[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, May 15, 1995
.0917 
[English]
The Chair: I officially call the meeting to order.
We are continuing our consideration of Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons.
This morning we have the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. Unfortunately, its president and principal witnesses are not here yet. The meeting was scheduled for 9 a.m. and it's now 9:18 a.m. but we'll start with Mr. Braidek, who represents one of the regional groups.
Mr. Braidek, please explain who you represent for the record and then give us your views prior to Ms Kuptana and the other witnesses coming into the room.
Mr. Alan Braidek (Nunavut Tungavik Incorporated): I represent Nunavut Tungavik Incorporated, which is a not-for-profit corporation set up to implement the Nunavut land claims agreement. This agreement was negotiated and ratified by the Government of Canada with Inuit of Nunavut in 1992.
As part of this agreement, the Inuit of Nunavut received title to vast quantities of the Northwest Territories and, in a partnership with this agreement, the Territory of Nunavut, which is the eastern part of the Northwest Territories will become a separate territory on April 1, 1999.
There are approximately 19,000 Inuit currently registered under the Nunavut land claims agreement, and we speak for them.
I'd like to reiterate that the position taken by ITC in its presentation has been reviewed by my organization and we support it wholeheartedly.
Many of the Inuit in Nunavut hunt and harvest wildlife as a way of sustaining themselves. Hunting and harvesting wildlife is important, not only culturally but economically, to the Inuit.
The Inuit of Nunavut are not a wealthy people. Many of them are on social assistance and require the help of harvesting to maintain a good quality of life for themselves.
.0920
[English]
I would like to speak today specifically to how we see the proposed gun control legislation affecting the Inuit pursuant to our land claims agreement.
Under the Nunavut land claims agreement, section 5.7.26 states:
Subject to the terms of this article, an Inuk, with proper identification, may harvest up to his or her adjusted basic needs level without any form of licence or permit and without any imposition of any form of tax or fee.
It's our position that to hunt and harvest wildlife in Nunavut today you require a rifle or a gun. There is simply no way that you can harvest wildlife without using a rifle in Nunavut today. Traditionally, for generations the Inuit have used rifles. So to place a fee or a licence requirement on obtaining a rifle essentially places a fee and a licence requirement on harvesting. It's our position that this is in violation of the agreement between the Inuit and Canada. Our agreement states at article 2.2.12 that the agreement takes precedence over any other law of Canada.
Further in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, which made our agreement essentially an act of this Parliament, it also states that:
In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between the agreement and any law, including this act, the agreement prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.
It's our position that a licensing and a fee requirement placed on Inuit to have a rifle is a licence and a fee on their right to harvest, and it's improper. It's our position that either the legislation should be amended so does it not apply to the Inuit of Nunavut or the implementation - and this is a very secondary position - of it should be delayed in the Northwest Territories until such time as an agreement can be reached between Canada and the Inuit of Nunavut on how and if this legislation should apply to the Inuit.
The rights under our agreement are protected under section 35 of the charter as treaty rights. Again, it's our position that they are constitutionally protected rights to harvest. Hunting and harvesting of wildlife is central to the Inuit. Most Inuit hunters have two or three rifles - a different rifle for a different type of animal - and traditionally hunting has been extremely important to them.
By placing these restrictions on the Inuits' right to harvest, the effect of the gun control legislation on the Inuit of Nunavut will be to further alienate them from their lands and traditional lifestyles, and like discriminatory policies of the past will discourage the Inuit from practising harvesting as a way of life and encourage the separation between the traditional way of life, the land, and the Inuit, further increasing their reliance on government assistance.
So that's briefly the presentation for NTI.
The Chair: Ms Kuptana and David Gladders, unfortunately, we had to start the meeting with one of your representatives, because the meeting was called for 9 a.m. and we have to terminate this meeting at 10:30 a.m. to hear another set of witnesses. So we thought we would start with Mr. Braidek. But we'll turn immediately to you and you can give us your opening comments on the bill. Then if we have time left we will deal with questioning. We usually ask that you restrict your opening remarks to 15 minutes.
.0925
[English]
Ms Kuptana, the floor is yours.
Ms Rosemarie Kuptana (President, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me today is David Gladders, who is the executive director of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the national organization that represents Canada's 40,000 Inuit.
