Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 14, 1996

.1100

[English]

The Chairman: I call the meeting to order. Thank you all for being here, especially our guest and witness, Chief Mercredi.

To put the meeting in perspective, I'll explain the intent of the committee. As you know, members of Parliament are assigned committees, and overnight some of us tend to become experts. This committee has realized that the best way for us to function is to learn from the people who are involved the most directly. Our ultimate goal is to do what is good for individuals in your communities. We really appreciate your responding to our invitation.

The committee has expressed a desire to address all issues, but especially issues of economic development, northern development, whether this could be of assistance to your communities, and whether there's any way we can help them create wealth for themselves.

.1105

Chief Mercredi, we invite you to educate us. If studies have been done that ended up on shelves somewhere, we invite you to make this committee aware of a desire to have them taken off the shelf. There's no commitment from this meeting. It's an education process. We invite you to have the input that you wish to put into this committee. We are eager to learn from you. Chief Mercredi, I turn the floor over to you.

Chief Ovide Mercredi (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations): Thank you,Mr. Chairman.

I'm in my fifth year as national chief. I don't know how many appearances I've made at standing committees of Parliament, but I've made several at this particular Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of teaching you. I have no time to teach you. You're a member of Parliament. You should know the Canadian people. You should know the issues affecting my people. You should know what action is warranted or is required by the Government of Canada. So why should I come here to teach you?

The Chairman: [Inaudible - Editor] ...call the meeting.

Chief Mercredi: No, I'm here to tell you what your job is, from my perspective, and I'm ready to do that in any way you want. But let me tell you of my frustrations as national chief.

The Indian leaders have no power. They only have the power to beg. We have no resources to meet the needs of our people. We have to wait for you, and we're getting fed up waiting for you. How long are we going to wait? At some point this learning curve has to change. You can't use it as an excuse forever.

Every committee is the same. They say to us, teach us. We weren't brought up to teach you. We weren't elected to serve you. We were elected by our people to bring about change, but the unfortunate reality is that we don't have the power to create change. Only you have it. Why is that? It's because you have taken our land, you have taken our resources, you have even taken our culture, and you have taken away our liberty to self-government - maybe not you personally, but your institutions of government.

Look at these reports beside me. These are just some of the reports we have produced as an organization, the Assembly of First Nations, reports we have developed to try to influence government to act a certain way in our favour. You take these reports, which involve a wide range of subjects. We have been reduced as leaders to giving you reports. Why should I always be placed in the position of giving you a report as a white man? Why should you be the one who makes the decision on what happens on these issues?

Here we have a report, a national inquiry that we did on first nations childcare. We did a report on linguistic justice for first nations. There is another report on the truth about smoking for native youth. We did a report on wisdom and vision, the teaching of our elders. We did a report on breaking the silence, which is about suicides in our communities. We did a report on the EAGLE project, a report on water safety in the Great Lakes and potable water for our people in the communities. We did a report on band indebtedness to try to put our story across, not just Indian Affairs' but our story, about why our people get into debt in the communities, about why our governments are in debt in the communities. It's because of underfunding.

.1110

We did a report on our land, our government, our heritage, our future and on self-determination of first nations. We did a report on treaties. We did a report on taking responsibility for the well-being of our children. We did a report on why the government should support aboriginal languages. We did a report on diabetes in native people. We did a report on HIV and AIDS in first nations across the land. We did a report on tax immunity and a report on post-secondary education.

The list goes on. These reports have been made available to either bureaucrats within the Government of Canada or ministers of the Crown.

You yourselves have done two reports in the past year, one on co-management. What's happening with your report on co-management? You talk about reports that collect dust; there's an example of a report collecting dust - your own report, which is not even a year old.

We're still waiting for the other report on education that you're supposed to complete; the committee was supposed to have done it last year. Where is that report? It's now being used as an excuse from the department on dealing with issues of education. They keep saying to us, that report's not ready, we're still waiting for it. So you're holding back action. We're still waiting for your report to be completed.

And that is not all. Your departments of government produce reports on an annual basis that would fill this room. Take, for example, the corrections report on alternatives to dealing with people in jail. That was a report of the Solicitor General. A more recent report dated February 1995 is on the results of the symposium on alternatives to corrections, another report from the Solicitor General's office. What has happened to these reports? Nothing.

How effective are you? Are you like Indian leaders, ineffective in terms of power? We don't have the power in this country, and you know that. All we can do is put our hands out for you to help us, and quite frankly, I'm getting tired of putting my hand out for you to help us, because it's not happening. It's not happening fast enough. Last summer you saw the consequences of that inaction across the country. People are getting fed up with the lack of action of the federal government.

I will leave these reports with you. You can teach yourself. I will not teach you.

Look at this most important report produced by the royal commission, which the government paid for. There were about $50 million worth of studies. This is one of their reports called Bridging the Cultural Divide: a report on Aboriginal people and criminal justice in Canada, on the administration of justice.

What's going to happen with the royal commission report? Is it collecting dust before it's released? That's what I think, because I listened to the Minister of Justice in his interview this weekend on the results of his meetings with the ministers of justice, and he said he does not support an alternative system of justice for aboriginal people. He doesn't even have the courage or the guts to say that directly to us. He does it behind our backs.

Even before he discusses this report with anybody, including the Canadian Bar Association or the Assembly of First Nations, he has already made up his mind that the Indian people will not have their own system of justice and that he's going to impose the current status quo. The only thing he's going to do is carry on with this program, which deals with ameliorated reforms and pilot projects to allow for some sentencing circles to be established from time to time. That's his response to our grievances about the administration of justice. This is Allan Rock.

