THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 24, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:45 p.m. to study on the new relationship between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
Senator Scott Tannas (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good evening. 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 either here in the room or listening via the Web. I’d like to acknowledge for the sake of reconciliation that we are meeting on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin peoples. I’m Scott Tannas, from Alberta, and I am the deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
Today, we continue our study on what a new relationship between the government and First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada looks like. We continue looking forward at the principles of a new relationship. We’re very keen to hear from witnesses on what they see for the future of their people, their communities and the relationship with Canada.
I’d now like to invite my fellow senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Patterson: I am Dennis Patterson, senator for from Nunavut. Welcome.
Senator Coyle: I am Mary Coyle, a senator from Nova Scotia. Welcome.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate from Ontario.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Sandra Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senators.
We will now return to the study. We have with us this evening, from the Kaska Dena Council, Mr. Bill Lux, Chief Negotiator, and Ms. Michelle Miller, Treaty Coordinator. Welcome to the committee. The floor is yours.
Bill Lux, Chief Negotiator, Kaska Dena Council: Thank you very much.
Senators, to begin, I also would like to acknowledge the traditional, unceded, ancestral territories of the Algonquin Nation.
My name is Bill Lux and I’m here with my colleague Michelle Miller. We’re here to present to you on behalf of the Kaska Dena Council.
To begin with, I’d like to thank the Senate committee for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I would also like to thank the committee members for offering to travel to Lower Post for a presentation there in September. As you know, due to the evacuation notice regarding the wildfire that burned through our community, this presentation could not take place.
The Kaska Dena Council is a society set up to engage in the B.C. treaty process, representing the Indigenous rights of the Kaska Dena members of Kwadacha Nation, Dease River First Nation and Daylu Dena First Nation and includes members of the Fireside and Muncho communities. This represents three of the five Kaska First Nations in the Kaska traditional territory, which extends into the Yukon and NWT.
Senators, we have considered your theme of today’s hearing, and there are many issues that we could address but we have decided to take an approach that is a little different. We wanted to highlight five on-the-ground examples that we think practically illustrate what our future and renewed relationship could and should look like.
First, the Kaska believes that including Indigenous protected areas is a central tool to meeting Canada’s international commitment of protecting 17 per cent of the country’s land and water by 2020. Almost a year ago, we expressed our interest in Indigenous protected areas to Minister McKenna by letter. Since then, we have worked very hard to develop a comprehensive proposal under the Canada Nature Fund and are thrilled to report to you the recent news that our proposal covering 3.4 million hectares in the central Rocky Mountain Trench has been approved under the initial Quick Start stage.
Second, Indigenous guardians will be integral to the management of the proposed IPA. We have been developing our Kaska land guardian programs, called Dane Nan Ye Da, over the past several years. Kaska also strongly supports the Indigenous leadership initiatives in their efforts to create a national Indigenous guardianship network in partnership with the federal government. For many of our young people, a future career as a land guardian is very promising.
Third, LNG. At the beginning of October, Prime Minister Trudeau announced the largest resource development project in Canadian history — a $40 billion LNG export facility in Kitimat. Senators, that gas has to come from somewhere. Do you know where that is? Right in our traditional territory. An estimated 848 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lies in a portion of the Liard Basin, which is in the Kaska traditional territory. You can see that this is going to affect our future big time, and we have to get it right.
Right now, the Kaska leadership are beginning to work to develop engagement strategies and policies for the Kaska Dena Council to increase its capacity and to facilitate its negotiations with the Province of British Columbia, federal government and industry in the development of natural gas resources and engagement in all aspects of the development, including extractions, applications, market and social and environmental benefits. There is a model here with public governments and First Nations governments working together to manage development responsibility while protecting the environment. We must together and get this one right.
Fourth, wildfires. The main reason we are here today is because you were unable to come to Lower Post due to the wildfire that nearly destroyed one of our communities. We are seeing the effects of climate change literally at our front doors. It isn’t just a Kaska issue; it isn’t just a northern issue; it isn’t just a provincial issue or a federal issue. Wildfires are going to be part of our future, so we must work together at all levels, using our collective experience and expertise, to take proactive steps in the battle of future wildfires. We cannot wait until next summer to begin planning and taking action.
Fifth, residential school. We have told you about some of the successes and challenges that will take us into the future, but I really need to highlight that in the middle of our community of Lower Post exists one of the most atrocious reminders of the wrongs in our past, the residential school. In fact, senators, many of the staff who are forced to work in this former residential school wish it had burned to the ground during the fire. Negotiations to tear it down and build a new admin building continue to be incredibly frustrating and unproductive. We need your support, and there would be no better way to show true reconciliation and a brighter future for the Kaska and others who attended that school than to ensure action on this matter.
To conclude my remarks, thank you and Mussi cho. I really look forward to talking to you further as the evening progresses. Now I would like to hand it over to my colleague Michelle Miller.
Michelle Miller, Treaty Coordinator, Kaska Dena Council: Good evening, senators. My name is Michelle Miller, and I’m from the Crow Clan. I come from the community of Lower Post, which was affected by the wildfires this summer.
I would like to thank you for allowing my colleague and me an opportunity to present to you tonight on some initiatives and projects the Kaska are excited about. I believe what Bill just mentioned helps to paint a picture for you of how we see our future in our traditional territory and in our communities.
I will now provide you with another example of an initiative that the Kaska have had the honour to participate in. This initiative is a powerful example of nation-to-nation collaboration and partnerships with public governments. It consists of three nations in northern B.C. — the Kaska, the Tahltan and the Tlingit — and it represents six communities in the North.
As you are aware, concern for our children and making their future better is a goal shared among all First Nations across the country. In our region, community conversations on how to protect our children in our three nations led to what is now known as the Stikine Wholistic Working Group. The SWWG, as we call it, started off as a partnership with the Province of B.C. in 2009.
These six communities took an approach of having a “child in the centre” focus and made the conscious decision to spell “wholistic” with a “W” in the beginning because they knew our communities had to take a whole approach to protecting our children. The success of this innovative initiative is due to this community-driven approach. It was created by the communities, as they knew how best to create culturally relevant programs and services to protect our children and families.
This partnership has since snowballed into what we now call the Three Nations Society, with its own governance structure, and we are now actively working on other areas, such as education, wildlife and healing, among others. We’re taking an approach with all three of these nations, working on these issues together.
For me personally, this has been some of the most rewarding work that I’ve had the honour to participate in. To witness how seven leaders of the Kaska, Tahltan and Tlingit Nations work collectively in partnership with both the provincial and federal governments is a signal of true innovation and leadership in changing the dialogue of First Nations in B.C. and fulfilling our vision. The three nations created a vision for the work we’re doing, and it is “Our Northern Homelands are culturally vibrant, economically stable and social connected.” Senators, that is the statement of how we see our future and our relationships.
We have a number of reports and evaluations that have been completed as a result of this work — and I’d be glad to share that with you — that show our success. The results of our work garnered the attention of Minister Philpott and was followed by an invitation to present our work here in Ottawa in January of this year. More recently, we have been nominated for the B.C. Premier’s Award promoting innovation and excellence. Senators, it’s the worst-kept secret because we know we’re going to win.
I look forward to your questions and our discussions together. Mussi cho.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll go to questions now from senators. This is a conversation. We’re here to learn from you.
