Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 17 - Evidence, February 2, 1999 (9:00 a.m.)
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 2, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:05 a.m. to examine and report upon aboriginal self-government.
Senator Charlie Watt (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning. We have witnesses before us this morning to present their views on self-government. Chief René Simon will be making the presentation.
Welcome, to our committee. We expect your submissions will give us food for thought in our deliberations on aboriginal self-governance.
Please proceed.
(Mr. Simon speaks in his native language)
[Translation]
Mr. René Simon, Chief of Essipits: We are extremely pleased to be here this morning. Aboriginal peoples are always keen to take the opportunities presented to them by governments to express their viewpoint and discuss their relationships with governments in a spirit of change.
With me today are Chief Clifford Moar, Denis Ross, Chief of the Essipits and Rémy Kurtness, our chief negotiator with the governments.
Our tribal council represents the three band councils that are here this morning to state their views on self-government. I will now turn the floor over to Chief Denis Ross.
Mr. Denis Ross, Chief of the Essipits: I would like to begin by briefly reviewing the background of our negotiations to give you a better understanding of the situation. The Montagnais land claim negotiations were initiated 20 years ago. In February 1997, we signed an agreement in principle with the governments of Canada and Quebec. At the time, it was decided that the Innu would assume a central role at the table, that is to say that any future proposals would originate from within our communities.
Last January, we managed to come to an agreement on the value of the land at issue. From that moment forward, we demonstrated our willingness to sign an agreement in principle by June 1999. The key issue for the Innu is self-government with a view to establishing a relationship between nations where partners respect one another. It is important that this agreement be signed by June. Nitassinan has been our ancestral land since time immemorial and not only does it have a historical value to us, it has also been home to our culture and way of life throughout the history of our people.
Mr. Clifford Moar, Chief of the Mamuitun Tribal Council: This morning, it is important to review the directions and foundations of our negotiations. There are several basic, albeit important considerations that we would like to reflect upon.
Firstly, the Innu-Montagnais First Nations of Mamuitun hold aboriginal title and rights as the first occupants of Nitassinan, the aboriginal word for "our land." The aboriginal title and rights are based on occupation, use and ongoing -- current and from time immemorial -- exploitation of the lands and the resources located there.
Secondly, ours is an organized society with its own customs, traditions, institutions, culture, language and so forth, a society that has always exercised its sovereignty over and maintained specific relations with the land and resources of Nitassinan.
Thirdly, the aboriginal title and rights of the Innu-Montagnais of Mamuitun have never been the subject of any treaty. They have been affected by development and by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, but they have never been extinguished with the consent of the Innu-Montagnais.
Fourthly, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and confirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Furthermore, the government of Canada recognizes that the inherent right to self-government is an existing right within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution.
Fifthly, in a resolution adopted on March 20, 1985, the National Assembly of Quebec recognized the existing aboriginal rights of the aboriginal nations and a right to autonomy. However, for its own particular reasons, the government of Quebec does not recognize an inherent right to self-government on the basis of the aboriginal rights recognized and protected by section 35 of the Constitution.
Another important consideration is our fundamental right to self-determination, a right which belong to all peoples. The Innu-Montagnais of Mamuitun, as a distinct people, naturally have a right to conduct themselves in accordance with their own values and priorities. Consequently, they also have the right to choose freely their own political status. For the same reason, no government can be imposed on them without their consent.
That concludes our review of the foundations of our negotiations respecting self government.
Mr. Simon: Moving along, I would like to focus on the objectives that we are pursuing in the context of our comprehensive negotiations. As mentioned earlier, one of our objectives is to establish a relationship between nations. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples based most of its recommendations on the development of a new relationship, which would be a relationship between equals, on the same basis as our historical relationships.
Our second objective is the re-appropriation of aboriginal lands. Our history over the last few centuries has been one of territorial dispossession. This fact is all the more painful and tragic since our culture views the relationship with the land as both spiritual and physical; an element of subsistence, to be sure, but also an essential part of our community life and our continuity as a distinct culture and society.
The third objective being pursued is the re-establishment of autonomy. Specifically, we want to embody the real exercise of autonomy in concrete powers, to determine jurisdictions, to suspend fiduciary duties and to eliminate all the current elements of guardianship in the Indian Act.
We realize that this is a vision of self-government that comes very close to creating a third level of government in the sense, for example, of the Charlottetown agreement. However, that is the only vision that is consistent with the philosophy of a relationship "between nations" and, furthermore, the only vision that flows logically from the interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Our fourth objective is social and economic development. We have a lot of catching up to do to our non-aboriginal neighbours, and this is to large extent the result of the loss of our lands that we have suffered.
Mr. Ross: The first principle to be asserted is maintaining a link with the land as a whole. The land is the basis for the culture of the Montagnais and it constitutes an essential element for the continuation of this culture.
The second principle is harmonious and peaceful co-habitation. The assertion of this principle calls for respect for such values as sharing and mutual assistance and support, as mentioned earlier.
The third principle to be asserted is recognition of each other's rights. Equality and respect between the different governments are important factors and the agreement must not put in place a system where one government is subject to another. Our inherent right to self-government is essential when a mere delegation of powers or contractual jurisdictions is inconsistent with the vision and aspirations of the Innu-Montagnais.
The fourth principle is partnership. It consists of two essential elements, mainly a lasting relationship of trust and the mutual consent of the parties. The agreement negotiated must put an end to the exclusion of the Innu-Montagnais from development. It must make them dynamic and front-line partners, in both making decisions and sharing the benefits derived from exploiting the land and its resources.
Mr. Moar: At this time, we feel it is appropriate to touch on the three major challenges we face. The first challenge is the question of certainty for the parties. This certainty is sought not only by Canada and Quebec but also by the Innu-Montagnais. The concepts of extinguishment, exchange, transfer or abandonment of aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, are not elements of certainty for the Innu-Montagnais party. These are important concepts for us to consider.
The second challenge is the system of lands in Nitassinan of Mamuitun. This is a concept currently under discussion with the three parties. It includes the rights of the Innu-Montagnais. As you know, the judgment in Delgamuukw has strengthened the profound conviction of the Innu-Montagnais that we have always owned not only the lands but also all the resources derived from our ancestral lands, since our aboriginal title has never been transferred or extinguished in any way whatsoever. In our view, the judgment in Delgamuukw is truly consistent with the vision and aspirations of the Innu-Montagnais. We agree that we should take the approach of agreements negotiated in good faith, even though we have been negotiating with the governments of Canada and Quebec for 20 years now.
With respect to the system of lands, another consideration is the occupation and current use made of the land. As you know, the land in question consists of more than 245,000 square kilometres. This is an important aspect to consider, since a portion of this land is urbanized.
Still with respect to the system of lands, the third principle involved is sharing and partnership, as Chief Ross mentioned. It is important to us that these principles be asserted. Even though Quebec talks about "territorial integrity," we are often considered more or less as one group or clientele among others having interests in the territory and our aboriginal rights are seen as mere vestiges of the past. Therefore, we do have some catching up to do in this area.
The third challenge we face is the nature and extent of self-government. The concept of territorial integrity, which is constantly invoked to deny our aboriginal rights and their expression on the land, corresponds to the concept of legislative and regulatory effectiveness in order, in some extent, to limit the self-government that we could eventually achieved. We are still very far from the shared sovereignty referred to by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. These are for us major considerations and I expect that we will reach agreements on these elements.
Mr. Simon: I will now summarize the problems, obstacles and constraints associated with this process.
As early as 1985, the Coolican report recommended that responsibility for insuring fairness and progress in the talks be given to an authority independent of the parties to the negotiations, specifically to restore a certain balance between the governments, on the one hand, and the First Nations concerned, on the other hand.
The lack of political leadership must be compensated for somewhere and that is why we must often rely on the judgments of the Supreme Court to bring the governments to task as far as this is possible. There is accordingly a vacuum in political terms that has to be filled by the law.
Rémy "Kak'wa" Kurtness, Chief Negotiator, Mamuitun Tribal Council: We now come to the conclusion of our presentation. I would like to make four recommendations to the Senate committee.
Firstly, we recommend that the government of Canada confirm and reiterate that the exercise of the right to self-government includes the power of legislative bodies duly constituted by the First Nations to enact laws in order to preserve their languages, cultures, economies, identities, institutions and traditions and to ensure that they flourish.
Such legislative bodies should also have the power to enact laws to develop, maintain and strengthen their links with the Nitassinan and its resources, that is with their lands, waters and environment, the purpose being to determine and control their development as peoples in accordance with their own values and priorities.
Clearly, and I believe the Chiefs alluded to this, the Mamuitun Tribal Council cannot resolve to accept that, as part of the relationship between nations, our people should be subject to decisions made by other peoples or by other governments. This is not what we would call a relationship between nations. Our government cannot be based in some way on delegated legislation enacted by another government.
