Proceedings of the Subcommittee on the
Boreal Forest
Issue 16 - Evidence
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 25, 1998
The Subcommittee on Boreal Forest of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:05 p.m. to continue its study on the present state and future of forestry in Canada as it relates to the boreal forest.
Senator Mira Spivak (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: We are happy to have representatives from the Métis National Council with us this afternoon.
Mr. Tony Belcourt, Member, Board of Governors, Métis National Council, and President, Métis Nation of Ontario: Madam Chair, I wish to thank the committee for giving us an opportunity to make this presentation.
"Don't eat the wild berries." This sign, put up by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, says a lot. Sadly, it is indicative of a host of other contaminants that are ruining our forests. Mine tailings have destroyed fish and forest habitat. Sprayed areas are devoid of wildlife and birds. Chemicals from sprays leach into our river and lake systems, killing our ecosystem. Deforested areas are replanted with Jack pine, and species diversity is lost. Jack pine is not good feed for animals. Clear-cutting destroys our trap lines. The last supply of grey sturgeon in northern Ontario is on the Groundhog River. Fish ladders are not installed when rivers are damned. Our traditional economy is replaced by one that is beyond our grasp.
We have titled this presentation "The Forest is our Home." The question is what can we, the Métis, whose life is born of the forest, do about the threat to our home?
We wish to emphasize that the Métis are one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. This fact is recognized and affirmed in our Constitution. However, it is not recognized and affirmed by either the federal government or the provincial governments when they make policy or law regarding our forest home.
In 1982, the rules of the policy and law-making game were supposed to change. In the highest law of our land, the Constitution, we recognized and affirmed the Métis people to be aboriginal people with existing treaty and aboriginal rights. In 1990, when the Supreme Court of Canada brought down the Sparrow decision, the governments of this country were given another opportunity to change the policy and law-making game.
In Sparrow, the court stated that the first interest to be protected is the species. The second interest to be protected is the use of the resource by aboriginal peoples. While Sparrow referred specifically to fisheries, it applies to hunting and gathering, and to all harvesting, including forestry resources. This is a significant change. It means that all aboriginal people, including the Métis, must be consulted on resource allocation and use, and that their reliance needs must be met first before the interests of industry and tourism.
This was confirmed again by the Supreme Court of Canada last December in Delgamuukw. In that ruling, the court held that our aboriginal title has an economic aspect to it, and that any resource development planning and activity must, as a matter of law, include the meaningful participation of aboriginal people.
Unfortunately, the policy and law-making game still has not changed for the Métis. For us, Delgamuukw, Sparrow, and the Constitution Act of 1982 have yet to be implemented. We submit that if this committee also ignores the Métis as forestry users, you will be exacerbating the problem.
As aboriginal people, are our interests protected by the Department of Indian Affairs Indian and Northern Development? No. Does the Canadian Forest Service of the Federal Department of Natural Resources give us support? No. Do the Métis benefit from the federally funded programs of the National Aboriginal Forestry Association? No. Does the Government of Ontario ensure that condition 77 applies to the Métis? No.
The Deputy Chairman: Would you define that?
Mr. Belcourt: It refers to the Environmental Assessment Board of the Government of Ontario, and I will refer to this again later.
Are our aboriginal and treaty rights taken into consideration in resource management? No. The Métis are now generally considered to be a landless people. We do have some land settlements in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but throughout the remainder of the Métis homeland we do not have reserve lands.
This does not in any way alter the fact that our people have always lived off the land. The Métis are not, generally speaking, farmers. The Métis are resource harvesters. We are hunters, fishers, trappers and gatherers. Historically, we have always been a highly mobile people, and follow a seasonal round that stretches for thousands of miles. The gradual encroachment of agriculture, urban centres, mining and forestry operations have pushed us further and further to the margins of our lands and resources. Gradually, government regulation and law have outlawed our way of life, and industry has stolen our economy. This constant erosion of our traditional culture is life-threatening.
It is because of this threat to our forest home that we welcome this study of the present and future of forestry in Canada. We welcome this because it gives us an opportunity to set the record straight where we, as inhabitants of the forest, are concerned. We welcome this study, because we hope you will assist us in bringing about the change that is necessary if the Métis, the forest, and all of the other species that inhabit it are to survive.
We wish to take this opportunity to impress upon the committee the fact that the Métis must be considered in any meaningful examination of the forests in this country. We also wish to take this opportunity to reflect and comment upon some presentations made to this committee. They provide disturbing evidence of the way the Métis are forgotten and discriminated against in all matters dealing with our forests.