Senator Coyle: I’d like to ask each of the two guests a question. Thank you very much, Mr. Lux and Ms. Miller, and welcome again to Ottawa and to the Senate of Canada.
First of all, Mr. Lux, that was quite a wide-ranging presentation. Congratulations on all of the good work that you’re involved in. I know others will be asking you about the LNG project, so I’m going to leave that for them. I am curious about two things in your presentation.
I’d like to know a little more about the implications of this Indigenous guardians program that you’re keen to be involved in, and that being associated with the IPA. Could you tell us exactly what it will mean for your communities to be engaged in that?
Second, for you, the issue of wildfires, as you said, has hit you hard this year, and we’re going to be expecting wildfires because of climate change well into the future. What can be done or are you doing to mitigate the impact of wildfires? I’ll ask my questions to you first, and then I have a question for Ms. Miller.
Mr. Lux: Thank you, senator.
On your first question, what we see for the future of our youth, and we’re already developing it in relation to this Indigenous protected areas under this guardianship program, is an opportunity.
A lot of our youth — myself and Michelle included — have learned so much from our elders and our forefathers. One of the things that was entrenched in us is the importance of the land. We believe wholeheartedly that it’s really important to make sure that connection carries on to the youth, the next generation, and every one of our communities have a guardianship program. We’ve been involved in that for a number of years now.
Dane Nan Ye Da is a Kaska program that provides a way of being involved in wildlife management. That was the first step, because wildlife is really important. From there, we’re now initiating training on forestry activities. As you know, in traditional Kaska territory, we’ve been having negotiations on forestry for 10 years. We want to get more involved in land management and the base. The guardians are being trained and will be involved in how they’re going to help monitor that.
We’re not legal at this time, but in the future, under the Indigenous protected area, we want to find a program that will legalize them and make them certified as an official land steward, much like a CEO or others, so that they can go through the proper training and get back on to the land. A lot of them have ties to the land. The area that has been proposed is right in the heart of our traditional territory, and there’s a lot of ties back to families and elders in those areas. It’s going to give them a lot to look forward to in the future and to build careers. It’s not just a one-off anymore. We’re trying to build these guardian programs so it’s all year-end, not seasonal. That’s the challenge. When we look at these Indigenous protective initiatives, we think it’s important that we’re going to succeed. We’ve already taken that first big step. We have a number of representatives around the youth doing the work already. I hope I’m not rambling on that part.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Mr. Lux: Can I move to the wildfires?
Senator Coyle: Please.
Mr. Lux: One of the things we’re doing right now through Daylu is cleaning up after the aftermath of the fires. The community is trying to find the capacity and equipment to clean up the fire in the community, and we’re meeting with the province. We have a ministers’ meeting at the end of November, and we’re bringing forward some initiatives to sit down with the province and to begin to prepare for next year, to look at our immediate plan, to do cleanup and assessment, to start to look at developing programs with us that would be initial attack teams, where they’re the first on the ground to go out.
Daylu watched this fire grow. They had no way of engaging that fire. The whole province was pretty much on fire. There was no initial attack on that fire because it was across the Dease River and the mighty Liard. Fires don’t worry about what’s in front of them. They don’t say, “Oh, there’s a river, so we’re going to turn.” It literally jumped both rivers overnight and jumped the Alaska highway. It shows that you cannot assume what’s going to happen; you have to take action. We’re very fortunate that we were able to get everybody out of the community, but we’re sitting down now and trying to begin and regain processes where we can be more involved at the community level.
One of our communities, the Kwadacha First Nations, already have trained people on the ground to do things like tree spacing under forest management. They went out. They took it upon themselves to go out. They sent some trained members out and started to fight the small fire until the other initial crew came in with parachutes. We’re looking at those programs and trying to build off that, but we need to build a working relationship with the province.
The other piece that’s important for us is we need to sit down with the federal government because we feel that Canada has a responsibility when it comes to our communities. Our communities are on reserves, federal lands. We need to sit down with Canada and flesh out what is the plan to protect that community. I don’t believe the Province of British Columbia will assume that responsibility. With all three governments, we look forward to sitting down and trying to make an initial plan to address that in the future.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, Mr. Lux.
Ms. Miller, I very much enjoyed your presentation also. The work of the three nations society sounds absolutely fantastic. I wish you well with the award that you’re going to win, as you say. I’m curious to know a little bit deeper. When you say that you’re dedicated to fulfilling the vision which says that, “Our Northern Homelands are culturally vibrant, economically stable and socially connected,” I think that’s a perfect web that you’re working on. What specifically are you doing in those areas that you would describe as innovative and effective, that others could learn from also?
Ms. Miller: In regard to culturally vibrant communities, and more specifically to the Stikine Wholistic Working Group, we’re renewing the cultural practices in all of our communities that we once had. I can give an example in the Tahltlan community. They have started what they call their Tootoo group, which is grandmothers in the communities. These grandmothers are a resource when it comes to child and family. The community knows this group is there. They’re there to support the children. I think that’s a wonderful example of bringing back the culture, renewing the culture and traditions in all of our communities. Across all three nations, they have cultural camps. It’s returning to the land and teaching the youth and the children in our communities about our traditional practices. We’re doing that out on the land.
In my community of Lower Post, we’ve started something with the school district. At the beginning of the year, we take them across the river. It’s the start of what we call the Davie Trail, which is a historical trail from Lower Post to one of our communities of Fort Ware. The community and leadership go over with the teachers at the beginning, prior to school. They go over on the boat and they cook traditional foods and they have a conversation. It’s slowly incorporating that culture and those traditions back into our community, starting from our young children, so that when they’re older, when they’re my age, they know who they are.
Regarding being economically stable, as Bill mentioned with LNG, if you know about Tahltan Nation, there’s a lot of resource development in those communities. With the work we’re doing, they were able to mitigate some of the social issues that come with resource development. They were able to incorporate what they call the sociocultural working group, which again takes a holistic approach. For any resource development that happens in the Tahltan Nation, they have this group that assists them so the social issues that normally come along with big developments are mitigated and reduced.
Regarding being socially connected, I think the three nations is a perfect example of that. We come together. We have seven leaders that sit at our table and talk about improving the future of our six communities. We’re socially connected that way. I think that’s a wonderful example. We had a youth gathering, and youth from every one of our nations participated. You see the youth from the Tahltan, the Tlingit and the Kaska all together, gathering and meeting each other, building that relationship and being connected.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, and congratulations.
Ms. Miller: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to both of you for attending. It’s wonderful to hear about this. I’m going to pick up where Senator Coyle left off and provide an opportunity for you to continue this conversation about more of the examples of what you’re doing.
The area I’m particularly interested is how we prevent some of what you just finished off with, Ms. Miller, around social issues. In a lot of communities — and you alluded to it — where there’s been new industry or resource development, sometimes the influx of workers from outside has led to issues that have contributed to things that we often think of under big umbrellas, like missing and murdered Indigenous women, like sexually exploited girls and increased potential for other social issues, including criminalization.
Some of the most recent stats show that the numbers of young people ending up not just in care but in the juvenile justice system is increasing, particularly for Indigenous youth. The numbers are now about 50 per cent of the young people in custody across the country are Indigenous. It’s about 60 per cent if we’re talking about girls alone.
There are some initiatives to allow communities to bring those children and adults back to the community. Have any of those kinds of options been explored, particularly because you have three nations involved, with any of your communities? If so, what does that look like? If you’re not seeing those issues, I get some idea as to what you might attribute that to, but I’d like to allow you an opportunity to explore more what you attribute that to if you’re not seeing it to the same extent as many other communities.
