Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 17 - Evidence, February 2, 1999 (6:15 p.m.)
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 2, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:15 p.m. to examine and report upon aboriginal self-government.
Senator Charlie Watt (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I would ask Ms Venne to introduce her colleagues.
Ms Sharon H. Venne, Chief Negotiator, Akaitcho Territory Tribal Council: Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving us this opportunity to make a presentation to your committee.
Chief Jonas Sangris is from the Yellowknives Dene (Dettah) community. Archie Catholique is from the east side of Great Slave Lake. Chief Don Balsillie is from the south part of Great Slave Lake.
Chief Sangris would like to make some opening comments in his own language, which will be translated for the senators. Chief Don Balsillie will then go over some points. We have a written submission for senators. We will not read it; rather, we will highlight some of the points we are interested in discussing, and then allow senators to ask us questions.
(Chief Jonas Sangris spoke in his native language)
Chief Don Balsillie, Deninu K'ue, Akaitcho Territory Tribal Council: Good evening, senators, and distinguished guests.
The presentation we are making today is somewhat historical for ourselves. In the past, we have never taken the opportunity to come to such a committee to let the committee know about the issues we deal with in our part of the world.
For those of you who have not visited the Northwest Territories, it is unique in terms of the geographical make-up of the land, the people and its institutions.
In our part of the world, we believe that we have a unique opportunity to develop our resources and institutions, and to allow the aboriginal people to express what they would like to see developed in terms of institutions that truly represent them as a unique people in a unique part of the world, and give them an opportunity to sit with governments in a peaceful manner to discuss how we want to progress into the future.
Being a younger chief from the area, my people have allowed me to speak on their behalf, which is a great honour. I come before this Senate committee not asking for anything, not wanting any handouts for our people. We are a very proud people. We exist in a very harsh climate. We have existed there for many hundreds of years. The community from which I come is well over 200 years old and has been lived in on an ongoing basis. The largest open-pit mine in the world was established in our traditional territory. It came and went. The aftermath of such a development has scarred the land. It will be in that state for many generations.
The Akaitcho territory is approximately 100,000 square miles. As my good friend and colleague Chief Jonas Sangris has indicated, developments such as diamond mining are taking place in our territory. They are proposing to open a beryllium mine. The developments keep coming.
Our people are expected, time after time, to agree with what is happening in their homelands. The benefits are very few for our people.
The claims process that we began almost 30 years ago has not given us an instrument, an agreement, that has done anything for us to date. We continue to negotiate in good faith. We continue to hope that governments that are elected to represent Canada, to represent our people as well as aboriginal people, will represent our interests.
It is very frustrating as a young chief who has grown up in this part of the world to see my father come from meetings very dissatisfied with the outcome. Yet, he has told me as I grew up to keep faith, keep an open dialogue, and continue to put trust in the system. He has told me that, some day, there will there will be something in our homelands for our people.
We want to build a institution that represents our people, that works in a collective, coexisting manner with public institutions, governments and various developers, which will allow us to come to the table on an equal footing to talk about the interests and the resources, to talk about the laws that affect our people.
In our part of the world, last week, we hunted caribou on snow machines. That is a traditional pursuit of our people which they continue to exercise. It is beautiful to be out there on that vast land and to do the things that our forefathers did. We would like to continue those pursuits. While we were hunting caribou, we saw many trucks go by hauling fuel and supplies to mines. They were exploiting the territory upon which these animals depend.
We want development, but we want it to be responsible development. We want to be included in the development. We want to reap some benefit for the institutions that will develop in the future. As I indicated, we are not looking for handouts. We want to be equal partners.
As an example, Broken Hills Property, which has a diamond mine in Akaitcho territory, was anticipating profits, over a 20-year period, of approximately $200 billion, from one mine. There are about five more mines coming up. They offered the Dene, over a 20-year period, $20 million in the impact benefit agreement. Now that they have started production, they have found that the diamonds are of a much higher quality than anticipated. Therefore, the profits will escalate.
These developments in and around Akaitcho territory will produce a lot of dollars for Canada. It will stimulate the economy. We will be faced with the environmental aftermath. We cannot jump into a boat and migrate to a different country. We will be in that part of the world for many years to come.
Our First Nations live below the poverty line. We lack housing. Our education system needs upgrading. Yet, we see on television the Government of Canada portraying the country as a great place to live. It is a great place to live. We see the government writing off debts of billions of dollars to foreign countries. Yet, our negotiating process is under-resourced. Our negotiating process has been dragging on for almost 30 years.
Minister Jane Stewart came to our part of the world and made a presentation on gathering strength. Many good words were spoken on behalf of the government, yet, to date, we have no tangible results.
We are hoping that our presentation to this committee today will enlighten you folks about the frustration we feel in our part of the world. We must fast-track our negotiations so that we can take to our people a document upon which they can vote. We live in a democratic system and that is the process we must follow.
Coexisting with other peoples within our home lands is part of the treaty-making process. When our people sat down to discuss treaties, the understanding of our forefathers was that we would coexist with the newcomers to this part of the world; that our ways of healing ourselves spiritually and mentally and the way we carried on our lifestyle would not be disturbed. As days go by, more policies, legislation and laws are affecting our people in a way that we question. What is the government doing to us? What do they want from us?
I sometimes use the analogy of inviting a guest into your home because he is out in the cold and not familiar with the environment. He may freeze out there or get lost. He is unaware of the dangers. We took these people in and helped them. Then one day we came back to our home and found that our visitor had taken over the La-Z-Boy and had the remote control. When we went to our fridge to get a drink, we had to pay for it.
What is happening? Suddenly, the visitor has taken over our home and taken control of the environment. When I go outside to hunt for sustenance, I have to buy a licence. What happened to "coexisting?" There is something wrong with the system.
Our approach in Akaitcho territory is not unique, but it is different from that of other groups that have settled land claims. I have asked Minister Stewart to allow our people and the negotiators to be innovative, to be creative, to be flexible, to develop something that will truly allow our people and the other people of Canada to coexist. We are told that the policies that are currently in place will change. They continue to plague us; they continue to be a hindrance.
The documents we have provided the government and the Senate speak in more detail about coexistence and a settlement in Akaitcho territory.
We were fortunate to have the United Nations present a report on indigenous treaties last fall. That report has been submitted to the Senate as well for its review. We are hoping that some of the recommendations in this report will be seriously considered and applied to our situation in the North.
We are very close to a framework agreement. We will be discussing self-government. Our people see self-government under section 35 as an empty box. It is necessary to fill that box, but it must be an open dialogue and it must reflect who we are as people. Aboriginal people across the North American continent have much in common as well as many differences.
We hope that the committee will strongly recommend to the department some of the things contained within the report as well as dealing with our situation in a flexible and open manner that allows us to be creative.
Senator Adams: The last time I saw you was when we were working on Bill C-6 regarding the Mackenzie Delta.
Bill C-62, the proposed Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act will soon be introduced in the Senate.
Earlier, we had witnesses from the area of Treaty 7, the Slave Lake area. You are with Treaty 8?
Mr. Balsillie: Yes.
Senator Adams: How long have you been negotiating your land claim with DIAND? You say that you are close to an agreement. What remains has to be done? Are the bureaucrats holding it up?
