AANR Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES, DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD ET DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 31, 2001

• 1114

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order. My apologies for being late this morning.

Today, May 31, we have, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a briefing on the Métis National Council. We have before us Gerald Morin, president, and Mr. Tony Belcourt.

I understand you're going to enlighten us on the Métis National Council and some current court cases. Go ahead, sir.

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

• 1115

Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for giving us this time to make a presentation to you on the Métis Nation, our rights and our aspirations, and basically where we're at with respect to our dealings with the federal government today and where we hope to go.

We have a written presentation that we've prepared. I think we've prepared some kits for everybody, which will be available for you when the committee hearing is over. I suggest that you pick one of those up. They're quite informative, actually. It's a detailed written presentation. I think it's a very good description of some of the issues we want to cover today. So I really recommend that you pick up that package as you leave.

Basically, what I had hoped to do today in the time we have is maybe give you a picture of who we are as a nation of people, the evolution of the Métis Nation, who we are. We'll try to give you a picture of the current situation, or the situation as it has existed in terms of our dealings with the federal government historically and today. It hasn't changed much. We'll talk about what's happening with respect to the volume of litigation that has been coming forward from the Métis Nation on a variety of issues. Finally, we'll talk about where we're at with respect to our current negotiations with Ralph Goodale, the federal Métis interlocutor, particularly with regard to a Métis Nation agenda.

Firstly, as far as the evolution of the Métis Nation is concerned, I think it's important for people to realize on this committee that we're not coming here saying that Métis are simply people of mixed European and Indian ancestry and they exist all over the country and it includes half of Quebec, or anything like that. We don't take that particular perspective.

For us in the Métis Nation, the genesis of our people was that of mixed ancestry, but we did carve out our own homeland in western Canada and we emerged as a distinct nation of people with our own Michif languages, our own culture, our own traditions, our own music and dance and so on, our own political institutions, and over time occupied a unique legal status in this country.

So our people have emerged. We've carved out our own territory several times in history made a stand to stand up and fight for our collective existence as a nation of people. In 1816, for example, we had the Battle of Seven Oaks, in which we had a battle with the Selkirk settlers in the Red River area, in Manitoba. It was basically a battle over the fur trade. We saw their settlement and their agricultural way of life as a threat to our ongoing pursuit of the buffalo. Tensions developed and the battle was led by one of the first Métis leaders, Cuthbert Grant. That took place in 1816.

By that time we had definitely emerged as a distinct nation of people who didn't see ourselves as European or Indian, but a distinct community who felt we had our own way of life and that we had to make a stand to protect that collective existence.

In 1849 we had the Sayer trial, in which the Hudson's Bay Company was trying to enforce its monopoly, in that we had to sell our furs only to the Hudson's Bay Company and nobody else. Of course, our people were selling their furs to the American fur traders based out of Minneapolis. This fellow Sayer was charged in 1849. At the trial he was found guilty, but the judge gave him an absolute discharge because about a hundred of our people surrounded the courthouse with rifles and so on. I think he made a very wise decision.

This was one of those things where we had to protect our way of life with respect to the selling of furs and so on, and being able to engage freely in the fur trade, as free traders in North America.

In 1869 was one of the more well-known events, of course, the Red River resistance. Louis Riel declared our Métis provisional government in Red River in 1869 and 1870, and drafted a bill of rights, which were used as a basis for our negotiations with Canada and John A. Macdonald's government. That bill of rights was by and large reflected in the subsequent Manitoba Act, which brought the province of Manitoba into Confederation.

In a House of Commons resolution, I think back in 1992, Louis Riel was recognized as the founder of the Province of Manitoba.

• 1120

Following that was the battle of Batoche in 1885. Our military defeat there led to Riel's trial and execution on November 16, 1885, in Regina.

Starting in the 17th century with the intermarriages and so on, quite a mixed blood population came into being. Eventually we developed our own language, our own culture. We saw ourselves as a distinct nation. We carved out our own homeland in western Canada, which also includes the northern United States. It's a unique event probably worldwide—in modern times, anyway—a people of mixed ancestry coming together to form a distinct nation with its own culture, pursuing their own rights and their own aspirations.

It's important to understand this. We can go more into this in the question and answer period.

As for the current situation of the Métis—I know we only have so much time, so I'm trying to move on—basically, historically and currently, the federal government's policy with respect to the Métis has been one of denial: denial of our existence as a people, denial of our rights and our aspirations. This has manifested itself in many ways. For example, the federal government has refused constitutional responsibility for the Métis.

Under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal government exercises jurisdiction and responsibility for first nations and Inuit people, but denies that it has such responsibility for the Métis. This has caused much suffering and misery for Métis people and in Métis communities, because it has meant that we have, by and large, not been dealt with by the federal government.

None of the land claims processes that exist in the country have been accessible to the Métis, whether it's the comprehensive land claims process, the specific land claims process, the Indian Claims Commission, none of these processes are accessible to the Métis, because of that policy of denial and refusal to accept jurisdiction. We have not had a process by which to try to reclaim our resources and land that we've lived on for many years and on which we have practised our way of life.

By and large in Canada today, the Métis are a landless people. We have not had any access to any meaningful self-government processes in which we could negotiate with the federal government to put in place self-governing institutions in which we could exercise some control over our lives and over our destiny. That has been a problem.

Even in terms of the billions and billions and billions of dollars spent over the years on first nations and Inuit—and oftentimes the term “aboriginal” is used very loosely, as if it includes the Métis, when in reality it doesn't—with all the programs and the billions of dollars made available over the years, by and large none of it has been available to our people to address serious issues and needs in our communities, issues like social housing, economic development, health-related matters, justice matters, social services and so on.

In terms of the social and economic circumstances of our people, although there's a shortage of it, the data that does exist shows our situation to be just as bad as the situation of first nations and Inuit people, if not worse. To give you some very quick examples, the rising rate of diabetes among Métis people is quite similar to that of other aboriginal peoples, and there are infections like HIV and AIDS, hepatitis C, and so on.

These serious issues and needs are arising in our communities and we simply have no access to resources at the federal level to be able to combat them, because of the policy of denial and the lack of exercising jurisdiction for the Métis. Of course this has resulted in a great deal of suffering and misery in our communities, as I said. From a human perspective, the costs are great.

That's where we're at in terms of the current situation.

With respect to the court litigation, because there have been no processes available to the Métis through the federal government and because of this policy of denial.... Our preference is always to negotiate in good faith with governments to achieve goodwill agreements in order to be able to address our issues. But because we've been shut out, we've had no choice. Out of their sheer frustration, the people in our communities have urged us for several years now to go to the courts; if that's the only process available to us, then we should go to the courts. And we've done that.

• 1125

Particularly in the last five years we've become very active and aggressive in pursuing our cases in the courts. There are quite a number of cases out there—land rights cases, hunting rights cases, fishing rights cases—we're pursuing through the courts. The Dumont case, for example, was one of the first land rights cases. We launched this case back in the 1980s and went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada just to establish standing, that we had a right to go to the court, which we won. And we're told by the Manitoba Métis Federation that probably we'll be going to trial at the Court of Queen's Bench level to deal with the substantive issues in the Dumont case based on land rights in the Manitoba Act.

Another example is a case we launched in Saskatchewan back in 1994 in which we've claimed much of northwestern Saskatchewan, one quarter of the province's land mass and the resources on that land. Basically, in our claim we say the scrip system was a fraudulent scheme designed to dispossess our people of their lands and their resources, which resulted in our landlessness today.

We are involved in these two major cases and a number of hunting and fishing rights cases.

Tony Belcourt is here, the president of the Métis Nation of Ontario. The first case going to the Supreme Court of Canada is called the Powley case. It is based on Métis hunting rights in the Sault Ste. Marie area. We won at the trial level. We won on appeal at a superior court, and we won a unanimous victory in the Ontario Court of Appeal, where the highest court in Ontario said that legally the Métis Nation exists as a people, that we have rights, and that these rights are affirmed in the Constitution of Canada.

The Government of Ontario has appealed this case to the Supreme Court of Canada, and we expect that it will be heard in the Supreme Court within the next two years. This will be the first Métis rights case to be heard before the Supreme Court of Canada. I think the judges are anxiously awaiting it, because they did comment in a previous first nations case—I think it was Vanderpeet—that whatever tests they established for Indian rights would not necessarily apply to the Métis and they would make their points of view known when the Métis are before them in the Supreme Court of Canada. So that's very, very significant.

