Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 30 - Evidence - December 11, 2012
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 11, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine and report on the legal and political recognition of Metis identity in Canada.
Senator Vernon White (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or on the Web. I am Vernon White from Ontario and chair of the committee. 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 more specifically, particularly those relating to the evolving legal and political recognition of the collective identity and rights of the Metis in Canada.
This morning we will hear from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and the Department of Justice. Before hearing from witnesses, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the members of committee.
We have the deputy chair, Lillian Dyck, from Saskatchewan. We also have Senator Larry Campbell from British Columbia, Senator Charlie Watt from Quebec, Senator Jacques Demers from Quebec, Senator Patrick Brazeau from Quebec. Quebec is well-represented. We have Senator Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario and Senator Asha Seth from Ontario.
Please help me in welcoming, from AANDC, Christopher Duschenes, Director General, Aboriginal and External Relations Branch; and Diane Robinson, Director, Aboriginal Relations, Métis and Non-status Relations Directorate. They are joined at the table by Peggy Stone, General Counsel and Director, Negotiations, Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocutor, Department of Justice Canada.
Witnesses, we look forward to your presentations, which will be followed by questions from the senators. Please proceed.
[Translation]
Christopher Duschenes, Director General, Aboriginal and External Relations Branch, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today as part of your study on Canada's Metis.
I am Christopher Duschenes, the director general of the Aboriginal and External Relations Branch at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.
Allow me to introduce my colleagues who are with me today. To my right is Diane Robinson, the director of Metis and Non-Status Indian Relations, and Peggy Stone, our general counsel at the Legal Services Unit.
[English]
This is my first time appearing before this committee specifically to discuss Metis issues, and this reflects a recent organizational change within the department because my position is new as of September 4. This saw the responsibilities of former Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Metis and non-status issues merge into a centre in the department within Policy and Strategic Direction. This committee seems to have expressed some interest in the change in the department, so this is a good area for me to start. I will explain what that represents.
The role of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians was created in 1985 during the Aboriginal constitutional conference in response to a recognized need for the federal government to have a point of contact for Aboriginal groups that represented Metis and non-status Indians in Canada. A small secretariat was established and housed within the department, headed by the minister who had also been named federal interlocutor. At that time, it was deemed prudent to house this function separately from the department of what was then Indian Affairs so as to not confuse the different mandates and roles. Over the decades, the secretariat moved among departments. For example, it was housed at the Department of Justice and within the Privy Council Office.
In 2004, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs was also named the federal interlocutor, so the secretariat was transferred from the Privy Council Office to INAC and given the name the Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, commonly known as OFI.
In 2011, the department was renamed Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development — and this is an important but subtle point — to better reflect the evolution of the minister's role with respect to First Nations, Inuit and Metis people as recognized in section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.
More recently, in September 2012, when I came to this position, the internal structure of the department was changed to more efficiently and effectively deliver our broad mandate. The responsibilities of OFI were integrated into another area of the department. Specifically, the Métis and Non-Status Indian Relations Directorate was established within the new Aboriginal and External Relations Branch within Policy and Strategic Direction, which is the main policy sector within the department. This branch handles relations and funding agreements with Aboriginal representative organizations and is the direct focal point for both Metis and Inuit relations, as well as managing the intergovernmental relations and national events such as the Crown-First Nations Gathering held last January. These changes mean that the units responsible for Inuit, Metis and non-status Indian relations are no longer stand-alone, but are rather fully integrated within the department.
While OFI as a separate unit no longer exists, its functions continue with the Métis and Non-Status Indian Relations Directorate within the Aboriginal and External Relations Branch. The Urban Aboriginal Strategy and other programs were transferred from Canadian Heritage, the Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program notably, and integrated into the operations branch. The new incarnation of OFI within Policy and Strategic Direction does not manage the Urban Aboriginal Strategy; that is the regional operations branch.
The Métis and Non-Status Indian Relations Directorate works primarily with political organizations that represent the interests of Metis and non-status Indians, or MNSI, and other off-reserve Aboriginal people. In this role MNSI Relations works to maintain and strengthen the Government of Canada's relationship with the two national Aboriginal organizations that represent MNSI people: the Congress of Aboriginal people and the Métis National Council.
The directorate is also responsible for leading the federal participation in self-government processes, with tripartite processes, with provinces, Metis and other off-reserve Aboriginal organizations under the federal policy Approach to the Implementation of the Inherent Right and Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government from 1995, and leading the Government of Canada's multi-faceted response to the Supreme Court's Powley decision from 2003.
The directorate also maintains a research network with university and other leaders in the field to help support policy development, analysis and advice.
As I mentioned earlier, the other aspect of the former OFI, the Urban Aboriginal Strategy and several urban Aboriginal programs, recently moved to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada from Canadian Heritage. As I mentioned, this includes Cultural Connections for Aboriginal Youth, the Young Canada Works program and the Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program, and they have been integrated into regional operations, both at headquarters and in our 10 regional offices across the country.
Those programs are there to better support youth in the growing urban Aboriginal population. As well, it strengthens AANDC's position as a hub for Aboriginal programming and the bringing together of programs from across government to be housed under AANDC, thus consolidating the federal government approach to Aboriginal programming.
I will turn to the differences and interconnectedness between ``identity'' and ``definition'' in the context of Metis people. Metis identity and the definition are not the same thing. According to the census, between 2001 and 2006 the number of Canadians who identified as Metis increased by 36 per cent to 390,000 people. This growth rate exceeds the theoretical maximum growth rate. A significant portion of this extremely high rate of population growth is most likely due to identity mobility. Identity mobility refers to the way people report their identity on one census compared to a previous census. There is no definitive explanation for increase in self-identification. Some reasons may include an increase in awareness of family history, improved perceptions of Aboriginality, recent legal decisions and media awareness.
As a result, terminology can be confusing in this area. It is always important to understand both the context and the purpose of expressing an identity. For example, an individual might self-identify as part of a collective because of shared cultural practices, heritage, or common interest. In other contexts, it is important to verify the identity of an individual for the purposes of providing services, receiving a benefit, or exercising a right.
A large number of people identify themselves as Metis. The Supreme Court, in its Powley decision, recognized the importance of identity in setting out the criteria that an individual would need to meet in order to be considered Metis for the purposes of asserting section 35 Aboriginal rights. According to the Powley decision, the major criteria, or what is known as the Powley test, that an individual must meet are the following: identify as a Metis person; be a member of a present-day Metis community; and have ties to a historic Metis community. Those are the three key issues.