As for our second recommendation to the Senate, as part of the recognition of the inherent right to self-government, the government of Canada should declare in a joint resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons that subsection 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides sufficient constitutional basis for the creation of a third level of government and thus confirm that the governments of the First Nations enjoy sufficient constitutional jurisdiction to enact laws.
Our third recommendation is as follows: the government of Canada must fully exercise its exclusive jurisdiction over the lands still subject to aboriginal title. It is our contention that the federal government has a fiduciary duty to First Nations, and that this duty does not extend solely to reserve lands. It also extends to the lands that comprise the Nitassinan of the First Nations of Mamuitun. As such, the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility when it comes to all of the land to which First Nations hold title and claim ownership of the resources.
Our final recommendation is that following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Reference re certain questions relating to the secession of Quebec from Canada, rendered on August 20, 1998, the government of Canada must recognize that the First Nations not only have access in international law to internal self-determination but also to external self-determination in the cases provided for by the Supreme Court. It is not the intention of the Mamuitun Tribal Council to exercise its right to external self-determination, but nor is it excluding the possibility that should Quebec secede, it would have the political right to remain part of Canada.
These then are the four major recommendations that we will certainly have an opportunity to discuss further. I would now call on Chief Moar to make some closing remarks.
Mr. Moar: That is the essence of our submission which creates links to the principles that guide our comprehensive and land negotiating process with the government Canada and Quebec. It is also in line with the objectives, vision and aspirations of the Innu-Montagnais concerning the exercise of their inherent right to self-government in Nitassinan. We hope this brief will enable the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples to share with the Innu People the principles and foundations of our inherent right to self-government.
[English]
I consider it an honour to be invited to appear before your committee. I thank the committee for listening to us, and we look forward to answering your questions.
I also wish to thank committee members for this format, that is, allowing the three chiefs and our chief negotiator to make this presentation as a team. It is important to us that we stand together. For this, I thank the committee with all my heart.
(Mr. Moar spoke in his native language)
The Chairman: Thank you for your excellent presentation.
We will begin with Senator Gill, who I understand is from the same territory as are our witnesses.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: It is a pleasure for me to meet with you here in Ottawa, particularly within the forum of a Senate committee. I am both proud and happy to meet you.
Listening to you this morning brings back a flood of memories. I would like to go back even further in time because some of the younger chiefs were not around when the Indians of Quebec Association existed. No doubt Senator Watt remembers the meetings and discussions the Indian and Inuit of Quebec had at the time. Undoubtedly he also recalls all of the negotiations that took place before 1975 with respect to James Bay, the good times as well as the more trying moments we had. A certain solidarity clearly existed among Quebec's aboriginal peoples before 1975.
Given the inconsistent position of the federal and provincial governments with respect to aboriginal rights, or if you prefer, given the haste with which the latter wanted to settle grievances or the so-called Indian or Inuit problem, some actions were taken that would most certainly not be acceptable today. What I mean to say is that agreements were concluded at any price. There was a great deal of upheaval and division.
An agreement was concluded in 1975. For the benefit of the young chiefs, I recall the time when the Montagnais broke away to negotiate on their own, while another group of Indians signed an agreement. This prompted considerable reflection among Quebec's Indians and Inuit about aboriginal rights. Many questioned whether the country's aboriginals and non-aboriginals could coexist. Could a relationship where one party continued to make claims against the other ever survive?
Should a people that has inhabited this land since time immemorial continue to be put in the position of having to claim from another people, one that had more recently arrived in this country, land which clearly belongs to it? I was involved in these discussions. The answer to the question was obvious. Therefore, what needed to be considered was the type of relationship that should exist between aboriginals and non- aboriginals.
As a member of this committee, I have had the opportunity, if I can call it that, to contribute in some small way to this debate and to perhaps influence in some way the government and the Senate on the issue of establishing a real relationship between nations. This is the only way to build national unity and to forge a lasting, strong relationship between equal partners.
The kind of self-government we are talking about here is one that is based on mutual acceptance. It involves a number of approaches and establishing certain kinds of relationships within the country. I hope that this can be accomplished. The outcome will have an impact on Quebec. If we succeed in forging an appropriate relationship between aboriginals and non-aboriginals, relations between francophones and anglophones will improve.
However, I am here to ask questions, not to make speeches. Do you currently see among aboriginals a change of attitude toward the negotiation process? Rather than making land claims, as has traditionally been the case and demanding that the federal government recognize aboriginal rights to the land, to resource use and to self-government, you now seem willing to forge a partnership where each party has rights and endeavours to find ways to develop the country. Is that not true? We must not get caught in the old argument of "I am entitled to this land, not you." Let us set aside the issue of defining aboriginal rights. Let us assume that everyone agrees that both parties have rights, without defining these rights. Then we can work on changes in order to build a future together. Concessions must be made. In the past, some fair compensation was awarded. Is it possible to work together on development initiatives in the future? Our approach should not always be confrontational. Aboriginals and non-aboriginals are both right to believe that this is their country. Whether we are talking about thousands of years or 300 years, at some point, everyone believes that this is their homeland. What do you feel the mood is in the country? Would you care to comment on this?
Mr. Moar: My colleagues may want to add to this, but we have not come to the bargaining table to beg or to try and justify our people's claim to the land. Clearly, that is not the approach we have adopted.
We are confident that if we assert our traditional values of mutual respect, sharing and support, that if we put them in today's context and if the parties seated at the table open their minds to the possibilities, we will succeed in doing what our ancestors did. In other words, we will agree to share.
Clearly, we must draw up the blueprint for sharing and devise a creative, innovative model which will allow us to try out unconventional approaches which may achieve interesting results. We must be treated as equals at the bargaining table. We realize full well that we need to heighten people's awareness. Through our oral traditions, we have passed our ancestors' knowledge down through the generations. We need to find a way of bringing these traditions in line with contemporary approaches to education. We know what is good for us. Our ancestors were great visionaries. They saw into the future, and what they saw was a prosperous nation.
It is normal for us to have this vision for our people and for future generations. The only way to make this vision a reality is to ensure that we forge a relationship between nations. We are not really talking about claims today. Perhaps that is one reason why these negotiations have taken so long, 20 years in fact. We were tied to a land claims policy, whereas what we want today is to establish a new social contract with other governments. We have the resources. We have the ability to govern ourselves and to make a major contribution to society in general. That is what we must focus on. I do not know if the other chiefs would care to add anything to this.
Mr. Simon: Senator Gill has been involved in these negotiations for 20 years. You have painted a very accurate picture of the status of the negotiations today. I know the chief negotiator will have something to say about this, but if I can voice an opinion, from a political standpoint, if we look at the situation in Quebec, we see that two nationalist movements have squared off against each other, namely aboriginals and the Parti Québécois. Try and imagine the context in which these so-called land claims negotiations are currently taking place. The other party at the table, the Parti québécois, is championing the same ideas as we are. For the past twenty years, we have been sitting at the table and we are well aware of the problems we are confronting. If this negotiating process fails, what happens next?
Aboriginal peoples are peaceful by nature. However, if things get out of hand, the younger generation could be involved in some unrest. We saw this happen in Quebec during the 1980s and 1990s. We saw what happened with the Micmacs last summer in New Brunswick. If governments and aboriginals fail to come to a mutual understanding of some kind, then the situation will not be resolved anytime soon.
Mr. Kurtness: I will not comment on Senator Gill's prefacing remarks. I think you have a very sound knowledge of the history of the relationship between First Nations and the governments of Canada and Quebec. However, since you do have some questions about the stance that we and governments have adopted at the negotiating table, I think I am well positioned, as the chief negotiator for the Mamuitun Tribal Council, to explain to you the approach we have taken at the table. First of all, we are behaving as any government would behave.
We are behaving as a people who hold title to and administer this land, but we are also displaying a certain willingness to share the resources of this land with the other two parties involved. To achieve true self-government, we must establish a real relationship between nations and between governments.
Earlier, you spoke about being equal partners and it is in this spirit that we have come to the table. I do not know if the other two parties have adopted a similar attitude, or whether they are more paternalistic in their approach or want to be the ones make decisions affecting the development of this land.
To achieve true self-government, first of all, we need to catch up on the economic front. Currently, our social and economic standards of living are well below those of our Quebec and Canadian neighbours. Therefore, we need to catch up in these areas first and then, we can focus on becoming dynamic partners in development and in devising a tax system, if necessary, that applies to the First Nations of Mamuitun. This is the context in which we are hoping to achieve a real partnership with the other two governments at the bargaining table. Chief Ross alluded to this earlier.
For us, this partnership consists of two essential elements: restoring a lasting relationship of trust -- and heaven knows there is much work to do to begin restoring trust between First Nations and non-aboriginals -- based on mutual consent of the parties, that is where both parties participate in the process and in the final decision-making. Obviously, this process is not always a very smooth one, but this is the spirit in which we have approached the negotiation process.
In conclusion, the reason why this process has been dragging on for 20 years is that we are still being asked to relinquish our rights over certain areas whereas our attitude is more one of asking the three parties to recognize existing rights. We are seeking to have our rights recognized, not extinguished.