.1115

What's happening to our young people? More and more of our young people are leading lives of crime. Ten years ago the corrections figures for our people were high, but they were middle-aged men and women. They were not young men and women. Your jails are full of our young men and women in their twenties or thirties.

I just came from visiting the facility in Edmonton, where the aboriginal residents made an appeal to me to try to help them out, because there's nothing going on in the institution to help them, and when they get out there's nothing for them in our communities or in white society. They are the forgotten people. They've been thrown out, thrown away, to be forgotten. As long as they're in jail, it's out of sight, out of mind.

There are approximately 1,800 aboriginal men and 78 aboriginal women incarcerated in federal correctional facilities. The Commissioner of Corrections reported that at least 800 of these Indian men were sentenced for sex offences. The number of aboriginal men serving time for sex offences is very high compared to non-aboriginal offenders. The aboriginal men who get released from the federal correctional facilities admit they need treatment programs to heal themselves of their problem, but there's nothing available for them.

Out of the 1,800 aboriginal men who are incarcerated right now, most of them were arrested in urban centres, and about two-thirds of them are status aboriginal offenders. So as long as you stay on the reserve, chances are you might not go to jail, but you will still end up in jail if you commit a crime. Your tendency to commit a crime will not be as great on the reserve as it is in the urban centres.

The urban centres are the land of opportunity. The idea of people moving from the reservations is to find opportunity in the urban centres. What do they find? These young men end up leading lives of crime, and some of them get involved in organized crime, in gangs that are formed in the city of Winnipeg. They had a role in what happened at the Headingley jail. We know that. But right now they're holding guns in Waterhen, involving a conflict over leadership, and they have taken one side.

These are young men with no opportunities. That's what they are. They don't ask me to come and teach them.

Now I'm going to ask you to help me, not to produce more studies but to pave the way to change, at least in one subject matter, and that's the administration of justice.

.1120

The first recommendation I'm going to give you is not a hard one, because it doesn't require you to spend any money, and it doesn't even ask you to be totally committed to the idea of the administration of justice for aboriginal people. It is the recommendation that the royal commission made to the Government of Canada in Bridging the Cultural Divide, on page 291 of the report. It's recommendation 12, and it reads as follows:

We just want to get on the agenda. Further:

That shouldn't be very difficult for the Liberal government, which says it recognizes the inherent right of self-government as an existing right in section 35. What a bunch of baloney! The Conservatives never said that, but at least they invited us to ministerial meetings. The Liberals say they recognize our right and they never involve us in ministerial meetings. They shut us out.

They shut us out. The Minister of Justice dealt with aboriginal issues with all of the justice ministers across the land without our participation last week, and apparently he has no trouble with it. Obviously, there is no dissonance, no dissonance for him, in relation to the promise for full partnership with us on issues affecting our people. That's your colleague, Justice Minister Allan Rock.

All I'm asking of you, as a committee, is to tell the Prime Minister to tell his Minister of Justice that the next meeting of the ministers of justice should include an agenda item on aboriginal justice issues, and that all of the people responsible for aboriginal peoples in the provincial governments, including all the responsible ministers and the aboriginal leadership, should be invited to that meeting.

That would be concrete action, wouldn't it? It requires no learning. I don't have to teach you anything to ask for that meeting.

Finally, I have a tougher recommendation for you, because it may involve some work. It is recommendation 14 of the royal commission, in the same report:

How much is the Government of Canada spending now to put our people in jail? That's what we want to know. How much money is being spent?

But we're also interested in knowing what moneys are being set aside to prevent people from going to jail, and what money is being spent by the Government of Canada to reintegrate people into society so they don't go to jail any more, so that they do in fact end up leading productive lives.

.1125

How many new jails are being built right now in Canada? We should know that. We want to know because I want to make a guess of how soon they'll be filled with our people.

In New Zealand the Maoris got fed up with the system of justice, but they managed to convince their government to take a look at whether it was doing the right thing by putting the Maoris in jail and by building more jails for people. In the end, they shut down correctional facilities. I forget the number, but we can get you the facts. Whatever money they saved in shutting down the jails they used for treatment and healing of individuals.

I'm not suggesting that there should be no jails. All I'm saying is that it should not always have to be the first response that people who commit crimes and who get sentenced by the judicial system serve time. It makes more sense to focus on treatment and rehabilitation than on incarceration.

My third recommendation to you is that you work with us, the Assembly of First Nations and all the other aboriginal groups, in identifying in 1996 which correctional facilities should be shut down in 1997 so that we can use the money saved by shutting down those operations for treatment, healing, rehabilitation and prevention.

You have cause for action, Mr. Chairman. It calls for some decision that might not go well with the minister of the Crown and that might even go against the grain of your policies as a party, but it's better than my just teaching you about our people. You will learn about our people as you work with us on direct action. That's the best place to learn, and you'll feel better because you're doing something constructive and concrete that will help my people. That's the challenge.

I'm not a professor. I don't want to be used in that context as a teacher. I was elected to produce change for people. I have not been able to do it, not because I lack the desire to do it and not because I don't have the knowledge to produce change. The only reason is that I don't have the power. But you have the power. Maybe not the committee, but maybe your party has the power. If not your party, then Parliament has the power. If Parliament doesn't have it, then cabinet has it. It's the white man who has the power from our perspective. The Indians don't have it.