The Canadian Forest Service reported to you that:
Recently we were involved in international discussions at the global forestry level, and in preparation for those we had consultations with aboriginal groups, with environmental groups, with industry and with provinces.
We want this committee to know that whenever the federal or provincial governments say that they have had consultations with aboriginal groups, they are seriously misrepresenting the facts. In reality, if there are any consultations, they are solely with First Nations. The Métis, one of the three aboriginal peoples of Canada, were not invited to these consultations.
For example, we were provided statistics on forestry on reserve lands. Positive comments were made about reserves large enough to sustain commercial operations for timber. None of these statistics apply to Métis. This committee should realize that your information on aboriginal communities and their forestry practices and reliance are deficient. You only have information on First Nations, and they are not the only aboriginal communities.
The Canadian Forest Service also reported that:
aboriginal treaty rights are being discussed at the moment through various processes led by the Ministry of Indian Affairs and, in many cases, by the provinces.
The CFS went on to state:
Some provinces now have legislation in place which requires that the values and interests of aboriginal people be taken into account when preparing a forest management plan; some provinces have enacted legislation to protect aboriginal sacred sites.
I can tell you that this is certainly not happening where the Province of Ontario is concerned, for example. We presume that you are fully aware that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development does not deal with the Métis nation.
While we understand that the application of legislation such as the Indian Act is limited to Indians, there is absolutely no reason for the Canadian Forest Service, acting outside of the Indian Act, to ignore the Métis nation and to limit its consultations and consideration to First Nations. We believe that by doing so the Canadian Forest Service is in serious contravention of the Constitution, and of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The CFS proudly told you about two programs that it has for aboriginal people; the First Nation Forestry Program, and the Model Forest Program. The First Nation Forestry Program, according to the CFS, is:
Managed jointly with the aboriginal communities and has received funding of $24 million over five years. The various activities so far have dealt with the development and updating of forest management plan, silviculture training, marketing of forest products and feasibility studies for business ventures.
CFS also reported that, "First Nations are partners in five of our ten model forests." Please do not be misled. While CFS refers to involving aboriginal communities, both of their programs are exclusively for First Nations. The Métis are shut out, and we object to that. There is absolutely no excuse for not including the Métis in these vital initiatives. We are making representations to the Government of Canada to this effect, and we would welcome the support of this committee in that regard.
We would now like to turn to the presentation Lands in Trust Services of the Department of Indian Affairs made to you. Much of their presentation in support of First Nations applies equally to the Métis. Unfortunately, however, we do not enjoy this kind of advocacy by the federal government. Therefore, we need to advocate for ourselves.
The Department of Indian Affairs reports that almost 500 First Nation communities are located in the boreal forest region. We acknowledge those 500 First Nation communities; they are our cousins and family. What we want this committee to know is that there are also hundreds of Métis communities in the same boreal forest regions. These Métis communities must not be overlooked.
DIAND stated that:
For many First Nations, the reserve forests are too small for sustainable long-term timber harvesting. Reasonable jobs require First Nation access to off-reserve forests -- First Nation access to opportunities based on these forests is important to address the economic needs of First Nations.
Senators, these statements apply with equal force to the Métis. We were encouraged to learn in DIAND's presentation that:
Canada's governments and the forest industry are initiating forest certification processes in response to potential boycotts in some markets because of Canada's forest practices -- to receive certification, a forest manager will be required to demonstrate that forests under his or her control have been managed to a sustainable basis. Certification will depend on, among other things, the extent to which the forest manager addressed aboriginal and treaty rights and allowed for the participation of aboriginal communities in sustainable forest management.
These are encouraging words indeed. However, the Métis nation knew nothing about this initiative until we studied the submission to this committee. Canada's work in this area has bypassed the Métis nation. Now that we know of these requirements, we will insist that certification also consider the participation of the Métis nation. We would like this committee's endorsement for that position.
Your committee heard from DIAND that:
The negotiation and implementation of various land claims will substantially increase First Nation control over off-reserve resources.
DIAND also reported:
The Resource Access Negotiations Program funds negotiations between First Nations and other parties. The negotiations can cover forest management arrangements, forest harvesting contract, firefighting arrangements and silviculture contracts.
We applaud the federal government for taking these initiatives for First Nations. However, while doing so, the federal government has totally neglected its duty and fiduciary obligation to the Métis nation. The Métis nation is frozen out of land claim negotiations. There are no programs to assist us in accessing a land base, let alone any programs that increase resource access off that land base.