[English]
Senator Austin: Thank you for your brief which I found most interesting and useful.
After listening to your points, I would ask you which of the four models would most closely approximate your approach. We have the Inuvialuit model; the Yukon model; the Nisga'a model, and the Cree-Naskapi model. There are wide variations in those models, but could you tell me if any of those models suits the way in which you would like to enter into a negotiating dialogue with Canada? I leave Quebec to one side for the moment.
[Translation]
Mr. Kurtness: We draw our inspiration from all self-government models, including those you referred to, namely the Inuvialuit, Yukon, Nisga'a and Cri-Naskapi models. With respect to treaties, we are moving toward what is commonly referred to as a generation four treaty. Specifically, there were treaties before Confederation, numbered treaties and others negotiated within the context of comprehensive land claims policies. Among others, there was the agreement signed with the Cri, the Naskapis and the Inuit. I would qualify the agreement with the Nisga'a, the last treaty to be signed in Canada, as a third generation treaty. We are moving toward a fourth generation treaty, because we do not want to trade away any of our rights. We want the negotiations to be based on the recognition of these rights.
The self-government model that we are advocating is one that draws its inspiration largely from those models that you alluded to, but in particular from the Nisga'a agreement, specifically with regard to the primacy of laws. In the Nisga'a agreement, the federal government, the British Columbia government and the Nisga'a government exercise exclusive jurisdiction over laws. However, depending on the sectors, we want the exclusive right to enact laws respecting our language, culture, the development of our institutions and our exclusive jurisdictions. With respect to the management or development of natural resources and the environment, we want jurisdiction to be shared with the other two parties or governments.
With regard to national defence or national security issues, we are prepared to recognize the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. That is the position we have taken at the bargaining table. We want a true partnership, with exclusive jurisdiction in some areas and shared jurisdiction in others, over the entire territory of Nitassinan of the First Nations of Mamuitun.
[English]
Senator Austin: Let us take the Nisga'a agreement, which you call a third order of arrangement or agreement.
In that agreement, my understanding is that the two governments recognize, effectively, the principles in Delgamuukw, although Delgamuukw came late in the negotiations for the Nisga'a treaty. Nonetheless, the two governments recognized that they were dealing on the basis of rights held by the Nisga'a people. These were defined as aboriginal rights and those rights were defined further in Delgamuukw. Therefore, the negotiations were, as you were indicating, item-by-item negotiations on different subjects, and followed fairly well the three concepts that you just outlined, Mr. Kurtness: the area of exclusive jurisdiction; the area of shared jurisdiction; and the area of jurisdiction reserved to Canada and/or the Province of British Columbia.
Just to test your concept in a couple of ways as it applies to you, would the Charter of Rights be a law of Canada which you would agree should prevail in an agreement with Canada which deals with your rights of self-government? It does in the Nisga'a agreement, for example. The Nisga'a people have accepted the Charter of Rights as a primary law. They have accepted it by agreement, as part of those three circles, if I could call them that, of authority: exclusive, shared, and then again exclusive. They have agreed that the Charter of Rights is a shared right. That acceptance in British Columbia, which is the province from which I come, was absolutely essential to the nature of agreement. Are you in a position to say that is acceptable, at this stage, to your people? You can certainly reserve your comments, because I know you will be negotiating with the two governments. It would be helpful for this Senate committee to know if that would be acceptable to you.
[Translation]
Mr. Kurtness: I will respond briefly to that. Although you mentioned the ruling in Delgammukw, one that we support, as Chief Moar pointed out earlier, the approach we have taken at the bargaining table is one of moving gradually toward a new order of government.
However, since we are negotiating a treaty and since we are committing our people for the next 50 or 100 years, we have not excluded the possibility of drafting our own charter of rights and freedoms. In the meantime, however, we are open to the idea of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and possibly the Quebec charter, continuing to apply to us because fundamentally, we want to protect our citizens.
However, we have not excluded the possibility of eventually adopting our own charter of rights and freedoms, one which would of course be more consistent with our people's cultural uniqueness. For now, though, allowing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to continue to apply to us is still an option.
[English]
Mr. Moar: I will try to answer in English.
One of the main challenges we have as native people is the management of diversity. It is a principle that we acknowledge because it is an ancestral teaching.
The land teaches a lot of things. The principle of diversity is taught by the land itself. We can see it in the trees -- that is, the different kinds of trees and the different shades of green that our land gives to us.
What is interesting about diversity is when you see it as part of a whole thing. The challenge we face is that we must respect this diversity. That is why, when we speak of the Nisga'a agreement, the James Bay convention or agreements that were reached in other parts of the country, politically, we have a certain respect for the people who worked out those agreements. We cannot criticize or make judgments about their decisions.
A sharing process must be adopted on certain aspects. However, we must go a step further and define a new model where the principles of respect and sharing will be acknowledged as a whole, for all people. The acknowledgement that we are asking concerning our title and our right to govern ourselves comes under this direction.
I also wish you to bear in mind that, as native peoples, we do respect what has been done in the past and we are certainly not making judgments about others.
Senator Austin: There is quite an interesting discussion in British Columbia about whether the Nisga'a agreement, once passed by the provincial legislature and by the two Houses of Parliament, is a third order of government. It certainly is constitutionalized and the consequence of constitutionalization is that it cannot be amended without the agreement of the Nisga'a people.
The words "third order of government" may be very meaningful to you or they may not. The question is: Do you have the protection of the Constitution so that no one can change the agreement once you have agreed to it, or does your idea of a third order of government include some other protection?
I am not entitled to ask you for your response but I did want to put that distinction before you.
[Translation]
Senator St. Germain: I will ask my questions in English because I represent British Columbia.
[English]
I would thank you for your excellent presentation. After having negotiated for 20 years or longer, I recognize that a certain level of frustration develops. However, I am certainly no expert on your region -- not that I am an expert on my region. I will yield to Senator Gill for future consultation. Hopefully, he will help us deal with some of the complexities of the negotiations you are dealing with at this time.
My question relates to the situation in British Columbia. We are establishing, basically, a third level of government. The opponents are saying that this will be a racially based government and huge opposition to the Nisga'a agreement is building on the West Coast. It is also being said that this third level of government constitutes a change to our Constitution, and that the question should be put to the entire population by way of a referendum.
This is controversial, and I do not wish to put you on the spot. However, if you could give me a response it would help me and, I think, many others.
Your views are important because, although you are aboriginal peoples, you come from different parts of the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Kurtness: If I may, I will tie that in with your question and address Senator Austin's concern, namely our wish that the treaty include some constitutional safeguards.
While I do hope that our agreement will provide for constitutional safeguards, there is no need for constitutional amendments, but more a need to clarify the meaning of a third order of government.
As for Senator St. Germain's question about a racial or ethnic government, our communities are reflecting upon this and we are open to all eventualities, including the possibility that our treaty could be deemed unconstitutional. We do not want it to be viewed as a racial treaty.
We are prepared to consider individual or territorial jurisdictions, whether it be that of the Innu living on this land or the non-Innu population.
That is why we are considering the exclusive jurisdiction option in which case we would have jurisdiction only over the Innu, and shared jurisdiction in areas where two or three orders of government are involved. Chief Moar may want to add something to that.
[English]
Mr. Moar: I do not know if it is the changing of the century, but one aspect that really motivates us is the challenge that we have to change things. I will try to explain myself.
Traditionally, we have always lived with a continuously changing way of life. We have always had to adapt to certain realities that were not under our control. This way of life is extremely well blended into the people themselves. That is why we try to keep open minds. Perhaps we have a different way of looking at a third level of government.
At home, French is our second language. As you know, when someone speaks French to an English-speaking person, they are sometimes required to give lots of explanations. When people from France came to talk to us they explained the meaning of the words they would be using.
We believe we can come to an understanding if we work together and perhaps try some different things.
Senator St. Germain: We have been told that you want exclusive jurisdiction over the environment and resources. Perhaps I misunderstood you when that was stated. As Senator Austin has said, and as I recollect from reading the Nisga'a agreement, in regard to all resource issues, be they forestry, mining or what have you, the minimum standard required would be set by the provincial standards and the federal standards as they exist.
Do you want to be excluded from that? Do you want exclusive jurisdiction over resources and the environment, and not be subject to the standards set by the federal and provincial governments?
[Translation]
Mr. Kurtness: When it comes to resource and environmental management, we would like to see more shared jurisdictions. Since environmental management is increasingly becoming a more global concern, we do not want exclusive jurisdiction over this area. Quite the contrary, in fact.
However, when it comes to comprehensive land claims negotiations, it is said that we have thousands of years of experience managing the environment. What we want is to play a more front-line role in managing the environment. The same can be said for all environmental laws and policies. Basically, when it comes to resource and environmental management, we want to share jurisdiction with the other orders of government.
