THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 26, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9 a.m. to study the new relationship between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
Senator Lillian Eva Dyck (Chair) in the chair.
[Editor’s Note: Some evidence was presented through an Inuktitut interpreter.]
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples either here in the room or listening via the Web.
Before we begin, I would like to take a moment to say a few words about former Senator Thelma Chalifoux, who passed away last Friday at the age of 88. She served in the Senate from 1997 until 2004, and she was previously the chair of this committee. I remember thinking a few months back that we should have another look at a report that she spearheaded through the Senate on urban Aboriginal youth that was released in 2003.
Thelma was the first female Aboriginal senator and the first Metis senator.
With that, if we could take a moment of silence to honour her and her family.
[Minute of silence.]
Thank you, colleagues. I would like to acknowledge for the sake of reconciliation that we are meeting on the traditional, unceded lands of the Algonquin people.
My name is Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan, and I have the honour and privilege of chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. I would now invite my fellow senators to introduce themselves. Our deputy chair, Senator Patterson, will be joining us in a few minutes.
Senator Tannas: Senator Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Raine: Senator Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator Doyle: Senator Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Watt: Charlie Watt, Nunavik.
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Sinclair: Murray Sinclair, Manitoba.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Today, we continue our study on what a new relationship between the government and First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada should look like. We continue looking at the history of what has been studied and discussed on this topic. Today, during our first hour, we will be talking about visions for a new relationship, the findings of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
We have before us today Viola Robinson, former Commissioner of RCAP. Welcome to the committee this morning,Ms. Robinson.
Joining her at the table is Senator Christmas.
Ms. Robinson, you have the floor, after which there will be questions from the senators.
Viola Robinson, Former Commissioner, The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, as an individual: Good morning, senators. It’s certainly a pleasure to be here. I, too, would like to express my condolences on the passing of the late Thelma Chalifoux. I knew her; I remember her from way back in the 1980s and early 1990s. My condolences to her family.
My name is Viola Robinson. I am a Mi’kmaq woman, born and raised in Nova Scotia. I grew up on Sipekne’katik First Nation, formerly known as Shubenacadie Indian Reserve. I began my work on Aboriginal issues in 1975 as the first President of the Native Council of Nova Scotia up until 1990. I was elected as President of the Native Council of Canada, now known as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, for 10 months, then got appointed as Commissioner to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and I served until the report was complete in 1995.
I went home and studied law for three years and graduated with a law degree in 1998. Since then, I have been working with the Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia on issues of Aboriginal and treaty rights as an adviser. Now I am the lead negotiator and have been for the past six years.
The work with the royal commission is one of the most memorable and rewarding experiences of my life. It taught me more about Aboriginal people, their issues and history than any learning institution could ever teach. Five years of travelling,visiting communities and listening to people from all categories of Aboriginal people exposed me to history, goals, dreams and, more than anything, the problems created by broken promises, failed policies, which ultimately led to loss of faith and confidence in anything that was offered in terms of studies with recommendations. They often said, “We’ve been studied to death and nothing is happening.”
People were still very hurt and suffering and disappointed by previous studies and commissions, mostly because recommendations were ignored and failed to be implemented. This resulted in a complete loss of faith and hope in the process of studies and their recommendations.
It took some time for the commissioners to regain and restore faith in the work we were doing, by community people and some leadership. Finally, we saw a glimmer of hope and trust, and people’s expectations were raised.
I personally felt hopeless at times when we were listening to people when there was so much hope in their eyes. This raised doubt in my mind on how we were going to make recommendations for solutions that would be lasting. There had to be drastic change in the way Canada was dealing with Aboriginal peoples in this country. This was a massive study that undertook the most extensive research and took a lot longer than initially intended.
There was a foregoing perception by many people that this would be just another report that would sit on a shelf and gather dust, and it was our goal to make this report dust-proof. For some time, I worried that people were right. Personally, I kept it alive in my work. I was doing and working, and I made reference to it at every opportunity.
I was encouraged when there was movement with the issue of residential schools with an apology from the Government of Canada and the announcement of funding for the establishment of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. I was further moved when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was announced and the work was completed with recommendations that the governments are now working to implement.
The royal commission recommendations are profound, fundamental and bold in many ways. They are not just Band-Aid solutions but are meant to change the whole landscape of this country. The beginning recommendation is on correcting the founding myth in the doctrine of discovery and terra nullius.
The report sets out a 20-year plan, recommending a new relationship to be established between Aboriginal people in Canada, based on justice and fairness.
I am deeply encouraged now, 20 years later, that this report is still alive and gaining momentum with the government. When I hear terms coming from government officials such as “self-determination,” “recognition,” “respect,” “partnership,” “honour,” “healing” and “UNDRIP,” it is very promising, as is making reference to the royal commission report as a blueprint.
What needs to be done to make all these words meaningful — I believe, the key to progress — is to ensure any new policy development must involve the parties affected in a true, meaningful and full consultation. This would include any amendment to existing policies. This should happen in the developmental stage, not after completion. Governments cannot continue to create policies for people without their involvement. Blanket policies do not work for all.
I would like to use my own experience from a Mi’kmaq perspective, coming from Nova Scotia. We are a Mi’kmaq nation, and we hold treaty rights from pre-Confederation treaties dating from 1725 to 1761 that are alive and protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1985. We have been engaged in a tripartite main-table discussion on the implementation of these treaty rights for at least 10 years.
There is no policy — for example, the comprehensive claims policy— that could apply to us, so we created our own: the Mi’kmaq-Nova Scotia-Canada Umbrella Agreement. It was created between the three parties: the Mi’kmaq,the Province of Nova Scotia and the federal government — also, the Mi’kmaq-Nova Scotia-Canada Framework Agreement. We call our negotiation process “the made-in-Nova Scotia process.”
I want to also mention that the Mi’kmaq took the lead in the development of the umbrella agreement and the Mi’kmaq-Nova Scotia-Canada Framework Agreement; the Mi’kmaq took the lead in the development of these two agreements and ensured that we consulted with all the Mi’kmaq and had approval from everybody before the chiefs agreed to it.
The Mi’kmaq negotiator follows the mandate from the chiefs, and Canada and the province do likewise in that they get the mandate, of course, from the federal government, and the provincial negotiators from the provincial government.
We see ourselves in a unique situation compared to other First Nations of Canada, where there is no federal policy that sets out a way to deal with First Nations who are rights holders from pre-Confederation treaties.
