EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 4, 1996

.0936

[English]

The Chairman: We will call the meeting to order. Before we proceed, I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

The process we have decided to undertake is proving to be very beneficial to the committee members, and it will therefore be beneficial to your communities. We have decided that because there are changes to the committee membership periodically, it's difficult to have an ongoing knowledge and experience of what is happening and what should be happening.

What you are presenting today is not reaching deaf ears. There will be a report produced. And for the first time, this committee has decided to work from a binder, so in the future when there are replacements for members, they will have the benefit of having the facts on what did occur in this committee. So there's going to be a continuity.

The presentation we're asking you to make you might have made before. We're assuring you that it's going on record, and it will be kept.

There will be a session for questions. We have this room for this presentation until 11 a.m., and we have another group at 11 a.m. We will hold to that.

So we invite you to make presentations, and we hope it will allow time for questions from members. The floor is yours.

Mr. Tony Belcourt (President, Métis Nation of Ontario): Perhaps I could just give a briefing on the Métis National Council, our structure. Mr. Morin has a presentation about the current issues that are of concern to us.

The Métis National Council represents the historic Métis in Canada. We are a people who are aboriginal peoples, now recognized as such in the Constitution of Canada. While our people are aboriginal people, they have never resided on Indian reserves, and we don't have status as Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act.

Within the Métis National Council our people come from Ontario to British Columbia. We have one recognized representative body in each of the provinces. In order to be a member, each of these recognized bodies must also have elections by ballot box. One of our strong values as a people is democracy, and so we insist on elections by ballot box, everybody having an opportunity to participate in our elections.

.0940

The Métis National Council was established in 1984. Prior to that, at the national level we were involved in organizations that lobbied for and represented Métis and non-status Indians. We were involved in umbrella organizations, but since 1984 at the national level we've had a Métis-specific representative body, the Métis National Council.

Our board of governors is made up of a president, who is elected at an annual general assembly for a three-year term, and each of the provincial presidents sits on the board of governors as a representative from their province. So we therefore have a total of six members of our board of governors.

I'll introduce Gerald Morin, who will make the presentation on behalf of the Métis National Council.

Mr. Gerald Morin (President, Métis National Council): Thank you very much, Tony.

The Métis National Council represents the Métis Nation in Canada.

I want to thank the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Mr. Bonin, the chairperson, for hearing from us and aboriginal leaders at the opening of this session of Parliament. We think it's a good choice, and it's extremely important that you hear from aboriginal leaders on issues concerning our communities, and concerning all Canadians as well.

I'd like to start by tabling with the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs... I think most of you have already received a copy of our national bilateral report to Anne McLellan, the federal Métis minister in the Privy Council Office.

We have an agreement with the Privy Council Office and Anne McLellan's department to do bilateral reports and develop our bilateral relationship between the Métis National Council and the Government of Canada. Pursuant to that project, we have done a report for the 1995-96 fiscal year. That is the document I would like to table for the standing committee.

I would like to address a number of issues. I would like to give a broad presentation on some of the major issues affecting and concerning the Métis Nation in Canada.

I will start with the whole issue of land and resources. One of the major aspirations of the Métis Nation in Canada is to reclaim our land and resources, lands and resources we have traditionally occupied for many generations throughout the Métis homeland in western Canada.

I'd like to start by pointing out that even though we are recognized in the Constitution as one of the aboriginal peoples in Canada, as Métis people we are totally shut out of land claims processes and policies that have been put in place for many years by the Government of Canada. This is not something that has developed overnight. We have been shut out from the outset, and we continue to be shut out.

So as Métis people we do not have access to the federal government's comprehensive land claims policy and process. We do not have access to the Government of Canada's specific land claims process and policy. And most recently, the Indian Claims Commission, which was established a few years ago to look at rejected specific claims, once again has no mandate to hear from Métis people. So we are excluded from land claims processes.

In 1981 we submitted a letter on behalf of the Métis Nation formally filing for a land claim under the federal government's comprehensive land claims policy and process. In 1981 we received a letter back from the Minister of Justice at the time, saying that we did not have access to the federal government's land claims processes and policies, that the comprehensive and specific land claims process concerned itself with lands and interest in the lands that were unextinguished.

.0945

But in that letter the federal government took the position that Métis rights to land had been extinguished through the scrip system in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, the land claims process did not apply to our land rights and to our people.

I don't want to go into any detail about the scrip process. In very general terms the Métis National Council and our people have always taken a position since the implementation of this scrip process, which was done under the Manitoba Act and the Dominion Lands Act.

The scrip process was essentially a way to dispossess our people of our lands and resources. It was a fraudulent scheme implemented by the federal government, the provincial governments and the private sector to deprive our people of our lands and resources. It was not a valid way to extinguish our land rights to land.

The studies we have undertaken show that anywhere from 95% to 98% of those lands set aside for Métis people eventually ended up in the hands of third parties, and our Métis people did not benefit from the issuance of scrip. As a result of that whole situation, our people have been forced to take court action, to launch lawsuits in the courts. Most recently there has been a lot of activity in that particular area.

In Manitoba in the early 1980s, through the Manitoba Métis Federation, our people filed suit against the federal government and the Government of Manitoba. That was opposed by the federal and provincial governments on the grounds that we did not have standing, and we took the issue to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in our favour, that we did have standing, that the issuance of land under the Manitoba Act was essentially a collective right meant to benefit the Métis Nation as a whole, that we were the legitimate descendants of the Métis Nation who were to benefit from the issuance of scrip and land, and that we had standing to bring the matter forward in the courts.

In Saskatchewan in March 1994, while I was president of the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, we sued the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan. We launched a statement of claim in the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatoon, where we laid claim to approximately 145,000 square kilometres of land in northwestern Saskatchewan.

It was a test case in that it was a case that was put forth on behalf of the Métis Nation as a whole. We argue in that lawsuit that we have subsisting Métis aboriginal title to land, which has never been validly extinguished through the scrip system.

So, for example, if we get a positive ruling that the scrip system, which is the way all our people were dealt with in the Métis homeland, is not a valid way to extinguish land rights, then that kind of ruling would have an impact on the Métis Nation as a whole. It would obligate the federal and provincial governments in the Métis homeland to negotiate land claim agreements and treaties with our people.

That's why we say it is a test case. We have launched that lawsuit, and we are promoting it through the courts. We have the Manitoba and Saskatchewan lawsuits.

We are currently having discussions with the federal Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, with respect to a fact-finding mission in terms of trying to research some of the facts pertaining to that case and maybe agreeing on a common set of facts. If not, then we would agree to disagree. The whole idea of those discussions is simply to facilitate the litigation through the courts. So it's not a land claims process for our people.

It's not the ideal solution, because we prefer a political solution as opposed to litigation in the courts. Again, we have no choice.

I would also like to bring to your attention that approximately three weeks ago we were in Edmonton and there was a Métis person called Ambrose Maurice who is the local president of the Sapwagamik local in northwestern Saskatchewan. He took court action against the Government of Canada in the Federal Court of Canada. He is arguing that as a Métis person he does not have access to the specific land claims policy and process and the federal government's Indian land claims commission.

He lives about 25 miles from the Primrose Lake air weapons range in northwestern Saskatchewan. This is territory that he, his family and ancestors used to occupy. He was displaced because of the establishment of that bombing range.

He wanted to appear before the Indian Claims Commission to talk about compensation, his displacement and his rights to those lands, but he got a letter from the Indian Claims Commission saying that they had no mandate to hear from Métis people. With regard to that matter they had the mandate to hear only from first nations people.

.0950

So he took the Government of Canada to court. Essentially he is arguing that as a Métis person he is being discriminated against under section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because there is unequal treatment of aboriginal peoples who are recognized in section 35 of the Constitution. So he is arguing discrimination, and he has launched that action in the Federal Court of Canada.

So those are the lawsuits we have taken with regard to land, and again we have no alternative. These recent court actions also demonstrate the fact that the re-establishment of our land and resource base in the Métis homeland, on behalf of the Métis nation, is quickly becoming an emerging priority in our communities. The actions we have taken are a result of the pressures that have been put upon us by our people.

I would also like to point out one more important fact on this whole issue of land and resources. The report of Mr. Justice Hamilton, the fact-finder appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs, came down a few months ago. One of the suggestions and recommendations he makes in his report is that the existing federal land claim policies and processes should either be broadened to include Métis people, or there should be a specific Métis-tailored land claims process put in place for Métis people. So he made a positive recommendation as far as Métis land and resources are concerned.

Those are some of the more salient and major issues pertaining to the whole heading of the Métis nation re-establishing its land and resource base in the Métis homeland.

The other point I would like to address with the standing committee this morning is the whole issue of - and one of the other priorities in the Métis Nation - Métis harvesting rights. By that I mean the right to hunt, fish, and trap.

Just as we have asserted our rights to land in the courts because of pressures put upon us by our people in our communities, increasingly our people are coming to Métis leaders and Métis governments and organizations and saying we have to make hunting, fishing and trapping rights priorities in our political movement. So we have taken a number of measures.

Throughout the Métis homeland our people, either individually or through Métis organizations, have asserted their right to hunt, fish and trap. Because of that, there have been more court cases in the Métis homeland in western Canada, where our people are being charged for hunting out of season. There have been cases in every province: in Ontario, the prairie provinces, British Columbia.

I was in Saskatchewan last week in my home community of Green Lake, where I was testifying on behalf of a Métis person who had been charged for hunting out of season. You have these emerging court cases where our people are being charged.

They are being defended, and I suppose we are making some progress and winning some victories in the courts. But again it's not the ideal solution. We would prefer to sit down with the federal and provincial governments; work out co-management arrangements and other agreements so that we can commonly agree on how we can go about implementing our inherent right to hunt, fish and trap; and strike co-management resource arrangements so that we can agree on how to co-manage those resources, bearing in mind conservation, and ensuring that those wildlife resources are there for future generations in Canada.

So that's what we are advocating, but again because there is an unwillingness on the part of governments to sit down and negotiate with us seriously on this issue, our people, through impatience and frustration, have simply asserted their right to hunt, fish and trap, and as a result are being charged, and the matters are being dealt with in the courts.

