues, respectfully, that there has to be a different way to do this. This federal government has said we respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It's not determined yet how the federal government is going to respect that. The Prime Minister has indicated certain commitments. Those commitments have not come to fruition. There's a lot of contradictory messaging coming back to us now, and we need to address that uncertainty and incongruence.
We have consistently struggled to understand that our views are fundamentally different than yours. Our system of governance is founded on consensus building. There is no king or CEO. I do not make decisions on behalf of First Nations in Ontario. Instead, when there is proper time, I communicate decisions once they have been made through a process of respectful dialogue with our chiefs and our communities. That dialogue does take time.
As such, I do not have all the answers for you today on the very important matters that you have raised. However, I did canvass our leadership and grassroots via social media, and I received the following comments that I want to put on the record. I want to say that there is a lot more than this, but these are directly from a chief by the name of Ogimaa Duke Peltier. He writes:
1. Major sources of fresh water that first nations, towns, and cities rely on for drinking water should not be put at risk and unnecessarily compromised. There is an abundance of land routes that could possibly be taken.
2. The decommissioning plans for existing pipelines have to be shared and acted upon especially for ones that have been installed over 60 years ago. Enforcement mechanisms should/could be triggered by environmental leaks and safety breaches from both sides of the medicine line and its existing regulatory bodies.
The medicine line refers to across the border. There needs to be a transborder strategy. First Nations need to be recognized in that process of decision making and environmental protection.
Continuing with the comments of Ogimaa Duke Peltier:
3. Decommissioning of pipelines has to be funded at the onset of construction and this fund should be held in escrow to be accessed when leaks happen.
4. Existing rights of way and easements should be adhered to, provided they are not already compromising drinking water sources as in my earlier point.
5. Safety mechanisms should be installed at shorter intervals to minimize environment risk when a leak occurs.
6. Research and development for safer means of transportation needs to funded.
7. Transition to climate sustainability must be our focus.
Mike Metatawabin from the Mushkegowuk territory stated:
Realizing how sensitive this subject matter is to our communities, we should see if there are better methods or conceptual designs that could be looked at when it comes to constructing these types of corridors?
Can we make some time to look at some possible concepts that could be brought forward as solutions to address our concerns?
In fact, the Chiefs of Ontario are holding a two-day pipeline forum on November 8 and 9 in Toronto. The comments and conclusions from that forum will provide a much more fulsome position in regard to the four areas being investigated by this committee.
Again, Mr. Chair, yes, we are frustrated, but what we're doing in Ontario is I've called for a two-day meeting among the leadership because we know Ontario is a very important aspect and element to the geography on pipelines. There's a lot of history here. There's a lot of historical infrastructure, and there are proposed lines as well. This would suggest that you are not only dealing with the go-forward. There are historical grievances and concerns with respect to aging infrastructure.
Our chiefs also want to develop a set of best practices in an effort to give First Nations an effective guideline for engaging the National Energy Board in a standardized approach that best fits each individual First Nation.
In conclusion, in the spirit of reconciliation and this government's pledge for a new nation-to-nation relationship, there's still much work that needs to be done. We still need to determine a process which is respectful for both of our systems of governance, with adequate timelines to engage meaningfully on these issues and to move forward together.
That's my initial submission, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Chief Day. We'll go to questions.
Senator Doyle: Welcome, chief, to our meeting. Reading the notes that I have here, when you communicated with the Prime Minister and President Barack Obama, I believe this year in an open letter, you said you wanted to work toward a long-term solution to end oil centrism. I'm not quite sure what all that means, but I'm wondering if you talked about the economic impact of doing that. I'm thinking about the $11.5 billion of GDP that goes into Canada's economy from oil, and the 34,000 full-time jobs and the $3 billion in labour income.
Has the Assembly of First Nations looked at all of that and thought about the resultant economic impact of it, ending oil centrism in Canada?
Mr. Day: Thank you, esteemed committee member. I do want to qualify. Yes, we know that the current economy in this country does have an $11.5 billion price tag, GDP. Thirty-four thousand jobs, did you say?
Senator Doyle: Full time.
Mr. Day: And $3 billion in labour income. We're under no illusion here that there is definitely a current seemingly static situation with respect to the economy. However, we know in the province of Ontario, for example, that one of the commitments that the Ontario government made in leading up to the Green Energy and Green Economy Act was that it would look at clean tech, and it did so. We know that the cost of energy in Ontario has been impacted by the decommissioning of coal, but we are contributing to the health and well-being of the planet, as well as our people, humanity. So it is not just First Nations.