Perhaps you could first tell us if your territory is to the north or the south of Great Slave Lake?
Mr. Balsillie: We are at the southern end of Great Slave Lake.
Senator Adams: In the Yellowknife area?
Mr. Balsillie: Yes.
Senator Adams: How many years have you been negotiating the land claim?
Mr. Balsillie: As I indicated earlier, it was in the 1970s that the Indian Brotherhood began negotiations for a settlement in the Mackenzie Valley. They reached an agreement in principle in 1991 with regard to the comprehensive claim. At that time, the chiefs within the Treaty 8 area refused to accept the agreement for the simple reason that extinguishment was a major issue. They did not want to extinguish rights in exchange for that particular agreement.
Since that time, we have taken a treaty approach to settling our outstanding grievances with Canada. We began the process in 1992 and we continue to try to negotiate certain cornerstones of our agreement and include those in an agreement in principle.
We continually have problems with the system, that is, the bureaucrats. The policies that guide these negotiations are very limited. It is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It just will not fit. The department must realize that and make some changes.
On many occasions, there is a "take it or leave it" attitude. "Here is what you will get. If you do not want it, then we will have to shut down the process." Many times funding becomes an issue.
As well, we have provided documentation to government to explain where we are coming from in terms of coexisting as it relates to a settlement. Having provided that documentation they shut down our process for six to eight months at a time to review it. These tactics of stalling and reduction in funding have crippled us to a large degree in terms of making significant progress in our negotiations.
Senator Adams: I understand from what you are saying that the treaties and boundaries of Nunavut are not causing any problems in your negotiations. Your only problems result in trying to deal with the bureaucrats in Ottawa and trying to find out when a decision will be made and the matter settled. Is there anything that is overlapping your land claim that is affecting any agreement with Ottawa?
Mr. Balsillie: Not at this point. Boundaries are not a problem. However, it is necessary to address the boundaries between Treaty 8 and Treaty 11 and work is being done on that. The aboriginal groups will settle that question.
As the process continues, one of the major problems that we face in the Akaitcho territory is the issuance of permits and licences. Development just keeps moving ahead. No one is listening to the issue of our giving consent to development within our traditional territory. We feel that the third parties, the developers, are getting better treatment. Their processes of approval for water licences or megaprojects seem to move ahead much quicker than our negotiations.
It has become apparent to many of our people that the government does not want to settle our outstanding grievances as they relate to treaty obligations. It does not want to talk about any institution that will allow us to have some degree of autonomy with reference to how licences will be issued and the types of benefits that should accrue to the First Nations.
Every time we talk about projects that are encroaching upon areas that are very sensitive, in terms of being sensitive ecosystems, with fish, caribou migration, we are told that it is too late in the process; that they are in the advance stages of development and, therefore, the project must move ahead. This area, unfortunately, is not up for selection.
This is our garden, if you want to refer to it as that, where we harvest the animals, the plants, the berries, on which we have survived for many years. Our garden is continuously being diminished. It is like a farmer who has a certain acreage. If you continuously chop away at that acreage, it becomes nonviable and the farmer cannot continue to engage in that type of activity. Who will compensate the farmer then? Who will compensate the aboriginal person for a lost way of life, for the inability to harvest sustenance to feed his family?
It is more than just money that we are discussing here. It is a way of life. In the north, our people live a traditional lifestyle. Our people go out on the land and exercise their right to harvest. It is a healthy way of life in that they are physically active on the land. They find a balance out there.
I have worked in offices for over 20 years. I still engage in traditional pursuits on a regular basis. I take my family out to my fishing lodge and we see how people really appreciate our part of the world.
Many of our guests come from places where they can no longer fish or they cannot eat the fish that they catch. They look at our pristine environment and say that their forefathers had the same things at one time but they were ruined because of greed, because of development.
We see the multi-billion-dollar mega-corporations steam-rolling onto our land, and leaving Canada with the profits. Our government sits back and allows this to happen. Where is our integrity? What do we stand for as Canadian citizens? Where is this country headed?
It is very frustrating. We put a lot of faith in the democratic system and in governments and trust that they will do the right thing. Today we are asking that you people do the right thing for our people. We are not asking that you give us 100 per cent of our territory. We are not asking that you make us millionaires. We are saying that we want the part of this country that is rightfully ours, so that we can derive some benefit that we can share with other people. We are asking to be treated fairly.
Senator Adams: Yellowknife is no longer a small community. In fact, I think it is now a city with a population of approximately 20,000. I believe many of the people who have settled there are not Canadians. Are there any rumours that they are poisoning your dealings with government and urging the government not to settle your land claims? My concern is that Yellowknife will take over the area because land in Yellowknife is not cheap. A lot costs between $60,000 and $100,000.
Are you negotiating your land claim with the territorial government or do you have to deal with Ottawa first? I am trying to find out why the government is not going ahead with the agreement. I am sure the minister could sign it tomorrow. There must be some background to this. I know that when PSB, a company with millions of dollars, came to Ottawa a couple of years ago they said they would hire a lot of people in the north and spend $700 million to build a camp, and create jobs for 500 people within the community. They said that they would not do anything until there had been an agreement on the land claims. Are they negotiating with you and saying that your people will be offered jobs in mining? Last week every newspaper I read had an article about diamond mining in Canada. A diamond mine would be worth billions of dollars. They told us they would make between $2 billion and $4 billion a year in income from mining over 20 years.
I want to know a bit more so that our committee can do our best to help you. Next time, I hope our minister will come to this committee so that we can find out what is going on.
Mr. Balsillie: I think it would be beneficial for the committee to understand what is happening in our part of the world with regard to some of the questions that you have just raised.
I can sit here and talk a lot about this -- and I have a tendency to ramble on at times as well -- but a short answer is that the general public in the north want to see the question of land claims settled. They want this cloud of uncertainty removed so that investors can come into a territory knowing the rules. We want to be clear on these rules as well. The quicker we can settle this question, the better it will be for our territory. Public institutions will know where they stand and how our institutions mesh with theirs, who is responsible for what, the type of benefits that flow into the institutions from development, and how those benefits will support the different types of programs that exist.
A large majority of the people in the north want the land claims issues to be dealt with as soon as possible.
As you are well aware, the division of the territories is upon us. They are anticipating two new institutions in that part of the world. We have sat in the various committees and made our concerns known and to ensure that, if there is a public institution, it will reflect our agreement, and that the public institution will adhere to the legal, binding agreements between ourselves and the federal government. In addition, we want this institution to be party to our discussions in areas that genuinely concern them.
It is our position that our relationship is with the federal Crown. It was not made with a public institution, the Government of the Northwest Territories. They are a council. They have no authority to pass laws over First Nations. Although we have been very flexible, understanding and accommodating to date, there is a necessity to settle these questions and have clear lines of jurisdiction and responsibility regarding what is happening within our territory.
Senator Andreychuk: I think I understand your position and your impatience. You say you are close to a framework agreement and you think that would then lead to the land claims settlement. You have dwelt more on how the process gets bogged down and the time involved. We are trying to look at models of self-government here. We are not in the negotiating process.