Hunting, fishing and trapping are a way of life. It's our culture, and it's a means of subsistence for our people, for many of our people who live in poverty in our communities. This way of life is under attack.

I just want to make a very quick reference to the fact that the gun control legislation passed by the federal government is yet another measure that will make it much more difficult for our people to hunt, fish and trap.

We expressed our concerns about that both to the House of Commons and the Senate, including the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and I don't want to go into any great detail on that. I just want to make reference to the fact that, once again, this gun control legislation is something that could put another obstacle in the way of our people exercising our harvesting rights and our traditional way of life.

Furthermore, we participated and we continue to participate in a fur lobby in Europe because the European Parliament is proposing to ban furs in the European market.

Currently about 75% to 80% of the furs we sell in the world market are sold in the European market. So if the European Parliament shuts off that market and makes it inaccessible for our people, that could have the devastating effect of killing overnight a way of life, which is trapping, for our people in living off the land. In the past year we were successful in delaying the implementation of that regulation in the European Parliament for one year. It's slated to be implemented on January 1, 1997.

.0955

Canada, the United States, Russia and the European Parliament are currently working on developing an international standard that may be acceptable to our people, to the people in the European Parliament and, I suppose, to the animal rights activists.

We are hopeful that we will be able to strike a standard that can accommodate this and would allow us to pursue trapping as a way of life and, again, as a means of subsistence, but again, that is another measure that is going to encroach upon our way of life.

Because I want to make a presentation in terms of the major issues confronting the Métis Nation, and because we have limited time, Mr. Chairman, I just want to hit the main issues and move on very quickly. Some of my colleagues would like to say a few words later as well.

Another issue we consider to be a major obstacle in the way of the Métis Nation making progress in Canada is the whole issue of jurisdiction. In terms of the federal and provincial governments, who has jurisdiction in Canada to interface and deal with the Métis Nation with respect to our issues?

We refer to it as section 91.24 of the Constitution Act 1867, which says that the federal Parliament has competence to deal with Indians and lands reserved for Indians. So since 1867 the federal government has exercised jurisdiction in dealing with first nations peoples and communities.

In 1939, in the referenced case re Inuit, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the term ``Indian'' also covered Inuit people, or Eskimos, as they were known at the time. Since that time the federal government has exercised jurisdiction in dealing with Inuit peoples and communities.

As a result of that they are able, for example, to negotiate with the federal government on the establishment of Nunavut in the Northwest Territories. Practically speaking, it appears to go a long way in addressing the aspirations of Inuit people and people in the Northwest Territories.

On section 91.24, I just briefly want to lay out the options in terms of resolving this issue on behalf of the Métis Nation and, we submit, on behalf of Canada as well. This is a problem. It's an obstacle for us in making progress on a whole variety of issues, whether it's land rights, harvesting rights and other issues.

There are a number of options open to the Government of Canada in resolving this issue. First, they can say as a matter of policy we're going to change our policy and our attitude. From here on in, we are of the view, which should be reflected in federal policy, that the Métis are covered within the terms of section 91.24. We will simply govern in accordance with that policy, and accept responsibility for the Métis.

Then, of course, you get the Department of Justice lawyers and other people who say, but if you do that, you'll set a precedent.

My answer to that is, so what? Set the precedent, let's roll up our sleeves, and let's get to work.

So that is clearly an option available to the federal government, and we have advocated and continue to advocate that as a feasible option with the federal government.

There is the other option, probably the most undesirable. But again we've advocated this because our people are increasingly becoming frustrated in our communities because of lack of action on the part of governments in addressing our needs, our issues and our aspirations. That option is for us to take court action.

We've made requests over the years, over the past...well, since the Métis National Council has been around, for this matter to be referred by the federal Minister of Justice to the Supreme Court of Canada in terms of a reference, as they had done with the Inuit back in 1939.

So far, successive ministers of justice have refused to take this reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, and without the Minister of Justice, his acknowledgement or approval for us to do this, we simply cannot take a reference case to the Supreme Court of Canada, but we continue to advocate that as a possible approach.

There are a number of existing court cases. I made reference earlier to the land claim court actions, and also the hunting and fishing rights cases. In almost every one of those cases, which are at the level of the lower courts at the moment, we advocate section 91.24, and we specifically plead that the Métis are covered within section 91.24.

At the provincial court level, in Saskatchewan, the provincial courts have ruled that the Métis do fall within section 91.24, and the federal government has jurisdiction to deal with us.

Those cases are on appeal. There's one now before the Federal Court of Canada in Edmonton, which I mentioned, and a couple of others that are at the Queen's Bench level.

So sooner or later, if there's no action, the courts will determine this issue in the upper courts, whether it's the court of appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada, through the normal course of litigation. Again, that's not the preferable solution. We would rather negotiate a political understanding with the governments of Canada and the provincial governments with respect to this issue.

.1000

The third option is simply an amendment to section 91.24, clarifying for greater certainty that the Métis fall within section 91.24. This was an option we pursued in 1992 as part of the Charlottetown Accord and Métis Nation Accord.

There was an amendment we successfully negotiated that is a matter of public record, and is contained in the Charlottetown Accord. It says that for greater certainty section 91.24 applies to all aboriginal peoples in Canada. So that is an option open to us.

Again, that option realistically cannot be pursued unless we have first ministers conferences in the future where the Constitution is on the table. That is an option that is open to the Government of Canada and ourselves.

This whole issue of jurisdiction and the jurisdictional limbo our people find themselves in continues to be a major obstacle for us in making progress, as I said, on our issues, our needs and our aspirations, whether they be on land, arriving at self-government agreements, arriving at treaties, the enumeration of our people and having equitable access to federal programs and services. This lack of clarity on jurisdiction is a major obstacle for us in making progress in those particular areas. It must be resolved.

I want to point out that in the red book commitments the federal government stated and promised that they would take the lead role in clarifying jurisdiction for the Métis. And to this day that hasn't happened. So this has to be a major issue. It's a major obstacle for us in making progress and working together as real partners within Canadian Confederation.

Enumeration has been another red book commitment by the federal Liberal Party, where they undertook to do an enumeration of the Métis Nation. We interpret this as a commitment to undertake an enumeration with the Métis Nation as a whole, not one province or one region of the Métis Nation, but the Métis Nation as a whole.

At the moment there has not been any major progress in this particular area, other than perhaps in Saskatchewan. The Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan are of the view that they would like to undertake a pilot project in Saskatchewan.

But that leaves out other provinces that also want to undertake an enumeration of the Métis Nation, and it totally excludes the Métis National Council from our participation in the development of the enumeration of our people.

The pilot project in Saskatchewan has come under severe criticism. From what we've heard and from what we can see, part of the problem with the Saskatchewan project is that it gives too much control to the federal and provincial governments in determining the definition, and in having control over the enumeration, of the Métis Nation. It gives too much control to third parties, such as independent agencies and firms, over the definition of who is Métis and the enumeration of the Métis Nation.

Three weeks ago there was a national Métis elders conference held in Edmonton. There was a motion passed, unanimously condemning the enumeration project in Saskatchewan. As well, the MNC has communicated to officials in the federal government that we are opposed to the pilot project in Saskatchewan.

The MNC position has remained the same throughout. There must be the establishment of a Métis Nation registry, owned and controlled by the Métis people, and there must be an enumeration, consistent with the red book commitment, of the Métis Nation as a whole.

And just as jurisdiction is an impediment for our people in making progress within Canada, the lack of an enumeration is also a major obstacle for our people in making progress in Canada. Inevitably governments will say, well, who are the Métis, where are they, how many Métis people are there, and what are the data or demographic trends pertaining to Métis people? A lot of that information and data is not available.

One of the issues that was also of concern to us is the fact that we feel that within the federal system there is inequitable access of programs and services for Métis people. Métis people either receive none, or a very small share, of the programs that are earmarked for aboriginal people by the federal government.

We have absolutely no access to the Department of Indian Affairs and their approximately $5 billion budget annually. Métis people do not have access to this. As a result, the needs in our communities are not being met, and many of the programs our people desperately need in our communities are not being delivered.

.1005

A good example of that is housing. David Chartrand will talk very briefly later about the whole issue of housing, which I think is very relevant, given that this is the first day of an international conference on housing in Istanbul, Turkey, at which we have no representation to address the housing needs of Métis people.

In spite of these impediments that I spoke about, one of the possible models is the national framework agreement the Department Human Resources Development Canada has entered into with the Métis National Council to devolve HRDC programs and services to the Métis Nation through the MNC and its affiliates. It's a good model, and we think it's a good agreement.

However, we feel that one of the problems with it is that there is inequitable distribution of resources, particularly at the regional level. Many of the officials and bureaucrats still want to maintain control over the process as opposed to ensuring real control for our people. Nonetheless, we see that as a practical, good model to be able to address the whole issue of programs and services being available to our people.

With respect to the tripartite policy and processes that are in place in the province, the tripartite policy was put in place by the Tories in 1985. It has a new context now as the result of the inherent right policy of 1995. These are clearly tripartite self-government processes that fall under the mandate of the federal government's new inherent right policy. We feel they're a step in the right direction, and we have made some limited progress.

One of the problems with the tripartites is that we see tripartites in the MNC as implementation mechanisms. There needs to be a greater national context as to what is supposed to be taking place in the tripartites. We have always advocated a Métis national framework agreement, similar to the Métis Nation Accord, which we negotiated as part of the Charlottetown Accord in 1992, to give greater context to the tripartites and essentially to allow the negotiations and implementation to take place at that level.

Few concrete and substantive agreements and changes have resulted in our communities as a result of the tripartites. There have been few results. A lot of time we are preoccupied with the process, budgets, committees and subcommittees, and so on, and have very little time to actually negotiate matters of substance. There is a lack of resources. Last year the federal government cut back the tripartite budget by 5%.

Over the years core funding available for Métis and aboriginal organizations through the Department of Canadian Heritage has been cut back, and those resources have been dwindling. This past year the budgets were cut back, in most cases for the provincial associations, by 17%, and many of our organizations are forced to rely on tripartite funding to offset their administrative and core funding costs. It's not an ideal situation.

