Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 25 - Evidence, April 13, 1999 (morning meeting)
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 13, 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: Honourable senators, our first witnesses this morning are from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. Welcome and please proceed.
Mr. Rod Bushie, Grand Chief, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs: Good morning, honourable senators.
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs wishes to share with you today our response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and, in particular, we wish to discuss the topic of title negotiation and implementing aboriginal self-government. The position we have taken as chiefs in the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs is that, long before the Europeans arrived, we had our own self-government, although it was not set up in the same way as it is today, with the major focus being on the financial resources. Our self-government back then focused on four areas: sharing, loving, respect, and honesty among our tribes.
In our presentation today we will be focusing on the Framework Agreement Initiative signed in 1994. We hope to convince you that the framework agreement is much more than the dismantling of DIAND and other existing government structures that impact on First Nations in Manitoba.
AMC is a political organization representing 62 First Nations. AMC is mandated to address issues common to First Nations, to address the immediate needs of First Nations, and to address the concerns impacting on their day-to-day lives, such as housing, infrastructure, health care, unemployment, education and so on. We are also mandated to promote, preserve and protect inherent aboriginal treaty rights for First Nations people in Manitoba, and to work to strengthen and restore the foundation of our cultural traditions, languages, economies, and societies.
It is important that the renewed relationship between Manitoba First Nations and the federal government -- the Crown -- includes a process that will address both the day-to-day issues plaguing the First Nations communities and the long-term objective of self-government as set out in the framework agreement.
I will give the other leaders here with me an opportunity to focus on the economic initiative and the FAI process.
The royal commission and other commissions that have been set up by the federal government examined issues that I, as a leader, have to address every day in our First Nations organization. We have said many times to the federal and provincial governments that we are sick and tired of being studied by various bodies, including royal commissions. It is time that we take action and utilize the recommendations that are set forth in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report and in the reports made by other commissions. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs is asking both levels of government to act on these recommendations.
The lives of First Nations people of Manitoba are in a state of turmoil. On a daily basis, the 62 First Nations that I represent are digging graves to bury their loved ones. As we focus on economic initiatives, we are also focusing on a circle in an effort to address the backlog in housing. With the structure of the circle, if you address one part, you address many issues facing our First Nations communities. When dealing with the issue of housing, you are also dealing with the education of our young people and the health of our people.
In our political arenas -- that is, in the First Nations legislatures or in the conferences that we hold -- these are the solutions that we are addressing with both the federal and the provincial governments. However, this represents only a small portion of the problem, because our agreement on our treaties is with the federal Crown. That is where our focus has been. I represent five tribes in Manitoba, namely, the Dakotas, the Cree, the Oji-Cree, the Ojibwa and the Dene. These are issues that we face every day of our lives. Let us get on with the recommendations. The federal government has a responsibility to deal with the issues that are facing First Nation communities.
When Europeans first arrived on our land and our territory, the four words that I mentioned earlier is what our government believed in. We believed in, and still believe in, respect, honesty, loving and sharing. These are qualities that we demonstrate every day within our First Nations communities. I am asking this committee to deal with the issues facing my people in our province and territory.
From the bottom of my heart, I wish to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you here today. Before I ask my chiefs to make their presentation, I would address the main issue facing our leadership in Manitoba today, that is, funding.
The public believe that we are getting enough funding. However, every program for First Nations is underfunded. Based on our treaties, the responsibility for this lies with the federal government. I come from the territory which encompasses Treaty 1 to Treaty 10. That is a big responsibility. Other societies criticize us every day, and that is based on the financial resources that we receive. However, a lot is owed to the First Nations communities from the federal Crown.
I wish to thank the committee again for giving us this opportunity to speak to you today. I will now ask my co-chair of the Framework Agreement Initiative to make his presentation.
Mr. Michael Lawrenchuk, Chief, Fox Lake First Nation of Northern Manitoba: I, too, would like to thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people I represent in Manitoba. I am the co-chair of the Framework Agreement Initiative. As I told Senator Watt, I have only been a chief for one year. I take on this heavy responsibility as best I can.
With regard to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, RCAP, it is good to see that the Government of Canada has finally recognized that there is something fundamentally wrong with the relationship between the First Nations and the Government of Canada. That is something we have been saying for 100 years. The proof lies in the living conditions of the First Nations people and how, every day, our people are faced with poverty, deplorable living conditions and deaths. All of this stems from Canada's policy of confinement for First Nations people. It is a policy of confinement and imprisonment. Reserves are prisons from which native peoples are not allowed to wander. The chiefs and councillors are wardens. We do the best we can with the limited funding we have to ensure that our people stay alive as long as they can. However, we are failing miserably. I think we are the only leaders in this country who can chart out the life of our members from the day they are born and predict that: "On such a such and such a day after they are born they will start to encounter problems, and by the time they reach a certain age, they will probably commit suicide." These are things that our leaders see every single day when we go home. There is something fundamentally wrong with the process.
Minister Stewart spoke with us last week and talked about creative ways in which we can deal with our problems. Apart from creatively spending a big pile of money, there is no way of doing it. We need a big pile of money to redress 100 years of inadequate funding. We need thousands of homes just to catch up. We need the boundaries of our reserves expanded so that we can enjoy the resources that we once enjoyed which allowed us to be self-governing and self-sustaining.
We also need to look at the fundamental relationship between the First Nations which are entering treaties and the federal government. When we entered treaties, we did so with the thought that we would always be able to access our resources in order to stay alive. That definition has always been wide open for us but extremely limited for Canada. Canada has always said to us, "Your treaty rights deal with trapping, hunting and fishing." Back then, that was how we stayed alive. Today, we need that expanded to include forestry, mining, and other ways to use our own resources. Neither the provincial government nor the federal government will allow us to step over our reserve boundaries. That must be loosened up.
Back home, we think the answer to doing business in a new way can be found in the Framework Agreement Initiative. This initiative was started in 1994 by my predecessor and our Grand Chief's predecessor, our national chief, Mr. Phil Fontaine. It has three basic principles or objectives which are: to restore first governments' jurisdictions; to develop and recognize First Nations governments in Manitoba legally empowered to exercise the authority required to meet the needs of the First Nations people; and to dismantle the department.