One of the key questions for government in the context of Aboriginal rights has been this: Who are the Metis for the purposes of section 35 of the Constitution? In keeping with the principles of self-government, membership is a matter that is internal and integral to the Aboriginal collectivity. The Government of Canada chooses to support representative Aboriginal organizations that determine their own membership and, further, that are implementing harvester identification systems to determine potential rights-bearing Metis persons by applying the criteria set out in the Supreme Court Powley decision. Therefore, the Government of Canada believes that the definition of who is Metis is best left to the Metis people, a position that is consistent with the Powley decision.
What does this mean in practical terms? It means that the Government of Canada does not define who is Metis. Memberships in harvester identification systems operate under the control of Metis organizations. Under this approach, the government does not ask a person who is asserting Metis rights to provide information to substantiate that he or she is Metis. Rather, the government has stated that it will seek to ensure the integrity of systems that identify him or her as such. That is to say, if an individual presents a government official with a Metis organization's card identifying him or her as a Metis person, the government has responsible assurance of the integrity of the membership system issuing the card. This is a work in progress. We are continuing to work with Metis organizations to ensure the integrity of the system.
It also means that since the Powley decision, the government has worked with eligible Metis organizations in the development of such membership and harvester identification systems. These organizations report to date that a total of some 50,000 Metis have been identified through processes consistent with the Powley decision.
Overall, that is our approach. I expect you will have questions for my colleagues and me related to some of the particulars.
The Chair: I welcome Senator Raine, who just arrived from British Columbia, and Senator Patterson, from Nunavut, to the committee.
Senator Campbell: Over the last few months, we have heard from a number of organizations from across Canada. They present as representing Metis of a particular area, such as Nova Scotia or Quebec. What organizations have you accepted to date as having a valid vetting process for membership and for the recognition that they are Metis under the Powley decision?
Diane Robinson, Director, Aboriginal Relations, Métis and Non-status Relations Directorate, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: We started our approach with accepting many different organizations. Over time, it has been whittled down because organizations have not identified or have refused to separate their Metis from their other membership, writ large. They told us that they do not represent Powley Metis and that there was a provincially funded registry system in place. Currently, we are funding six organizations.
Senator Campbell: Who are they?
Ms. Robinson: The Métis National Council and its five provincial affiliates.
Senator Campbell: What happens to those who say they are not prepared to follow the Powley decision?
Ms. Robinson: We work with some of them under a different program to work on their membership criteria, because it is important for any organization we deal with to know who their members are and to be able to identify them. It is under a different program.
Senator Campbell: Does it change their status as Metis?
Ms. Robinson: We do not give status as Metis.
Senator Campbell: I did not mean in that sense. The organizations you have recognized are national.
Ms. Robinson: Do you mean like the Métis National Council?
Senator Campbell: Yes.
Ms. Robinson: We have had a long-standing relationship with two national organizations: the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Métis National Council. There have been various court cases over the years, and we deal with the organizations based on the results of those decisions. For the Métis National Council, it does not change their status; it just means that we are working with them and their affiliates in an area where the Supreme Court gave some direction.
Senator Dyck: My question follows Senator Campbell's first question about the Metis organizations you work with and their identity. When we travelled out West during our study, we were told about someone in Saskatchewan who had obtained a Metis card from an organization in Ontario. Clearly, the person paid a certain fee for the card. However, the genealogy did not support what one would typically think of as a Metis person. Yet, that organization is listed on the website maintained by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. You have those that you recognize with respect to legal authority, but you also list a whole host of other organizations on your website. What is the basis for someone being listed on your website? Clearly, that organization was issuing cards that were not generally considered as acceptable proof of Metis identity.
Mr. Duschenes: It is important to make a distinction between the organizations that we deal with as a department, and hundreds are eligible for a wide range of funding programs listed on our website, and those that we consider the official Aboriginal representative organizations. As Ms. Robinson mentioned, in the case of Metis there are regional organizations as well as the national. You are right in that on our website you will see in various areas a long list of organizations to which we provide funding under a wide range of programs. That is a separate funding eligibility question and not a representative organization question. We have a clear list of those that we consider to be Aboriginal representative organizations.
Senator Dyck: I am a little confused. You say that you have funding organizations. These other organizations receive funding, such as the one I referred to, but they are not the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples or the Métis National Council.
Mr. Duschenes: I am sorry if my answer was not clear.
The department administers somewhere in the range of about 50 different programs, where we have cabinet and then Treasury Board direction as to what we can spend funds on generally. The eligibility criteria for those programs are often very wide, which allows access to a wide range of groups. However, we have one specific program called the Basic Organizational Capacity Funding that is specifically for Aboriginal representative organizations that have been deemed to represent a fixed group of identifiable people for the purposes of political advocacy. That is a subset — a group of 40-plus organizations — of 300 or 400 organizations across the country, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, that we provide funding to under a wide range of programming. It is confusing, but it links directly back to funding eligibility of the programs that we administer.
Senator Dyck: Do you have a list or a couple of pages worth of eligibility criteria that you use for the different programs? Is that something we can have a copy of?
Mr. Duschenes: Yes, most definitely. We have something called the binder of authorities, which goes through all the programs the department administers. They all have precise lists of who is eligible, and we can certainly provide that.
Senator Dyck: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: In response to Senator Campbell's question, Ms. Robinson said there were six organizations that were accepted. I was surprised not to have heard you mention the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Does Aboriginal Affairs fund them? I guess I wondered why they were not mentioned in your response.
Ms. Robinson: We started off funding the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and some of its affiliate organizations at the start of this initiative under post-Powley work. Over time, slowly the CAP affiliates advised us they did not represent Powley Metis or that they did not want to separately define their Metis people from the other Aboriginal people they represent. They prefer to have more general membership criteria. Therefore, we stopped funding them under that program, and they are the ones we are continuing to work with under a different program to identify their membership.
Senator Patterson: They are funded under —
Ms. Robinson: — the Federal Interlocutor's Contribution Program under our capacity-building funding, to work on their membership criteria.
Mr. Duschenes: They are funded under other programs as well.
Senator Patterson: Within Aboriginal Affairs?
Mr. Duschenes: Yes.
Senator Raine: I just want to make sure I am clear on this. When you were talking about six organizations under the Métis National Council and five provincial organizations, which five provincial organizations are those?