So we don't advocate their abolition; however, we feel they could be made more effective by more resources and also by having a national context such as a Métis national framework agreement.

In addition, for several years the federal government has informally had what's called a federal Métis interlocutor, and currently it's Anne McLellan. Since its inception a number of years ago, we feel this position has been ineffective in addressing or liaising with the Métis Nation on our concerns and our issues in Canada.

There is no clear mandate, and there are insufficient resources, for the Métis interlocutor to carry out her work. It's not extremely effective as a mechanism to interface with the Métis Nation and the Government of Canada, and perhaps we may want to revisit that issue.

Let me move on to the first ministers meeting being planned for June, this month. We would first like to make the point that as Métis people, we have to be involved in all first ministers conferences in the future, full-blown first ministers conferences, particularly when national unity and aboriginal issues are on the agenda.

Given the recognition of the inherent right of self-government for all aboriginal people, we feel there has to be a transition where we are considered to be full partners in Confederation.

But for the purposes of the first ministers meeting, which is taking place this month, I'd like to very briefly lay out some terms, as to how we would see ourselves participating this month and in the months ahead, leading to a full-blown first ministers conference. There must be one by April of next year to deal with the amendment process and formulas.

First, in terms of the discussions that are going to take place in the next few weeks and months, we would like to see, as soon as possible, assurances by the Prime Minister that aboriginal people will be invited to all future first ministers conferences.

.1010

Second, in the meantime, leading up to a full-blown first ministers conference, there should be an alternative process in place, which would consist of meetings of federal government ministers and the Prime Minister with aboriginal leaders to talk about our issues and our concerns and about defining the agenda for a future first ministers conference.

Third, there should be assurances by the Prime Minister that any discussions on aboriginal rights and national unity in the future will not take place without the involvement of aboriginal people.

Fourth, any discussions with regard to devolution of responsibilities to the provinces will in no way derogate from aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada.

Finally, the feds should immediately assist the Métis National Council and other aboriginal groups in terms of allowing us to consult with our people to be able to formalize our positions in having, in our case, a unified Métis Nation position that we can table at a future first ministers conference. If we're going to be tabling major positions on such issues as Métis rights and national unity, we would like to consult with our people, and be able to have the full mandate of our people in advocating those particular positions.

In closing, there is one final issue that I want to address - then I will shut it off here - and that is the issue of Louis Riel. There has been a lot of discussion and debate in the past century, particularly since the hanging execution of Louis Riel in 1885 in Regina. Also, there has been renewed debate and discussion in the past few years about Louis Riel and the role he played in Canada.

Today, as I understand it, the Bloc Party in the House of Commons is introducing for first reading a resolution calling for Riel's conviction to be revoked. As I understand it, that will be tabled in the House of Commons today for first reading. We will be making some comments later on today to the media with respect to that matter.

I'd also like to point out that a couple of weeks ago in Winnipeg there was the unveiling of a Louis Riel statue on the grounds of the legislature in Winnipeg, a dignified statue that portrays Riel as a statesman.

The twisted statue that portrayed Riel as a tormented figure was removed, and we were victorious in replacing it with a dignified statue of Riel, which pays honour to the Métis people.

As well, in 1992 a unanimous resolution of the House of Commons clearly recognized Riel as a founder of the province of Manitoba.

We support the movement to have Riel's conviction revoked, and we will be expressing support for that today. But we would also like to say that besides that, there should also be another resolution in the House of Commons and the Senate that not only recognizes Riel as a founder of the province of Manitoba but expressly recognizes him as a Father of Confederation, which is merely stating a fact and a reality in this country.

I thank you very much for hearing me. I want to remind you that in section 35 we are recognized as one of the three aboriginal peoples in Canada. Our aboriginal and treaty rights are affirmed.

We feel that there is unequal treatment of aboriginal people in Canada, that it violates section 15 of the charter, that this discrimination must come to an end, and that all governments in Canada must ensure that there is respect for human rights for all Métis people.

This is a time of change and renewal, especially when we're talking about the decade of the rights of indigenous peoples, which is now under way internationally. In the next few months the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples will be tabling its final report. In the near future it appears that we're having first ministers conferences. Also, there are discussions about change and renewal of the federation. With all this going on, I think we have real opportunities for Canada to be able to sit down with the Métis Nation and other aboriginal peoples, and bring to reality the fact that we should be full partners in Canadian Confederation. This is something the Métis Nation has always supported.

I thank you very much for hearing me.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure how you want to proceed. I know a couple of my colleagues would also like to make some comments, and, of course, we want to get to some questions as well. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ideally we would have another maximum of 15 minutes of presentations. This would allow us half an hour for questions, which is not very much, but whatever time you use, there will be fewer questions. Please proceed.

Mr. Belcourt: I think I'll proceed, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to thank the Bloc Québécois for the presentation of the motion that's going to be made today.

.1015

Now, we may have different reasons for supporting this motion. The Métis share with anyone else in Canada a sense of not belonging to Canada, of not being part of what's going on in Canadian society. We share these kinds of sympathies with lots of people in Quebec, and as well as being descendants of aboriginal people, for the great part most of our people are products of the fur trade and people from Quebec.

We share a sense of the frustration in dealing with Canada. We have different attitudes about how we deal with those.

We are very much believers in the building of Canada. The Métis are on the record as having participated in major ways in contributing to the growth and development of Canada. Louis Riel's government in 1869 and 1870 was recognized by the British Parliament as a legitimate government.

It was when his people came to Parliament to negotiate terms of entry of the northwest into Confederation that they were put in jail, and the British Parliament ordered the federal government to release those people. They recognized the government in Manitoba, and that is why there were negotiations that took place; that is why the northwest entered Confederation, the legal means by which the northwest...

When we talk about the northwest we also mean a great majority of the province of northern Ontario today and northern Quebec. All these lands that flowed into the Hudson's Bay, James Bay and Rupert's Land were at issue. These were the lands that were brought into Canada by Riel and his government.

A few years later this man, a statesmen who was elected to Parliament three times, could never take his seat in this House of Commons because of the bounty of $5,000 on his head put by the legislature in Ontario. This man was hanged for treason.

What has been done to Riel is a continuing symbol to us of the twisted, manipulative means used by the Government of Canada to crush the Métis people. What was done then continues today. I've said before in committees that Canada ought to be ashamed of the way it treats its aboriginal peoples, and especially the Métis people.

Gerald has spoken about how we are shut out of land claims processes, all our other grievances. All these stem from the simple fact that there is a callous disregard of the law by the Government of Canada. There is a callous disregard of the Constitution of Canada, and there is a callous disregard of treaty rights and recognized aboriginal rights that are supported by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I don't know what this committee can do. If I were a member of this committee and I consciously cared about Canada and our reputation, I think I might want to look into this a bit more. And I ask you whether or not you might want to take a more in-depth look at the legal claims and grievances of the Métis Nation in Canada.

Section 15 is a very clear section of the act. It's been constant in the courts and in the Supreme Court, pointing out that federal legislation - and not only federal legislation, but also now provincial policy such as in the Perry case currently before the courts in Ontario - is unconstitutional if it treats aboriginal peoples differently.

I don't know if anybody could be thought of as being treated more differently than we, the Métis people, are.

We don't want a Department of Indian Affairs. We don't want to be registered as Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act. We simply want Parliament to live up to what's now federal policy, the implementation of the inherent right of self-government. Negotiate with us on a proper basis so we may be able to start implementing and doing the things we've long wanted to do, because we are a people steeped in the value of self-determination.

.1020

The question of the disregard of our rights has resulted in our people being made criminals, because they have to continue to do what they've long done to feed their families and continue their way of life. In Ontario we have people, recognized now in the Métis Nation of Ontario, who live in 280 different communities throughout the province. A great many of our people are living in rural areas of the province and continue to depend on traditional harvesting means - not just hunting and fishing but other means of gathering - to maintain their lifestyle.

At one time it used to be that our people would go and earn some money as a supplement to their traditional lifestyle. Now they make a bit of money, but they must depend on their traditional means to supplement what is not enough, because there aren't enough jobs and our people are ill-trained. We are without the resources for any education, and we are not in close proximity to the educational institutions that our tax dollars pay for in big cities. Our people are at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder.

We ask parliamentarians constantly, and we'll ask you again, is it fair to sit on your hands, hear our pleas, and do nothing about it? Is there no recognition of the fact that there is an imbalance here, that the Métis are treated completely differently, that there are federal policies such as the land claims policy that prevent us from coming to the table, from even being able to present our case?

There is a land claims process going on now in unceded territory in Ontario, the Algonquin territory. Our people, with aboriginal blood in their veins, have legitimate claim to this territory. Believe me, there are going to be lots of problems in the future if our people aren't involved in this claim settlement.

Also, Treaty No. 3 on the northwest angle of Ontario had a half-breed adhesion.

What happened to the Métis lands? Our people keep asking themselves that over and over again.

We have lots of grievances. You don't hear much about the Métis people being involved in confrontations, but I'll tell you, in Ontario we just went through our elections by ballot box. We have 4,000 voters on our voters list, which is not bad for a Métis-specific organization that only came together two years ago. Previously we belonged to the umbrella organization I mentioned.

We have 4,000 voters. These are people who not only identify as Métis but complete their genealogical documentation to satisfy their aboriginal ancestry and their claim to rights as Métis people.

We have people now coming together and becoming stronger in their own communities, and they are now starting to make greater demands. So far those demands are being made to me and to our council. Why can't we get these things addressed? Why is it that we have to hide at night when we go hunting? How come our rights aren't recognized?

We're talking about people who are on the verge of wanting to do more than just leaving it up to us to try to negotiate.

I'm warning you: take us seriously. Take me seriously. We are not a violent people. We want to build; we don't want to tear down. But if you do nothing and continue to ignore us, what choice will we have left?

.1025

On the question of the pardon of Riel, we believe this would be an important symbol, a very important one, that Parliament would wish to start unravelling and undoing all the injustices that have been made to the Métis Nation in Canada. It would be an important symbol that we want to do something to create a better understanding of the history of our country, what makes us what we are as Canadians.

