Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 28 - Evidence, May 4, 1999 (morning sitting)
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 4, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:00 a.m., to examine and report upon aboriginal self-government.
Senator Charlie Watt (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are continuing our study on self-government. Today we have with us from the far north of the Northwest Territories, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and Gwich'in Tribal Council.
They are represented by two former leaders of the NWT, so we have very experienced witnesses to help us with the governance question.
Welcome and please proceed.
Ms Nellie J. Cournoyea, Chair and CEO, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation: Honourable senators, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Just to reflect on our past, this is not the first time that we have come before the Senate to bring forward issues and concerns of the far Western Arctic, the Beaufort-Delta region, which is the Gwich'in and Inuvialuit area. I would like to thank sincerely Senators Watt, Adams and Austin for the efforts they made in attempting to help us change the boundaries of the Tuktut Nogait National Park. We sincerely believed that the provision had been part of the agreement.
I know that it took your time, honourable senators, and we want to thank you very much for the support and understanding we received. I know that people of Paulatuk and the Inuvik area want to send their appreciation to you for not only taking the time to listen but for actually hearing. We very much appreciate that.
Today, we have with us Richard Nerysoo, who is a former government leader. I worked with Richard for 16 years in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. We both have now gone back home to work on the land claims issues that are paramount in the minds of our people.
I also wish to introduce Bob Simpson, who has been leading the gruelling work on self-government issues, and Charles Hunter, who, as you can see, is a younger person and is one of the very few Inuit-Inuk lawyers in Canada. We are very proud of him. He spends a considerable amount of time on the self-government negotiations but also has his responsibility to the firm he works with in Calgary.
The whole process of self-government is not something new. In 1976, we attempted to put together a system of regional governance. However, when the Inuvialuit were negotiating their claim, that was not on the agenda. The comprehensive claim did not include a part where we could put the two issues together.
The Inuvialuit and Gwich'in have extensive experience in self-government negotiations as well as in land-claim implementation and parallel capacity-building processes. Based on that experience, our submission assesses and describes problems of process, structure and approaches relating to self-government and self-government negotiations, and also contains suggestions for improvement.
The first part of the paper provides basic information about Inuvialuit and Gwich'in land claims and organizations, and the Beaufort-Delta region. My understanding is that the paper was sent down earlier for translation so you should have the document in both English and French.
The second and third parts describe the current self-government negotiations process and identify areas requiring resolution. These fall into two categories: first, the implications of the lack of policy cohesion within and between governments with respect to self-government negotiations; and, second, the fragmentation and potential conflicts arising directly from government reluctance to link complementary political processes and governance regimes.
The final section identifies principles for process improvement and renewal. It is our view that these issues and suggestions for process renewal will have resonance for many First Nations involved in self-government negotiations.
Allow me to give you a little bit of background on the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement, or IFA, was signed in 1984. It provided approximately 2,500 beneficiaries with 91,000 square kilometres of land and $170 million in land ownership and cash settlement. The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation was established to manage the affairs of the settlement and to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the IFA. Those objectives were: first, to preserve Inuvialuit cultural identity and values within a changing northern society; second, to enable Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful participants in the northern and national economy and society; and, third, to protect and preserve the Arctic wildlife, environment, and biological productivity.
Clause 4(3) of the IFA states that where restructuring of public government is considered for the Western Arctic region, the Inuvialuit shall not be treated less favourably than any other native groups or native people with respect to the governmental powers and authorities conferred on them.
This clause was related to the issue that the government foresaw, namely, that at some time in the future they would have to consider governance issues. However, at that time, it was not part of the mandate for the comprehensive agreement negotiations.
In 1992, the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim was signed. The agreement provided 2200 beneficiaries with 23,976 square kilometres of land and $75 million in land ownership and cash settlement. The Gwich'in Tribal Council was established to manage the settlement and achieve the objectives of the agreement, which were to establish certainty over rights to land and compensation; to ensure that the Gwich'in have a right to participate in decision-making over land, water and resources; and to promote and maintain Gwich'in culture and sustainable development in the settlement area.
The Gwich'in chiefs have established a self-government committee outside of self-government negotiations to address outstanding issues arising from the Gwich'in being signatories to Treaty 11, 1921, and the Indian Act transition issues vis-à-vis creation of self-government institutions.
The Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claims Agreement, chapter 5 and Appendix B, sets out subject matters for self-government negotiations. The provisions obligate Canada to negotiate self-government with the Gwich'in Tribal Council.
Situated in the Mackenzie Delta-Beaufort Sea area, the Beaufort-Delta region has a population of approximately 7,000 people in eight communities. This does not include the large number of beneficiaries we have living in other areas of the Northwest Territories, outside the region and in the provinces. The Inuvik population is 2,296 and is the regional centre for government.
The Chairman: Does that include the people outside the territory?
Ms Cournoyea: The 7,000 people we are talking about in the Beaufort Sea, in the eight communities, do not include beneficiaries living outside the Western Arctic region. In the Inuvialuit settlement, for example, we have approximately 3,000 living outside the region, either in Yellowknife or in Alberta, or in other places in the Western Arctic.
The centre for government, Inuvik, is made up of 40 per cent Inuvialuit, 20 per cent Gwich'in and 40 per cent non-aboriginal people. The communities of Tuktoyaktuk, with a population of 943, Sachs Harbour, with a population of 135 -- and there are more muskox there than people since there are 60,000, Paulatuk, with a population of 277 and Holman, with a population of 423, are predominantly Inuvialuit. The communities of Fort McPherson, population 878, and Tsiigehtchic, population 162, are predominantly Gwich'in. Aklavik, with a population 727, has a predominantly Inuvialuit population of 55 per cent and a Gwich'in population of 35 per cent.
One of the issues that we have concern with in the negotiations of self-government is the lack of policy cohesion. The IRC, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, and the GTC, the Gwich'in Tribal Council, submitted a joint self-government proposal to Canada in 1993. The proposal, subsequently accepted by Canada as the basis for self-government negotiations, envisioned the Inuvialuit and Gwich'in jointly exploring whether the inherent right to self-government could be exercised through a regional public government system.
The Chairman: Do you have available a copy of what you proposed in 1993? It would be good to have that tabled.
Ms Cournoyea: We can provide you with a copy.
The parties to the current process include the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Gwich'in Tribal Council, Canada, and the Government of the Northwest Territories -- or what is left of it after Nunavut.
Despite significant progress during the past two years, the current negotiation process is plagued by a lack of internal government policy and process cohesion. In addition, the process is approached by governments as insular -- that is, solely about negotiating an agreement -- and in opposition to the Inuvialuit Gwich'in recognition of the need to use the negotiations stage as an opportunity for public education and capacity building. With the latter approach, the process is seen as a necessary tool to achieve public acceptance of, and readiness for, the self-government agreement during a time when the agreement is being negotiated.
Those are the first issues in our submission. I should like to have Richard Nerysoo, who heads up the Gwich'in Tribal Council, give the remainder of our presentation.
Mr. Richard Nerysoo, President, Gwich'in Tribal Council, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation: As has been indicated, we have been involved jointly in submitting a proposal and being a party to negotiations to establish a regional governing authority.
Several important issues that form the basis of whether or not the negotiations will be successful must be addressed. Like every other group, they are probably no different across Canada. In our particular experience in the negotiations, we have been able to identify some significant issues that must be dealt with seriously by both senators and other parliamentarians in order to ensure the success of aboriginal governments generally in Canada.
As has been indicated, the Inuvialuit and the Gwich'in are negotiating jurisdictions in a wide range of subject matters. I was just pointing out to the chief negotiator the amount of documentation that is not even contained in the report that he submitted to us. For example, -- and, I want to show you this visually -- in my hand I have the initial document for the up-to-date report for the self-government negotiations and the report. This is the Gwich'in Final Agreement. If you look at the documentation, the thickness is almost equal; yet we are not at the point where we could actually sign off on the documents.
From that particular visual comparison, you can see the amount of detailed work that is necessary for us to complete a final agreement, no matter where we live generally in Canada. The detail that is being requested is fairly significant. However, I do not believe that we are in any way suggesting that there is no necessity for that detail. If it is a matter of creating comfort and a willingness on the part of governments to sign an agreement that allows for the Gwich'in and the Inuvialuit to deal with issues either on a community or a regional basis, that is the kind of comfort we must give to Canada.
Having said that, it is necessary to point out some significant issues. Probably every aboriginal organization that appears before you will also point to these issues.
