Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 10 - Evidence - Meeting of June 15, 2005
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 15, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:20 p.m. to examine and report on the involvement of Aboriginal communities and businesses in economic development activities in Canada.
Senator Nick G. Sibbeston (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have a number of witnesses here tonight from the Assembly of First Nations. I invite to the table Chief Jason Goodstriker, who is the Regional Chief of Alberta for the Assembly of First Nations.
Chief Jason Goodstriker, Regional Chief of Alberta, Assembly of First Nations: Good evening. My colleague Ms. Judy Whiteduck is our director of economic development at the Assembly of First Nations. Mr. Dean Polchies is a former leader from the Atlantic area. We are excited to have capable staff in an emerging portfolio. We have been at it for a number of years and we are excited to have continuity and to be a major priority for our First Nations people.
Distinguished members of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, I wish to thank you, on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and our chiefs committees on economic development and human resources development, for this opportunity to address your committee.
As the AFN portfolio holder for economic partnerships, I am pleased that your committee is conducting a study on Aboriginal economic development. However, I wish to inform you that my presentation is specific to First Nations' economic policy circumstances.
On May 31, 2005, the national chief, on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, on behalf of the federal government and the Crown, signed a political accord for the recognition and implementation of First Nations governments. The national chief cited the accord as a historic step forward for First Nations in their relations with the federal government and noted the opportunity to give life to the inherent Aboriginal and treaty rights of the First Nations as recognized in section 35 of Canada's Constitution.
The accord describes elements that will guide our relationship over the next while. It contains descriptions of important political and cultural developmental priorities that exist within our communities, from governance, to language, to individual health, to economic development.
A section of the protocol focuses specifically on the importance of the implementation of First Nations governments and socio-economic development. I have left a copy of the protocol with your committee clerk for your reference. This section of the protocol speaks to the need for strong First Nation governments, economic capacity and the ability to partner, and speaks to jurisdictional issues.
In the interest of forward thinking, I plan to present our recommendations, all of which respect the new relationship, on what can be done to bring positive results to the First Nations economies.
Based on First Nation results of the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable session on economic opportunities, as well as direction that has been provided to the Assembly of First Nations through our specific processes such as the Chiefs in Assembly national resolutions, chiefs committees, and technical work of our secretariat, we propose to develop a new economic strategy between the federal government and First Nations that will recommit to the importance of establishing strong economic capacity amongst our communities and that will bring together First Nation and other stakeholders in an economic summit to dialogue on recommendations in support of such a strategy.
We believe that these efforts and their results will present appropriate next steps to the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable discussions and at the same time be respectful of our processes and past federal processes such as the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and even bureaucracy-level program evaluations.
We know that a new strategy needs to be flexible to encourage economic growth at all stages. It must include an aggressive approach to assist our depressed economies and must take special initiatives to continue the developmental track of our dynamic economies.
An economic summit will open the door to First Nations at all economic stages to take discussions on transformative policy change to the next level. Although many steps will need to be developed jointly, in our view the economic summit would attract at least five broad strategic discussions.
The first of those is the examination of the economic infrastructure needed in communities regionally and nationally. Infrastructure includes matters from a fiscal funding framework, programs, services, incentives, human resources, government capacities, and innovative financial requirements. A strategy must consider how to better place First Nations at the helm of decision-making processes for issues that encourage our economic growth.
The second is the identification of new levels of support and activity for cross-cutting priorities — women, youth, connectivity and mobility issues.
The third discussion regards how to involve the mainstream private sector. Their participation is critical to discussing and building mechanisms that will assist in accessing mainstream procurements.
The fourth is the exploration of new channels to support our activity in resource development, resource-sharing opportunities, trade development, and increased labour force and skill development opportunities.
The last of those broad strategic discussions is the identification of systems to encourage regional development and to find ways for governments, provinces and First Nations to work together on economic initiatives.
Undoubtedly, part of this exercise will involve legislated change, policy change, funding authority adjustments, and jurisdictional clarification.
We recognize that it will be important in this exercise to work with federal partners, such as Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Industry Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and others. We will continue to work with the partners who are already engaged, and we will seek to establish new work relationships. We fully recognize the importance of informed suggestions on coordination.
We have also recognized over the past several years that existing authorities and frameworks may need a facelift. The 1989 Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy was an innovative and good approach in its era, but, for the most part, it remains the model for all economic programs serving our communities. Our economies have changed in the last 16 years. It is our view that it is time to discuss a new, more sophisticated approach to assisting First Nations in our bid to rebuild our economies.
Many factors point to the need for a new strategy. Not only is our young population at an age when they need to be ready to participate in the workforce, but we are also in an era when the Canadian economy is strong and more momentum can be gained from First Nation entrepreneurship and the greater economic success of our communities.
We recall the reports from the Auditor General recommending economic coordination and increased economic capacities in our communities. We recall other important events that have played a role in reshaping the First Nation- Crown and federal relationship and have helped to set a new context for a better economic relationship between First Nations and Canada.
Those events include the recognition of Aboriginal rights under the Constitution Act of 1982. The following year, the Commons Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, in the Penner Report, presented resource revenue sharing as an independent source of self-government funding and recommended that the doctrine of extinguishment be eliminated from the settlement of claims.
In 1985, the Task Force to Review Comprehensive Claims Policy argued for resource revenue sharing as an alternative to extinguishment of resource rights, as did the Honourable A.C. Hamilton in his 1995 report, ``A New Partnership,'' which was presented to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Not much later, in 1996 the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples came forward with its recommendations. In 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada clarified in its Delgamuukw decision that Aboriginal title encompasses mineral rights as well as lands. More recently, a decision has come forward that the federal government must consult with First Nations before resource development occurs in traditional lands.
We have reports, judgments and findings that assist in laying the groundwork for a new economic strategy. We also have recent decisions that point out needed changes, such as with the recent federal expenditure review exercise, which has affected First Nations and Inuit economic programs. We need to develop new mechanisms that will protect economic development envelopes from massive cuts.