We have been working in an incremental and interim manner to exercise our rights in cooperation with other governments. There is no need to enter into any more modern-day-type treaties for us, because we already have treaties. All we have to do is implement what we believe to be our treaty rights in cooperation with other governments. This is about restoring our relationship with the Crown as was intended by the signatories, as between our ancestors and the Crown.
We, the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia, have been making every conceivable effort to convince the federal government that there needs to be a formal process that reflects what we are doing outside the comprehensive claims policy, in which we have recommended a rights-reconciliation approach. That’s the approach that we have been engaged in over the past four or five years now. I believe that we have been heard and change is coming, and we are confident it will come soon.
Going back to what needs to be done, there must be consideration of the disparities among all Aboriginal peoples — the First Nations, Metis, Inuit — and their locations in reconciling the past grievances and planning for the future — again, no blanket approach.
We must ensure that all federal departments work toward the same goal and that a meaningful consultation is advanced with all Aboriginal or indigenous people, as we say today, and that no one department is immune, which means that all federal departments have to be engaged in consulting with First Nations and Aboriginal people, not just one or two departments.
The 10 principles as released by the Minister of Justice are a good start. The key to making this work is to find a way to ensure that they are followed and respected by all government departments.
I will conclude now to allow time for dialogue. I thank you for your patience and for the invitation to have me come and present. Thank you all.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Robinson.
The floor is now open for questions.
Senator Sinclair: First of all, I want to acknowledge your words with regard to former Senator Chalifoux and also add my words of condolence to her family and members of her community. She was a tremendous asset to this institution, and I had a great deal of experience dealing with her on other occasions, sometimes in this committee. She was certainly one who spoke her mind and was entitled to our fullest respect. My condolences go out.
Thank you,Ms. Robinson, for being here and for agreeing to do a presentation to us with regard to your experience with the royal commission. One of the impacts of the royal commission, of course, was to respond to the Oka crisis and to talk about the impact it had. Let’s begin with that, if you don’t mind sharing your thoughts about it.
Do you think that the royal commission had a positive impact upon the negative experience that came out of the Oka crisis early in the 1990s?
Ms. Robinson: The work the RCAP did had a positive experience with all Aboriginal peoples in the country, and I think it did respond to the Oka crisis. The recommendations were to recognize and deal with the issues the people in Oka were facing; that is, recognition of their Aboriginal and treaty rights, and to work with them to reconcile the issues they were facing.
The work and the research that was done, and the recommendations that were made in that report, addressed most of the crucial issues that Aboriginal peoples in this country were facing. It was the first time it was ever done.
I would say the problem with a lot of Aboriginal people and communities sometimes is that we have to do as much as we can ourselves with a report like the RCAP report. We have to take and use the recommendations ourselves and not wait too long for government to come forward to begin the process. Often reports get neglected and aren’t really paid much attention to because they’re not getting the kind of pressure that is required from Aboriginal peoples. Because the recommendations are there — as I call it now, it’s the blueprint — all they had to do was pick it up, read it and follow up on it.
Senator Sinclair: What more do you think indigenous leaders and indigenous communities can do? What kind of help might they need in order to respond themselves to the recommendations of the royal commission report?
Ms. Robinson: I think today, with the 10 principles and with a lot of the words that have come out from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, everything is forward-looking, positive-looking. I think the Aboriginal people in communities need to really take advantage of that, pursue what they can and set up processes amongst themselves to start dealing meaningfully with the governments. I think it’s a two-way thing.
One of the things that I think is most important is consultation. There has always been a lack of consultation. There’s always consultation after the fact. I don’t think that works anymore. They need to consult.
They need to consult whatever is happening. For example, if it is Oka all over again and if it’s happening there, they really have to move and work together. I think we need to work together. We want to talk about reconciliation and about living together and going forward together as Canadians and Aboriginal peoples. It’s a two-way street. We all have to work together. We have to encourage our own people to think positively and start moving ahead at every opportunity they get.
Senator Sinclair: I have a growing concern about the level of frustration that appears to be developing among young indigenous people and indigenous communities generally over the frequency of words of promise that are made to indigenous communities and indigenous people that things are going to improve, and the apparent lack of action.
Do you have the same kind of concern? Do you have a concern that young people are becoming more and more frustrated with government?
Ms. Robinson: I think young people have always been a concern.
There is one thing that was commended in the royal commission, and it was one of the first things that the late Honourable Justice Dickson, who appointed us, advised us about: to make sure that we made education a priority in the recommendations, and we did that.
Education is so important for our young people but not only the education that is offered in the stream. I think we need to have the cultural component of education, history and language in there. Those three things are so important in developing education curriculum at all levels, and it’s even more important at the elementary stage.
At one time there was an excuse for why they couldn’t bring curricula and educational material into the schools, and it was because there wasn’t all that much. But today there are numerous reports. I think the education systems in the provinces would be well served if they took advantage of the history and information that’s in there about all Aboriginal peoples in this country and started incorporating more of that and made an effort. I think young people have to know their background. They need to know their history, their culture and their language. Once you lose that — and that’s what happened with the residential schools — you are lost. You’re lost. It’s hard to reinstate that and bring it back.
Now, with our younger generation, they have to be very learned and educated about themselves. I think all provinces and territories have lots of material to advance their curricula and implement these kinds of recommendations for their schools.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for your testimony this morning. I want to ask a fairly open-ended question to invite your observations. I would like to put it in the context of not only the RCAP recommendations around indigenous sovereignty, but also comments by a number of indigenous leaders, including the former National Chief Phil Fontaine, who really cautioned against thinking that indigenous sovereignty was something that could be achieved without first addressing the deeply entrenched disparities in social, economic and political conditions for indigenous peoples, and the need for community building.
My question is more direct than that and it’s really focused on you as an indigenous woman leader, to ask you to share your thoughts on the role of indigenous women. I think you are well aware that we have, in our parliamentary process, yet another bill, called Bill S-3. That was originally brought to us for the “elimination of sex-based inequities in registration” in the Indian Act.
We also had, just days ago at the UN General Assembly, our Prime Minister talking openly about Canada’s shame to the rest of the world. We have a very strong commitment from our national government on the implementation and full acceptance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Last week, we had the commissioners from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. There are many different ways in which there are responses and attempts at implementation.
My question is to ask for your thoughts or observations, as an indigenous woman leader, on the role today and tomorrow for indigenous women in this country.