Ms. Robinson: The Métis Nation of Ontario, the Manitoba Metis Federation, the Métis Nation — Saskatchewan, the Métis Nation of Alberta and Métis Nation British Columbia.
Senator Raine: We have been hearing from Metis people from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. How does the department deal with those organizations?
Ms. Robinson: Are you talking about CAP affiliates or others?
Senator Raine: I am talking about Metis people who have formed organizations. They have come to us; we have heard from them, and they consider themselves to be Metis. I wonder how they fit in with the department.
Ms. Robinson: As part of the eligibility criteria for our program, organizations must have structures in place where they represent the people they claim to represent, and they have to demonstrate they have real membership. I am trying to think what else. Another criterion is they would have to apply.
Mr. Duschenes: That is a question not just specific to Metis that is raised fairly regularly as to who is representative of whom. The department, through the Basic Organizational Capacity Funding program, as Ms. Robinson mentioned, establishes criteria as to what must be in place to be considered a representative organization, and that is not always an easy determination to make. However, certainly, as Ms. Robinson mentioned, ensuring you have sound structure and proof of representing a group of identifiable members is one.
The amount of money under the Basic Organizational Capacity Funding program has been fixed for a long time, and that gets distributed among the organizations that manage to meet that criteria. It is certainly not a particularly deep well. The more organizations that meet that criteria and get accepted by the department, the further divided that pot of money becomes.
Most importantly, it is an identifiable group of individuals who meet the Basic Organizational Capacity Funding program conditions. As Senator Dyck requested, we will provide the eligibility criteria for all of those programs.
Senator Raine: You have referred to Basic Organizational Capacity Funding several times. Do you have an outline of that?
Mr. Duschenes: Unfortunately, the Basic Organizational Capacity Funding program is not a particularly good name. It used to be called the AROP, or Aboriginal Representative Organizations Program. Essentially, it is the main vehicle that the department uses to fund the basic capacity of representative organizations across the country — First Nation, Inuit, Metis and some urban organizations as well. There are 46 of them on that list, and we can definitely provide you the criteria as to how one applies for that money, bearing in mind that money is always discretionary as well; it is not a right to receive.
Senator Raine: This is a funding program for organizations that you deem qualified to represent Metis people?
Mr. Duschenes: First Nation and Inuit as well; it is for politically representative organizations.
It is not just that we deem whom they represent. The department relies extensively on the network of these organizations across the country to be our partners on policy development processes. There are currently 46 of them that we engage with nationally and regionally as partners to consult with and partners in policy development processes.
Senator Raine: My conundrum is that I am aware that in Manitoba there are two distinct groups of people who are Metis but only one is in that basic organizational capacity group, the Manitoba Metis Federation.
Ms. Robinson: The other group is Union nationale?
Senator Raine: Yes.
Ms. Robinson: Union nationale is more culturally focused on preserving the French language of the Metis in that area. They do not actually assert rights, and they have never applied for Powley funding. They apply under other programs.
Senator Raine: The political representation group is made up of organizations that are asserting rights?
Ms. Robinson: Yes. The focus is to identify harvesters for the purpose of harvesting. In part, they have to want to actually identify their harvesters, and the Union nationale is a group we help do education programs for children in school about Metis and things like that. It is a differently focused organization.
Senator Raine: What about the Wabanaki group from Nova Scotia?
Ms. Robinson: That organization has never approached us, as far as I know.
Senator Raine: Thank you.
The Chair: We had one group from Nova Scotia. I think they were called Eastern Woodland. We heard a representative talk about receiving a membership card through another organization that gave them access to being accepted as Metis by that other organization, which by extension made them Metis in their mind, I guess. Whether it is correct or not, I do not know. Is that normal? Is that something the department has seen in the past or a practice you would accept?
Really, they are no longer meeting the Powley decision. In fact, they may not be meeting the departmental guidelines about Metis at all. Instead, they have decided they will find their way in through another organization and are now carrying a card. In fact, I think a gentleman told us he had a card specifically from another organization, as a parent organization. I was quite surprised to hear that was possible.
Ms. Robinson: From our perspective, the only time we need to know who a Metis is as an individual is when we come across them as a harvester.
There are many organizations out there that assert they represent Metis, and it is up to them if they have their own criteria and how they manage issuing membership cards. From the federal government's perspective, we do not need the cards.
The Chair: For accessing programs within the department, do they not have to belong to a Metis organization?
Ms. Robinson: There are several types of federal programs. There are programs for individuals, for businesses, for community-based programs and there are the rights-based programs. We have four different types.
The individual programs are programs of general application, so you can access them as a Canadian; you do not need to show a membership card. We have Aboriginal-type programs that are focused for individuals as well. For most of our programs, if not all, it is self-identity. You can show a card if you want, such as an Indian Act card or a membership card of an Aboriginal organization, but it boils down to your self-identification.
In terms of community-based programs, we deal with the community entity, so usually that is a not-for-profit organization. For Aboriginal rights type of programs, if it is a bigger one, like the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, there are other criteria to show that the community actually exists.
When it comes to harvesting, it is the officer on the ground saying, ``Who are you?'' and the person asserts a right. They can either show a card or they will be given a period of time to bring forward some genealogy.
Therefore, I would say there is not much benefit at this time.
The Chair: To make a long story short, if I may, the individual who has a card and is applying for programming using that as identification may or may not be accepted by the department?
Ms. Robinson: Yes.
Senator Dyck: This is quite confusing. You are talking about the different kinds of programs. For some — and we heard this on our trip out West — basically it was self-identification. Therefore, those might be considered — I do not know whether the word ``benefits'' or ``services'' would be appropriate. However, when it comes to actually exercising what might be called constitutional Metis rights, such as harvesting, you are using other criteria, which will be in a binder that you will send us about eligibility? Would that be in that binder?
Mr. Duschenes: I think I have confused things. My apologies. I was under the impression that the initial question was about political representation. When I talked about the basic organizational capacity, that is the relationship we have on policy development. Ms. Robinson has mentioned Powley money, which is for the Powley program to work with the organizations on identifying individuals from a rights-based perspective. Those are two very separate things.
As the last question indicated, we do not ask for proof in relation to when there is a program application from individuals, although it is based on self-identification.