For the last number of years, we have been working on community consultation. In the wisdom of our predecessors, it was decided that the way to set up a government was to truly start from the ground up, and I do not mean simply in principle. It is my understanding that western governments are based on democratic principles, our country's government included along with that of the country to the south of us where they say, "We the people...for the people." However, that is not really true there nor is it true in Canada. Governments are formed by the elite, by the rich, so we should not be surprised that the rich get richer.
First Nations, through the FAI, are empowered to form a government from the ground up. Thus far, it has cost $27 million. The federal government has been under a lot of pressure to make sense of this $27 million which was spent but, to my mind, there is no better way to spend $27 million than on building the foundation of a new government. When this process is done, in all honesty, we will be able to say we have a government by the people for the people. I am sure when we are done with our model of government, it will be adopted, much as the Mohawks' government model was adopted many years ago.
This will be a 10-year process. We just finished a three-year review in our fourth and fifth year. We just concluded a framework agreement initiative assembly with all the chiefs of Manitoba. We overwhelmingly support the process as set out in the framework agreement initiative so that we can get back to the table with Canada and demand a serious commitment by Canada as outlined by the RCAP. Hopefully, the honourable senators here can pressure Canada into honouring their commitments so we can return to the negotiating table and proceed with the next level of the Framework Agreement Initiative. Thank you.
Chief Harvey Nepinak, Co-Chair, Economic Development, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs: I am from Waterhen First Nation and I am a member of the executive committee of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. I am also chair of the economic committee of chiefs within our assembly.
I thank the committee for hearing us this morning. I have two questions for the Senate committee but, first, I would describe the situation which I know best, that of my community back in Manitoba. We face frustration in seeking to develop an economic structure for a self-government base. First, we have a very limited land base. Our community is 4,600 acres. Second, our membership today is approximately 996, about 600 of whom are living on reserve.
The existing land policies of the federal government and the Manitoba government must change. Our neighbouring communities, for example, are in a township of some 36 square miles. Within that township a family could own, for example, two sections of land. They may have difficulty raising sufficient income in their areas of agriculture and ranching. By comparison, on our 4,600 acres, 50 per cent of the land is swamp and non-agricultural land. We have 2,200 acres for the 600 members who live on the reserve in 105 houses. It is almost impossible to create an economic or self-government initiative within our community. Most First Nations have that lack of land base.
The government with whom we share the land, the government of Manitoba, controls the monopoly on all agriculture, forestry and fishing. We need to work with the government and to properly share the resources to make our communities more viable. It is difficult for governments and their departments to share the First Nations' view of the land and its resources. Canada must take a major initiative for First Nations communities such as ours to have access to these resources and these lands which we once enjoyed. That is the most difficult situation that we face on the reserve. It is almost impossible to create a proper infrastructure plan without a land base for self-government.
With that, I would end by asking two questions of the committee members. First Nations use every forum and opportunity to protect treaties and advance First Nations' concerns and to educate governments. How will this special study on aboriginal governance help First Nations and assist the implementation of self-government?
My second question deals with the fact that First Nations continue to be studied. These studies will now be limited. What is the action plan and where will this report lead us?
Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman. Once again, along with the Grand Chief and my fellow chiefs, I thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to be heard.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. We are now open for questions.
Senator St. Germain: Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before us this morning.
Chief, you spoke of the rich getting richer and the fact we are supposed to have government by the people for the people. I have sat through most of these hearings and have not arrived at an answer as to exactly what this study will do, how our findings should be implemented, or what the action plan will be. Perhaps others here with more wisdom can answer that question. Chief Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court said we are all here to stay, and that is so, regardless of any injustices that have taken place.
My question relates to one resource, and that is the resource of knowledge. I would like your comment as to its importance. You referred to the fact that you have 600 people on a reserve of 4,600 acres, half of which is swamp. You said the economic viability of something like that is next to impossible unless the land base were to be increased. How much emphasis do you put on the resource of knowledge?
There may not be forestry or mining resources in many of these reserves. What happens if you expand the land base? You may have a few more muskrats to trap. You may increase your ability to live a little better off the land, however, that would not increase the knowledge base and the education of those 600 people.
From my understanding and experience in life, the rich do get richer, and one of the reasons for that is because the majority of them become very well educated. Some get rich the old fashioned way, inheriting from their fathers and mothers, but many become rich because of the resource of knowledge.
Would you comment on that, please, from an aboriginal perspective?
Mr. Lawrenchuk: My vote is also for knowledge. I think the pursuit of knowledge and education is one of the foundations on which we can build a better future for First Nations people, and for all people. I agree with you, senator, that knowledge is one of the avenues or resources that can be used to attain success.
The problem is that, on reserves, we are faced with a policy of confinement, and I stress that it is a "policy" of confinement where we are not allowed off the reserve. I will use my First Nation as an example because I know it best. There is no incentive to acquire knowledge. There are three hydro dams on my traditional territory. They put my traditional territory under 100 feet of water. They came in like a Roman army. The local government took up all the land, with the help of the province of Manitoba and, in our minds, with the help of Canada.
Our people, who were there for thousands of years, who have always used knowledge to live off the land, to trade and barter with the other peoples, were and are in a situation where our resource base has been completely taken away, and no new form of accessing or using resources has been put in its place. There are probably about 400 Manitoba Hydro employees in the town of Gillam, and that number could be low. They are all imported. Only four or five of us work there. There is no incentive for anyone to go to school and to acquire this knowledge. If we are to insist that our children finish their education, we must offer them some employment at the end, which is why we ask for our resources and use of the land. All we want is to share the land the way we always intended.
The policies and restrictions that apply to First Nations people -- and I am sorry to contradict you, Senator St. Germain -- are great impediments to a First Nation's pursuit of wealth. The situation in my First Nation is so much better than those which are isolated. My fellow chief is from a First Nation which is one of the most deplorable places you would ever want to visit on Earth. Every single day, every single week, young people are committing suicide, because there is no hope. There is no need for them to nurture their knowledge because of the policy of confinement.