Ms. Robinson: I think the role of indigenous women is pivotal. Historically, indigenous women have played a major and important role in their families and communities. I think they still do today within the communities themselves. There are a lot of remarkable indigenous women in this country, and they are all working very hard to promote equality, justice and all the positive things in life to their communities and to their families. So I think there is an important role.
I do see a lot of indigenous women in very prominent roles, even in the Senate here. There’s room for more, I know.
It’s hard to reconcile and correct something that took hundreds of years to implant, and that’s not racism, but inequality through such things as the Indian Act. You don’t clean that up overnight. The damage is very difficult to fix and it takes a lot of people, but I’m confident that there are a lot of Aboriginal women in this country that can make that happen. I never, ever think differently.
I think there is a good place for them, and I think they are taking advantage of it. There’s a lot of work to be done by everybody, including women.
I don’t know if that’s the answer you’re looking for, but that’s what I think.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much for coming to give us your perspective and especially to give some of us who weren’t there the background on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. As you say, the intent of the commissioners was that it not be a report on a dusty shelf. I think we are in a period where great change is happening.
I truly respect your perspective on the value of education. I would like you to comment, because I understand and respect the need for education within Aboriginal and indigenous communities of all kinds, the preservation and promotion of language, history, and that’s great. But I see a huge need for the education of non-indigenous Canadians. Some people have been here for many years and many generations, and they still don’t understand why it was the way it was and how it got that way. So that’s one group that needs to be educated, but there are many new Canadians arriving with hopes and dreams in their eyes, and they do not understand what indigenous people have been going through.
Do you see any way of having a true, authentic education from indigenous people towards other Canadians? Because that education will allow things to move forward. I think it’s very necessary. I would like your comments on that, please.
Ms. Robinson: When the royal commission report was released, one of the recommendations that we made to them, because we did visit all provinces, was to take the report and to incorporate it into their curriculum, especially in universities and high schools, to use it as an educational piece in their teaching. But I don’t think it ever happened. I’ve said often in my talks around my province that there was no excuse for people to be looking for information and wondering where they can get it when that report was sitting there, accessible and available to be introduced into the curriculum of high schools and universities, and taught.
The report is so wealthy. It’s got a wealth of information in there about all people in the country. Mind you, it’s 20 years old, but it’s still good. With all the different reports and studies that have come out, it’s the educational institutions that have the responsibility to teach their people. I would think that if anyone is really interested and wants to learn, there’s a place to go to find the information you’re looking for.
Senator Raine: I was pleased to see that the beautiful Museum of Civilization, designed by an indigenous Canadian across the river here, was renamed and redeveloped as the Canadian Museum of History. Although I haven’t had an opportunity to go through it myself yet — I’m going to do that Thanksgiving weekend — I understand it has a rich display and a true history of the indigenous people of our country.
Have you had an opportunity to see the museum and are you pleased about that development?
Ms. Robinson: I’m sorry; I have not had the opportunity either. I very rarely come to Ottawa.
Senator Raine: I think that is a good start.
I also think there’s a role to play with the Aboriginal television, APTN. Their programming is excellent, but it should be on many of our national networks, not just targeting Aboriginal people but all Canadians.
Ms. Robinson: Yes.
Senator Doyle: I wanted to get your opinion, Ms. Robinson, on the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women. It seems to be off to a rocky start.
Given your previous royal commission experience and involvement in indigenous affairs, do you have any opinions or advice on how they should proceed? Was there something fundamentally missing or wrong in the way that the Government of Canada approached the whole issue, getting it off the ground?
Ms. Robinson: I have not been that engaged in that process, but I’ve certainly been keeping up to date with it and watching.
I’m just going to say again what is happening where I come from. The women there, the Native Women’s Association of Canada, have taken the liberty to begin working and doing something themselves. I understand that panel is coming to Nova Scotia fairly soon. The women have put together a group, and they’re going to communities in Nova Scotia, seeking out the victims and the families that have been affected by the murders, the Aboriginal murdered and missing women. They are talking to them and giving them all the information they can about the panel, encouraging them to go before the panel, to take part in it and to have some dialogue.
I think it’s a very difficult thing for families and for women to go before a panel at a moment’s notice and just say, “A panel will be here tomorrow or next week, and it’s about the missing and murdered Aboriginal women; if you have somebody in your family, you should go.” That’s not a proper way to do it. There needs to be someone in the community itself; someone needs to take the lead and prepare the families who want to appear before that panel. There needs to be some preparation. It’s a very difficult thing to do at any time.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much for being here and for your presentation this morning. I was interested in your views given that, if I recall correctly, the RCAP report made recommendations around the way that what was formerly known as Indian Affairs operated, and now having the roles divided under two ministers. I believe the mandate letters have yet to be issued.
I’m interested in your perspective now, these many years later, and what you think of what the government has done, and second, what advice you would be giving to those two ministers as they move forward.
Ms. Robinson: I’m just going to make reference to my notes. That was a recommendation from the royal commission, and it was how to begin. I’m going to read an excerpt from it:
The first step is for the government of Canada to make a clear commitment to renewing the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, guided by the principles of recognition, respect, sharing and responsibility.
That’s a given, and I think that is where governments are moving to. It’s a start.
Again, I’m not sure how much consultation was done with Aboriginal people before that was implemented. It is a significant change. It’s divided now into two departments. The two ministers have to become very engaged with the leadership of the country.
When I talked about disparities — taking into consideration the disparities between Aboriginal people, where they live and where they come from — it’s very different. When I talked about what we’re doing in Nova Scotia, we’re moving in the right direction, but we did that ourselves. It may be a model for others to follow who are in that same type of situation, but then again, it may not work for others.
There are many different Aboriginal groups. It’s not only First Nations; you have First Nations, you have reserve communities, then you have First Nations in urban communities and in different areas. There is a whole category of different types of what I’ll call “Indians,” because that’s what the Indian Act called us. So there are all these different situations. Then, of course, you have Metis and Inuit.
That’s a lot of work. They have to be very cautious. They’re all different. There are places, like where we are, where we have pre-Confederation treaties, and we’re moving along and doing all right. We’re going ahead. But there are other places where they have post-Confederation treaties. There are maybe problems with the treaties or the implementation. Then you have other places where there has been nothing. That’s a lot of work.
Then you have one minister looking after the social, day-to-day issues, and the other minister looking after the indigenous relationship. For one thing, they have to work together; one can’t work without the other.