It is our understanding that the current expenditure review exercise may result in at least a $107-million loss over the next four years and perhaps as much as a $300-million net loss. The decision to cut these programs has been rejected by our Chiefs Committee on Economic Development, and a national resolution to that effect was passed in March of this year.
The applied definition of economic development is about long-term results and change. Cuts to long-term changes, as you know, will increase social costs.
I would like to close on a positive note and state that we need to continue the commitment for meaningful policy engagement by the federal government and First Nations. Jointly, we can improve the economies in every community in Canada. We have the relationships set out. We now need the policy drive.
Senator Watt: I attended the roundtable conference where the Prime Minister signalled his willingness to go into more depth in dealing with Indian right to self-government and to continue moving forward on economic opportunities available to Aboriginal people across the country. I welcome a new idea, a new approach; it has been a long time coming.
The constitutional rights were negotiated in 1982, but the government has been unwilling to implement section 35. That is long overdue. You have neatly highlighted the situation by connecting rights with economic opportunities. That is a good idea. We are not just looking for handouts; rather we are looking for economic opportunities and trying to connect those into the movement toward dealing with the matter of our rights. If we do not do it ourselves, no one will. That is a good story from the perspective of the general Canadian public.
I applaud you for bringing this forward to us, and we will do our part now to further the work. When we meet internally, we will closely examine the points you have raised. Thank you.
Mr. Goodstriker: The region that I am from in Alberta certainly has potential. My friend Audrey Poitras, one of the Metis leaders, can attest to that. Southern Alberta has a strong, treaty-based First Nation community. One of the articles in treaty number 7, which is a shared right among the people, stated that we have a new way of living. Because the buffalo are gone, our way of providing for our families is also gone. Provisions were negotiated for education. Specific to treaty number 7, there were provisions regarding cattle and ploughs. A fiduciary agreement was struck.
I am excited about how we plan to give life to this 130-year-old process that is so important to our people. Housing and education are priorities right now, but economic development must be a priority as well because it is a key part of the puzzle. That is exciting for us.
Senator Fitzpatrick: Welcome, Chief. Thank you for your remarks. They were very interesting and helpful to us.
We have often heard the comment that all politics are local. In a way, economies are local as well, and our total economy in Canada is a combination of the local economies.
I wonder if you could give us a list of the problems that you see in developing an economy and industry in your area. I am from the Okanagan, which we have talked about before. We have seen progress being made by several of the bands in the Okanagan, and I have an appreciation of what their challenges are. Could you tell us about the challenges you face in your area and in Alberta?
Mr. Goodstriker: In our communities, I see that the dollar needs to stretch around more.
I used to be the chair the Blood Tribe's finance committee. That was interesting. Blood Tribe is the largest band in Canada, and we had a very large budget. I would examine wages and would see how much money was actually retained in the community versus how much left the community. There was an overall outward flow, and that is happening in every community in the country, in every local economy, not just mine.
On the larger scene, because we are not fee simple land people, it is an enormous bureaucratic process for a band or a community to start a development project and see it through from beginning to end. Five or six departments must be consulted before a project will go forward, including for example Justice Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Any leader will tell you that it is an uphill battle to get from A to B on a large-scale project.
Those two things stand out as being paramount, but maybe my colleagues have something to add.
Ms. Judy Whiteduck, Director, Economic Partnership Secretariat, Assembly of First Nations: First Nations need to have a greater ability and the instruments to affect their economies locally. Currently the funding instruments sit largely in other government hands and not in First Nation hands. More of those instruments must rest with First Nations so that they can determine what their economies should look like and then have the ability to respond to their own needs based on what their communities' priorities are. Certainly if their efforts are to regionalize economies, then they should have those instruments regionally and locally.
Senator Fitzpatrick: We recently passed the Aboriginal financial act. Have you had a chance to take advantage of that legislation? Do you think that it is a positive step?
I think I understood that you would like to have mortgages on your assets or your properties like you can off reserve. You do not have the ability to mortgage. Did I also detect that you think there is too much red tape to deal with in Ottawa?
Mr. Goodstriker: That is actually the main point. Privatization and mortgaging are things that the chiefs would like to deal with individually. A discussion has to take place. The position of the Assembly of First Nations is that, because of Crown lands and the way that communities are set up, there has to be some kind of legislation to address this matter so that economic lending systems can be a part of our communities without our having to go through such a long process.
Senator Gustafson: Welcome. I believe that we were travelling with the Agriculture and Forestry Committee in Lethbridge when we met you before. My question is about information on page 5 of your brief where you discuss being involved in the mainstream private sector. Could you elaborate on that? What areas of private investment are you working in?
Mr. Goodstriker: Thank you for the question, senator. In the Lethbridge area, you witnessed the lands that were of benefit to us. We seized upon the opportunity to build the largest irrigation system in the world. We bundle hay, cart it up and ship it to a corporation in Japan. We are doing well with that enterprise. There are other projects as well. We are finding that the international market is very respectful of our communities and we have quite a bit of access to that market.
Recently, I had an opportunity to be involved with the Canada-India trade mission. India is an agricultural country. In my view, when you want to increase your international trading opportunities, it makes sense to talk to people in countries that are not faring so well. In that way, you can be first on a number of fronts. We were excited to be at those talks and the people were interested in talking to us. Certainly, we would like to continue to be a part of such processes and to have our economies respected so that the dollars remain in our communities. That is key to our economies.
Senator Gustafson: Are you dealing with irrigated land?
Mr. Goodstriker: Yes. Those large-scale projects are interesting and exciting to the communities. A number of chiefs and others have asked me how they can get involved in such projects. The ideas are out there. It is tough when a community can offer only three or four good jobs, such as being elected to council. Reversing that is a priority.