Ms. Miller: Prior to the work of the Stikine Wholistic Working Group, we did have a high percentage of children in care. Since 2009 and since this work has started, we now have zero children in care in five of those six communities. I believe that is specifically because the programs and services that are implemented in each of those communities are unique to those communities and to the culture and tradition of each of those nations.
It’s because the work is driven from the ground up. It’s the communities that are saying, “This is how we protect our children. This is how we want to protect them now, and this is how we protected them in the past.” I think that is the number one key to the success of this program. These are community members, front-line workers and leadership in these communities participating together and taking a whole approach on how we protect our children.
The “child in the centre” is also key to that. It’s anything that will affect that child, whether it’s education — just anything that comes into contact that is going to affect that child — is what we look at. That focus of that child in the centre has been key to the reduction of children in care.
It’s policies and programs that are developed by us for us. It’s not a policy that is driven from government; it’s a policy that’s driven from us, as community members who live there. Who knows better what our communities need and what our children need than us? That has been key to the reduction of children in care.
When you’re talking about bringing children home, the program allows flexibility for the communities to determine how they want to spend that money, as it relates to their culture and traditions. One of our communities had what they called a family reunification, where they brought children that were previously in care back to the communities. They had a cultural gathering, and they brought them back into the community. It was new to them, so you have a bit of a learning curve when you do that. You’re bringing a child who was removed from their community back, and they’re meeting people they never met, including family. Of course there is a learning curve to that, but this program allows the flexibility for us to be able to have sustainable funding in place to be able to bring those children back and reunite them with their community and their family.
Senator Pate: In terms of the resources you use, are they resources that would otherwise be going to child welfare that are being allocated to your communities?Do you have any young people who end up in the justice system? How have you managed to avoid the exploitation of young people through resource development?
Ms. Miller: The funding is not money that would normally go to MCFD. This funding is an agreement and a contract with the province of B.C. through the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. It’s not money we would normally receive for MCFD. It’s funding, an agreement and partnership between the three nations and the province.
I can’t answer in regard to justice. I know some of the communities have their own justice programs. This funding isn’t specific to that. The communities do have programs. But the SWWG does allow the flexibility for that group to be able to work with other community members in regard to justice programs.
Senator McPhedran: Welcome to you, and thank you both. It’s very inspiring to hear you describe the kind of leadership that is transforming the communities, with particular emphasis on the safety of your children.
I wanted to ask if you could share with us a little more detail about the statement in the second paragraph down on your second page. Ms. Miller, you say, “This partnership has since snowballed into a three-nation society with its own governance structure.” Could you tell us more about that governance structure, please?
Ms. Miller: Sure. As I mentioned, in 2009, this was a program that specifically focused on the children and families. SWWG was created through that. What the province saw was the success of the working they were doing. They approached us in 2013, I believe, to ask the question if there were other priority areas we could work on together as three nations. We went back to our communities, and we asked that question. That’s where different areas such as education came in — wildlife, healing and wellness. Those are all other priorities where we said, “Yes, we can work on these and be more effective as three nations than we could as individual nations.”
In August 2017, we actually created a society that is governed by our seven leaders. They are our board of directors. They sit at a table with us. We hold quarterly meetings with our board. Our leaders get direction from their communities. I’m the Kaska technical rep. We have technical reps for each of the nations that do all the work and focus on these priority areas, and then we report to our leadership. The funding we received is done through our society. We have a complete society set up: financial policies, a governing structure, et cetera. It’s set up through B.C. societies. That’s how we’re structured. We have our bylaws and a constitution by which we’re governed, and that’s how we’ve been moving forward with this.
Senator McPhedran: For the funding necessary for this governance structure — so I’m understanding this correctly — is this a separate, independent, non-profit corporation?
Ms. Miller: Yes.
Senator McPhedran: And you govern everything, including any money. What is the source of the money for the program?
Ms. Miller: In the beginning, it was all funded provincially. This year, they’re funding it through the Aboriginal Funding Envelope; that’s where we receive the money. This year, we have been approved for funding for the next three years. We’re in the first fiscal year of that approval for the next three years.
We’ve broken it down into three sections. The majority of that funding is to fund the Stikine Wholistic Working Group. The second area is to fund the wildlife program, the majority of which speaks to some of the guardian programs that my colleague mentioned. Then the third part of that funding is what we call the three-nation governance. That money is there to fund the work we’re doing, to administer, to do reporting and to continue with the other priority areas we’re working on.
Senator McPhedran: Your board has all of your resources coming from one source and has an end point for those resources. At the same time, we’re all facing a federal election in a year’s time — almost exactly a year’s time. Can you share with us some of the planning you may be doing around what, unfortunately, we’ve seen too many times — governments change their minds? These sound like incredibly important programs that need a long life?
Ms. Miller: The funding initially started from the province, but I think because of the success that we have been having and starting to be an example for other First Nations, we’ve now received federal funding as well, so Canada has now seen the work that we’re doing and they’re starting to fund some of this work as well.
I can’t say that we’ve specifically planned for the three years to end and that’s it for the funding. I think our leadership has always had the political clout to be able to approach government and ministers and to stress the importance of this work.
I mean, it was threatened at one time. We were threatened with losing our funding for SWWG. I mean, when you have seven leaders from three different nations sitting at the table and showing the success and the innovation of this type of work and how important it is to First Nations in the North especially, it speaks volumes.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations.
I wanted to go back to the topic of the wildfires. Were the water bombers privatized in B.C.?
Mr. Lux: I don’t have that information. I’m not sure myself, but we’ll look into it and would be more than happy to confirm that with you.
Senator McCallum: I have some questions that I wanted to ask, so maybe you could send it to us.
In Manitoba, there was an attempt by the provincial government to privatize the water bombers, the medevac planes and, now, the airports. With the water bombers, when we met with the group, they said that B.C. was privatized already, which meant that’s now taken out of the provincial jurisdiction. It was a not-for-profit under the province, and they said that it was an economic development now if it was taken privately.
How do you work with the water bombers to call them to the site? Is that working, and have there been any unintended costs? You said that you had looked at the province to look at cleanup, so it seems like there was a division of labour, I guess I would call it. How is it paid for, and is it working better than it did before, or did you notice a difference?
Mr. Lux: Thank you for that question. Right now, everything is managed by the province. Thank you for your question on the privatization part of it and that interpretation, because it’s new to me. We never came across that question ourselves.
Everything is run by the province, and we have no role or ability to jointly call in any strike from some of the bombers or otherwise. All we are forced to do is to contact a representative of the Ministry of Forests and have a dialogue and to begin to raise a concern that there is a fire happening here close to our communities and we need them to address it right away. That’s the gap, so what we want to do in our meetings with the ministers at the end of November is to fill that gap and begin to sit down and negotiate a working partnership on what steps need to be taken to successfully address that issue of that gap and the timing.
A good example is with Daylu. We had some of our own members who are trained and part of the Yukon fire division, and they said they’ll come across this little border that separates two of our communities into Daylu and go out there and fight. All they need is hoses and pumps, and the response from B.C. wasn’t positive. They said, “No, no, we don’t need you right now. We’re on this.”
So there’s a huge gap, and we have to figure out how to deal with it and build partnerships and be ready for next year. I appreciate you asking that question, but right now, in all our communities, there is no agreement or working relationship. That’s the issue. That’s a concern we have to address.