Finally, in terms of our negotiations with the federal government, when the federal government gave its response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report back in January 1998, our initial response was one of anger and disappointment. The government's response then was tailored primarily to first nations and we were the forgotten people once again. Our issues were not addressed. Sensing that disappointment, the federal government and Ralph Goodale committed to negotiating a Métis Nation agenda, an action plan or a framework for a Métis Nation agenda to deal with our issues.

This would include two streams. First of all it would include, we hope, dialogue tables where we can begin to negotiate Métis rights and jurisdictional issues, clarify the litigation, so we could finally have a process to implement our rights in Canada. And second, it would deal with the practical program and service delivery issues that are also very important in addressing the needs in our communities.

We've had a lot of negotiations in the last three and a half years. We've made significant progress. Ralph has personally committed himself and he's provided a great deal of leadership in this particular area.

We've made our rounds with ministers. He's done that. We've done that in the Métis National Council. And our goal is not only for Ralph to go to cabinet this fall to seek approval for more resources to continue with this Métis Nation agenda process, but also to get approval from cabinet to go ahead and sign a framework agreement on a Métis Nation agenda between the Métis National Council and the federal government.

Our purpose in appearing here today is to inform you of that, to create awareness, and to educate you on who we are and where things are at. Our great hope is in having a framework agreement on a Métis Nation agenda to address some of the injustices of the past, and to get your support as well—your support for us as we move forward with that framework agreement, putting pressure on whoever you can within the federal government to say yes, there's a real wrong that has been done here and it's time to turn a new page in history and strike a new relationship with the Métis Nation as represented by the MNC and the federal government, and being able to move forward constructively.

• 1130

Finally, I think what we're saying is that by pursuing a framework agreement we want to be able to provide proactive leadership both on our part and by the federal government to be able to resolve some of these issues instead of just litigating them in the courts and then having fallout as you did with the Marshall case in the east coast on fisheries. We don't want the Supreme Court, for example, in Powley making pronouncements and then all of a sudden there have been no negotiations or frameworks for us to be able to move ahead in the political forum based on political will and good faith.

So that's our hope and that's the direction we want to go in. We hope we can get your support on that.

Thank you for listening to me.

Tony, I don't know if there's anything you wanted to add.

Mr. Tony Belcourt (Representative, Métis National Council): Thank you, Gerald.

I want to say a couple of things. First of all, I take note that the parliamentary assistant, an important representative of the government, has left, and I am quite disappointed that he's not stayed, knowing that one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada is appearing before this committee. I presume that through the minutes of this meeting the disappointment in that will be made clear.

I want to reiterate what Gerald has just said. We hope the committee would support what it is we are trying to achieve here with the government. I don't know how you do those things through resolutions. If we don't have a framework agreement between the Métis Nation and Canada by this fall we think it would be time for Parliament to launch some kind of an investigation as to what's going on.

The Métis Nation is one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada recognized in Canada's Constitution. It is the obligation of governments to protect rights that are in a constitution. The treaty and aboriginal rights of the Métis people are recognized in Canada's Constitution, yet Canada has done nothing to protect our rights. Instead we've been forced to go to court to prove the point that our rights exist. And we've won handily at trial and at two levels, including the highest level of appeal in the province of Ontario, that the Métis rights do exist. The courts have admonished governments for doing nothing about that. Nothing has been done to protect our rights; instead everything has been done to take them away, to further alienate our lands. We are a landless people.

I warn this committee about two things. First of all, I underscore what Gerald Morin has just said about the potential for all sorts of problems no matter what the Supreme Court of Canada decision will be next year. We expect the Powley case to be before the court next spring. If the court rules in our favour, and we of course believe strongly in that, because we have such a strong evidentiary base at trial, which has overwhelmingly been upheld by the two lower levels, and if we have that kind of success with the Supreme Court of Canada and we don't have a relationship with Canada, or at least a table of negotiations to deal with the Métis as a people, then there will be some chaos. There's no question about it.

If the Supreme Court of Canada rules negatively there will be different kinds of chaos. Our people fought hard to build this country. They fought for this country. Our people are tired of being left out of participation in it as a people. We say in our statement that continuing to ignore Métis issues and to disregard Métis rights continues to bring dishonour on the crown. We think it's time the government paid some attention, and we hope this committee will help us to do that.

Thank you.

• 1135

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morin and Mr. Belcourt.

For the record, we need to get the name of the case in Saskatchewan so we can make sure that is recorded properly.

Mr. Tony Belcourt: It was the northwest Saskatchewan Métis land rights case.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll start with our round of questioning. I don't see Mr. Vellacott, so we'll start with Mr. Marceau, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I first want to thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. I am very pleased that you are here. This is the first time I have met your group, so your presentation is of particular interest to me.

I want to begin by asking you one question to satisfy my own curiosity. You referred to the history of Riel. Of course, that history is significant. Riel's execution gave rise to major nationalist movements in Quebec, to which Honoré Mercier's election is linked. Just out of curiosity, what is the total Métis population? I also have a sub-question. What percentage of that population still speaks and understands French?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Morin: Thank you.

The thing about Riel is he was a Métis leader who fought for Métis rights, but he was also someone who fought for the rights of many other people. He fought for the French people, for French-language rights in Canada. He ensured in the Manitoba Act of 1870 that French-language rights were enshrined as part of that act and in the Constitution of Canada. He ensured, in the bill of rights, that the rights of first nations people were protected in western Canada as immigration and settlement was taking place. He is seen as a hero certainly by us, but also by many other elements of Canadian society, and I think certainly by French-speaking people in Canada, and the people of Quebec.

When he was executed on November 16, 1885, the people of Quebec were very disappointed and I think about 50,000 people marched in the streets of Montreal, protesting his execution at the time. People in Quebec, and the leadership in Quebec, were calling on the Canadian government not to execute Riel and to have mercy and so on. One of the famous comments made by John A. Macdonald was that “Riel shall hang, though every dog in Quebec shall bark in his favour”. So there was strong support there and historical ties, and he certainly fought for French-speaking people in Canada and also spent time in Quebec. He went to school in Montreal and so on. So he is seen as a hero by many.

It's really sad what happened in 1885, and I know one of the things the federal government has committed to as part of their reconciliation process in their response to the royal commission, and in pursuing a Métis Nation agenda with us, is to promote the role of Riel and the Métis Nation in history, the role Riel and the Métis Nation played in the evolution of our country. He's the founder of the Province of Manitoba, a father of Confederation, and he played a tremendous role, particularly in the northwest, in the development of Canada. So that's one of the objectives we hope to achieve as part of the Métis Nation agenda.

• 1140

As far as the population of the Métis is concerned, that's again one of the other issues we hope to achieve, because there's never been an enumeration or an accounting of the citizens of the Métis Nation in Canada. We don't know for sure how many Métis people there are. Our objective is to establish a Métis Nation registry with the support and funding from the federal government so that we can enumerate the citizens of the Métis Nation into the registry as part of our self-government plans within the Métis Nation. This is a commitment the federal government made in their original red book, that they would undertake an enumeration of the Métis. It's a promise that still remains unfulfilled.

I think in 1996 they estimated there were about 210,000 Métis people, which made up about 26% of the overall aboriginal population in Canada. Of course, those are conservative estimates. Ours is only an estimate, but we would say there would be anywhere from 300,000 to 800,000 citizens of the Métis Nation, according to our understanding of who we are and how we choose to define ourselves as a nation of people.

Again, we hope to accomplish, as part of the Métis Nation agenda, the establishment of a registry and undertake an enumeration so that we can have a registry and pursue our inherent right of self-government.

There's such a scarcity of statistics in terms of how many of our people still speak French. We have our own Michif language, of course, too, which is usually a combination of Cree and French, Ojibway, Saulteaux, which over the generations has developed its own dialect. I think a Michif dictionary was established in Belcourt in North Dakota, where many of our people live. Some of our people still speak the Michif language, but I really don't know what the estimates are. I'd probably venture to say that maybe 2% or 3% of our people still speak Michif.

Just as it has happened with other aboriginal people, there's been a real loss of language. At one time many of our people spoke the Michif languages. So one of the things we're hoping to do, again, on some of the practical initiatives, is to be able to get further funding so we can preserve and promote our distinct Michif languages.