Second, they have to make sure to be careful not to create a blanket policy or legislation and expect it to apply to everybody. It just can’t happen. They have to look at people’s unique situations of who they are, where they live, the kinds of access and what is around them, because we have to thrive on the land and with the resources. We also recommended that there has to be redistribution of these things if we really want to have self-determination and self-governance. It’s a lot of work.
How are they going to do it? They are going to need some help, and I guess that’s what you’re doing. You’re going to write up something that’s going to help them. It can’t operate in the way it always has.
The other thing is about the “top-down.” Assume that you’re sitting in Ottawa and you know everything about what’s going on with somebody way up in the North in a remote community. It just doesn’t make much sense to think about doing that. That’s why you have to go to the people, listen to them and hear what they’re saying. That’s what we did as a royal commission. That’s why it took us so long. We listened, we heard and we wrote what we heard.
So it doesn’t stop there. The recommendations are there, and those who are responsible for implementing have to do that. They have to take time and listen.
Senator Watt: Thank you for your presentation.
I’m going to take you back to your opening remarks when you were describing dealing with your particular departments — the legislature — in regard to your rights, trying to get out of the box and not to fall under the national government policy that, from time to time, gives our people a hard time, especially leading up to the agreement in principle, before you start heading to the final text.
Government of Canada policy is, as you know, that they ask for the extinguishment before you start to identify what those rights are. That is very hard to follow and to accept. That’s been happening across the country in situations dealing with the modern treaty.
Then when you are heading into the final text of that agreement and they ask you again about extinguishment, surrender and release, the Government of Canada has a double-barrel shotgun to disengage you from your rights.
How did you manage to keep the federal government out of the picture when you were making deals with the province in regard to avoiding Canadian government policy? I wonder if you could go into that a bit. I would appreciate that very much.
Ms. Robinson: For one thing, “extinguishment” is not an acceptable term anymore. That’s just out. That was a recommendation from the royal commission — and “surrender.”
What we’ve done in the province is that most of the things we talk about and are trying to negotiate — and I’m talking about Nova Scotia now — is all provincial jurisdiction. There is not much federal jurisdiction in Nova Scotia. We have two or three parks, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, of course, and Indian reserves.
But for the rest of the work that goes on that we’re talking about, if we want land, it’s all provincial land. Almost all the land in Nova Scotia is provincial jurisdiction. Resources are mostly provincial jurisdiction. If we want to talk about hunting, fishing,gathering — and that’s what our treaties give us — it’s all provincial jurisdiction.
So we talk bilaterally with them and we work out ways on how we want to exercise our rights in that way. Mind you, we talk about this at our main table with the federal government, and the federal government understands. They’re there and they have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that we’re treated fairly and we’re all working together. They have to agree to anything we’re doing.
We work cooperatively with the Mi’kmaq and the provincial government if it’s department lands and resources or some other department. Whatever it is that we’re dealing with, they just work together on a plan and try to implement things.
In Nova Scotia, we have our pre-Confederation treaties, and they were friendship treaties. Land survived that. There was no land given or taken, or any discussion of land. They were friendship treaties where we could share the land, live and move forward together, and that’s still there. At the same time, we’re educating and also trying to implement what we think was in those treaties, and that is living together in friendship. Whatever involves the federal government, we talk about that too, like the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or parks.
Senator Watt: If I understood correctly from your explanation, you are focusing on provincial jurisdiction. I’m not entirely sure, because I lack certain information in terms of where you are in the negotiations. Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but your explanation gave me the impression of something I think is important.
Are you saying that at the beginning you’re just going to focus on the provincial jurisdiction and try to work those things out, even though you have a federal government in negotiations at present, but they’re really not giving you any direction in terms of how you should conduct yourselves in the negotiations? If that is the case, that’s good. Would you move down the road at some point and start dealing with the federal jurisdiction alone, after you’re done with the provincial government jurisdiction? Could you help to clarify this?
Ms. Robinson: We’re in a tripartite discussion, and our umbrella agreement is a commitment for the three parties to work together. For some things that are federal jurisdiction, we will still all be talking together.
We have no policy. The only policy we have is our framework agreement and the umbrella agreement. As I say, those were led by the Mi’kmaq. It was to work together because there was no policy. The comprehensive claims policy doesn’t apply, so we’re developing our own policy and that’s what we’re working on. We just keep working.
When I talk about incremental arrangements and working in that way, it’s like we’re trying something out to see how we can continue. As we go, we learn. When we talk about self-government or exercising our rights and we agree that we may work one way for five years, it shows that we are capable of doing that. But there is nobody at the table telling us, “You have to do it this way or that way.” We’re all working in agreement with each other. It’s really a joint process, and that’s what we’re calling the rights reconciliation approach.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I have a short question, which follows upon the one put by Senator Raine. Are there any books about the history of indigenous peoples that are pedagogically designed for primary or secondary school students, which could be used for teaching? I would like to know if the real story of indigenous peoples is being taught.
[English]
Ms. Robinson: Because education is provincial jurisdiction — the provinces are responsible for education and curriculum — in Nova Scotia we have our own educational authority, which is called Mi’kmaw Kina’matnewey.
Senator Christmas: We call it MK for short.
Ms. Robinson: It’s a program we might call a self-government form of education. They’re responsible for delivering education to those who wish to be a part of it in all Mi’kmaq communities. It’s a sectoral self-government model, and it’s been working now for a few years. As a matter of fact, other provinces have looked at it.
They are creating a lot of curricula for young children related to the culture, language and values of the Mi’kmaq people in Nova Scotia. They’re engaged in all of that stuff. They’ve done a lot of work in promoting what you’re talking about, but it’s only happening there.
That’s a model that I think other provincial governments are very interested in watching and observing and could probably be used in other provinces and territories. They’ve done all kinds of good work there. Again, there’s a sectoral government model, and it is working because it’s operated by Mi’kmaq people and governed by the Mi’kmaq Assembly of Chiefs.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I would have an additional question. If I understand correctly, it is about young Mi'kmaqs. Could it be realistic to extend this to non-Mi'kmaq youth in order to facilitate their getting along together? If this is going to be extended to other provinces, it would be interesting if newcomers or persons in the province who are not Mi'kmaq — I don’t know. Do you think it would be realistic to teach them this history?