Senator St. Germain: I do not want you to apologize. I came here to gain knowledge. I am not sure if we are being criticized. I am here to learn something from you as to how we can possibly come up with a recommendations that would alleviate your plight. I can assure you, sir, that I could be doing things other than sitting in this committee that would interest me as much, but I have taken on this responsibility. You need never apologize for criticizing my assumptions because they could and most likely are wrong. Unless a person has lived there or walked in your moccasins, it is tough to fully understand.
I can understand the policy of confinement you mentioned, but I think we are equating the quality of life with the so-called European lifestyle by which native peoples are surrounded. One of the aspects of success in the North American society has been mobility. I was born and raised outside Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, in a Metis family. I sought out an education. However, one thing I also had to face was that there was nothing to be had where I lived. Therefore, I joined the military and became mobile. I ended up where I am today, a senator from British Columbia.
How does the mobility aspect fit into your thought process? If there are 400 Manitoba Hydro employees in Gillam, it is unbelievable that there would be only four native people working there.We could educate a vast majority of your band members and they could become extremely knowledgeable. I am speaking of a formal education, not necessarily the education that is so important to our natives from a native-education point of view. Do you think that mobility is an option?
Mr. Lawrenchuk: I believe mobility is an option. I have travelled all over the world. Recently the elders have asked me to represent them at meetings like this because of my education and my ability to communicate in a language which is foreign to them.
If Canada had done things right to begin with, we would not be here saying these things. We would all be side by side. If the policies on isolation, education and assimilation had been followed through, everything would be fine. There would probably be no Indians per se. As human beings we would all be together and mobile, educated and living in Canada. However, the policies stopped after isolation.
We must find a way to work together, and to commit to follow through on what it is we have decided to do together, because we are now paying the price of a failed policy. As a member of a First Nation who loves to be mobile, I would like nothing better for my people than for them to be educated and mobile. However, right now, because we do not have a European knowledge base, we cling dearly to our land because that is all we have.
Since the beginning of the treaties until now, our land, and the treaties based on our land, is how an Indian is defined. There is great fear and apprehension of native people leaving the land. What will happen then? Canada will take the land away and we will have nothing.
This knowledge we are talking about must come from all facets of society. All Canadians must be educated in the understanding of each other as a people. To my mind, there is a great misunderstanding and abuse by the general Canadian public concerning aboriginal people. Incredible amounts of dollars apparently are spent on First Nations people and the Canadian taxpayers do not like that because they do not understand the relationship between First Nations and Canada. This is a problem which is very complex but, at the same time, very simple. That does not allow us, because of the conditions we have experienced in the last number of years, to be educated or become mobile because of the stigma attached to being a native person.
In a perfect world, education and mobility are part of the answer. However, I feel that Canada is a long way from being a perfect world. It is farther along than most, however, we have a long way to go.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: I have been following the situation in Manitoba for a few years now. I have had much experience as a chief in my community in Northern Quebec. Phil Fontaine was the Director general in the Northwest Territories while I was the Director General for Quebec in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, and we lived through many different situations. The senators in this room have also had a variety of experiences in relation to the aboriginals. For many years now, we have been seeking solutions for the "so-called Indian problem."
I often wonder whether we are not looking for a solution in the wrong place. I have the impression that some people think that the solution to the problems will be found by non-aboriginals. You talked of dismantling the Manitoba Department of Indian Affairs. I assume that the objective was to take control of the regional offices of the Manitoba Department of Indian Affairs. I do not think that you succeeded in controlling policy decisions at the national level. Your dismantling of Indian Affairs took place mainly in Manitoba. Since the policies, the regulations and everything else are decided nationally, you are still subject to the national policies, even though there is an assembly of Manitoba Chiefs that supervise the regional office. I would like you to enlighten me and give me an idea of what happened. You can correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression that we are always looking to others for solutions, rather than having aboriginals design their.
[English]
It will fit if it is done by the Indians themselves.
Mr. Nepinak: I am glad you raised the issue beyond the dismantling of the Department of Indian Affairs in Manitoba. What we have come to face as First Nations is the reality of an act of Parliament, the Indian Act, which is presently in place. I must agree with you that perhaps the solution is to do away with it or come up with a different First Nations act.
The difficulty we face is that the treaties specify that we will enjoy the natural resources and the land base as they exist at the time of the signing of the treaties. When the Indian Act was passed in 1876, our ancestors were unaware of the implications. We were not consulted regarding the implementation of that act. As a First Nations chief and a member of the economic committee of chiefs, that is one of the great difficulties this act presents in our communities.
Another area where change is necessary relates to the Resources Transfer Act in Western Canada and the impact it has on us. Again, First Nations people were not involved in the 1929-1930 period when this legislation was being passed with Canada and the Western provinces. At present, some treaty areas in Western Canada are challenging the validity of the Resources Transfer Act. I agree with the Supreme Court judges who have said we should work with other levels of government before this matter goes to the Supreme Court.
Those are the changes that need to take place.
From an economic point of view, my community suffers from a lack of land base. The act impedes us in that we cannot go to our local bank, for example, and say that we want to expand our school, our houses or our infrastructure. We are told to go to the Department of Indian Affairs and, for the last number of years, the department has had limited resources. Municipalities such as Portage la Prairie or Dauphin, Manitoba, have access to banking and we do not. That frustrates First Nations communities such as mine. We cannot use our assets with the financial institutions at this point in time.
Mr. Bushie: We are often faced with the dilemma of ownership. The leadership in our First Nations communities has always been able to identify the solutions, but it is the policies that govern us.
First Nations do have long-term plans. However, to try to implement them requires dealing with two levels of government which have put stumbling blocks in our way when we try to take any kind of initiative.
You talk about a search for solutions. We have solutions within our own communities. For example, when I was the chief in my community, I co-authored a report called "Community Holistic Circle Healing." It is a process. It is not a program. It is a process that helped my community make a 390-degree turn for the better. Yet, the federal and provincial governments will not look at it in a positive way. Instead, they are intent on destroying what is good for our people. Around the world it is a recognized process that is needed, not only for First Nations people but people in general, whether Germans, Ukranians, or whatever. It is a process that would help everybody.
Our First Nations face these problems every day of our lives. Federal and provincial governments give us the plan. We have 5-year, 10-year, 20-year plans, but when they see the good things about the plan, they tend to push it down our throats so that we can stay below the poverty line. That is what our people are faced with in every-day life.