The other piece to add to that is with the federal government, through INAC, we still need to sit down and build that relationship as well, because those federal lands are the responsibility of Canada and we need to work out a way of addressing that. They’re part of it. If you’re talking about our community, you can’t just say, “The wildfires start there, so it’s not our business.” They’ll say, “Well, if it’s on federal lands, it’s not our business.” So we have to figure out how build that, and hopefully we’ll be successful in doing that. We have some government processes already in place to then bring to the table. In those discussions, we’re hoping, based on this experience, we can start to work on that.
Senator McCallum: So when we talked with the pilot, he said that B.C. right now had the best. It’s such a unique job. No airline can just come in and take over the water bombing because it’s such a unique, risky and life-threatening position. You need pilots with experience. I think he had 30 years. That was their concern, but he said B.C., with how it was privatized, that group had the people who had worked at it for years and years and knew how to fight the fires. They were looking at the model in B.C., but I was interested to see if it had worked. I can share with you the questions I asked.
The other area was about the residential school. What would replace the school, and what is your recommendation to the Senate about how to proceed with this, or what is it that you want us to help you with?
Mr. Lux: Thank you very much for that very important question. I really appreciate your raising it.
Right now, our view is simply that we need to get rid of the building and replace it. Daylu Dene Council has been working with INAC over the last 25 years, and they got to a point where they’re down to developing a structure for what the building would look like, and it comes down to cost. That’s the only piece dividing the decision going down. INAC keeps coming back and saying it’s difficult. We understand it’s difficult. They can secure some of the funding, and if you don’t agree to that amount of funding, by year-end it’s gone, and you have to start all over because other priorities come along, whether it’s health and water issues in other communities, and we understand that. But we have to nail down funding that’s going to help replace that old admin building successfully so that the community can move forward and let go of the past and start to grow.
One of the things that came out of this wildfire that went through our community was the chief fire inspector came in and said no one can come back into the community until they inspect everything — all the buildings and electrical — and make sure it’s safe. When they came to report on the building itself, they were surprised it was still standing. They said it should have been condemned a long time ago. That came out of their report. We have other reports our community has done that state the same thing, but right out of the blue, it came out again through the wildfire and raised the issue of why people are even in there. It should have been gone a long time ago, plus the history.
That’s where the issue lies. We need the funding so that the Daylu can move forward. We’re that close. We look to the Senate and your support and understanding to try to initiate and get this moving. The whole process is spinning its wheels. It’s not going anywhere, and we’re getting more and more frustrated. Some of the elders that went to that school won’t even walk into the building. We have some great chiefs in our nation who come down to Daylu, and they refuse to walk in there, and you can see why.
Michelle, I’m not sure if you were part of it, but one of the steps was the healing circle went through the residential school initiatives laid out by Canada. Daylu represented a lot of the First Nations that went to that school. They got some funding and then they had a healing ceremony right in the community. They built this healing circle where they brought in all the surviving members of that residential school and they went through a healing process. They had representatives from Canada and others who came to join us and hear the stories. They did the smudges and wanted to heal.
Unfortunately, the building is still there. So even though we went through that process, even though a lot of us have accepted Canada’s sincere apologies, that school is still sitting there. It’s a huge reminder of the unforgotten, unforgiving history that took place. It doesn’t matter how often we accept apologies or otherwise; there’s always that reminder. Like I said in the wildfire report, that should have been condemned a long time ago.
So what we need from you, senators, is to find a way to get this out of that little mud hole that we’re spinning in and get it moving forward. We have all the pieces. It’s all there. We just have to figure out how to move that forward. How can we nudge it and get it going? That’s how close we are. I’m happy to hear you ask that question, and I’m hoping, senators, that you would work as one of the initiatives to move forward. I’m sorry. Once I start, I can’t stop.
Senator McCallum: I wanted to ask if you can send the Senate all the information of what you did, the history of this.
Ms. Miller: I just want to add to that. The gathering that Bill is talking about happened in 2012, and it was called Gathering Around the Fire. The purpose of that was to bring former residential school students back to the community. The residential school that was there is right in the centre of our community. This piece that is still standing and is the band office is the last piece left of that building. We had a gym that was there. That was burned down, I believe. It was burned down. So at that Gathering Around the Fire, a commitment was made by the minister to say this is horrible and we need to do something about this. That’s what we continue to hear. There’s a funding commitment, but our leaders are getting frustrated because that’s all they keep hearing: Yes, we’re committed. But there’s nothing that they’ve signed off. It’s always, “Okay, you need to go.” They have the plans in place. Architects have come in and there are drawings. Everything is there for a new admin building, but we need a real commitment of funding in order to get rid of this building in our community.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for that. We’ll look forward to a letter outlining the timeline and what you just explained, and then we can have a discussion and see how we can add our voices to yours.
Ms. Miller: We could send a video as well.
The Deputy Chair: Perfect.
Ms. Miller: There was a video done of Gathering Around the Fire.
The Deputy Chair: That would be great.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I welcome you here tonight. My question is on your relationship with the federal government and the province. You said that you have a three-year agreement to work together. Why just three years?
Ms. Miller: Before I answer, I want to acknowledge one of my colleagues here who has been a part of all this work. I just realized you’re here. I wanted to say hi.
Actually, I think it’s a step toward the commitment for them to sign off on a three-year commitment. Prior to that, we were going year to year. Every year, we weren’t sure if we were going to get funded again. Like I said, this started in 2009. I think it’s a step of progress going from a one-year commitment to them now committing to three years of funding. Of course, we wish it could be more. Sustainability is important. That’s one of the issues most First Nations communities experience. The funding that we get is either yearly, proposal driven or not sustainable. So how can we build healthy, happy communities when we’re going on yearly funding? Yes, in a perfect world, it would be great to have more than a three-year agreement for this wonderful work we’re doing, but unfortunately it’s three years right now.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: What would happen if there’s a change in government?
Ms. Miller: We discussed that at our leadership table. That’s obviously what we’re afraid of. Again, if we really want to change this relationship, it shouldn’t matter; right? This funding should be there regardless of who gets into government. These programs don’t change. Our communities don’t change. Our children are still there. Everything we’re doing in our community is important to our community. That would be a great way to show nation-to-nation relationships, sustainable funding for our communities.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Between the federal government and the province, which is the better relationship? Neither?
Ms. Miller: I think that because of the importance of the work we’re doing, the relationship is a lot easier. The relationship with the federal government is newer with this initiative so I can’t really comment on what that has been like so far. Even with it being new, we can see the change in the way government thinks and the way they’re moving forward with First Nations people. Our relationship with the province has been great. Our counterpart with the province has been amazing and working with us. We’re truly building a relationship with this work we’re doing, with both governments.
Senator Patterson: I have more than one question, but I’ll make them short. Thank you, both.
Ms. Miller, the work you’re doing with bringing culturally relevant programs and services to children is a priority of the current government, and we are expecting to possibly receive legislation on this subject in the life of this Parliament. You mentioned your work had garnered the attention of Minister Philpott. Have you had some input into the child welfare initiative she’s working on?
Ms. Miller: I can’t be 100 per cent sure on that question, but I know when the invitation was given to the Stikine Wholistic Working Group in January, it was to give a presentation on the work that we’re doing. Again, I don’t want to answer and not be 100 per cent sure on that, but it’s definitely an answer I can get back to you on.