[English]
Mr. Moar: To add to that, we often hear that native peoples, spiritually, relate to the earth. We consider the earth as a mother. When I was about 20 years old, I read about a chief who was discussing his Mother Earth with the government. The government representatives told the chief that he could cut the wood on the land they were giving him and give the profit to his people. The chief answered by asking: "Would you scalp your mother?" After I read that, I went on a mission to save the forests. It is 20 years later and, these days, I have a more civil way of talking to my own mother -- and a better haircut -- and I asked her about this. We have a different approach, a different way of seeing things.
[Translation]
Senator Pearson: You mentioned that you consulted with your people. I would like to know how you go about involving young people, young men and women, in the process?
Mr. Moar: We should give you three different answers because we come from three different communities. We are gradually assuming responsibility for education. Over the past 15 or 20 years, we have taken over programs to administer educational services. During this time, we have had to negotiate the inclusion of our culture in our curriculum. This process is still ongoing today.
Fortunately for us, we now enjoy the support of our educational institutions when it comes to our culture and language. We are in the process of developing our history.
I have had the opportunity, through my friends, to mix with people from the francophone and anglophone communities. I have to say that I have heard two versions of the history of Canada. The only common thread was that we were always viewed as the bad guys. I hope that this is changing. Slowly, things are changing.
Young people are being involved in history classes. Over 50 per cent of our people are under the age of 25. In some areas, the figure is as high as 70 per cent. These young people are thirsty for knowledge. We have a duty and responsibility to impart that knowledge to them.
We have set up youth councils. We use schools to involve young people in the consultation process. It is important that we listen to them. We genuinely try and involve them, although their reality is quite different.
I have five children. People tell me that politics is giving me grey hair. I tell them that this is not quite true, that genetics plays a bigger part in this. Often, other chiefs ask us what we are waiting for. They tell us to look at how the governments are resolving other disputes with aboriginal peoples. We have to tell them to be patient and to place their trust in the negotiation process. It is a matter of time. They want a better future along with a healthier vision of the future.
Senator Pearson: Would the other witnesses care to respond?
Mr. Kurtness: The draft agreement in principle with the governments of Canada and Quebec that was tabled in February 1997 had earlier been the focus of consultations with groups and people from each of our communities. This agreement was approved by our political leaders. Specifically, young people and women were among the groups consulted. We even met with post-secondary students outside our communities. A significant number of our members attend CEGEPs and universities. In fact, members of virtually every age group were consulted before the draft agreement in principle was tabled.
[English]
The Chairman: Having listened to your presentation and looked at your four recommendations, I have concluded that we have much more work to do to flesh out the four principal recommendations you have put forward, particularly as they relate to coexistence, co-management, and who would have exclusive jurisdiction over what size of territory.
I recognize it is difficult to try to fit into the existing system, especially when we have been excluded for many years; and to fully participate in a given territory which was formerly dealt with by other authorities. At one point, we felt we had authority over certain areas of land.
We have not yet reached the point of coexisting, that is, where we have entered into an actual partnership arrangement which does not affect the Constitution and other major items of jurisdiction of the federal government and the provincial governments. It is most interesting to try to find a formula which will work.
Many years ago our ancestors signed treaties with the authorities. Many of those have been misinterpreted and have led to misunderstandings. We have not been able to enjoy the wealth of our territories. The question of land title is so important because that is the basis of any economy and, without title to the land you have no authority and you cannot exercise jurisdiction over that land. You might have a small area land over which you have jurisdiction, but on the outskirts of that land you would have no right to participate in any decisions that might be made, even though they could affect your area.
I am very encouraged by your presentation. We would like you to be a permanent participant in our round table through your national organizations and to continue to develop ideas to see whether we can reach some solutions which would be good for our people.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: I would like to thank the council and band members from Sept-Îles as well as the others who are here today. It was a pleasure having you. I would even venture to say that this is a dream come true for me.
This process will be successful if people come to accept that other people's values can contribute to the betterment of society. With this presentation and through your work, you are forging a spirit of solidarity and creating hope. I am very hopeful. I congratulate you on behalf of the members of the Senate committee.
[English]
Mr. Kurtness: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and senators, for your respect and attention. We would be pleased to participate at your round table.
The Chairman: We will now hear the presentation by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples of Saskatchewan, represented by Mr. Sinclair. Mr. Sinclair is no stranger to us. He participated in the debate surrounding the Constitution in 1982. In fact, he was instrumental in having section 35 included in the Constitution. He is not new to the political process. We welcome you to our committee. Please proceed.
Mr. Jim Sinclair, President, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (Saskatchewan): Good morning. I commend the Senate for its work on aboriginal issues, in particular as it relates to our veterans. Later I will raise some of those issues with you.
We would begin our presentation with the Treaty 4 representatives, Mr. Ron Crowe and Mr. Tony Côté. They will lay the foundation of what we are trying to do in our treaties in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Ron Crowe, Treaty 4 Representative: Good morning. This is my first time appearing before a Senate committee hearing, so please bear with me. I do appreciate this opportunity.
I believe each of you has a copy of our Treaty 4 Governance Implementation Plan. I will not read the whole document. I will only highlight a few important points as we proceed in First Nations governance and our concept of the Treaty 4 governance process.
The first page of this document, the strategic plan and purpose, sets forth a general framework for the development and the implementation of Treaty 4 governance. The main components of the framework are the guiding principles for the strategy and the Treaty 4 governance model, treaty foundations and underlying assumptions for the governance model, structure and organization related to Treaty 4 governance, a "Treaty 4 Governance Declaration" document covering the above elements, and process features and a proposed action plan, all of which are contained within the document.
I will quickly read our draft vision.
Our Treaty 4 First Nations share a common vision for the future, based on the firm belief that our treaty will be fully implemented in accordance with its spirit and intent, principles and provisions. Our vision is that we will be self-determining, prosperous, independent and united First Nations, with healthy, balanced and self-reliant communities who are in charge of their own destiny. Our people will have balance and harmony in the spiritual, physical, emotional and mental aspects of life. This blend of First Nation progress with community well-being will result in an improved quality of life for our people for generations to come.
Some of the specifics are outlined in our vision and make up the basis of our vision and our action for the future.
On page 4 of the document we deal with some of the activities we propose to pursue. They are to establish an official Treaty 4 governance plan document; the Treaty 4 governance committee will implement the action plans and manage developments; we will develop a Treaty 4 declaration document; and pursue the construction of a Treaty 4 governance centre.
The fourth item is crucial to us. We are in the process of constructing and developing a Treaty 4 governance centre that will be housed in the heart of Treaty 4 territory, Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, which was the actual signing place of Treaty 4 back in 1874. That is a significant exercise for us because it demonstrates our commitment to the treaty and the treaty governance process.
I will highlight, without reading all of the points, the main assumptions underlying the strategy. It is important to review those points to understand how we will proceed in our development of the Treaty 4 governance process.
I will, however, read page 7 which outlines the key principles underlying the strategy. They are the basis of how we will proceed.
One, our values and culture should be reflected in our processes and developments. Two, our efforts should focus on practical outlets which are visible to our people. Three, we should ensure that our decision-making processes are transparent to our people. Four, we need to build on our existing strengths such as treaty, culture and our values. Five, we must plan realistically and acknowledge current constraints. Six, our approaches should promote cooperation and consensus building. Seven, our planning should link costs with benefits; we need funding to proceed. Eight, we need to encourage a commitment and loyalty from First Nations and our people. Nine, we can build and maintain trust through fairness and respect across our peoples. Ten, we need to recognize that there is strength in diversity. Finally, eleven, we should give priority to the matters which are listed on that page.
Next, we deal with the basis of Treaty 4 governance. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognized First Nation title to land and stipulated that the Crown could acquire traditional aboriginal lands only with the consent of aboriginal peoples. When Treaty 4 was signed in 1874 both parties agreed that the Indians would retain rights to resources over the 75,000 square miles of Indian territory covered by the treaty. This is verified by the oral record of our leaders and elders, a promise that has been broken. Treaty 4 is an international treaty and cannot be modified or abridged unilaterally by the Government of Canada. In all cases, the formal consent of our First Nations must be granted. The Canadian Constitution recognizes our inherent right to self-government. The Supreme Court of Canada in the Delgamuukw case, has ruled as follows:
...the Crown is under a moral, if not a legal, duty to enter into and conduct negotiations in good faith. Ultimately, it is through negotiated settlements... that we will achieve... the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown...
The Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples identifies that the outer limits of aboriginal jurisdiction within the inherent right would be governed by three guiding principles: that aboriginal governments would hold the same jurisdiction now held by the federal Parliament under section 91(24); that where conflict arises between federal and aboriginal laws, aboriginal law would prevail; and that the interaction between aboriginal and provincial laws will be regulated by the rules that govern the relationship between federal and provincial legislation.