Senator St. Germain spoke about education. It is a two-way street. Society as a whole must be educated. Our forefathers who signed the treaties were very educated people. Today, we are on both sides. I am on this side and the committee is on the other. When our forefathers signed their treaties 135 years ago, our ancestors, our leaders looked beyond the 135 years.
These are things about which we continue to educate society as a whole. Senators must do the same because you speak about education being a very important tool in our lives. If we did not have our treaties, I do not think we would be here.
I did not want to be rude in my opening remarks. I could have used my Ojibiway language, but you would not have understood me. I use the universal language of English so you can understand me because I want to educate you on the problems we face in our First Nations communities on a daily basis.
We have plans and solutions, however, we are not given the opportunity to implement those plans and solutions. I would mention that 95 per cent of the people in my First Nations community are sober, whereas 10 years ago it was 90 per cent the other way. Alcohol was the biggest problem in my community. Yet, the federal and provincial governments pushed it to the side so no one else could see it.
Education is a two-way street. We must educate ourselves as human beings and we must understand each other on where we are coming from and where you sit on the government side of the table.
Senator Austin: Chief Lawrenchuk was discussing mobility in answer to some comments made by Senator St. Germain.
The one ingredient that, in my experience, we have not addressed is the question of identity. My experience has been that with many of the native communities, identity is probably the number one policy of the community. It is to maintain their customary identity. Policies of economic development, social development, education and mobility come after the question of maintaining the identity of the community. That was not touched upon. It was not directed to your attention, but do you agree with my remark, or do you have another view?
The issue we are addressing with respect to self-government is government for what kind of a community and who defines the kind of community. Up until now, at least, the definition of "community" is with the band council or with the community elders. Everything starts from that definition. Is that a statement you can accept?
Mr. Lawrenchuk: Identity is one of the most important factors holding us together as human beings. We have various forms of identity, the smallest being one's identity as a person and we go up from there to the community level, to the government level, to the Canadian level and to the North American level. Identity is very important to First Nations people.
First Nations people are in an identity crisis. I speak from what I see and from what I know. Our connection with our past has been ripped from us. Our children can no longer speak to their grandparents, and there is an incredible identity problem. We are trying to deal with the problems that stem from our past being ripped from us.
With the pan-Indian movement and with pow-wows right across Canada, we are seeing reactions to this fear of losing our identity. We are desperately clinging to whatever we can find to stay alive as a people, knowing that in our past we were a strong people.
Our communities and our families are completely lost in alcohol, drugs and desperation. The subconscious impact of losing our identity and the realization that our communities are desperate and lost are very taxing. I will give you a direct example of our lack of identity.
I was raised by my grandparents, William and Gladys Moose. They were a trapping family and I was raised on the trap line. My mother had to give me away, which was the policy back then when an infant was born out of wedlock. I was raised by my grandparents, and it was a perfect world until I had to go to school. I was faced with constant reminders of how different I was and how I did not fit into the definition of what makes a successful person. I was different in every aspect -- in colour, language and dress. I did not know I was poor until I went to school. Our people are faced with this identity crisis every single day.
By the time I was 16 or 17 years old, deep down I hated my grandmother and grandfather. However, I never admitted it. I hated them because I was ashamed of them, but I loved them dearly. At the same time, everyone around was telling me that Indians were bad, so I tried to escape into the white world.
It was not until 15 years ago that I was able to deal with the crisis of my own identity, and I know that I am lucky to have dealt with it. However, the people of my community and similar communities across Canada are still dealing with this and are lost in having to identify themselves with Canada's definition or their own definition. Every day they are branded as "a loser" because they cannot get out of the hole in which they find themselves.
Senator Austin: Perhaps the issue of self-government is an answer to community identity. In your view and in the view of your colleagues, is that a key to the identity of the community? Of course, the identity of individuals in the community is important, and community identity is a consensus of individual identity. Is that the hope to be realized through self-government?
Mr. Lawrenchuk: Yes. The Framework Agreement Initiative, the FAI, is based primarily on community consultation with the 62 different First Nations in Manitoba. We consult with our home communities and ask how we can look after ourselves so that we can go forward.
Our people back home have been waiting for this for a long time. When we go to meetings and talk to the elders, we talk about this new self-government initiative. They shake their heads and say, "What took you so long?" They have always known that this was the way. It is "the option" for us to pursue in order to stay alive as a people. Otherwise, a drastic action will occur, and that drastic action will manifest itself in many ways. We are seeing it manifested right now in the self-destruction of native people. I think we are at a stage now where this self-destruction will turn to destruction, period, and we will all suffer.
The FAI, where we consult with individual communities on how we can better look after ourselves and the rules we can follow with what we can remember of our past, is the only way we can stay alive as a people.
Senator Chalifoux: A number of my questions have been answered, but I wish to make a couple of comments regarding identity.
In 1982, the Constitution of Canada identified three separate, distinct nations of aboriginal people -- the Metis, the Inuit and the First Nations. However, it failed to recognize that there are 65 different nations within that concept of First Nations.
When I speak as a Metis woman, I tell everyone that the term "Indian" is derogatory, in my view, because it denies the First Nations the ability to identify their own nationality, such as Cree, Ojibway, Blackfoot, and the list goes on and on. When I speak to young people, I tell them that they are not Indians -- they are Cree and whatever nationality they happen to be. I have never heard a Mohawk tell me he or she is an Indian. They are Mohawk from the Mohawk Nation. As leaders, that is the message we must give our young people about the identity of our native peoples.
Once you have your own identity, you can deal with your community identity. The list goes on and on, as does the pride within the person, the community, and the nation.
With regard to how economic development relates to self-government, I met last week in southern Alberta with the Kainai agricultural society. That is a struggling First Nations society that is trying to encourage creative ways of using the reserve lands. In the past, the Indian Act jeopardized all good initiatives of the First Nations. I have seen that throughout the years. Now that things are slowly beginning to change, what have you done through economic development initiatives to enhance and encourage self-government structures? What are the hindrances to your initiatives?