Do you believe that the model that you have -- that is, using the mechanism of a framework agreement which is then to lead to all the aspects that, hopefully, will lead to some conclusion on land claims and self-government -- is the best way to go, or do you think another approach could be used? In other words, is it the model that gets in the way or do you believe that the model is a good one but the problems are with the bureaucracy and the political will to push it through?
Ms Venne: When the chiefs of Akaitcho territory tabled their document called "Coexistence," we believed that the implementation of the treaty was the way to solve these issues in relation to governance. We looked at all the other models that have been attempted, not only in Canada but also in Alaska and other areas of the United States, as well as in Australia, New Zealand, Greenland, Samiland, and so on. We looked at a lot of different models and asked what would work for the people in the territory. It went back to the treaty. The treaty was the basis of the relationship between the Akaitcho peoples and the Crown.
In that treaty, the relationship was to be based on coexistence and mutual decision making in relation to the territory. That is how the government's model should work.
That was the only logical conclusion we could come to. When we put the proposal together and submitted it some years ago, we were hoping that we could go ahead and start actually implementing that model that we had put forward. Last year, when the minister tabled "Gathering Strength," we saw that the minister talked about mutual understanding, shared respect and mutual decision making, which is basically what we were talking about in "Coexistence." We were hopeful. We thought this was good and that things could move along fairly quickly. However, in implementing self-government or governance models in this country, the biggest hang-up with the models is not the actual development of models, because indigenous peoples have been quite creative in trying to find ways to solve these issues. The difficulty arises in how you implement those models. All the good words do not get the implementation process in place. That is where we are hung up right now, namely, trying to implement something. We have something developed, we have had it developed for some time, it has been here for almost 100 years, but we cannot make it work because there seems to be a lack of political will to make it happen.
Talking about negotiations is very important for us. No matter what kind of product you have at the end of the day, if there is no political will to make it operate, it will not operate. Every time we try to move forward, we come up with a policy that has been determined somewhere else where we were not involved in the discussion. We keep running into this. However, if we were actually able to sit down at the table and talk about how we would implement the coexistence model, and how it would actually operate, then I think we would be way down the track.
The problem that we are having right now is that we are 95 per cent finished with the framework. What are we hung up on? We are hung up on the process.
The Chairman: You said 95 per cent finished?
Ms Venne: Yes. We are 95 per cent finished in respect of the framework, and have been for four months, but we cannot get the last 5 per cent because we are hung up on process, on policies of the federal government. Even though the minister said a year ago that everything was on the table, that everything was flexible, that is not the reality. The reality of what is happening at the table is totally different from what the minister said it would be. We have been spending a lot of our resources trying to get this moving, but it is not moving. I think there is a lack of political will on the part of people who do not want to see an innovative process in place. I am sorry to say that, but that is what it looks like to us.
The Chairman: I wish to follow up on the point raised by Senator Andreychuk.
You mentioned that 95 per cent of the work has already been done, that 5 per cent of the work still needs to be acknowledged, and that this is where the hang up lies. What is the substance that represents 5 per cent? Could you elaborate on what that is, aside from procedural problems?
Ms Venne: The big hang-up right now is the role of the territorial council at the negotiating table. We feel that we have a treaty with the British Crown. Canada is a successor state. We have issues with which we must deal with Canada as a successor state. Those issues must be ironed out in relation to lands and resources.
Consider, for example, the permitting that is going on right now in Akaitcho territory. The Government of Canada is issuing permits for companies to explore and exploit resources in Akaitcho territory. Under what legal mechanism are they operating? The Paulette case, which went to in the Supreme Court of Canada, said that Dene treaties were not land surrender treaties, they were peace and friendship treaties. The Supreme Court directed the state of Canada in the 1970s to negotiate with Dene on issues dealing with lands and resources. This issue is still not settled, and yet Canada continues to license in our territory.
In addition, they try to dictate the terms on which we will sit at the table. They are now saying that, in relation to negotiations, we must have the territorial council sitting at the table talking about our treaties. That is not acceptable to us because the Dene did not enter into and negotiate treaties with the territorial council. Actually, the body did not exist at the time. The territorial council is a creature of Parliament. It is a piece of legislation for which the Minister of Indian Affairs is responsible. Putting the territorial council at the table is adding another layer to the negotiations.
They say, for example, that there are third party interests in Akaitcho territory. For us, there are no third party interests in Akaitcho territory. It is the Dene and the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada represents those people who are not third party. They are the ones who have Canada to represent them as we represent Dene peoples. They are always adding to the process.
For years we had to fight the issue of extinguishment. We fought that, and extinguishment is not now a goal of the framework agreement. It took us six years to negoatiate that part. That is, six years on one item. The federal government was pushing it on us.
Now we have the territorial council being thrown in our laps and we are being told: "They must be an equal party at the table with you as treaty peoples." Treaty peoples who are sitting at the table are being told that the territorial council is at the same level as them. It is inconsistent with what the minister said in "Gathering Strength," which was that treaties form the basis of a relationship. Let us build on it. They are not building on it. They are negating from that. That is the 5 per cent hang up.
The Chairman: Why do you not suspend the negotiations and use a legal instrument to put a freeze on the land, then? That would stop any development until a subsequent agreement is reached. Have you exhausted that idea?
Ms Venne: One of the problems with that is that the federal government passed legislation which does not allow us to put caveats on our own land because it is not "patented" land. I suppose we could go to court again. We did go when the Paulette case went to the Supreme Court of Canada and stated that these were peace and friendship treaties. Mr. Justice Morrow listened to the elders up and down the Mackenzie, heard that these were not land surrender treaties, and came to the conclusion, from listening to the elders, these were peace and friendship treaties that had to be been negotiated on land and resources. That was the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. We could go through the whole Paulette case again, but the elders that were available in 1972 and 1973 who testified before Mr. Justice Morrow are no longer with us and cannot testify again.
Why should the Akaitcho peoples go through the whole process of court again? Look at what happened with Delgamuukw. How many millions of dollars did the Gwich'in people spend to go to the Supreme Court of Canada only to be told to go back to the negotiating table? I am sure that is where we would end up too.
We have other options. We could file a complaint with the United Nations saying that Canada is violating our rights and have Canada censored by the human rights commission or something. That is an option. We could do a lot of things, but we have always been at the table suggesting that we talk this through. We are actually living the treaty of peace and friendship. We are saying we want to be peaceful and friendly. The other side is saying, "No, we do not want to be peaceful and friendly with you; we want to be aggressive and mean."
The Chairman: That is how it may end up.
Senator Gill: This 5 per cent is unresolved. Are there some Dene members, who were elected by the Dene people, on the territorial council?
Ms Venne: Yes, there are. Jim Antoine, who is now the premier of the territorial council, is also the minister in charge of aboriginal government. We have met with him on a number of occasions and at one point in 1996 a letter was written to the Akaitcho chiefs stating that, in the framework agreement, they would like to see a paragraph that would reflect the future role of the territorial council in relation to Akaitcho. When we tried to insert a paragraph into the framework agreement, we ran into trouble, not with the minister himself but with bureaucrats in his department and with the federal negotiator who said that, if they were in, we were out. That was another "take it or leave it" ultimatum.