We don't have very much about our history taught in our schools, not the things that would make us proud to really be Canadians, because we have a very full and thorough understanding of what it was that made this country what it is.

The pardon of Riel would do great things for all of us in the country. We don't know if you can set your politics aside to allow this motion to be heard and read, to be sent to committee for further discussion, and to get passed.

For our part, we have been trying to get the Government of Ontario to support a motion for the pardon of Riel. It was the Government of Ontario that put a $5,000 bounty on his head in 1872. We have documents, letters that were written by all kinds of people who were saying, give me $50, give me $100, give me $500, I know where that scoundrel is.

There's no question in our minds as to why the profile of the Métis Nation in the province of Ontario was pretty low until the last little while, when you have a government and a whole legislature that puts big dollars on the head of its leader. We want to see a change brought about, something that makes Canada healthier, a better place to live in, and a place we can feel better about. The pardon of Riel would go to great lengths to help that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you. We'll proceed to questioning by members.

If you saw members come in late, they didn't just start their day when they came in this room. Personally, this is my third meeting, and it's the same for every other member.

We'll give the floor to Claude Bachand,

[Translation]

representative of the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Bachand, you have five minutes.

Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): I am going to ask three quick questions before making a comment, and I'm going to focus particularly on what the gentleman just said about Louis Riel's pardon. Can you give us an update on that matter and also tell us what the situation is with regard to enumeration and the register?

I know that that is a major problem and that the federal government has a great deal of trouble recognizing the Métis elsewhere than in the Constitution. The Constitution is a fundamental document, but the federal government is having trouble with its definition. I would like you to give us an update on that front as well. For instance, does the federal government support you?

I also noted that you had to send a card to all of your members for the Canadian census that has just been taken, a card on which they could identify themselves as Métis.

Perhaps you could give us an update on that particular issue and tell us about the status of funding for the Métis National Council. I know that the Council had financial difficulties at one point, but I don't know whether they were resolved.

I also read in your document that you had prepared a constitution, the Métis Nation Constitution. Could you have a copy of that document sent to members of the committee? Personally, I would like to examine it.

.1030

I will conclude by referring to Louis Riel's pardon. I would like to make some comments, and hear your reaction. On page 5 of your document, you refer to the Quebec referendum, but you did not mention it today.

It seems you wrote to Matthew Coon-Come that you were recommending that Quebeckers vote No. In a context where you say that Canada does not recognize your rights, and that Canada hung even one of your leaders, I find it difficult to understand that you cannot see that Quebec may want the same thing you do, i.e. more recognition and more autonomy.

We are seeking those things through the sovereignty movement and its purpose is not to break up Canada but to establish a new partnership with it. In Quebec, we feel that Canada as it stands cannot be reformed. So, if I understand you correctly, you think that Canada can be reformed, even after the events you have just described.

Perhaps you could reply to my three questions first, but I would also like you to devote a few minutes to the comments I have just made. We feel that Riel is important because a fundamental, historical error was made that must be redressed today. Secondly, why do you not recognize that we in Quebec believe that Canada cannot be reformed, and why do you not stay out of that debate?

[English]

The Chairman: The floor is yours for the answers in about four minutes, please.

Mr. Morin: Okay, I'll try to respond very briefly, because my colleagues also may be interested in responding to any of these issues.

First of all, we don't have a problem with providing you with a draft copy of the Métis Nation constitution. That is something I undertake to do.

I'll respond to the latter part of your questions, and maybe some of my colleagues could respond to other issues you've raised. Essentially you're quite correct: there are many historical wrongs in Canada, and by and large, we have not been too happy with our treatment in Canada in terms of respect for our interests and our rights.

Our history and future in Canada is intertwined with the development and the evolution of Canada. As I said in 1992, Riel is recognized as a founder of the province of Manitoba. He is a Father of Confederation, and he is primarily the man who is responsible for bringing Manitoba into Canadian Confederation. Our people also played a major role in terms of the development of the northwest, and ultimately the development of Canada.

So our evolution as a people and our pursuit of rights and self-determination have always been in the context of Canadian Confederation in terms of the evolution and the development of a strong and united Canada. That is our trademark in this country, and we are quite proud of the fact that we are nation-builders, not only within our own Métis Nation, but nation-builders in terms of Canadian Confederation.

Although we have many concerns, we don't see any problem, we see no difficulty, in Canada being able to address those concerns within Canadian Confederation. There's nothing preventing the governments of Canada from changing their attitudes, their policies and their treatment of Métis people, to be able to effective address our aspirations and our interests within Canada. That's something we have always advocated.

In the case of Quebec, every time we have commented on the issue, we have always urged our people out there - and we continue to urge our people - that even though, as Mr. Belcourt has pointed out, we have common histories and many similar interests and aspirations, we feel that not only the Métis Nation, but our people in Quebec, can address those issues in a new partnership within Canadian Confederation.

We don't see the need for Canada breaking up, or Quebec having its own country apart from Canada. We feel those differences can be worked out within Canadian Confederation.

We also hold to the ideal that Canada can evolve through a renewal of the federation into a model nation where peoples of different languages and backgrounds can live and work together and pursue our way of life and our common interests in harmony with one another. That is the vision we have as a Métis Nation.

.1035

Is there somebody else who can respond specifically to any issue?

Mr. David Chartrand (Representative, Manitoba Métis Federation): I want to address further the comments made by our president with respect to this vision we speak of.

I'm sure that the Bloc themselves are trying to put forth this resolution to clear Riel's name. It is based on the belief in what Riel stood for.

Riel stood for a unified country. He believed that nations can live as one and operate as one.

I believe that same vision still stands within our nation. We continue to operate with that vision that was left behind for us to pursue as a nation, that we could one day make Canada a whole, and all nations can live in harmony in this country.

In our view, this clearing of Riel's name would just further that vision. We see it as a right step, a major step. We could finally clear up the name of Riel, establish that the governments were in the wrong, and see that the issue of damaging his reputation and his name throughout the history in the school systems and in our educational systems will one day finally be cleared up.

Again, we thank the Bloc for pursuing this initiative in Parliament. But again, as Gerald has pointed out, that same vision comes from generations back, from generation after generation of our people. We have this vision of unifying our country and keeping Canada as one, and we must continue to maintain that.

Although we respect the Bloc's position - we can't say we don't respect you - it has always been our position to keep Canada as one and we must do so.

The Chairman: I must say I like the answer more than I like the question.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: But we have to take turns.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): Yes, I just have something to ask very quickly.

The whole question of the legitimacy of Métis organizations seems to come to the front quite a bit. Just looking at this Globe article from last week would make some people question who is actually representing Métis interests at the national level and at some of the provincial levels.

There's the whole question of how you define legitimacy and how you define your membership and your election procedures in such a way that somehow this question can be put to bed.

This isn't just a recent phenomenon. We've seen this over time. My recollection is that at least since this parliament began, we've seen some fairly significant changes in who's at the head table and for how long. There's been some shifting chairs there and a lot of...I think they term it ``squabbling''.

Perhaps you could give us some picture of how you see all this.

Mr. Chartrand: Sure. In fact, thank you for that question. I was hoping I could find a way to get that question on the floor.

I'm from Manitoba, and as you see, two other directors are from Manitoba. We have a board of 17 at present in Manitoba, and 12 of us have taken a very strong stand as the board of directors to tighten up our budget and pursue some of the directives that Ottawa has been asking us to pursue with respect to any transformation of funds that come to our province.

There's been, of course, a position taken by what we would call the opposition to the president of our organization and what could be capsulized as the leader of a particular party, if you want to use that concept.

.1040

I think the biggest problem we have, and I think that's where this problem lies... Let's look at a good example, at the Reform Party. And not to be critical in the former fashion, I can say that there were a lot of statements made against Preston Manning, his leadership, etc. What if a group sprouted out of nowhere and said, well, we are now appointing Mr. So-and-So to be leader of this Reform Party? Would that then be accepted by Canada? Okay, there is squabbling, there are differences there, and we have a new leader over there.

We seem somehow all the time...as soon as one aboriginal person stands out and speaks out, we're all blanketed with that same process. We have forums, we have rules.

As the Bloc have indicated, they want to see the Constitution...which is great. I think more governments should see that our Constitution is set up...that we have a strong democratic system in our structures throughout Canada.

The biggest problem here is that as soon as one aboriginal speaks out, whether it's a first nations or an Inuit representative, then they'll say the aboriginal people don't support this. I think that is a wrong approach by governments, by the bureaucracy, to start taking.

We have a president in Manitoba who has taken a position against a two-thirds majority of his board. As far as I know how this country works, a majority shall rule. We're all duly elected, we took a strong position, but one person has made a stand, and all of a sudden there is chaos in our organization.

We went before a court. A court patronized us, and in fact paternalized us in many ways, and said we're aboriginal people, we should always be working in harmony, and we should be working by way of consensus.

I was in charge of a multimillion dollar business in housing - in fact, we made a major profit - and we had numerous suggestions to Canada, to the Liberal government to save millions of dollars in the future. Those proposals are still on the table. We were recognized as the leader of the country in housing by the Liberal government. We were recognized as making about a 50% cost savings for the taxpayer of this country in the delivery of housing.

That gives you examples, and I can go on, especially on housing, and show you how we can save money and where we can go.

But going back to the issue of authority, I think it's wrong that the government should state that out of the blue, it still recognizes Gerald Morin, who was the national president - you could state clearly that you have the majority of the provinces on side sitting here at the table - as the president. One person spoke out, two people appointed him there, and he said, I am the leader now.

I think government should say, well, you prove it to me in court or prove it to me legally; then we'll talk business. But it has always put the onus on us to go back and fight, and they're saying, we're not dealing with you guys until you settle your affairs.

Our affairs were settled. We elected our leader, and he's still the leader of our country right now at this time.

Governments have to start looking at that. Too many times it's too easy for the government to say, well, you guys are fighting, you're squabbling, you don't have a structure. We do have a clear structure, and if the Liberal Party... Nunziata was removed. Does that mean all of a sudden now the Liberal Party is in chaos? No, it is a position by governments. There are operations by governments.