I'd like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to make this presentation to your committee on Bill C-68, the proposed firearms legislation. I'm going to turn directly to the substance of my presentation, as you have the information with respect to the background on the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. I'd like to start by making three points, from an Inuit perspective, with respect to the work that you have undertaken on this bill.
First of all, the recognition and the affirmation of Inuit, aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 requires that the federal government take aboriginal interests into account when exercising legislative powers. I believe Bill C-68 fails to do this. Clause 110 does not provide an adequate vehicle for ensuring that the legislation properly accounts for Inuit rights.
The bill fails to do this because the Inuit have not been consulted about the content or the substance of the bill and, as well, its application and the impact that it will have on Inuit, or how to best account for Inuit rights and interests while providing for the safe use and storage of firearms in this country.
The second point I'd like to make is that, independent of the issue of consultation, there's a real risk that the proposed gun control law will restrict Inuit, aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt in ways that are unnecessary, excessive and unjustifiable. This is particularly so for most traditional Inuit.
There are long-term implications for Inuit youth that also have to be considered. Traditionally, hunting skills and the safe and proper use of firearms were learned from parents and from our elders. Proficiency was judged by them. Where that system and those judgments are being replaced by schooling and the Canadian firearm safety course, Inuit skills and traditional decision-making are being eroded. And they're being eroded because of this firearms legislation.
The hunters of the future are going to have to require certificates from bureaucrats in order to get the licence necessary to be able to hunt.
.0930
[English]
Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you can appreciate that this proposed bill has a very profound impact upon our community, and I think it's important that if committee members are interested they should listen to what I have to say.
As I was saying, the hunters of the future will require certificates from bureaucrats in order to get the licences necessary to hunt. This has profound implications for the future of the Inuit way and for the ability of future generations of Inuit to actually exercise their aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt.
It is not enough to provide for special licences for youth who need them in order to live. What is needed is a framework to ensure that the CFSCs are meaningful, that they're relevant and that they are taught to Inuit youth.
This vision of the potential impact of the bill and what is required to account for Inuit rights and our interests is not contained in the proposed bill C-68.
The third point I wish to make today is that the federal government has a policy commitment to deal with the aboriginal peoples of Canada on the basis that they enjoy the inherent right of self-government under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. There is no provision in the bill that recognizes or provides for Inuit self-government in relation to firearms control.
The Canadian government, this Liberal government, has stated that it recognizes that the inherent right of self-government now exists in the Constitution Act, 1982. However, as the legislation is drafted, there are no provisions for Inuit to make discretionary decisions with respect to gun control and gun use. Hunting is fundamental to our culture. It is a right that we were born with. It is a right that is now protected by the highest law of the country. And yet there is no recognition in proposed Bill C-68. We feel this must be corrected in direct consultation with the Inuit. Furthermore, self-government in relation to firearms is fundamental to peoples whose culture is rooted in hunting.
I'm going to use a trite example to illustrate what I'm saying. A mechanic who is living in a suburban neighbourhood in Ottawa who commits a violent crime and is denied a firearms licence is in a fundamentally different situation from that of a mechanic who lives in an arctic community and has aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt. As I stated earlier, the point is that discretionary decisions about risk and safety in a hunting culture must be made by people indigenous to that culture or that culture is fundamentally at risk.
Those are the three major points that I think this committee should take into consideration when reviewing the bill from an Inuit perspective.
Our presentation - you have a longer version of it - is divided into five sections. The first section deals with the Inuit land, harvesting and commercial hunting within Canada; second, constitutional protection and Inuit government agreements; third, provisions in Bill C-68 that are supported by Canadian Inuit; fourth, provisions in Bill C-68 that adversely impact on the way of life on Canadian Inuit; and fifth, recommendations addressing the rights of Canadian Inuit.
.0935
[English]
The first part of this presentation is entitled ``The Inuit Land-Harvesting and Commercial Hunting within Canada''.
The Inuit territory within Canada totals approximately one-third of Canada. Inuit have full ownership of one-fifth of that land and live in 55 arctic communities within the Northwest Territories, northwest Quebec and Labrador.
Inuit enjoy a close relationship with the land, waters and the animals that surround us. We are a hunting people who have experienced great changes in our lives in the past couple of generations, but harvesting wild game and fish continues to be central in our life and our culture.