I'll leave these reports for you to read at your leisure. I encourage you to access all the reports of the royal commission, and they have many on different subjects, including residential schools, treaties, poverty, and economic development. You name it, the royal commission has looked into it.

.1130

As the Assembly of First Nations we supported the royal commission, and we don't want their studies repeated by a standing committee of Parliament. There is no need for you to do any more research, Mr. Chairman; it's all been done for you in the past three or four years by the royal commission. All you have to do is access those reports, look at the recommendations, and advise your government to do the honourable thing, and that is not to waste $50 million, but take the recommendations and begin to implement them in partnership with the aboriginal leadership in Canada.

There is one other thing, just to show you who has power. The Prime Minister has called a meeting to deal with the reshaping of the country and he's invited the premiers. From our point of view you cannot restructure the country in a constitutional way or a non-constitutional way without first nations being at the table. Recently, three weeks ago to be exact, the aboriginal leaders wrote to the Prime Minister to request an invitation to attend that meeting in the event that it takes place. We haven't heard from the Prime Minister's office.

Do you believe in national unity as a Canadian? Is it an important part of the work for this committee? If you do, then you're going to help us. As the chairman of the committee you're going to say to the Prime Minister that the first nations, the Métis, and the Inuit have to be involved in these discussions.

You see, from our perspective, Mr. Chairman, when Canada was being formed in 1867, we should have been there. But in those days, you see, the politicians thought the Indians were savages, inferior peoples who were vanishing and disappearing in the wake of the manifest destiny of the white man. The Indians didn't matter, so they proceeded to define this nation without us. And that's why you have the problems that you do with our people.

My view is that had John A. Macdonald had the foresight, had he been a visionary, a true visionary, he would have had our leaders there to talk about how we were going to coexist as peoples. Had we been there, a different constitution would have evolved and a much different society would exist today. Our people wouldn't be filling the jails, our young people wouldn't be committing suicide, our women wouldn't be threatened with violence in their lives, and we wouldn't be complaining to you about the fact that our land and our resources have been stolen and the treaties have not been honoured.

Is the Prime Minister of today going to make the same mistake that John A. Macdonald made by deciding that we shouldn't be there because he doesn't see any value in our being there to remake the country?

The way we interpret that, Mr. Chairman, is the way Quebec interprets their participation in the country. It's the dominance of one culture over another. When someone says to us that we're not invited to a meeting, we see it as white dominance over our people. In their case, if I understand correctly, it's Anglo dominance over French-speaking people. But it's still the concern of someone else making important decisions for your life, and that includes your language, your culture and your government.

.1135

The country we live in cannot afford to exclude our people in trying to redefine itself. It may be possible between Quebec and the rest of Canada to come to some agreement on how they're going to coexist, but if we're not part of that equation there is no certainty in Canada about land and resources. There is no certainty in Canada about peace and harmony. That's why we have to be there - to speak for ourselves, to represent ourselves, to make decisions on what compromises we're going to make with the rest of Canada in order to coexist, but not to have someone decide for us.

A chief in Canada is two personalities. First and foremost he is the product of his people and his culture, whether he's Cree, Ojibway or Niska. But he is also a creature of the federal government, insofar as the Indian Act has defined our people and imposed restrictions on our authority as a people. So an Indian chief lives in two worlds, his and yours.

We understand very well what changes are necessary for our people. We know that. You don't have to study that, you just have to come to us, you just have to sit with us, you just have to work with us, you just have to trust us. You have to respect our leadership as you respect your own, and then we can get somewhere. But you can clearly see that if we rely on the status quo, the old style of dealing with the Indians, which is having the Indians do their own reports, which is having the government do their own reports and their own studies, which is having the standing committees do their own reports, nothing gets done.

The aboriginal population is very young, the youngest in the land. The first nations are the fastest growing peoples in this country. In about 20 years' time in the province of Saskatchewan they will be close to 35% to 20% of the population, I believe, if not higher. Right now they make up 40% of the population of Prince Albert. In due course they will make up 50% of the population of Regina. There are about 70,000 aboriginal people in Winnipeg as I speak. If the current migration of our people from the reservations to the city increases and the population figures increase as they are, the Indian population in the city of Winnipeg is going to increase as well.

That's where the crime is coming from. That's where our people are being taken from to go to jail, because they have no opportunities. That's where the Indian gangs are forming - in the cities, not in the reservations but in the cities, where there are no opportunities for them.

.1140

This is Canada, not aboriginal heaven. This is Canada. We are powerless to do anything about it except to complain to you, and that's what is very frustrating, to be an Indian chief in Canada with no power.

How do you think I feel as an Indian person coming to you as chairman of this committee, with the realization that only you have the power? Do you think I have a sense of empowerment? Absolutely not. Do you think I get excited to come to your committee to meet these white men of power? Absolutely not.

That's why we talk about ending the status quo. That's why we want to use the Constitution to change things for our people, so that we don't have this relationship as if we're being looked down upon.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

I am saying in my language that I am not angry at you. I am not unhappy with life. I just don't like what I see in terms of the conditions of the people I represent. I think it's taking too long for action and something needs to be done to correct it. That's all I'm saying. I've given you a way out, a way out of reports, a way out of putting Indian leaders as teachers. Talk about direct action.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Chief.