We respect that, and we expect ours to be respected. We have constitutions, we have rules, and we have a strong democratic system. If one person speaks out, that doesn't mean the nation is speaking out; that's one individual.

Mr. Duncan: Okay. There was a suggestion that government was recognizing this challenge, but I guess I'm unaware of government recognizing anything. It was more the public perception, the public challenge that's out there.

I think that's where the burden of proof really falls on any provincial or national organization: how do you prove to the public? It's not so much how you prove to the government. I don't know that the government counts very much any more, other than as maybe your main funding source.

Do you have a thrust or direction in terms of dealing in the public arena?

Mr. Morin: Okay, I'll try to reply as quickly as I can. First, we always come up with this issue of, as you put it, our people squabbling or there being differences of opinion in the Métis community. I don't see that as a negative thing; I see that as a very positive dynamic in the Métis Nation. We come from the perspective - and it's now recognized by the federal government in their inherent right policy - that we are a nation of peoples who have the inherent right of self-governance and self-determination. That's also recognized in international law.

.1045

Given that we are a people with our own institutions and our own governance, it naturally follows that we will have our own politics. When you see debate and differences of opinion, even if it comes out in the public arena through the media - the media has a role to play not only with respect to federal and provincial affairs, but also with respect to aboriginal affairs - I see that as a very positive thing, because our people are a very vibrant people. We believe very strongly in debate, people being able to express their differences, and we are strong believers in democracy. Our Métis traditions have always determined that we're strong believers in democracy.

We believe in the rule of law. One of the fundamental principles of the rule of law is that when you have a constitution that talks about the Métis National Council, then that is a supreme document that has to be respected, which we do and practice in the Métis National Council. We also believe in the rules and procedures of natural justice.

So that being the case, I don't see a problem with that at all. I think it's a natural evolution in terms of nationhood and our quest for rights.

The squabbling you speak of takes place at every level. It takes place in the federal order of government, it takes place in the provincial order of government. The disagreements and the differences we have in the Métis Nation amongst our governments is no greater or no less than the differences that are expressed within the federal order of government, in the Parliament of Canada, or wherever. These things happen.

Within that debate and within those differences, Métis traditions, the rule of law, our constitutions, the principles of democracy and natural justice - those are the broad parameters of what we believe in, and that's what has to be respected.

So I think that sort of profile in the public should be viewed in that context, and in a positive way.

The Chairman: Mr. Murphy.

A voice: Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind...

The Chairman. Sorry. Mr. Murphy.

What you do is, you blend your answers and the next answers. That's how you do things when you're on a time schedule.

A voice: Oh, oh!

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

First, I was glad to hear that Riel - not that I didn't know that - was a nation-builder, and glad that the Bloc is supporting that aspect and their motion.

I'm trying to get to understand the Métis better. You were talking, Mr. Morin, about who defines who's Métis. If that definition were to come about, what would it lead to? Where would it go in terms of some of the issues you have raised with regard to impeding the development of the Métis people? I guess I'd also ask what's wrong with that pilot project on enumeration that's taking place.

I have another quick question, too: what is the fundamental underpinning that, from your perspective, resists the Canadian government and its recognition of the Métis people? What's that fundamental thing?

Lastly, with respect to the economic development aspect of the Métis people, can you tell us a bit about some of the things you are doing? Obviously you would be doing this pretty much on your own, because you did mention that there are some programs earmarked for Métis people, and I guess I'd just like you to elaborate on some of that.

Mr. Morin: Maybe I'll allow my colleague Mr. Belcourt to respond.

Tony.

Mr. Belcourt: Thank you, Gerald.

I didn't get all the questions, but you struck one that's really key here: what's the fundamental question that impedes federal recognition? We don't know.

We are aware that the federal Department of Justice did ask for an opinion of some lawyers on whether the federal government had a fiduciary responsibility to the Métis and whether the Métis fell under section 91.24. They shopped around until they got an opinion that said no. Ever since, that's been the federal position, leaning on this old legal opinion. They didn't like the first ones they got because the first ones they got said the federal government does have a responsibility.

.1050

Ministers of native affairs or Indian affairs or federal interlocutors we've dealt with in the past have told us privately and at other times that the biggest problem they have is that if there is no definition of the Métis, then it just leaves it wide open. If we're talking about rights without a defined number of people, where would that leave Canada?

So that's why for us the enumeration isn't so much the issue; it's the registry that's the issue. That's why I brought this along. In the Métis Nation we have a very clear definition of who the Métis are. We are the people who can define who the Métis are. We are the Métis.

I've been asked what it is. We are descendants of a people who are aboriginal people. My parents were Métis, their parents were Métis, their parents were Métis, and so on.

In the Métis community historically we are aboriginal people who have Indian or Métis heritage, live apart from first nations, don't live on reserves, and identify as Métis people. We have a culture. We have a language, the Michif language, which is common from Mattawa, Ontario right through to Pouce Coupé, British Columbia. So we know who our people are.

So if the Government of Canada would deal with us, as they have been recently... I must say, I commend the current government because they've taken an important decision in transferring human resources development programs over to what they consider the Indian, Inuit and Métis jurisdictions. So they signed a national framework agreement with the AFN, they signed one with the ITC, and they signed one with the Métis National Council.

They obviously believed in the stability of the Métis National Council, contrary to any suggestion that we have changing heads at this table since the formation of this Parliament, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Morin has been here. He was elected by acclamation at an assembly of our people in November 1994. Previous to that our spokesperson - whom many people here would know - was the Hon. Yvon Dumont, currently Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba. So we have had stability.

Sure, we've had our political internal discussions and so on. It's tragic that we have a person with the profile of Billie Joe Delerande who would do what he has done. But he's taken himself out of the loop by no longer associating himself as president of the Manitoba Métis Federation. There's some other different organization he's trying to create.

The MMF is the member of the Métis National Council, and as Gerald has said, if nothing else, we are law-abiding. We can't criticize anyone if we won't respect our own laws. We have a democratic process to follow, and that's exactly where we stand.

The Chairman: Mr. Harper.

Mr. Harper (Churchill): Thank you.

To my brothers, the Métis people, I know we have a lot of questions to deal with, but I only have four minutes.

Anyway, I think what you're seeking is some sort of forum and recognition to deal with the Métis issues. I see the first ministers conference as being a forum in which to deal with those issues, particularly the constitutional conferences coming up before April 19, 1997.

I was wondering if maybe you can offer us some suggestions on how we may deal with the Métis Nation and Métis issues. I've always seen even the preparatory meetings with cabinet ministers and ministers of provinces as a way of dealing with aboriginal issues leading up to the first ministers conference. Rather than going at full length during the first ministers conference...these issues would be debated at these meetings substantially on different issues.

.1055

Do you see that maybe as a way of addressing your issues more effectively at that level, or can you suggest ways in which we can deal with the Métis issues?

Mr. Morin: You're quite right, Elijah. Ultimately for us as Métis people the most ideal forum to address our issues is a first ministers conference, because there are such major and serious impediments that prevent our people from making progress in Canada. Part of those impediments call for major constitutional change. So the proper forum, as we had done for example in 1992 as part of the ``Canada round'' leading up to the Charlottetown Accord...

Our ultimate goal is to be involved as equal partners in future first ministers conferences so there can be unequivocally clear recognition and entrenchment of our rights in the Constitution of Canada. That's the only way we can see ourselves becoming equal partners in Confederation and contributing to Canada's prosperity.

So that is our ultimate goal. That is the process, and the clear entrenchment of our rights is the ultimate achievement that we want.

How we get there and what will happen in the few months remain an open question. The meeting that we see this week is a meeting amongst first ministers. It's a first ministers meeting. In a lot of ways it's a preparatory meeting, because as we know, when you're talking about nation-building and national unity, they involve a series of meetings with first ministers, and involve major discussions, not only with politicians but also with officials.

So in many ways we see it as a preparatory meeting, but we think it will evolve into full-blown first ministers conferences. As the Prime Minister must hold one on the amendment formula by April 1997, inevitably that will bring into play issues of national unity. We can't see it any other way.

The only way we see the pressing issues in Quebec being dealt with is through the renewal of a federation that will respect and recognize the rights of Quebeckers, aboriginal peoples, and all of Canada's citizens. That's the process we see, and that is the goal.

But in the meantime I think what we need to do and what we're advocating is that as Métis leaders we go to the first ministers conference and take fundamental positions on Métis rights and national unity. Consistent again with our belief in democracy, we feel very strongly that we must be given the opportunity to consult with our people in our communities, as we did as part of the Charlottetown process. The problem is that we don't have the resources to consult with our people.

We require the support of the federal government. We require resources from the federal government so that we can undertake major consultations with our people, so that we can formalize our positions prior to sitting down at a first ministers conference. I'm sure the first nations and Inuit people feel the same.

If we're able to go through that kind of process and consult with our people, then we can clearly say that we have the mandate and full support of our people to advocate the positions we take at those future first ministers conferences.

So I strongly urge this committee and the members who sit on this committee to convince the federal government to work with us in undertaking a consultation and providing the resources for us to be able to do that. In the meantime, until we get to a full-blown first ministers conference, we need the assurances that I spoke of earlier, so that nothing will happen in the meantime that will prejudice the aboriginal and Métis position and Métis and aboriginal rights and interests in Canada.

We think that's extremely important, but you're quite right: the most important goal for us is to participate in the first ministers conference on national unity.

The Chairman: You learn fast how to integrate information into an answer, and I congratulate you.

I'll make a short comment, and I'll turn it back to you for closing remarks. My comments will be brief.

Thank you so much for the valuable information you've shared with us. We know that we could spend a week together, and we'd still learn even longer, but this was a good picture you drew for us. It will be valuable. There will be a report. It will be standing information. It's not going on a shelf. We will carry it around in our binders.

Before I turn it over to you, I'd like to give an opportunity to Mr. Cliff Gladue, because I know you indicated that you wanted to make a comment. Please take a brief moment, and then we will turn it back to the president to make final remarks, or delegate someone to do it. Thank you.