Senator Dyck: That leads me to another question. I cannot remember which witness spoke about trying to apply to the department in order to get recognition as a political organization, I believe, and they were told that the study that was done by the Department of Justice, which spanned the whole nation, had come to the conclusion that they were not eligible. In relation to the Department of Justice report, there is a brief summary on the Web, but we have not seen the actual report. Can we get a copy of that report to find out what you found when you studied the different areas of the country, and perhaps in particular when you looked at places in the Atlantic, such as Nova Scotia and maybe Labrador, where there are some different Metis organizations who may feel they have been left out of the Powley decision? How is that report used by your department in determining who is legally considered to be a Metis person? Have you made much use of that study?
Peggy Stone, General Counsel and Director, Negotiations, Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocutor, Department of Justice Canada: Perhaps I can start the answer. The Department of Justice, as you said, has done a study. I would have to bring that question back to my department to ask if that is a study that is available publicly. If it is, I will ensure that it is sent over.
I was not working in the area when the study was done. My understanding, although subject perhaps to some comment from my colleagues, when looked at from the Powley perspective, I think it was a study by historians that looked at the history of the country and whether or not, from an historical and ethnological perspective, Metis, as harvesters, following the Powley test, could be identified across the country.
As you know, this is a very confusing area and we do not have a lot of clarity yet. We have direction from the Supreme Court of Canada on Powley, but, as you know, there are still competing views: Is Metis more the group of people who are from the Red River area or is Metis much larger than that and is it more along the lines of mixed ethnology from Indian and European descent?
Powley has given us the general criteria that has been applied, and there are a couple of decisions now in appeal from the Atlantic region, called Vauteur and Babin, where the courts have found, in the first instance, with the particular facts in those cases, that in terms of an individual claiming a defence as a Metis to a charge of fishing without a licence, a historic Metis community has not been found in those particular areas in the Atlantic. The appeals of those cases will be heard in January and I think April of next year. The legal test in those particular cases, to date, has said that because of the history of the Atlantic in those particular circumstances, the court could not find a historic Metis community. I do not know if that helps.
Senator Dyck: You said you were not sure whether the report was publicly available. Why would it not be available?
My second question is a general question maybe to the chair and our staff. If it is not publicly available, should we not be able to have access to it as a standing Senate committee?
Ms. Stone: I will look into those questions and get back to you. The only reason I say it might not be publicly available is because part of it might have been undertaken as a collection of information in defence of litigation, but I am not sure of that status.
The Chair: If I may, if nothing else, for us to be able to see it in camera, embargoed that we could not use, so that we have a bit of an understanding and so that we are not making a recommendation or saying something later that contravenes something that you have the material for. It could be some form of agreement that we could come up with. Could you check, if you do not mind?
Ms. Stone: I will check into that.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Raine: Do you have a definition of what constitutes a historic Metis community?
Ms. Stone: No. We use what is in the Powley decision.
Senator Raine: ``Historic Metis community'' is a bit vague. I realize that is in the Powley decision, but you have to prove you have a connection to a historic Metis community. We recently heard from a witness whose people historically have basically lived off the land in the bush, not part of a little town with a church and steeple but basically in the woods. They still live there and consider themselves Metis, but they would not have a community per se. In terms of lineage going back, how does that work?
Ms. Stone: Certainly ancestry is one aspect of it, but it is not just that. From my reading of the cases — and I can tell you generally where the courts have gone — there is not a lot of jurisprudence here. In terms of how these cases are dealt with, the court looks to experts to help them out in interpreting history. They look at documents that might have been available from European government people who are present. They look at church records and other anthropological or historical evidence that is around, and with an understanding of history. They look at history, anthropology and ethno-genesis to follow the court's outline on a community.
The promise of section 35 is to recognize and protect the distinctiveness of a community of the Metis at a time before European control was asserted. It is really for that purpose that you look backwards to find out if a separate, distinct group was recognized in that part of the country. As you know, Canada did not develop all at once, and the dates of European control vary across the country.
We do not have court decisions from every jurisdiction, and part of the reason we do not have that is the government's efforts to talk and work with groups so that there is no need to go to court every time. There are the two paths to determine who the Metis communities are. As my colleagues have said, there is the funding of the political organizations to work with them so they can develop membership criteria that will be in line with the Powley test, and there is also the courts where people can pursue a determination of whether communities existed and where there is a present-day community. The whole idea of section 35 rights is that they are constitutionally protected rights. There is a link back to the purpose of section 35 and what it is intended to do and how you prove that in court. I hope I am helping.
Senator Raine: It is a fascinating study. It is affecting people who are alive today and wish to keep that connection to their past.
We have definitely come across Metis organizations and people in the West who insist that it is from Red River west and the migration was to the West, but we are also very aware that there are strong Metis cultural groups in Eastern Canada as well. Your political representative organizations do not include any Metis groups from Quebec or the Maritimes. Why is that?
Ms. Robinson: In the Maritimes, we have not had any requests from groups claiming to just represent straight-up Metis. We do deal with the CAP affiliates that claim to represent Metis, non-status Indians and status Indians who live off-reserve, and those same organizations have advised us that they do not represent Powley Metis. They represent people who self-identify as Metis or Metis that have moved into the provinces from other areas. Rights are site- and fact-specific, so when we deal with them on the Powley front, we deal only with Metis or organizations that say that they represent Metis who can meet the Powley criteria.
Mr. Duschenes: To add to that, to my knowledge in the department, dealing with representative organizations for the past 15 years and in the North before that, we have not been excluding anyone. We respond to requests from the outside and then they are evaluated but, as Ms. Robinson said, in the case of the Metis having specific requests, we are always open to sit down with individuals or groups of individuals to talk about who they represent and what programs we have to offer or do not have. There certainly is not any intentional exclusion, whether it is Metis, non-status, Inuit or First Nations. As Aboriginal Relations, we are here to hear those issues, and there may be a determination that, yes, an organization is eligible or not eligible, but we do have criteria that guide that conversation. There definitely has to be proof of being representative of an identifiable group.
There is also the question of competing interests and ensuring that, as much as possible, we are dealing with the representative organization. That is never going to be entirely possible because there will be divisions in some regions, but it is certainly not wilfully denying access or not dealing with anyone. If there are groups that have made representation to you or individuals who want to discuss it further with us, that is what we are for at Aboriginal Relations.