On the question of financing, we ask how we can best allow for the success of these aboriginal governments? In our particular case, we ask if a public government can in any way be measured successfully? We have to be assured that fiscal resources are available to us.
We have been trying to address this in a number of areas. First, do we have the resources to develop new governments and governing capacities? Second, how is governance addressed within the context of government structures and decision-making processes and within their abilities to succeed. Third, what is the ability of those institutions to deal with legislative authority and capacity? Can they appropriately pass policies that will guide the delivery of programs and services?
Having pointed out those issues, we note that the existing resources to support such initiatives are currently held by the territorial and federal governments.
The establishment of Nunavut is one example. We may not have the same kind of significance as Nunavut's territorial government, but in reality we are discussing the public institution that governs our region, which is quite substantive in size even though seemingly less significant in terms of numbers.
We also recognize the fact that there will be a strong western government. We understand that. We do not question that. However, from our own experience, we also understand that in order for us to be in any way successful, the resourcing question must be addressed.
In the Nunavut experience, the Government of Canada saw a need to intervene and provide additional resources to ensure its success, and they provided that support. We expect the same consideration by the Government of Canada for the aboriginal governments being proposed.
I do not know what that means generally. The first question is the cost. If one does not deal with that question immediately, then what failures will result? If you are talking about the success of aboriginal governments generally, then you must address that particular question. You cannot ignore it.
Senator Austin: Your remarks, and those of Ms Cournoyea earlier, raise the question of devolution of powers from the government in Yellowknife to regional governments constituted in the way you have described. If powers are devolved, funding would be devolved. Are you talking about transfer of funding from Yellowknife as well as from Ottawa or are you focused only on a funding package from Ottawa in your remarks now?
Mr. Nerysoo: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a total package. The parties at the table include the Government of the N.W.T. as well as the Government of Canada. There is a whole series of issues still on the table in other forums, one of which is devolution. Another is jurisdiction for such things as natural resources.
We are proposing some suggestions for our responsibility and our authority in the region. Those questions are all still on the table. We are not precluding nor excluding them. We are actually suggesting that everything be on the table. We will see where we go from there.
One does not go to the table with a view that the only consideration for resourcing is based purely on the resources available at this particular juncture. You cannot ignore the need to consider the fiscal resources that are necessary to ensure success. That is done either through the transfer of available resources or by providing additional resources.
We have completed the five-year review of the Gwich'in Final Agreement. Many issues had not been addressed at the initial stages of implementation. At the day we sign the implementation agreement, we do not know the issues and the problems that might arise.
This is the same situation. If you do not deal with that issue up front or allow the government institution to raise its own revenues, then you will miss the boat completely. Again, we look for willingness on the part of governments to confront and discuss these issues openly.
Senator Austin: The model you are targeting, if I understand your remarks, is a mini-confederation. You would have a public government of the Northwest Territories and then regional governments with jurisdiction over certain activities within their land area. Is that the conceptual model you describe?
Ms Cournoyea: It is like the municipalities of Toronto.
Senator Austin: If you mean Metro Toronto, I do not think that is so.
Mr. Nerysoo: You have described our general approach.
Senator Austin: It is a sort of mini-confederation?
Mr. Nerysoo: I do not want people to think we do not support a strong territorial government. That would be a mistake. On the other hand, we cannot ignore the regional circumstances that confront us on a regular basis. The needs of our particular constituents, in terms of both programs and services, are unique in our situation. The ability of our governing institutions to raise their own revenue is important for us to consider. These are not unusual. These considerations must be confronted right across the country when dealing with aboriginal self-government, from Gwich'in to Inuvialuit. These are critical issues.
Senator Austin: Thank you for making that point.
Mr. Nerysoo: New fiscal arrangements must also recognize the jurisdictions of the Beaufort-Delta governments. We must provide revenue-sharing and revenue-raising capacity to allow full exercise of their jurisdictions. That matter may eventually arise. We must identify new revenues for the western territory and arrange to share these revenues to finance all governments. We must transfer territorial and federal funding to allow maximum flexibility for Beaufort-Delta governments to set their own priorities and to shape programs and service deliveries. That is not to look at the resourcing that is there now. The comments that have been made generally are about flexibility, and there is always the question of whether or not there will be standards. We believe that is an important consideration.
Another important issue to recognize is that there is an absence of fiscal policy generally across the country for funding new governments. This is problematic, and we are forced to negotiate jurisdictions without any clear way of knowing whether or not we will have sufficient resources to implement our agreement. That makes it an issue for the Senate, and no matter how you deal with it you will need to address that.
Another problem is the lack of policy cohesion between government policies and negotiation mandates. There seems to be so much inconsistency about the application of policies generally. In certain cases, you say that certain policies that apply nationally to aboriginal people do not apply north of 60, or you change a policy and suggest that those policy issues are not to be considered as part of the mandate that you give to negotiators north of 60, which is different from south of 60.
We need consistency across the board so that we understand where everyone is coming from. I do not mean to suggest that this consistency will not allow for the ability of each particular region to negotiate its own vision and version of self-government. When we are at the table, there are different approaches. We read in another document about some negotiations, perhaps in B.C. or Alberta, on the very issues we want to address, but which are not being dealt with at our table, and we wonder why it is that these issues are being dealt with there and not in our particular circumstance. It is important that there be some consistency.
Policy frameworks vary between departments, and even departments vary. When we have an indication that government is supportive of a negotiation of self-government agreements and then get to the table only to find that the approaches from department to department vary, we wonder how serious government is about the application of the policy generally. As part of the governing institution of Canada, it is important that we understand what those policies might be.
The nature of aboriginal focus and federal policies and programs within each department is important to understand, including the status of the devolution of power to the territorial government and the extent to which the Government of the N.W.T. may exercise the authority within its jurisdiction and power. Even in the case of the Government of the Northwest Territories, policies and initiatives are driven by department-based priorities; the policy approaches to self-government are departmental, lacking overall cohesion and strategic direction. Nellie and I and our negotiators understand that the question for us is: What is the vision of government? Should that vision not in fact be articulated both by government policy and by the approaches taken at negotiations?
As well, the principles contained in the overall western governance vision are so vague as to be interpreted differently by departments, boards, and agencies. That is obvious by the lack of consistency even in the approach to subject-matters by the Government of the N.W.T.
You can see that we do take seriously the issue of political vision and the political policy-making responsibility that we believe rests in the hands of the governments.
Another aspect of policy is that sometimes they do not anticipate reality. As an example, that is the case in regard to negotiating policing under self-government. At the negotiating table, we interpret the federal and territorial government as saying to us, "Our policies do not take your reality into account; therefore, we will not deal with your reality. We will only deal with the reality our policies are aimed at. If you fall in the cracks, that is not our problem."
That happened when we asked how the federal government would ensure that Inuvialuit and Gwich'in residing outside the NWT are still eligible for aboriginal programs after self-government. It is also the case in policing. Federal and territorial policy and legislative approaches to policing prevent the Beaufort-Delta from negotiating jurisdiction over aspects of policing and prevent the Beaufort-Delta and the Inuvialuit and the Gwich'in from taking advantage of the First Nations' policing policy. Since August of 1997, negotiating parties have traded and explored interests in policing. Three drafts of an administration of justice subagreement, including policing, have been tabled. The administration of justice has not been discussed at the negotiations since December 1998. Outside self-government negotiations, transfer of policing authority to First Nations is guided by the First Nations' policing policy. The Beaufort-Delta is not eligible under the First Nations' policing policy, given its public nature. We are told that the First Nations' policing policy applies only on reserve. Therefore, any arrangements made with the Beaufort-Delta on a policy basis would not incorporate all elements of the First Nations' policing policy.
When you look at it in that context, you wonder about the policies that are important here and are guiding the direction that we want to take.
I will now talk about the political development side, dealing with policy questions. As with Nunavut, it is neither realistic nor rational to expect a new governing system to operate without adequate preparation. Self-government negotiations will result in the establishment of a regional government and a reconfiguration of the interaction between existing and newly established institutions. An interim regional body is required to facilitate the establishment of a new governing system prior to implementing the self-government agreement.