I will quickly highlight some of the features of the Treaty 4 governance system. Some of our guiding principles for governance are: to represent our First Nations' collective political and governmental interests; to reflect and apply the spirit and intent of the oral record of Treaty 4; to promote and advance the inherent right to self-government; to protect and implement our jurisdiction over people, lands and resources; and to establish such agreements, associations or alliances as deemed necessary or beneficial for the implementation and application of Treaty 4 jurisdiction and governance. Those are key guiding principles as we proceed with the Treaty 4 governance system.
Page 10, 11, 12 and 13 outline some options for the Treaty 4 governance structure and those are some of the discussions that we will be taking up with our people back in our communities, not only our reserve communities but also the urban centres that also make up part of the Treaty 4 area.
As we move forward and take those bold steps, we need a starting point from which true governance can be is exercised. We propose to develop a Treaty 4 declaration. Our 33 Treaty 4 First Nations will sign an official protocol covering their consensus in the following categories: The meaning, application and implementation of Treaty 4 in relation to our governance system and some of the contents of the Treaty 4 declaration; the meaning and interpretation of Treaty 4; a Treaty 4 convention covering relationships; Treaty 4 jurisdiction and autonomy; Treaty 4 as the foundation for self-determination and self-government; principles of Treaty 4 governance; a structure for Treaty 4 governance; operating and management procedures for Treaty 4 governance, and so on.
Some of the discussions that took place as we developed our implementation plan and concept document are contained in this document. One of those stands out in my mind and it is found at page 16, point number 6. Treaty 4 means that all of our people, all members of our 33 First Nations, regardless of their residency, will have collective ownership of the Treaty 4 territory. This means that we have the right to the benefits of these lands and resources. It also means that our off-reserve people are not landless, as the Department of Indian Affairs would have us believe. Instead, we have Treaty 4 territory as our land base. Of course, the other statements on that page are worthwhile, but that one really hits home because it is inclusive of all our people.
That concludes my presentation. It is an introduction to the Treaty 4 governance process as we go forward at this point in time. We are working with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations which has a process on governance. We hope to maintain a healthy relationship with them and that we can acquire the necessary resources to consult with all of our people on this implementation plan. We do not want this to be a top-down approach. We want this to come from the grassroots, our people who live in the communities and the urban centres.
With that, I would introduce my friend and colleague, the vice-chair of the Treaty 4 Chiefs Forum. I am the chair of the Treaty 4 Chiefs Forum. The vice-chair is Tony Côté from the Yorkton Tribal Council.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Tony Côté, Vice-Chairman, Treaty 4 Chiefs Forum, and Vice-President, Saskatchewan First Nations Veterans' Association: I will give a presentation on some of the issues that many of our veterans have confronted for the last 53 years. My colleague's presentation dealt with the Treaty 4 aspirations and development. However, as one of the vice-presidents of the Saskatchewan First Nations Veterans' Association, I have a different role.
As you know, we have a claim against the Government of Saskatchewan. We believe that we were never treated as equals when we returned from the wars.
Saskatchewan Indian veterans participated in World War I, World War II and the Korean War. We fought with our non-Indian brothers in the trenches. Some First Nations brothers were wounded, killed in action, or taken prisoners of war. All was well while we were in the armed forces serving as snipers, scouts for reconnaissance missions, and carrying out the other duties assigned to us. We gratefully fought for our country, even though we were not supposed to have been involved in any of the wars. That was according to the treaty entered into by my great grandfather, one of the signatories to Treaty 4. His name was Gabriel Côté and he represented the Saulteau tribe from our area.
When the war began, some of the young Indian men thought it was their duty to fight for their country. The elders reminded them that they did not have to do so. My father was a World War I veteran. Before anyone was allowed to participate in the war, the council of elders discussed for two days and two nights whether they would allow the young Indian men to participate. It was decided that they would participate for the protection of our country as well as for our future generations.
Therefore, they participated in World War I with their non-Indian brothers. That opened the door for World War II and the Korean War. From Saskatchewan alone, over 600 Indian veterans participated in all three wars.
All was well in the armed forces. We were given the opportunity for promotions. Some of us were wounded and some of us were killed. We bleed and die the same as white men.
All was well until we came back from the wars. That is when we started being treated differently. The biggest controversy arose as a result of the Department of Veterans Affairs turning over the delivery of benefits to Indian veterans to the Department of Indian Affairs. Many of the personnel of Indian Affairs had a very negative attitude. They only gave what they thought we were entitled to. We discovered later that we did not get all the benefits that our non-Indian brothers received. We got no housing for veterans. We did not get the $6,000 loan that was made available to non-veterans. Some of those who were assigned lands received land that was commonly owned by the Indian band. That created much animosity because lands assigned to Indian bands were supposed to be owned as a community.
It is our contention that we should have been given land off reserve so that we could go into farming. We were not offered any kind of skills or trade training to further our education. I would have loved to attend college to continue my education, but I was not given that opportunity. No Indian veteran was given that opportunity.
Prior to World War I veterans returning from the war, the departments reviewed Indian lands. They took land surrenders to accommodate our non-Indian brothers by giving them Indian lands while Indian veterans were not given any type of land. That also happened after World War II.
There are many other benefits that we did not receive. Some veterans were given assistance to go into farming. Many of us did not get that. We will raise that with the government again.
A study done by Senator Andreychuk a number of years ago came up with 10 recommendations, none of which has have implemented. That is our concern and that is why we submitted our statement of claim here on December 1, 1998.
Senator St. Germain: Mr. Chairman, when groups such as this are appearing before us, it would be nice to have a map so that we can see the areas they are talking about. Perhaps we could have our staff prepare something that would give us a better idea of what we are dealing with.
Do the negotiations on self-government which have taken place with any other aboriginal groups in the country apply to your situation?
Mr. Crowe: With regard to your first comment, to give you an idea of the area we are talking about, it includes the entire southern portion of Saskatchewan, about 100 square miles of Alberta, and a part of Manitoba.
Senator St. Germain: How far north does it extend?
Mr. Crowe: It extends to just south of Saskatoon. Maps do set out the Treaty 4 area and all the treaty areas in Canada. I will bring those with me the next time.
As to other processes that are ongoing towards First Nations self-government, I do not see those processes as being supportive of or complementary to what we are pursuing. Our basis for pursuit of self-governance is entrenched in the treaty document and the treaty negotiations. It talks about a specific geographic area and basic treaty principles. Many of the other agreements have their own merit, but I see this as going beyond what some of those processes are leading to.
Currently, the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and the federal government have a governance process in place. We are working within that process as best we can to ensure that this position will be considered. We are hopeful that, with changing governance processes and possibly changes to the legislation, we can advance this as a model for governance process based on treaty principles and treaty areas.
Senator St. Germain: Under your self-governance proposal, would you want your land in fee simple? Would you want title to it so that you could encumber it as you saw fit; or do you wish to leave the land in the name of the Crown as opposed to taking possession by way of title?
Mr. Crowe: That is a very important question.
In our best interests, I do not think land holdings are to be held in fee simple. They have to be held in trust, and they have to be held commonly by our people. We have to work out mechanisms and processes to ensure that we get the best use out of the land, and to ensure that it is done fairly and adequately and that they are able to provide revenue. However, I do not feel that they have to be held in trust by the government for our benefit. I think they should be held by our own governance process, commonly by our own people.
Treaty 4 bands right now have settled a land claim and have acquired some lands. I happen to sit as a trustee on this. The bulk of the lands we have right now are fee simple. We have only seven acres of 1,300 acres in reserve status. We are attempting to develop a land management process that will manage the lands, retain the best use for them, and allocate them fairly and equitably based on viability. However, we have many constraints, much of which is within the Indian Act itself. In fact, we are trying to work with the minister and some of her officials to develop a better land management system.
I have been paying attention to some of the speeches in the House of Commons on Bill C-49, to determine if it is relevant to us. At this point in time, I cannot offer an opinion, but I can say that we must develop better land management processes.
In answer to your question, no, we are not looking at fee simple; we are looking at a commonly held process.
Mr. Sinclair: Indian Affairs is supposedly winding down in the future. We have always felt that there is a complete difference between the treaties and Indian Affairs. Given that the federal government insists on off-loading to the provinces and giving the provinces more control over our lives, we are saying that it is time we took control of our own lives in our treaty area based on the treaty itself. Nothing is more of a foundation than the treaty on which we wish to build upon.
In the past, the policy of Indian Affairs has been to leave out those Indians who move off the reserve. As a result, we cannot service those people or look after those people who leave the reserve.
Based on the treaties, we want to hold our right to stand alone, but we can also use the Constitution as support when we talk about our rights and our mobility rights. When we leave the reserves, our rights do not stop there; they should come with us. The fact is that this issue is based mostly on monetary matters rather than rights. It is terrible that the government says that it cannot afford this and therefore will not recognize us.