The Chair: Thank you. That is a great lead-in. We had representation from a group from Cape Sable Island, Nova Scotia, who are self-identifying as Metis. They made representation to us. I think that a few of us felt they would be easily identifiable as First Nation. I think they would have suggested to us they have tried to represent themselves as a Metis nation. Are you saying they have not applied or have not contacted the department?
Ms. Robinson: Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Duschenes: We can check into that through our regional office in Atlantic Canada.
The Chair: That is not the only one, I would suggest. I took it for granted that a number of these groups had contacted the department to be identified as a Metis nation, but certainly that group were very clear because a number of us thought they had made great representation as to why they were First Nations. We asked them why they would not self-identify as First Nations, and they used the 25 per cent blood line as a reason they would not, whereas Metis you do not have the 25 per cent or less. Thank you.
Senator Seth: I see there is a lot of confusion here with Metis identity. According to what you said about the census, between 2001 and 2006, the number of Canadians who identified as Metis increased tremendously, something like 390,000 people, and this significant change in growth is most likely due to identity mobility. Could you explain identity mobility further? You have written some, but it is not clear to me. Could you be more specific for me?
Mr. Duschenes: Dealing with our statisticians and Statistics Canada, it is very hard to explain or pin it down to one thing, but it is a trend that we are seeing in many groups in Canada. As awareness on the Aboriginal rights side increases, the self-identity of the individual through awareness and discussions within family in terms of making their link to the past may change the way that they then identify themselves through the census. It is the same as anyone else. As the discourse in the Aboriginal community or in Canada writ large related to identity increases, that will change the way that people identify themselves through the census.
The statisticians are talking about changing perceptions of individuals and groups, more discussions about family histories, improved perceptions of Aboriginality, legal decisions and media awareness. A wide range of factors contributes to that, and it is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause and effect for that enormous increase. What is definitely clear from the statisticians is that that growth rates exceeds what is statistically possible. It is not that there has been a huge increase of individuals of Aboriginal descent; rather, there has been a huge increase of those who identify themselves as having Aboriginal descent.
Senator Seth: Do the existing multiple registries you have for Metis people not confuse the situation?
Mr. Duschenes: Registries?
Senator Seth: Yes, multiple registries.
Mr. Duschenes: We do not maintain registries of Metis individuals. The only registry of Aboriginal people that the department maintains is through the Indian Act, status people who are status as defined under sections 6 to 10 of the Indian Act. There has been a very deliberate policy decision over many years, as I mentioned. The definition of who is Metis — or in the case of the claims of Inuit in Inuit Nunangat in the Inuit regions, the definition of who is a beneficiary, Inuit or Metis — is left to those groups. We do not maintain a list of Inuit beneficiaries. There is a list of Inuit beneficiaries, but it is held by the Inuit organizations, and some program eligibility is based on that. The lists of individuals in the registries are kept with those organizations, besides the Indian Act status.
Senator Seth: Thank you.
Senator Brazeau: Have any Metis organizations approached the department to start working on a Metis registry? If so, what type of progress has been made on that front?
Ms. Robinson: Sorry, can you repeat the first part?
Senator Brazeau: Are there any Metis organizations that have approached the department to start developing and working towards a Metis registry?
Ms. Robinson: There are the five Métis National Council organizations, and Labrador Métis Nation approached the department at the start. Labrador Métis Nation is on a separate path now because they changed their membership criteria. The progress made for the five Métis National Council affiliates is coming along. We did an evaluation in 2008. They were all at different levels and stages of progress. Part of what was recommended by the evaluators was certain areas to target, but in particular they thought there was a need to develop common standards across the board. We are trying to bring them to where they can move to a third-party evaluation and they would be stand-alone evaluated. Instead of us paying for the evaluation, it would be another organization and eventually maybe an ISO-type rating for them.
Senator Brazeau: Is there a timeline where we may see a draft of a registry in the future?
Ms. Robinson: We will never see their actual registry systems, I do not think, because we do not believe it is for us to look at the list of names. We want to know there is integrity in the system so that when we see a card we know there is a whole standard behind it, the genealogy, that the Privacy Act is protected or respected, and that kind of stuff. We hope that we will have maybe four ready to be called objectively verifiable by 2017.
Senator Brazeau: I have been at this for quite a number of years, and here is where lies a little confusion: We hear from the department that on Metis issues and identity, it is up to the organizations to decide who their members are, but on First Nations citizenship or identity it is the federal government who decides who is First Nations. I have a little history lesson. The individual who negotiated the term ``Metis'' in the Constitution, the late Harry Daniels, was of the opinion that Metis are obviously not just confined to the Red River geographical area.
As you will recall, before the existence of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples or the Métis National Council, there was the Native Council of Canada. However, for political reasons that organization split, which is essentially why we now have the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Métis National Council. I would go as far as to say that perhaps the department uses the fact that the organizations do not get along on political issues to not tackle Metis issues. If you will recall, Steve and Roddy Powley were members of an affiliate of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples at that time. On the one hand it is up to the Metis organizations to determine their membership, but on the First Nations side it is the federal government that decides who is a status Indian and therefore has access to certain programs and benefits.
How do you reconcile on the one hand that it is up to them? We do not want to prescribe who their members are, because at the end of the day if we are talking about Metis rights, Metis rights do not belong to organizations; they belong to individuals. Would you not agree with that?
Ms. Robinson: Certainly.
Mr. Duschenes: I want to make a point of clarification. The department does not identify who — or control who — identifies themselves as First Nations or citizenship related to First Nations. We do have a status provision, as you know, Senator Brazeau, under the Indian Act; and, yes, as everyone is well aware, the Indian Act has many challenges and flaws, and there have been many attempts to change it. That system of status and non-status has its huge historic and contemporary challenges. We do not want to replicate that system.
It has been a very clear division that moving forward on the identity, in terms of the sense of belonging for non- status Aboriginal people who are not status, it will be up to those Aboriginal groups to identify who they are and who their members are, and moving away from that. As a federal government to be not an arbiter, as Ms. Robinson described the processes in the regions, we will not see the systems; they belong to the Metis organizations. They decide who is in and who is out. Our objective is to ensure they are verifiable and that the integrity of the system is sound, but not to cast judgment as to who is and who is not.