[English]
Ms. Robinson: One thing I neglected to say is that it’s not just for young people. This is for high school as well; they’re teaching high school. So they are using provincial curricula, but they have a lot of curricula related to culture and language.
I know it’s something that could be used in other provinces, but as far as extending it out to others, right now it’s an educational sectoral agreement that has funds for Mi’kmaq people. If it were to go to others, it would have to be undertaken by some other government, like the provincial government.
As far as being available, that could be a possible negotiation between the provincial government and the Mi’kmaq government, if they wanted to introduce some of that or all of it in their curriculum or in their schools. Right now, though, that program is a sectoral agreement between the Mi’kmaq and the federal government.
The Chair: That is the end of questioning. We are out of time for our first speaker. On behalf of all the members of the committee, I’d like to thank our presenter this morning, Ms. Viola Robinson, a former Commissioner of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Thank you for sharing with us your experience and wisdom.
For our second presentation, we are very honoured to have with us Elder Tagak Curley from Rankin Inlet in Nunavut. He has a wealth of experience and we are very happy that he’s here with us this morning to share his wisdom.
I would also like to note that we also have with us today 25 students from Nunavut Sivuniksavut, which is a college all across the territories, mostly from Nunavut.
Welcome here, young people. I’m sure you’re happy to be here and to hear from your elder.
With that, Elder Curley, you have the floor. Following that, we will have questions from the senators.
Tagak Curley, as an individual: Thank you.
[Interpretation]
I thank you for inviting me here. I am happy to be here to present to the Aboriginal Peoples Committee of the Senate.
[English]
I am honoured to be here as a witness before this very important committee. I know that we have a large country and it’s important that we have many people like you, ladies and gentlemen, along with many of our students from right across the Arctic. Last year there were members all the way from Labrador, Nunavik, Baffin, my region, and so on.
I’m not sure I’m going to perform due to the hot weather. I’m not used to this weather at all, so bear with me.
I will briefly outline where I think Canada is at now with its First Peoples; that is what I call them. Forgive me if I don’t know exactly how the protocol is followed these days, but I only know myself as an Inuk who was born in the mid-1940s, the same age as my buddy here, Charlie Watt, my good friend.
I also wanted to indicate my gratitude for Dennis Patterson, our senator from Nunavut, who was trying to convince me that I should make an appearance before this Senate committee earlier this spring. Thank you, Dennis. He was my colleague, along with my good friend — I know he’s not here today — Nick Sibbeston. He’s a very busy man.
Charlie, we have an ongoing relationship that will continue.
Madam Chair, when I’m out of time, let me know because I don’t know how long my comments will be.
I first wanted to indicate that the history that we have as the First Peoples, Inuit people, is spotty. It has not been consistent throughout the early contacts. Still today we deal with early relationship issues and so on.
As early as the mid-1500s, we started communicating with the early explorers, like Martin Frobisher and, shortly afterwards, Samuel Hearne who went down through the Coppermine River in 1772 — that was the exact year — and if you want the month, I have it, and the day when he reached the Arctic coast.
Following that were Mr.Franklin’s first, second and third expeditions, which you guys all know about, the Northwest Passage disaster.
By and large, these were the early contacts with our Inuit people. To be very frank with you, I think it’s important to say that Inuit people did help Mr.Franklin’s first and second expeditions, starting in 1819. There were interpreters and guards for Franklin, two of them from my region to be exact. That’s how I know about these things. And they have names — “Augustus” Tattannoeuck and “Junius” Hoeootoerock. He disappeared on the first expedition along with French Canadians, 11 of them, when they tried to reach Great Slave Lake.Mr. Franklin was dying on the third leg of his trip to reach a winter camp, when they abandoned their mission trying to reach Repulse Bay or the Arctic coast, mapping that region. That was the Royal Navy.
Then we had the relationship with commercial whaling that, to me, had a significant impact negatively on our people. Economically, it was good. Our formidable hunters were able to guide the whalers from Scotland and American Scottish into Cumberland Sound, Repulse Bay and Hudson’s Bay. They introduced a lot of technology that was important to us, steel tools including knives, axes, and sewing equipment and artistic supplies that were important for ladies.
But the bowhead whaling collapsed in the early 1900s, so that relationship created, to me, an unwritten record of failed relationships.
There are many Inuit people and families throughout Cumberland Sound and northern Hudson’s Bay that don’t know their descendants anymore, who their fathers are. So there was a social breakdown within the family unit. Previously it was always a very important unit you needed to survive in the Arctic. Four seasons — that’s how we migrate within the food security areas.
And following the collapse of the bowhead whaling, which was an important relationship for our hunters, we asked, why did it fail, collapse? Oil was struck in Pennsylvania, not with a shotgun as we have seen on a TV series. That’s when the Rockefellers became rich, controlling and actually owning the transportation distribution system. That is fascinating history, the oil industry.
That failed. Then newcomers started coming; the Hudson’s Bay Company, the fur trade. It made a lot of our Inuit people right across the Arctic very wealthy, including my father. He was good at catching foxes. He bought his new boat, a 45-footer, in the early 1940s with 100 per cent cash, no credit. It was a seven-tonne boat.
And that too collapsed, Madam Chair, because the market was completely destroyed by European goodwill citizens, Greenpeace and all these animal life supporters. The ceiling collapsed in the fur industry, so we had to regain new confidence.
Just prior to that in the late 1800s, early 1900s, the sovereignty exercise started. That, too, was a sham to me, because they started enforcing wildlife regulations in Canada that were completely contrary to our Inuit way of life.
In order to survive in the winter, you need caribou fur for clothing material. You cannot just catch a caribou in the wintertime and make clothing for your children and your husband because the furs are so thick you won’t be able to move. You need brand-new furs that are coming out just last month, when they’re only about one inch or half an inch thick, to be exact.
It’s illegal to catch caribou in the spring and summertime — only in the fall. And our people were charged by the Canadian government’s wildlife officers for violating Canada’s wildlife regulations. That signified, Madam Chair, a “fear” upon our people. The officers completed their command, established a fear and rule among our lives.
Eventually, as my friends from Baffin know, as well as Charlie, the RCMP when they were in full force in the mid-1950s started incorporating communities at the expense of the Inuit hunters, successful hunters from camps, and saying that if they didn’t put their kids in school, they wouldn’t receive any family allowance. To achieve that, they also slaughtered the dog teams of the hunters. How can you provide food security for your family and catch seals in the winter and summer without transportation? You cannot do that. It’s a shame on our government. And we’re still recovering from that.