I will say, though, that Heritage Canada in the last couple of years has provided funding for the first time in history to the Métis National Council to protect and promote Michif languages. We could use more funding, but at least there's some funding there for us to be able to do that. It recognizes the Michif language as one of the aboriginal languages in Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Five years ago, in 1996, you were here talking about various problems and issues, such as land, resources, fishing rights, hunting rights, and so on. Have you made any progress since then, or did you come, see, speak and leave again without any solutions being developed by government, in cooperation with you, of course, to resolve those issues you raised in 1996?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Morin: As far as our situation as it exists in Canada today is concerned, it hasn't changed at all. For example, we're still a landless people. We don't have access to any meaningful processes, or access to programs and services. The poverty rates and the social and economic circumstances are the same. So basically the status quo hasn't changed.

What has been most promising is since the federal government responded to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report, and there were 440 recommendations, the commitment was made by Ralph Goodale and the federal government to pursue a Métis Nation agenda with the Métis National Council and the federal government. We don't have that as of yet, so substantively nothing has changed, but I think it looks promising. Certainly I think we have that commitment from Ralph to conclude a framework agreement on a Métis Nation agenda. Our target date is for Ralph to go to cabinet this fall to get more resources to continue with this process pursuing a Métis Nation agenda. Also, by that time we should have a final draft of a framework agreement. Ralph will be going to cabinet and asking for approval from cabinet to ratify and pursue and sign this framework agreement with the Métis National Council.

Even when that comes into place, though, it doesn't solve anything overnight, but at least it will give us a framework and a process by which we can begin to pursue and implement our rights in Canada and access some of these programs and services.

• 1145

So we're hoping that the framework agreement will bring about a significant policy shift on the part of the federal government and will amount to recognition of the Métis Nation, our governments at the negotiating tables to implement our rights, and ways in which we can access various programs and services from the various federal departments to begin addressing some of the urgent needs in our communities.

So, for us, the framework agreement on a Métis Nation agenda...we've put a lot of work into this in the last three and a half years. It holds out a lot of hope in our communities. The expectations have been raised, and I think that's where we need to go. I think Tony covered it in his remarks in saying that, if there wasn't one, then obviously that would bring about a major change in terms of our relationship with Canada and the kinds of political dynamics that would take place.

I'm hopeful that it will be concluded, and I'm optimistic that we will do so.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin, please.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Belcourt wanted to make a comment.

The Chair: Okay. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Tony Belcourt: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I share Mr. Morin's belief that Mr. Goodale is well-meaning in his statements to us that he will go to cabinet in the fall. What I'm very concerned about is that he will not feel that Parliament will be confident enough, or that the country would be confident enough, for the framework agreement to include negotiations with the Métis on the very tough issues—land issues, implementation and recognition of our rights. I can tell you that our people are not going to be satisfied with a table of negotiations which would amount to nothing more than discussing how the Métis Nation might become delivery agents for federal programs and services.

We're already the sweatshops for the federal government. We do things for the federal government with far less staff than the federal government ever does and with far fewer resources.

So our people are not interested in just programs and services. Our people are really interested in the issues, the solid issues, and we must get to cabinet on that. And so that's why it's important for parliamentarians to get the support of parliamentarians to Mr. Goodale, to give him a strong signal that it's time that the Government of Canada does deal substantively with the Métis.

I just wanted, Madam Chair, to add one other thing concerning numbers. We have registries now, even though we don't have funding for them. For example, in the Métis Nation of Ontario, we've used our own funding to develop our own registry process. We have throughout the Métis Nation ballot box elections. So when we hold our elections, we always post the voters' lists. In Saskatchewan recently, I think the voters list published there had something like 25,000 voters.

So it's not as if we don't have a good understanding of the base of our community; we certainly do. But when it comes time to do such things as, for example, determining who is going to benefit concerning Métis rights or settlement of any claims, when we add up the beneficiaries, people will be coming forward in far greater numbers now than have identified themselves before.

I just wanted to add that. We do have registries, and we certainly do have a good comprehension ourselves of base numbers and our own communities. Of course, we know that history.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin, please.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Morin and Mr. Belcourt.

That was a very interesting briefing. I was looking forward to this meeting because I felt that it was overdue that we should hear from your legitimate constituency, and I didn't see it being addressed at our committee. So we certainly welcome having you here. I do want you to know as well that I think there is a fair amount of goodwill around this table and that we would like to be able to work closely with you to move your issues forward. I think I can safely say that for at least the parties on this side of the table.

• 1150

I was most struck by your remarks concerning the amount of litigation that's underway, or at least your feeling that you have no avenue of recourse other than litigation, because I think everyone would agree that litigation is an indication of a failure—of a breakdown on the part of two people negotiating. So in the absence of any legitimate means of negotiating a resolution, you feel you have no recourse but to take it to the courts.

I guess the one question I'd ask you to comment on is that our research shows that, during the Charlottetown process, the Métis people stood to gain in terms of recognition. There was agreement between the federal and provincial ministers at the time to include the Métis under section 91.(24).

Now, should we get some progress on that, if there was the political will to reconvene those players again at a first ministers conference or whatever, what would you see flowing from that recognition? I guess waking up the next morning after such recognition takes place...is it the things you listed—health care funding, social housing, justice issues? Would you expect all the same resources, then, that other aboriginal people are receiving? Would that do it?

Mr. Gerald Morin: First of all, if we were to wake up the next morning, I think our priority would be to ensure that we put in place Métis-specific processes so that we can pursue our nationhood within the confederation and pursue our rights and self-determination within Canada. The tough issues that Tony talks about, I think, would be the priority—to ensure that there was legitimate—

Mr. Pat Martin: Programs?

Mr. Gerald Morin: No. Legitimate and meaningful processes so that we could arrive at land claim agreements and treaties between the Métis Nation and the federal government and so that we can have access to our land and resources, begin to implement our right of self-government, establish our Métis Nation registries, and enumerate our people. We also want to be able to assert and put in place our third order of Métis governments within the confederation, as was visualized in the Charlottetown accord and the Métis Nation accord that accompanied it, so that any programs that were devolved to us wouldn't be simply, as Tony put it, having sweatshops to deliver programs on behalf of the federal government. We need to be able to devolve programs, resources, and fiscal arrangements to Métis governments and jurisdictions so that we can deliver programs and services to our own people based on our own priorities and our own needs.

I think that would be important, and I recognize it would take some time to put those things in place. Of course being able to have access to programs, services, and resources to combat some of the desperate needs in our communities and start turning around some of the social and economic conditions in our communities would also be important.

I think there was one other aspect of your question that—

Mr. Pat Martin: Would those be the details that you would seek to find in the framework that you're working on now? You want that framework to be in place for the eventuality when this becomes a reality.

Mr. Gerald Morin: Right.

Mr. Pat Martin: One has to come as part of the other.

Mr. Gerald Morin: Right now, as you say, because of the mounting litigation, because we don't have access to anything.... So we would see the framework agreement as beginning to establish the processes and the negotiating tables to be able to arrive at substantive agreements, particularly and importantly for us in the rights area, jurisdiction and so on, and some of the issues that we're litigating in the courts. Then, of course, the practical and program service delivery issues and the resources are very important as well.

But I think what's really critical and what we can't forget is that, for us, our struggle has not only been one for rights and self-determination in Canada. Our struggle has been and still is a struggle for recognition and respect for the Métis Nation in Canada. I think that what we hope to achieve through the framework agreement is recognition, from a legal point of view, that legitimately we exist—that legally we exist as a people. That would amount to, finally, the recognition of the reality of the Métis existence in Canada.

From there, then you can begin to negotiate rights and self-determination and begin to address some of those issues in your communities because, right now as we speak, and historically since confederation, from a legal point of view as far as the Government of Canada is concerned, we don't exist. We're neither here nor there. We're nobody. We never have been. So we hope that through a framework agreement we can arrive at an understanding that we legitimately exist, we legally exist as a people, and we want to pursue our rights in self-determination.

• 1155

As one of the founding peoples of this country, who helped to build this country—and as Tony said, our people went off to World War I, World War II, the Korean conflict, and to South Africa and different places, on behalf of the British Empire; we fought for Canada—we have legitimately played a significant role as one of the major characteristics of this country. We are a people with rights that are affirmed in the Constitution of Canada and recognized in international law and instruments as well.