Senator Gustafson: On page 7 of your brief, you said that Aboriginal title encompasses mineral rights as well as lands. You are referring to oil revenues; is that correct? Could you explain further what is happening in that regard?
Mr. Goodstriker: Treaties were signed a number of years ago. In about 1930 the federal government transferred the ownership of the resources to the provinces. Our communities still feel strongly that the government never talked to us about the transfer. That is still open for discussion. Nevertheless, the transfer occurred and companies are doing well. In my region many things are happening quickly, so we have to catch up and get in on those revenues. In all likelihood, the communities should have a shared ownership in those revenues because the transfer to the provinces was never negotiated.
Senator Gustafson: I understand that Alberta is different from Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, every second section received the mineral rights with the land. Most of the sections with mineral rights receive 12 per cent. In other words, they receive revenues from every twelfth barrel of 100 barrels sold. I understand that that was not the case in Alberta.
Mr. Goodstriker: No. The business that varies between the provinces is complicated. We would like to be involved in that business. My chiefs have said that we want more than to carry chain saws, cut and pound in stakes. We want to be on the drill head and we want to own that rig.
Senator Gustafson: That is understandable.
Mr. Goodstriker: You mentioned Saskatchewan, where I used to live for a number of years. We are dealing with out-migration. Many people have left Saskatchewan — not only First Nations communities but also towns. We are proposing to grow these economies so as to retain people. Otherwise, who will be left? We are excited about developing ways for people to stay and build stronger economies. That is another key.
Senator Gustafson: People are also moving from smaller communities to larger urban centres.
Mr. Goodstriker: Yes. In my region of Alberta, we are beginning to see quite a bit of urban frustration, and large numbers of people are moving back to the communities. The migration has been talked about for many years but, in my region, people are returning to the communities. I could possibly obtain statistics on that for the committee.
The same numbers are being used today as were used five or 10 years ago for looking at the needs for housing and infrastructure in the communities. The housing and other things are substandard and out of date. How can we handle the people who are returning? Where will they live? How will they live? This, too, is interesting.
Senator Gustafson: I have always argued that most of the resources of Canada come out of rural Canada and very little goes back into rural Canada. You are familiar with that. Rather, the revenues go to the urban centres, and so, as Alvin Hamilton said, there is an undeclared war between rural Canada and urban Canada. That is a tough way to put it, but there is probably some truth in that comment.
Senator Peterson: Concerning the migration back to the reserve, are there jobs for those people?
Mr. Goodstriker: It is a problem, because it is important to have a properly constructed economy. I like to conceptualize things following the model of a large corporation, like Ford, that has been around for many years. Such a company has many well-thought-out policies and industry practices. To become large, a corporation has to be developed carefully, especially if, like Ford, it is to last for 80 years or 100 years.
In Indian country, we have been in the driver's seat of our economies for only the past 15 or 20 years. We are growing quickly, but we need to stay in the driver's seat so that we can handle the situations that arise, such as the reverse migration. I would like to ask Mr. Polchies to comment.
Mr. Dean Polchies, Policy Analyst, Economic Partnership Secretariat, Assembly of First Nations: A small example of what should be transpiring occurred on June 1, 2005, when Indian Affairs and Northern Development Minister Andy Scott introduced Bill C-54, the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act. The proposed legislation will enable First Nations to assume jurisdiction and control of their oil and gas and related revenues and is an incremental step toward self-government. The legislative initiative was developed jointly over the past decade by First Nations with significant oil and gas reserves on their lands. The three First Nations currently involved — the White Bear First Nation in Saskatchewan, and the Blood Tribe and the Siksika First Nation in Alberta — have worked with the federal government to develop a comprehensive regime that will enable them to oversee oil and gas resource developments on their lands with a view to increasing economic development in their respective communities.
Senator Buchanan: I wanted to ask Senator Gustafson a question. What did you mean when you said that there are some grants of land in Saskatchewan with mineral resources and some without?
Senator Gustafson: On every second section, the mineral rights remain with the land. The farmers who own the land own the mineral rights, if they did not sell them or get beat out of them. In Alberta, I understand it is different.
Senator Buchanan: It is different in the Atlantic provinces, as well, where all the mineral resources are owned by the provinces because of the BNA Act.
Did you say, Chief, that the federal government had transferred mineral rights to the Province of Alberta?
Mr. Goodstriker: The natural resources transfer acts for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, I believe, were responsible for that.
Senator Buchanan: When the original provinces came into Confederation, all mineral rights that the colony owned before continued to be vested in the province, not in the new federal government. That is the difference between the western provinces and the Atlantic provinces. I do not know what the situation is in Ontario or Quebec.
Senator Peterson: You pointed out earlier that economic development is an integral part of securing self- government. As well, you indicated that you thought the cutbacks that have taken place might be around $100 million. I think you will find it closer to $300 million. The First Nations will have to take that up with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, because it is not discretionary spending. They cut back that funding saying that it was discretionary spending. Yet, it is an integral part of how you will succeed in this new world. One thing to do is to get those funds put back in place.
In Saskatchewan, many bands — some using land treaty entitlement money — are forming partnerships, often between stronger bands and smaller ones. Is that feasible in your area? Would you promote that within your area?
Mr. Goodstriker: It is feasible, and in fact partnerships are happening in our communities. At the same time, with increased partnerships and good relations, we are finding on the First Nations side that we are doing all right, and on the government side, the provinces and the feds are also doing all right in the agreements. However, people in industry are starting to get nervous, because they are held to a partnership one way or the other. In Alberta, some industries respect Supreme Court decisions and respect the processes for dealing with First Nation communities, for example when a pipeline business goes through our traditional territories. But there are other industries that still run roughshod over the communities and disregard the proper processes. Partnerships are absolutely key. Having industry as a positive and integral part of a relationship is also very important.