That’s what I grew up with, the fear which started when I was a young man; and Charlie, you know very well that we had to eventually rise up.
So I went for broke in the late 1960s to the 1970s, without a future, to try and establish an advocacy group for our people. The most important thing was consultation, and the only means of consultation was by way of writing letters to elders, and so on, throughout the Arctic. I have copies of them here, all written in syllabics. It took a whole year for me to read these letters when I asked elders throughout the Arctic, “What do you think? Should we advocate to re-establish Inuit cultural identity, or should we do exactly what the government wants and do away with your language and culture? Your identity is not important to Canada.”
When I was a young man, my buddy Samuel Gibbons — who was the same age as Charlie and I and has since long passed away — was a brilliant speaker and an intelligent person. I gained a lot of knowledge exchanging ideas that we have to rise up and establish a voice for our people. I wasn’t qualified because as a young man in my early twenties, I was a very shy person.
What was not acceptable was the fear imposed upon my uncle. My dad was okay. He was a survivor. He was known as a great hunter, an independent man. But the others were afraid of the teachers and RCMP officers coming in.
So, Madam Chair, we had a case to bring forth advocacy groups. I had a relationship with Mr. Chrétien, because the challenge was not just incorporating an organization. That was not a problem whatsoever. You and I could do that. But the thing was, unlike our counterparts in southern Canada, our First Nations groups, as early as the 1960s, were granted financial services by the federal government to create organizations and program funding. The federal government did not have that program available for us, so it was a tremendous challenge trying to convince Indian Affairs to open the gates, open the doors so that our national organization could have sustainable funding.
That was tough. We finally achieved it after spending three and a half hours at Jean Chrétien’s office with a group of 10 Inuit people from right across the country. I won’t go into too many details; I’ll leave it at that.
I’m still excited to see that Canada is trying to establish a new relationship with Aboriginal people. I think it should be the first relationship with the First Peoples of Canada. We’ve been the gatekeepers of this land long enough. Like many of my friends have said, we’re not going away. We’re going to remain around here and be part of Canada.
I believe any agreement that the government does should be binding. We cannot charm Canadians or Aboriginal peoples any longer. We have to establish long-term funding commitments and binding agreements so that when the next election or the second or third come around, they will not be forgotten. That should be done along with the First Nations, not governments of the provinces or territories.
That’s my view. I’ll leave it at that. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Elder Curley.
Senator Patterson: I, too, want to welcome the students of Nunavut Sivuniksavut. It’s a great opportunity to see the founding President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, as it’s now called, and a long-time Inuit leader and also a former MLA and cabinet minister in both the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Nunavut. We’re really privileged to have you here, Tagak.
I also want to pay tribute to Tagak for his active role in the creation of Nunavut. He and I will remember the days when the members of the legislature in the Northwest Territories from what is now Nunavut were in a minority, and we were not represented in cabinet. In fact, we chose not to be represented on cabinet for a time. As a minority within a larger legislature that was dominated by members from the western N.W.T., we managed to pull off their support and the support of the people of the Northwest Territories, including the western territory, to create a new territory — Nunavut. That was done by two plebiscites and a land claims agreement.
That was a 20-year struggle that you didn’t mention much in your remarks, Mr. Curley. I want to pay tribute to you for your leading role in that struggle for the creation of Nunavut.
I have one small question. We’re talking about education in this committee and the education of the public. Would you recount for the committee your involvement in discovering the truth about the Franklin expedition and the false information about Inuit having had a harmful impact on the Franklin expedition? Can you briefly tell us that story?
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Dennis. The history of the creation of Nunavut is one subject that I’m going to be covering with the students from Nunavut Sivuniksavut later this afternoon, the chronological events.
It was a very important role that the Government of Northwest Territories played at that time because, like all things, we could only go so far with the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada at that time. We could only advocate a public call for Tapiriit unity to divide the territory. We achieved that but, then again, there’s an unknown obscure report from the commission that the Trudeau government — the elder Trudeau — established, the Bud Drury commission.
During that time, when we were advocating for dividing the territory for Inuit groups, he asked for a second opinion of his old friend, Bud Drury, the finance minister for a long time. He came up with a detailed governmental structure report and recommended that the responsibility lies with the people of the Northwest Territories for that. It took the ball away from the Inuit groups.
But by then, Dennis Patterson, Nellie Cournoyea, Nick Sibbeston, James Wah-Shee and I all got elected in 1979, and we used the assembly to play ball with the division and established a formal resolution that supported division. Following that was a public hearing in which you and I were very involved. It went on for six months. It succeeded in establishing a plebiscite act to consult with the public. We met the federal government’s commission.
Then that ended; it couldn’t go any further. It went back to the federal government. That’s when the land claims negotiations kicked in. Mr. Mulroney was looking for a legacy. What better legacy than to have signed and established the Nunavut Act, and I’m grateful to him.
Madam Chair, I got involved in studying a bit about the history of the explorers. Even with the new reality of the two ships that were found locked in the Northwest Passage, the Terror and Erebus, Mr. Franklin’s body remains elusive. Even when he was dead, Mr. Franklin, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, somehow influenced his wife and some cabinet ministers that Inuit were responsible for killing off the 139-some officers and soldiers — surviving members. They blamed Inuit, and Charles Dickens was authorized to write an article to prove that we were unreliable savages, that we were the ones that killed them off for cannibalism reasons. I was very offended by that when I studied it. Actually, I don’t just study third opinions or second; I go to the original documents, the journals.
Charles Dickens convinced the British Empire that we were the ones that killed Franklin for cannibalistic reasons. I did make a statement in one of the museums over there in 2010, I think, when I was invited to the opening of the exhibit. I called it a false indictment of Inuit culture, refuting Charles Dickens’ assertion that we were the ones who were responsible. I met a fourth-generation descendant of Charles Dickens. I confronted him at the meeting, in the DVD series.
When I related that issue to him, he apologized on behalf of his family. I accepted that, but I feel the government should be doing a bit more to get to the root of the apology needed by government. It’s pretty tough to do that with the British Empire.
That covers a bit of that exchange.
Senator Doyle: Mr. Curley, you were on the Nunavut land claims agreement negotiating team, I think, from the notes that I have here. Has the creation of the Territory of Nunavut played an important role in Inuit people’s sense of confidence, sense of self and their sense of self-government? Have there been a lot of great benefits to the people of Nunavut because of that land claims agreement? Looking back at that now, how do you feel about it?