Senator Patterson: We should hope that they are taking advantage of your good work.
Mr. Lux, I was impressed with both of your presentations, but also your vision for indigenous protected areas and the guardianship program. We’re working in Nunavut with the Minister of the Environment for a marine protected area in the High Arctic, so I’m familiar with that. Could you tell us a bit about how you envisage the Indigenous protected areas? I noticed you said that you are hoping to be respectfully engaged on the LNG opportunity. You’ve made a first step with quite a big chunk of land, 3.4 million hectares. Would that Indigenous protected area be available for development in your traditional territory as well as protection? I’m wondering, when you talk about “Indigenous protected area,” is it like a park or will it be multi-use? Will there be options for other uses, of course with the consent of your people? What’s that land going to look like?
Mr. Lux: Thank you for that question, senator. It’s a very good question. As we all know — and feel free to correct me any time — there is no legislation on Indigenous protected areas. I’m sure that’s why you’re asking that question.
We recognize that Canada has its policies on federal protected areas. B.C. also has its processes under B.C. parks, Canadian parks, and then there are conservancies. We looked at all of those, and we realized that there’s an opportunity here, not only to protect the area and our tradition and culture but also to explore where opportunities may lie that would allow for some form of development. We’re in the process right now of pulling together and trying to develop that proposal moving forward, using these different designations. We’re hoping that, through future discussions with Canada and British Columbia, we’ll be able to come up with a project that will allow for a number of different things when it talks about protecting an area while allowing for development. We’re not there yet, but we recognize it and we are looking at that.
The other important piece to that — and I’m glad you mentioned LNG as well — is that this area doesn’t encompass the LNG part of our traditional territory. It’s further in the centre part. The LNG focus is in the northeastern part of our traditional territory. So we’re fortunate that way. The only reason we proposed this area is because of that.
This is one of the most remote areas in British Columbia, where there are no roads. There is no major resource development. There’s a major watershed with all its tributaries right in the heart of our traditional territory, right up the trench from the northern part of one of our communities to part of another. It has one of the most intact predator/prey systems. Some call it the “Serengeti of the North” in North America. That’s why we selected this area specifically, because there are not a lot of resources there being pursued. There’s no forest development there. There are hardly any trees. You’re into this big, beautiful valley. There’s some mineral exploration in the area, but it’s yet to be proven. Our view is that until it’s proven, there won’t be any future development until we’re satisfied that there’s something there, and then we work on that. That’s where that piece comes in. If there’s a small part in there that industry says, “This is important and we want to be able to access it,” then that’s where we can talk about what this protected area provides for.
It’s not a park. It’s not designated as a park, Canadian or provincial. It’s not designated as a conservancy. Hopefully we can get to a point where we can all agree on what the designation is. In our view, it should be an Indigenous protected area, but what does that mean? Until we get there, I’d be more than happy to share with the Senate our view of the future of that area as we develop it. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Patterson: Yes, but just one quick end piece: You said you approached Minister McKenna and you’ve taken a first step with the Canada Nature Fund. Would you be willing to share the response you got from Minister McKenna?
Mr. Lux: Absolutely. I’d be more than happy to share that information.
Senator Patterson: Or could you tell us? Was there a good response?
Mr. Lux: We had a very good response. In fact, we were here in Ottawa. My colleague Michelle will absolutely remind me if I’m wrong. We attended a number of meetings with Minister McKenna’s office, all her staff — deputy ministers, ministers, executives — for two days straight about our area. Then we went to a gala in the evening for Minister McKenna and met her, because she wasn’t available through those two days, and we had a discussion with her. Following that, she travelled to British Columbia. We didn’t get an opportunity there, but they endorsed it and said, if I’m correct, that they have identified that as one of the candidate areas. That’s why we’re receiving funding through that.
Senator Patterson: Very good.
Mr. Lux: Hopefully that helps. If there’s more information, I’d be happy to follow up in a letter. If I missed anything, I will provide that.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Lux, thank you. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you both very much for your time with us and for your thoughtful presentations. We really do appreciate it and wish you all the best. Once we have the details on the residential school situation, we will marshal our modest influence here and hopefully add our voices to the conversation with the department. Thank you again.
Continuing with our study on what a new relationship between the government and First Nations, Inuit and Metis people of Canada could look like, we now have with us, from the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, formerly known as the Big Trout Lake First Nation, Chief Donald Morris; Noah Chapman, Executive Director; and Bob John Fox, Liaison, Child and Family Services. Gentlemen, welcome. We look forward to hearing from you and having a conversation afterwards, with questions from the senators. Please, the floor is yours.
Donald Morris, Chief, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (Formerly Big Trout Lake First Nation): Thank you very much.
First of all, my name is Donny Morris, Chief of the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, and I’m very proud to be here to represent my community, to present what we envision a nation-to-nation relationship would look like in the future.
On behalf of the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, we wish to thank you for the opportunity to present our nation’s visions on a new nation-to-nation relationship with the Crown. We have travelled a great distance from our nation’s homelands to speak with you tonight on who we are as a nation of Indigenous peoples, our long-lasting connection to our homelands and our desire for a respectful and reciprocal relationship with the Crown as set out in the treaty relationship between us.
We also wish to thank Keeshaymanitou for placing our nation upon our homelands and providing our nation and its peoples with all that we need to exist and thrive from the waters, forests, animals, fish, birds, rocks, minerals and all plant life.
So that you may fully understand what we will share with you, we wish to provide a brief history of who we are as a nation of Indigenous peoples to committee members. We are hopeful that in sharing our history of respectful coexistence with our homelands and our subsequent beliefs reflective of such coexistence that sit at the root of our Indigenous identity, culture and practices, that the committee members will understand more fully our vision of a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with the Crown.
Our nation is among the ancient peoples and Indigenous nations of the western hemisphere, and in particular, these lands and territories that abound on the Great Turtle Island, North America. Our nation has existed in our homelands since the beginning of human memory — a memory that recounts centuries of evolution and growth. Keeshaymanitou placed our nation and its peoples upon our homelands, and we have always existed in our homelands before any other peoples, governments or nations, and upon this basis we have declared our homelands as always being our nation’s lands and resources. Recent Western scientific investigations have recognized that the ancestors of our nation have lived and died along the shore of what is now known in the English language as Big Trout Lake by the discovery of a 5,000-year-old burial site with the remains of our ancestors.
Our nation’s long existence upon our homelands is the basis upon which we, as Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, a nation of Indigenous peoples, assert and exercise our continued sovereignty. Despite our nation’s observance of certain of Canada’s laws and the unilateral Canadian regulation of our peoples and homelands, we maintain our sovereignty, as it has not been relinquished by the treaty relationship or other legally legitimate means. We are the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, just as our ancestors so too declared.
Our nation acknowledges and understands that Keeshaymanitou, in giving us our homelands, also gave us the four sacred elements of fire, earth, air and water, as well as all the other resources contained in our homelands to use, including but not limited to the waters, forests, animals, fish, birds, rocks, minerals and all plant life. As such, our nation accepts the sacred responsibility to care for our homelands, including its resources, so as to maintain the balance of life that is central to our identity as a nation of Indigenous peoples, as Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug now and in the times yet to come.