Senator Gill: I presume that this territorial council is a creation of the government. I imagine it is not a Dene creation.
Ms Venne: The territorial council is a creature of the federal Parliament. The Northwest Territories Act sets out the jurisdiction and the responsibilities of the territorial council.
It is called the territorial council. It is not called the Government of the Northwest Territories in the legislation. Under the federal legislation, no such creature exists. It is the territorial council. The Minister of Indian Affairs is directly responsible to Parliament for the operation of the territorial council. The funding of the territorial council comes from the federal government. In actual fact, the Department of Indian Affairs is trying to create another warm body at the table. That is like creating a "ménage à trois" when there is no "ménage à trois" at all. That is the difficulty we are having.
Senator Whelan: The delegation should know that I am not a member of this committee. I am just a citizen of Canada who is interested in what is happening.
Ms Venne: Yes. Did you say that you were offered $20 million, and it is estimated that there will be billions of dollars in 10 years?
Senator Whelan: This is your territory, and the federal government is issuing permits to these people to mine without discussing anything with you.
Mr. Balsillie: Yes.
Senator Whelan: Is the federal government getting royalties from this? If they are, what is their share? What are they doing with these royalties? Are they investing the money for you?
The Chairman: No. They do not exist.
Mr. Sangris: No. In our assembly I said, "If you do not deal with us fairly, I will block your road." This is my territory.
The next thing you know, the minister said, "First Nations and developers, you have 60 days to make a deal." That is how fast we made a deal for the development. Why can they not do the same thing with the land claims issue? It is as simple as that. We are ready. Some bureaucrats have a certain mentality, though. The government of the past is still there, and they cannot get by it.
We made a deal with the developer to give us $1 million a year and we gave him a licence. Now we have jobs, training and employment. That is all we have. According to their statement, over the next 20 years they will make $6 billion.
Senator Whelan: You have no mineral rights.
Mr. Sangris: No, nothing.
Senator Whelan: A farmer friend of mine in Essex county has an oil well as good as any in Alberta. The mineral rights are $35,000 a month on his farm. He said, "I am 65 years old, and why did this not happen when I was 35?"
What does the federal government get from these mineral rights?
Mr. Sangris: The federal government will probably get 14 per cent.
Our minister in the Northwest Territories, the Minister of Finance, says the federal government will get 14 per cent and they will get 5 per cent. What do the landowners get? Zip apart from some jobs and maybe some training. We have to share the $1 million we made in that deal with three or four communities. Those things happen in the north.
Senator Whelan: I know a bit about mining. We have large, open-pit mines where I live. They have been there since the late 1800s. They mined limestone for the locks at Sault Ste. Marie and the locks at Welland Canal. At one time 400 people worked there. That was Indian territory. I was chairman of a gold mine up near Timmins, so I know a bit about mining and royalties.
You talk about 5 per cent, but no one can make a decision.
Mr. Balsillie: I wish to put things into perspective here.
Under the impact benefit agreement we will receive a cash sum of money annually, but I would suggest that you take a look at what we had to borrow from the government to negotiate our arrangements to date. The benefits we receive from the mining industry will go to pay off some of our debt, but we will still be in the hole because of the interest charges. We will end up with zip. We will end up owing the Government of Canada millions of dollars of interest. How will we pay this back when the developers have taken all the resources? There is nothing left to negotiate. What will they take from us next?
Senator Whelan: If I understand correctly, you end up with nothing.
Mr. Balsillie: We are taking loans to negotiate these arrangements.
Senator Whelan: These people will make horrendous profits. We are talking about billions of dollars.
I read in the paper this week that a group of native people in Alberta is suing the Alberta government for not giving them their proper mineral rights.
Senator Gill: You will have to borrow from the Bank of Montreal to pay your debt.
Senator Whelan: My colleague brought up the Bank of Montreal. What do you have to do with the Bank of Montreal? Are they funding you or helping you at all?
Mr. Balsillie: I will give you an example. The largest open pit mine in the world existed next door to where I grew up and I continue to live. The Japanese got their ore and the Crown got their royalties. The Newfies got their jobs and Cominco got the profits. We got the shaft. That happens to us with every project we get into.
Senator Whelan: Mr. Chairman, you have a big job on this committee.
The Chairman: That is one of the reasons we want you to become a permanent participant on this committee.
Senator Whelan: I worked in an open pit mine as a kid. We mined limestone in a quarry, and the crusher was the coldest place on earth. I know a bit about mining and royalties through both the oil industry and the gold industry. I cannot believe what I am hearing -- that is, if it is accurate.
Senator Mahovlich also comes from a mining area, and I am sure any senator from the far north will be on your side. I come from the deep south. I cannot go any farther south, or I would be an American.
The Chairman: Senator, are you finished with your question?
Senator Whelan: Yes.
The Chairman: Senator Whelan was a minister at one time, so if he does not understand what is happening, there may be other former ministers who do not know what is going on.
Senator Whelan: The Chairman is saying what I am thinking.
I was minister for 11 years. The Conservatives did a survey. A man from Edmonton who is now a Liberal cabinet minister alongside me.
He said, "We did a survey on the ministers under Mr. Trudeau." I said, "You mean you have detectives checking up on us?" He said, "I wouldn't go that far, but you are the only one who runs his department." I thought, "My God, what are the other ones doing?"
The Chairman: Before we conclude our meeting, you indicated that you wish to table some documents before we adjourn. We should table those officially so that they will be on the record. The first study called the "Study on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous populations." The second is called "In the Spirit and Intent of Treaty 8 Coexistence in Akaitcho Territory."
I am quite familiar with your territory. I went to school at Sir John Franklin School and I lived in Akaitcho. That was a long time ago.
Ms Venne: The coexistence document is the one that we gave to Minister Irwin some time ago. It deals with how we wish to see governance issues resolved in Akaitcho territory. The other one relates to the United Nations study on treaty agreements and other constructive arrangements. The raporteur on that study met with the Dene chiefs last February. The United Nations representative is quite aware of what has been going on in relation to treaty implementation. He looked at the coexistence document and used part of it in the final report.
We wish to table both documents because we are trying to resolve this issue within Canada and these are international agreements between two distinct parties. We also wanted the United Nations to look at them.
We are tabling these documents here because the issue of treaty implementation and treaty violations in relation to governance and how governance issues will be resolved in treaty areas has been looked at by the raporteur. He makes some recommendation that might be of interest to this committee.
We did hear from the raporteur when he was in Canada in late November when Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner for Human Rights was also in Canada. He made a presentation to the chiefs about the final report and how he saw the process within the United Nations being affected.
We wanted to table those two documents as background information that the senators can review.
Senator Whelan: Do you know the Beaver Lake Band?
Ms Venne: Yes.
Senator Whelan: About 15 years ago that band made me an honorary member. They never made me a chief, though.
The Chairman: To wrap up the presentation, I do not want you to leave without thanking you for the information you have brought forward. I have indicated that there are potential legal avenues that you might wish to revisit. Although it is not really my place to say it, having heard what you have gone through and the problems that you are encountering, the only way that I believe you can overcome those obstacles is through legal avenues. If negotiations do not work, then you must go back to the legal avenues. I do not see how you can move ahead in trying to negotiate on the basis of "peace and friendship." I am not saying that you should proceed in an obstructive way. Sometimes legal avenues can help. I know it costs money, but it will probably pay off in the end.