First, I should say that I feel sad if you saw this invitation as demeaning and as appearing before, as you said, men of power. And I can understand the comment you made about being tired of teaching. I can say to you, though, that all members of this committee have their hearts in the right place. They do care, and I do care, and I know the minister cares.

This shouldn't come as comfort. It's not the intent of the comment. The intent of the comment is to say to you that the invitation was sincere, was honest. In spite of your reluctance to be a teacher, you have taught us an awful lot. We will continue in our education because our only purpose is to serve better the people that you represent and that we represent.

I don't see my role as chair of this committee as a position of power. I see myself as an advocate for the people who are represented by this committee and by the minister. I sense that the members of this committee share that view.

I will open the floor to questions from any member. First is Monsieur Bachand.

.1145

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): Thank your, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Do you have your translation device on?

Chief Mercredi: If you're speaking Cree I don't need it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand: I would like first to let you know that I think I can understand your attitude to some extent. Like some of my colleagues, I have been sitting in this committee for almost three years and I don't think I learned all that much. I did learn more when I went out to see what was happening in the reservations. We witnessed some things that are unacceptable and that we should endeavour to change and that's why I'm talking to you on an equal footing. The philosophy that is guiding my life is somehow directed towards a little more equality; you were talking earlier about people looking down upon you. I don't want to look down upon you, I wouldn't be able to do that. I don't want to look up to you either.

That's why I insisted that you be asked to come before the committee. I remember that, at the education subcommittee, Mr. Linklater told us that a full library of books on education was available to us. Therefore, when the committee started discussing its future activities, I thought to myself that we should first meet with the first nations people so that we could listen to them.

We asked our researchers from the library to tract down the approximately 30 studies produced by earlier committees and the two studies this committee has produced during this mandate. I would be interested to know where these studies are today and what has been accomplished. You don't even hear anything anymore about the excellent report of the co-management committee on which I sat for one year and a half.

I understand your frustration since things are still following the same course in Canada and in Quebec and the first nations continue to be subjected to inequalities and disastrous social economic conditions. Postsecondary education funding remains a problem and no solution can ever be found to a great many other problems.

I entirely agree that the time may have come to act and to settle those problems and not to waste time doing studies on how to solve them, but to really solve them.

I have always had a dream regarding the future of first nations. I won't go as far as saying that the white man will hand the land back to the first nations because when I first said this to the Mohawks, I thought that someone was going to scalp me. We acknowledge that you were the first occupants of this land and that, since then, the white man has taken up lots of room. The native have been held back in the reservations thanks to the Indian Act. This should be changed. In my dream, I see the first nations and the white people sharing a territory we all agreed upon. Some powers, particularly in the area of justice, would be transferred to the native people. Laws included in your justice system would be comparatible with the white people's laws but you would enjoy a full autonomy.

I have been trying to achieve this dream within this committee. When I see people treated unfairly, I try to do my utmost to defend them. You are right, this may no longer be the seat of power; I have to agree with Mr. Bonin when I hear some Liberal members say that some unelected officials in the prime minister's office may be more powerful than all of us. Our only power is therefore to push some things forward, to make public statements and to write to the ministers and to the prime minister.

I share your desire to take direct action. Incidentally, I would like to make a comparison with the important statement you made on the national unity; this is not the first time you and I have had a discussion on this topic.

Mr. Sinclair met with us last week and said that at the next referendum in Quebec he will think twice before taking a stand. I would like to hear what you have to say about that since we don't want to erect a Berlin wall around the province of Quebec, but rather establish a partnership with the rest of Canada and also have an open relationship with the native nations.

.1150

I would like to hear your position since I believe that in Quebec - I often say that - the language retention level and the social economic conditions are higher than in the rest of Canada. Our treaties, including the James Bay Agreement, could be used as models for Canada. We made some very beneficial propositions to the Montagnais. Furthermore, we have asked the first nations to draft with us the constitution of Quebec in a sovereign Quebec.

I would want you to clarify whether, as it seems to me, Quebec nationalism and native nationalism are both aiming at more autonomy, more respect for their culture, their language and all their traditions.

This time, I'd like to go further. Explain to me how we could help each other so as to convince our future partners that the situation may evolve more favourably if we respect everybody's nationalism.

I have always believed that Canada would develop better if it established a partnership with Quebec rather than trying to keep it within the current Canadian borders and that the same thing applied to the native people.

I believe that the native people will develop much better if there was a partnership and if they took over the lands where they would assume responsibility for their economic development and would settle their societal problems day by day according to their own laws, which will obviously be compatible with the laws of their neighbours.

We share your view regarding the need to take direct action. Could you tell me whether, in the general area of native nationalism and Quebec nationalism, we could start discussions on what would happen in a sovereign Quebec that would have a partnership with the native nations and with the rest of Canada?

Mr. Mercredi, our nationalists should get closer to each other, there should be no barriers between Quebec and you, to the contrary.

I will stop now.

The Chairman: Chief, before asking you to answer this question from the Bloc québécois, I would like to add that this topic should probably be debated in the National Assembly. We are however a very open-minded committee and I will ask you to answer that question although I would have preferred that this debate debate today be aimed at enabling the members to better serve the people they represent.

The question has been asked and I invite you to respond to it for some five minutes. Thank you.

[English]

Chief Mercredi: I don't think people should focus on the referendum issue at all. I think you are right in suggesting that some bridging should be done between our people and the people in Quebec. I completely agree with you that there has to be some work on trying to reach an understanding about how we're going to coexist in this country.