The Inuvialuit and the Gwich'in must work within the context of various federal and territorial initiatives in advancing their political aspirations. The processes attempt to provide governing assurances to the Inuvialuit and the Gwich'in at a territorial level. Included are the following: the Government of the N.W.T.'s community-empowerment process, which is the transfer of responsibilities from the Government of the N.W.T. to community governments; Gathering Strength, which is a federal initiative to assist First Nations to assume greater control over their communities and capacity building; the Aboriginal Summit, comprised of NWT aboriginal government representatives, of which Nellie and I are members, developing common approaches to governance issues in the new western territory; the Constitutional Development Working Group, which is a joint effort by the Government of the NWT and the Aboriginal Summit working group to develop new models of government. More recently, there has been the devolution of land and resources to the Government of the Northwest Territories, being primarily the transfer of resource revenues collected currently by the federal government, and there has been the setting of electoral boundaries for the elections of the territorial legislative assembly. Recent court decisions have clearly stated that population is the sole criterion for the establishment of ridings. That has caused a shift of representation from predominantly aboriginal rural ridings to urban non-aboriginal ridings, which is weakening what we consider to be the aboriginal participation in the territorial government.
Demanding the Inuvialuit and the Gwich'in to participate in the multitude of political development processes and initiatives reduces the resources available to implement their land claim agreements and achieve self-government goals through negotiations or other means.
At a recent conference of regional leaders, the Inuvialuit and Gwich'in proposed to work with the federal and territorial governments through the terms of a political accord, whereby the parties would work together in a unified approach in order to ensure a uniform approach in the development of policies related to the political, economic and social development of the region; to develop a working relationship with the territorial and federal governments; to work with the territorial and federal governments on specific initiatives that further the objectives of governance at a community and regional level; to develop appropriate fiscal arrangements to fund governments created as a result of a self-government agreement; and to enhance the capacity of Beaufort-Delta governments to govern and administer their affairs.
The idea of this political accord was to create a one-window approach that would allow the Inuvialuit and the Gwich'in to proceed at an accelerated pace of negotiations and prepare for engaging in governance. It would also allow for a coordinated approach to the development of policy and program delivery initiatives rather than the fragmented approach currently taken by governments.
On the matter of linking land claims to self-government, the federal government has generally insisted that they will not discuss practical approaches to bringing land claims and self-government agreements together. They insist that they are not mandated to reopen the land claims in the context of self-government negotiations. That is viewed by both the Inuvialuit and the Gwich'in as derogating from their ability to exercise their inherent right to self-government, including, for example, governing their own lands and resources on that land, as is the case for heritage resources. In the Gwich'in land claim, provision 3.1.15 states:
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to affect:
(a) any aboriginal or treaty right to self-government which the Gwich'in may have.
As a result of the government's approach, there is uncertainty as to whether the Gwich'in and Inuvialuit governments recognized in the self-government agreement could be responsible for land claim responsibilities because of the federal preference for public institutions. This may result in several institutions with complementary mandates representing the same population.
What we are trying to say here is that our approach is to try to bring these two together. If the approach of governments is that they wish to maintain the separation of them, then there is no need for us to negotiate a self-government institution that in fact completely ignores the obligations, the rights and the interests of both the Inuvialuit and the Gwich'in under their land claims agreements. For us, it does not make any rational sense.
I assume that even in your particular case, as senators, as part of the body involved in general public policy, you would say that that does not seem to be rational, nor does it make any common sense.
In the same way, government will not consider negotiating with a view to harmonizing existing regimes in the region, such as land and wildlife management. The harmonization and integration of mechanisms and processes could be used to avoid narrow interpretation of the agreements and resulting conflicts. The recent Auditor General's report indicated that the agreements have already created a relationship of conflicts rife with dispute resolution and court proceedings. As stated in section 14.36 of the report:
While implementation in good faith may be considered a normal expectation, we noted lawsuits against the Crown because of alleged implementation failures and disputes over interpretation of the agreements. The section on implementation disputes elaborates on these claims.
A major barrier, again, is the ability of government to openly discuss other ways to implement agreements or to seek improvements through self-government negotiations.
We have quite a few other matters we wish to address, and a number of suggestions to make on them; however, what we are pointing out here is contained in the documentation that is before you.
The Chairman: Before you go any further, maybe you should elaborate on your recommendations as much as possible now, because we have other witnesses to hear and we are operating on a very tight schedule. If you could help us by getting to the actual recommendations, that would be great, after which the questioning will begin.
You are raising interesting issues, especially for me, as I have dealt with a number of implementations over the last number of years in regard to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The point you are raising on whether there is a serious approach on the government side in wishing to head in a meaningful direction seems to be raised by you and your colleagues as a critical issue.
That raises the question whether there is a national will left to try to rectify matters related to aboriginal peoples; will there be a coexistence among the three societies in this country, because French and English are big factors in the running of this country. If a third element is to be brought in -- well, not brought in, because it has always been there, but if it is to be accommodated throughout the system, there must be a clear understanding of what the willingness is out there. When you run into those problems at the tail-end of your negotiations, that does not help. If you deal with them and address them right up front, that requires a tightening also within the aboriginal groups.
You raise the issue of north of 60. People who govern under the policy relating to north of 60 have an approach that is sometimes different from that of south of 60, even though it should not be different. All those factors must be dealt with and brought forward.
I should like to get into a philosophical discussion in those areas. What are we doing here? What are we trying to achieve? Is there a national will there? Is there good will there? Many of these factors are being raised, and not only by your group; we had a similar presentation from the Cree-Naskapi Commission. It was not so much a problem in the negotiations as the lack of proper mechanisms being in place on the implementation side.
The government has a tendency to formulate policies when there are already legal binding agreements with the aboriginal nations, and the question raised by them then is whether the government has the authority, over and above what they have already agreed to legally, to formulate new policies or to undo existing policies by formulating new policies. We are beginning to realize why the government has broken promises over the years.
Perhaps you could get into the substance of your recommendations, after which we will ask you some questions.
Mr. Nerysoo: Mr. Chairman, there are some basic principles that we believe should be part of the government's efforts to improve its current approach. First, overall policy cohesion within the government should be a priority.
We should not be penalized as a result of the Inuvialuit and Gwich'in efforts to work through what you might say is the establishment of a public governance institution. We should still be respected for our inherent right to govern ourselves. At the same time, we should not be treated less favourably than any other aboriginal group in Canada in terms of access to resources and program services.
The government must recognize the jurisdictions of the Beaufort-Delta governments and provide for revenue sharing capacity. Funding arrangements must allow maximum flexibility to the Beaufort-Delta governments and must allow them to set their own priorities and deliver programs and services appropriate to the region. However, we understand that there will always be national considerations and territorial considerations in terms of policy and standards.
The Inuvialuit, as land owners, should have the ability to decide if and how they wish to integrate land claims and self-government institutions. Self-government agreements should recognize the importance of facilitating harmonization and the integration of land claims, self-government mechanisms and processes to minimize the narrow interpretation of the agreements.
Minimizing disagreements between governments and regulatory management boards in the context of public government requires the reconfiguration of existing and newly established institutions and their interaction.
Lastly, a memorandum of understanding should be established to ensure a coordinated and cohesive approach to the variety of initiatives being undertaken by both governments at the regional level.
Senator Adams: You say that the Inuvialuit comprise about 55 per cent of the population in the area and the Gwich'in comprise 35 per cent. Is there a revenue sharing scheme for royalties in oil and mining operations based on those percentages?
Ms Cournoyea: With respect to the Inuvialuit claim to ownership of lands, such as the land surrounding Tuktut Nogait park, those are Inuvialuit settlement lands. Those are areas specific to the Inuvialuit.
In the Gwich'in claim as well, they would have lands specific to them. If any resources are available in the land that has been selected, those would be specific to the Gwich'in. However, there is an additional understanding with respect to the Gwich'in claim, which Richard Nerysoo explained.
The Inuvialuit receive the benefits flowing from our land. We develop it and make the decisions. What must be understood is that there are large tracts of land and a broad water base, which has become what we call Crown land.
Over the years, the Inuvialuit and Gwich'in have been attempting to convince the other aboriginal groups that we should proceed with the territorial government to have those resources turned over in an arrangement whereby there could be a shared interest. Given that we have a claim, that interest is more clear. However, aboriginal groups around Yellowknife and the southern Mackenzie are reluctant to proceed with that. We, therefore, have a bit of a problem.
As in any land claim, there are areas where there are surface and subsurface rights. However, that is not the question. That goes directly to the specific organization.
In the broader context of the Crown land and the large water bodies where there could be offshore development, we are advocating that a political understanding or a devolution take the form of a shared interest with the territorial government and the federal government.
As we stated earlier, this is not a new discussion. It is anticipated that each community, depending upon its makeup, would sit down to work out the best way to govern that community.
This proposal is not ethnic specific. It relates more to working together as a total body. In Aklavik, for example, we do not see the band council disappearing. Neither will the Inuvialuit Community Corporation, which is an equivalent in Aklavik. We will find a way of working together in that community, along with the non-aboriginal people. It complements the claim; it does not take away from it.