I must mention that we have a former judge around the table, Senator Andreychuk, so I must be careful when I talk about legalities.
The Aboriginal Committee is a special committee. Our mandate provides for a round-table discussion on governance. In other words, we will consider many issues that are presented to us and decide what will be helpful to us as a committee when we finish our study.
We have about one year left in our mandate. We will then have in-depth discussions with aboriginal leaders. We invite you to be a participant in those discussions.
You may want to examine certain issues that you have put aside while dealing with the land claim negotiations. I understand that you want the negotiations, whether to do with land claims, self-government, a coexisting concept, or co-management, to be based on the treaty. We heard the same remarks from various presenters this morning.
We appreciate the fact that you have outlined your problems. You have identified problems within the system and you have told us that the system is not working. We will do what we can to help, however, we are not able to override a minister an issue is a minister's responsibility. There is one former minister present in this room who can tell you that. I sometimes wish he could go back to being a minister and help us from the other side.
Thank you very much for your presentation.
Our next witness this evening is Mr. Ron Jamieson, senior vice-president of the Bank of Montreal.
Mr. Ron Jamieson, Senior Vice-President, Bank Montreal: Let me begin by saying that it is a pleasure to appear before you today. I wish to commend you, Mr. Chairman and the members of your committee who support the work on aboriginal peoples in undertaking this special study on aboriginal self-government. I hope that by appearing here today I may be able to help with the process and contribute to any changes that will help future generations fulfil their goals and aspirations.
As many of you may be aware, I am honoured to have been chosen to chair the Royal Commission on Economic Matters affecting aboriginal people in Canada. Having made that statement, however, I must say that I do not believe that Bank of Montreal or, indeed, any bank, can or should comment on possible self-government structures that could best suit and serve the needs of aboriginal peoples in Canada.
Instead, I am prepared to provide this committee with an update on the progress we have made at Bank of Montreal in supporting aboriginal communities as they seek to achieve ever greater levels of self-sufficiency. I hope you will agree with me that while these two subjects may appear distinct, they are, in reality, very closely related. Meaningful, effective self-government must go hand in hand with economic self-reliance. I believe, therefore, that the bank's perspective on aboriginal economic development should be of interest to this committee.
Following these brief comments, and with your permission, I will make some personal observations on the recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
Our bank established its aboriginal banking program in 1992. Until that time, there had been very little in the way of such services provided by any major Canadian financial institution. In 1992, the Bank of Montreal was the first to realize that it simply was not good business to ignore a market of more than 1.2 million people in Canada, fully 4 per cent. Because we did not have any real experience in serving such a unique market segment, we knew that there would be many challenges along the way.
We also knew that if we worked long and hard enough we could overcome those challenges and establish ourselves as a leader in our field; the pre-eminent provider of financial services to aboriginal peoples in Canada.
Today, seven years after we began, the Bank of Montreal operates 16 aboriginal banking centres across Canada, including several in some of the most remote communities in the country.
From Nain, Labrador, to Wemindji, Quebec, on the eastern shores of James Bay, to Inuvik in the Northwest Territories, we have set up modern banking facilities for people who have never had access to them before. Earlier this year, in cooperation with our alliance partner, Canada Post, we announced a plan to expand our service to remote and aboriginal communities even further. Under that plan, 20 additional remote communities in northern British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories will gain access to banking services for the first time ever.
Just a few days ago, on January 13, Bank of Montreal was pleased to announce an alliance with Canada Post to deliver financial services in Moose Factory, Ontario. With the cooperation of Canada Post, it is our intention to continue to develop even more new locations in northern communities.
Let me just break away from my notes for a minute and let you know that even as we speak we are announcing the establishment of yet another branch location in the community of Deline -- Fort Franklin, for those who are not familiar with the traditional names.
Let me cite just a couple of examples that illustrate the positive impact our program has had on the lives of our aboriginal customers. Before Bank of Montreal set up shop in Nain, Labrador, it would take more than a week for residents to make simple deposits or withdrawals. They conducted their transactions through financial institutions based in Goose Bay, hundreds of miles away. Today they can open accounts, make deposits, withdrawals, transfers, and bill payments in their own home town. They can also receive retirement investment advice and personal service in either English or Inuktitut.
In 1997, we announced an agreement with the Garden River First Nation in Northern Ontario to provide the members of that community with up to $2 million for housing loans. The housing-loan program is unique in that it provides housing loans for members of the First Nation without the involvement of the federal government or Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
This unique housing-loan program also served as a powerful enabler for home ownership among First Nations peoples. Prior to this initiative, mortgage loans were impossible to negotiate without collateral. After signing the agreement, Garden River Chief Dennis Jones offered this perspective:
This initiative is a key to accelerate our housing development. It is the creation of an opportunity to become a self-reliant and self-supporting First Nation.
Bank of Montreal is proud of our leadership role in aboriginal banking and of our ability to help aboriginal peoples manage their financial affairs. We are also proud of the expanded coverage we will soon be providing -- coverage that no other Canadian financial institution even approaches.
However, effectively serving such a unique market segment is not as simple as opening a branch in the community. If you simply set up a branch on a reserve or within an aboriginal community, it does not necessarily follow that the residents will rush through the front door. The clientele we are serving have special needs and they require a customized approach and the development of specialized products. To effectively meet those needs, our aboriginal banking team needed to know more about these remote communities and their specific needs for specific types of financial services. Quite frankly, we had to establish a greater degree of trust for financial institutions than had ever existed before.
In both cases, we had a bit of a head start. Our original Bank of Montreal team included more than 100 employees who are aboriginal people. We now employ almost 500 throughout our organization, including in senior management positions. This is a number of which I am very proud.
As many of you are aware, I am a Mohawk of the Six Nations of the Grand River Nation. I make my home on the reserve at Ohsweken, near Brantford, Ontario. I am also currently the chairman of the executive committee and national co-chairman of the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business.
We believe that right from the beginning our team had the right credentials and the knowledge to communicate effectively with members of the aboriginal communities we planned to serve. After extensive consultation with members of these communities, we developed a suite of relevant and appropriate banking products and services. We also designed and conducted a series of financial education courses in many communities. These were aimed at increasing the financial literacy of our new customers and were developed and delivered with full cooperation and valued input from all members in each community.
This consultative, relationship-building approach has enabled Bank of Montreal to develop a growing franchise with aboriginal people and to establish our leadership in this field. Our successful learning of some very important lessons has positioned us for significant future expansion of this line of business. As we continue to grow, we know that our relationship with these clients must always be based on mutual trust and a thorough knowledge of customer needs.
Since 1992, we have made tremendous strides in developing a program that meets the special needs of a special customer segment. I am proud to be able to report that the learning that we achieved through our aboriginal banking program now serves as a model for providing customized service to other segments of the bank's business as well.
In conclusion, I should like to make some brief personal observations on the work of this committee. Over the past years, I have had the opportunity to visit a great number of aboriginal communities, in fact, more than 300, literally from the West Coast to the East Coast to the North Coast. Overall, my first and deepest impression is the strength and determination of these communities and their ability and willingness to undertake the burdens of self-government. You heard about that from the witnesses who proceeded me.