Mr. Cliff Gladue (Constitutional Adviser, Métis Nation of Alberta): Thank you,Mr. Chairman. I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to Mr. Murphy's question. He basically asked what some of the fundamental problems of Métis are.

.1100

In Alberta I talk with our people about how we should resolve some of our problems, and they have a hard time understanding self-government, self-determination, that kind of terminology. So I came up with a very simple answer for them. What I tell them is that in this country we have governments, and what self-government basically means is that you run things for yourselves. You govern things for yourselves.

So the white people have their federal and provincial governments. They have their cities, towns villages, MDs, IDs, these types of governments. The Inuit and the Indian people have their governments, their reserves and so on. But there is none for the Métis.

Don't you think we deserve our own government also? So I put it to you. I think we do. To understand it simply, look at it in that context.

Thanks.

Mr. Chartrand: I want to make one more remark. The point I was trying to get to with John - and I apologize, John. A good example is a letter we had regarding the Istanbul housing habitat conference. They're pleased to advise us that Canada's delegation to Habitat II will include aboriginal representation.

Now, it is no discredit to the first nations that they're taking two individuals from first nation territories. But we all know that the first nations do not speak on behalf of the Métis. They do not represent the Métis, and we don't represent them.

The issue that causes a lot of difficulty and confusion is that the term ``aboriginal'' is easily used. There are announcements by governments - $5 million or $10 million or $5 billion or $50 billion - and whatever they announce as being given out is for aboriginal use. Everybody thinks we get that money. We don't get one cent of it. We talked with Indian Affairs. When they talk about the budget, they use the term ``aboriginals''.

I made that comment clear to the Minister of Indian Affairs in B.C. I sit on different boards. It causes a lot of problems and a lot of confusion for us. People think we're getting all this money. We don't. We don't get all this money.

Our budgets are very, very small. In fact, our provincial budget in Manitoba is maybe 3 times less than that of a reserve of 100.

This is not to discredit reserves, again. They need the money. But it suggests that we're getting all this money. We don't get this money.

Somehow your department or your committee has to try to educate the government. If they're going to use first nations, use first nations. Use Inuit. Use Métis. Then we'll know who's getting what. At least we can justify to our people that we don't have all this money that's being advertised in the news the day before. Thank you.

The Chairman: It's a good point. Thank you very much.

I'd like to invite committee members to pass the motion, which we need to pass, that the committee authorize the printing of 250 copies of the report on aboriginal education in addition to the 550 copies designated by the Board of Internal Economy.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: We will take a one-minute break to invite our next guests.

.1105

.1109

The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.

Ladies, we welcome you. We're really pleased that you could be here. You certainly will offer a different perspective to the committee members, and we look forward to this. We are very interested in the message you have for us.

To give you a bit of background, committee members have decided that because there's a turnover of members from session to session, we are very interested in having what we call an ``education process''. This is an opportunity for you to make everyone aware of the issues, of how you feel, of anything you want to share with us.

I don't know if you were here before, but we will be working from a binder, so there will be a report of the presentation you make today. It will be a chapter in our binder. It's not going on a shelf, because every member will have copies. It will be an ongoing document.

.1110

This is an opportunity for us to learn from you and for you to put on record some of the issues that concern you the most. I'm turning the floor over to you.

Ms Janice Walker (President, Native Women's Association of Canada): Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee members, ladies and gentlemen. I want to thank you for the opportunity to allow me and Pat Baxter, who works for NWAC, to present our issues and concerns to you.

I have a short presentation, but before I start that I'll tell you a little bit about myself.

I'm a Mi'kmaq woman from Nova Scotia. I too live in the Annapolis Valley and I have metMr. Murphy before. I'm very glad he's here.

I was elected two years ago as the national speaker for the Native Women's Association of Canada. At that time, in talking with our elders and with the delegates at the assembly and with the board immediately after the assembly, my mandate and direction from them was clear.

One of the concerns at that time was that government people had the perception that aboriginal groups and organizations were not working together, and that this type of attitude and that perception should be cleared up. I am glad to say I feel we have done this.

Within the last two years, the Native Women's Association of Canada has worked jointly with the Assembly of First Nations on child care initiatives. We've included the Inuit in some of our projects. We work closely with the Métis. I meet with that leadership. So I don't believe there's any dissension or division.

The Native Women's Association of Canada supports other aboriginal organizations. I myself have been on a band council for going on 12 years. I think, if anything, what we do is we enhance the decision-making process by our input.

I believe, and the women in the organization believe, that they are the nucleus of their communities. They are the leaders in taking initiatives like child care, health and education. They will take on issues that affect the nucleus of the family and therefore the nucleus of the community.

So although our role runs parallel, it brings a different perspective to all the different ongoing processes.

The last time the Native Women's Association of Canada presented to this committee was in 1994. Since then, many changes have occurred with respect to the federal government's agenda on aboriginal affairs. Unfortunately, for the most part, the aboriginal women's social and economic situations in Canada have not changed.

.1115

I want to provide you with an update; however I would first like to tell you about the Native Women's Association of Canada's organization and provide you with some insight into our goals and structure.

NWAC is the fifth largest national political aboriginal organization in Canada, representing aboriginal women from all regions within the country. Our provincial and territorial membership is representative of aboriginal women who are of first nations, Métis and Inuit.

These women live in urban areas, on reserve and in rural northern areas across the country. Today, the population of aboriginal women in Canada is more than 522,000, which represents 52% of the overall aboriginal population and comprises just more than 4% of the total population of women in Canada.

Our mandate as a political organization is to respond, represent and deliver programming that will generate a greater quality of life to aboriginal women and their families. This is done through lobbying, program delivery, and design and input into policy at all levels of government, including our aboriginal governments.

Specifically, our organization's efforts have been concentrated on effecting amendments to pertinent legislation and government policy, attaining a guaranteed equality of rights and increasing aboriginal women's participation in the movement toward the re-establishment of aboriginal governments.

Our role within these matters can be described by a teaching from our elders that states:

It is written that the grandmothers, mothers and daughters of our communities have an obligation and a right to be included in the moulding of the future of our communities and the future of our nations.

Our provincial and territorial organizations are advocates working with aboriginal women who suffer daily from double discrimination and poverty. We work toward social change in the fields of health care, counselling, literacy, labour market and training development and legal advice. We advance equity and participation of aboriginal women in order that aboriginal communities may collectively evolve into a healthy environment for all of our people.

Over the past two years, I've had an opportunity to meet with several ministers and first nations, Métis and Inuit leadership to discuss issues affecting aboriginal women. My message at these meetings has been consistent: NWAC and our membership is committed to getting on with the solutions that will advance and support aboriginal women.

None of us have the time to engage in debates on who should be leading in this critical change. There is no doubt that there is enough work for everyone in meeting this challenge.

The Canadian statistics on aboriginal women tell the real story. Aboriginal women represent the highest rate of single parenting in Canada. As well, they suffer from the lowest income and employment rates in this country. As a result, we suffer from poor health and we struggle to care for our children and families.

It has been suggested at times that aboriginal women are represented equally through other structures. If this is the case, then why do our women still suffer so blatantly?

NWAC represents a collective voice of aboriginal women to ensure that our issues get on the table and are dealt with in an appropriate and sensitive manner.

Aboriginal women's infrastructures reflect the commitment from governments. We are not resourced at levels comparable to that of other aboriginal organizations. As governments downsize and reduce spending, budget cuts have severely impacted on our ability to respond effectively. Program cuts to Heritage Canada's aboriginal women's program is only one example of what NWAC resource challenges are.

We have always maintained a lean national organization, with only three full-time staff. Creating solutions for aboriginal women requires the government to acknowledge our resource needs and provide corresponding budgets.

This government has chosen to use what we see as a pecking order to resource the aboriginal organizations. Aboriginal women and urban aboriginal groups are forced to accept small allocations of resources, which is totally unacceptable, particularly when close to 70% of the aboriginal population resides in urban centres of Canada, of which 59% are women.

.1120

The federal government must stop the pecking order approach to funding and support NWAC to allow our organization to respond and create effective change for our women. Further, we would recommend that new funding formulas be designed with the participation of all stakeholders, including aboriginal women, in order to gain funding parity.

The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs must set aside appropriate amounts of resources to meet the challenges that aboriginal women face. A case in point is that when discussing potential project funding with DIAND on aboriginal women's issues, we are told that national projects must be done with contributions as little as $10,000. As you can appreciate, this amount would not result in any impact, or in very much change, particularly when trying to address legislation issues within the Indian Act, such as matrimonial property rights and Bill C-31 issues.

Aboriginal women continue to face discrimination with landholding on reserve whereby land entitlement usually goes to the male spouse, and upon the dissolution of marriage, the woman is not recognized and gains no entitlement, even in her original community.

Bill C-31 has helped aboriginal women retain or regain their status as Indians. However, the federal government did not resource first nations communities enough to deal with the increase in populations on reserves. DIAND did provide first nations with small amounts of resources to help alleviate the already critical housing shortage on reserve. However, these resources were not always used for meeting the housing needs of Bill C-31 women. As a result, these women have reported that they cannot return to their home community.

NWAC has discussed these issues with Minister Irwin of DIAND on several occasions. He has indicated that he supports NWAC's position to address these matters. However, once we start to talk about funding for these issues, there's never any follow-up.

NWAC recommends that DIAND work with our organization in identifying a realistic amount of resources that could be used to assist aboriginal women in combating these discriminatory practices within our communities.

In the devolution process of government programming, aboriginal women have again been left out of the picture, particularly in the area of employment and training. Aboriginal women were once a priority in the Pathways policy under Human Resources Development Canada. Indeed, NWAC was the only national aboriginal organization that was guaranteed a seat at the national level as an equal partner.

Finally, aboriginal women's issues were recognized and acknowledged by our representation and participation at the national, regional and local levels of aboriginal management boards, which were set up under the Pathways process.

The situation is much different today. In fact, HRDC's new direction and policy has taken aboriginal women backward in our development and has halted our progress in labour force development made within the Pathways process. Presently, HRDC has devolved the $600 million allocation to only first nations, Métis and Inuit groups. Aboriginal women have been told to rely on these groups for their share of the resources.