Senator Adams: You mentioned that there were over 3,000 Inuvialuit living outside the agreement lands in places such as Yellowknife, Alberta and other regions. How will they be recognized? We have many problems with the 45 per cent of aboriginal people living in cities. They may have jobs in the cities, but they cannot go back to the North because there are no jobs. How would the land settlement help those people?
Ms Cournoyea: It does not matter where the Inuvialuit live in Canada or in Europe -- they are treated equally. In terms of making decisions, however, they must belong to a community corporation. For example, this year we are paying a dividend. It does not matter where they live. If the ones in question are 18 and older, they receive the same and equal treatment as would anyone else.
In other areas, there are aboriginal specific programs, such as Pathways or Brighter Futures. However, we are having some difficulty with the federal government because we feel that funds should be funnelled through our organization. People still relate to our organization when they need additional help for funding or when they are lost. They always know where their home organization is. We still deal with them, but many times those funds are just non-existent for Inuvialuit who live outside the territory.
I feel that system is unfair because our Inuvialuit should be mobile. They should be able to live anywhere. They have needs and we should try to support them so they will be successful.
We are not an inward-looking group of people. We support people who make a living in other parts of Canada or the world. These negotiations are primarily within the Inuvialuit organization; however, we recognize that in terms of governance these people will probably not be involved because public governance issues come into play.
Mr. Nerysoo: One important policy issue that we have been confronted with is the issue of providing a response to beneficiaries, including status Indians. At the moment, we are not provided with resources from the Government of Canada because these people are non-resident in our region. As a result, it is our expectation that the Government of Canada would deliver and respond to the program needs when these people are resident in Alberta or Ottawa, for example.
The problem we have now is that departmental officials are recommending that these people ask their original community to deliver the program to these individuals, and yet the government is not providing the funds in order for the community to do that.
That is a dilemma for us. That is an issue that we wish to negotiate in order that government would open its doors so that we could address those particular needs. This is significant, because we are talking of beneficiaries and, in our particular case, of whether or not those programs are available to aboriginal people generally. This is an issue with which we are confronted.
Senator Adams: The Gwich'in have Treaty 11 and the Inuvialuit have the Inuvialuit Community Corporation as their governing body. What is covered in your policy with regard to the federal government?
Ms Cournoyea: The Inuvialuit have had an historical base since approximately 1920, when the treaty parties were coming round to the communities. There was quite a significant amount of information coming through Copper Mine as a result of the trading back and forth.
Some people who were ordained were Inuvialuit. Some ministries were quite sophisticated in their knowledge about what was going on. When they found that the treaty was going to be signed, it was interpreted to be offering $5 for everything. My understanding is that at that time our treaty party felt that it was really irresponsible to offer the Inuit $5, because they were getting $30 for each white fox that was trapped and they were puzzled by the $5 figure.
The Inuvialuit did not see the benefit of signing a treaty, especially in the fall when the hunting was so bountiful. Therefore, after about eight days of negotiation, the treaty party woke up one morning and there was no one left to sign the treaty. That is why the Inuvialuit never signed a treaty. Up to the present, if you are Inuvialuit, you do not face the same difficulties as the people who signed a treaty, because they are confronted with a differentiation between Metis, treaty and status or non-status Indian. Those definitions do not exist for the Inuit.
The Chairman: We must find some way of getting into the substance of the issues that you have brought forward. We do not have time to get into the depth of it today. Perhaps at a later date we will be able to hear from you again.
We are also investigating the possibility of monitoring and following up on these hearings that we have been conducting since last year. Our short time here today does not give us enough time to go into the depths of these issues to the extent that they deserve. Your presentation and concerns deal with the day-to-day life of our people and those issues are very important. We must find some way of dealing with those concerns up front.
Aboriginal society must be very concerned with what will become of aboriginal people a few years down the line. If the system continues in the direction it is in now, it does not seem to be very promising for the future.
Perhaps we will end up with public government and we will not need to worry about our ethnic values. I do not think that is the case within any aboriginal society throughout Canada. These issues must be dealt with in some way, shape or form.
I have approximately 20 years of experience in negotiations and entering into the ethnic aspect in public institutions with the Government of Quebec. You might think that the Government of Quebec would understand why there is a need to have a governing body in order to govern yourself. The only way you can do that is if you deal with your land claims and become part of the governing structure.
The issue of land claims may be used as a safety mechanism to ensure that public interest does not override the ethnic interest, which happens from time to time.
At present, we are no further ahead than we were 20 years ago, because of the power struggle in regard to our lack of a land base and resources that could make things move. If you do not have money, you cannot get things done. If you have money, you can get things done. If you have money, people will listen. If you do not have money, people will not listen to you.
Those are the factors confronting the aboriginal people who wish to govern themselves. If we are to borrow from outside systems such as a public body and if we hope that this will be the answer to our concerns, in many ways we are misleading ourselves.
The big questions must be answered by the central government. Is there a national will that would accommodate a new set of elements and values that would be brought forward in order to govern through governing institutions as a public body? If that is the case, some flexibility will have to be built in. Sometimes I wonder whether division of powers will resolve the problems. In some cases, it will. In other cases, it will not. Those are not small factors. They are important and must be dealt with. This forum can highlight certain issues and can make recommendations to the government, but there must be a sufficiently strong will within aboriginal society to push to the maximum to be understood by the general public of Canada.
We would appreciate having some Conservative senators here to listen to what these people are saying.
Senator Andreychuk: Mr. Chairman, I resent that comment. I have attended probably as many meetings as have you.
The Chairman: That comment was not directed at you personally. The deputy chair should be here.
Senator Andreychuk: The leadership should speak about that issue. I would not wish to sit on this committee, if I thought you were going to make such comments about me.
I might also point out that we should strictly adhere to time limits. When we do not do so, it is unfair to other witness and to committee members who have other duties.
The Chairman: We postponed this meeting for 15 minutes due to the lack of attendance of Conservative members.
Senator Andreychuk: Speak to the leadership.
The Chairman: Thank you for your excellent presentation.
Mr. Nerysoo: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank all the senators who have attended these meetings and the other senators who take an interest in defending the issues of aboriginal people generally. This is a tough issue. Every consideration we can get from those involved in public institutions such as the Senate and the House of Commons is valuable to us. We need people to continue to promote the changes that are necessary to ensure success.
We appear here to tell you about our experiences in order that you can acknowledge and consider them. You asked us to be more responsive and detailed. We are prepared to do that. We are committed to ensuring better public policy in Canada. That is very important to us.
Ms Cournoyea: I also wish to thank you for the time and effort taken to arrange this forum for us to be heard.
Our main goal is to build a regional concept of government that respects claims while respecting the rights of the others who live there who are not subject to claims. We live very close together. In our area in the far Western Arctic we are a minority. We are not so naive as to think that it will be easy to make our voices heard with regard to our place in a territorial society or in the Canadian society. We are not the diamond capital or the mining capital, but we have relationships with other circumpolar regions, including Alaska, Nunavut, and the Gwich'in. We try to respect the rights and claims of each individual while still working together. That includes those who are not Inuvialuit.
When we attempt to do that, people question where the others fit in. We are trying to make it a good experience.
I should like to read to you something from the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which is very similar to the Gwich'in agreement. It reads:
The Settlement Legislation approving, giving effect to and declaring valid this Agreement shall provide that, where there is inconsistency or conflict between either the Settlement Legislation or this Agreement and the provisions of any other federal, territorial, provincial or municipal law, or any by-law or regulation, the Settlement Legislation or this Agreement shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.
That goes above and beyond what you said about a supposition that the federal or territorial government can make laws and provisions that override the claim. They cannot. At the same time, we know we have to live together with others and we are proposing to do that. We are very pleased that you have taken the time to listen to us.
The Chairman: We will now hear from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.
Please proceed.
Mr. Perry Bellegarde, Grand Chief, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present and contribute to this special study on aboriginal self-government. I make this presentation on behalf of the 72 First Nations of the FSIN.
Honourable senators, I have three other chiefs with me this morning from Saskatchewan: Chief Wapass from Thunderchild; Chief Tom Littlespruce from Loon Lake; and Chief Miller Nawakayas, from Red Earth First Nation.
The FSIN consists of 72 First Nations that belong to five -- but, I always say six -- linguistic groups: The Cree, the Saulteaux, the Denesuline, the Dakota/Lakota/Nakota First Nations in Saskatchewan. There are really six. The First Nations are signatories to Treaties 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10.