That said, the economic and social diversity within aboriginal communities in Canada is staggering. The needs and levels of current self-reliance within these communities are truly distinct. No one model or structural relationship can hope to satisfy these diverse requirements. Therefore, in my view, success will require both provincial and federal governments to show flexibility in their relationships with aboriginal people. This can only be accomplished through open communication between government officials and community members while preserving and strengthening governance and accountability in aboriginal communities.
In January 1998, the federal government released its document entitled "Gathering Strength," a response to the RCAP report. A few months later, Indian and Northern Affairs officially announced the establishment of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. This was a very important milestone in building a stronger relationship between the federal government and the First Nations, but it is only a first step on a long journey.
In conjunction with the discussion of self-determination issues, the government must commit to support funding in the areas of economic development and education, particularly for post-secondary education requirements. In this way, the government will assist the building of self-sufficient communities with the expertise to cope with the many challenges that these communities will face in the future.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I understand that there is a possibility that members of this committee may travel to various parts of the country. If you visit communities where we have branches, I invite you to visit those branches, where you will meet the aboriginal people running the branches, hear them speaking their traditional languages as well as English, and see our forms printed in Cree and English, Inuktitut and English, et cetera.
I would welcome any member of this committee at any time. Simply call me and it will be arranged.
We have packages of additional information that was not previously provided. The statement I just read was provided in advance in both English and French. The documents that will be distributed to you are not in French, I am sorry to say, but there is additional information that I would like you all to receive.
I would be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Jamieson.
Senator Adams: I enjoyed your presentation very much. I remember that in 1970, I approached some of the banks to open a bank in Rankin Inlet. The CIBC said that the people there had no money to deposit in banks. However, we set up a bank in an old school in Rankin Inlet in about 1970. Now we have two banks, the CIBC and the Royal Bank.
I have a small business right across from the Royal Bank and I see people going to the bank 24 hours a day. Things have changed a lot in the last few years.
You spoke about home ownership.
I know it is difficult and it is not like down south. You live in the community. I know a little from talking to bank managers. In the territories, some people have never owned their own property; they lease it for 20 years at a time. My own lease expired about two years ago and they have not yet given me a new one. I have been living on the land without yet renewing the lease.
You mentioned home ownership. They call it "home access" now, which is a little different from home ownership. At one time, mortgages were only for five-year terms and the lenders or banks would only put in about 25 per cent. The remainder would be guaranteed by the Government of Canada.
Today, the policy has changed again. Now it can go up to 15 or 20 years, depending on the kind of house you buy.
I do not know how they are able to set it up better, but things are very bad for the people who need housing. How can people guarantee they can pay back the money? Meanwhile, CMHC only allows so many units per year in the communities. You know yourself from travelling in the territories that rates can be two or three times higher for the population of the North.
A couple of years ago, CIBC was going to spend about $200 million on small business. That never came to exist in the territory. Perhaps it exists in the south.
You were talking about dealing with some native peoples and setting up some banks. I know that the banks have made big profits. Does it sometimes happen when you talk to the Government of Canada that you offer, instead of giving it to them, to spend that money in the community? Does the system work that way for the banks?
Mr. Jamieson: You have made a couple of good points, senator. First, we do work with the government-supported mortgages also. These typically have a social orientation. Houses are very expensive in the North, as you correctly point out. The maintenance and heating of houses is very expensive. Many people do not qualify. In cases like that, some level of government support is needed.
Our program as described relies not at all on the Department of Indian Affairs, nor on the federal government, nor on Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but it is only designed for those people who can qualify. Previous to the development of this program, people who lived on a reserve might make $100,000 per year but would still never qualify for a mortgage from a bank. This is the change that we have been able to innovate. It has taken us a couple of years.
CMHC or government-supported housing -- social housing, as I prefer to call it -- will never go away. I do not see how it can. It does not go away in downtown Toronto, so I do not know how it will go away in Rankin Inlet or elsewhere.
Senator Adams: Why are you people more successful in hiring local people than the government?
Mr. Jamieson: We have made a very concerted effort to bring in and to train and enhance the skills of aboriginal people. The people whom we have successfully kept are there because they see a future. I wonder, on the other side, if they see that in terms of working for the government. That would be an issue for me.
We lose people when they go back to the communities. Sometimes we spend two or three years in training and development with an aboriginal person who has promise, and then they go back to their community. We know firsthand that these people are desperately needed in their communities. Obviously, we would like to keep a good employee, but we do not count that as a loss. We have treated the person well and we have helped them to improve their skills. They are desperately needed in their community, and if they go back there with a good message about the Bank of Montreal, how will that hurt us? We know their skills in accounting and finance are desperately needed in most aboriginal communities in Canada.
Senator Adams: They are an asset, especially for elders who do not understand the banking system. It is nice to have someone there who understands and who speaks the traditional language. The government was supposed to do the same thing but they demand a grade 12 education and, without it, there are no jobs.
Senator Pearson: I will follow on the same line of questioning because I am interested in post-secondary education. You emphasized education and the need for those kinds of skills. You have an extensive background here. Are there increasing numbers of aboriginals taking courses in business management and accounting?
Mr. Jamieson: I am happy you asked that question because it gives me an opportunity to talk about several things.
I said that the federal government should support these things, but I do not want to give the impression that we are not doing something about it ourselves. We have our own in-house institution, which is called the Institute for Learning, in Scarborough, where we do a lot of extensive training.
In addition, we support all of the aboriginal programs at the Banff Centre for Management. We support the University of Regina, the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College. We have a broad range of scholarship/bursary opportunities through a variety of organizations, including the Foundation for the Advancement of Aboriginal Youth, which was set up by the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business.
There is a whole host of things. Certainly from my travels I understand that skills are required in order to deliver self-government, higher levels of self-reliance, more autonomy and self-control over our communities. We must start immediately. We should have started earlier than now but it is not too late.
I believe the government should be putting much more emphasis in this area but private-sector involvement should be very much in force.
Senator Pearson: Has it been paying off for the bank?
Mr. Jamieson: Yes, very much so. We looked at it differently. In 1992, I told the Bank of Montreal senior executives that we had to look at this as an investment. As I said in my remarks, you do not put a branch on a reserve or in Pangnirtung or Deline to get rich. There is not a lot of economic activity there. So you will not make a fortune as you would, say, with a branch across the street from here. People are trying to enhance their own understanding of these issues.
You have to look at it from an investment point of view. You open the branch and work with the community. You try to get them involved. You support economic initiatives that make sense and then you will receive a return on your investment, but it might take longer than what you are used to.
The senior executives bought that premise, and I would tell you that they are very happy with our progress. We are not quite there yet, but we are only seven years old. The Bank of Montreal is over 180 years old. I probably will not be running this section when it is 180 years old, but you never know how it will grow.
Senator Pearson: That is goods news that people should know. I am glad that you came to tell us about it.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: First of all, I want to congratulate you on the work you have been doing -- we have known each other for several years now -- and for the energy and efforts you put into your job with the Bank of Montreal.