I need to say that there is an exercise that must be undertaken where we're all involved as governments — federal, provincial, territorial and First Nations. There's no illusion here. We are going to hell in a handbasket here with respect to the impact of fossil fuels on the land, the air and the water. Something has to be done.
We know there will be an impact on the economy, but how do we lessen that impact? We have to review what it means to make a transformative change to clean tech economies, and I think we need to put the investments in place and we need to put real de-entrenchment exercises in place that look at how we change the infrastructure across Canada to ensure that, say, an electric car can travel from one end to the other in a timely manner and it can be cost-effective and efficient.
These changes have to happen. They're not simple. We will feel the impact to the economy, but how do we do that together? I think we have to study that, and we all need to do that together.
Senator Doyle: But if we're concerned about getting oil, say, to market, isn't a pipeline the best way that we can possibly do it? You had an oil spill in — is it Mattagami, you called it?
Mr. Day: Mattagami, yes.
Senator Doyle: Mattagami First Nations territory. That happened by rail. There was a second spill as well. You have the Fraser Institute saying that the best way to get oil to market is by pipeline, and the safest way to do it. Would you agree with that, that pipeline is the best way to get it to market?
Mr. Day: I could say that there are debates and there are conclusions and studies around which is the lesser evil. I will tell you that whatever that lesser evil is, I think that's obviously where this committee wants to go. My position will always be how do we create the lesser impact?
I cannot sit here and say that we support pipelines. I will not do that for this committee. I will tell you, however, that what our submissions are saying is we need to be involved with that. So far, given the fact that First Nations are not respected in the process to the degree we should be, that will be one of the stumbling blocks.
Will we get there? I'm not sure, but I do know that in a combined effort to move towards clean tech and transitioning to a much safer energy system in Canada, it does include clean tech. Pipelines, rail, rubber tires on the road: What is the lesser evil? I'm not sure.
Senator Doyle: You mentioned benefits and the sharing of benefits. What is the best way, in your view, for oil companies to share benefits with the indigenous communities? Do you have any views on how the federal government could facilitate the sharing of benefits with indigenous communities? How would you like to see it happen?
Mr. Day: On the whole issue of shared benefits, I'm just going to say that regarding the broader policies that occur, say, within the province of Ontario, we know there are procurement policies. We know there are loan guarantee programs, the Aboriginal Price Adder. The tools that ensure there are Aboriginal partners within business are quite standard.
With respect to the issue of benefit, again I'm conflicted inside, sir. I'd like to provide you that response, but I'm not mandated to come here and talk about resource revenue sharing in terms of oil. I am here to talk about some of the issues, concerns and barriers we have with respect to safety on land, air and water. I simply don't have the mandate to discuss resource revenue sharing.
Senator Eggleton: I share your concerns about the inadequacy of consultation, proper notice and meaningful consultation. We've heard that before in this committee.
In your open letter, though, to the Prime Minister and to the President of the United States, I gather from that you're pretty definitive about the position. I don't know whether this is you or Ontario or the AFN total, but this reference to oil centrism and the other comments that are made in the letter would indicate that there really isn't much opportunity — yes, after consultation — for compromise or consensus because you are opposed to pipelines. In fact, I gather from this — correct me if I'm wrong — that you think the oil should be left in the ground.
Mr. Day: Are you asking me to confirm that?
Senator Eggleton: Yes.
Mr. Day: I have my personal opinions, Senator Eggleton. As a father, as a grandfather, as a First Nation leader generally speaking, I understand the odds; I understand the impact of fossil fuels. So from that perspective, I have my personal opinion.
I cannot base my efforts and my mandate on personal opinion, either. I do have to represent, as in this case, 133 First Nations. What this speaks to, and I think the committee should look at this as a possible way forward, is that where there is resistance, where there are these entrenched positions, they're going to be there until our people are convinced otherwise. There are others that are much more open-minded than I on some of these issues, and I have to speak on their behalf as well. What they're saying is let's have further discussion; let's ensure that proper engagement takes place. So far that hasn't happened.
Let me just underscore one thing here: Since the height of the movement towards consultation and accommodation, the Haida, Taku and Mikisew rulings of 2005-06, which is a little over a decade ago, we've propelled beyond that era. We understand engagement now. We know what the benchmarks of consultation are. We know where we want to be consulted. The bigger piece here for the committee to consider is what does consent mean? What is consent, and how do you achieve consent? Let me offer this to the committee: Here is certainty. Here is consent. It's sitting there in mid-air, and nobody knows how to address it.