The FSIN has been in existence for over 50 years, maintaining as its primary objectives the promotion of treaties and the protection of treaty rights. Our organization works in partnership with its First Nations institutions involved in educational, social, economic and cultural endeavours. Our institutions include the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre, the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies, the First Nations Bank of Canada, and the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority, which runs and operates four casinos in Saskatchewan -- not that we are into gaming, but it is part of our initiatives.
The primary political structure of the federation is expressed in the Convention Act. We have passed copies to senators so that you can see the convention of the FSIN. It establishes its principal governance structure, the chiefs and the assembly, the Senate, the Elders Council and the Executive Council.
Since its inception, the FSIN has worked as a collective, unified voice for the protection and implementation of treaty rights in Saskatchewan. As part of this submission to the Standing Senate Committee, I provide a copy of our 1998-99 annual report, which also highlights the governing structure of the FSIN and its achievements. You also have that to read.
In Saskatchewan, the First Nations entered treaties with the Crown. At the time those treaties were concluded, First Nations peoples looked to their spiritual traditions for guidance and strength. In respecting the traditions and protocols of First Nations peoples, we sought the support and full participation of our elders in the treaty governance processes in Saskatchewan. Just as the Crown and First Nations relied on and concluded the treaties with the exchange of solemn promises through the sacred pipe ceremonies, we continue to carry out the sacred duty today. In this regard, we believed then as we believe today that the treaty-making process recognized the mutual respect and authority of the parties to enter into the treaties. Something you always hear in our territory is that nations make treaties, treaties do not make nations. I have heard that since I was a little kid growing up. I have heard that all my life.
More than a century has passed since the conclusion of the treaty-making process in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan First Nations continue to regard treaties as covenants of the highest order with the Crown. The sanctity of a contract is something we believe in because of the Covenant with the Creator. We always stress that belief.
Both the FSIN and the Crown have demonstrated a commitment to realizing the special treaty relationship by engaging in a bilateral process through the Office of the Treaty Commissioner and the creation of the Treaty Table in 1996. The parties to the Treaty Table are currently exploring seven treaty rights and/or jurisdictions in the areas of child and family services, education, justice, health, shelter, annuities, hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering.
Throughout these talks, the provincial government has held observer status. We often say that they came after treaties. Saskatchewan became part of Confederation in 1905 and a number of treaties were concluded up to the 1920s. We always point that out.
Recently, the topic of lands and resources has been added to the treaty table mandate. I outlined seven original items. About one year ago, when I took office as the FSIN chief, I said, "If we are to deal with things and if we are to talk about economic self-sufficiency and independence, then access to lands and resources is a key thing for us as indigenous peoples." We added "lands" and "resources" to that table as the eighth item. We call it "unfinished treaty business". It is not so much resource revenue sharing as it is resource benefit sharing in terms of access to jobs, employment opportunities, economic development opportunities and education and training opportunities. That is a key point to keep in mind on this issue.
The Chairman: Is that restricted to reserve only?
Mr. Bellegarde: On and off reserve, collectively.
The Office of the Treaty Commissioner facilitates these historic treaty discussions and strives to create a positive image of the treaties and the treaty relationship through a comprehensive public education campaign in Saskatchewan. That is a key point as well. If we are to promote and protect our treaties and inherent rights, there is no better process than public education and awareness, which leads to understanding and, hopefully, to action. That is what we are all about. Both our Indian and non-Indian brothers and sisters must be taught about that special relationship in the school curriculum so that a comprehensive public education awareness campaign occurs. That is a long time in coming.
The first phase of the Treaty Table discussions produced "The Statement of Treaty Issues", a copy of which we provided to members of the committee. It is the first phase. "The Statement of Treaty Issues" captures the comprehensive discussions held by FSIN and the Crown about the nature of the historic relationship. In achieving this end, the parties considered both the oral and the documentary sources of information to broaden their understanding of the treaties. This approach brings to the forefront the First Nations' concepts, understanding and interpretation of our history. It brings to the attention of the Crown the spirit and intent of the treaty, which has been silent for far too long.
As a result of bilateral discussions on the seven treaty topics, the parties to the Treaty Table gleaned from their discussions three common themes that exist in each of the seven treaty rights and our jurisdiction to be negotiated. Those three themes are: first, livelihood -- that is, everyone living in the same equal capacity; second, governance; and then brother-to-brother relations, which collectively describe the spirit and intent of the treaty in that they express the First Nations' objectives in entering into the treaty.
We say that the two concepts regarding the treaty process were peaceful coexistence and mutual respect between the indigenous peoples and the newcomers to Turtle Island. Those are the two concepts that we always put to the forefront.
The treaty principles describe the nature of the treaty relationship and the purpose of treaty making. The treaty relationship as a guide to future relations is listed in the brief.
Treaty making incorporated the customs of the First Nations and the Crown, created a fundamental political relationship between treaty First Nations and the Crown and created obligations and expectations on both sides -- not just one side. It is not just our $5 annuity payments or the fact that the chief is receiving $25 and the head men are getting $15 and a suitable suit of clothing, and all the other things that are there. There are obligations on both sides. Our non-Indian brothers and sisters also have treaty rights, such as the use of factory rights to the land and the right to utilize the lands. They have rights in addition to ours.
Treaty making involved the exchange of solemn promises based on respect for the spiritual and traditional values of others. The Crown and the First Nations entered into the agreements freely and of their own accord as the best possible means of advancing their respective interests. Treaty making recognized the authority of the treaty commissioners for the Crown and the chiefs and headmen for their First Nations. In entering into these agreements, there was a mutual recognition of the authority and capacity of both parties.
The treaty commissioner is a key person in all discussions. We are pleased that we have our treaty commissioner in Saskatchewan appointed by the cabinet. Perhaps at some point there will be a treaty commissioner appointed by Parliament. That is something to think about and work towards, because it would be an independent, arm's length body. That is one of the recommendations that we have made.
The treaty-making process created a unique form of relationship and thereby makes the treaty solemn. Again, this addresses the sanctity of contract. The conduct and behaviour of the parties to honour and respect the treaties is necessary to maintaining the treaty relationship. Treaties were to provide for peace and good order between the parties and among First Nations. Treaties were a means to building lasting and meaningful alliances that would foster future wellbeing. Treaties were entered to provide survival, stability and mutual benefit.
The treaty relationship creates benefits, responsibilities and mutual obligations for both parties. The treaty relationship is one tool with which the parties expect to resolve their differences through mutual discussion and decision. The Crown and First Nations share a common commitment to restore the treaty relationship and build on a partnership that can address the wellbeing of both parties in a respectful and supportive way.
In Canada's Constitution, sections 25 and 35 cover existing aboriginal treaty rights. The debate continues: Is it a full box or an empty box? We need processes and dialogue to find agreement among the governments, federal and provincial, and First Nations. We need to resolve issues rather than litigate forever. Until I see nine or seven brown-skinned judges sitting on the Supreme Court, I am kind of leery about going there.
We must build on treaty relationships. The parties can enter into agreements where treaty First Nations exercise jurisdiction and governance over their lands and peoples. These agreements will not alter the treaties but will implement the treaty partnership in a contemporary way. That is the bottom line.
As indigenous peoples we will always have inherent rights. We will always have treaties, as long as the sun shines, as long as rivers run. If those treaties are not practically and pragmatically implemented, what good are they to our children and grandchildren?
We must find ways and means of implementing treaties. We must move away from the Indian Act. Possibly we should move towards treaty implementation legislation. Somehow we must give legal effect to the spirit and intent of the treaties. The processes in our territories are moving in that direction. If the Indian Act disappeared tomorrow morning -- and it could happen -- would that mean that our rights died with it? Would it mean that, as indigenous peoples, we would no longer have treaty rights or inherent rights? I think not.
Where do our rights come from? If you ask a group of Indians in Canada whether they have treaty cards, lots of arms go up, but the word "treaty" does not appear on those cards. It is not a treaty card. It is a "status" card for Indians within the meaning found in the Indian Act. There is a difference. That is just one example of how colonization affects the mindset of an indigenous people. We must change that. From the Indian Act we must move towards something new in terms of treaty implementation legislation.
The participation of the Government of Saskatchewan is required to advance implementation of jurisdiction in governance. The treaty relationship is beneficial for all people in Saskatchewan, not just First Nations people. There are three overlapping circles of jurisdiction. We must resolve which areas are federal, which provincial, which aboriginal, and which are joint. We do not expect that Canada will do away with the provinces tomorrow, so they must be involved. They will vacate certain fields of jurisdiction once the aboriginal governments are prepared to usurp those functions and to take back power over areas like Indian child and family services or education or justice.