Your assessment of nationalism, the sovereigntist nationalism, is very similar to our nationalism as first nations. You're right on. Our strategies are different, though. Our objectives are the same. We want more autonomy and respect for our cultures, and we want control over our destiny.

These are all desires of people with the right of self-determination anywhere in the country or in the world, for that matter. All the liberation movements we've seen in the 20th century are about that, about people wanting more autonomy and self-determination for their people. That's the proper context for understanding the Indian movement in Canada. And that's what I've said many times before. We have a lot of similarities with the people involved in the sovereigntist movement in the province of Quebec, but the strategy and the goals are different.

For us, our movement is not about secession. It's about finding a balance. It's about relationships. It has nothing to do with creating an island of first nations in North America. It has to do with creating more respectful principles for coexistence, not dominance, not white dominance, not white supremacy. But it doesn't have to do with Indian dominance or Indian supremacy either. It's about a balance in our relations.

.1155

We come to the table with principles, principles like this: we have the right to be different. We want to reshape Canada on the basis of that principle. But we also come to the table and say that we also believe in sharing, sharing the land and resources. So we come to the table with that principle of how we want to share the land and resources, not the principle of how we want to take them, of how we want to remove them from other people's management or use. How can we share them?

And we also come to the table with the idea of sovereignty, our people's sovereignty, and that's where we talk about self-government and Indian law, language and culture. So we talk about institutions of government and law-making, the things you already enjoy in the province of Quebec through your legislature.

Sovereignty doesn't have to mean secession. For us it does not mean that, but it doesn't mean subordination either. It does not mean the municipalization of our governments. So obviously it does not mean Ron Irwin's policy of self-government, which is the municipalization of Indian government. Ron Irwin's policy is a non-starter for us.

I think in terms of bridging - and I'll borrow a phrase here from the royal commission - the cultural gap between us and the province of Quebec, we have a better potential for bridging that than Mr. Chrétien does right now.

In spite of all the differences between the first nations and the province of Quebec, my view is that Mr. Bouchard would be more sensitive, and would be more eager to meet with us to talk about bridging relations than he would be to sitting down with the Prime Minister on that issue, because right now they're on a battlefield. But we're not on the battlefield with them and we don't want to be on the battlefield with anybody.

It doesn't mean that tensions don't go up sometimes. They go up...of course they do. We had extreme fighting. That was an example of how tensions go up, but that's a skirmish, that's not a battlefield. That's minor in comparison to what is going to happen if those two generals - Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Bouchard - don't put down their weapons.

So something needs to be done to change the status quo. We've said that before. We want to change the status quo, but it doesn't mean lending support to federalism and it does not mean lending support to secession, because changing the status quo is not the result in either. It could be a totally new relationship.

But we never had the opportunity to get to that table to talk that way. I only get to make these little talks to you when I come to the standing committee. I've never had the opportunity to meet Mr. Bouchard, but if I ever have the chance to meet him, it will be this message I will give him.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan, do you wish to address...?

Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): Yes, thanks very much.

I found your comments about the status of the committee interesting, because, as the third member of this committee, I obviously have different perceptions about the effectiveness of the committee.

I think one of the productive things that could happen for standing committees is that they could become much more independent in their actions, and especially independent of the minister. Technically that is the state of affairs we have, but in actual fact we see that the standing committees are very often reluctant to take a course in an opposite direction or contrary to the direction of government or specifically the minister.

.1200

About the only example I can give you in this parliament would be the Saskatchewan co-management proposal. You did hold up that report. That was being studied by this committee. Unbeknownst to us it was also, in the beginning anyway, a ministerial initiative, and the two things became hopelessly enmeshed. So that's a perspective that may be somewhat helpful.

You did mention the whole question of Indian gangs in Winnipeg. I was in Winnipeg recently. It's not specific to Indians. There are youth gangs in every community of every colour. Everyone's looking for a solution, and easy solutions are not coming to mind.

There is some interplay here. You did mention Headingley. You also did mention Waterhen and the roadblock that's going on there.

In September 1995 you made the statement that Canadian police forces should disobey Canadian politicians who tell them to intervene in jurisdictional disputes between aboriginals and governments, and essentially that's what we have at Waterhen. Have you taken a specific position on the Waterhen dispute?

Chief Mercredi: Waterhen is a different situation from the statement you refer to. The context of that statement had to do with gaming on reserves. The province was asserting jurisdiction and the Indians were asserting jurisdiction, and the RCMP were brought in to favour the province. The Indian jurisdiction was ignored.

I was saying that in situations like that the RCMP, who told me this is a grey area of their law, should not then move in a paramilitary fashion to enforce provincial jurisdiction against the wishes of our people. That's jurisdictional. That's a political situation.

Here in Waterhen it's not a jurisdictional issue. It's more private. As opposed to, say, a conflict between a province and a first nation, it involves an internal community conflict on leadership. So it's not an Indian-white situation; it's an Indian versus Indian situation.

I don't want to say too much more about it, because I may get involved in it. I'm in contact with Mr. Catcheway and his people behind the barricades. We have an open line right now on my fax and telephone. I may be called upon sometimes. I've already been in discussions with the RCMP on how I can be helpful from long distance. I've already had some conversations with one of the leaders of Mr. Catcheway's family, Gordon Catcheway himself.

All I'll say for now, though, is that even in situations like that, you don't send in the police to settle the score. You don't use force to settle a dispute, even when our people take guns, as the warriors sometimes do. We have to resolve that through non-violence. If it takes a long time, then we're going to take a long time.