However, that certainty, if you put clarity on one end and critical path on the other to go forward, investments are going to need to be made to ensure that we can protect the environment, that our languages and our cultures are protected, and that safety measures are going to be put in place.
There is a way forward here to at least give an objective next step. It's going to require effort and investment to ensure that we're engaged properly so that we can get this certainty and consent established, at least the benchmarks. We'll make the decisions later.
We're ill-equipped so far, and the country has not effectively ensured appropriate engagement. Whether that's industry or government, it's up in the air right now. Does the NEB have the authority to ensure consultation, or are they supposed to be third party, neutral and purely regulatory in nature? It's a very convoluted and complex situation that we're starting from.
My point is this: Consultation and accommodation, we know what that is now, but how do we get to consent? I think it's going to require a much greater respect for First Nations' authorities, our place at the table in decision making and the ability to set up jurisdiction in terms of environmental authorities. We essentially may be able to move the yardsticks towards something that is meaningful.
I hope that doesn't convolute the discussion.
Senator Eggleton: I think it's an excellent answer.
Mr. Day: Thank you.
Senator Unger: Thank you, Chief Day, for your presentation.
Chief Beardy criticized the NEB consultation process for Energy East, and he cited the NEB's attempts to use online interviewing despite a lack of sufficient Internet connectivity in some First Nations. Yet, you mentioned that through social media, you have gotten input from the people that you represent.
Is Internet connectivity an issue with regard to consultations?
Mr. Day: Thank you, Madam Unger. Chief Beardy is in bounds on this particular issue and concern. I'll speak for all of the urban and rural community First Nations. They generally have access to high-speed, but when you get into the remote North, this is a challenge.
I think the concern that the chief is raising is the NEB wanting to use means and methods to possibly have the use of IT as a way to collect information and input. For me, I basically use my social media, but if I were to try to formalize anything based on those decisions or whatever, I would be told by the chiefs, "Hang on a second. This is not foolproof. You have to make sure that it's a safe and stable way of engagement.''
This is just a way that I was able to augment some of my input here to the committee today, but, certainly, the use of Internet technology by the NEB has its challenges. I think the NEB has its challenges. Certainly, the current state and condition of the NEB is proving to require innovation in the way the NEB does its work. Let's ensure the NEB is respecting First Nations in the process.
Senator Unger: Are you saying that the Internet wouldn't be a good enough way to consult the 133 First Nations that you represent?
Mr. Day: I think the Internet is a good way to ensure that we get information, but I need to clarify and qualify the concerns by Chief Beardy.
He is absolutely correct that if the NEB — or any regulatory body, for that matter — wants to collect information and move the yardstick on engagement, it has to ensure that there is a seamless process to access and that it understands well what the limitations and challenges are of that, because once there is a short-circuit in access to engagement, then it's no longer a fair process. It has to be looked at, and it has to be well understood.
Senator Unger: Could you provide the committee with any examples that you would consider exemplary consultation between First Nations and energy companies? Is there any shining example that you would like to share with us?
Mr. Day: I would. I can't say that on behalf of oil and gas, but I can tell you that over the last decade, I was directly involved in the Ontario Green Energy and Green Economy Act, and how we transformed from an old energy sector in Ontario to engaging First Nations and establishing partnerships and ensuring that we were part of the development of things like the Long-Term Energy Plan and the community energy strategies.
The Ontario government has worked with First Nations on green energy and renewables over the last decade. We have certainly had some challenges along the way. Some things are wanting, and we could be doing certain things differently, but the fact that governments understand the importance of First Nations participating in that sector and that we want to protect the land, that we have views and value as indigenous people in the area of conservation, those are things that mean something to First Nations. I would have to say that the Ontario government and proponents that were very much stipulated to work with First Nations directly, that's when results and positive outcomes occur.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I enjoyed your presentation very much. I have two questions for you. We were in Nova Scotia last week, and Regional Chief Googoo gave a very interesting presentation on the real issues for your communities and the federal government. He held up as a model the James Bay agreement with the Cree. In the past 40 or 50 years, it has allowed them to develop a good basis in terms of economic and social development, education and health care. The agreement had a significant impact on the development of the oil industry in Canada and the possible export of such material.