Our nation has our own laws, derived from Keeshaymanitou’s laws, that are older than any of the laws of Canada. Such laws require our nation and its peoples to protect our homelands and all the resources contained within for our nation’s future generations. Some committee members may recall in 2008 that I, as a chief of my nation, along with five other members of our government were placed in jail for standing firm to our commitment to our nation and its peoples, our sacred responsibility to our homelands and our laws and refusing to allow Platinex mining into our homelands without our consent. Our nation’s commitment and resolve to ensure that our homelands and its resources are protected is such that we were willing to sacrifice our liberty to stand by our principles, laws and peoples.
Since our incarceration, our nation has articulated some of our laws and the protocols and regulations that derive from such laws into two declarations, the two anchors and the three operational documents that guide our nation in maintaining our special relationship with and our sacred responsibility to our homelands. These documents contain the principles upon which we wish to build a renewed, respectful and reciprocal relationship with the Crown.
Briefly, these two declarations, two anchors and three operational documents are the declarations, entitled as the “Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug Declaration of Sovereignty and Governance and Assertion of Inherent and Treaty Rights” and the “Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug Declaration of Sacred Responsibility to Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug Aki (Homelands)” sets out our nation’s understanding and assertions regarding our sovereignty and inherent and treaty rights and our responsibility to our homelands; the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug Indigenous Side Research Project, which has mapped in great detail our nation’s historic and continued presence upon our homelands; and Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug Elders Treaty Affidavit Project, which interviewed, recorded and created sworn affidavits from 13 elders with direct knowledge from parents and elders who were present at the entering into the treaty relationship with the Crown.
The three operational documents are the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug Consultation Protocol, setting out the process our nation requires to be consulted; Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug Watershed Declaration, setting our nation’s understanding of our sacred responsibility to manage our homeland’s bodies of water; and the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug Collaborative Governance Framework Project, setting out the intersection of our nation’s governance practices and our inherent rights to inform non-nation parties of the allowable activities that can be undertaken by non-nation parties upon the homelands, the processes that are required allowing such activities and the authority and jurisdiction exercised by our nation.
Upon request, our nation would be more than happy to provide any and all of these documents to the committee and to further meet as necessary to discuss their content and applicability to the creation of a renewed, respectful and reciprocal nation-to-nation relationship.
Principles and recommendations for a renewed, respectful and reciprocal relationship: In addition to the two declarations, the two anchors and the three operational documents just mentioned, our nation’s understanding of the treaty relationship with the Crown that was entered into July 5, 1929, also provides principles on which we wish to build a renewed, respectful and reciprocal relationship with the Crown.
Our understanding of the treaty relationship is based upon our nation’s elders sharing of knowledge and history of what was promised and agreed to at the first treaty day. Recently, our nation recorded the knowledge of 13 elders, some of who were children at the time of treaty, regarding their parents or elders’ experiences of what took place at the first treaty day and the verbal terms of the treaty relationship. The elders that provided such knowledge swore in an affidavit to the truth of the knowledge they shared, and such sworn testimony provides our nation with principles for a renewed, respectful and reciprocal nation-to-nation relationship with the Crown.
With all of this being said, we wish to set out the recommended principles in which our vision of a renewed, respectful and reciprocal nation-to-nation relationship with the Crown can take place.
As a basis of any renewed, respectful and reciprocal nation-to-nation relationship, both parties must acknowledge that the other exists according to their own separate beliefs, culture and laws that guide their respective means of interacting with others and that the reconciliation of these beliefs, culture and laws between the parties must be equal, not simply the nation adjusting its beliefs, culture and laws to suit Canada’s beliefs, culture and law.
The nation’s long-lasting connection to its homelands provided by Keeshaymanitou and its sacred responsibility to such homelands and resources must be respected by Canada, Ontario and third party harvesters of resources. The nation does not necessarily oppose all third party harvesting of resources from its homelands, but such third party harvesters must always include the nation’s reasonable and meaningful participation, including economic benefit, from the early stages of development, including adherence to the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug consultation protocol.
The treaty relationship must be respected, not as a static historical event but as a continual, organic, and ever-evolving relationship whereby our nation agreed to share certain resources with the Crown in exchange for assisting the nation and its peoples to have a good life. Such sharing cannot unilaterally be determined by Canada or Ontario or third party harvesters, but only in adherence to the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug consultation protocol.
The treaty relationship must continually be renewed in order to ensure the spirit and intent, that is, the respectful coexistence of our nation with Canada and Ontario upon our homelands, can continue to grow and prosper as required to meet the needs of all parties.
A renewed, respectful and reciprocal nation-to-nation relationship has as a component an economic factor that allows for the continued ability of the nation’s homelands to provide for it and its peoples, whether through transfer payments derived from all harvesting of resources or the nation’s own economic initiatives. Accordingly, Canada’s and Ontario’s laws, as applicable, must allow for the nation to have an equal say in the management of its homelands and its resources and allow for the nation to economically benefit from third party harvesting and its own economic initiatives.
Our nation must always be reasonably and meaningfully involved in all matters that may affect our rights, including any matters affecting our homelands. Such involvement is not merely a process to hear our nation’s concerns, but with the goal of reasonably incorporating our concerns, aspirations and respect for our laws, culture and practice into the matters at hand.
In closing, we would like to reiterate our thanks for allowing us an opportunity to present our nation’s vision on a new nation-to-nation relationship with the Crown. We wish to communicate that our nation is open to continued discussion towards actual and real changes to our relationship with Canada and hope that our concerns as set out above have an impact.
On behalf of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Chief Donny Morris.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, chief. As you were talking, it dawned on me, and I confirmed with Senator Patterson, that we attended your community about three or four years ago on the housing study. Senator Patterson and I both remember the fish fry that we had and that you were so welcoming. You have a wonderful school, I recall, and it was where I got hooked on fried bannock as well, so thank you for that.
We have a number of questions from senators, so let’s get to them.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Chief Morris. I’m brand new to this committee, so I haven’t had the pleasure of visiting your community, although I visited a neighbouring community many years ago, Sachigo Lake, which is also part of the Nishnawbe Aski nation, so I know a little bit of the territory.
Your presentation was very powerful. Clearly, you are a remarkable leader to have actually gone to jail to stand for the rights of your people. I’m sorry you had to do that, but I commend you for the leadership that you expressed and also what has come since that time, as I understand from what you’re saying.
You spoke very clearly about the importance of this renewed, and constantly renewing, as I understand it, respectful and reciprocal relationship between your nation and the Crown, as a basis. You mentioned having learned from the past experience of your people and what you have been up against that you needed to put certain things in order, and one of the things you mentioned was the consultation protocol. My first question is to understand a little bit more about how the consultation protocol actually works and whether you have had occasion yet to use the consultation protocol.
Finally, from that specific question, one of the things we have been hearing about is that if one feels respected and is respected in a relationship, usually trust is one of the outcomes. I’m wondering where you feel right now in terms of the trust between your nation and the Crown.
Mr. Morris: I will be very frank, as I know I tend to speak my mind.
With the consultation protocol, that is there. But as you all know, the Ontario government has withdrawn lands, which is our land use documentation that we did over 23,000 square miles. There is no activity on our territory for another 15 years, I think. Ontario initiated a 26-year period where there is no mining activity. It has given the community, the leadership, the ability for us to move forward. Doing these things like treaty affidavit, the watershed declaration, all of these things are getting us ready.