No assistance is provided to the Métis to engage in any forestry economic development, and this must change. So, too, must the callous disregard of provincial governments for our aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt and fish for food. In the Sparrow case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that aboriginal people have these rights. It did not say that "Indians" or "First Nations" have these rights, it stated "aboriginal peoples."
Senator Taylor stated that "The least we should be doing is standing up to the provinces quite strongly for aboriginal rights." We believe that Senator Taylor is correct. It is the least this committee can and should do. Standing up for aboriginal rights must include the rights of all aboriginal peoples, including the Métis.
Unfortunately, following this statement, the committee was misled by a DIAND official who stated that "First Nations have the right to hunt for sustenance purposes as well to fish." This is wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that aboriginal people, including the Métis, have this right. We want this committee to ensure that the correct interpretation of that ruling is taken into account in your deliberations.
Unfortunately, as well, is the truth of another statement by that DIAND official, who said, "The provinces have recognized the treaty rights of First Nations people in those specific areas." In Ontario, this is true. For the most part, the treaty rights of First Nations have been recognized. What is also true is that, in Ontario, Métis rights are denied, and our very existence as a people is denied.
In presenting its arguments in the matter of the Powley case, this past summer, the Crown for Ontario put forth the position that, first, the Métis, as a people, do not exist in Ontario. Second, if the court were to find that they do exist in Ontario, they are not aboriginal people. Third, they do not have aboriginal or treaty rights.
Everywhere we turn, provinces are using all their power to circumvent and act in direct contravention of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on the rights of Métis people to hunt and fish for food.
In testimony given by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources during the hearing in Timmins on October 9, 1998, you were told that:
You have heard about the Timber Class Environmental Assessment Term and Condition 77. That is an obligation that we have to provide First Nations communities with a greater share of the economic benefits of forest management.
Honourable senators, this is wrong. Term and Condition 77 applies not only to First Nations, but also to the Métis. The Government of Ontario merely disregards its own regulations. For the record, we want to provide to you the exact wording of Term and Condition 77. It applies to timber management on Crown lands in Ontario. The Environmental Assessment Board stated as follows:
We are ordering MNR to negotiate with these communities in order to involve them more directly in timber management planning by giving them the opportunity to share the social and economic benefits enjoyed by other residents of northern Ontario. Therefore, in Condition 77, we are ordering:
77. During the term of this approval, MNR district managers shall conduct negotiations at the local level with aboriginal peoples whose communities are situated in a management unit, in order to identify and implement ways of achieving a more equal participation by aboriginal peoples in the benefits provided through timber management planning. These negotiations will include but are not limited to the following matters:
(a) Providing job opportunities and income associated with bush and mill operations in the vicinity of aboriginal communities.
(b) Supplying wood to wood processing facilities such as sawmills in aboriginal communities.
(c) Facilitation of aboriginal third part licence negotiations with existing licensees where opportunities exist.
(d) Providing timber licences to aboriginal people where unalienated Crown timber exists close to reserves.
(e) Development of programs to provide jobs, training and income for aboriginal people in timber management operations through joint projects with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
(f) Other forest resources that may be affected by timber management or which can be addressed in the timber management planning process as provided for in condition 23(c).
MNR shall report on the progress of these on-going negotiations, district-by-district, in the Annual Report on Timber Management that will be submitted to the Legislature (Condition 82 and Appendix 20).
By now, it should come as no surprise that neither the government nor the forestry industry makes any attempt to comply with these terms insofar as Métis communities are concerned.
We also wish to point out to the committee that the Canadian government is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Article 8(j) of that Convention binds each signatory country to respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities that embody traditional life styles.
Again, honourable senators, Métis communities have yet to hear from the federal government as to how, what, and when we can expect something tangible to happen in Canada as a result of the provision of this convention.
In conclusion, the Métis National Council asks this committee to do four things. First, make a strong commitment in your report to support the inclusion of all aboriginal peoples in any decisions on forestry planning and usage. Second, insist that the forestry harvesting rights of all aboriginal peoples be recognized and respected. Third, make particular reference to the need for forestry management to reflect the rights of the underrepresented and forgotten Métis people. Fourth, in your report, we ask you to call on Canadian governments to fulfil their fiduciary obligations to the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including the Métis, and to uphold and enforce the spirit, intent and law of the Constitution of Canada.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to our representations. We have attached for you a paper prepared by Mr. Alan Morin, Treasurer of the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan and Environmental Representative to the Métis National Council.