Senator Peterson: You indicated earlier that education is paramount as you move forward. How do you foresee dealing with the question of education, both on and off reserve?
Mr. Goodstriker: We need initiatives to keep children and young people in school until and even beyond high school and to teach them the value and importance of an education for the rest of their lives. Our young people need to learn what a university is for, what a college is for, how industry operates, how to mortgage a house, and all sorts of other things. If we had an initiative to teach them that early enough, maybe around grade 8, then retention rates in high school would go up and so would educational activity beyond high school, whether in trade school or college or university. The process of going from getting a high school diploma to bringing a cheque home is a key to success. That is a topic of paramount concern to all my chiefs in Canada; they all want to get incomes going for their membership.
Senator Léger: How much of this information is being communicated to the rest of the country, to the non- Aboriginals? For years, I, like you, have been a witness to everything that is being done, but none of it has come out in a big way on television. Do the industries consider it important that we know about your growth, your coming into the changes that are happening? Is there a preoccupation to give the economic side of the story too?
Mr. Goodstriker: Your point is well taken. We do have a beautiful story. The treaty process is an historical Canadian process. More people should know that. Our story of success is not complete. We are only on chapter 2, but what is yet to come is the involvement of Canadians and industry and good healthy government for us to get from A to B. Having people understand that is key, but it is tough. I have been on radio shows and in front of the media, and there is an attitude out there that is tough to work against. Nevertheless, we are going to keep trying to tell our story and have it go.
Senator Léger: It should be not the main priority, I feel, but we are always concerned to help so that we can be a part of whoever you are.
I have another question, coming from New Brunswick, where there is no oil and gas.
Senator Buchanan: You have some natural gas outside Moncton.
Senator Léger: We do? Enbridge is there, I know that. I think it came there from Sable Island.
Senator Buchanan: They have been pumping natural gas outside of Moncton for the last 40 years.
Senator Léger: I have a feeling it is not the Mi'kmaq who are pumping natural gas.
In British Columbia, they probably have those natural resources. We are so happy you have them, and all of a sudden we are listening because we need it. I was going to say, if you have none, maybe you do not need that for now. He caught me off guard because in Moncton they have it.
Senator Buchanan: I am sorry; I did not mean to do that.
Mr. Goodstriker: Our communities are not anti-industry or anti-development. We want to be a partner of greater importance and to continue to be a player in the equation.
Senator Léger: The last thing is education, as Senator Peterson said. We felt that all along and you are absolutely right: education is the most important thing.
Are there many young people going into computer technology? We say that we need mechanics, but there must be many young people capable of more who will go into the field of technology.
Mr. Goodstriker: That is a big part of what is developing and what is to come. There are some very good colleges that have partnerships with communities, and we need to have much more of that. Importing labour happens around the country. It is a big issue in Alberta. We are here to say, ``Import us if you want to import labour.'' We have a budding population that is excited about this.
Senator Gustafson: At Fort McMurray, in the tar sands development, what percentage of Aboriginal people would be working on a project like that?
Mr. Goodstriker: There are a number of camps there. About 10 per cent are involved, but that number is increasing. The communities of Fort MacKay, Fort Chipewyan and Grande Prairie are doing very well, but other communities still need assistance.
Senator Gustafson: Are the workers under contract mainly?
Mr. Goodstriker: Yes. When a company comes to develop natural gas or pipeline projects, for instance, some communities certainly get involved. However, awareness must be heightened and involvement increased, and there should be some legislative measures around this, because obviously the Supreme Court has steered things in a certain direction. It is getting better, but your point is very well taken.
Senator Peterson: I would like to get back to the issue of education and your comment about ``import us.'' Within the next few years, the 18- to 25-year-old segment of the population in Regina will be predominantly Aboriginal. Our tourism industry and our retail industries will require those people to be there. Now is the time to work on the education side to encourage and develop that potential. It will take a collective effort. The Santa Fe school system in New Mexico is an interesting model.
Mr. Goodstriker: Our Canadian artists are sought after all over the world. It would be a wonderful opportunity for Regina if we had an art school or program that would attract that type of business. We are doing quite well right now in the entertainment industry, but we could bump up our numbers and involvement in this industry.
Senator Peterson: We have the university now, as you know. We have to ensure that the students get there.
Mr. Goodstriker: Definitely.
The Chairman: Chief Goodstriker, you talked about the need for a recommitment by the federal government and a new strategy, which would work towards an economic summit. I gather the Assembly of First Nations would take a lead on that summit.
We are dealing with this whole issue of Aboriginal involvement in economic projects throughout our economy because we do see the importance of Aboriginal peoples' getting involved in business and in various resource developments happening throughout the country.
I come from the Northwest Territories, where Aboriginal people are very much involved in all the main economic development projects, including the diamond mines and the proposed gas pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley, where Aboriginal people will own one-third of the pipeline. We have made significant advances in the North, where Aboriginal people have land tenure and their land claims have been settled and so they have capital to invest in the projects. They have equity. They also have governance. Academic witnesses before this committee have told us that in order to be successful, Aboriginal people must have governance, control and jurisdiction.
We are interested in looking at factors that lead to Aboriginal success. That is the focus of our study. Eventually, we will go out to the regions of our country to talk to First Nations people and to businesses that are involved. There are successful people everywhere, and we want to hear their stories; we want to find out what has made it possible for them to succeed. Economic development is extremely important.
At the same time, there are many situations where people are not succeeding and there is a certain amount of apathy. It is difficult for those people to get on their feet and get going. We will examine that, too. It will illustrate the missing things that are essential for success.
Undoubtedly the Assembly of First Nations has a role to play in dealing with governments and in focusing attention on the plight of Aboriginal people in our country. If ever you are successful in your plans to have an economic summit, that would be one way that the whole country could look at this matter.
Mr. Goodstriker: That is a very good statement.