Most importantly, I am here to say, I don’t know if I’m hearing wrong, but one day the Indian Act is going to be abolished. We are getting ready. We are setting laws and putting policies in place for when that time comes, because when the Indian Act is put away, we will not be recognizing Ontario on our territory. It will be with Canada and Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug. All that territory up north, that’s where we will be generating our resources and how we will fund our community, the public, the waterways, everything up north. We will be initiating the first step in how a government will operate under the scenario if Ontario is out of the picture. Our treaty is with Canada, but somehow Ontario got into the picture — we don’t know how — under the blanket of the Canadian flag at that time, 1929, which is not too long ago, so everything is fresh in our minds. We’re envisioning a relationship with Canada, how it will look in the future, if and when the Indian Act is done away with.
Senator Coyle: How is that relationship today with Canada? How would you describe it?
Mr. Morris: I am comfortable with the government of the day, the Liberal government. I’m comfortable. I would say it’s suiting our needs. Our items, infrastructure and those things are being identified. My colleague mentioned an admin building. We need that too. We need a new admin building. We’re tired of sitting in a government office, which is an old building, two buildings slapped together. If the Senate can help us in achieving a good office government building back up north in our community, we would appreciate that too.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, Chief Morris.
Senator Patterson: Thank you very much for the presentation. I do have vivid memories of our visit to your community. We learned there how your nation was systematically deprived of some pretty good lands in the area, and, therefore, there are challenges in finding employment and economic own-source revenues for your First Nation. It was good for us to visit a fly-in community like yours and understand those challenges.
I would like to ask you about the Bob Rae initiative. Do I understand that he had been appointed to work on resolving some of the issues at play in your region, and have there been some results of that work that you can share with us? If I’m off the mark here, you can tell me.
Mr. Morris: Bob Rae was hired through Matawa First Nations. We are an independent nation. We are not affiliated with Matawa or any of those communities. We are a stand-alone community right in the middle of all those other communities.
Senator Patterson: I’m sorry, the question was not appropriate.
Mr. Morris: Economically, I guess I can hand it over to Noah to touch base on the economic issues and talk about what our goals are too.
Noah A. Chapman, Executive Director, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (Formerly Big Trout Lake First Nation): I’ll elaborate a bit on what Chief Morris said. The MDM announced a moratorium on 23,181 square kilometres of what we call K.I. land, and he mentioned a time frame for that moratorium. We are an independent First Nation, so in terms of economic development, we are certainly open to looking at all the options that are available, now and into the future.
Senator Pate: Thank you all for coming in. I want to echo what was said earlier in terms of clearly standing on your principles and being jailed. You probably heard some of my questions to the previous panel. I’m happy to repeat it, but if you wanted to start off, then I can supplement it.
Mr. Morris: Can you repeat what you were saying? That was a while ago.
Senator Pate: I apologize. One of the things you’ve talked about is young people as well as the land and resources. A lot of resources go into taking young Indigenous people into care, and a lot of resources go into jailing young people and adults. There are provisions certainly in the adult system for those resources to be invested in the community if communities want to have individuals come out of the prisons into their communities. As well, you will know that the officer of the chief coroner, when the expert panel looked at the number of deaths, particularly suicides, of young people in Ontario, they made a number of recommendations about the sorts of services and supports that needed to be in Indigenous communities. I’m curious about all of that big picture. What are some of the resources that you are able to access to develop the services you need for people in your community, and what would you like to have from that? Are you being provided with the information of how you could be taking responsibility for those areas and getting resources for it?
Mr. Morris: I believe we’re not getting any funding to deal with those issues, as our people that are incarcerated are basically left out in the cold. We would probably be interested in working with the ministry of correctional services. We have a vast territory and we have homes on our territory where we could send people out, like banishing them from the community for a number of months rather than sending them to a prison or jail. I had experienced that when I was incarcerated. Drugs were still getting into the system. When there is a 146-bed unit and there are only three non-natives, one coloured guy, one Inuit and the rest are all natives in Thunder Bay, that tells me something is not right. That facility that’s in Thunder Bay, it’s not ready to be called a prison, because there’s no mental health service that could be provided to these people. The educational system is nonexistent. There are no computers. The library is just a small room. That centre needs a new facility, an upgrade. They say Aboriginals take up most of the prisons. It is true. I witnessed it. I was in there with them. In order to rehabilitate these individuals, we need a better system in Thunder Bay.
Senator Pate: With respect, I don’t want you to perceive this as in any way disrespectful at all, please, chief, but you went to jail for protecting your lands. I would argue that may not have been a good use of our resources to put you there. There are many other people who are sent to prisons who are poor, who for all kinds of reasons are trying to negotiate that poverty, the past histories of abuse. Would you rather see money invested in the jail or in your community?
Mr. Morris: In my community. I will give it over to my colleague Bob Fox to touch base on what he is trying to do. I believe he has a snapshot of what he envisions would help our youth up North, not just our communities. He can email you the full concept of his diagram and his explanation of that, if it is required.
Bob John Fox, Liaison, Child and Family Services, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (Formerly Big Trout Lake First Nation): [Editor’s note: The witness spoke in his Indigenous language.]
I always have to identify who I am as an Indigenous person, who my clan is.
I would like to thank the Algonquin. We’re on Algonquin unceded territory. I brought tobacco here. If there is someone here from that territory to be able to receive the tobacco, I would like that given to them.
It says here I’m a Child and Family Services worker. I’m actually an elder and youth liaison. Although my funding does come from Child and Family Services, I don’t do the actual work that CFS does. I wanted to correct that. My work is guided and governed by my leadership. The areas that I can look at are traps, the problems of my community, certainly with the elders and the youth.
You mentioned incarceration, where we have individuals go to jail and then come back to the community. They do pay their debts to society, which is governed by your laws, but they don’t pay any debts to the harm that they have done to the community or to the families who have been injured. There again, we don’t have the funding or the resources to be able to look into this carefully. In the schooling system, they call that restorative justice.
The area that I try to look at is what happened between our great-grandparents to me and what went wrong between the road we used to walk on. Somewhere along the line, something happened where the residential school system taught and embedded in them, our parents and great-grandparents, and taught us how to be astray. This being astray is where the big problem lies, not just within our community but almost every Indigenous community.
You yourself, you identify who you are. You know who you are, where you come from and where you are going. That is where our young people are at. The further we are away from what we used to be, that gap of who our youth are, is where all the problems lie of alcoholism, addiction, marital violence and suicide.
Trying to get back to that road is the difficulty of no funding, no resources. Especially with the schooling system in place where, out of six hours, one student is lucky to have 45 minutes to an hour’s worth of learning time of his or her language and/or culture. That’s the fight that we have.
What I am trying to do, I haven’t really done a lot of it. I have just been assessing, analyzing it and working with certain youth that I have talked with, because even I left. I spent a lot of time being incarcerated. I went to university, but during that time I found my traditional spiritual aspect of myself. In doing that, I recognized a lot of things coming back home, of where we are and of what the problems are. It’s not just with our youth. It’s their parents that are still stuck in that area.
For me, my program is trying to reverse the teachings of the residential school system, meaning who they are as a family, because that is the first thing the residential school did, was take them away. Our youth won’t even know, when there’s a problem at the school, that they’re fighting relatives, that they might be having problems or conflicts or issues with relatives. They don’t know who their great-grandparents are.
The second part to that is trying to take them home with their project, where they’re going to mention they GPSed exactly where these people are and trying to take these youths and the parents, because the parents are unable to survive or even be able to live out there.