Senator Robichaud: You must enlighten me. I appreciate your brief, but in the first part of your presentation you state that the Métis are aboriginal people. In your last recommendation on page 13, you then state that in our report we should "call on the governments to fulfil their fiduciary obligations to the aboriginal peoples, including the Métis," as if you are not included when we say "aboriginal." For the record, I should like you to say what "aboriginal" means, and how the Métis should be considered when we use that term.
Mr. Belcourt: It is a bit redundant for us to put that in there in that way. However, we find that we need to constantly educate people. We have to reinforce the fact that the Métis are one of the three aboriginal peoples named in Canada's Constitution, which states that the aboriginal peoples of Canada are the Indians, the Inuit and the Métis.
Ms Teillet, Legal Advisor, Métis National Council: The main message of our presentation is that in almost all law and government action, policy, decision making and regulation making across this country, governments say "aboriginal peoples" because the Supreme Court has said that they have to do so. They say it, but they do not mean it. They never mean it. They only really mean First Nations people, and First Nations people are the only ones consulted. Those are the only people governments feel they have any obligation to deal with, which is the gist of our presentation.
Yes, it is redundant in many ways. In some ways, we are carrying a big hammer to beat you over the head with. The very fact that you have to ask this question, however, shows yet again how important it is for this to be stated.
In 1982 the rules of the game were supposed to change. The Métis people were written into our highest law. That was supposed to change things, but it did not.
In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada went out of its way to make the Sparrow decision refer specifically and inclusively to aboriginal people. Even though Ronald Sparrow was a Musqueam Indian, Chief Justice Dickson at that time made the decision refer the aboriginal peoples of Canada. In the Delgamuukw decision last December, they did it again.
This committee has a chance to step up to 1982. We are not even talking about 1990 or 1997. Let us get to 1982 for the Métis people, and include them in all reasonable consultation mechanisms. We need you to make a specific reference to Métis people and to the fact that we are here and have not gone away.
Senator Robichaud: If we were to say we need to consult "aboriginal people," that term would not be strong enough for you. To make the point, we would have to do as you did in your fourth recommendation and state that we also specify the Métis.
Ms Teillet: That is exactly what we are saying. The minute you only say "aboriginal people," the government will go only to the First Nations. That is the track record across the country.
Senator Robichaud: Have you ever been part of the aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, the AFS?
Ms Teillet: No.
Senator Robichaud: I was with Fisheries and Oceans, and the policy only concerned First Nations. I never come across any discussions or briefings saying that the Métis should be considered along with the aboriginal communities.
One learns every day, and it is good that you came here today so that, in our report, we can make the point that you making. We are concerned that many things have been happening. In some cases, some people have been left out.
You also refer to the Powley decision in your brief. Is that case before the courts now?
Ms Teillet: I can answer your questions in that regard, because I am the lawyer on that case.
Senator Robichaud: I would like to, in conjunction with the Vice-Chairman and the clerk, ensure that we do not prejudice that case by speaking about it. This case is before the courts, and usually we back off whenever a case is before the courts.
The Deputy Chairman: This committee is privileged. We can talk about anything here.
Senator Robichaud: Yes, but I would not want to prejudice the case.
Ms Teillet: May I tell you about the status of the case, Madam Chair?
The Deputy Chairman: Go ahead.
Ms Teillet: We have argued the trial, and all the evidence has been presented. We have one more motion on costs to argue in the next week or so, and the judgment is scheduled to be delivered on December 21. In terms of the release of your report, I do not think you could prejudice that case.
With regard to the issue of the law as it is developing on Métis rights, it is important for this committee to understand that the law on Indian rights in terms of harvesting, hunting and fishing began in 1972. That is not to say there were no cases before that time. However, it began in 1972 with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on Calder, which found that aboriginal rights were legally held rights; not just a political or moral obligation, but a legal responsibility.
The Deputy Chairman: Was that before the James Bay Agreement?
Ms Teillet: Yes. It was the beginning of the changes in aboriginal rights law in this country.
Senator Robichaud: Did that include the Métis at that time? It was not specified as such.
Ms Teillet: In my mind, Calder specifically dealt with Indian title. That is because it was before the 1982 Constitution, which included the Métis specifically. A progression has occurred.
It has taken Indians from 1972 to the Sparrow decision of 1990 to get a solid Supreme Court of Canada judicial understanding of the priority and reliance needs, and of the constitutional recognition and affirmation of those rights.
We, the Métis, are still back in the 1970s, trying to get some legal recognition of our rights. However, about five rulings across the country have found that the Métis have aboriginal harvesting rights, very much the same way that Indians were found to have harvesting rights. My expectation is that, in a few years, we will be sitting with a Métis Sparrow case in the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision on that case will say that, yes, the Métis do have constitutionally protected aboriginal rights. All of this will then have to be redone. What we are saying is "wake up and smell the coffee." It is coming.