.1205

Even right now, as I speak, there are people from our community who are trying to be helpful in that situation. It's not a case of Indian... At Gustafsen Lake people blamed Indian spirituality or said Indian spirituality solved it. You know, there are different perspectives.

Here you have a Pentecostal group, people who are strong evangelists, who are behind the barricades with guns. Some of the leaders of the evangelist movement in the province of Manitoba have gone inside to try to discourage them from that action, put aside the barricades, put away their guns.

The Department of Indian Affairs, with the support of the current chief and council, have put forward a proposal that will involve the idea of creating a new band or maybe a new reserve as a way of trying to break the impasse.

It's in that context that I got involved. It was to encourage them to agree with that proposal. But they wanted certain guarantees, so it's still not resolved.

My view is that we just have to be a little more patient. As much as I don't like the use of guns... I'm sure you don't appreciate that kind of activity going on in the country. Our personal view is that we can't allow that to dominate the acts of the RCMP.

I've already talked to the RCMP. I've given them my views. I've made it very clear to them in writing. I wrote to them last Friday. I said I encouraged them to carry on with their efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement. I told them to carry on with that strategy. If I could be helpful at some point in the future, I told them to let me know. I said that whatever they did, they shouldn't use force.

But on your comments in the standing committee, if I may, I support your position that the standing committee should have more independent power. It shouldn't become an extension of the minister of the Crown. They should have the power to give direction to the minister and the Crown. This would be one way in which parliamentarians like you, who are not on the government side, could have more influence on what happens in the direction the government is taking.

Someone corrected me. They said you're not men of power, but I still see you as men of power. You may not have, in the context of Parliament, that much power, but this is as close as I can get to the power. For me, this is as close as I can get. I don't get access to the cabinet. I don't get into Parliament. This is as close as I can get to the seat of power.

Mr. Duncan: Thanks very much for clarifying -

The Chairman: Please be very brief.

Mr. Duncan: I have one brief question. Can I throw it in?

Apparently you had a committee set up within the AFN to deal with the whole question of the reform of your election procedures. You are going to be presenting something at your Ottawa conference this summer. Is that still scheduled to happen in terms of one...? It was described in the Ottawa paper as ``one Indian, one vote''. Is that still likely to -

Chief Mercredi: That's still the plan, yes. We have a report to give in July. It will be debated.

The Chairman: Before we go on to the next member, I'd like to state that the co-management report... The reaction has been tabled in the House on May 10, very recently. The clerk received the report this morning, and it will be distributed to all members today. So a copy would be available to you also.

We have now Mr. Jackson, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Harper, in that order. Please be brief in questions and answers so we can have participation from as many members as possible.

Mr. Jackson (Bruce - Grey): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to welcome my namesake here. I say that this is a great name, so we'll get the job done one way or the other.

I want to say to you that I share your frustration. I think we have spent a lot of money on a lot of studies, and it's time for action. I also like the idea that you've given us three things with which to work.

Here's my question to you. Part of what's happening in our society is that, as for the general population, over time, we're drifting. We've got to be reminded. I know you don't want to do this teaching thing.

.1210

Usually you want to deal nation to nation. But could you, through your auspices as the national chief, come up with maybe one item right across this country that you've done here?

You and Elijah, or somebody like that, could get into some of these communities. Let's talk about some of them so that we could start working on them in a more practical manner. Is that possible?

Chief Mercredi: It's impossible to identify one priority for the country. I can't say we should focus on suicides today, and everybody is going to comply. Each community or region has its priority, which is dictated by the needs of the people.

It's not any different from the pressures you get as a member of Parliament from your constituents in terms of issues and priorities in the communities you represent. They're not all the same.

But there is some merit to the idea of a national plan. There should be a national plan to deal with Indian poverty. There should be a national plan to deal with economic progress in the Indian communities. There should be a national plan to produce more graduates from the universities. There should be a national plan to make sure that our young people graduate from high school. Schools should be built on Indian reserves. There should be a national plan to make sure that our people have the same standard of life as that of other Canadians in terms of roads and infrastructure. We could have a national plan in terms of language, development and retention in our communities.

There's lots of room for national plans, but there's little room for saying there's one priority only. Do you know what I'm saying?

Mr. Jackson: Yes.

Chief Mercredi: For us, if we had the resources, Elijah wouldn't be sitting there in the House of Commons because he wouldn't need to be there. If we had the autonomy to decide priorities and address the needs, including housing, we wouldn't have to rely on Ron Irwin to go to cabinet to see if he can get a housing policy passed in cabinet. We would decide those things. Do you see what I'm saying to you?

Mr. Jackson: Yes.

Chief Mercredi: If we had the power and the resources, the decisions would have already been made for national plans. That's what I'm saying to you. As a national chief, along with the other chiefs...the frustrating part of our job is realizing that, but not having the ability to put it into effect - unless I can convince you, as my namesake, to do something for me.

Mr. Jackson: Okay. Thanks.

The Chairman: Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ovide, for your presentation. I certainly understand your frustration. I'm not being offensive when I say this, but in the way I heard you come through, I would wonder - I don't agree - whether you see anything good happening.

It's kind of overwhelming. All that you tell me is very overwhelming. Then I say, my God, where do I go from here? He's told me that everything is wrong in the system.