The primary purpose of the pipeline is to promote increased exports to foreign markets rather than the import of nearly $48 billion in oil a year to Canada. Exports would cut costs, and those revenues could be distributed across Canada.
Everyone is aware that indigenous communities face complex problems that other communities have experienced. Could the pipeline and the development of resources not serve as a springboard to better equip communities so that they can find solutions to the health care, education and other problems they are facing?
[English]
Mr. Day: Yes. Thank you. I want to congratulate you on your question because it's one that addresses the issue of treaties in this country. I commend the Cree Naskapi people and the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Within the context of First Nation jurisdiction and authority, they not only have a participatory role in the land use planning and use of resources, but they also have a say on issues around export and participation in the global economy.
I think this is probably going to be one of those areas where the government will have to innovate its efforts. The government is going to have to come to grips with the fact that — as you said, export of our resources. Who is "our''? Do we actually know what "our resources'' are? Who are we referring to? It's more than just a philosophical question. It's a legal question. It's a business question. It's also a question that spans across the divide of generations. In terms of the wealth and the land, in our treaties our ancestors protected those resources for me. Being an ancestor to future generations, I need to protect the resources for them.
The treaties were about shared benefit and gain, and that is why the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement works. That is why they're able to provide education and health. It's because they are also involved in trade negotiations. Their jurisdictions are recognized abroad.
Our friend and colleague Matthew Coon Come, when he wanted to make a point about major hydro development, leading into the agreement, he went across the border. He brought a canoe to the White House in the United States and he made his claims. They were respected. Governments listened. I think that is really at the crux of what we have to come to bear in the solutions, the recognition and reconciliation of treaties. I believe that with every treaty across this country, you can have debates around whether or not they are ceded. The reality is we have a right to the wealth and the resources, and our ancestors would never, ever have given away the right and authority to be able to take responsibility for our children.
I think you raise a very important discussion around what is happening in terms of the global economy and the conduit of trade. I am very much sour in my mouth with respect to the way the federal government has not included us in major trade negotiations with other countries. Why enter into a treaty over there when you haven't honoured the treaties here? Why enter into treaties in other countries when you refuse to deal with resource revenue sharing, when our people are still accepting a pittance of $4 per year on treaties? That hasn't been modernized and innovated to today's economic terms. It's a very archaic way to deal with treaties here. Trade negotiations are real. First Nations need to be part of that as well, and that's why the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has succeeded.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have another question for you. The National Energy Board will soon resume its consultations on the east pipeline. Phil Fontaine, who you no doubt know, is an expert advisor for TransCanada. Would it be wise to say that Phil Fontaine would be a resource for your communities? First of all, do you intend to participate in the board's consultations? If so, could Mr. Fontaine be a good and beneficial resource for your communities and within the coming negotiations?
[English]
Mr. Day: Thank you. The question is with respect to former National Chief Phil Fontaine being a consultant for TransCanada. Would he be an effective resource for our process? We have our experts in the communities. When we see former First Nation leaders like Phil Fontaine — and I respect Phil Fontaine for much of the work that he has done. However, the current state of the political relationship with Canada is very much inconsistent with the way the consultation and engagement is being undertaken by industry and by the government right now. So I'm not sure Mr. Fontaine's efforts are in line with, say, the issue of defining what "consent'' means. I think there is more benefit, and we should put more stock in asking First Nations today.
Consultation and accommodation are well understood. Governments are responsible for ensuring consultation and accommodation, so First Nations definitely have a role in that, but we should be much further ahead in our definition, recognition and respect for the issue of consent. It's a big discussion and debate, but it's a grown-up discussion where I think the federal government needs to say, "Let's sit down and talk about consent. What does that mean?''
I have to tell you that I think consultation and accommodation are rudimentary at this point. We know what it means to engage. We know what it feels like when somebody is working with us on a reciprocal level. We can do that. We don't need high-paid consultants for that. What we need is recognition at the table. You take the issue of trade and you take the issue of First Nation authority in the area of environmental safety and sustainability. The government has to recognize us. Then we will be able to start to build around the context and the process of achieving consent.
Sir, I do want to say that while I respect Mr. Fontaine, I also suggest that he is not in alignment right now with the current political challenges we're faced with as First Nations on this major issue.
Senator Greene: Thank you very much. Your presentation was excellent, by the way, in my view.
You raised the very important of issue of consent. I'm not sure what that actually means, and I would like you to give me what your view of it is but also to give your view on social licence and whether those two are the same things, almost the same things or how they are different, perhaps even whether social licence is a useful term.