Governments are burying their heads in the sand, and they are not paying attention. They are doing the same thing to the Métis that they did to the Indians. "Oh, it is just a political obligation, or maybe we have a moral obligation, or we have none at all." We are saying that there is an obligation, and that there are rights. The courts are already beginning to recognize them. Sooner or later we will have the Supreme Court of Canada decision, and you will have to do something about it.
Senator Robichaud: As to your access to hunting, trapping, or harvesting, does any case exist where the Métis have an understanding or an agreement with some of the provinces? From what I read, in Ontario you do not exist.
Mr. Belcourt: That is right.
Ms Teillet: There is a Queen's Bench case from Saskatchewan, and I was privileged to be co-counsel on it with Clem Chartier, another Métis lawyer. This decision found that the Métis clearly have a constitutionally protected aboriginal right to fish, which is recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution. The way it is being honoured in Saskatchewan right now is that above a particular area in northern Saskatchewan, Métis people are recognized as being able to exercise their hunting and fishing rights. Likewise, in a case in northern Manitoba around The Pas, it was found that Métis people in that area also have a right to hunt.
There was also a provincial court decision in Ontario, which recognized that Métis have a right to hunt under Treaty 3. That case is being absolutely ignored.
The Deputy Chairman: When you say "right to hunt," obviously everyone has the right to hunt according to the laws of the province. You are saying that you have the traditional right to hunt. Is that what you are talking about?
Ms Teillet: I would distinguish that. I would not say everyone else has a right to hunt -- everyone else has a privilege to hunt.
The Deputy Chairman: They can hunt if they take out a licence, and it is only good for certain times. This is what I am trying to distinguish. This is a general right to hunt, based on the Constitution and traditional use. Is that what you are saying?
Ms Teillet: Yes, that is exactly what we are saying. I want to say these rights are rolling through the courts now. The Powley decision will come down in December.
There are other programs. The Alberta government has entered into negotiations with the Métis nation of Alberta. They are trying to set up a test harvesting area in Grande Cashe. They have recognized that the courts are starting to say that the Métis have rights to hunt. They are attempting to figure out who they are, in order to allow them to exercise their rights to hunt and fish. It is beginning to happen. This is very new in the last four or five years across the country, and I think you will see more of it.
The Deputy Chairman: The agreement in Lac Mistassini, which is part of the James Bay Agreement, gave them the right to hunt and fish. The only problem was that it was in conjunction with forestry, so they cut down the forest. Therefore, even when there are agreements, there does not seem to be much effort made to adhere to the spirit and the letter of the agreements.
Mr. Belcourt: It is very difficult for us -- as well as for our people in the communities -- to understand. Our people often wonder what is going on, because this is in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has even ruled on this. Why are we faced with the prospect of enforcement officers harassing us, taking our equipment and our game, and doing sting operations? Why are we faced with huge legal costs to go to court and defend ourselves? Why? We are supposed to have these rights. They are not given to us by anyone. They are merely recognized to exist; recognized by the Constitution, and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. Our people find it difficult to understand how governments can get away with this. It is inexplicable.
Senator Robichaud: In the cases you have referred to where you were recognized as having hunting or fishing rights, is that recognized in fact? By that I mean whenever things are happening on the territories in question -- and I take it from your brief there is no consultation -- they just go ahead and do it. They only recognize those rights when a case is before the courts. It does not lead to any consultation as to your right to use the resources out there.
Ms Teillet: I have been told by people who work with the Ministry of Natural Resources in Manitoba that they have an unwritten policy -- but a clearly held policy -- to blatantly ignore any court decision made below the Court of Appeal. I would dearly love to see someone litigate this. I believe that this is being practised all across the country with regard to resources for aboriginal peoples. What the courts say and what actually happens on the ground are quite different.
With respect to the Powley case, it took us six years to get to trial. The Crown kept adjourning and adjourning.They just kept putting it off. The Crown is following its standard mechanism, which is as long as you do not have to deal with it, do not deal with it. It took us six years just to get to trial. At trial, I was trying to argue there should be some remedy for the delay. They said, "Well, it is okay, we are not going to charge any more people, we have just got everything pending this. We know this is the test case."
A week after they got another adjournment, they charged eight people. When they stood up in court telling us they were not going to charge people, they were sitting on those issued summons. They knew it, and this is blatant lying.