The last part to that is their history, who they are as Indigenous people, the history of their family line, the history of who they are or were as peoples. We have our own belief system in where we come from. We create our own creation stories.
Just like you have your own departments within your government, I too have problems, even though I have the backing of my chief and my wife is a band counsellor. It’s not like they can just send me to the school and say, “Okay, go teach this,” because they have rules and guidelines. That’s a different department. So I too have problems trying to get things done, even in the small communities.
That’s where I am at. I was supposed to be setting up and doing programs, but I soon became a front-line worker. I was intervening and trying to save lives instead of having these programs try to prevent stuff. That’s just a little of what I’m trying to do. It’s a small picture of the problem. I hope that answers your question.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations and the information that you have shared with us.
What I wanted to have a dialogue about was about you being imprisoned. Was this through provincial?
Mr. Morris: Yes, it was the provincial government.
Senator McCallum: What did the federal government do to support you in this? Through your treaty, Treaty No. 9, you have the right to free, prior and informed consent, and you have the right to say “no.” Did you ask the federal government for help? It seems like you were imprisoned improperly. What have you done with this to further your cause towards how your treaty supersedes provincial jurisdiction?
Mr. Morris: We needed Canada to support us in our projects.
For everybody’s knowledge, it was a blockade road that was done. That’s what landed us in jail. If you look at the map of Big Trout, it’s in the middle of nowhere up north, and blockading a road is what got us into the court system. It’s a winter road. It’s not a highway. I don’t know if, on the part of Ontario governance structure, that they are not aware of the difference between a highway and a winter road. That’s how it was construed, is a highway blockade, but really it was just a winter road that is only opened up for maybe two months of the year to haul in our stuff.
I would say Canada did not get involved. I don’t know if, through the Court of Appeal, they played a role, but nobody has come out to say, because there’s big public support coming out from everywhere, even other countries. So maybe that’s why we got released earlier. Canada may have gotten involved at some stage. To be there at day one, no. They more or less let us go on our own. But they did not strip away our titles as chief and council. We did our council meetings inside the jail. We had our own boardroom. We were given the opportunity to do the band business from there. The funny thing is we had the warden there as our band manager at the time running our errands and mail and stuff like that, so support was there.
Mr. Chapman: I’ll do a little bit of background on the incarceration.
On February 20, 2006, K.I. blockaded the winter road that provided access to Platinex mining company onto K.I. traditional lands, and they were prevented from entering and doing exploration work. On April 19, 2006, Platinex filed a motion with the Ontario Supreme Court in Thunder Bay, asking for an injunction against the blockade, and filed a suit for damages of $10 billion. In March 2008, Chief Morris and five of our community members served more than two months in jail for peacefully blocking the mining company Platinex.
In December 2009, Ontario pays mining firm Platinex $5 million to drop the lawsuit against the government in K.I., ending a long-standing dispute. The agreement was in exchange for cash and a royalty stake in any development in the next 25 years.
On November 11, 2011, K.I. prepares and proceeds to defend the K.I. homelands against another mining corporation, God’s Lake Resources. In March 2012, Ontario settles to pay $3.5 million to Toronto-based junior mineral exploration company God’s Lake Resources for surrendering its mineral lease in claims near K.I.
In March 2012, as I mentioned before, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines announced a moratorium on 23,181 square kilometres of K.I. lands. K.I. got nothing.
Mr. Morris: Our invoices were never reimbursed.
Senator McCallum: Do you have any requests for this committee to help you with this? Is this still an issue? Is there any way that you can see the Senate can help you?
Mr. Chapman: Let me elaborate a little bit to what John said. I’ll note that we’re currently in the process of looking at the judicial processes for K.I., putting in protocols or laws that will take us to the future. That deals with issues like going to jail. Instead of going to jail, we go back on to the land with the individuals, especially the youth.
I also want to mention that in our community, there’s no recreational facilities. There’s no recreational funding, zero, so there’s no youth programming, really, and there’s no infrastructure, youth facilities. I just want to point out how much help we get from the government.
Mr. Morris: On that matter, we do have a couple of proposals, like a treatment centre, a new office and our Indigenous research watershed declaration protocol governance framework. We don’t have funding to do these things. We just do piecemeal, like taking pieces of money from the education program or economic development or the O and M school, trying to combine funds to move this project along. In areas of funding these things, you mentioned how you can help by any means. Funding agreements to look at these things. I don’t know if the Senate committee would be open for us to send proposals on what we would require to move our projects along and our structure to it.
The Deputy Chair: If you have some information that you can send to us, chief, we would definitely, as part of our engagement with the government, advocate. Certainly I recall when we were there your wastewater treatment lagoon was this close to the top. I don’t know where it is now and if it got fixed.
Mr. Morris: We’ve been letting it go earlier. It still hasn’t been addressed. There’s the phase five project that we want to review it again. That’s part of it, and putting sewer and waterlines to the mainland and the creek area too.
The Deputy Chair: So you have a number of things that were clear to us then, and we were there to look at housing as well, for which you need somebody’s attention to help. That would be helpful to us, and we’ll do our best here in Ottawa to engage with the government in support.
Senator Patterson: About the nation-to-nation relationship, thank you very much for the thoughts you’ve shared with us on that and the work you’ve done on that. I see two things here that kind of ring true for me from my experience in Nunavut. First, I’m looking near the end of your presentation where you talk about getting an economic share that allows for the continued ability of your First Nation to provide for it and its people, perhaps through transfer payments. Second, you talk about the principle of having an equal say in the management of the resources from your lands. Do I understand that you would be open to kind of a co-management approach and a resource revenue-sharing approach? Is that what’s behind these principles? Am I using the right term?
Mr. Morris: Yes, you’re using the right term. Yes, we are entertaining the idea of a sharing agreement in the percentage area, and how we’re going to move that is with a company and co-management. I always said I would entertain the idea of working with MNR only, with the Ontario government, because they are the ones most frequently up north with their technology. I’m surprised by my colleague who was sitting here, with the firefighting. Wherever there’s a little bit of smoke in our area, you get three to five water bombers within four to five minutes. How come it’s not happening in B.C.? Their technology, their staff, they’re open to work with us, but it’s the bureaucracy system that’s binding their hands from moving.
With contaminated areas that have been left by companies from way back too, MNR can’t do anything because of these 99-year leases that these companies signed a long time ago. There are a lot of contaminated sites in our community, and we need these things cleaned up so we can put more houses on these reserves.
As you know, our reserve is 36 miles long and 18 miles wide. Most of it is water, the lake itself. We need land. That’s why we’re moving our issues to broaden our land base and economic development. We’re moving ahead, whether Ontario is on board or not. We’re making laws and policies. One day, like I said, if things fall into place, we will be governing our lives up there, along with Canada.
Senator Coyle: I have just a brief question on the economic development side of things. You’ve talked about post-Indian Act. You’ve talked about a land base and driving employment and income for individuals, and the community benefit from your land base. How are people currently earning a living? What’s the current economic base of your community?
Mr. Morris: I’ll give it over to Noah. He used to be our economic officer.
Mr. Chapman: It will be transfer payments from the government. That’s the only way we’re living right now. We’re depending on the government. We don’t want to, but there are no other options to look at.
Senator McCoy: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Gentlemen, we’ve come to the end of our time. I want to thank you very much for being with us this evening. We’ve learned a lot. We appreciate your contribution.
(The committee adjourned.)