First, we have to recognize ourselves and the responsibility we have for our people. In order to do that, we have to provide services to our people and bring them together in our treaty area. That is important. That land and those resources will provide us with enough wealth to look after ourselves, to get rid of the welfare system and the prison system that now exist, and the other institutionalized systems that govern our lives. We want to change that around. We want to get away from the government's attitude towards us where every time we go to a table someone talks about surrender and extinguishment. We are not here for an armistice. We are here to talk about the right to self-determination in a nation where we already have that. That has been agreed upon, but it is a matter of putting it in action.
In all the years I have been a leader, I have never had the opportunity to sit down with any level of government and speak about self-government or self-determination. I have never had that forum in which to talk about those issues, where it means something and where they are looking towards a goal. We are always talking about where we will to fit in with respect to this process.
Treaty 4 is doing the right thing. We have had enough criticism about looking after our members and enough criticism about denying our people rights. We call ourselves a nation, and in order to call ourselves a nation, let us start looking after our citizens. Let us not leave our citizens out. Let us not have a foreign nation decide our citizenship.
That takes us back to the Bill C-31, which was a piece of legislation set out to help us, but in the long run, it was built on extermination and the fact that we will be gone in the next few years. We must address that in order to save ourselves.
I think that is a good responsibility to place upon us. We must look at our citizenship; we must look at how we will deal with our citizenship; we must look at how to utilize our land and resources; and we must try to turn things around. Many court decisions have hurt us, but many of those decisions were made in the smaller courts where our people pleaded guilty because they had no resources, no money and no opportunity for self-defence. Each time those court decisions were made, they went against our rights. It is time we took those under our control again; if one reads the treaties, the government positions and the Constitution, nothing overrides our treaty rights. Therefore, we want to make sure that anything we do relates to a process of building, not extinguishment.
The other day, a chief from the Treaty 4 area told me that he let all of his people vote, even though 50 per cent of them may live off the reserve. They vote for the chief and the council. At the same time, he said that he could not address the needs of people who live off-reserve; he could only address the needs -- and barely -- of those people who live on-reserve.
I think Treaty 4 will give us an opportunity to begin the process of reversing many of those decisions that were detrimental to our lives in the past and help us build on the future.
Mr. Côté's presentation on our veterans is very important. There was a fight for freedom, and everyone seemed to acquire freedom, except us. We are still living in a time where the state controls our lives, and it is time that we be allowed to move out from underneath this.
Senator Watt and others around the table this morning know very well the struggle we had in the constitutional process to get the recognition we needed, to begin the process of building relationships with governments and with our own people. We want to continue those building blocks.
This is where the Senate can do a job because it has, in the past, made efforts and headway in terms of bringing these issues to light and bringing them to the conscience of Canadians. They must understand what we face. We want to be assured that we become part of this country and that we are not left out and not ostracized. We are trying to be screened in, not screened out. I think you people have done a good job in terms of making sure that happens.
Senator St. Germain: If you are to achieve self-governance as you are proposing, do you see DIAND completely disappearing from your life? Do you hope that the paternalistic organization we call DIAND is not part of that self-governance? This is key to what you are trying to tell us, Mr. Sinclair, that you want the independence to do things. As long as you stay home, mom and dad will make the decisions.
Mr. Sinclair: Others may differ, but my opinion is that we have the foundation in Treaty 4. Our building consensus on Treaty 4 will be dialogue. Some of us may start out with different views, but we hope that we have the same goals -- independence and freedom.
Indian Affairs has a role to play now, but it could be a more positive role. As you say, it is like the child leaving home. You do not let him say that it is time get out of here and it is time to leave. I think we prepare him.
The department can help us in our preparations by facing the fact that we will govern ourselves, and they can support us. It is time that Indian Affairs started to look at the treaties and not have such a different concept of what the treaties say. It is like law to us, but it is policy to them. Their policy can be challenged in the courts because it is not law, but at the same time, they hold the purse strings and they can decide where they want to spend the money.
In a country like Canada, it is a shame that our rights depend on the monetary system, not on rights and ensuring that services are provided.
I believe Indian Affairs has a role, but I also believe that that role should be limited until we have complete independence in terms of our place in Canada.
Mr. Crowe: Senator St. Germain, I appreciate your interest in the day-to-day issues that we must confront. For the most part, it is DIAND that administers the provisions of the Indian Act. I will not get into a long discussion about how disruptive the Indian Act has been to our communities. We all know the many negatives associated with that fact.
As we move forward into a governance process and take responsibility to develop our lands and resources, I see Indian Affairs taking a smaller role in terms of administering programs, infrastructure, et cetera. They have a fiduciary responsibility, and that will continue. In certain cases, from time to time, they might have to exercise that fiduciary responsibility.
In the future, the role of DIAND will be far different from what it is at the moment. Instead of -- and I hate to use this word -- a dictatorial process, perhaps they will be better at facilitating process. I say that because we will need to continue a relationship with the federal government, and other governments, perhaps, in order to make progress on development, the securing of resources, and budgets -- all the activities that have to take place in order to have a true governance process take hold. I see them more in a role of facilitating as opposed to their present role, which is dictatorial in terms of setting policy and implementing budgets. I think that we would assume those responsibilities.
I have to say that their role will be completely different from what it is at the moment. I hope that at some point in the future it will not be as adversarial as it has been in the past.
Senator Gill: Everyone is aware of the problems we face in terms of there being different jurisdictions. The federal government has jurisdiction over aboriginal peoples. Yet, when it comes to education and social programs, it is the provincial governments that have jurisdiction. You have experienced many of the problems that have resulted from these different jurisdictions. We have experienced similar problems.
Do you see some solution to these problems? Once you have a certain autonomy in terms of self-government, how will you deal with these problems? Undoubtedly, you will face the same problems as we faced when it comes to education.
Mr. Sinclair: First, the treaties concerning the areas in which we live were signed long before there was a province. We are saying that our rights supersede that, that anything we are doing now was in place before there was a province. Just because the province took over responsibility for education does not mean that it will have that responsibility forever.
Part of the problem we now face is related to a matter that the news media raises all the time; that is, that the federal government is trying to appease Quebec in terms of its jurisdiction over programs concerning education and workforce training. As a result, the other provinces are jumping in and saying, "Okay, we want a piece of the action, too." The view is that aboriginal people will have to work with the provinces. Any time such a move is made it must be recognized that those treaties are the foundation for any future agreements.
We do not want to be part of this off-loading system because it is too dangerous. The fear is that at some point in time the federal government will renege on its jurisdiction and judicial responsibility for us. We do not want to get into that situation.
What we are saying is that this Treaty 4 process is one that will be done by negotiations. It is clear that the rights are there, the foundation is there. We do not have to create them. We do not have to spell them out again. We must build on what is there. We must build on the relationship we have with the federal government. The federal government must play the lead role while the provinces play a supporting role.
The province has told us that it wants nothing to do with our money or our programs. Yet, the minute the federal government wants to pass out a buck the province is there with its hand out. I want people to understand that.
I see a good relationship in the future. It can be worked out. We just have to be at some of these tables when these discussions are being held.
Mr. Côté: I would like to expand on the concept of self-government. What we in the Treaty 4 areas, as well as the chiefs I represent from the Yorkton Tribal Council, is that most non-Indian people say to us, "How do you intend to fund your self-government?" In reply, we say that the 1930 natural resource transfer agreement was turned over to the province without the acknowledgement or the agreement of the Treaty 4 chiefs. We want a share of those resources. The Province of Saskatchewan is the only one to benefit from the natural resources in that province. However, we maintain that we own those resources.
When we surrendered the Treaty 4 area, we only surrendered 6 inches of land for the white man to use. We never surrendered anything below that 6-inch level. It is those resources that would enable us to fund self-government, et cetera. Look at the millions of dollars the province has retained for itself. Yet, they always say, "We are not responsible for you people."
The Chairman: Has that been tested in the courts?
Mr. Côté: No. The federation is looking into the matter now. We will be putting forward some arguments to that effect.
Senator St. Germain: Would you restate the rights that were violated?
Mr. Côté: The natural resources were never surrendered by our forefathers. They agreed to share the land. Of course, the only thought at that time was to make the settlers start farming; there was no mention of natural resources at that time. However, the Indians knew at that time that there was something under the farming area. That is what we call natural resources. What did the federal government do in 1930? It automatically transferred all those resources to the province without the acknowledgement or approval of the Indian chiefs at the time.
The Chairman: Can you furnish us with that information?
Mr. Côté: We can make it available to you.
Senator Johnson: In terms of off-reserve input into treaty governance, how do you see off-reserve urban Indians being involved in governance as proposed by the Treaty 4 governance model?
Mr. Sinclair: We are an off-reserve group in Saskatchewan that tries to look at the aspirations of our people whether they live on or off the reserve. At the same time, it is recognized that we fought for the rights of the Métis, the First Nations Indians, and the Inuit. We have always supported their aspirations in terms of self-government. I think that it would be wrong for us now, as urban people -- urban Indians, as we say back in Saskatchewan -- to start looking at a governance of our own, based only on the fact that there are people living off the reserve. We recognize the FSIN as the body in Saskatchewan, but we think the best approach, so that we will not create conflict among ourselves, is to use the treaty area process; and whether we live off the reserve in Regina, Yorkton or rural Saskatchewan, we say we still have those rights because we are citizens of Treaty 4.
We, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, do not wish to compete with the bands, and the councillors and others for the money or the funding that is given right now to the Treaty 4 area in itself. We want resources to help our people who are off reserve, but we also want to do it on our own. I do not want to dig in someone else's pockets to do that. I think that would be unfair.
Government tries to create that conflict among us. They say, "If you want resources to work on the Treaty 4 issues, then go to the Treaty 4 chiefs." It creates a burden so that someone feels an economic or monetary squeeze and finally says, "Wait a minute. We cannot deal with it."
The way I try to think of it is that, again, when you are looking at rights, no amount of money can buy or sell your rights. Those are there. I think we have to work out something whereby we can become involved as responsible partners in this whole process. That is one of the things that the Treaty 4 chiefs did in the development of this process.I am on the governance council, not as a leader of CAP but as a citizen of Treaty 4 and someone who can deal with off-reserve issues. It is important that we have said that our citizenship will decide the kinds of democratic structures we set up. We will not let the FSIN or CAP or anyone else tell us how to structure ourselves, but we will ask those people for support and, in the case of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, ask them for their blessing because we do have some support. Other areas can develop the same way, if they want, or differently.
It is a good question, though, because, again, we are in a sort of limbo. The Métis have their money separately; the on-reserve moneys are given to the on-reserve people, and the rights of the off-reserve people are so limited that they basically have no rights at all. The housing conditions in the urban centres are terrible, the jobs are very limited, and the prisons are full of our people. It is time that there was a change. You do not have to spend more money. It is just that you have to reallocate your money to spend it better.
Senator Johnson: I appreciate that. I come from Winnipeg and, as we all know, we have very similar problems.
So you are saying that treaty Indians living in Regina, for example, would be included in the process.
Mr. Sinclair: Yes. It is in the document. However, our participation at this time is fairly limited because of the lack of resources. We need those resources but, again, the question is: Where are we going to find them? Are we going to get them from Heritage Canada?
Senator Johnson: That brings me to another question. Will there be a Treaty 4 administration centre or institution in the city providing Treaty 4 beneficiaries with programs and services?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes, there will be.
Senator Johnson: I ask because, while you explained your position in the brief, there is little information regarding the implementation supplement based on the proposed treaty model.
Mr. Sinclair: Mr. Crowe can expand on that. We now recognize, of course, that the true governance in the Treaty 4 area at this time rests with the bands and the chiefs, but we are looking at the second level right now, and that is the Treaty 4 area and all its citizens. That is the legislative assembly that is being built at this time in Fort Qu'Appelle. At some point in time, we will marry those two together, hopefully, but that will take some time. We must recognize the governance that is there now, and then build on that.
The endorsement from the chiefs is a bold move, one that gives us the responsibilities of leadership and of First Nations. If we want to be a First Nation, as I said, the first thing we must do is look after the citizens. The second thing is that we do not want someone to determine the citizenship. We must do that ourselves.
With regard to Bill C-31, we must consider how we will address that issue so that we do not become extinct in the next 50 years, as some people are suggesting will happen.
Senator Johnson: You have spoken a lot about the impediments to the actions you want to take, due to government policy and government programs. I assume that that would also apply to the government's stated self-government policy, under which legal status as an Indian, recognition as an Inuit or Labrador Innu or residency on a reserve is a condition of entitlement to federal programs. The federal government is not prepared, as a result of self-government agreements, to expand entitlement to such programs to off-reserve status Indians, non-status Indians or Métis groups. How do you function, then, to achieve what you want to accomplish? There is the government funding you mentioned and there are the programs you are proceeding with, and your proposals and what you want to accomplish; yet there is this government policy.
Mr. Sinclair: That is a policy, but let us look at the treaties. The treaties can stand alone. They have been made to stand alone and to withstand any constitutional challenge. The Sparrow case, among others, says that.
We are saying that, if we build on those treaties rather than on what the Department of Indian Affairs has done to us and on the policies the government has stated, we have an opportunity to build on something that was a good foundation that our forefathers signed. As Mr. Côté said, we have never given away the resources. Our wealth comes from the land. Your wealth in this country comes from the land, of which we are owners. We want to be able to utilize that wealth in the way we want, rather than having someone coming out every April saying, "I have a cheque for you from the taxpayers of Canada." Where did they get that money? They got it from our resources. Those resources belong to us and we want to share those resources in some way, such as revenue-sharing agreements and partnerships.
At the same time, we have a right to those resources based on our treaty. No matter what has been said from the day of the signing of those treaties up to now, those treaties are still intact. They were recognized again a few years back in the Constitution. We can build on those treaties. However, government must come to the table with a completely different thinking from what it had in the past of saying, "We have complete control of your lives because of the Indian Act, because of certain policies, and because of this and that." When it comes down to real law, those treaties provide us a foundation upon which to build our own self-determination in the future.
Senator Johnson: The quality of life of the people is the most important thing.
Mr. Sinclair: That is right.
Senator Johnson: Are we getting anywhere with this, in terms of improving the present situation?
Senator Johnson: Right now it is really bad. The government seems to be more interested in spending more money on the prison and welfare systems.
Senator Johnson: I know the statistics in Manitoba. They are appalling.
Mr. Sinclair: We have said before that the cost per year can be up to $100,000 per inmate. Many of these inmates -- our people -- have committed only minor offences. They should be on a training program or outside going to school or working. You cannot take that burden forever because we are a growing people, regardless of what has happened. You cannot keep us in prison forever. Our freedom must be granted some time, and we will get that freedom because you cannot afford to keep building those jails. We will have to become part of the workforce, and we can do that. However, there will have to be totally different thinking from the government. We have a concept in our treaties from which we will be able to build.
Mr. Crowe: I wish to reaffirm what Mr. Sinclair said, that the governance starts, within our communities, with our recognized chiefs and the land base. That is where it starts. However, it does not end there. Through this process, we intend to establish a legislative assembly that will be able to bring forward institutions and programs that will be beneficial, not just for our land communities, but also for the urban centres. We already have existing institutions and programs in there. We want to be able to merge our institutions with a true governance process, to carry out those services and to assist the people who require the services in the urban centres.
Where that will take us, I do not know. I do not have that magic blueprint right now, but I know that currently Mr. Sinclair and I are talking. We are able to have these important discussions at this time and it is important for us to go forward with them.
In terms of the self-government policy by the federal government, I believe that it is flawed. It does not have a true understanding. What we are talking about here is unfinished treaty business and lack of understanding. We cannot give up, nor should we be expected to, any of our rights or our responsibilities by virtue of our residence, especially if it is within our territory, the Treaty 4 territory. We have a lot of unfinished treaty business.
However, we have made gains. The treaty land entitlement in Saskatchewan was a major gain for us. Furthermore, the office of the treaty commissioner and some of the understandings that it will have, in addition to those we are attempting to receive from it, are accomplishments in themselves.
Nevertheless, there is a lot of unfinished treaty business, for example, lack of understanding and the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement of 1930. That is a serious one for us and we are pursuing it. We are looking for revenue resource sharing, not benevolence. That is the approach that the government has taken with our people for a long time, namely, referring to the benevolence of the citizens of Canada. That is not a respectful relationship. That is my final point.
Senator Pearson: First, I should like a clarification. Several times you mentioned problems with Bill C-31, but I do not know what you mean. I should like to know what you mean. What is the federal ploy to reduce membership through Bill C-31?
Mr. Crowe: I will try to answer that as quickly as I can.
Bill C-31 allowed many people to regain status as treaty or status Indians. What is on the horizon -- and this is very difficult to explain in detail -- is that, as we move forward, we will have less and less Indian status. It will be broken up. For instance, if my child, who is an Indian, marries a non-Indian, the off spring of the marriage may not be able to pass on Indian status. In fact, some of the statistics that we have read -- and I may be a little off -- state that between the years 2005 and 2010, 12 per cent of the Indian people who are born will not have the ability to pass on status. That is a scary thought for us.
Senator Pearson: Is that contained in the bill? I do not understand why that happens.
Mr. Crowe: It is a result of the bill.
Senator Pearson: What is the mechanism there?
Mr. Crowe: It is the way that they break up. I do not have exact technical knowledge about this but I do know the end result. I will repeat my example.
If my son marries a non-Indian woman, and they have children, then because of the Indian-non-Indian relationship, their off spring would not be able to pass on Indian status to their off spring.
Senator Pearson: I would appreciate if someone could submit a description of that to the committee. This will come up again and again. I did not understand it, so I thank you for your clarification of it.
Mr. Crowe: It is a dangerous thing for us.
Senator Pearson: I am sympathetic to it; I just wanted to know what the mechanism is and what ways one could recommend to address it, if necessary.