You have answered these questions to some extent in response to some of the other questions, but this is a very important question and I should like you to explain it in detail to the people here so that your response can be considered when we make our report and recommendations.
Mr. Lawrenchuk: In terms of economic initiatives, my community has recently begun discussions with Manitoba Hydro, the Province of Manitoba, and Canada, on how we can redress the situation in which Fox Lake finds itself. One of the key items we bring to the table is economic development. There are three dams in my traditional territory. They are not going anywhere, and nor are we. We must figure out a way to work together.
Just downstream from our community is a historic port called Port Nelson. We are working on a plan for developing this entire area for tourism. The dams are Kettle Dam, Long Spruce Dam and Limestone Dam, and then there is Port Nelson. We want to show tourists how First Nations people, governments, and private enterprise can work together to benefit from the land.
We want to rebuild the old Port Nelson and put some sort of resort there so that visitors can enjoy the beauty of our country. People from the north understand just how beautiful that country is, especially in the evening when the northern lights are dancing.
The impediment that we are facing now is that the governments with which we must deal have policies, rules and regulations that do not allow them to incorporate new ways of doing things, which is what we want to do. We need a commitment to work together, especially on this project because we hear on the news how Manitoba Hydro and the First Nations cannot seem to work things out. We are offering a solution on working things out, but the obstacles we run into are the limited scope of the policies with which we must work.
Mr. Nepinak: Some chiefs in Manitoba are studying a joint management process with the Department of Natural Resources. The difficulty we are encountering is that they are not too willing to share jurisdiction. That process needs study in some regions of Manitoba. The problem arises from provincial legislation, which leads us to the Constitution Act of Canada. It becomes very complicated when it gets that high.
I believe that the Supreme Court of Canada has recommended that we explore joint management. That is what the Manitoba chiefs will be looking into with the government of our province.
Senator Johnson: I grew up on Lake Winnipeg and have been to many reserves. Are you pleased with how the study on hydro levels on the lake is proceeding? I know chiefs on the committee are studying that. Have you any further comment on that? It is relevant to many of the problems in the north, as you know.
Mr. Lawrenchuk: My First Nation is very much affected by hydro dams. As I said at the outset, my traditional territory is 100 feet under water. I am disappointed that Lake Manitoba is affected, because it is a beautiful lake. I keep an eye on it because it shows non-First Nations people how serious is the problem of hydro affecting water levels, and the damage it can do to people's lives.
We are watching to see how Manitoba Hydro will deal with that. We are not surprised at how they are currently dealing with the issue. They are basically denying responsibility and must be dragged to the table to accept any responsibility. When you fly over a region that has been dammed, you see that the water is green, yet Manitoba Hydro has the audacity to tell us that there is nothing wrong.
Senator Johnson: I understand that. I hope that this will be a positive study. We are all involved to try to make it so.
You said that piles of money are needed. Do you really believe that piles of money solve problems? My friends in the urban aboriginal community say that it is not so much the amount of money as the fact that it is being spent without focus or accountability, which is becoming a problem in terms of self-government. I do not think Canadians are adverse to spending money on self-government of the aboriginal peoples. The issue involves how it is spent. There is a lot of money in the system. I get agitated when I see how funding for aboriginal peoples is spent. I do not always feel that the money gets to where it should go -- whether it is on reserve, off reserve, in the cities, or wherever.
In light of the events that have happened in Manitoba in the last few days, where should we be focusing those moneys? Am I correct that, in our province, about half of the native population lives in Winnipeg?
Mr. Lawrenchuk: It is about 40 per cent.
Senator Johnson: We then have the land base issue as it relates to the reserves. First, how can we increase the credibility of band councils in terms of the moneys and the leadership on reserves and how it is being spent?
Second, how does this fit within the framework? You stated that you are into second-level discussions at the moment. I was involved with first-level discussions with Grand Chief Fontaine, but they came it a standstill.
Can you dovetail these two issues that I mentioned? You know quite well what I am talking about. Could you enlighten the rest of our committee who do not live in Manitoba? Everyone has a different experience in each province. It is easy to generalize, but there are specifics for each area.
Mr. Lawrenchuk: As I said to minister Stewart when we met at the assembly: "I beg to differ." Money is an important part of the solution, and great piles of it is an important part of the solution.
We have a backlog of thousands of houses. Two, three or four families are living in one house on our reserves. The problems that stem from overcrowding are enormous. The series by Desmond Morris on human behaviour showed the effects of overcrowding in prisons and how people revert to instincts which are not the instincts of civilized people. These are the conditions in which First Nations people live.
We did preliminary estimates of the housing problem. We need billions of dollars in Manitoba alone. What do you do after you house a family? All we want is a house per family and gainful employment for the head of the household. We must look at not only the billions of dollars needed to build houses for our First Nations people so that they can enjoy the conditions that other Canadians enjoy, but we must also consider where we go from there. There is no use building a house if the occupants cannot fully enjoy it. To "fully enjoy it" means they must be "self-sustaining" in some way. It also means "employment." How do you do that without spending dollars on economic development?
Chief Stephenson pointed out the other day that about $170 million is spent on welfare and $7 million is spent on economic development. There is something wrong with that ratio. It should be the other way around.
The Chairman: I will let one additional person respond.
Mr. Nepinak: I first entered band politics in 1975. I lost when I ran for chief at that time, but I was elected a councillor in 1977 and chief in 1979.
I can only speak for my community. About 20 years ago we were subsidized with four houses annually. Our budget was $28,000 but our houses were already costing $37,000. We were asked to build four houses for $28,000. Calculate what happened from 1977 in my community and then count backwards. We needed eight houses just to maintain the current need but were given money for only four. I think you will find that happening in every community. That is why Canada is saying today: Why do they need so many houses?
Speaking from my own experience -- and, I still deal with this today -- there is a 50 per cent lack of housing and people are moving away because of it. I have a list of band members who are living off the reserve and in rural towns such as Dauphin, Portage la Prairie as well as the City of Winnipeg. I am asked when we will have enough housing. I have been facing a backlog since 1977. That is what Canada needs to know in regard to every First Nation.
The Chairman: We are starting to run out of time, so we will have to end your presentation.