Our role has been a funding role to help those organizations from a funding perspective to develop the systems, but not to control or to have influence as to who is in the system and who is not.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: As you know, Mr. Duschenes, I used to be the national chief of an organization that represented Metis at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. And I know how the system works. I know that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples does not recognize many other Metis organizations, whether in Eastern Canada, Quebec or Manitoba. The Metis National Council does not recognize certain Metis organizations across the country either. I know that the department uses the fact that these organizations do not recognize other Metis groups. Some are perhaps more culturally oriented, while the others focus more on rights. When applying for funding, the groups that are not recognized by the more national Metis organizations are turned down more often because they are not recognized.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Duschenes: It is always incredibly challenging to determine who our partners will be. Another important thing to keep in mind is that, historically speaking, our relationship with the Metis has evolved tremendously over the past 20 to 25 years. What is more, the creation of the OFI and the recognition of rights under the Constitution are signs of progress. Things are far from ideal, there is no question there, but we definitely are not in the same place we were 20 years ago. The relationship is moving forward, not only on the policy development and implementation side, but also, to a great extent, on the legal side with the Supreme Court decisions.
Is the relationship perfect? No. Nor is it perfect with the First Nations or the Inuit, however. The relationship is a work in progress. Having been with the department for 20 years now, I can tell you we have really come a long way, and the relationship has improved in terms of understanding. It has also improved in that the playing field may be more level in terms of who we work with on policy development, and that was not the case 20 years ago.
Senator Brazeau: Yes, but you did say it was up to the Metis organizations to identify their own membership. And if a group like Red Sky Metis applies for funding, hypothetically speaking, who at the department tells them that their request is denied because they are not recognized or that they do not meet the criteria?
On the one hand, you are telling organizations it is their job to identify their membership, but on the other hand, when those unrecognized groups apply for funding or anything else, their requests are usually denied.
Mr. Duschenes: Working out program criteria is a huge challenge, without question.
In no way is it a process that happens unilaterally. When programs are up for renewal, a tremendous amount of time is spent on nationwide consultations, talking to as many people as possible to ensure that the program criteria meet our partners' needs. That process is carried out not just by our department but interdepartmentally as well.
The system is not perfect; it is a work in progress. Program criteria and parameters are renewed every five years. That means we always have an opportunity to go back to Cabinet, Treasury Board, to say, ``according to the feedback we have received over the last five years, the criteria are not appropriate for this group or that group of individuals or percentage X of the population, and therefore need to be changed''. The fact that the vast majority of federal programs have a life cycle of five years before they are up for renewal gives us the chance, indeed the responsibility, to make sure the parameters are in line with the needs.
Again, are the parameters perfect? No, but they are in progress. If we look at the urban Aboriginal strategy, for example, we see that every time it is renewed, the criteria are changed. Is there an opportunity to report back that one of our programs does not fit the current situation? Absolutely.
But, as I mentioned, we are always willing to listen and speak to any group representatives who come to see us so they can present their case, tell us what they would like to do and see if there is a way to work together in order to obtain funding and build a partnership. The door is always open.
Senator Brazeau: I know the department develops policies and partners primarily with the Metis National Council. That is no secret.
That being said, you are telling us you are always on the lookout for more partners. The MNC affiliates are working on a registry, but you do not want to see it, so we have to take them at their word. But you are saying that, as far as smaller organizations go, you proceed on a case-by-case basis?
[English]
Mr. Duschenes: We have to have certifiable systems based on the Powley criteria, so that we are not just turning a blind eye and take your word for it.
Senator Brazeau: The Powley criteria are harvesting rights.
Mr. Duschenes: In terms of an identifiable membership system, it has to be certifiable. However, we will not look into the details of how you determine who is in there. It is not turning a blind eye, but it is taking a slightly different approach.
Senator Brazeau: As I said earlier, let us not forget that Powley was a member of an affiliate of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
Senator Dyck: The more questions we ask, the muddier it becomes. Senator Brazeau brought up some important questions. I was looking at page 8 of your presentation, which sort of related to that. I will read it:
Memberships in harvester identification systems operate under the control of Metis organizations. Under this approach, the government does not ask a person who is asserting Metis rights to provide information to substantiate that he or she is Metis.
This is the part that interests me:
Rather, the government has stated that it will seek to ensure the integrity of systems that identify him or her as such. That is to say, if an individual presents a government official with a Metis organization's card identifying him or her as a Metis person, the government has responsible assurance of the integrity of the membership system issuing the card. This is a work in progress.
What do you mean when you say that you are going to assure the integrity of this system? What criteria do you use to determine whether the organization that has issued that card has integrity?
Ms. Robinson: I will answer the question.
There is a whole list of what we send the evaluators. We do an evaluation every three years or so. The evaluators go in to ensure that policies and procedures are in place as well as appeal mechanisms and that they collect all the information. We like to see the eligibility criteria posted on the website, for example, so that anyone who wants to apply knows how to apply and what kind of documentation is required. Many organizations require photo ID or other proof of Canadian citizenship, et cetera. They will pull the files and go through the criteria of the organization to ensure that any documentation they are supposed to collect, including the genealogical information, is in that file.
Regarding appeal mechanisms, genealogical databases are being developed by the organization to speed things up. When a person applies, instead of having to give the whole long list, they have to give a connection to someone who is already a member, and then they are in the system.
Security is important for privacy considerations because of the collection of personal information. The data are protected so that if ever there is a fire, the information will not be burned; and there is digitization. They go through a whole list of ensuring that these systems have everything they would need. We hope that eventually when there question about someone with a card, we could call the organization and they can say whether they have a file. They are also working on secure cards. We are looking at those kinds of things through our evaluations.
Senator Dyck: Presumably, you are talking only about organizations like the Métis National Council. Is that what you mean, or are you also talking about other organizations that have a much more open or flexible definition of ``Metis identity?''
Ms. Robinson: It comes down to the purpose. With the Métis National Council and affiliates, the purpose is so that we can rely on their systems for harvesting so that our enforcement officers can identify someone on the ground as being a potential rights bearer instead of having that individual carry a whole whack of genealogy if they choose to harvest without a licence.
For other organizations, the purpose of our funding is so that they can tell us who their membership is and whom they represent. They have systems to know their membership. We do not evaluate them or push for the integrity of the system because it is for a completely different purpose.
Senator Dyck: When we were on the trip out West and in Alberta, a person said that there was a federal program, possibly the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy. We were told that they do not need a card or anything like that to be eligible for the program. They need only to self-identify. It is confusing that you have a set of criteria, almost like a registry, for people who fit the Powley definition and the organizations that follow it, like the Métis National Council; you also have other organizations that might identify as Metis for cultural purposes; and you have self-identification, which seems to be all you need for programming. However, the more rigidly controlled system is the one under which you need to be eligible for harvesting rights. Obviously, you have separated it into different categories of Metis identity: the legal definition or a cultural definition or a program-based identity.