Our neighbours to the south, the Americans, have a style of law-making that is somewhat different from ours. In the United States, a number of pieces of federal legislation enabled the bands to begin their economic processes — for example, there is a federal Indian gaming act from the 1980s. By contrast, Ottawa has not made a federal gaming law; gaming legislation has always been left up to the provinces. That is why gaming varies between the regions of Canada.
There are some very successful situations. Gaming businesses have certainly helped communities in the United States accomplish the goals that we are trying to accomplish in my region. Two or three communities in the United States have been so successful that they are able to employ more than just their own members. In the Connecticut area, after a particular federal election, military contracts were cancelled and suddenly up to 10,000 people were out of work. The casinos employed all of those people. A band in Mississippi has done very well by having out-sourcing companies establish in their communities. Their employment numbers are among the highest of any region in Mississippi, with employment of up to 35,000 people.
In Asia, there are economic development zones where the main concern is companies' leaving. The international trading threshold is very high because of the zones. The government receives income tax from the workers, but the corporations do very well. We have those zones, too; they are called Indian reserves. That is how I feel about jurisdiction and control.
When a band does well, it employs more than only its own members. In the Canadian framework we have not yet explored the possibility of becoming players in this equation. It is commendable that we are having this discussion on this topic.
The Chairman: I wish to thank you very much for your presentation. Your views will be reflected in our report.
Mr. Goodstriker: There were many questions about oil and gas development. A chief once told me that his community was trying to get a contract clearing brush for development. The company did not want to give them the contract, saying they did not have the capacity and the training needed to do the job. They negotiated for some time, and finally the chief said, ``If we can burn a wagon going 25 miles an hour, I am sure we can burn a bush standing still.''
Members of the Senate, thank you.
The Chairman: Senators, our next witnesses are from the Metis National Council.
Ms. Audrey Poitras, Vice-President, Métis National Council: Good evening. With me is Valerie Nicholls, the Director of Intergovernmental Affairs of the Métis National Council.
On behalf of the Metis Nation, I want to thank this Senate committee for examining the involvement of Aboriginal communities and businesses in economic development activities in Canada. This is a subject of primary importance to the Metis Nation. By way of background, the Metis Nation is represented through democratically elected, province- wide governance structures from Ontario west. These include the Metis Nation of Ontario, the Manitoba Metis Federation, the Metis Nation-Saskatchewan, the Metis Nation of Alberta and the Metis Provincial Council of British Columbia.
These regional Metis governments come together to form the Metis National Council, which is mandated to represent the Metis Nation at the national and international levels. The Metis National Council is governed by a six- member board of governors that consists of the presidents of the five regional Metis governments as well as our elected national president. Our present-day Metis governments are the contemporary expression of the century-old struggle of the Metis Nation to be self-determining within the Canadian federation.
You may be aware that the Metis Nation played a major role in extending commerce into the Great Lakes and historic northwest prior to Canada's crystallization as a nation. Our identity as a new Aboriginal people was nurtured by the fur trade. The Metis are known for our entrepreneurial spirit. We are known to be ardent advocates of free trade and were instrumental in breaking the Hudson Bay fur trade monopoly.
However, hand in hand with our desire for free trade is our desire for fair trade and the need to create a level economic playing field. This field has not been level for the Metis since the decline of the fur trade. In a nutshell, we have not had the opportunity to participate fully in the Canadian economy.
If time permitted, I could detail the long and sordid history of Canada's fraudulent land grant and scrip scheme that was perpetrated on us, the result being that the Metis have arrived in the 21st century largely a landless people in our own homeland. This lack of a land and resource base continues to be the single greatest impediment to achieving self- sufficiency within our communities.
The issues of Metis lands and Metis access to resources continue to be top priorities for us. In the Canada-Metis Nation Framework Agreement signed at the recent policy retreat between cabinet and Aboriginal leaders, the Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians on behalf of Canada agreed to begin to address these land-related issues with us. I have provided to the committee a copy of this agreement for your reference.
Within the framework agreement, Canada has agreed to explore options to address Metis land-related issues with the Metis Nation within a proposed multilateral process with the provinces from Ontario west. This is an important development, since we continue to be excluded from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's comprehensive claims process that is available to First Nations and Inuit to resolve their claims. We hope this new multilateral process will lead to Metis-specific processes to resolve our outstanding claims. Moreover, it is our hope that we can now establish negotiation processes with Canada outside of litigation to finally deal with Metis rights.
As the committee may be aware, on September 19, 2003, with the release of the Powley decision, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Metis, as a full-fledged, rights-bearing people, have existing constitutional rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act. The upshot of this landmark decision is that the Crown, federal and provincial, can no longer be wilfully blind to the existence of Metis rights. Rather than having to continue to use the courts to secure justice, we hope a new era of negotiation will be in engaged. I ask this committee to urge the Government of Canada to uphold its commitments and make real and measured progress on the objectives of the Canada-Metis Nation Framework Agreement.
I particularly want to draw your attention to two commitments in the framework agreement that bear on the present work of your committee. Section 3 outlines the subject matters for negotiations. These include the following:
e. examine opportunities of programs and services which may be suitable for devolution to the Metis National Council's Governing Members;
j. exploring options for establishing economic development initiatives to assist the Metis Nation in becoming self- sufficient and self-sustaining.
These provisions reflect the long-standing Metis desire to reclaim the economic liberty that our forefathers once enjoyed as well as our desire to establish developmental initiatives of our own choice and design.
Over the past year, as a part of the follow-up to the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable, the Metis Nation has consulted and developed proposed approaches and recommendations for moving forward on economic opportunities. These are outlined in a policy paper, which has also been provided for your reference. I encourage committee members to review the paper in detail in order to garner a better sense of the Metis Nation's realities, aspirations and strategies in economic development. In the interests of time this evening, I will highlight only a few points and recommendations from the paper.