Prior to this situation, aboriginal women had the opportunity to review and make decisions as equal partners on how labour force development resources should be allocated. Since April of this year, aboriginal women and their organizations have reported that they have been left out of the current process, which means that access has been denied to aboriginal women for labour force development under the new delivery structures.

Traditionally, aboriginal women have not been full beneficiaries of on-reserve, Métis or Inuit programs, and this has been documented time and time again. This is the singular reason why aboriginal women's groups have been created.

Without aboriginal women controlling our own resources, we will never see the kind of change that is required to fight the high unemployment rates we suffer in this country. NWAC has attempted, since January, to meet with the minister of HRDC. Minister Young has refused to meet with us. We have met with several other ministers about our concerns surrounding this issue. There is no doubt that this new approach is discriminatory and does not meet our basic needs.

.1125

By introducing this segmented approach, one that aboriginal women are not part of, our labour force participation has stopped. We are effectively excluded from the process because our fair and equitable inclusion is not being enforced.

NWAC will not let this issue die. We must see a change in policy that guarantees aboriginal women's participation and access to the HRDC funding. This is a priority issue with aboriginal women and their organizations, and an issue that must be resolved.

HRDC suggested that labour force development for aboriginal women living off-reserve could be accommodated on a shared basis of $5 million per year over the next three years. The $600 million allocation to 30% of the aboriginal population and only $15 million to $20 million to the remaining 70% of the population is unacceptable.

NWAC recommends an immediate replacement of the current national framework agreement policy. We recommend that HRDC reallocate resources dedicated for the use of labour force development for aboriginal women.

On the issue of health cutbacks, NWAC is on record as not supporting the changes to the dental program and the proposed changes to the non-insured health benefits.

Again, this government policy severely affects aboriginal women and their children. Our women live in poverty well below the national poverty rate. Our annual income, if we're lucky, is less than $25,000 per year. Our children's dental needs and the special services required to address our health problems will go unchecked if the government maintains this strategy.

We already have Third World conditions within our communities. Taking away our access to medical treatment will only create greater risks of chronic medical conditions for our women and children. Health Canada must not continue with these budget cuts.

NWAC understands that all Canadians must contribute to getting our economy on track. Hard decisions must be made, and program cuts are part of that reality. However, Canada must understand that aboriginal women will not be contributors to society if we are the targets of cuts in health, employment, and justice matters that threaten our very existence.

For years, NWAC has been telling governments to include aboriginal women in the design and development of federal policy. Why is this so difficult to accomplish? Government could succeed in meeting its financial challenges and its responsibility towards aboriginal women if only it practised what it preached, nationally and internationally - that Canada stands for and supports equality. It is time for the Government of Canada to set up a process that will guarantee aboriginal women access and participation so that we can get on with the real agenda - and that is the solutions.

There is lots more I can say, but I welcome questions.

When I first came in I looked around the room and thought, Pat, there is only one woman here at the table. I decided to tell you my soup story. So I want to share this with you.

You can make a soup with just a soup bone and it will sustain you and keep you from starving, but it'll be pretty bland, pretty blah. You might put in a little salt and pepper, but it's still a pretty basic, blah soup, nothing you'd write home about. However, if you add some vegetables, add more spices, it will look better, it will taste better, and it will go further.

I use that as an example of how you should include aboriginal women. Whether it's on committees, whether it's on boards, whether it's on commissions, inquiries, whatever, if you include an aboriginal woman, you'll have a better end product. So I ask all of you in your day-to-day business as leaders to think of that and, whenever possible, throw in an aboriginal woman and stir gently.

.1130

The Chairman: Of course, you know that a way to a man's heart is through his stomach.

We'll proceed to questions. I think we have time for five minutes per member for questions and answers. If any member doesn't ask a question we go home five minutes earlier. That's my way of saying the time is not consumed by other members.

You will have an opportunity for closing remarks. I want to thank you very much for the information you shared. You have initiated a good debate and we'll start it.

I'll give the floor to Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Duncan: I'll go first because you don't need translation.

I don't know what part of Nova Scotia you're from, but I was there last week. It was very nice. I was in the Annapolis Valley and Digby and Kentville and St. Margarets Bay and Port Royal.

There are many ways to include aboriginal women in things. In my instance, my wife is aboriginal, so that does lend a little spice at home and there isn't thin soup on the home front.

You talked about Bill C-31 and I think you used the terminology ``land entitlements''. In the land entitlements are you referring to certificates of possession?

Ms Walker: No.

Mr. Duncan: So you're talking about something different.

What occurs to me on both of those fronts is that in the case of legitimate complaints, you could use the term ``discriminatory treatment''. The current avenues of appeal are quite limited. I am curious to know why the Native Women's Association has not taken up the fact that one of the major reasons the avenues of appeal are so limited is that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not allow that commission to pursue allegations of discrimination because the act itself excludes Indians living under the Indian Act. I want to know why your organization hasn't beaten the minister and the public over the head with that exclusion.

The Chairman: I'm going to ask you to respond in two minutes. Again, if you don't have enough time, whatever else you have to say you can integrate into the other questions that will be asked later.

Ms Walker: I'm going to let Pat respond to this.

Ms Pat Baxter (Ottawa Representative, Native Women's Association of Canada): I welcome the opportunity to respond to that question, Mr. Duncan. I'd like to thank you for letting us know that you married probably a wonderful woman who is of aboriginal ancestry.

First of all, I'd just like to say that I think you have a very good point that the Human Rights Commission is there. The Native Women's Association of Canada is quite familiar with this body.

However, as you probably are well aware, the frustration is that the Human Rights Commission is backlogged for years and years, and it's very difficult to get anything through there in any reasonable length of time. It's costly, it's time-consuming, and with an office of three full-time staff we just don't have the ability or the resources to maintain that kind of fight and struggle to get through the bureaucracy and the backlog that the Human Rights Commission has currently. In some cases it has taken up to three years to see any kind of response take place through this commission.

We're not trying to slam the Human Rights Commission by saying this. What we're indicating is that they're just overdone. They're overpowered with too many cases coming forward.

.1135

We made a presentation to the Senate committee last fall on the employment equity legislation. We strongly recommended to the senators then that the Human Rights Commission not be used as the vehicle to monitor employment equity legislation, because they don't have the power to even keep up with their own ongoing cases, never mind any additional mandates that may come to them.

So I think that's one of the reasons we haven't pursued it. But I think you do have a good point, and it should be considered for the future.

Ms Walker: Could I just add a little bit to this? On a lot of these issues, there has never been any documentation done. That is part of the problem. Whether it is lands management or the impact of the housing issue around Bill C-31, there have been no statistics compiled, nothing to prove and take to a court or to a commission, either a human rights commission or anyone else. This is part of the problem with lack of resources. For instance, we do not have the ability to do this type of research to address the lands management act on $10,000. It is just not possible.

Mr. Duncan: But there have been prima facie cases where there has been discriminatory behaviour identified in a court of law and taken forward by an individual. Neither the courts nor the Human Rights Commission can deal with the issue as a case of discrimination because section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act says Indians living under the Indian Act are exempt from its provisions. Why is this not a major issue with the native women's organization? This is my question?

Ms Walker: I can't answer you and say it's this reason or that reason. However, I think we're all aware there are many court cases in the system now that will eventually go to the Supreme Court of Canada and come down on decisions. NWAC intervenes wherever possible when they can obtain intervention funding or test case funding.

For various reasons, some of which Pat outlined, I don't think the Human Rights Commission is seen as the vehicle aboriginal women can use. It has been tried before in the Sandra Lovelace case. She went through Human Rights, but it took years and eventually she had to go to the international human rights commission. So it can be effective in certain cases, while in other cases I don't believe they would look at it. But it is an avenue that perhaps aboriginal women haven't explored enough.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand: I have in hand a document from the National Action Committee on the status of women entitled Questions for the 1996 Lobby. A part of that document has to do with Aboriginal women. Your organization, the Native Women's Association of Canada, is mentioned.

I have to provide answers to questions on that topic today and I am glad that you mentioned manpower training and the labour market in your presentation.

You ask that Aboriginal women be given access to federal resources in the areas of employment and training. The Native Women's Association of Canada also asks the federal government to act with fairness and equity, as it has committed itself to doing it, and wants it to grant resources for manpower development directly to Aboriginal women, who will themselves be responsible for delivering programs and services through their own structures.

My questions will all be related to that backdrop. On this whole topic of manpower training, there's something that troubles me. Sometimes the federal government recognizes representative organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations, or the Métis National Council, or the Inuit-Tapirisat, and devolves all of those programs to them. It goes through the band council where the AFN is concerned, or through the Inuit structure where the Inuit are concerned.

.1140

How can labour development services be provided directly to Aboriginal women, while bypassing existing structures?

That is the problem I am pondering upon currently, and I must answer questions in this regard today. So, I would like you to provide me with some further explanations on your perspective.

[English]

Ms Walker: I'm glad you asked. As I said in my opening statement, when Pathways was formed, the program to deliver training dollars to aboriginal people, the Native Women's Association was guaranteed a seat. It was working well.

You talk about how we can ensure that the dollars get there and are controlled by aboriginal women. That is the way everything was working until April 1 of this year, when for a lot of reasons, most of which I don't understand, then Minister Axworthy, who was the minister of HRDC, decided unilaterally to take option two of a paper that he had done up. He formed a review committee, which made recommendations and outlined several options to progress the Pathways program. He selected, on his own, option two, which required that framework agreements be signed with first nations, Inuit and Métis national organizations. It excluded friendship centres and it excluded the Native Women's Association of Canada.

We immediately protested, saying this was a step backwards and was taking away everything we had gained. We started meeting with Minister Ethel Blondin-Andrew and writing letters. Jointly, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the National Association of Friendship Centres and NWAC said we have to have another agreement. The option selected was allowing too many people to fall through the cracks. All the people in the urban areas who have no affiliation to first nations - how are they ever going to get trained?