I know that all these reports you have here are reports done through your own organization. They may not be implemented right across the country, but I would hope to think that a lot of things, projects, that happened as a result of many of these reports... I believe that in your communities, as in our communities, we are all working at different levels. We all have different capacities. We grow faster. We pick up this project over that project. We pick up justice over economic development.

I was around with the education committee, and I saw some good things. I saw some good economic development things. I saw some good educational systems. I saw some justice systems, but not right across the country.

You and I had this discussion once before, actually. This is what you told me once before. You're not in favour of projects happening here and there just because people are at different stages in your communities and our communities.

.1215

I understand your impatience, but you said you came with corrections. How do we do something about poverty? I say to myself, well, maybe we need to be emphasizing economic development because as a result of economic development in our communities, to use a word that's overused, our self-esteem will grow and we'll have more respect for our communities and ourselves. Maybe this will have a bearing on the corrections to poverty.

I'm overwhelmed by all that you've told me. I would sit here and ask where I would start. I put down that question, of course. Are there some good things happening? Obviously I want to ask that.

From your perspective, is it the justice system where we start or is it economic development that will help your people, in conjunction with us, make these changes?

I don't know, that's kind of a rambling thing, but I wanted to say it and see if we can get a bit of a...

Chief Mercredi: I think the committee has to exercise some independence from the goals of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. You're just regurgitating what the minister told me, that he wants to prioritize economic development. But what is he going to do?

Mr. Murphy: No, I'm going to tell you that this economic development did not come fromRon Irwin. This came from right here. We talked about it.

Chief Mercredi: The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been cutting back on economic development dollars for the last few years. All they have is a $50 million fund.

Mr. Murphy: I am critical of that.

Chief Mercredi: So they don't even have the infrastructure to deliver that program properly. The only department with the capacity for doing something with this is HRD.

There are some good things happening and I'll tell you what they are - some of them, not all of them. When Lloyd Axworthy was in charge of Human Resources Development, he wanted to reform the system of Pathways because it was top-heavy, very costly to administer. My argument was, why create administrative arms? Recognize what we have, which is our organizations and our band councils. You don't have to create a new system to administer the program. So we devised a national framework to protect $200 million for three years and for each region to negotiate its own bilateral with HRD. So now it's possible, with more flexible rules, for our chiefs to deliver these training programs directly through their organizations and the band councils, without having a bureaucracy set up to accomplish the same thing.

There are good things that can be achieved when the government works with us. The other example of where we made progress with Lloyd Axworthy when he was there was in childcare. He announced, because of our representations, a program for creating 6,000 childcare spaces on reservations. He didn't quite do that. He took into account existing spaces in Alberta and Ontario, so it didn't end up being 6,000 new spaces, but at least every region will have access to childcare now. It doesn't meet the need, but it's a move in that direction.

We've worked very closely as well with the Department of Health as an organization. We've done some good things together with the Department of Health, but they are small-resource initiatives, suicide prevention, AIDS awareness and education, things of that nature. They don't address all the needs, but it's a progressive step, I'll say.

We don't make progress with the Crown, though, in terms of the autonomy issue. We don't make any progress with the Crown in dealing with the treaty issue. We don't make any progress with the Crown in dealing with Indian poverty.

.1220

I don't want to discourage you from focusing on economic development, but what I'm saying to you is this. Because of our good relationship with HRD, we now have a social security project with that department to examine that $1 billion fund of Indian Affairs called social assistance.

The project is on how we can liberate that program from provincial controls and how we can change that program so other governments, i.e, the chief and councils, can utilize that fund not just for social assistance but for human development - things like education, job training and job placement. That program is just getting off the ground. The funding has been allocated, but we're still setting up the system with other first nations.

That didn't come from Indian Affairs. That project was started through HRD. But in my last meeting with the deputy minister of Indian Affairs, I invited him to participate in that process with us, because it's their program we're going to be assessing.

So there are things that can be done to change the habits of government so other governments can have a little more autonomy in terms of how those resources can be utilized for the right purposes and so people have opportunities, as opposed to just disincentives, which is the situation now.

The Chairman: Thank you, Chief.

We have eight minutes before closing remarks, and I will allocate all of them to Mr. Harper.

Mr. Harper (Churchill): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ovide, for appearing before the committee.

As you know, I've been involved in this mainstream political process for a long time. I've always felt the need to get involved at the source where the decisions are made. I've learned a lot during my tenure as a member of both parliaments. It hasn't been easy to be involved in that process. What I do find is we have to educate a lot of people continually, all the time.

Of course in Parliament we have different parties and different people who represent different positions. As a parliamentarian, the only thing I always say is that whatever I do here, I try my best, and what I don't do I have to live with. That is the difference. A lot of people in the communities can isolate themselves and live in other areas, not on the reserve.

The issues you have raised I've continually raised with them, in terms of getting aboriginal involvement. I've written letters to the ministers involved, from the national unity minister to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Stéphane Dion. I've written letters to the Minister of Indian Affairs, advancing the involvement of aboriginal people in the whole national unity debate.

I've always felt and I've always said and will continue to say that aboriginal people will play a key role in maintaining the unity of this country. People here have heard me say that. It is a position I've taken and will continue to advance, as an aboriginal person and as a member of Parliament, to the Government of Canada and to the Parliament of Canada.

I share with you the frustrations. It's not easy. You mentioned the conflict, and that is an area I was going to ask you about: what happened last summer and the development of maintaining peace and coexistence, especially amongst our people.