You raised some questions at the beginning of your comments about what we will do. You asked how this study can help to protect treaty rights, advance social and economic rights, and help to solve the socio-economic problems of aboriginal people.
Our responsibility as a committee is to make a report to the Senate. From the Senate, it will go to the House of Commons. Our function is limited to making recommendations. Depending on how we will structure the report itself, it will probably make some difference to what the future holds for the aboriginal people. Some of us sitting on this committee are aboriginal people. We must address what we consider to be a workable solution. Much of it will rest on non-aboriginal senators being convinced of the validity of your arguments. As aboriginal senators, many of us have already experienced, firsthand, what you are living through. We also tend to think that we know what we are dealing with in terms of what is there and what is already recognized by the highest level of order, namely, the Constitution of Canada. Some of us feel that what should be flowing from that is, to some extent, the unfinished business of this country, that is, to work out the relationship between aboriginal people and the system.
By listening to people like yourselves highlight what you have witnessed firsthand and what you consider to be the problem areas while, at the same time, trying your best to come up with some solutions, we are finding out that there is a lot of sickness within the system. Unless we address those systems that are not working, we will not get there.
As chairman of the committee, I will do my utmost to ensure that we address every important as it relates to governance and empowering people to take responsibility and be accountable for their future actions. Many important elements need to be addressed. We will do what we can to help move forward the recommendations of the royal commission report.
Our study is aimed at trying to find the best way to implement the recommendations of the royal commission report. We do not want to simply repeat that study. We want to know how the system can incorporate its recommendations.
We have heard from those people who lived through the times when treaties were signed and we are finding out that those treaties have never been implemented. We are also discovering that the precise role of the Department of Indian Affairs has never been defined as it relates to their entrusted responsibilities toward aboriginal people.
There has been some talk about doing away with that department because it spends so much money on the bureaucracy and the bureaucrats seem to dictate what the politicians are saying to the general public of Canada. You are right on when you say that the people of Canada need to catch up in their knowledge of the present-day situation of aboriginal people. I am not hesitant about saying that Canadians believe they understand the lives of aboriginal people, but sometimes their understanding is completely opposite to what we believe to be the situation.
I hope that answer at least partially responds to the questions you raised at the beginning.
You highlighted the need for a genuine partnership. If that partnership is to work, structural changes are required to the system. Those of us who have contact with individuals in the House of Commons will try to enlighten them about the reality of aboriginal life in Canada before we prepare our draft report. We will do whatever we can to make things work better than they have in the past.
We are planning an independent, round-table discussion on governance as part of the public hearings. The leadership and senators need a rapid exchange of information on certain issues. In public hearings, such as this meeting today, we listen to your concerns and take them into consideration. However, in a round table we can delve further into these issues, and come to a common basic understanding of what we mean by governance.
You are welcome to be part of that process. Our resource staff will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Bushie: It is important that we have a clear understanding on the issues we have discussed. We have some video presentations available. One is called Wrapped in Plastic and it talks about the housing conditions on reserves.
These are some of the issues we are trying to address. We are simply asking both levels of government that we be given an opportunity to develop our own policies to govern our own people for our own people. I say that on behalf of the 62 First Nations whom I represent. "Meegwich" from the bottom of my heart, and the best of luck.
The Chairman: Senator Chalifoux will chair a subcommittee of this committee to hold public hearings into housing authorities, housing problems, shortages of housing and money. Perhaps you could make that video available to Senator Chalifoux.
Honourable senators, we will now hear from our next witnesses from the Metis Nation of Alberta.
Senator Andreychuk: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid some senators have other commitments. This meeting was set for 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. and, as a result of that, we must leave. I apologize in advance to these witnesses. The first session ran over by 35 minutes. I think that is highly unfair to this group. I trust we can keep to the schedule in future.
Ms Audrey Poitras, President, Metis Nation of Alberta: Honourable senators, with me are our director of federal-provincial initiatives, Mr. Lorne Gladue; and our research and development advisor, Mr. Bruce Gladue.
Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee. I commend the Senate of Canada for its interest in supporting the process of forging a better understanding of aboriginal governance issues and views on approaches, recognizing the divergent culture and histories of Canada's aboriginal people.
Prior to receiving the invitation to appear before your committee, the Metis Nation of Alberta recognized the challenging opportunities that we face in building upon the positive work undertaken by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in advancing Metis views on approaches to self-government; mechanisms for negotiations and implementation of self-government; strategies for financing self-government; and new relationships between Metis people and Canada.
Even before our Metis flag was hoisted in 1816, the Metis nation was born, and it is still very much alive today, 183 years later. Since our humble beginnings in 1932, the Metis Nation of Alberta has affirmed that we are a nation, part of a greater Metis nation in Canada, entitled to and possessing rights as described in the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Metis people are recognized in the Constitution of Canada as one of the aboriginal peoples in Canada. The Government of Canada also recognizes the inherent right to self-government as an existing aboriginal right under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.
It is only appropriate to provide an insight and some understanding of the Metis Nation of Alberta. The Metis Nation of Alberta is registered under the Alberta Societies Act, governed with by-laws at the community, regional, and provincial levels, and in the Election Act. The representative body of the Metis Nation of Alberta is elected through a ballot-box vote system that calls for regional and provincial representation. The Metis Nation of Alberta is divided into six zones and, within each zone, two representatives are elected for a three-year term. The six regional presidents and six regional vice-presidents serve as elected representatives on the Metis Provincial Council. To complement the regional representation, there is a president and a vice-president elected provincially. These 14 elected representatives constitute the provincial council of the Metis Nation of Alberta.
The Metis Nation of Alberta is the political voice for the Metis people in Alberta and will stand as the political representative of all Metis in Alberta to promote self-determination and self-government for Metis in Alberta and Canada. The Metis Nation of Alberta is not only responsible for the development, promotion and enhancement of the Metis history and way of life, but it is also responsible for the development of programs and services that will advance Metis culture and ensure the social, economic, and political well-being of Metis people in the province of Alberta.