That's our position. We've always promoted that. We've gone to war twice with the Canadian government to defend our interests collectively and to pursue that vision of ourselves and our country. We're hoping that through a framework agreement we can finally put together some kind of compact with Canada. For me, and for I think all of us in the Métis community, as Tony pointed out, the honour of the crown is at stake, and it's time that, when the Prime Minister goes abroad and says we're the best country in the world, in reality, that's true with regard to the Métis existence in Canada.

Mr. Tony Belcourt: I want to add something to Mr. Martin's question, or perhaps spin it a different way.

We're not interested in creating another Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. What we have in mind is drastically different from the status quo.

One of the things we believe to be fundamental is that we're talking about, basically, a realignment of the way that financial resources are used.

We have only one good example, and it's not perfect, but when the federal government decided to transfer human resources development funds to the provinces, some $5 billion a year, the federal government held in reserve the moneys for aboriginal peoples and then devolved that directly to the aboriginal peoples. They didn't give us full devolution, because we don't have control over the programs; we can't design them. But at least the federal government withheld the finances and didn't transfer that to the provinces.

Consequently, we now are able to manage job training programs for our own people, and as a result of that, in Ontario, with some of that money, we now have scholarship and bursary programs at 22 colleges and 10 universities in the province. We're putting hundreds of Métis people through job training and into education. We can only be innovative to a point, because we still have to go with what Treasury Board has said, but this is an example of realigning money.

So if we're able, as Gerald said, to put in place our governance structures, we will then be looking for a realignment of funds from Health Canada and everywhere else to enable us—

Mr. Pat Martin: A relationship, really.

Mr. Tony Belcourt: Exactly. This was all contemplated in the Charlottetown accord and was spelled out in that accord.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Thank you, and welcome. I've spent time with the Ontario Métis, and it's nice to see you here.

I have a couple of questions, and the two are related. The first question relates to the obvious importance of numbers—enumeration, and all that sort of thing—because it's very hard to make any generalizations unless we have a sense of what we're talking about.

In the latest census, in May, for instance, either in the short form or long form, was there any way in which one could self-declare? I'm trying to remember. I filled it out, but I had the short form. Could you self-declare to be Métis?

I'm assuming when I look at the three definitions that the Manitoba Métis Federation has put forward, there's a negative test—you can't be registered first nations or Inuk, you have to be European and aboriginal—but you have to self-identify. So that's the largest universe, presumably, self-identified. But you can't force somebody to say they're Métis or not.

• 1200

So the first question is simply about the census, whether that gives us any information—and then I have a second question.

Mr. Tony Belcourt: Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

First of all, I want to put on the record that we don't consider ourselves to be part this and part that. I'm 100% Métis. You're not looking at any mixed blood here; you're looking at a 100% Métis person, and another 100% Metis person sitting beside me. When we say self-identification, we mean people who self-identify as Métis and who come forward.

To answer your question about the census, there is on the long form opportunity for Métis to self-identify. The problem is, the long form doesn't go to as many households. We've had many problems with the methodology, and we've discussed with Census Canada the questionnaire itself, and so on. But we're not getting anywhere with Census Canada on being able to get the census data that we believe ought to be there. We think there are flaws there. So we're not confident that the total numbers will be there to reflect the reality the next time around.

Mr. John Godfrey: The last time out, was there a similar question on the long form, and if there was, however imperfect, what number did that reveal?

Mr. Tony Belcourt: I think Gerald had mentioned it was something like 210,000 people.

Mr. John Godfrey: Okay.

Mr. Tony Belcourt: We know that to be absolutely inaccurate, based on the people who are currently in our registries.

Mr. John Godfrey: The second question has to do with this paradox where, as Mr. Morin pointed out, and you also, Mr. Belcourt, there is a disproportionate amount of federal government resources going into the various communities, status Indians versus Métis, if I may put it that way.

What seems to be a little curious, and here's the paradox—and I was trying to recollect some statistics I saw on housing generally—some people have made the observation on housing that despite the lack of resources, actually, in some situations, deplorable though the housing may be, it's marginally less deplorable among the Métis.

So the question I'm grappling with is, we now have two groups of people who are doing quite badly on a socio-economic basis, who have diabetes and similar sorts of things, and to one group, we apply all kinds of resources, we're further advanced on the recognition file, we're more doing land claims, and all this sort of stuff. And right down where it matters at the community level, it doesn't change a darn thing, whether we're talking about land claims, recognition, enumeration, or anything. What matters most to human beings is their health status, their longevity, their infant mortality rates, all that sort of stuff, and it turns out not to be about money, at least not about money in the old way. So I'm wondering whether we need to think outside this box a bit. I'm trying to grapple with the fact that you get to exactly the same point whether you have all the further advance that the status Indians enjoy or you don't. Can you help me with this?

Mr. Tony Belcourt: Well, I can say this: If I were a member of Parliament, I would question why there hasn't been greater success for the money invested through Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I'm sure you're doing that.

My understanding of what first nations people have said to me, certainly the first nations people I deal closely with in Ontario, is that they firmly believe, as we do, that if we had control of our own lives, we would be able to be far more effective than if somebody were to come in and do things for us.

• 1205

I can tell you that if we had an Indian agent in my home community as I grew up to do everything for us, to decide what kind of a house we were going to have, so that we weren't self-determining in any way, I think we would be far worse off than we are.

That doesn't excuse the fact that down the road on the reserve there are people living in brand new clapboard houses without running water and proper heating, other than perhaps half an oil barrel as a stove. We have, in our community, log houses that are far more structurally sound that we've built ourselves using mud and straw. But we still don't have running water in our houses either, and so on.

I just wonder why there's even a need for this kind of debate, because there obviously needs to be—and first nations are saying it—drastic change. We're telling you we don't want to go down that path.

Mr. John Godfrey: What I like about your statement is on page 13 when you talk about the three-pronged approach. I particularly like your second point about the practical initiatives, best practices, where you give a great example. It would be important, by the way, when you talk about devolving money, the federal government holding some back for manpower training, and all that sort of stuff, to be able to document exactly how that process worked.

We're about to do the same thing on housing—we should give you a heads-up on this. We've asked various officials to come up with best practices, and we would want very much to have your input, as is appropriate. We'd better make sure that question is asked when our study is undertaken, Madam Chair, that we don't neglect, as we so often have, the best practices of the Métis nation on housing issues.

But it would be nice to be able to leapfrog that whole set of bad practices first nations are complaining about and as we think of a new regime, to move straight into the things we're learning through best practices. That seems to me a better way of going forward. Maybe you have a comment, or not, but I'll leave it at that.

Mr. Gerald Morin: To reiterate what Tony said, whatever solutions we strive for within the Métis Nation in our dealings with the federal government, we wouldn't be looking to simply replicate what has happened with.... For example, we wouldn't see a massive Department of Indian Affairs being conducted in the same fashion it is now for first nations people. I think we would need to come up with unique and challenging solutions in addressing some of the major issues in our communities.

As far as the best practices are concerned, Tony mentioned one of them in the devolution of training and employment programs to the five member organizations that are part of the MNC. There are many success stories, and Tony talks about some of them in Ontario. In the area of social housing, we were one of the first agents, back in the 1970s, to complain about deplorable housing conditions in aboriginal communities, and that was the Métis leadership at the time through the Native Council of Canada. We were successful through CMHC in convincing them to put programs in place, controlled and managed by our people, particularly in the prairie provinces at the time.

In Saskatchewan, where I am from, for example, we had the provincial Métis Housing Corporation. We were the exclusive delivery agent of social housing in Saskatchewan, rural and native housing, so we were delivering these things to all aboriginal people, to non-aboriginal people in rural Saskatchewan as well. We had tremendous success in doing this. When the federal government, as a result of an agreement they signed with the provinces, starting devolving social housing from CMHC to the provinces, they didn't ensure that the arrangements we had negotiated back in the seventies were protected. What happened, for example, in Saskatchewan is that the government there basically took our housing program away and did business with the municipalities. To this day we don't have any role in social housing in spite of our tremendous track record and success in Saskatchewan.