The way it was before, local boards were set up in all the provinces, which came under a provincial board. Those boards included representatives from every aboriginal group and organization there is. They had someone there. All proposals for training were put before those boards, and it was the aboriginal people themselves who decided, on the merit of the proposals and training, who got funded and who didn't.

At those regional and local boards they had strategy sessions. They would say that a certain percentage of the labour force in that province was women, so they would allocate so much money from their budget for women. They would decide in what areas they needed that training or how they wanted to use it for labour market development.

When that all fell by the wayside and they said there were three agreements - first nations, Inuit and Métis - we said, what about native women? You're excluding us. You're taking us away from the table, from the decision-making process, from any real input. They said, oh, no, no, don't worry. We're going to make sure that in every agreement there's a clause saying you must be inclusive and must include native women in the process.

After meetings went on with HRDC, they said they couldn't do anything, that they couldn't enforce this. They said it was up to us to go out and talk to these organizations and negotiate with them to make sure we're included. We said fine, we would do that, knowing full well that it had never worked before in any other type of program delivery and it would not this time. It's ludicrous to think that on a reserve a chief and council who are elected by the people on that reserve are going to spend the money off-reserve.

.1145

Ms Baxter: For a status woman.

Ms Walker: For anybody. They're going to make sure the people who vote them in receive the training dollars first. Therefore, everybody in the urban centres, all the native women, all the off-reserve, everybody else, whether it be Ulnooweg Development Corporation, Mi'kmaq Family and Children's Services, for instance, in Nova Scotia, they're all excluded. Basically that money is being funnelled to first nations on reserve.

I don't blame the chiefs. They have dire conditions on reserves. They need the money. All NWAC is saying is that we also have to have some of that training, some of the resources.

The best case scenario to fix the problem was that they have a fourth framework agreement. HRDC said they would. We worked; we used our manpower, our resources, jointly with the National Association of Friendship Centres and CAPs, to come up with this fourth framework agreement that would look after all the people who were being ignored and excluded.

It was a wonderful framework agreement. At the eleventh hour, days before they were supposed to come out finally and announce it, we got a phone call to say they couldn't do it. They gave us the excuse that the PCO had stopped it. I've heard all kinds of stories from various ministers, conflicting stories, but that was the story we were told.

However, they made us an offer, trying I suppose to say there's another transitional job fund from which they might be able to give us some funding dollars. That's why I said $600 million basically is going to on-reserve and they're offering $5 million for the rest of the aboriginal population out there. It doesn't make any sense.

Then, when I met with the ministers and had the feeling this fourth framework was dead and could never be revived, as much as we are still lobbying to have that done, I thought if only they would enforce what it said in those framework agreements.

So I went to various ministers because I couldn't meet with Minister Young. I asked if they would take those framework agreements and write a letter to their regional directors at the provincial and territorial levels and say to them that no bilateral agreement would be signed unless there was fair and equal representation of aboriginal women. It says in the agreement that they would be included and treated fairly and that it would be equitable.

I don't think that's a lot to ask. The negotiations on the funding are basically done at the provincial and territorial levels. That is where the inclusion has to take place. It's the grassroots people right across Canada who are being hurt and being denied the training dollars.

It has really taken a toll. This year a lot of provinces have not received any money. People out there are asking about their training. They say they're supposed to go back to school and continue - they're in this; they're in that. They ask who they should go to. This is all because the bilateral agreements are not being signed. They don't want this one to get any money; they don't want that one to get any money.

The other important thing I failed to mention is that prior to April 1 the boards were made up completely of volunteers. Nobody got paid. They were there because that's where their interest was, that was their area of expertise and they sincerely wanted the training dollars to go where they were supposed to go.

Since April 1, with these new frameworks, particularly under the first nations framework, they've set up boards of all chiefs. I can speak from experience particularly for Nova Scotia, where they have 13 chiefs. They gave a seat to one aboriginal woman and said that was fair and equitable treatment. They allocated all the money to the reserves - no money to the Nova Scotia Native Women's Association for any project funding.

.1150

So you have a seat but no money to do anything with. On top of that, they're all receiving honorariums. It's no more volunteer; it's that they won't be there unless they get paid. To me, that money is being held back from where it's supposed to go.

That's the issue. I'm sorry I took so long, but it's a real priority with aboriginal women. Because I sat on a local aboriginal management board, chaired the provincial board and was part of the national board, prior to April 1, it really is hard to swallow and hard to take and completely incomprehensible to me as to why a process that worked - we have results; they're documented - was even changed. I hope I answered your question.

Mr. Duncan: Isn't the chief of the Acadia Band a woman? Isn't that one of the biggest bands in Nova Scotia?

Ms Walker: No, it is not; but, yes, the chief of the Acadia Band is a woman. I belong to the Horton Band. We have three chiefs in Nova Scotia who are women.

Mr. Duncan: Three out of 13. They don't help, though?

Ms Walker: No, not really. One does; actually, one is very supportive.

Mr. Duncan: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you. This is a very important issue and that's why I allowed more time. We'll move on to Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Finlay (Oxford): I appreciate your remarks. You made a couple of statements and I just want a little clarification. When you were talking about funding, you said the government is using the pecking-order approach to funding. Would you enlarge on that a little for me?

The other fact I found most interesting, which I guess is something you certainly have to wrestle with, is that I think you said close to 70% of the aboriginal people in Canada live in urban areas and that 59% of those are women, which is a disproportionate number, of course. You also said aboriginal women are doubly discriminated against. Can I have a little clarification on those points?

Ms Walker: As far as the statistics are concerned, the statistics we use are from Statistics Canada. So was there a question there as to percentage?

The Chairman: Was the question about double discrimination?

Ms Walker: Double discrimination is just the fact that we're women and we're aboriginal.

Mr. Finlay: You're women and you're aboriginal.

Ms Baxter: Just to clarify where the statistics came from, the National Association of Friendship Centres did a national report on the urban populations in Canada for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1994. The statistic of 70% with 59% of the population being aboriginal women came from that report.

Mr. Finlay: That would certainly aggravate the problems of serving those people.

Ms Walker: Yes, definitely.

You asked about the pecking order. It's only because the aboriginal women's organizations are always last in line for the funding. We appear to receive the leftovers.

Our financial accountability is the best of any national aboriginal organization in the area and sometimes I think that's used against us. Women are very financially responsible. We seem to manage our finances a bit better than some of the organizations. I think because of that we're expected to operate on a leaner budget.

There is no parity and that's why we talk about discrimination. If you're an organization, for instance, made up of the chiefs, are your issues and your input any more important than an aboriginal woman's point of view? I believe there should be some parity in the funding. That's what we mean by pecking order. We're always the lowest and last to receive any funds.

Mr. Finlay: Thank you.

.1155

The Chairman: Mr. Harper.

Mr. Harper: Thank you for those comments.

I'm very concerned about the young aboriginal population. You haven't mentioned youth.

You mentioned in your report that the highest rate in Canada for single parents is among aboriginal women. Young children are being raised not by both parents. As a result, particularly in Winnipeg, which I'm very familiar with, there's a high crime rate amongst our youth. There's also a high drop-out rate, etc.

Has anything at all been done to address that issue on aboriginal youth from the aboriginal women's perspective? The majority of our people are living in urban areas. Can you provide some information on that?

Ms Walker: Yes. Youth is a high priority with native women. They are the children of our future, and our organization puts a very high value on their input; they're included.

We have aboriginal youth on our boards at all levels. We have a national youth... When the Native Women's Association of Canada has its annual general assembly, they also have a small assembly for the youth, so that they can elect their national leader.

During this past year, we conducted a project that dealt specifically with the aboriginal youth, aboriginal women in Canada. Our final report was tabled I think in February, and I'd be pleased to send you a copy of it.

Out of that final report, which covered every province and territory in Canada, there came a list of recommendations. A common thread that ran through all the workshops held at the provincial and territorial levels was the fact they wanted a national youth workshop and they wanted the opportunity to meet with more elders to learn more about their own culture, traditions, and ceremonies. I'm happy to say that just weeks ago, because of that final report, we did submit a proposal to have the national workshop. We have approval for the funding, and the workshop will be held in October of this year.

The Chairman: There being no further indication of questions, I will take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation. I will turn it over to you after for closing comments, if you wish.

The information that you have shared with us will form part of a report, which will be a living document that will continue to be present at our meetings. We will carry these things around, so it's very valuable information. We don't care much for basic soup. We're spoiled, and we like the ingredients. You have provided the ingredients for the soup that we need to correct injustices.

I turn it over to you for closing comments. You both have an opportunity to speak.

Ms Walker: Pat has one question she would like to ask.

Ms Baxter: I have a question. I'm pleased to hear about the report being available, or in your binders. Is there anything else we can expect from presenting to this committee? When we make suggestions or recommendations to this committee, do they get forwarded to the ministers? Is there any kind of process by which we...? It seems almost like a black hole. I mean, you make a presentation and wonder what happens. What can we expect in terms of feedback, if any?

The Chairman: The purpose of this exercise is to make members aware. When we do a study or piece of legislation, or if a member recommends that we deal with an issue, we have a perspective of the effect of studies and of legislation. Women's issues are of course very important. They allow us that perspective.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister is a member of this committee. Therefore, the department and the minister should ask that they be included and have a binder. I'm sure the opposition parties and their research people will have copies of these.

.1200

They have copies of reports now, but try to come to my office and say you need a certain document quickly. Well, we get this much paper a day. This way, aboriginal issues will all be in binders, one after another. It will be a good tool for members to respond properly. But to ask us whether there will be a follow-up to every recommendation made, I can't promise that. We have invited an awful lot of people to educate us, and I think it would be misleading to say to you that there will be a consequence to every recommendation you have made. But awareness is so important.

Ms Walker: I just wanted to say that I was in Beijing, China at the UN conference. I heard Canada's commitment to gender equality and to working on a lot of issues. When I came back I was pleased when I received a copy of the federal government's plan for gender equality and equity. I've read through it and I hope with all my heart that those plans are followed, that they were sincere and that within the next few years I see action taken on that plan.

I want to thank all of you for listening. Don't forget the soup.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

If there are no other issues for members, this meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page