Mr. Curley: As an individual who has seen tradition even beyond my father — from his dad and grandfather’s stories — we have achieved a significant, established relationship within Canada. Our identity is always challenging because of the influence and educational requirement that Canada is English mainly. We’re doing all we can.
Nunavik is a very important story to me, because they are much stronger in the Inuktitut language than we are. The reason for that is that Nunavut is a huge territory composed of many tribes, like our southern counterpart consists of many tribes. They are more legal and more evident. But in Nunavut, it’s silent tribes that are all there.You can see some of the students. They represent significant tribal groups from Nunavut and even Nunavik.
In terms of Nunavut, we could have achieved just a land claims negotiation, the right to own certain series of lands — surface and subsurface rights — economic activity, social programs and all that. But to me, that was not enough. That’s where, when Dennis was a young man, I advocated for a long time as a single person that we need more than the land claims goal and vision.
So it was achievable to divide the territories. I have a majority of Inuit people in politics and in administration staff. That’s progressing. Democracy is something we cannot predict and measure. We can only hope that the next government will be better than the last two assemblies.
Even with the new organization we formed and the first director, I was disappointed with one aspect. When we opened up the group to democracy for directors, some of the people that we really wanted to be on the board, like my friend, who was wise, to help guide the committee up to a point, did not get elected because we opened it up too broadly, unlike some corporations in Canada that normally have a candidates’ committee that recommends the people wanted and shareholders put their “X” on it. We didn’t do that. We opened it 100 per cent to the founding members.
In a sense, we’re achieving the educational opportunity for training. I’m invited to speak next week before senior Inuit administration staff members, the senior leadership training program. I’ll be giving a pep talk about how important their role is in management.
I think by and large we’re making progress, but it’s always challenging.
Senator Doyle: Would you say you’re fairly pleased with the way the agreement has been implemented, the way it’s gone and the results from it?
Mr. Curley: The implementation of obligations again is always challenging. There are some provisions that the governments have — independently, in Nunavut, the land claims themselves, there may be an attempt in negotiations to have an implementation committee established. But we have learned that they could be stronger in committing the government to do something.
It’s important for committees like yours to invite people who are involved in administering the land claims agreements to appear before these types of committees. I’m not directly involved with them now, but I can see the federal government has been very slow to really commit to even important employment levels; for example, issuing contract commitments to ensure that no other entrepreneurs get an equal share of notices for public works contracts. It’s not getting near enough.
If we’re going to begin a new relationship, we have to establish an economic relationship, not just with the First Nations and Inuit groups, but with entrepreneurs and small business groups that already exist. They need a lot of help. That’s where we can do a bit more.
Senator Patterson is well versed in that. He and I have talked about how many resource opportunities Nunavut has in oil and gas, mining and precious metals. But we’re just playing with peanuts right now with the Aboriginal business groups. We could do more.
[Interpretation]
Senator Watt: I will be asking you a question in Inuktitut. Also, I am happy that you are here with us today. We have many Inuit in Canada, not only in Nunavik or Nunavut. You have helped all Inuit peoples in Canada. If you had not started the Inuit brotherhood, ITK, I think perhaps we Inuit in Canada would be much worse off than we are now. You paved the way. You gave us a voice. I thank you on behalf of all Inuit in Canada for being the leader that you are.
My concern is with the legislators in Canada, the federal government especially. We know Inuit have been used, and they don’t want to let go of the Inuit lands. It’s federal land. They’re not ready to give up that or the resources. In our past lives we have seen many things — the dog slaughter — and those who manage on behalf of the federal government have denied that the way they treated the Inuit in the past ever happened.
From your understanding of Inuit — and you understood the issues well enough to start a brotherhood society to speak for Inuit — how much more do we need to do? We owe Inuit because of the treatment and abuse that they have experienced, and we moved Inuit to various southern locations where they died as exhibits. I think we need to recognize and acknowledge abuses that have indeed happened. We do have constitutional recognition, international recognition and treaties. All those are not going as smoothly as promised, as signed off on. Sometimes there are too many unwilling participants.
The modern treaty was created about 40 years ago. We know that today the Canadian government and various governments with their policies and legislation do not always follow the treaties. Canada’s Prime Minister at the time realized that four ministers will be responsible for implementing all the agreements. I go back to sovereignty of the Arctic. What else do we need to introduce to make the agreements work between the federal government and the Aboriginal people, and Inuit especially? What do we need to create that’s going to be more honourable than what has been done in the past when it came to treaty agreements and implementing them?
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Charlie. I understand you.
The governments vote for a new politician every four years. Some Aboriginal organizations do the same. Younger people are now getting voted in, but we also know now that based on the work you did in your lifetime, we also have to have ownership of offshore resources and resources from the land. You and I know about the offshore resources, char along the shoreline and caribou on the land; we’re clear on that. But we who are coastal peoples have no rights to the offshore. If we did not rely on marine life, we could not have survived to live this day. We rely on the ocean as our livelihood. We need offshore rights.
The Clyde River decision helped us. They fought against seismic testing in Lancaster Sound. It is now recorded with the Supreme Court that the offshore is very important to the livelihood of Inuit, being coastal people. The Inuit have to claim offshore rights and should be recognized in the new agreement.
Also, the Canadian government has various committees. They need to spend more time in Inuit lands. We know Ottawa is far from there. It’s very expensive to come here. I would like to see more well-meaning Aboriginal Committee members go to Aboriginal homelands. I think that you have to show your face and that you mean well.
When it comes to public works contracting, the mining companies in Nunavut bring their own labourers when they come to mine in Nunavut. They don’t hire locally. We think of the unemployment rate in each region. We have to strive to hire locally and hire Inuit. What is the unemployment rate? What does it mean to you?
[English]
It’s embarrassing compared to Canada. The unemployment rate is over 13 per cent. That’s one example.
[Interpretation]
It is no longer just a land claims agreement.
[English]
We need something over and above the agreement to bring about positive change.
[Interpretation]
We need economic opportunities.
I’m mixing up my languages. I responded too long.
Senator Watt: I understand you completely regarding the economy. If we aren’t doing anything to improve our economic situation, it’s going to get worse. They are extracting our oil and our resources. There’s a demand worldwide for the resources that we have in our lands. But in our own homelands, we’re not a participant when it comes to extracting those or working. We’re on the sidelines looking in and watching them extract our own resources. If that’s going to be the case, we’re talking about economic zones in the marine waters. It doesn’t belong to Canada. It’s not under Canada’s jurisdiction. It’s not under any country’s jurisdiction.