We need to restore self-government by building capacity and accountability. In addition to the bilateral arrangement, FSIN entered into a trilateral relation with the federal and provincial governments by establishing a process called the Common Table as a means of restoring self-government based on the treaties and the treaty relationship. The parties to the Common Table created two additional fora for their discussions which are guided by the Treaty Table and are titled the Fiscal Relations Table and the Governance Table.
At the Common Table sits the Minister of Indian Affairs, myself as Grand Chief of FSIN and a provincial representative, preferably the premier. Right now Berny Wiens, Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs, sits at that table.
The Treaty Table is the main table, guiding the other tables. The Fiscal Relations Table has been operating now for 18 months, working towards a new umbrella, fiscal relationship based on the treaty relationship, based on our total population and based on need. Those discussions require consideration of governance as well, so the Governance Table is also up and running. You cannot have one without the other. Fiscal considerations and governance must work in tandem, pulling together.
The Governance Table continues to engage in exploratory discussion on issues directly related to the implementation of First Nations governance. The table seeks to address issues such as models of treaty-based governments desired by First Nations. There are many models out there. Under the Cree Nation, there are chiefs of individual reserves, chiefs of First Nations, tribal councils and grand councils, and independent First Nations. We belong to various treaties and treaty territories. Some belong to the FSIN. We are also members of the Assembly of First Nations.
We must clarify exactly what we mean by governance. We are now embarking on the road of consultation, not only with chiefs and councils and people on reserve but also with people off reserve. Fifty per cent of our population resides off reserve and that trend is growing. This brings up portability of rights, programs, services, jurisdiction and representation within a process of inclusion.
There are many models and we must decide at some point. Indian people are still having this debate as indigenous peoples in a treaty relationship with the Crown: Should treaty Indian people vote in federal or provincial elections? If we do participate, what impact does that have on our sovereignty and jurisdiction, and all those questions?
We also debate the Indian Act elective systems for Indians normally resident on reserves versus the custom of the band elective systems, where everyone votes for chief and council regardless of residency. We were given the right to vote as indigenous peoples back in the 1960s by Prime Minister Diefenbaker. The First Nations people never asked for that, but it was granted. Until then, we were not allowed to participate. My question is whether that is the date that we officially became Canadian citizens?
I once asked Premier Allan Blakeney when indigenous peoples officially became Canadian citizens, but I couched it in terms of the immigration policy of the Canadian government of that day. It was capped at 350, and it is now 250.They will eventually become official Canadian citizens. I asked when the indigenous peoples officially became Canadian citizens. I mention that as something to think about.
After these model discussions, various systems of administration and how they will function in our communities are discussed, as are intergovernmental relations between First Nations and other governments and how First Nations and their communities will establish effective and accountable structures to meet the expectations of their citizens.
We just held a forum last week with the Auditor General of Canada where we discussed accountability and the structures that we have in place. Those are the big words now, "accountability" and "transparency," and we want to ensure that any system we develop within the FSIN maintains that. We talk about issues such as an Indian ombudsman. We talk about our own council of elders, our Senate, some place where we can go to establish links, somewhere other than seeking legal redress.
The FSIN and the governments of Canada and Saskatchewan have developed principles of intergovernmental relationships, and they are developing principles to guide models of governance. The principles to be used as guidelines for intergovernmental discussions are provided with this submission.
The FSIN has begun to identify and develop preliminary models of First Nations governance and is continuing to seek input from First Nations. The overall purpose is to define levels of government and governmental functions that will be necessary in the treaty implementation process.
Broad consultations with First Nations on models of governance will guide the development of the next phase of the work at the tables. As a result of these consultations, the FSIN is aware of the developments taking place at various levels within its political structure, and by that we are talking about the tribal councils. Meadow Lake Tribal Council worked on different models for many years. There are treaty territory concepts, and tribal councils themselves are evolving. We endeavour to integrate these models into the overall work plan at the governance table.
The work of these tribal and treaty councils should not be viewed as conflicting with the undertakings of the FSIN at the governance table. We say, to the contrary, that this model development supports and contributes to the work at the governance table and is vital to the future success of the governance table.
One important aspect of First Nations governance and fiscal relations is ensuring that leaders in communities have the internal capacity to take on new arrangements. In this regard, a proposal for a governance institute is being developed by the FSIN. A governance institute would be a place for training and education, constitutional development, citizenship legislation, whatever is required for the First Nations chief and council levels, inherent rights, customs, and laws. It is a First Nation initiative intended to provide professional training for First Nations leaders and administrators in three aspects of capacity: Training of leaders, chiefs and councils, executive officers, band administrators; community discussion and engagement in rebuilding government; and development of model citizenship codes, constitutions, legislative and policy instruments, and other tools of governance.
The second forum created by the trilateral common table is the fiscal relations table. The objectives of the FSIN and the fiscal relations table discussions are to build a new government-to-government fiscal relationship that enables a system of sustainable First Nations governance with the capacity and wherewithal to improve the economic well-being of our peoples. We talk about self-government, self-determination, and the financing of it. What is required to set up your legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, and will those resources be there?You cannot plan unless you know that. We are working towards a new umbrella fiscal arrangement, but based on inherent treaty rights, total membership and the needs of the peoples.
The fiscal relations table discussions are grounded in some fundamental principles and objectives that were established in the work plan, and among these the following are key: A fiscal agreement must build on the treaty relationship between the Crown and First Nations, and I mention need and total population as well. The agreement must adhere to the principle of fiscal equity, and fiscal relations must foster and support self-reliant First Nations government.
Rather than engaging in position-based negotiations, the fiscal relations table began with non-position-based exploratory discussions. In doing so, we have learned about each other's objectives and interests and found many areas where these mesh. For example, the table's joint work on accountability has found many common interests and helped clarify the obligations that we have to each other.
The parties are nearing the negotiation stage. The parties have identified a number of issues that are crucial to a successful fiscal arrangement. Among them is comparability. As part of achieving fiscal equity, governments must contribute to a state of well-being for First Nations peoples that is comparable with the rest of Saskatchewan or, indeed, the rest of society in Canada. There is no need to go into the socio-economic conditions. You have heard them time and again. We want to close the gap that exists from where we are to where the rest of Canadian society is, improving housing, education, training, and employment opportunities. That is what it is about.
This includes ensuring that programs and services are comparable, but it must also recognize the need for catching up in the economic and social well-being of First Nations peoples. We cannot forget the critical fact that First Nations have been subject to over 100 years of systematic colonization and aggressive assimilation under the Indian Act. They have controlled us from the womb to the tomb, as we say. Only now are we fighting to reach the level of prosperity and social health enjoyed by others in Saskatchewan.
The Indian Act has produced many symptoms, such as poor education, chronic unemployment, substandard economic development, and restriction of our culture. Legislative change must be contemplated, and the attendant fiscal resources must accompany such a change.
The fiscal relations table is looking at how to include First Nations' own source revenues as part of the fiscal pie. We know there are insufficient revenues to meet the needs, and we do not want the poor people in our communities to self-fund your treaty obligations. We know that, in the long term, self-determination will best be served through economic self-sufficiency, economic independence, and access to lands and resources.
"Resource revenues/benefit sharing" are the new words we hear today. We did not use those words when we started to deal with the NRTA. The elders tell us that the treaties did not include giving up resources of the land. The treaty talks were silent on resources, yet, in 1930, the federal government transferred Crown resources to the provinces under the Natural Resources Transfer Act. First Nations in Saskatchewan seek redress for this both from the standpoint of what has happened in the past and from the standpoint of how to fix this unfinished treaty business through new resource sharing arrangements.
We say that the 1930 NRTA is unfinished treaty business. Our elders tell us that the "big" government, which is the federal government, had no right to transfer to the "little" governments, meaning the provincial governments, all of the resources and everything else. They said we share this much under treaty and nothing beneath that. That is the teaching. We have heard of Delgamuukw and all the other decisions that are coming down now.
When we talk about this issue, it is not a money grab. It is resource benefit sharing. When there is industry, whether it be forestry or mining or whatever, how many First Nations people are working in those institutions, in those big industries, in those big companies? Do we have access to the economic development spin-offs; all of the business opportunities that flow from that; and, of course, the education and training opportunities? We call it resource benefit sharing. Again, close the gap. We are pushing towards a representative participation in the economy as indigenous peoples, not just consumers of goods and services. We are getting into the real nuts and bolts of participation in the economy in a representative way and as a representative work force.