My second question is related to the future, and it is as a result of my great interest in young people and education. The way the economy is moving, the resource base is not where it will be at; the information economy will be where it will be at. I hope you are building those types of considerations into your planning. You are really looking at the importance of education and access to education so that you can build a new way of generating money. It will no longer be generated from the land. I think that is the reality of what is happening.
Mr. Crowe: I understand that.
Mr. Sinclair: Our argument on that was: Let us get control of the resources first, one step at a time.
Senator Pearson: That will take three steps at a time.
Mr. Sinclair: The resources are no longer what they were.
Senator Pearson: Do not forget the reality out there.
Mr. Kurtness: I look at the global economy and I recognize the fact that the resources do not have the same value as they did in the past. I think some of my relatives on some of the reserves around the Alberta area have that realization, too.
We must remember that the revenue from resources is not as important as the recognition of the rights and ownership of those resources.
Senator Pearson: I see the psychological effect, but I am saying that, at the same time, you should ensure that your children are getting an education.
Mr. Crowe: Our infrastructure must contain education and knowledge that is available for some kind of export. Our future lies within our people and we must prepare them as best we can.
Senator Johnson: I have a question related to what Senator Pearson was saying. About three weeks ago, the government announced moneys for youth programs. Do you know about that?
Mr. Crowe: Yes.
Senator Johnson: Do you remember how much money that was? Aside from that, will you be getting any of it to do anything with youth? If so, what kind of money?
Mr. Crowe: We have a proposal.
Senator Johnson: Where would it be channelled -- or has the government not given any indication of this?
Mr. Sinclair: Some of it is allocated already, in various channels.
Senator Johnson: They made it sound like a fresh fund for youth programs.
Mr. Sinclair: Some of us are on the outside. I am here negotiating that with Minister Blondin. I will be speaking with Minister Stewart today and I will raise some of those issues with her as well.
We are trying to address the resources that we can have on the off-reserve park, without interfering with the treaty areas, which are now looking at their funding. The Métis are also looking at their funding through agreements. We are trying to say that there must be funds here to help ease the burden. As I said, there are many negotiations and many problems.
Senator Johnson: I wanted to make a note of it because it was geared toward youth, and I think Minister Axworthy actually made the announcement to the urban aboriginal youth.
Mr. Sinclair: There are a great deal of resources needed to help youth. Perhaps I could add a few things here.
The Chairman: First, Mr. Sinclair, before I turn the questioning over to Senator Andreychuk, I wish to address the point that you raised on page 8 in your brief. This is something that requires further development. You also pointed out that there will be further development, if required, and that closer examination must take place. We welcome you to become a participant at our round table dealing with these subject matters.
As for your case, you have provided an excellent idea, based on your discussions on the treaties. I agree with you that those are things that should not be abandoned and they should be discussed and moved forward. This may be the way to deal with off-reserve and on-reserve Indians, aside from the Inuit, because we must deal with the Métis and the Inuit at the same time.
Mr. Sinclair: The Globe and Mail has reported on the issue of Mr. Sam Sinclair, who has been an aboriginal leader and a veteran. I raise that with this committee because it has done so much work with veterans. There will be some court action in the next week or so.
Mr. Sam Sinclair was deleted from his band list after being reinstated some time ago. We are talking about a veteran who went to war to fight for his country and to fight for his place in Canada. Now people want to take his identity away from him.
The way the policy is set up, one person can do that. One person a way down on the bureaucratic ladder has the power to say that you are in today or you are out tomorrow.
People who come into Canada from other countries have no end of appeals. They can stay here for ten years at a time without being sent out of the country while they follow the appeal mechanisms.
Senator St. Germain: They should not have that, though.
Mr. Sinclair: At the same time, Mr. Sinclair deserves some support from this Senate to keep his status. I think it is a shame that a veteran could come back and be denied his identity in a country such as Canada.
I want to lay that support on the table for Mr. Sinclair. I am hoping you people will also do something in support of Mr. Sinclair. He is not related to me.
Senator Gill: Can you get us some information on that?
Mr. Sinclair: I can get you some. We can do that today.
Senator Andreychuk: If you send the material about Mr. Sinclair to the committee clerk, then it will be distributed to all of us and we will all have the same information.
I have many questions but I think I will have to leave them to Saskatchewan and our ongoing dialogue there. I have been impressed, in the native community in Saskatchewan that, on both sides, there has been an ongoing dialogue. There have been some successes but there is a recognition that we have a long way to go yet.
Mr. Sinclair, your reputation has been legendary and you have shown it to be valid again today. You have put forth your ideas very forcefully.
Our difficulty as a committee is that we do not want to become negotiators on behalf of the government. We do want to assist and to recognize the very real issues facing aboriginal peoples and, therefore, all peoples in Canada. How do we assist in bringing some closure to this issue, closure that is satisfactory to every one?
Self-government seems to be the issue. We have been trying to come up with models of self-government. I am hearing today that this process is incremental. It seems there is no magic blueprint. Your guiding principle is adherence to the treaty and particularly Treaty 4, and we should then leave the rest of the baggage behind and address the principles within Treaty 4 as your idea of the model. How we get to addressing that model is still a matter of ongoing negotiation. I heard the term "magic blueprint" twice. None is available from your side or from the federal government's side.
Are you here to remind the government not to be deflected by policies or practices but to go back to Treaty 4, to read Treaty 4 and to work from that basis? Is that basically your request today? Do you feel that is the answer to your particular situation?
I note for the record that you are nodding your head in the affirmative.
The Chairman: Would that also apply to Treaties 6 and 8?
Mr. Crowe: As we move forward, they may accept the models that we are proposing. They certainly have the opportunity. I do not want to pre-judge anything.
The Chairman: Is there a working relationship amongst all those?
Mr. Crowe: It is becoming more and more available through the Assembly of First Nations, yes.
Senator Andreychuk: Basically, there has been a cooperative model of co-management in Saskatchewan, moving incrementally to this point, but you would still prefer not to look at past policies but to go back and use the treaty as the guiding principle.
I wanted to raise the issue of the rights of aboriginal veterans. This committee of the Senate -- it was not just me though I happened to be in the chair at the time -- took their responsibilities very seriously and looked at the issue of aboriginal veterans. Mr. Côté, your comments very much reflect what was said in our report. We understood that many of the aboriginal veterans were not required by law or by the treaties to go to war. In other words, they were often precluded from going. Yet they chose to see their duty to Canada and they fought valiantly, equal to any other soldier. The problems arose when they came back.
The government has never answered our report, despite repeated requests by this committee to respond directly to that report. I think I speak for all the committee members when I say that we would still like the government to respond to our report, and we will keep this issue open.
The government did respond to some of our recommendations. They did set up a scholarship fund in the name of aboriginal veterans. There has been more inclusion of aboriginal veterans in Remembrance Day ceremonies and other veterans' associations and remembrances. However, the basic issues of allotments and allocations and the issue of an apology are still outstanding.
So I share with you, Mr. Côté, your concern that Canadians should start by respecting the aboriginal veterans and what they have contributed to this country. Perhaps, as a committee, we should begin our report on self-government by first acknowledging that contribution, before addressing the new issues of self-government. Unless we address that, I do not think we will have done our job.
I certainly give you my undertaking. I am sure that other committee members will agree to include again, within this report, our respect and acknowledgement for what the aboriginal veterans have done.
I regret that this issue is going to court. I hope the federal government will re-examine this issue and respond to our report and, perhaps, re-negotiate this issue, rather than going again to the courts to resolve there what should be done person to person.
I thank you for coming, for being open with us and for sharing your perspectives. If you have any more concrete proposals to give us on models of self-government, particularly in your case, that would be helpful. We want to put concrete proposals before the government, rather than just pious invocations, if I can use that phrase.
Mr. Côté: I would respond to the senator's comments with regard to the statement of claim submitted by the Indian veterans from Saskatchewan. We have been waiting for a long time. Even regarding the recommendations that you have made, there has been no action. We decided that it is about time. We will see how they react when we submit the statement of claim. If there will be a response, we would like to hear as soon as possible because we are forging ahead with it.
Senator Andreychuk: The issue is that the aboriginal veterans do not have time on their side.
Mr. Côté: They are passing away. Out of 600 veterans in Saskatchewan, we only have about 90 left.
Senator Andreychuk: I hope that your action spurs the government into some action.
The Chairman: Thank you, senators and witnesses. I am sure we could have gone into these matters in much more depth. I urge you to become a permanent participant through your national organization and to get involved in the round table dealing with the findings.
Mr. Sinclair: We would also say thank you. I have felt from the beginning and I still feel that you people are very knowledgeable of the issues; you have done your homework. That is good. You have asked the right questions. That shows us that you have done your homework, and we appreciate that. It is not often that we meet a group of people who take that kind of interest. We thank you for your support.
Mr. Crowe: On behalf of our Treaty 4 chiefs and the chiefs' forum, we thank you for this opportunity. Your questions will help with our dialogue and mutual understanding.
The committee adjourned.