.1225

You identified a specific community, Waterhen, and the issue developing there. There seems to be an internal dispute, but it is a lack of control, a lack of ability to make our own decisions, that influenced those events to occur to the level where they are now.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Harper, the intent was to share the eight minutes with -

Mr. Harper: Anyway, I was going to ask Ovide how we go about resolving that. I made an attempt this past year to take another approach to resolving things where I saw the political process had failed us. Maybe you could...I shouldn't say teach us, but share some information with us on what you think may happen.

Chief Mercredi: Do you mean on the national unity thing or on Waterhen?

Mr. Harper: On the national unity thing, the internal things that may be happening, and what may happen if we don't resolve those things.

Chief Mercredi: Actually, I was going to wait until I got invited by the Prime Minister to tell him.

Mr. Harper: We're working on it.

Chief Mercredi: If I tell you that now, Elijah, you won't invite me.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Harper: You're always welcome.

Chief Mercredi: I wanted to pick up on a comment made by one of the members of Parliament, which was in effect that it's not the legislatures and it's not Parliament that's going to bring unity in the country. It's going to be a combination of things. And one of them is what you initiated, which is trying to bring peace amongst people.

The way you did it, it's pretty challenging to try to bring our people together with the churches on the role of the churches in destroying our culture, and how we reconciled. I think that is a model in terms of building good relations between us and the Reform Party, between us and the Bloc, or for that matter between us and the Liberals, but not stopping there - because that's just a political process - but between us and the Canadian population.

My mission in life right now is to try to get access to the sovereigntists in the province of Quebec to try to bring about that dialogue, how we can start building a small bridge and then move on from there.

The effort that you did, the spiritual gathering, was important in terms of getting people to take another look at the issues with an open mind. There have been some good results because of that, at least between us and the churches.

If you take that in the context of national unity, I think it was good for Canadians to go to Montreal and try to tell people in Quebec, please stay. I think that was good. I think it's a mistake to charge them for a criminal offence for having done that, but I'm not in Quebec. I just make that observation.

With this fight between Bouchard and Allan Rock over the referendum, everybody has an argument to defend. Bouchard has a good argument and so does Allan Rock. But not every action by a government should be interpreted as an affront. How do you stop that? I don't know how you stop that.

.1230

I think the grassroots people have to do what they can. Confederation 2000 got together. They did something, but they forgot the aboriginals. They invited me, but I'm not a wallflower. They invited me, but then they ignored my message about inclusion and they proceeded to define a strategy for national unity without first nations. I didn't go to the second meeting, which they just had, because the working groups they set up with national unity excluded our component, just like Meech Lake excluded the aboriginal component.

But at least it's an effort involving that issue of English Canada and French Canada. Something else needs to be done involving us in Quebec and in the rest of Canada on the issue of national unity.

The Chairman: Before turning the floor over to you for the last word, I'd like to thank you very much for having accepted our invitation. For the first few minutes of our meeting I wondered if it was wise for us to have invited you, based on the apparent intent of our invitation, but I hope you have seen that our intentions were very honourable and that we do care.

Despite the fact that you wish not to be a teacher, I believe that all good leaders are good teachers and I say that you are a good teacher. In thanking you, I'd like to offer you the last word.

Chief Mercredi: I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that as Indian chiefs we know the answers. We know what has to be done, but our frustration is with your governments, not just the federal government but the provinces, where all power rests.

I don't say that people don't have good intentions. I don't put that down. I don't say that people don't have goodwill, though I won't dismiss that. All I say is that good intentions and goodwill are not enough if nothing gets done.

The big issues are still there. Our people are getting frustrated and our young population are going to be half of our population by the year 2010. Half of our population will be 35 years old or less. Right now, 50% of them are not making it beyond high school. This is the issue. Where are they going? Are they going to end up in your jails, or are we going to do something now?

Your government is cutting back right now on different programs that affect opportunities for people. My argument to your Minister of Finance was don't cut back on Indian programs. They're not adequate as they are. His response was that even Indians have to share the pain. My answer to him was I'd like you to share the Indian pain, then you wouldn't do what you're going to do.

.1235

But the cutbacks were made anyway - 6, 3 and 3 for Health; 6, 3 and 3 for DIAND. They said these were not cutbacks, but they didn't take into account inflation, the cost of living, price volume costs and the rising population of our people. So even those budgets were cut.

Right now people are being turned away from dentists for dental care. They can't pay for the prescriptions they need for their treatment. This is happening across the land because of cuts your government has made.

Education, the one liberating program for our people, the government is cutting back, although they say it's a cap. The fact is many students can't go to university because there's no money for them. History has shown that opportunities for Indian people are in education. That's where they liberate themselves from poverty. It's when they become doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers, social workers or qualified tradesmen that they find jobs, and that's when the dependency ends - when they find jobs.

So you see, your government has to recognize what works in liberating people from poverty, and that's where they should be investing: human resources education and training and economic development. If you're moving in that direction, fine, that's good. But my purpose here is to show you there has been study upon study...

Even your own committee has produced...how many studies, Mr. Bachand?

Mr. Bachand: Thirty over the last five or six years.

Chief Mercredi: Yes, and the royal commission study is collecting dust before it even hits the floor of the House of Commons.

My message to you is take direct action. Work with us as leaders to produce change. That's the message. If you do that, maybe our chiefs will be more willing teachers, if they see some opportunity for change beyond what government wants to trickle out right now in little pilot projects here and there.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We're adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;