• 1210

There are quite a number of areas. We have the Gabriel Dumont Institute in Saskatchewan, we now have the Louis Riel Institute in Manitoba. At the Gabriel Dumont Institute in Saskatchewan I think we've graduated probably about 700 or 800 people with teaching degrees—that's aboriginal people, not just Métis. So we've proven that we can be very successful. Now we've trained more people as a result of the arrangements Tony talks about. More of our people are trained, more of our people are educated. We have the human resources and the capacity to take on these programs and services, deliver them very successfully in our communities, and begin changing things in our communities.

I don't think we've done enough of that, I don't think we've been successful in devolving enough programs and services. There should be a lot more, but with what we've had for the last 20 or 30 years, I think, overall, it's a success story. It's always a challenge, and there's always some negative reporting, but that's part of the growing process. You're going to make mistakes, you're going to learn from those mistakes, and you're going to be better after that.

For Mr. Goodale's submission this fall to cabinet one of the things we are preparing is what's called a state of the nation report. We'll be talking about some of those best practices and some of the success stories we've had over the years from programs we've got, not only from the federal government, but from the provincial governments as well. It will also demonstrate our capacity to absorb these kinds of programs in place. This document will be prepared for him, and we will be arming him, if you will, with the ammunition to say, this what these people have done with the moneys we've got for them in the last three years as part of Gathering Strength, this is what they've done with the other resources and programs they've put in place, they have the capacity. So that document will be prepared for Mr. Goodale, something that could be available to you guys eventually as well.

So yes, I think that's a very important point.

Mr. Tony Belcourt: Madam Chair, I do not want to miss the opportunity to say to Mr. Godfrey that the statistics may change drastically in the area of housing. While we were able to have somewhat better statistics than first nations, perhaps it was because we had the Rural and Native Housing Program since 1974. But that was eliminated by the Government of Canada a couple of years ago, so we no longer have that. It's been transferred to the provinces, and the provinces don't care. I'll tell you, in the province of Ontario we're in very dire straits. In the matter of housing, there is nothing there to deal with the new population that's coming, let alone help with the old stock that is now badly in need of repair. So with housing, yes, we had a good practice, but that practice is no longer there. I just wanted to make sure that's on the record.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we're going to our next round of questions. This is set at only three minutes, but we've been generous, because I know everyone wants to hear the answer. So we'll start our next round.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: It is not written in the Constitution at section 91(24) that you fall under the responsibility of the federal government. One of the issues you mentioned back in 1996 related to who has jurisdiction to deal with you. If the federal government has no jurisdiction to do so, the provinces must have jurisdiction, and yet there is no mention in your presentation or any of your comments of negotiations with the provinces, which I found rather surprising. Is that because there are no negotiations at this time? Is it because they are at an impasse? Or are things proceeding well? Is your relationship formal or informal? Just what is the status of your relationship with the provinces? Have you decided to bypass them and deal directly with the federal government?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Morin: First, the provinces agree with our position that the Métis fall within section 91(24) and therefore federal jurisdiction. They've taken that position consistently. In some cases it's perhaps for self-serving purposes. They say, “Well, don't come and knock at our door. Go knock at their door.” But in fact we have had a lot of dealing with the provincial governments—

Mr. Tony Belcourt: Except Ontario.

Mr. Gerald Morin: —except Ontario. We have five member organizations in the prairie provinces, Ontario, and British Columbia that make up the Métis National Council. There are tripartite arrangements—except in Ontario—in the prairies and B.C. between the federal and provincial governments and our member organizations to negotiate a variety of issues, but primarily we're focusing on program devolution. In Alberta, since the 1930s—and I think they came out with new legislation in the early 1990s—they've had eight Métis settlements that have been set aside for Métis people. Land, resources, and programs have been set aside.

• 1215

A number of other arrangements have taken place. Just yesterday, in the legislature in Saskatchewan, they introduced for first reading a Métis Act of Saskatchewan, which would amount to recognition of the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan and the contributions they've made to Saskatchewan society. I think it's going up for second reading Friday. The idea is that it would be all done before the summer, and would receive royal assent over the summer. So there have been a number of dealings there.

I think the provincial governments recognize there are practical issues they can move on in spite of the bigger legal and jurisdictional issues. I think they can only go so far, though. And until the federal government provides leadership and clarifies the jurisdictional issue, the Métis rights issues, I think there's only so far they can go. But I think they're demonstrating through some of the initiatives in some of the provinces that there's a willingness to sit down in good faith with the Métis and conclude some arrangements to address our issues.

If we were to have a framework agreement on the Métis Nation agenda, where we can make some real progress over time on some of these bigger issues, I think there'd be more willingness on the part of the province to come to the table and work out arrangements jointly with the federal government and the Métis. In our discussions with Ralph Goodale, we've agreed that, depending on the subject matter we're dealing with as part of this framework agreement as we move along, we would allow for provinces to participate in those discussions and negotiations, particularly on matters that fall within provincial jurisdiction.

So that is there. I think this framework agreement will bring about a lot of positive things, including a greater willingness on the part of the provinces to participate. And again, going back to 1992, at that time the federal government and all of the provincial and territorial governments unanimously agreed that for greater clarity, the wording was that the Métis are included in section 91(24).

So I think a lot hinges on the federal government; a lot hinges on this framework agreement. If we can make some significant progress in that way, then it'll open the door to a lot more provincial involvement.

In Ontario, it's a very different situation from the prairies and B.C. In Ontario, basically, the government is very hostile to our people. Their policy is one of non-recognition of our people. They don't recognize the existence of our people in the province of Ontario. That's why there are no tripartites there, because the province is not willing to be a part of those discussions and has taken a very hostile approach. An example of that is the Powley case, where they make very vigorous arguments that our people have no rights and don't exist in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Belcourt: Madam Chair, first of all, you've touched on something that's very critical here. It's a question of jurisdiction. We're, in effect, a political football, because the federal government says, “Well, we don't have jurisdiction for you; that now belongs to the province”, and the province says, “No, we don't have jurisdiction for you as peoples, as a people”. In the prairie provinces, they can't ignore the fact of all those brown-skinned, smoked Cree voices they're hearing on the streets who are Métis.

So the provinces have programs that are there for poor people, and they say, “Okay, you're poor people, we'll deal with you. And we'll deal with federal government, too, on these tripartite arrangements about dealing with you as poor people”. But the province won't deal with any of us, as a people. Concerning rights, we have no negotiations going on. And certainly that isn't on the table with these tripartite arrangements.

• 1220

In the province of Ontario, the situation is scandalous. We have had to go to court to prove the historic existence of the Métis community of Sault Ste. Marie. You don't read about it in Ontario's history books, because they won't put it in there. But we went to court and proved the existence of that community. Then we proved that the community exists today, even though there are thousands of Métis people standing up and saying, “We are Métis and we come from these historic Métis communities”. The province will not negotiate with us, won't meet with us. The only person I can speak to is the Attorney General of the province.

We're treated as criminals when we practice our right to hunt and fish for food, a traditional practice so many of our people absolutely depend on. That's the situation we face.

The provinces by and large have said “No, we're not responsible for you. The federal government is. And that agreement we reached, that everybody agreed on in Charlottetown in 1992, well, the agreement didn't pass because the Charlottetown accord failed; therefore the Métis Nation accord failed. And we'll turn our blind eye to the fact that we agreed at one point, signed on the dotted line.”

In fact, Parliament, in all of the legislatures, approved that agreement, recognizing that there is federal jurisdictional responsibility for the Métis. It may not be exclusive, but at least let's get to that point. The federal government has jurisdiction. What is the level of the jurisdiction? Provinces have jurisdiction. What is the level of jurisdiction? But we have no means to discuss these things—none.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I found the passage I was looking for in the CMHC report. Let me just read something and ask your reaction.

The result is that 32% of Métis households live in core housing need (about the average for Aboriginal peoples). The proportion of Métis households...is the same...in spite of the fact that, overall, the Métis tend to be economically slightly better off than other Aboriginal peoples. Higher proportions of Métis working-age adults have the advantages of having completed at least some high school and found employment.

Then it says there are lots of offsets. There are lots of people with disabilities, lone parents, low-income seniors living in rural areas, and the areas of the country where most Métis reside are quite challenging, whether they are the urban areas of the northern prairies or the rural remote areas stretching north from there into the Northwest Territories.

So I guess I have two questions. The first is, to the extent that there's any slight advantage economically as described, is that attributable to some difference in the rural-urban split between the Métis population and the status Indian population?