Our fish, birds and animals are a major source of our food and an important resource for our economic development. Our livelihood and way of life depend on the health and the productivity of our lands and waters and the tools we use to harvest. So any proposal that purports to affect that situation is of great concern to us.
Most of the Inuit women and men living in Canada practise some form of harvesting activity and all of us depend on hunting and fishing as a primary source of nutrition.
Through our agreements, we also retain the right to hunt commercially. This provides food for intersettlement trade, southern restaurants, meat sales and Inuit-guided hunts for European and American hunters.
A society that lives by hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering has very different ideas about what is safe and what is dangerous. People who live with guns and use them daily to feed themselves and their families in remote or wild places have ideas about firearms very different from those people who live in the cities.
The risks of living in a hunting culture are unique, and so, too, are the ideas of safety. For example, it is Inuit custom to give firearms as gifts to children, sometimes at birth. These firearms are seen as a tool, unlike in southern Canada or urban Canada. Firearms are found in the majority of Inuit homes in the Arctic and guns are seen as necessary for carrying out our traditional lifestyles and not as weapons of offence.
Inuit feel that urbanization has isolated the individual and guns are seen only in the hands of police or criminals, mainly on TV. Most residents in southern Canada see that food comes from the shelves of large food markets and not directly from the land. In our culture, when food is taken directly from the land, it is hunted by Inuit, killed by Inuit, cleaned by Inuit and shared by Inuit with relatives, friends and neighbours.
The result of the social and cultural difference is reflected in deciding what and who is safe and what and who is not. The standards of safety that are appropriate and applicable in urban and rural parts of southern Canada and where guns are used for recreational or sports hunting will be applied if Bill C-68 is adopted to Inuit communities and to Inuit. The impact will be to reduce the ability of Inuit to live as Inuit; in other words, to live effectively and freely in a culture of hunters.
The second part of the presentation is with respect to constitutional protection and Inuit land claims agreements.
First and foremost, Bill C-68 will breach the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, the Nunavut Land Settlement and the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Bill C-68, if enacted into law, will also restrict the aboriginal hunting rights of the Inuit of Labrador.
[English]
As the only Inuit in Canada without a land claim agreement, Labrador Inuit rights remain undefined. Nevertheless, these rights cannot be unjustifiably restricted and they too have to be consulted.
.0940
Bill C-68 will, for all intents and purposes, constitute a federally imposed licence on the ability to harvest and will prevent the Inuit from exercising their rights under the current land claim agreements.
These rights, as established in the agreements between the Inuit of Canada and the Government of Canada, are constitutionally protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in section 35, and as such have priority over all federal and provincial legislation.
In addition to the rights specifically stipulated in each Inuit agreement are the aboriginal rights that may be affirmed by Canadian Inuit. Section 35 of the charter provides the context in which aboriginal rights shall be evaluated in Canadian law.
Section 35, items (1) through (4), with respect to the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, is included for your reference.
In 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Sparrow, set out the specific criteria that the government must follow in order to justify legitimate interference with existing aboriginal rights. The court stated:
The special trust relationship and the responsibility of the government vis-à-vis aboriginals must be the first consideration in determining whether the legislation or action can be justified.
Although the federal government assumes the responsibility to reduce crime and the use of illegal firearms, this responsibility should, with respect to Canadian Inuit, be dealt with in a manner that will not interfere with the aboriginal right to possess and use firearms while exercising our traditional rights and customary harvesting practices. Again, the Sparrow case states:
Within the analysis of justification, there are further questions to be addressed on the circumstances of the inquiry. These include the questions of whether there has been as little infringement as possible in order to effect the desired result...whether the aboriginal group in question has been consulted.... Suffice to say that recognition and affirmation requires sensitivity to and respect for the rights of aboriginal peoples on behalf of the governments, courts and indeed all Canadians.
Each Inuit land claim settlement with the Government of Canada contains provisions affirming the right to harvest with minimal governmental interference. These provisions provide for exclusive harvesting rights, including the explicit right to use and possess the necessary firearms to exercise this right.