First and foremost, I want to emphasize that Metis do not seek handouts from government. We seek strategic investments in our community. By assisting Metis governments to improve the socio-economic situation Metis people face, more Metis will be productively engaged in the economy. We are confident that this is the way to Metis self- sufficiency and prosperity.
In order to achieve that, our overarching recommendation is to devolve existing federal government economic development programs and services to Metis Nation governments. Devolution is consistent with the federal government's recognition of the inherent right of Aboriginal self-government, and it also makes sense from a policy perspective. Currently, 11 federal departments deliver 48 programs with economic opportunities, with 27 specifically targeting Aboriginal people. That creates a patchwork of economic development programming that is very difficult for Metis people to access. Horizontally managing these resources through devolution and building on what is working make sense.
The Metis Nation's governance structures from Ontario west are well placed to take on these programs. We have a proven record of effective delivery of programs and services. For example, in my province of Alberta, our Metis capital corporation, Apeetogosan (Metis) Development Inc., has lent more than $32 million to entrepreneurs starting and expanding their businesses in Alberta over the last decade. In total, over 800 businesses have been created and have grown through Apeetogosan's loans, counselling and business support services. As well, our Metis human resources development agreements, which are supported by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada through the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy, have been extremely successful. Over the last decade, regional Metis governments have delivered close to $300 million in labour-market programming to our people, with impressive, measurable results.
Those Metis labour market agreements have also allowed us to establish effective partnerships with the private sector, universities and training institutions. The Metis Nation of Ontario has established a $4.2-million bursary trust at 32 colleges and universities in Ontario. The Manitoba Metis Federation has established recruitment initiatives with employers like Maple Leaf Foods and Manitoba Hydro. The Metis Nation of Alberta has leveraged labour market funds to purchase an oil rig and to train Metis people to operate and manage that rig. I could go on through many more examples, but my message is clear: we must continue to build upon these proven Metis Nation infrastructures.
We recommend that Industry Canada begin working with us to transfer existing economic programming to our developmental platforms. A practical example would be transferring an equitable allocation of current federal expenditures under the Aboriginal Business Canada program to our institutions.
With respect to other existing programs that the Metis Nation delivers, we believe that skill development remains a crucial component of any successful economic development strategy. The Metis Nation recommends enhancing the extremely successful Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy. We stress the need for an increase to the strategy's resources, which have remained frozen since 1990. This is the flagship for Metis economic development, but inflation continues to erode the reach of the program in our communities.
Further, Metis exclusion from all of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's economic development programming must end. Metis-specific resources must be invested in order to fill the current medium- to large-scale economic development programming gap we face. Current inequities, which leave Metis on the outside looking in when development is happening in our backyards, must cease.
Finally, the Metis Nation is recommending that the federal government work with us to establish a national Metis Nation venture capital corporation, either through a direct one-time contribution to capitalize the fund or by using the tax credit system.
In closing, I would note that Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, twinned the pursuit of all economic interest with the public good and used the metaphor of ``the invisible hand of the market'' as justification for our economic system. We have seen in Canada that the market is far from perfect, requiring governments to intervene to advance important regional, social and economic interests. The Metis Nation is recommending a wide variety of market interventions and specific development tools based on best practices and proven approaches in our community. We believe that through these types of strategic interventions the Metis people who were once known as the brokers of the fur trade will be able to reclaim a fair and just place in Canada's economy. Thank you very much.
Senator Peterson: Do you have one single definition of what a Metis is now?
Ms. Poitras: We do have a national definition. The Metis National Council has consulted with all of our communities, and each of our provinces had motions approved at our annual meetings and at the annual general meeting of our Metis National Council. We have one definition for all the Metis National Council, the Metis Nation in Canada.
Senator Peterson: On the economic side, you talked about installing strategic investments in your communities. What do you mean by that? How would you define your community? Is this through your organization?
Ms. Poitras: Yes, through the Metis National Council and our governing members, which are the Metis Nation of Ontario, Manitoba Metis Federation, Metis Nation-Saskatchewan, Metis Nation of Alberta and the Metis Provincial Council of British Columbia.
Senator Peterson: The funding would go to those groups and they would determine individually where it went from there. Is that correct?
Ms. Poitras: The Metis Nation of Alberta is made up of six regional offices and a head office, and we have a provincial council of 14 members who, on behalf of our Metis people within Alberta, make decisions on economic, health and education issues. The other provinces may have a different structure.
Senator Buchanan: I will sound naive in what I am going to say. From 1978 to 1991 I attended every federal- provincial conference of every kind, including many conferences on Aboriginal rights. The confusing part of it through those years was the definition of Metis. I still really do not know. The Metis occurred as a result of the mixed ancestry that happened when Indian men or Indian women intermarried with Europeans; is that right?
Ms. Poitras: I would not say that it is wrong, but there is much more to the Metis Nation than that.
Senator Buchanan: Just go that far so that I will not get too confused.
If that is the case, why is the Metis Nation concentrated from B.C. to Ontario and including the Northwest Territories? What about people in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec who are also descended from intermarriages between Europeans and the native peoples of those areas. Why are they not considered Metis?
Ms. Poitras: The Metis Nation is much more than just about mixed blood. The Metis Nation is a group of people with a language, a history, a culture and actual homeland boundaries put into place long before there was a Canada. The first Metis Nation flag was flown in 1816.
Senator Buchanan: However, over the years since then, as I understand it, Metis have integrated into society as a whole throughout the areas where you are recognized as a Metis Nation. There are no specific areas where Metis live; is that not true?
Ms. Poitras: That is true in most areas. However, in Alberta there is also Metis settlement land, which is eight pieces of land where Metis do truly live within boundaries of land. But certainly Metis live in small towns and large towns and in rural communities and way up north and everywhere else.
Regarding the definition of Metis, certainly people self-identify as Metis with a European ancestor and an Aboriginal ancestor. In addition, the Metis definition is the connection back to the historical community, which is the Metis Nation homeland we talk about from Ontario westward. That Metis Nation homeland has been in existence for a long time, and it is part of the definition of Metis that the Metis National Council has adopted.