Mr. Duschenes: You are entirely right. You are also right in your opening comments that the more you get into this, the more confusing it is. It is an incredibly complex and confusing issue. It is fundamental to what makes many of us work at the department. It is about individual identity and the makeup of Canada. It is fascinating.
The use of the information is key. Is this about asserting rights and identifying individuals who are the rights bearers, or is this about program access? Those are two very different things. The criteria are very different for having access to programs.
Senator Dyck: Then I might ask the question that within the organization, who is responsible for deciding what the mandate of the organization should be in terms of providing overall strategic direction to what you do to bring more clarity to the question? It sounds like it is kind of fuzzy. Who will stand up and say, ``This is what we are going to do?'' What is the strategic direction that you see the department going to in the future?
Mr. Duschenes: That is a very good question, and it is a very big challenge. Certainly from the rights perspective, there are a lot of court cases that have moved the public policy agenda along, and the fact that we used to be called the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development — we are now Aboriginal Affairs — is indicative of a shift away from a huge focus on Indians, the First Nations side, to being more pan-Aboriginal. You will note in the evolution of programming that we offer things like the Urban Aboriginal Strategy, the Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program and the Aboriginal Business Canada programs, which do take a much greater pan-Aboriginal focus than in the past. More and more program needs and policy decisions are made at the department that are indicative of our direction of taking a pan-Aboriginal approach.
That being said, we obviously have responsibilities on reserves for First Nations that are significantly different from the rest, but there are many programs out there that are pan-Aboriginal. The direction is to be more inclusive and has been for the last many years as we look at the Aboriginal agenda.
In fact, it is reflected in my opening remarks where I talked about organizational change within the department, that there used to be a separate arm to deal with Metis and non-status issues and a separate group dealing with the Inuit. Those have been integrated into the major policy shop within the department, which is an indication of having to give more thought, as you mentioned, to what the future looks like from a pan-Aboriginal approach. That is one of our biggest challenges, but certainly for the last 10 years or so, it has been an indication of taking a greater pan-Aboriginal approach.
Senator Dyck: Do you then envision something equivalent to the Crown-First Nations Gathering that was held last January? Do you envision pulling together a number of the major Metis organizations, sitting down with them, hashing over some of this and then deciding what direction the department as a whole will take?
Mr. Duschenes: That is a question for the politicians, as to whether there is a desire to do that at the political level. That was a gathering of the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and the Governor General with First Nation leaders. Whether something like that would be replicated for the Metis and the Inuit is a political decision that would have to be made.
However, as the group responsible for Aboriginal relations, our door, as I have mentioned before, is always open to have those discussions one on one. We meet with the five national Aboriginal organizations and many of the regional ones frequently to talk about some of those issues, but certainly it is not in our control as to whether that happens at a political and an elected officials level, on both the government and the Aboriginal side.
Senator Dyck: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question for Ms. Stone. I am sure you are familiar with the Daniels case. From an impact perspective, there are probably two primary ways this will go. What potential impacts do you see on the department as a result of that? I am not sure when a decision is to be rendered.
Ms. Stone: I do not know when the decision is coming out either, but we expect it sometime soon. The trial was held in June 2011, so it is a long time coming.
In that case, I can tell you about the Government of Canada's position. Our position in that case was that Metis are not included in section 91.24. We also said that with the way the case was framed, there really is not any particular remedy that the group is looking for. They are looking for declarations that Metis are included under the term ``Indians'' in section 91.24.
Our argument before the court was that at the end of the day, the court may find — although our argument is that it will not — that Metis are included in section 91.24. That does not obligate the government to do anything about it. Section 91.24, as you know, is a provision in the Constitution that permits the federal government to legislate. It has been used to legislate the Indian Act, but there is not an obligation to do anything with that.
The Chair: If I am clear, then, the perspective the government would have is that regardless of the outcome, it would not have a dramatic impact on the government's response?
Ms. Stone: I have to actually read the decision in order to have a better understanding of which way it would come, but certainly our argument before the court is that it is brought in the nature of a reference. It is asking the court to make declarations. It is not asking for the government to do anything. The next step would be —
The Chair: Based on the decisions they are making in —
Ms. Stone: Based on the decision as to what the next steps would be.
Senator Raine: What support is given to Metis organizations in assisting them to preserve their culture? Are there any programs? You are talking about political representation programs, but we know there are Metis organizations that are celebrating and promoting their culture. Do they get support? Are they eligible for any kind of program through the department?
Mr. Duschenes: That is a good question. Generally, the major supports for Aboriginal culture and language come from the Department of Canadian Heritage. We could get you more information as to what Canadian Heritage provides. We do not have a specific program that relates to the preservation of language and culture.
Under Canadian Heritage, they deliver the Aboriginal Languages Initiative, ALI, which provides up to $5 million a year to support the preservation and revitalization of First Nation, Metis and Inuit languages and approximately $17 million a year in support of Aboriginal languages and cultures through community-based projects, such as Aboriginal broadcasting, et cetera. That is under the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Senator Raine: You say that Metis issues were taken out of Canadian Heritage and put into Aboriginal Affairs. I would suggest that the $5 million for Aboriginal languages will not be much money for the Michif language because there are so many other languages in great need across our country.
Mr. Duschenes: The process of slowly centralizing programs within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has been ongoing. Aboriginal languages have been maintained by Canadian Heritage. Basic organizational capacity came over from Canadian Heritage and the Urban Aboriginal Strategy has moved over, and the friendship centre.
Those are some programs that are still with Canadian Heritage, so I suppose I misspoke. There is greater centralization but not complete centralization because there is Aboriginal programming elsewhere in the Government of Canada.
Senator Raine: We are finding that many Metis organizations and individuals want to be recognized as Metis, not necessarily for a status card or a harvester card, but just to have recognition of their culture and their identity. There is really not a mechanism for that, from what I can see. Everything to do with identifying Metis is for the Powley decision and a harvester card. Other than that, Metis people are self-identifying.
Ms. Robinson: I think that is fair.