Our vision is to see that Metis people are economically and socially self-sufficient and that our rights and values are entrenched in the Canadian Metis Constitution. We desire fair and equitable treatment for Metis Albertans in these environments. Our values reflect that we are laying the foundation for future generations. We believe in fairness and equality for all people. We believe we need to work in unity and harmony. We recognize all Metis people as part of the nation. We believe Metis participation is important in the design and development of services and policies affecting Metis people. We believe in supporting people to help each other and themselves. We believe we need to be honest in everything we do. The Metis Nation values self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and individual and collective rights and freedoms. The Metis Nation possesses the right of self-determination, including the right of Metis governance which may be expressed and implemented by its citizens at the local, regional, provincial, and national levels.
The fundamental principles that guide the Metis Nation of Alberta's self-government process are proclaimed by the Metis members during the annual general membership assemblies and declared by the provincial council of the Metis Nation of Alberta. They include legal recognition of democratic, political institutions established by the Metis people in Alberta, to extend this recognition to include vested authority of Metis government models to establish and amend our own internal constitutions appropriate to our circumstances, and the provision of adequate resources to carry out the objectives associated with these principles of self-determination.
It is paramount to review the demographics of the Metis people in Alberta. There are approximately 52,000 Metis people in Alberta -- people who identified as Metis during the 1996 census. We know there are more than that. Approximately 24,000 Metis people are currently registered with the Metis Nation of Alberta.
In 1991, almost one-half of Alberta Metis aged 15 years and older lived in Alberta's two large metropolitan areas of Calgary and Edmonton, compared to 37 per cent for other Alberta aboriginals. Most notable was the high concentration in Edmonton, where 35.7 per cent of Alberta Metis and 10 per cent of Canadian Metis resided. Calgary was home to approximately 12 per cent of Alberta Metis and 3.3 per cent of Canadian Metis aged 15 years and older. Similar to other aboriginal populations, Alberta Metis tend to be younger than the non-aboriginal population. In 1991, almost 40 per cent of the Alberta Metis population were under the age of 15, and 50 per cent were under the age of 20, compared to approximately 23 and 30 per cent respectively in the Alberta non-aboriginal population.
The Metis Nation of Alberta is one of the founding members of the Metis National Council. Currently, in response to "Gathering Strength," Canada's aboriginal action plan, MNC provincial member organizations are conducting extensive community consultations based on priorities established by the MNC board of governors which include but are not limited to a national definition of Metis, Metis land claims and land use issues, urban Metis issues, and the Louis Riel bill. This process will afford Metis people the opportunity to express their views on these very important current issues.
The Metis Nation of Alberta recognizes that your committee can make recommendations to the Senate, and we recognize that any proposal or recommendation emanating or endorsed by the Senate of Canada can carry a great deal of weight. I hope that you will see that in the suggestions and recommendations that we hope to make here today and in the paper we have submitted for your consideration.
In conclusion, I would leave you with a quote by Louis Riel which expressed his inner thoughts on the injustices encountered by the Metis people occupying Rupert's Land after Manitoba was accepted into Confederation. He said:
My dealings with Canada have always been righteous. Honesty was my guide; my signature sealed the pact. I hoped it would be respected. Now it's abrogated, a free for all. Nothing left but a scrawl.
Louis Riel penned this verse when it became apparent that the Government of Canada, with its maladministration of the Manitoba Act entitlements, broke many of the provisions contained in the list of rights drawn by the provisional government on December 8, 1869.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples went further and stated that, if the unfair treatment of the Metis rights in the Manitoba Act, the Dominion Lands Act, and the Constitution Act of 1930 were ever to be the subject of a play, it might appropriately be called: "A Tragedy in Three Acts." It is certainly no exaggeration to describe it as a national disgrace.
Comparing his signature to a scrawl not only reminds us that the Government of Canada would not extend a fair, open and just process for the Metis and other disadvantaged people in Manitoba, but it etched in our minds that all is not forgotten and that our struggle for equality, Metis rights, and self-government is still burning within each and every one of us. It is attainable. That is why we are here today.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for your succinct presentation. In your situation, you feel that you have to constantly redefine yourselves and your position to governments. How do you believe that could be overcome; and can you suggest a recommendation to the government? Do you believe that we need different structures within the federal government and more continuity so that you need not continue to educate those who are working with you?
Ms Poitras: I am sure that would help. Currently, we are working with the Metis National Council to come up with a definition that will be accepted by all Metis people in Canada. At the moment, the definition of "Metis" put forward by the Metis Nation of Alberta is slightly different from that put forward by Manitoba and B.C. Once we have a common definition, we will want the Government of Canada to accept it as our definition so that we need not continue redefining it.
The Chairman: Are you also trying to straighten out the problem which seems to exist in regard to the national women's organizations not being part of your national organization?
If you are not familiar with the problem, you do not have to attempt to answer my question.
Ms Poitras: I am not quite sure what your question is, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Your national organization has decided not to take part in this process because we have allowed the women's national organizations to participate directly. I am raising that in conjunction with your reply to Senator Andreychuk on the question of the Metis not being recognized in the same way across the board within the country in terms of status. Are you also taking addressing the women's issue?
Ms Poitras: My belief is that, when a definition has been agreed to by the Metis people of Canada, it will include a definition of men, women, children and youth. Within the Province of Alberta there is a Metis women's organization that sits at the board table with the provincial council of the Metis Nation of Alberta to ensure that women are included.
Senator St. Germain: I also have a supplementary question about identity. The question of identity for the Metis people has often been a mystery to me. In Alberta, there are established regions which I believe is a benefit to the Metis of Alberta. In all the studies that have been conducted, governments, whether Conservative, Liberal or whatever, clearly state that they recognize the Metis as an entity. Everywhere else, everything seems to hang on strings. It is only really in Alberta that you have a clearly defined land base. It appears to me -- and I may be wrong and I stand to be corrected on this -- that it is the only area that a clear identity has any possibility of emerging and that Metis, perhaps, should be working from that point in trying to gain the identity and the recognition of their rights to which governments seem to pay lip-service. Governments appoint ministers to be responsible, but nothing seems to get done.
Denis Coderre, a member of the House of Commons, has very effectively taken up the Riel issue. I compliment him on that. Am I wrong in my thinking? Could you clarify that from an identity point of view?