Senator Buchanan: Am I correct in understanding that you are saying that the Metis National Council has no difficulty identifying the Metis of Canada, recognizing who are members of Metis communities and who are not?
Ms. Poitras: All of our provinces have a registry department with clear criteria that a person has to meet in order to become a member of a Metis nation.
Senator Buchanan: Who sets up the criteria? Is it your council?
Ms. Poitras: The definition approved by the national body has been approved in all five provinces by our membership.
Senator Buchanan: Identification and membership for Metis people was set up by your Metis council and not by the federal government through Indian Affairs. Is that correct?
Ms. Poitras: The Metis have always taken the stand that no one should ever be able to define who we are as Metis people other than ourselves. We were in existence long before there was a Canada.
Senator Buchanan: I understand that. You say that you have a registry department in every province. I have never heard of one in Nova Scotia.
Ms. Poitras: They are from Ontario westward.
Senator Buchanan: The Metis National Council covers B.C., the western provinces and the Northwest Territories?
Ms. Poitras: The Northwest Territories has a Metis nation that used to be part of the Metis National Council but they made a decision to leave the Metis National Council because of a land claim process they were going through. Our bylaws clearly state that the Metis National Council is made up of only Metis people; the land claim process included other Aboriginal people as well, so the Metis of Northwest Territories determined to remove themselves to pursue their land claim process.
Senator Buchanan: I was unaware of the Powley decision. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Metis are a full- fledged, rights-bearing people having existing constitutional rights protected by section 35. I know all about section 35 because I was one of the ones who signed it. I do not remember whether, at that time, section 35 was to include the Metis people. Has the Supreme Court of Canada now recognized the Metis as part of section 35 for treaty rights?
Ms. Poitras: The Metis were included in 1982 within section 35 of the Constitution of Canada. It took all this time to finally get some acknowledgement. It was through the Supreme Court of Canada that the Metis finally got the recognition that, within the Constitution, we are one of the Aboriginal peoples with equal rights.
Senator Buchanan: I was there from 1978 to 1982, and I was there when we finalized all this in 1981. I suppose because we have no Metis in the area of the Atlantic where I am from, it never registered with any of us that Metis were included in the section 35 Constitution rights. You learn something new every day.
The Chairman: I might remind the former premier of Nova Scotia that in section 35 of the Constitution, there is a clause that says that the Aboriginal people of Canada include the Indian, Inuit and Metis people.
Senator Léger: I am from the East too. Your Metis Nation is from Ontario west, but you are a national organization. Do you have any concerns or frustrations about other people defining themselves as Metis? Are you worried about others who had lands before Canada was created? When the 1982 Charter refers to the Metis, does it mean only the Metis from the western provinces? When the courts use this term, do they mean only those Metis west of Ontario?
Ms. Poitras: I cannot answer your question as to what was meant when the term ``Metis'' was included in the 1982 Charter. Perhaps Senator Buchanan knows better than I do.
I do know that there certainly are people in other parts of Canada who identify themselves as Metis. We actually had the opportunity to go to New Brunswick where Minister Scott introduced us to some people who made it clear to us that they are mixed-blood people, but they do not consider themselves as Metis. We are aware of other people who identify as Metis whose background differs from the history we have known as western people. The Supreme Court decision has certainly left openings for other people to prove their ancestry, just as we had to. The Metis National Council had to prove our historical background in the court case.
Senator Léger: I imagine there must be many Metis in Quebec. Even in New Brunswick, I have heard people identify themselves as Metis. I wonder if the Metis in the west are worried or interested about this. You told us that Minister Scott introduced you to some Metis in New Brunswick, which is interesting. I am glad. I have the feeling that they feel left out. You have the word ``national'' in your identity. I understand that that comes from before there was Canada, but they were here before Canada too. That part really puzzles me, but I understand a little better today.
On page 3 of your presentation, you listed all of your successes: $32 million loaned to entrepreneurs, 800 businesses, and so on. Yet I felt that the overall tone of your comments was really more on the negative side, with not much emphasis on the positive things you are doing. Is there a reason for that?
Ms. Poitras: We wanted to point out that the only opportunity we have had as Metis is through Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and our Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreement. That is the only agreement to have been devolved to the Metis Nation. We have been allowed to design and develop programs to train our people to be able to fulfill those needs in our communities. It has truly been a success. We hope Canada will see that success and look at the economic area and see that we can do the same thing there. We have the structures in place. We can do that.
I mentioned one other opportunity with the Metis Nation of Alberta. We have moved into the economic area by creating an economic development strategy. One of the areas we targeted was the oil and gas industry, because of what is happening in Alberta. We have had this opportunity because of an industry and a bank that believed in us. We have a drilling rig that is 100 per cent owned by the Metis Nation of Alberta. In order to get it, we organized a training program attached to it. At this point, we have trained over 50 people to manage that rig and to work on other rigs in the area as well. We are looking at expanding that initiative now. We have finished three years of our four-year contract with EnCana Corporation, one of the largest corporations in Canada. We are now looking to expand and move into the next phase.
At the time that the Metis Nation was moving forward with this initiative, the Government of Canada was providing grants of $1.5 million to First Nations to get into the business and do the very same thing that we did. We were not able to access those funds. That is what we really have an issue with. We are hoping that our Supreme Court win will ensure that we will be recognized and included in the Aboriginal agenda.
We have been included in last little while, but at that time, even though there was an Aboriginal agenda to create opportunities for Aboriginal people to get into the oil and gas industry in Alberta, we did not have access to those funds. We were probably too stubborn and too far into deciding that we would not lose this opportunity. We had a banker who believed in us. We had had some great partnerships for employment for our people in the past with the industry. We got them to believe in us, and we managed to figure out a way to make it work for us without having the grant that was provided to other Aboriginal people.