When Mr. Belcourt tells you that aboriginal people do not understand, it is true that they do not. They do not understand why the Crown lies to them. One of the stories at trial was about people coming in with loaded guns on someone's grandchildren. Over what -- fishing. We are not talking about armed robbers or rapists. We are talking about a guy who is a fisherman. They pulled guns on his five-year old grandchild and went in to search.
This is testimony at trial. If you would like to read the transcripts, they are on the Internet. This is the way they are treating aboriginal people in this country over resource uses. It is outrageous.
We are here on the forestry issue because the forests are so important to our people. The forests are the lifeblood of our people's very existence. They hunt, trap and fish in the forests, and they spend their lives there. It is where they pass on their culture and traditions to the next generation.
If there is a new plan for the forests -- for example, Lands for Life in Ontario -- and our people are not allowed to make a presentation, or our lives are not considered, then that is unconscionable activity on the part of any government.
The Deputy Chairman: Were you not allowed to present during the Lands for Life?
Mr. Belcourt: The Métis Nation of Ontario was not invited to participate fully or officially in Lands for Life, although we had indicated at the outset that we would like to participate. We were not able to participate.
Some of our people did try to make individual representations. Approximately a week ago we received the recommendations from Lands for Life, together with a letter saying we have until November 30 to give our response.
Should those recommendations go through, the result will be absolutely devastating to our people. The lands will be preserved for industry and tourist operators and lands will be protected and set aside around those places that already exist. We will not be able to cross into them or go through them -- through the rivers or the lakes or the forests -- to get to our homes, or to where we want to go fishing. We will be prevented from going through if these recommendations become reality.
As Métis, we pride ourselves on being nation builders. We pride ourselves on participating in Canada, despite the fact that this country hung our leader. There will come a time, however, when our pride in this country will have evaporated.
We have mechanisms available to us now in the courts, but we also have international mechanisms available to us. The Métis National Council now has observer status at the United Nations. We do not want to go to the United Nations and say that, regrettably, this country -- which is touted as being the best in the world -- has some very serious flaws which are hidden from the world. We do not want to be forced to do that. We do not want to besmirch a nation that we helped to build, but this nation is doing abominable things to its aboriginal peoples, and especially to the Métis.
I am telling you that if the Lands for Life initiative is allowed to go through, if these recommendations are allowed to become regulations, there will be hell to pay from us.
Senator Robichaud: I hope that you do not have to go to extreme means, although going to the United Nations is by no means extreme. I do think Canada is the best place in the world to live. The situation you describe is sad, and it should not be this way.
You said you were making representations to the Government of Canada, and perhaps to some others. To whom, specifically, in the federal government are you making those representations? Would it be through DIAND or some other department?
Mr. Belcourt: We will be making representations to the Minister of Natural Resources for Canada, the Honourable Ralph Goodale, who is also, ironically, the federal interlocutor for the Métis.
As we told you in our brief, we do not have the same resources that are made available to First Nations. You really are looking at our resources now. Some of our effort is full-time, and a lot of it is part-time and by the seat of our pants.
We are grateful to this committee, because you have been able to bring forward evidence so that we can learn about what is going on in our forests. We are certainly not told. We are not asked, as we said, nor are we consulted. We find these things out after the fact. We find out that now certification will be required, and that this in itself is an international issue.
We will say in a very strong way to the minister responsible for natural resources that his department has dropped the ball, and is discriminating against one of the aboriginal peoples. The department is being selective in dealing with parties, and we think this is a serious breach of the Constitution. We want that minister to have his department start dealing with us fairly, equally and equitably.
Senator Robichaud: What do you mean by certification? Is that the certification to which you refer in your brief?
Mr. Belcourt: Yes.
The Deputy Chairman: Are you referring to the provincial ministers of natural resources? The provinces have jurisdiction over the Crown lands, other than reserve lands. There are some federal lands, but Crown lands are mostly provincially held.
Mr. Belcourt: If I might correct myself, both levels of government are actually involved, including Ministers of Natural Resources at both the federal and provincial levels. From the Métis national perspective, we will be approaching the federal minister.
These required certifications are referenced on page 8 of our submission. They are proposed in response to potential boycotts; therefore, it involves international trade. This goes beyond just what the provinces are doing here. It certainly has national and international implications.
Our national body, the Métis National Council, will be making representations to the minister.
The Deputy Chairman: These certifications are not a matter of government policy. They are a trade tool. The government is involved in developing the Canadian Standards Association, but there is no law saying that a forestry company must be certified. A forestry company would want to be certified because then they can say, on the international market, that they are a decent company.