The second question is something I just wanted to follow up on. I think it was Mr. Belcourt who said this. Did I understand you to say, ironically, that had the Métis been included in the Indian Act process going way back historically, it would have produced even worse results and worse outcomes than is currently the situation? In other words, neglect was better in some ways over time than official policy. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you certainly were quite specific about one community.

Mr. Tony Belcourt: Let me tell you that I firmly believe the statistics are going to change drastically.

First nations have a housing policy providing for new housing. There is a budget for new housing. We have nothing. We don't have any budget to speak of for repair of the existing ones. So I think our housing situation is going to change because of the removal of the program we did have, which brought us up to that sort of marginally good level.

In terms of education, I can tell you we do not have money for post-secondary education. We've been able to get some money into universities and colleges for some scholarships, but we don't have money for education. The numbers of people who are graduating who are first nations and Inuit are numbers we look at with great envy, because we just don't have the resources. Our people aren't going to that level of education.

• 1225

In terms of the rural-urban split, I think there should be no misconception that our people are urban people. Our people live in urban and rural areas, probably in the same proportion as first nations. Are we better off through neglect? Well, that's sort of like asking, “In terms of the degrees of burn to your body, is it better to have 50% or 75%?” Our situation has been better in some ways. I'm thankful that I've got my pride because my parents had it—because we didn't have somebody giving us our birth certificates, telling us who we were, or deciding to tell us who we were not, which Indian Affairs does as well.

So in some ways, yes, I think we're better off through neglect, but what does that mean?

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin, you have three minutes, please.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

It's interesting how often Charlottetown comes up around this table, and even in other standing committees that I sit on. I just can't help but hearken back. I actually came to the aboriginal round of the Charlottetown accord talks that they held here in Ottawa. I was a guest, one of the ordinary Canadians that they brought in. So I remember when the Métis...there was a clause for additional clarity, so just in case there's any doubt, we were going to specifically mention the Métis as being covered by that article in that clause.

Charlottetown failed, but many aspects of Charlottetown have been implemented by the government. Frankly, they've adopted the things that they wanted to. They sort of cherry-picked some of the devolution of powers to the provinces, for instance. All of those were contemplated in Charlottetown, but they chose not to act on other aspects where they did have good consensus—a very rare level of consensus with all the provinces and the federal government.

So now you're faced with this court case with the.... Is it the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples that have a...?

Mr. Gerald Morin: It's section 91(24).

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes. Where is that at? Is the only realistic avenue of recourse now to have the courts admonish the federal government for not extending 91(24)?

Mr. Gerald Morin: Well, I think they just recently launched our case about a year ago in the Federal Court.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, in 1999.

Mr. Gerald Morin: Yes. It's not the only case, though. I think a number of our cases raised section 91(24). I know that in the northwest Métis land rights case we plead a number of things. For example, we say that we have title to land and resources in northwestern Saskatchewan. We argue that we have the inherent right of self-government on those lands and resources. We argue that we're covered under section 91(24). That was launched in, I think, March 1994. So it's been seven years now. I think quite a lot of research has taken place around that case. I think that they're now saying, “Well, it's been sitting there too long; we've done enough research,” and they want to start pushing it, and they want to start going to trial.

So the court process is probably not the best way. But certainly, sooner or later—whether it's the case you mentioned, or the one that we've launched in Saskatchewan—I think that issue of section 91(24) will be dealt with by the higher courts, and maybe the Supreme Court of Canada. That's one avenue.

The second avenue we've requested for the last 20 years—that I'm aware of, anyway—from the various federal governments in Canada is that we take a reference case to the Supreme Court of Canada to clarify section 91(24) and whether the Métis are covered by that section. Of course, before that could happen, it's up to the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice to make any references to the Supreme Court of Canada. Consistently the federal government has refused to take a reference case to the Supreme Court of Canada to clarify that, so we can't get there through the reference process. That's the second avenue.

• 1230

I think the first avenue, the one that we would prefer, is that the federal government can simply say, “The Métis are covered under section 91(24), so we're going to conduct ourselves on that basis, and all our policies and our actions are going to reflect that reality”.

Mr. Pat Martin: How can we move them in that direction? How can we motivate them to take that voluntary recognition step? For instance, what is their logic for not allowing you coverage under that now? What excuse do they give?

Mr. Gerald Morin: Well, you could probably, I don't know, fire all the lawyers in the federal Department of Justice and hire new ones. I don't know. You know how lawyers are. They—

Mr. Richard Marceau: Please.

Mr. Gerald Morin: “Don't do this because you're going to set a precedent”—that's one of their major arguments.

I don't know, as part of the framework process it would be nice...maybe it's dreaming, but it would be nice if we could simply come to the conclusion with the federal government that we are covered by section 91(24) and they would simply conduct themselves on that basis and begin to implement programs, policies, and initiatives which reflect that jurisdictional reality.

Mr. Pat Martin: When they signed the Charlottetown accord, they must have agreed with you.

Mr. Gerald Morin: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: They were in the agreement at that—

Mr. Gerald Morin: I myself think that a number of precedents have actually been set—smaller precedents, which all amount to a lot—including the concession in the Charlottetown accord that we are in fact covered by section 91(24). I'm fairly confident myself, whether it's through the course of a court litigation such as the Saskatchewan case or a reference case, that if the higher courts and the Supreme Court of Canada adjudicate the issue, they will agree with our position that we are covered by section 91(24).

It's a major obstacle. If we're going to make any significant progress on rights or on practical initiatives, sooner or later you have to overcome that jurisdictional issue. Because as long as the federal government hides behind that, then you can only make marginal progress because you don't want to again set any precedent we could point to in the courts that would say, “Ah ha! You've done this, and therefore we're covered by 91(24).”

Of course, on anything that the federal government does affecting rights, they get advice from their lawyers. Lawyers, by their nature, like to defend the interests of their clients and ensure that they don't prejudice their position and not set new precedents, which is scary because—

Mr. Pat Martin: It grinds it down to complete inaction. You can't do anything.

Mr. Gerald Morin: Well, yes. The whole political commitment in their response to Gathering Strength is that they will turn a new page in history, and they will achieve reconciliation, recognition, and respect for aboriginal people, and move in that direction. Therefore, you have to set new precedents, and you have to find a different way of doing business.

We're hopeful that we can achieve it through the political arena, but if not, then, like a lot of other issues, we're prepared to litigate these issues and get rulings from the higher courts and the Supreme Court of Canada.

I will say this, and I speak quite confidently on behalf of my people and our communities: the resolve, the commitment, and the determination of our people to see us through in terms of achieving success with everything we've been struggling for since we came into existence—recognition and respect of our nationhood, our rights, our aspirations, achieving all of these things within Canada.... The determination, the resolve, and the vision are so great in our communities that, for me, I have great confidence—whether I'm around or not—that we're going to achieve those things because our people just.... That's why we've taken court action.

I've been to communities up in Palmbere in northern Saskatchewan in the summertime. We've set up our tents, and we had these meetings outside. Our people are giving us shit, and they're saying, geez, do something; we're not getting anywhere. Let's go to court. If we have to go to the courts, let's do it.

With that kind of a message we quite confidently said, okay, we're going to the courts, and we're going to be heard. You can't hold us back any longer. Our day is going to come. I feel very strongly about that.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

I know we've been very generous with everyone's time, so it's just for the record that I've let you do two rounds of seven minutes. That was almost eight minutes.

Mr. John Godfrey: What a kind and benevolent leader you are.

The Chair: I have a couple of questions, and I know you've covered some of them. I know that in the Northwest Territories they do have their own Métis council also, and it's very different, I think, in their recognition as a people there than it is in the different provinces.

When you go to the definition of a Métis, how are you going to get one definition on a national basis? That would of course totally affect your voting lists, when you determine who is eligible to be enumerated.

• 1235

You've referred quite a few times to communities. When I think of the communities in my riding, I can actually name communities that have Inuit populations that are Nunavut beneficiaries. I don't know if we're talking about the same definition, in my understanding of communities, versus what you've said a few times in your presentation.

I guess I have two questions. Is the definition of Métis different, depending on different parts of the country? How do you get one national definition? Is that something you'll decide when you talk with Ralph Goodale? That's something that will have to be a definite one. What is your definition of communities?