Mr. Day: Thank you. The issue of consent, as we know, includes a much more defined threshold around the treaty relationship. It talks about human rights. It talks about the ability to benefit. It talks about having First Nation jurisdiction and authority recognized. Consultation really is just a means from point A to point B within a process. It doesn't achieve a final outcome.
Where consent is lacking is around the definition, as you clearly identify here. If the committee has no sense of what consent means, and if we're at odds with this, then this is a good place for the federal government and other jurisdictions to begin that discussion.
The issue of social license is an important concept, but we're beyond that now, again. We need to go to the highest threshold that is visible to everyone, which is the issue of consent. I mentioned earlier consultation, accommodation and social license in the same right. We know what social license means. We have been down that path before. What we have not done yet, in the spirit of reconciliation, is we have not matched the issue of project development, trade, treaties, First Nation jurisdiction and authority, participatory discussions and decision making on a nation-to-nation level.
The expectations have been made by the Prime Minister in his commitments to us to work toward a nation-to-nation relationship. We would delegitimize ourselves in that threshold if we stay where we are with respect to consultation, accommodation and social license. We need to be talking about the bigger commitments around consent. We only see ourselves as being equal partners. We only see ourselves as having shared responsibility in closing the education gap, in eradicating poverty in our communities by way of us being at the table as partners in the treaty relationship.
Senator Greene: Thank you.
Senator Unger: Chief Day, I asked you about a shining example of how there was exemplary consultation between First Nations and the energy companies. I don't think you really answered my question. I do have a second one as well.
Mr. Day: Okay, so then ask me the question again.
Senator Unger: Can you give me a great example of consultation with the pipeline companies and First Nations?
Mr. Day: No, I can't.
Senator Unger: Okay. Indigenous peoples in Canada seem to greatly understand the importance of the community and the greater good. In fact, I've been noting words you have used: consultation, certainty, consent, accommodation, and then social license was added.
To be honest, I sometimes wonder if indeed attention to the greater good stops at the edge of your own peoples' groups. While I completely understand the need to advocate for one's own causes and needs, since there is only one Canada that we share, is there a commitment among indigenous peoples to the greater good of Canada and attention to everyone's welfare?
Mr. Day: Thank you. That's a very good question. I do want to acknowledge your first question. I respectfully regret that I can't answer that first question.
This question is an important question with respect to the greater good. It's one where we all need to take a step back and ask ourselves some fundamental questions.
I just attended the health committee on opiate addictions. If we're thinking about the greater good and the impact on First Nations with respect to a two-tiered health system, for the most part the majority of Canadians suffer positive impacts of a system that attempts to ensure its quality of life and well-being, whereas First Nations are on a different end of the spectrum with respect to the quality of life. The gap does exist.
Regarding the greater good, if you look at the Syrian refugees that were brought into Canada, they're given clean water, shelter and a level of attention. They have a quality of life, and they are part of the greater good.
Are First Nations part of the greater good? Frankly, the federal government is quite perplexed at how to begin to cost out and effectively develop and implement new policies and investment strategies to raise our people up out of poverty and systemic racism.
So when you ask me the question of greater good, I'll have to retort and ask you to consider the fact that our people are not part of the greater good in the current configuration of the greater good and quality of life in this country. It's glaringly evident there is a gap. So in terms of the greater good, you will find a very difficult discussion when you open up that particular debate. Our people are evidently on the other end of the spectrum in terms of quality of life. We're impoverished. We suffer high infant mortality rates. The list goes on. We know the situation. In terms of the greater good, it is a debate, but it is clear that our First Nation people are not faring well in this country right now.
The Deputy Chair: We've come to the end of the hour. I would like to thank Chief Day for participating today. We have a hearing tomorrow at 6:45. We're waiting to hear from witnesses.
You were well prepared. You had a good presentation. For future reference, if you had said to us you weren't quite prepared or if you ever have a concern about the timeline, let us know because we will postpone it and give you the time you require to prepare.
Mr. Day: I want to thank the committee. I do want to recognize that this is a very challenging discussion right now. In all respect for the dignity of humanity, you need to know that we have real concerns. The economic concerns are also of paramount concern to all of us. We will provide supplementary information, if that's okay. We certainly want to continue to contribute, too, but we're beyond consultation, accommodation and social contract. We need to talk about consent and how to achieve that on a nation-to-nation level.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for that. The committee is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)