I come from the province of Manitoba, and I am very familiar with the fact that there is absolutely no enforcement of anything. It is lucky that I am speaking in a privileged hearing committee, or I would get shot. One forestry company representative from Tembec came to appear before us in Ontario. I asked him about Manitoba and he said that, in Manitoba, they need not comply with anything. That does seem to be the case there.
Of all the different avenues you are pursuing to ensure that your rights are recognized in the courts, how do you rate the issue of enforcement? In some places, we have bad laws, such as, perhaps, Lands for Life. In other places we have good laws which are totally ignored. Can you comment on that?
Ms Teillet: I am also from Manitoba, and it is particularly bad. One of the worst things for the Métis people is the ongoing repercussions of the Northern Flood Agreement and the flooding of Métis communities.
Perhaps, Madam Chair, you are aware that First Nations people were relocated and compensated although, in my opinion, that compensation was completely inadequate. The Métis people were given nothing. Their communities were destroyed, their houses were burnt, and they were moved. They have never, to this day, received a thing out of that.
I am reluctant to argue against First Nations people, because they get a bad shake of the stick, too. Under a treaty land entitlement negotiation process just completed in Manitoba, however, treaty lands have been tripled there. Most of that has come at the expense of the Métis people, who always live on the edges and the borders of reserve land. The increased trap lines and extended reserve lands mean that the Métis people -- all those same people who were dislocated by the floods -- are being dislocated again.
This keeps happening. Manitoba has a policy of burning Métis houses. If you go to the gravel pit area around The Pas, Manitoba, you can see this. Métis people are known across the Prairies as "the road allowance people," because they live on the road areas. The government comes along and burns the houses down to make them move. They are squatters. They move elsewhere, and the government comes along again and burns their houses.
Starting in Batoche, there is a whole story that has never been told -- and that covers about 150 years -- of burning the houses of Métis people. It is a shameful story.
When we are talking about resource access, we are also talking about lives, homes and children. We are talking about health and the very existence of some people.
The other thing is health access. If you are up in a northern community in northern Manitoba, you can live across the street from a status Indian. If he has a heart attack, he gets transported to Winnipeg. The Métis guy does not. There is no health care coverage. No one will look after them. That is the truth in this country.
The Deputy Chairman: What do you mean you do not have health care? Surely every citizen in Manitoba is entitled to health care coverage.
Ms Teillet: There are things that happen. I have spent much of my time in the North -- in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, northern Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. This is not a health committee, so I will not go on about access to health resources. However, the access aboriginal peoples have to health resources in this country is very deficient.
The Deputy Chairman: If you have written material with regard to the northern situation of the Métis, please provide it to us. That would be helpful in drafting our report. Particularly regarding the traplines, forests and so forth.
Could we hear from Mr. Stevenson on the issue of forestry, trapping and so forth.
Mr. Bob Stevenson, Fur Representative, Chair, Harvesting Committee, Métis National Council: I thank you very much, and I am honoured to be able to speak here today.
I have worked on the issue of trapping for the last 13 years. I am originally from the northern tip of Alberta. We were forced to move to the Northwest Territories. Over the years, I have worked with our people, eventually becoming the Métis president of the Northwest Territories.
When I moved down to the Ottawa area about 13 years ago, we worked on this issue of trapping after Greenpeace had literally done away from the issue of sealing for the Newfoundlanders and also the Inuit. They then started working against the trappers. After a few efforts of ours, Greenpeace changed its mind. However, animal rights groups sprung up, and to this day they continue the fight.
In the last few years, I have been working with the Métis National Council on a harvesters committee that has no funding. It is not because we do not try to get ourselves involved. There have been many years of hard work from people like Mr. Belcourt and others, and myself. We have tried to fit the Métis into the realm of things in Canada.
The Government of Canada, through departments such as Foreign Affairs and International Trade and DIAND, recognizes that there are 50,000 aboriginal trappers in Canada. Those are the figures that they use. Of those 50,000, I would say a majority is comprised of Métis people.
When we worked on the issue of harvesting, it was not long before we realized we should be able to try to corner our own markets from what we call from the trapper to the consumer. In other words, we have all kinds of talent out there, including people who can manufacture, design, and promote these products.
I have learned that the Canadian government has no intention of allowing the Métis or First Nations people to corner our own markets. They are protecting their rights and the interests of the industry.