Mr. Gerald Morin: First of all, there are two major views in Canada, I think. First, there's ours. We believe we're a nation of people. We're a community of people that has emerged in western Canada, with our own history and language. That's who we are and who we represent.

Some others, for example, in the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, promote the view that Métis are anyone with mixed European and Indian ancestry, therefore there are Métis all over Canada and well into the United States, in places like Florida. I suppose you could go as far saying that the mestizos in Mexico are Métis. But that kind of definition is simply not logical. It doesn't jive with reality.

Many people who consider themselves Indians today would be Métis under that kind of definition. Many people don't consider themselves aboriginal, which they may be under that definition. We're very clear about who we are. In spite of the fact we don't have a national definition, we are a community of people who emerged in western Canada with our own homeland. We have our own history, with Louis Riel and Gabriel Dumont, and the historical events I talked about.

We've carved out our own political institutions. The Métis Association of Alberta, for example, was organized in 1932. The Métis Society of Saskatchewan, which is now the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, was organized in 1938. The Manitoba Métis Federation was organized in 1967. Later, of course, there was the Métis Nation of Ontario, and our organization in B.C.

In 1983 we broke away from the Native Council of Canada because we were organized with Métis and non-status Indians, and the major focus was on alleviating social conditions and focusing on programs. With the patriation of the Constitution, we felt we had to realign our movements nationally and provincially, to focus on nationhood, rights, and self-determination. We've made tremendous progress in the last 20 years, in that direction.

In the MNC we have a standing committee called the Métis rights panel, which is chaired by Tony. The board of governors of MNC, which is made up of the provincial presidents and myself, as national president, has given them the mandate to delve into the whole issue of Métis national definition. We have made tremendous progress. We don't have complete consensus on the exact wording and so on, but as far as the principles are concerned, I think there's consensus. I think we're very close to achieving a Métis national definition, within the Métis National Council, which can come as close as possible to defining the community I talked about that emerged in western Canada.

It does talk about being distinct from first nations and Inuit, so you have to self-identify as Métis. You can't say you're an Indian and a Métis at the same time. You have to be distinct. First of all, you have to have Métis ancestry. There has to be a community acceptance process of some sort. It revolves, basically, around those principles.

I'm confident that within the next couple of years we will probably come up with a national Métis definition, as part of the framework agreement. Second, we will establish a Métis nation registry. Third, once we have those two things, we can begin enumerating the citizens of the Métis nation into that registry, based on that national definition. That's the direction we want to go.

We haven't had a formal arrangement with Métis organizations in the Northwest Territories. I think we had an MOU at one time with the Métis Nation of the Northwest Territories. That was abandoned in 1994. We've had various contacts over the years, but part of the problem has been the fragmentation of Métis organizations. We weren't sure who to do business with.

• 1240

Recently we met with the South Slave Métis Tribal Council. Their description and the documentation they gave us would be consistent with our definition of the historic Métis nation. These are people who, through the fur trade, moved to the southern part of the Northwest Territories in places like Hay River and Fort Smith.

I'm from Green Lake, in northwestern Saskatchewan, and in the 1950s and 1960s many of our people moved out there to fish and gain employment. Some stayed and some came back. So I have family over there.

They're part of that historic Métis Nation. You look at their last names, and they fit into the genealogy of the Métis Nation, and so on. I'm encouraged by the discussions we've had with them, and hopeful that some day we can have a formal arrangement with them.

Our goal is to unify and consolidate the entire Métis Nation. That's a little more difficult in the United States because it's a different country and a different government, but we still have informal dealings with Métis people, for example, in Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota, which are part of the Métis homeland, as well.

That's an important priority for us. I think we've made tremendous progress in that area. We will have a national definition soon, and I'm hopeful that through the framework process we can have a registry supported and funded by the federal government, and begin enumerating the citizens of our nation.

That would help us not only count our people and see who the beneficiaries were for the purposes of agreements with the federal government, like land claim agreements, but at long last it would allow us to collect accurate demographic statistics on the condition of our people, which we could then use for planning program priorities, and so on.

Mr. Tony Belcourt: On your question, if somebody told the Inuit people they had to use the white man's language to come up with a definition of themselves, I'm sure you'd have as many definitions as we have.

People are using different language, but in the end, as I understand the claim, the beneficiaries will be those who self-identify and are accepted by the community. This is an international standard. We apply it too, except that some people are using other language because we've had to come up with a definition, for purposes of registering our corporations.

The Chair: Actually, that was decided by the communities. But the point I was trying to make is to be fair for people negotiating on two sides. I think it's only fair that the other people know if they're dealing with 500,000 people or a million people that they're going to be responsible for. It would make negotiations very difficult for both sides, unless they knew who they were representing and who would be eligible for the services. If you didn't have a definite definition, you would be shortchanged when all the people you had not accounted for, when you were working out your formula for the financing, started coming out of the woodwork, wanting to be covered and eligible for those services,

It would make life very difficult for both sides if you didn't have a better identification process, as to who's going to be eligible for those services.

Mr. Tony Belcourt: I don't disagree with what you're saying, but on the other hand I think it's grossly unfair to tell the Métis Nation to go out there without any resources and come up with this, within the vast territory of the Métis Nation, through our own consultation process, and arrive at those magic words, where there can be consensus throughout the Métis Nation on how we are going to define ourselves. It's obvious to us who we are. I agree we have to satisfy the outside, but we need the resources to be able to take step one. We've never had any of those resources.

The Chair: I don't think it's necessarily the outside, because we've done it for ourselves. We've had to decide among ourselves who was going to be a beneficiary of our land claims agreement. There's a process where the communities decide that.

Mr. Tony Belcourt: Yes, but you have the money to do it.

• 1245

The Chair: I understood from Mr. Morin that along with the president, you have the presidents of each province working toward that. Is that correct?

Mr. Gerald Morin: In spite of the lack of resources, we've made good progress.

One of the points I was making in terms of the emergence of the Métis National Council and our member organizations is that we've become quite well organized politically and we have distinct political institutions that have been around for a long time. In an environment where we have a lack of resources, hostile governments, and very difficult circumstances, it's because of the determination of our people as well, which I spoke of. In spite of all the odds we've had to put up with, we've made tremendous progress on a variety of issues, including that one.

In coming up with a national definition, I think we'd want to do it primarily for our purposes in defining our own community. We know who we are, but I suppose for greater clarity we have to put it in the form of a definition.

But the other thing you have to remember is that with regard to the litigation that is now moving forward in the higher courts, with one case heading to the Supreme Court of Canada, the courts are taking it upon themselves to define who the Métis are, which to us is a very scary development. If the Supreme Court of Canada were to make a pronouncement saying this is who you are, and it wasn't consistent with our understanding of who we are as a people, I think that would do a lot to violate our people and our communities.

We feel we have to come up with our own definition and our own registries controlled by ourselves to enumerate the citizens of the Métis Nation. At the core of the inherent right of self-government is the right to determine your own citizenship. That's critical. So that's something we hope to achieve. We certainly don't want governments as well to impose a definition on us, as they've done with Indian people through the Indian Act, which has been a miserable experiment and I think in large part has created further difficulties in Indian country.

We talk about a lot of money being spent. I think a lot of it is perhaps well intentioned, but it's misguided. What I'm hearing from Indian and Inuit leaders is there's a lot of money out there but it's throwing money at the problem and not coming up with the creative solutions we're suggesting to you in terms of changing the status quo.

It's something that's important to us as part of our right to self-determination. We're in a political environment where really we don't have any choice. We know who we are and who our communities are. Our preference would be that we didn't have to. We've been functioning quite well without one, but because of the political environment we find ourselves in, we have to come up with one. At some point we have to establish a Métis Nation registry and enumerate our people as well.

The important thing is that we preserve our rights and pursue self-determination and that the inherent right of self-government is respected and we have the right to determine our own citizenship. Those were our submissions to the royal commission, and in their recommendations they basically agreed with that.

We also spoke out very strongly and said that any relations with government have to be on a nation-to-nation, government-to-government, and people-to-people basis. At the core of the recommendations of the royal commission is changing the relationship with governments and Canadians from colonialism, racism, and paternalism to one based on mutual respect and recognition.