It is always possible for institutions to do better, but this depends to some extent on the individuals who work for these institutions. In my view, you are someone who has helped to change the attitude of the Bank of Montreal and of bankers in general. I think it is time now to do something for aboriginal communities.
The issue here is aboriginal self-government. This is extremely difficult for aboriginals to achieve if, at the same time, they cannot achieve economic self-sufficiency.
Until now, other financial institutions have relied a great deal on governments. When they were prepared to issue guarantees, financial institutions and others involved in the financial sector would agree to intervene.
The situation has changed dramatically today and some banks, notably the Bank of Montreal, as you mentioned, are recognizing the potential of aboriginal communities, and even the need to invest in these communities and businesses because of the benefits they stand to derive.
One must not forget that aboriginal peoples represent a not insignificant percentage of the country's population and that negotiations involving claims to natural resources are ongoing. There are many areas that could eventually prove to be of some interest to banks.
Admittedly, it cannot be said that many aboriginal businesses are flourishing. Some which prospered for a time went bankrupt or simply continue to struggle along. Not many businesses manage to compete with non-aboriginal businesses.
I often wonder if the reason for this is that we are not cut out to be businessmen. Or is it that we lack the necessary financial resources? I would prefer to believe the latter was true.
It is my impression, and I would welcome your comments on this, that we still have quite a ways to go to establish our credibility with financial institutions as aboriginal entrepreneurs.
I feel we lack this credibility because banks and financial institutions seem willing to make loans for "ongoing business," but not for development purposes. Based on my experience, business people have more difficulty obtaining loans for long-term project development.
They manage to secure loans for the day-to-day running of the company and so forth. However, if we want to be in a position to compete eventually with non-aboriginals, not only must our businesses be managed properly, we also need to invest in long-term business initiatives. If we lack credibility, loans will not be forthcoming. This is a major problem that aboriginals face.
[English]
Mr. Jamieson: You raise several important issues, senator. Thank you very much for what you have said.
The first issue is experience. You must understand that aboriginal people in this country have only had -- and I say "only" because this is a real number -- 500 years of preparing to compete with the European business mentality.
I wish the reporters would not take down this next comment, but a fellow said to me, "Why everywhere I go do I see Indians drunk on the street?" We know that not to be true but this was his comment. I said, "We have only had 500 years of experience with alcohol. You have had many hundreds of years, so you are just used to it, that is all. We are not quite used to it yet."
The lack of experience generally is a problem, but you raise some other very good points.
First, the requirement for government guarantees will never ever go away. If you just consider mainstream business, and look within Industry Canada's small business loans program, you will see the level of small business loan assistance that has been provided, not to aboriginal people but to mainstream business. Those are really forms of guarantee. Those will never go away. They are designed to support and assist business expansion. We think they are a good idea. They do not provide us, as many people believe, with 100 per cent insulation against loan losses. Some level of government guarantee will always be required.
The government, the Department of Indian Affairs and other agencies such as Aboriginal Business Canada, could strengthen or support more heavily their guarantee program, not to 100 per cent, though, in case someone is misunderstanding me, but for deals that are remote, high-risk, developmental. No bank will take the full risk on loans like that, whether they are aboriginal or not. Those government-support programs should be strengthened and enhanced if you want to do something about the problem. That is the first comment I would make.
My second comment is directed at our own people. I see business opportunities that come to me directly that are too large in scale, given the management expertise that exists within that business. If a business comes to us with a good opportunity that requires $100 million, we always try to encourage it by telling them that it could, in fact, be a real opportunity but we suggest they start with a $10 million opportunity and build it into a $100 million opportunity as opposed to doing the reverse of that.
There is a fair amount of counselling, Senator Gill, if I could use that term, that goes on. It takes a bit more, time but where we have been able to sit down with entrepreneurs and community leadership, it is working. However, you have to watch it closely. It is gradual. It will take some time, but we will get it there.
I believe -- and you might remember, Senator Gill, since you may be one or two years older than I -- that there has been a big improvement in the last 25 or 30 years. On my reserve, the difference is night and day. I am trying to look to the future a bit and look forward to continued improvement. We need the cooperation of the private sector, the banks, and we need the continued cooperation of the Government of Canada and the provincial governments to make that happen.
Senator Mahovlich: I want to make a comment, Mr. Jamieson. You have 500 aboriginals involved in your program. Does every bank have that number?
Mr. Jamieson: In fairness, all banks do have an aboriginal program. We just happened to be first off the mark in 1992.
Senator Mahovlich: Since I have been here, I have heard a lot of negativity about the Indians. I have been up to Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec, and we talked to many Indians and heard their complaints. You are very positive with your training. It is very generous to train a person, although you expect them to leave in two years. Do you find it more difficult to train an aboriginal person than, say, a European person?
Mr. Jamieson: The answer is "no."
Senator Mahovlich: There is no difference?
Mr. Jamieson: No. As you would say with anyone: If you are going to go into an accounting program, what are your math skills? If you take an aboriginal person with no math skills and a non-aboriginal person with no math skills, there is no difference. To expect a person without any basic skills to go into a profession that would be considered to be quite difficult would be hard for anyone.
Senator Mahovlich: You mention that to solve these problems with which we are presented you would need all the governments involved -- that is, provincial, community and territorial. The Cree, for example, are spread throughout Northern Ontario, is that correct?
Mr. Jamieson: Even further than that.
Senator Mahovlich: I think the only way to solve this is through the federal government. As soon as one province gives more to a certain band, they will expect the same in the other province.
Mr. Jamieson: Let me clarify that. Tribal councils, which have existed since before provinces were formed, do a good job of bringing together like-minded groups that may span three provinces yet they are part of a treaty group or tribal council. As you go forward in the work that you must do, I believe that that will be at least part of the solution. These people who are crossing boundaries all speak Cree or other languages. There is a similarity to them where a model of a structured government could take place.
The chairman and the members of the committee have my admiration for taking on this task. I have been there and done that. This is a tough job. I want to see the chairman's hair next year because he said that mine was getting a little grey.
Senator Johnson: Mr. Jamieson, we have talked a lot about aboriginal banking services in communities and on reserve. I come from the province of Manitoba, where we have another kind of issue, that is, our urban aboriginals, and more so than a lot of other places.
Could you tell us a bit about your relationship with the aboriginal peoples in the city -- that is, the urban aboriginals. Are you having them come to your banking institutions in the traditional sense?
Mr. Jamieson: Because of the large population of aboriginal people in downtown Toronto -- that is, 635,000 in downtown Toronto -- we considered an urban branch located downtown as a pilot project to try to meet the needs of aboriginal people in the urban area. We felt, however, that it was much more effective to work with organizations. We have quite a good relationship with the Canadian Native Centre of Toronto and a number of other agency-type groups, where we are trying to extend a hand on the training side. The bursaries and the other instruments that I mentioned earlier to support ongoing education are available to urban groups as well.
Senator Johnson: Are they accessing these programs?
Mr. Jamieson: Yes. It is a question of outreach in the communities. It is also a question of identity.
Senator Johnson: It must be more difficult, too.