We make up 10 per cent of the population of Saskatchewan. The challenge we always talk to industry about, both public and private, is pushing toward and developing strategies to focus our representation in the workforce. Getting 10 per cent is a start.
While 10 per cent of the population of Saskatchewan is Indian, the population of First Nations peoples in jails is 70 to 80 per cent. That is another statistic to keep in mind. We have to change things.
There must be certainty in funding. You cannot have sustainable government and a true government-to-government fiscal relationship if funding comes from an annual appropriation that is completely at the discretion of Parliament. There must be a more stable means of funding that respects the treaty relationship, as we understand it, and as we are jointly defining it through the treaty table.
We feel that the treaties are there for us. If they were practically implemented according to their spirit and intent, we should be all right as treaty people, but we are not. Sometimes we would like to do a treaty audit to see who has benefited from the treaty relationship. Many times our people feel anger -- the sum of $5 has not changed for over 100 years. Treaty days were big days growing up on our reserves. If you had six kids, you were entitled to $30. Our young people say that they cannot even buy a pack of smokes for $5.
We are now in the process of fleshing out all these issues at the technical level and developing options to address them. All these options are based upon a new relationship among our governments. That is where your role as legislators will become critical. I hope you will see this as an opportunity and a way to honour and build our treaty relationship by achieving true comparability and partnership among equals. The results of these new fiscal relationships will pay dividends to us all as our communities heal and grow toward healthy self-determination and self-sufficiency.
In conclusion, since time immemorial, First Nations in what is now known as Saskatchewan, have been self-determining and self-governing peoples. Our people had a sacred relationship to our mother, the earth, as the life giver. It is Mother Earth who sustained us and made us strong and viable nations. It is inconceivable that our forefathers would ever relinquish their responsibilities or authorities as autonomous nations to either their people or their lands.
In our view, the treaties we entered into with the Crown and the subsequent treaty relationship are about maintaining our traditional way of life and providing for a livelihood in the face of great change. We looked to the treaty-making process as a way of ensuring a future for our people and of developing lasting relations with the Crown. The bilateral and trilateral processes in Saskatchewan are about restoring our inherent authorities as self-governing nations.
These processes are also about the establishment of a fresh conceptual framework for the application of the treaty principles and implementation of the treaties. We expect to realize the spirit of mutual benefit as was intended by those who negotiated treaties from 1874 to 1906. As legislators, we seek your support in making this a reality.
We have provided some documents to members of the committee which include the convention, the annual report and a statement of treaty issues. The bottom line is moving toward treaty implementation, something different from the Indian Act.
The Royal Proclamation of 1763, the 1867 BNA Act, Saskatchewan becoming part of Confederation in 1905, the 1930 NRTA and the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, are all in place. However, they will be no good unless our rights are respected, honoured and implemented. That is why we say rather than litigate we have to sit down to find a way to work these things through and move toward treaty implementation legislation. The processes we have in Saskatchewan are all about trying to do that.
The Chairman: We are very encouraged by the recommendations you have brought forward. However, there is one area that still puzzles me, and it has puzzled me for quite some time because, in my view, it has not been adequately addressed.
One of the issues we must deal with relates to our women. Over the years, I have heard that there are many problems within and outside the community in the treatment of Indian women. The problems in the Inuit world are slightly different. Both males and females must be serious about addressing and trying to rectify the problem.
Up to now I have not heard from the witnesses who have appeared before us, a willingness to address this problem in a clear fashion. They have not stated the type of amendments they would like to see to the Indian Act. Why has that not been addressed? Is it because they would like to see the problem remain as a problem or would they like to find a solution to the problem? The women feel that they are being discriminated against by their male partners.
Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Bellegarde: The issue of discrimination against women was the whole rationale behind Bill C-31 when it was passed in 1985.
One of our elders whom I always consult tells me that we must respect the women because without women there is no life. Even in terms of our ceremonies, such as the sweat lodge and the sun dance, one-half is devoted to women. We respect them. It is just part of our teachings.
Discrimination against women did exist. The whole idea behind Bill C-31 was to get rid of discriminatory practices. If an Indian woman married a white man, she would lose her status. Yet, it did not work the other way around. If an Indian man married a white woman, prior to 1985, she gained status.
When I was in high school, I dated a Chinese girl. Had we married, she would have been classed as an Indian. If we had kids, they would have been "Chindian". Under the Indian Act, she would have been considered to be a status Indian.
Any new legislation must respect the role of women. That is all I can say on that topic.
The Chairman: Thank you for addressing that issue.
Chief Delbert Wapass, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations: One of the shifts the FSIN took was to establish a women's secretariat to address these kinds of issues. Within our community we have what we call, "Comprehensive Strategy Development" and in that strategy we address the issues related to women. I do not know if we have gone overboard, because there are only two male members working at our band office. However, the situation is being addressed.
Mr. Bellegarde: We see the role of women changing. We have many women chiefs in Saskatchewan.
Senator Perrault: How many?
Mr. Bellegarde: Five. We have an entire council, including the chief, who are all women, at Ocean Man First Nation in southern Saskatchewan. They are Nakota and Assiniboine. The chief, Laura Big Eagle, and council members are all women. It is the first of its kind in Canada.
We also have Chief Marie Anne Day Walker from Okanese, a long-time serving chief of over 20 years; Chief Flora Natomagan from Wollaston Lake, Denesuline, in the far north; and Chief Maryanne Stoney from Little Pine. I said five but perhaps there are four, unless I am missing one.
Senator Perrault: Were they all elected?
Mr. Bellegarde: Yes, they are all elected chiefs.
Senator Andreychuk: I should like to pay tribute to some of the things that you have done, and one is the education base you have created. It seems to me that so much of what you have achieved in Saskatchewan has been as a result of your focus on education. I am familiar with the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College which is one of the best examples of what you have done. The the process is controlled, managed and governed by the First Nations, yet it adheres to ideals like the independence of scholarly pursuit and looks to international standards of education. You have been able to blend the two, and that is very important.
Throughout so much of what you have accomplished in the last 20 or 25 years has been as a result of the fact that your members are slowly being educated, particularly to post-secondary education level. I believe the number of graduates has gone up by approximately 3,000 out of that college alone in the last 20 years.
You say that you are now going into the schools and the communities to try to bridge this gap between the non-aboriginal and the aboriginal that exists, and the misunderstandings that exist in Saskatchewan as they do elsewhere. What else are you doing to ensure that the non-aboriginal community understands the benefits of the processes that you are developing?
You focused on the fact that your membership is FSIN, and you talk about "reserve" and "off-reserve." What are proposals or ideas with respect to those aboriginal people who are not caught with the FSIN; for example, Metis in the urban centres? How do we bridge the gap so that all aboriginal people have their rights; and what role do you see yourselves taking in that process?
Mr. Bellegarde: Before I respond to your questions, I should like to say that the SIFC, as Indian indigenous peoples, believe that education is now our buffalo of the 1990s and the 21st century if we are to survive as Indian people. I make a point about that because, long ago, buffalo gave us everything we needed: food, shelter and clothing. That was how we survived. Our constant theme to our people now is: If you are to survive as indigenous peoples, get an education.
We emphasis as well as a "white" education -- kindergarten to grade 12, and on to university -- the other forms of education. We mean by that, languages, customs, ceremonies, traditions, and all those things that make a person an indigenous person. I mean no disrespect to Ukrainian, it is a beautiful language, but in school we heard Ukrainian or French. We did not hear Cree or Saulteaux or Dene. They must go together. We tell our children that our language is our self-identity and pride. Institutions like SIFC, with the inclusion of our elders and their teachings, is a key part of that healing, that regaining of pride and self-esteem.
At SIFC there is talk of this international indigenous university. There is work being done now at FISC to try and get that going. I say that because we do not need to reinvent the wheel.
Although bands such as Thunderchild and Black Bear may control its post-secondary education budget, it still had to deal with the cap that was put on that spending. The number of students is increasing, as are university tuition rates at the University of Saskatchewan, so that will put a drain on this budget. That is a concern for us. The work that we are doing is good, it is positive, and that is reflected in the number of graduates completing the post-secondary level. We do not wish to see a backward trend because of the cap.
You as what else are we doing in terms of public education? We have established the SARM SUMA Round Table with the FSIN. SARM is the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, and SUMA is Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association. All the municipal governments in Saskatchewan have established that round table to deal with issues such as reserve creation, tax loss compensation to the rural municipalities, urban and rural. We have established that formal process with them. Sinclair Harrison and Mike Badham, City of Regina, is the president of SUMA. Sinclair Harrison is president of SARM.