That is one of the points we wish to make: the only real opportunity we have had is through Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to design and develop and train our people in the areas they need it. Other than that, we have not had opportunities. We do hope that as this Senate committee looks at the economic opportunities, we will have a chance to present our position on how we believe that Aboriginal business could do some of the same things.
Within our human resources development agreements, we do not have the child care component. The child care initiative is clearly just for First Nations and Inuit. If we want to train anyone who has children needing child care, we have to build support for that into our training component. It does not come out of a child care initiative. That is one of the inequalities we see.
Senator Léger: I understand from you that First Nations, Metis, and Inuit have always been represented in the law. There are three parts, but they are not equal, you say.
Ms. Poitras: Yes. In the last little while the Government of Canada has recognized us, and we had opportunities at the policy retreat to put our position forward. We are hoping that the situation will change.
Senator Peterson: Have the Metis people been denied any rights over the years?
Ms. Poitras: Denied any rights?
Senator Peterson: Have they been denied any rights as citizens of Canada because they were Metis?
Ms. Poitras: We were denied equal rights as compared to other Aboriginal people.
Senator Peterson: Right now, would you say that your major issue is and will be land rights? Is that your next challenge?
Ms. Poitras: Within the framework agreement that we just signed with Canada, land and resources are an issue, but economic development and education are also issues. We have no access to education similar to other Aboriginal people.
I would not say land rights are the only thing. Within the framework agreement, there are other items identified that we would like to talk about with Canada. Those include health, education, economic development, land and resources — all of those areas.
Senator Buchanan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing me up to date on something I should have known all along. It is interesting that section 35(2) does include Metis. I had forgotten that. However, maybe it is not a matter forgotten; maybe it was a matter that did not ring back in 1981 because we had no Metis. Or did we?
Like Senator Léger, I am still wondering about the criteria you have set up to determine who is a Metis and who is not. Certainly we have a history in the Atlantic provinces as well of intermarriage between Europeans and Aboriginals. Most of those people are recognized by Indian and Northern Affairs. I still do not grasp your criteria for the Metis Nation.
Ms. Poitras: Our definition is within the documents that you have. Metis means a person who self-identifies as Metis, is distinct from other Aboriginal people, is of historic Metis Nation ancestry, which means from the historic homeland, and is accepted by the Metis Nation. That is the Metis National Council's definition.
Senator Buchanan: Does the Metis National Council have to accept as a member of the Metis Nation a person who self-identifies as Metis?
Ms. Poitras: No. If a person walks into our office and self-identifies as Metis, we go through a process. There is an application form and a list of other criteria. The person has to provide his or her genealogy that connects him or her to the Metis Nation homeland.
Senator Buchanan: Would that be quite a big job?
Ms. Poitras: In Alberta, we have a genealogist on staff who works with our members. There are 33,000 members of the Metis Nation of Alberta who have gone through the process of coming through our doors, self-identifying, and applying for membership. Then they go home and work with their family on a family tree or our genealogist works with them. They provide their birth certificate, and then they get a card. That is the process.
Senator Buchanan: To your knowledge, have you turned down many people who have self-identified as Metis but who have not proven it sufficiently?
Ms. Poitras: I would not be able to tell you how many people we have turned down.
We have worked with people who truly feel that they do fit within the nation but have not been able to do their genealogy or do not know how. There are people who have come in who have no Metis ancestry at all and could not provide anything.
Senator Buchanan: I think you mentioned that you have had difficulty negotiating with the federal government as the Metis Nation on matters that you mentioned in your brief here. Is that true?
Ms. Poitras: In order for us to be able to negotiate as the Metis Nation, the first thing that needed to happen was for the governments to recognize who we are as a nation, as one of the Aboriginal peoples.
Senator Buchanan: Would you agree if the government were to say that it was willing to recognize and negotiate with the Metis, provided that the government had a say in the criteria used to determine who is or is not a Metis?
Ms. Poitras: I would wonder why a government would do that.
Senator Buchanan: They have done it before.
Ms. Poitras: For me, it is all about the history that I have learned from the time I was big enough to walk. Who we were was about a proud nation that raised their flag in 1816. It was about more than mixed-blood people. It was about a nation that had a history, a culture, a dance. It was about taking the best of the European and the best of the Aboriginal, and that is who we are.
Senator Buchanan: Very interesting. By the way, I would like to tell you that I think the Metis National Council is very fortunate to have you; you are an articulate spokesperson for your nation.
Ms. Poitras: Thank you. If our president had been here, he would have been able to explain Metis better than I did. He was one of the lawyers for the Powley case.
The Chairman: If there are no other questions, I would like to thank you very much for your presentation. I am sure you have assisted our colleagues in understanding the Metis Nation, who they are as a people, and some of the problems they are experiencing.
The framework agreement that you have talked about will be very helpful in our discussions. I understand that you see it as a very significant document that will assist you in your dealings with the federal government in terms of being recognized and eventually being given the same status, rights, and programs that other Aboriginal people have.
We need a motion to accept and to have this document filed with our committee. Moved by Senator Buchanan, seconded by Senator Peterson to have the document entitled ``Metis Nation Framework Agreement'' filed with the clerk. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Motion is carried.
Before we close, I would like to thank Senator Léger. Is this your last meeting with our committee?
Senator Léger: Yes, it is.
The Chairman: I would like to thank you very much on behalf of our committee. You have been a very faithful committee member. I thank you for your contribution, your insight, and your fight for Aboriginal people. You have pressed and fought for the plight of Aboriginal people at every meeting we have had. We will remember you. We are occasionally televised, so you will be able to see some of our work in the years ahead at your home in New Brunswick.
Senator Léger: I have learned so much. Thank you.
The Chairman: If there is nothing further, I shall adjourn the meeting for the day.
The committee adjourned.