Approximately 80 per cent of the world trapping industry is made up of fox farming and mink ranching. When the government went ahead and negotiated this so-called international agreement on humane trapping, they went on their own. They told us, "You cannot be part of our team, we must have competent experts over there." They proceeded to send themselves. These are bureaucrats. We wanted to help. We wanted to show all the areas that are people are on the land, and in the forests. You cannot go trapping out in the cities.
They also have this process called the International Standards Organization, to which we were denied access. If we did get funding it was a ticket to get there, a little ticket once in a while to hold a meeting. We still do that today. That is an effort to try to bring our voice across.
Today I was at a meeting with the Canadian open-ended working group on article 8(j), which deals with traditional knowledge and intellectual property rights. I left that meeting to come here.
We have tried to get into meetings of the Canadian General Standards Board on Humane Trapping. I brought the fact that these things were going on to the attention of the Métis National Council. They appointed me to serve on the committee, to go there, but we could not get any funding. We put in budgets year after year.
In earlier years, Treasury Board assigned DIAND millions of dollars each year to work on behalf of aboriginal people on the fur issue. We have a letter to Mr. Morin of over one year ago, wherein it states that Indian Affairs does not concern itself with Métis people.
When it comes to using the word "Métis," however, they ensure that they give a small contract to a small group of Métis people. A good example is the Métis of the Northwest Territories, who have been working on this issue as Métis.
Our president and executive are elected from each province. We must emphasize that in order to be properly recognized. It is not for lack of trying; we go out of our way to work toward these kinds of things. We go to committees to try to make our voices heard.
As far as the fur trade issue goes, in the first half of this fiscal year DIAND has already given over $500,000 of the $1 million to the Fur Institute of Canada, which is a non-native body. There are perhaps five native people on that board.
What I am saying is that they use some native individuals against a national or a provincial organization of Métis people, which tries hard to properly and democratically represent its own people. We are denied that.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Stevenson, could you provide us with some information on the impact of forestry or trapping?
Mr. Stevenson: I maintain that the trappers are on their own. We cannot overemphasize that it is important for us to be involved.
It must not be through other bodies that do not represent us in the case of trapping, such as the Fur Institute of Canada or DIAND. We must have some kind of mechanism of our own to be able to work.
As far as the impact of the trapping, we have to rely on the same old thing -- keep our mouth shut, and provide the people that are in the business with the furs.
When it comes to people that are devastated by these actions, what do they do? They give up. They sell their traplines. That has happened right across Canada. In many provinces, people have sold their trapline to someone else. Today that someone else has a cottage or another little industry -- like a tourism outfit -- which used to be a trap line.
I cannot overemphasize the need for the Métis harvesters themselves to get together to decide how they will be involved on a daily basis in all these issues. If there are that many people out there -- they are using the number 50,000 -- I would maintain that the majority of the aboriginal people on the traplines are Métis people.
Senator Robichaud: Your interests in the boreal forest would not be in the harvesting of fibre. It is the other related activities, is that right?
Ms Teillet: I think it is both. We are not saying that Métis are not harvesters of the forest itself, because they are. The life of the people on the land requires harvesting the wood itself, as well as keeping the forest healthy for trapping and for other kinds of harvesting. For example, clear-cutting, spraying, or any of those other things about which I am sure you have heard in many presentations can drastically affect fishing. Métis people are harvesters.
Métis people do not generally tend to have one full-time job as in a sawmill, working nine-to-five all their lives. Métis lives tend to be structured around seven, eight, or even 10 activities. In other words, they may pick up seasonal harvesting in the forestry industry, where they go out with a chainsaw and work. They may pick up the odd construction job. They will never work during the fall harvesting season, because they will all be too busy harvesting deer and moose for the winter. They will probably not work during the winter fishing season because they will want to catch the fish they need. They have a series of activities that take them quite far from their homes, and they harvest all that.
I just did a case in Manitoba, and my client told me that he works with a chainsaw for a logging company. He told me that he likes the job because he can take his rifle out, and if a deer goes by, he can hunt at the same time that he is working.
It is a double-barrelled thing. They are all like that. Even if they have a job in a sawmill, they will go and check the trapline first thing in the morning before they go to work, and again before they come home. It is the Métis way of life.
Mr. Stevenson: Métis people are no different from First Nations people with regard to the land. They are concerned, too, about how forestry companies are clear-cutting and so on, and how these their traplines disappear right under their noses.
That is why they always say we are the antenna of the land. When something happens, we want to ensure that it should not happen, and we complain about it. As I explained earlier, our traplines are taken away not only by opportunists, but also by the companies that come in -- whether they be forestry, mining or even hydro companies.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. It has been most informative.
The committee adjourned.