Mr. Jamieson: It is, because of the identity. If you go to a reserve, you are assured that the person you are talking to is a status Indian because he or she is living on the reserve. However, that is not so in the urban community. You have Métis, Inuit, Innu and First Nations people. You have the full spectrum. In many ways, it is difficult. In those cases where it is difficult to set up infrastructure to service them, it might be the best avenue to support agencies that already have a recognition of those communities.
Senator Johnson: That gives you the comfort zone you need, does it?
Mr. Jamieson: Yes.
Senator Adams: I have one more question.
I deal a lot with what is called economic development, where the territorial government gives grants and loans to people in the communities. I think that those transactions should be done through the banks that are located in the communities. Often, bureaucrats in the community allow politics to influence who gets a loan or a grant. Sometimes you have to be a friend of a politician before you can get one of these loans. I think that whole process should be privatized. What do you think about that?
Mr. Jamieson: I mentioned earlier that we were announcing today that we were going into Deline in the Northwest Territories. That particular outlet is not an alliance with Canada Post but an alliance with the community itself. The community itself -- that is, its own membership -- will pick who will run their bank. It will not be "their bank" in that it will say Bank of Montreal, but they will be benefiting directly from it, from the point of view of space rental and training. We pay a transaction fee for every transaction that they do, et cetera. We are trying to put more of that wherewithal and dollars and skill back into the hands of the community members as opposed to sending it to Toronto, Montreal, or wherever.
There is some merit in doing that. It is fairly early still. We probably will not know the full reality of Nain, Labrador, Moose Factory and Deline for 10 years, but that is the kind of staying power you must have in order to make it happen. You cannot pilot something for six months to a year and say, "Did it work?" It is not long enough.
Senator Johnson: It is all government money that is going into these communities and setting up the banks, is that correct?
Mr. Jamieson: Yes.
Senator Adams: That is what we are saying. Why not taxpayer money and everything. In the meantime, Senator Gill here is a businessmen and he can make extra money or borrow money.
However, what is happening in the community is this: because such and such a politician does not like me and he says, "Do not give him a loan," I do not like him. That is what is taking place happening in the community.
Mr. Jamieson: In every small town in this country, the same thing exists.
Senator Adams: In the bank, too?
Mr. Jamieson: No. The bank makes independent decisions based on credit worthiness, not on friendships. You get the sack if you make it on friendship.
Senator Gill: How do you deal with that? Do you ask for a band council resolution to support a loan of some kind for an individual who would like to start a business or borrow money?
Mr. Jamieson: Only if it is very risky. Let me explain that. Many times, an entrepreneur comes to us with a band council resolution that says: "We strongly support this entrepreneur because he will provide 50 jobs and he or she will do this. It is a benefit to our community. Therefore, Bank of Montreal, go ahead and make him a loan. We support him; he is a good guy. Put your money where your mouth is."
Senator Gill: For those who do not have this support from the band council, you do not give them money.
Mr. Jamieson: No, we often make loans to individuals without band council support. It depends on the financial situation. It depends on the viability of the business opportunity. That is what we look at first.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jamieson, for your presentation. I will go back to the perspective of our responsibility as committee members to try to come up with some constructive solutions to the problems that confront aboriginal peoples and the Government of Canada, and also the provincial governments at times.
As a financial person, would you agree that there is a political uncertainty very much like what is happening in Quebec that might not be necessarily helping the economy of this country and which probably requires attacking in terms of turning it around? Would you agree with that?
Mr. Jamieson: From an aboriginal perspective?
The Chairman: Yes. I will not be asking you other than aboriginal perspective.
Mr. Jamieson: Yes, there is a problem. Businesses are afraid of land claims issues. Therefore, businesses make business decisions. They say, "There is uncertainty there; let us go somewhere where there is not that uncertainty." It is a problem.
The Chairman: If that is the case, it is a business problem; it is a concern of the business sector. The banks do not exist without shareholders. The shareholders dictate what the managers of the bank do, on a broad basis.
Mr. Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I wish I could share with you the number of letters and phone calls I get from ordinary Canadian shareholders who support the work of the aboriginal banking group. There is tremendous strength behind that support. Thinking Canadians know that the status quo must be changed. The relationship that I heard about from the previous presenters and with which I am quite familiar cannot be allowed to carry on. It cannot happen.
The Chairman: Part of our responsibility as committee members to our people, the aboriginal people in this country, and also to the general public of Canada, is to educate them as much as we can on what this whole concept of self-government, governance, coexistence, and co-management is all about.
I know for a fact that you are not the only financial institution that has the same kind of concerns, because the shareholders are the shareholders. They are there to make money. They are not there for anything else. Taking that into consideration, as aboriginal people, if we rely on the management of the financial institutions to help us educate the general public about so-called self-government or coexistence, that will not materialize in any shape or form unless there is a sound economic base.
Mr. Jamieson: That is correct.
The Chairman: Therefore, the managers of the financial institutions will probably need to go back to their shareholders, bosses, superiors, to sound them out, to see how they would feel about educating them in such a way that it is the only expedient way to go to straighten out this economic problem in this country. There must be a meeting that takes place with the shareholders, not only with the financial institutions, to talk about what it is today and where we need to take the matters today in order to rectify what has been happening. We have been hearing over the years, and we have known it for a long time, that the treaties were signed many years ago and have never been implemented. They never even thought of establishing an implementation mechanism. As far as I am concerned, the Department of Indian Affairs should have gone one step further to accommodate the implementation of those treaties.
Taking that into consideration, do you think there is a hope in the aboriginal society to survive economically, politically, socially, culturally, educationally, to move ahead on so-called coexistence?
Mr. Jamieson: I believe that, today, there are in the country perhaps one dozen aboriginal communities that could exist without any problem because they have access to markets and advantages that unfortunately many aboriginal groups do not enjoy.
The answer to your question was in part of my statement, which is that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution.
Senator Mahovlich: It is survival, just like in America. Some are well off, and some are struggling. I do not think there is one answer.
Senator Adams: Is Nunavut going to do okay?
Mr. Jamieson: These are personal observations you are asking me to make. I am not speaking on behalf of the bank when I answer these questions.
Nunavut has a bright future. Its resource industry and the extraction of those resources in an environmentally sensitive way can enhance that part of the country.
The Chairman: In my opinion, it is correct to interpret what is happening in one part of our country, in Nunavut. As long as they talk about public government, there is no threat to the general public of Canada. As long as you are not dealing with the question of jurisdiction, obtaining it as an aboriginal person, there is no problem. When the day comes that the aboriginal people are no longer the majority there, that is when the problem will kick in. That is what we foresee down the road.
Nevertheless, we have a perfect opportunity to utilize what is happening in Nunavut to try to accomplish as much as possible in terms of defining how we might differ from the existing system and how we might closely associate with the existing system. There will be a time through that exercise for definition of certain matters, such as administrative responsibility and jurisdiction, and things of that nature.
At the same time, I believe national concerns will also have some influence on what is happening in that particular territory, even though the majority of the people governing that territory are the Inuit; those concerns are still matters that need to be taken into account. It is a challenge for the aboriginal people in the North to go through that exercise.
I cannot say the same thing for other aboriginal people because they do not have the same opportunity. The are scattered all over the place, and they live on reserves. They occupy a small area of land.
The committee adjourned.