We Inuit are living in the economic zone. Those are the footprints we’ve had for many years. We are the users of the economic zone. We have to get together as Inuit, in unity, and strive for a clear definition, defining who holds those rights.
The opportunity exists there. What must we do to become a participant and stakeholder in this, as it has been for many years? You already know that. You and I have talked about this issue for a long time. How can we move and mobilize our people to advocate for the economic zones, the offshore rights?
Mr. Curley: I understand you perfectly, my good friend. When we had the land claims, it was a movement to kick-start the Canadian government. We have a party agreement with the Canadian government, and we need to have a long-term strategy and long-term resources equal to our partner to move ahead and to keep it alive.
Yes, we need to be equal partners resource-wise, with a democratic voice. In some Inuit lands in Nunavut there’s mining; there’s oil. There are opportunities. We have to have investment and not nickels and dimes only, but as partners. We have to be equal partners. It’s very expensive to explore and exploit resources.
I want to say again that when Canada was created, Confederation started in the east and moved west. The railway was created so they could move goods and services. I think if we want to renew our partnership, we need to create a north-south transportation route so that we will have equal opportunities and be part of a house. If you build a house in Nunavut, 40 per cent of the cost is transportation alone. We need to have a broader vision of our partnership, to be truly a part of Canada on an equal footing.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Mr. Curley, thank you so much. It’s wonderful to have students from Nunavut here as you give your testimony. It adds so much, and I want to add my welcome to all of you.
I have a question that comes from having stepped off a Canadian Armed Forces C-17 10 days ago from Resolute Bay. I would really appreciate some help in understanding the impact of the training centre that was built under Prime Minister Harper’s direction in Resolute Bay and the surrounding communities in this area.
I ask this because although this was a NATO Parliamentary Association delegation from 18 countries, we actually weren’t introduced to a single Inuit person during this time except for a conversation that I had in the store of the Resolute airport with Doreen, the granddaughter of the famous hunter Joseph Idlout, who was featured for a time on the back of the Canadian two dollar bill. I was puzzled by this, and I’m wondering if there’s anything you could tell us about the impact of the presence of the forces in Nunavut.
Mr. Curley: I think you will have to repeat some of the question. My hearing — if you can focus on the mic.
Senator McPhedran: A new training centre was recently built by the Canadian Armed Forces in Resolute Bay, and in Yellowknife there’s also a fairly large military presence.
My question is if there’s anything you could share with us about the relationships there and the impact on Inuit people through the presence of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Mr. Curley: Madam Chair, I’m not sure whether I can be helpful on that. I personally have not really been active in that particular field, but I know many of my friends really appreciate being involved, and I’m quite proud of them. I know that very proud Canadian Rangers are involved in many places in the North, and many times they are involved in certain rescue missions and activities. I think they can go a lot further. Charlie and I always envisioned that the roads could be better.
Canada has not been involved in hostilities with a foreign nation for some time, but if it were to happen, the Rangers would be an essential part of the military force, obviously, because they can endure the weather. You cannot survive in the Arctic, in my view, unless you have adapted to our diet. You can adapt to our culture by friendship, by marriage or by relationship. But that doesn’t qualify you to be able to survive. Franklin wasn’t able to on his first expedition. He forgot about the resources on land and his people were starving to death. He lost 11 out of 22 people on the first expedition, including a person from Kivalliq.
I’m saying that they can broaden the role of the Armed Forces. Recently they acquired rifles. I think Mr. Harper made that commitment. They were usually 100-year-old rifles. You can’t get very far with that.
So by all means encourage them, provide them with support and make sure they qualify for Employment Insurance benefits for doing active work. Right now, they’re taking very little compensation, in my view. A lot more can be done for these people who are sacrificing their expertise.
We’re proud of them. Recently we had a summer camp with the Armed Forces who were doing an on-land excursion with many of our people in Rankin Inlet.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you, sir, for being here. I always appreciate listening to you and meeting you again.
My question goes back to what this committee is looking at, which is the future of the relationship between indigenous people in Canada. I wonder if you could give us your thoughts about what you think the future of the relationship between the Inuit and Canada will look like and what needs to be done to improve it.
Mr. Curley: Senator Sinclair, I’m very proud of your work. I may not have met you here and there, but I read a lot. I’m not that well educated. When I was a kid in an igloo in the mid-1950s, I didn’t know a word of English. My father said to me, “Son, it’s going to be important for you to learn to speak and write in that language.” I didn’t say a word, but I established a relationship with that mission. I learned to read pretty much by myself. I learned the ABCs. From there, I got a dictionary. It took many years for me to acquire that language.
The work that you have done previously with the reconciliation commission is a good stepping stone. We need to implement your recommendations, and we need not apologize, and you have not apologized for doing so. I am very proud of you.
I have always had a good relationship with the First Nations, starting with George Manuel when we both were serving on the national body. Charlie remembers those days very well. I invited him to Baker Lake for our second annual meeting. He went up to Baker Lake and presented an inspirational message for general assembly members. I even got him to speak to the hunters and trappers who had outpost camps. Radios were an important form of communication. I had him speak to the hunters, inspiring them, about what the Inuit movement was about and what it meant to him partnering with us. We trusted each other.
Inuit relationships are possible, particularly with men and wives and young people’s relationships; that’s easy. What’s not easy is building trust. In Canada, we need to take that challenge. We need to build trust before we start implementing, entering into agreements with the Government of Canada. Please include binding agreements for economic, social, health, infrastructure or transportation programs.
The cost of living is impossible. It degenerates business and families in my region. So a new relationship must include those concepts.
But the resolutions that you recommended in your work have been very important stepping stones.
I told Dennis not long ago that I’m not putting all ideas into a cookie jar and hoping the federal government will take some of them out and put them on their hot air and they will disappear. We stress that any arrangement has to be binding and firm. That’s what I hope will happen.
In terms of details, like I said to Dennis, I had to apologize to him. I probably will not be helpful on that, but as a historical step, I can be one of the panel members. Thank you.
The Chair: Elder Curley, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for being with us here today. It’s an honour to have your words in our testimony. As Senator Watt has said, you are definitely a trailblazer and a political leader for Nunavut.
(The committee adjourned.)