Mr. Bruce Gladue, Research & Development Advisor, Metis Nation of Alberta: Alberta has always played a leading role in advancing the position of the Metis. I concur with the senator when she says that we always seem to be reiterating our positions. The RCAP summarized and verified thoroughly enough our moral, political and legal rights. The educational process is a continuing one. In terms of identity, Senator Chalifoux mentioned identification of the nation. I believe that is one part of the educational process. I am sure the Senate of Canada is receiving a great deal of education from Senator Chalifoux, not only on the Metis but the other aboriginal peoples as well. That is just part of the educational process.
How can we simplify it? In our submission we raise the issue of strengthening the position of interlocutor in the Government of Canada. That is one of the recommendations and solutions we have put forward. The process itself will take a considerable amount of work.
Senator Chalifoux: Thank you for appearing this morning. It is a pleasure to have some fellow Metis here.
Can you explain the relationship between the Metis Settlements General Council and the Metis Nation of Alberta? Another question I have concerns the relationship between the federal government and the Metis nation and the jurisdictional issues that seem to be appearing all over the place. What I am referring to is the discrepancies. Some say that the Metis are under the jurisdiction of the provinces, while others are not too sure. Ministers are debating this question.
How are you addressing those issues? How do you see that as affecting our proceeding to self-government and our future?
Ms Poitras: As you may or may not know, the Metis Settlements General Council is covered by legislation enacted by the Government of Alberta. The membership of the Metis settlements of Alberta also choose to be members of the Metis Nation of Alberta. We have a working relationship with the Metis Settlements General Council. That has not always been the case. However, since I have been president, which is almost three years, we have established a working relationship between the president of the Metis Settlements General Council and myself as president of the Metis Nation of Alberta. We meet on a regular basis to ensure that we represent all Metis people in Alberta as best we can, both on land base and off land base. We work in conjunction with the Metis Settlements General Council.
As to the relationship between the federal government and the Metis nation, Bruce Gladue would probably prefer to answer that question.
Mr. Gladue: In regard to your first question, it might be interesting to provide a little history on the Metis settlements which were established as the result of a royal commission in Alberta. That was at the request of the Metis Association of Alberta at the time, and the result of questions that had been raised by the Metis people about the oppression at the time. There is a historical relationship between those questions being raised and the settlements coming into being.
Currently, the Metis Nation of Alberta has an agreement with Human Resources Development Canada for labour market programming. Part of that agreement includes a working relationship with the Metis settlements for the Metis settlements to deliver labour market programming on the settlements. However, it is ultimately the MNA who signs the agreement on behalf of the Metis people of Alberta.
The relationship between Canada and the Metis, and the jurisdictional questions, are very complicated. However, our relationship right now is defined through a tripartite process agreement which provides us opportunities to look at self-government processes bilaterally with Canada. It also provides a window of opportunity to look at programs and services that are available and provides us with an entry into federal departments. We must recognize that the TPA process itself is only an opportunity, a process agreement, but it provides us linkage right now to the federal departments and obviously, as one of the partners, the Government of Alberta is one of the signatories.
On the jurisdictional question, the Metis in Alberta have always taken the position that we come under federal jurisdiction. We do not really want to refer to it as a "fiduciary responsibility" because, ultimately, the Metis people, in many of the papers which they have presented, say they are responsible for themselves. However, there are some federal obligations here that must be met. Perhaps we will use the term "federal obligations" and, in terms of the jurisdictional questions, obviously 91.24 plays a significant part of that federal obligation. As stated by RCAP, unfortunately we do not share the same benefits in terms of education or medical care enjoyed by other First Nations such as the Inuit, for example.
That has not stopped us in Alberta. We are looking at providing some form of post-secondary education through institutions that we are developing. Hopefully, some of these jurisdictional wranglings and questions will sort themselves out through negotiations, as the MNA has said it is prepared to do.
Senator Andreychuk: At this time in your evolution towards running your own affairs, do you believe it would be helpful for the Senate, particularly through this study, to concentrate on mechanisms that would facilitate your dialogue with the government? Should we deal with the issues which are confronting you such as management, housing, child care, or do you wish to deal with those issues yourselves? Should we recommend a facilitating process that would encourage resolution of the issues?
Ms Poitras: It is very important to our people that we deal with these issues in the short term. I believe that, in dealing with those issues, we will be able to develop mechanisms which will assist us in dealing with our people in the future. They do go hand in hand. It is not do one or do the other. I believe that both can be accomplished. We must deal with what must be done today, but the mechanisms we use today will continue to develop.
Senator Andreychuk: Do you follow, throughout all of your processes and negotiations, a fundamental belief that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to your process as it does to the rest of the country?
Ms Poitras: Yes, we do.
Senator Mahovlich: Do you encourage other Metis across Canada to come to Alberta to take part in your land settlement discussions? Do you encourage Metis people who live in Edmonton or Calgary to take part in your land settlement?
Ms Poitras: Just for clarification, the Metis Settlements General Council is the body that looks after the Metis land that has been set aside. That land has been set aside for all Metis people in Alberta. If there is a family from Alberta who had moved out and then came back, I am sure that that land is open for them as well.
Senator Mahovlich: Only a limited number of people can live off that land; is that correct?
Ms Poitras: I do not wish to speak too much on the actual settlement act because I know the president of the Metis settlements has made a presentation on the act. However, in the legislation, the land is set aside for all Metis people. Yes, there is a limited amount of land, therefore, I am presuming somewhere down the line there may be too many people for that land. However, as the legislation reads, the land is set aside for all Metis people in Alberta.
Senator Adams: Do you negotiate with other Metis outside Alberta? The Metis should be all the same and it should not matter in what area or territory you live. We have two treaties dealing with the Metis, one is Treaty 8 and one is Treaty 10 or 11 from North Slave and South Slave. In your organization, wherever you are, when you move to the other provinces are you still part of the same organization? How does that work now?
Ms Poitras: The Metis Nation of Alberta is part of the Metis National Council of Canada, which represents the provinces across Canada. If a Metis person from Alberta moves into Manitoba, we work closely with them to ensure that the person is transferred to their membership list. It is one of those mobility rights that is very important to Metis people -- to be able to relocate.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation. We will definitely take your concerns into account.
The committee adjourned.