One of the things that would kick-start that new arrangement would be, for example, maintaining a department of Indian and Inuit services to ensure there's no disruption in the existing services being provided by Indian Affairs to first nations and Inuit people and that a new department of aboriginal affairs would be created, which would include the Métis. Also the federal government would take the position that we fall within section 91(24), and it would begin recognizing our rights. To start this process there would be a first ministers conference of the Prime Minister and premiers to begin the dialogue within six months of the tabling of their report, which was tabled several years ago.

We don't agree with everything the royal commission said. It was a very expensive exercise, and I think they came up with a lot of good recommendations. But by and large, from my point of view, I think that has been shelved.

The Chair: Thank you. My point was that it's always better to be the ones to come up with a definition and not have someone else do it.

Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. I would like to thank the witnesses for coming out today and making sure we understand the Métis National Council. I appreciate your coming.

• 1250

Mr. Gerald Morin: Thank you, Madam Chair, and all of the committee members. Thank you very much for giving us this time and for hearing from us. Again, we hope we've created some understanding and that we will have your support as we move along, particularly on the Métis Nation agenda.

The Chair: We do have one more item on the agenda, which is the reports from commissions. In one of our earlier meetings Mr. Godfrey asked for a list of required reports and the status as far as a government response is concerned. That has now been given to us, and I believe it is for information purposes at this point in time.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you first of all for indulging my question.

I just want to make this observation. In my dealings with the department it was suggested that dozens of reports are put in front of Parliament and that it would be impossible to deal with all of those. I'm exaggerating, but not too much.

If I look at the ones that deal with treaties or implementation—I want to make sure that Mary Hurley agrees with my summation—on page two I can only find one that is required to be tabled in the House of Commons, which is the one on Nunavut. I find none on page three. They all have to publish them, but these are the only ones to go before Parliament. At the top of page four I find a second annual report, which is from the British Columbia Treaty Commission. I'm excluding the Canadian Polar Commission because it's of a different nature. I see that for the Cree-Naskapi Commission there is a biennial reporting requirement to the House of Commons. There seems to be a second one where you have to report every five years, so I'm putting that down as a quinquennial reporting commitment. I roll it all up, and I get an average of 2.7 reports per year, which does not seem to me to be an onerous—

Mr. Pat Martin: Not too overwhelming.

Mr. John Godfrey: No. The only point I'm making is that since those seem to fall into a special category, that is, they both deal with treaties or implementation and they both have a specific reporting requirement to the House of Commons, whether it's the Cree-Naskapi Commission or the British Columbia Treaty Commission, it would not be an overwhelming task to have a response to an average of less than three reports a year if the committee so desired. I'm not moving anything. I'm just trying to lodge that in people's minds as a way of thinking about these things, because they seem to have this special character.

Have I misrepresented the evidence at all, Mary?

The Chair: Go ahead, Mary.

Ms. Mary Hurley (Committee Researcher): In fact, the committee has received two documents. One Jim Latimer circulated week, I believe, which contains a list of agencies, boards, or commissions that have to report to the department and whose reports have to be tabled in the House of Commons. It's not up to date. You'll notice that it doesn't include, for example, the Nunavut Implementation Panel. You'll notice that for the majority of the boards and commissions on the list Jim circulated, almost all of those obligations arise under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act. They don't arise under the land claim agreements or the legislation that ratifies the land claim agreements.

Unfortunately, I'm going to be referring to all kinds of instruments, but I'll try to keep it as simple as I can. If you refer, for example, to pages two and three of the list Jim circulated, you'll notice that there's the Gwich'in Land and Water Board, the Gwich'in Land Use Planning Board, the Sahtu Land and Water Board, and the Sahtu Land Use Planning Board.

• 1255

Okay, Mr. Godfrey, this is on the first list that you got.

Mr. John Godfrey: Okay. I didn't bring the first one with me, unfortunately.

Ms. Mary Hurley: The reason those boards have to make reports on access to information and on privacy is that they're scheduled in federal legislation that deals with privacy and access to information. The obligation to report does not arise under the land claim agreements those two aboriginal peoples are party to.

However, it gets a little bit more complicated, unfortunately, Mr. Godfrey, because all those boards, although they're provided for in the land claim agreements, were formally established, as required in the land claim agreements, by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act of 1998. If you look at page 3 of the chart Peter Niemczak prepared for the committee—by the way, I want to thank him for his help—you will see there that any board established to enable residents of the Mackenzie Valley to participate in the management of its resources is obliged to submit an annual report to the minister, but there's no obligation to table it in the House of Commons.

The Chair: We'll be doing the Nunavut Water Board and other boards from the land claims agreement also. We haven't dealt with those yet.

Ms. Mary Hurley: Exactly. So there will probably be agencies that are going to be created by legislation that are already up and running under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. They will probably also be scheduled in the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act as institutions of public government, and so they will have to submit the same kind of report, not having to do with the land claims agreement, but having to do with access to information and privacy. I did look at article 10 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement before coming, and it is possible that the legislation that does create those boards will, in the same way the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act did, require those agencies to submit an annual report, which may or may not have to be tabled in Parliament.

The other point I wanted to make is actually made by Peter in the second footnote on page 1. Although we were unable to locate any ministerial obligation to respond, it is also important to note that many other boards not provided for on either of these lists do report to the minister, but with no obligation to table in either house of Parliament. So the notion that there are multiple reports is is accurate, but the number that have to be tabled in Parliament is not enormous. I would also point out, for example, that the Indian Claims Commission report is not required to be tabled, but in fact it is tabled in the House of Commons. So you have a myriad of permutations and combinations. It's a somewhat confusing picture, I'm sorry, but there are a great many reports that are submitted to the minister. There are many that do not have to be tabled in either house of Parliament, but there are some that are tabled as a matter of practice or convention. I'm unable to respond to the question as to whether the absence of an obligation to respond means that there is no precedent for response. I just don't know. That's a procedural question.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you for all that work. I didn't really know what I was asking, but it's an interesting question.

It would be reasonable, unless I'm missing something, to strip out the privacy and access to information—that's not the substance of the matter. It's really the substance of the report that we're interested in.

• 1300

If I understand, we have ones where it is spelled out that it's the content of reports relating to treaties and implementation, so that's formal law. Then we have customary law, if I may put it that way, where there are an additional bunch, which might fall into that category of treaty implementations. Do none of the ones where he does table, even though he's not required to, fall into that category?

Ms. Mary Hurley: One I mentioned, because it's the one I know about, that falls into that category is the Indian Claims Commission. When I looked at the terms of reference for the Indian Claims Commission, I was unable to find an obligation to table, but it's my understanding from something Ms. Karetak-Lindell said a couple of meetings ago that in fact the ICC annual report was tabled. In all the instances I talked about, a variety of boards in the various land claim agreements are required by the land claim agreement to report to the minister, but there's no obligation to lay that before Parliament. They're not all listed here, because there are so many of them.

To clarify matters a little more, if you look on page 1 of Peter's chart, you'll see that in the case of the Yukon land claim agreements you have the umbrella final agreement and then you have the examples given there of four of the final agreements. You'll see that the bodies that have to report to the minister are the training policy committees, which are responsible under the land claim agreement for establishing training programs. There are implementation bodies, but there is no obligation on them to report. So I don't think I'm able to make a generalization that covers all the permutations and combinations.

The Chair: Thank you. I think we will all take that as information as requested. If anyone has any specific questions, they can be addressed to the researcher directly.

Mr. John Godfrey: I have one final observation. When you shake it out and you take either the ones where there's a formal obligation and the content matter is the sort we're talking about—so that's your 2.7 per year—or the ones where there's not a formal obligation, but in fact by custom, as with the Indian Claims Commission, they both table it and come here, that universe is not huge. We're not talking 10, 15, 20, we're talking three, five a year, right? So all I'm saying is that should the committee wish, in order to do its work better, where these folks are going to be submitting reports to Parliament and to us anyway, a greater degree of accountability from the department, so that we actually get responses to at three, or four, or five a year, that would not be an unreasonable thing to ask for. It's not that big.

They would all be big tasks, but if we want to take our work seriously year after year, we need to know what the government said about it. I think you've at least established that it would not be an outrageously difficult operation, because it's a constrained number of things—and we can constrain it as we wish. I'm just putting it out as an observation.

The Chair: Thank you.

I think we'll conclude on that, because I know some people have other commitments and want to get to them. So I thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.