Mr. Duschenes: As Ms. Robinson mentioned, it is the same thing with the Inuit. It is through their land claim process. There are provisions that the designated Inuit organization is defining who is an Inuk and who is not, with the sense of identity and the sense of being a member of that land claim.
Senator Raine: I hope you have been following our study, because we have had some really good witnesses and it has opened up an awareness, at least in the committee, of how complicated the issue is. Do you have any suggestions for us in terms of what we should recommend that would help you? It is kind of a funny question.
Some Hon. Senators: It is a good one.
Senator Raine: Are there areas where you are sort of getting stuck because of the existing lack of clarity?
Mr. Duschenes: We at the department are often stuck on many issues. It is a challenging and interesting file. I think the advantage you have, having toured the country and being somewhat removed from the day-to-day program management and political management that we face, is that you probably have heard first-hand sort of a different level of dialogue and discourse, such that we are turning to you in the hope that your report is a reflection of what you have heard out there that may help us. That is what we would like to see come out of that. Off the top of my head, I do not know if there is anything specific, but I am sure you have heard interesting things across the country.
The Chair: Your expectations may be greatly exaggerated. I said that we should have heard from you at the beginning and maybe again at the end, because it is challenging. In terms of some of the concerns you have raised, we have tried to bring ourselves to some of the same places. Hearing from groups that are self-identifying and understanding now, today, that they have not really approached the department even about identifying themselves as a Metis community is a challenge as well.
We have a supplementary from Senator Ataullahjan.
Senator Ataullahjan: How many other departments deal with the Metis community, and in what capacity?
Mr. Duschenes: That is a good question. Of course, any program out there that is for general application is eligible to Canadians writ large. Any program that any Canadian can apply to, Metis individuals or groups could apply to as well. On a case-by-case basis, those departments would then deal with the organizations.
We mentioned the Department of Canadian Heritage on some of the cultural and language issue; HRSDC on the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy, the ASETS program; and the Department of Health on diabetes work.
Ms. Robinson: The Canadian Wildlife Service on migratory birds, and Parks Canada on any kind of national park development.
Mr. Duschenes: Environment Canada generally has several advisory committees on species at risk. There are some international advisory committees. The NACOSAR committee that Environment Canada chairs has a Metis representative on it. There are quite a few departments that deal with them in advisory roles, looking for individuals to participate, and Justice Canada as well.
Senator Ataullahjan: It is a long list. Thank you.
Senator Patterson: I want to zero in on the registry business. I will ask some questions that might require a follow-up to the committee.
I am curious. We talked about the registries that the department has been working with Metis organizations to establish since Powley. I would like to know which Metis organizations have received federal funding to establish membership identification systems or registries following Powley, how much the federal government has spent in the last fiscal year to establish these registries, and how much has been cumulatively spent. I do not know if you can answer that now or if you would like to answer it later.
I have a second, related question. As you have heard this morning, we have heard from a large variety of regional and community-based Metis organizations that maintain registries of their members. In fact, one organization we heard from seemed to derive their history from contact with the Inuit, which I found interesting, if not surprising.
Do you know how many Metis registries exist across Canada? That is beyond the registries that you are funding. Does the existence of these multiple registries of Metis people across Canada pose problems for identifying the Metis?
I am asking a number of questions here — forgive me — but I think they are all related.
Since I believe AANDC provides financial or other support to some registries, how does the government choose which registries to support?
As I say, these questions may be technical, but I would like to ask them for the record. Thank you.
Mr. Duschenes: Maybe I can start. Since 2004, we have provided approximately $35 million for the development of registries pursuant to the Powley decision. That is on rights-based, so those are the registries that help assert rights.
In terms of the organizations, we can get back to you on the details of who has received what, but since Powley, approximately $35 million has been dedicated to that.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. I did not expect an answer to all these questions, but I do think it is one of the key issues for our study, and the criteria for funding registries would also be helpful to us.
I have one brief, non-related question, if I may. You talked about consolidating, reorganizing, and building up the interlocutor function, and there was some mention of Inuit. Do you have any comments on the Inuit secretariat within AANDC, why it exists and whether it is serving a useful function in light of this rationalization that you are talking about within the department?
Mr. Duschenes: I would be happy to comment on that. One of the groups to meld into the central policy function, called Policy and Strategic Direction, in the department was the Inuit Relations Secretariat. As a secretariat, it is no longer a secretariat. Like the group that Ms. Robinson directs, the Métis and Non-Status Indian Relations Directorate, there is now an Inuit Relations Directorate under Aboriginal and External Relations.
Does it serve a useful purpose? Very much so, and probably more so now than in the past. It used to be a satellite group, not fully integrated in the department, as was OFI. Now both of them have been fully integrated. The hope there is that with having Metis, non-status and Inuit issues central to the policy development function — and it relates to some of the previous questions — that as new policies and programs come out of the department, the voices of Inuit, Metis and non-status organizations and individuals will be easier to incorporate into the policy development function because those two groups are now central to the policy development process within the department and are not satellites.
On your question, Senator Patterson, about the usefulness of the Inuit Relations Secretariat, that secretariat played an instrumental role in things like the funding and supporting of Nunavut Sivuniksavut, the transition school here in Ottawa. It has generally played an advocacy role to have its ear on the ground on Inuit issues and to try to influence policy internally. With the reorganization of the secretariat to be part of the policy shop at the department, I think that role will be enhanced. It is always a challenge, the same as the Metis and non-status issues. As you are probably aware, in the First Nations agenda within the department, in terms of a dollar figure and an amount of people working on it, the on-reserve stuff often gets a lot of more airplay. The Metis, Inuit and non-status issues are incredibly important and are taken very seriously in the department, and we hope that this organizational shift is an indication of that trend being heightened.
Senator Raine: Because we have heard from Metis groups in the Maritimes and in Quebec that feel left out of the Métis National Council or that for one reason or another are not really part of that, would they be advised to somehow develop a relationship with the Metis and Non-Status Indian Relations Directorate? Who do they go to in the department?
Mr. Duschenes: That would be us. As I mentioned, our door is always open to have those discussions. Especially in a time of very tight budgets, that is no guarantee that we will always be able to respond, but we are about Aboriginal relations, so fostering that discussion is very much what we encourage.
Senator Raine: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. There are no other questions? We appreciate your coming in today and answering the questions. We may sound like we are not much clearer than you are, in some cases, and we may not be. I do think, though, that it has been very helpful to have representation from across Canada as well as the department.
That ends today's meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)