We met last week and we talked about two or three very contentious issues in our region: reserve creation, tax loss compensation, and the difference between the Treaty Land Entitlement compensation versus the specific claims compensation, that is, whether it should be 22.5 times versus five times in terms of tax.
We also deal with provincial sales tax on and off reserve. In Saskatchewan there is a policy which we believe is written in stone. That policy is in regard to status Indians not paying for PST on purchases off reserve. We must talk about the amount of monies that are lost, or received from the on-reserve gasoline and tobacco purchases. We try to find a resolution to that problem. Of course we argue treaty and inherent rights, but we also try to find ways to resolve all of these issues.
We also discuss public education, and I mentioned the SARM and the SUMA. The office of the treaty commissioner is embarking on a public education strategy. I often make presentations to chambers of commerce, to schools, when I have time, in the City of Saskatoon, and in Elbow, Saskatchewan, where there are no Indian reserves, so we use videos presentations so people can see what we are talking about. We made two presentations to the monarchists and to the Canadian Club. All these things are ongoing and formal.
However, we must do more in terms of changing the curriculum, and that is something we are starting to do. These treaties and inherent rights should be taught in the schools from our perspective, not just to our own people, but to all the little children going to school in Regina, Saskatoon, Prince Albert, or wherever.
Senator, you asked about the off-reserve issue in terms of representation. In Saskatchewan, there are 72 reserves. When chiefs and council members are elected, the election can follow the provisions in the Indian Act relating to residents on the reserve voting, or the election can follow the custom of the band whereby the total membership would vote. We want all First Nations to vote according to the custom of the band because they are parties to the treaty. Out of the 72 reserves, about 40 operate under the custom of the band.
There is a bit of work to do yet to get the rest of the bands to vote following the custom of the band, but once that happens, we can start talking about portability of rights and services and programs to band members on and off reserve and in urban centres.
In Saskatchewan, we have organizations called tribal councils which encompass a defined geographic area. They are taking up the function of providing services to First Nations people in large urban centres throughout Saskatchewan. They are the organization involved with delivering those services. Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert -- the three largest centres in Saskatchewan -- have corresponding tribal councils that provide First Nations employment services and education and training programs. They provide off-reserve housing services.
We used to call our centre in Regina a one-stop-shopping, urban Indian delivery centre. When you come in from the reservation, you need a place to live, and you can do all of these things in one centre.
In all honesty, senators, there is a difference between Metis people and Indian people, and that must be respected. They have a unique history of their own, so I cannot speak on their behalf. However, I can speak for the people of the First Nations. They have their own structures that must be respected as well.
Senator Andreychuk: If we are to make recommendations to the federal government, under the Constitution, we must be concerned about respecting the rights of all aboriginal peoples. You have made a very thoughtful presentation covering all points regarding First Nations. How do we marry that process with what we should be recommending and saying about the Metis? We are excluding the Inuit here. Yet in our communities, the Metis are living side by side with First Nations and non-aboriginals.
How do you see your role? What recommendations can we make to the government about that? We do not want our recommendations to frustrate what you are attempting to do; rather, they should take into account other aboriginal rights.
Mr. Bellegarde: That is the dilemma. We have been trying to get out of the mixing bowl. Again, other rights must be respected. That is the message.
Everything is based on our inherent rights and treaty relationships. I can remember our elders saying that the Queen's commissioner came out to meet with our chiefs. Our chiefs asked about our Metis brothers and sisters. The Crown's commissioner, Alexander Morris, told our chiefs that he would make a treaty with the Indian chiefs first, and go back to the Metis people later. As yet, the government has not dealt with them. They must be dealt with, but that is not our problem. We have our treaty. We have inherent rights and treaty rights, and we want them respected, honoured and implemented.
We are all different as indigenous peoples. There are over 55 indigenous languages and 55 distinct, separate and unique nations. The point I am making is that there must be different strokes for different folks. There must be a measure of flexibility. There must also be a recognition that there are differences between indigenous peoples.
I know it is easier for the government to make one aboriginal policy and apply it to all three of the distinct and unique groups. I do not want to use the terms, "groups" or "ethnic minorities." We always say we are indigenous peoples or First Nations peoples, and I want to keep using those phrases. We are not ethnic minorities. There must be a respect and a recognition of that fact from governments.
Mr. Wapass: I am a teacher by trade. I have taught for four years in both elementary school and high school. In order to get the message out about what we are doing as First Nations people, we must ensure that our history is part of the curriculum in our schools. There must be a balance between our curriculum and the non-native curriculum.
Senator Gill: We have been talking for quite a while about a third order of government. We have to consider that there were pre-Confederation treaties, as well as post-Confederation treaties numbered 1 to 11. We also have the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, the Nisga'a agreement and the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act. You mentioned that the basis for your government are the treaties for governance. Do you see a common ground between all those groups in the country and the governments with respect to agreeing on a third order of government?
Mr. Bellegarde: When I think about governance, self-government and self-determination, I apply it to myself. I am a member of the Little Black Bear First Nation. The people elect our chief and council, and everyone votes. Our reserve is three miles by nine miles in size, with a population of 500 people. However, when it comes to funding, our band has a membership of 5,000.
We belong to the File Hills Agency where five reserves work together. Then we belong to the Touchwood File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council where 16 reserves work together. Then we belong to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations where 72 reserves work together. We also belong to the Assembly of First Nations where 633 reserves work together.
The Little Black Bear Reserve signed Treaty 4 in 1874. Thirty-three reserves signed Treaty 4, and seven are in Manitoba. The Little Black Bear First Nation is part of the Cree Nation.
By applying this model, what do we mean? The common ground can be seen as inherent rights and treaties. However, applying that concept to Nunavut, the people of Sechelt, Nisga'a or the James Bay Cree or the Cree Nation across Canada does not necessarily work. There are laws and customs, but they are not together. We will always be Cree, but not together. We must work that out. At some point in time we must make the decision. Within this third order of government you talk about, what do we mean? Very practically, we have to start going down the road of defining what we want. In our territory, we are embarking on that consultation road. Are we looking at a federation, or is there something else within that? We must find that common ground.
The area of common ground that I see for indigenous peoples relates to inherent rights. This matter is so huge, but that is the only way I can foresee a third order of government. Where do we set up the legislative, executive and judicial branches within what I just described here? All of these matters must be addressed.
Senator Perrault: You spoke about the need to build understanding. Are you on the Internet? Do you have a site on the Internet to explain your position in detail? Are your documents being put on the Internet now so that people can download them? It is vital these days now to employ that link.
As far as education of young people is concerned, are you on SchoolNet? The objective is to provide every Canadian school access to SchoolNet. That is a way to build bridges. Have you done anything of that kind yet? That would seem to be a useful step to take.
Mr. Bellegarde: We have our own Web page within the FSIN. We are in the process of building it up. It is not complete. All these documents you have, we would love them to be accessible.
Senator Perrault: If they were, it would be a great step forward.
Mr. Bellegarde: They are not there yet. We have a Web page for the FSIN. We are in the process of addressing access to SchoolNet. Some schools are hooked up, but not all. That relates to Senator Andreychuk's question when she asked what else we were doing. I should have commented on that.
Senator Perrault: Two years ago I went to a conference in Fort St. John. They described how they are now using these new communication techniques to bring education and ideas to people who have been denied them for years.
Instead of sending people to residential schools, for example, they can stay in their own community and, by satellite link, some of the best teachers in Canada can teach these young people. Is anything happening with your people in that area?
Mr. Bellegarde: We talk about a virtual reality or an electronic education institute.
Senator Perrault: A person who is a near genius in teaching is chosen and then his or her lectures are then distributed through the Internet to communities, rural and otherwise, throughout Canada. It is an exciting concept that could really be of help to your members.
Mr. Bellegarde: It is a great concept and it should be supported. However, access to the infrastructure, that is, the hardware and access to the videos is always difficult. We need to get our hands on the capital to do these things. It is a good goal, and we should pursue it.
The Chairman: Is lack of financing a problem?
Mr. Bellegarde: That is part of it.
Senator Perrault: It would just open the world to both sides of this issue.
Mr. Wapass: We are in the midst of trying to see if we can enter into a joint venture with some other body to see if we can move forward with this.
Senator Perrault: There might be a significant amount of help out there for you. I could suggest a couple of names.
Mr. Wapass: I would appreciate that.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation today.
The committee adjourned.