Any proposed government restrictions should be subject to review by the operating bodies under the land claim agreements established by Canadian Inuit before the legislation is finalized and enacted. Consultation after the bill becomes law is hollow and meaningless. The bodies that need to be consulted are included in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and are the Inuvialuit Game Council; for Nunavut, Nunavut Tungavik Incorporated and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board; for Nunavik in northern Quebec, the Hunting, Fishing, Trapping Committee established by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, Makivik Corporation and the Kativik Regional Government. In Labrador, the Labrador Inuit Association is the proper body to be consulted in the absence of a land claim settlement.
.0945
[English]
The third part of my presentation is with respect to provisions in Bill C-68 that are supported by Canadian Inuit. Let me preface my comments by saying that as Canadian Inuit we view ourselves as Canadian citizens, as being part of this country, and therefore anything that affects Canadian society as a whole we intend to participate in. As such, we would wish to go with those areas of the proposed legislation required for the safety of all Canadian citizens in southern Canada.
Statements have been made by the Department of Justice that the motivation behind Bill C-68 is really to promote safety. Firearms are used more and more in crimes and suicides in the Inuit communities as well as in the south. However, firearms in and of themselves cannot be blamed for what is essentially a very complex set of problems that lead to crime and suicide. We believe this is a very simplistic approach to the complex set of problems in the increase in violent crimes in Canada.
Canadian Inuit do, however, support the principles of Bill C-68 that will deal with the high incidence of criminal offences involving firearms and address the following concerns: the enforcement of more serious penalties for those found guilty of crimes involving firearms, the enforcement of stricter regulations to reduce the sale of illegal firearms, and the enforcement of stricter rules to substantially restrict possession for firearms for purposes other than harvesting.
Basic firearm safety instruction should be provided as a prerequisite to the possession or use of a firearm. This safety training should recognize and take into account the special rights, interests and needs of the Inuit regions, which are necessary because of our unique culture. The federal government should be under a mandatory duty to provide instruction to all Inuit, particularly Inuit youth, so the lack of a Canadian firearms safety certificate does not prevent people from exercising their aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt.
Some of the provisions in Bill C-68 have an adverse impact on the way of life of the Canadian Inuit. The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, or ITC, is disturbed that the Government of Canada has committed to consult on the implementation of its new gun control laws but as yet has not fully consulted with Inuit about the substance of those laws and the impact they may have. The Government of Canada has an obligation under section 35 of the Canadian Charter of Rights to account for Inuit interests in legislation it proposes.
.0950
[English]
While clause 110 of Bill C-68 allows for the federal government to tinker with the law in its application to aboriginal peoples, the presupposition is that the law will apply to us. It is also clear that the proposed consultation will deal with implementation issues and not the provision of the new law.
ITC has been requested by the Inuit regions to take a lead role in the discussion process with this committee. Inuit have constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and settlement agreements that protect Inuit from unjustifiable interference by the Government of Canada that would affect the ability of the Inuit to hunt, trap, gather and fish within the Canadian Arctic.
Having said that, I feel that ITC's appearance before this committee does not constitute consultation with the Inuit of Canada by the federal government. Nor does this appearance replace consultation as required by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sparrow case.
The following remarks and the context within which they are delivered should not be viewed as acceptance of the provisions of Bill C-68 by the Inuit of Canada within the traditional territories of the Inuit community in Canada. The Government of Canada has a fiduciary responsibility to Inuit in Canada and we will not endanger the fundamental provisions of this special relationship.
The Chair: I hesitate to interrupt you, but I'm faced with a difficulty. Your brief has been distributed to everybody and I assure you that everybody will read it. We have only half an hour left in the meeting. You could continue reading your brief, but then we would have virtually no time for questions. I could give you five more minutes to finish referring to the parts of your brief you particularly want us to refer to. This is the difficulty I'm faced with. If you take five more minutes to bring your opening comments to a close then we would have time for at least one round of questioning. If you continue to read it, I doubt we will have any time. We would probably finish just in time for the end of the meeting.
Ms Kuptana: As you wish, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to refer to the comments about the licensing authorities, licensing provisions, education -
The Chair: We'll print the whole brief in the record. As I say, I've already read through it myself. Thank you.
Ms Kuptana: - fees, weapons, registration, Arctic Rangers, or economic impediments. I'll close my comments by taking you to the recommendations that we feel need to be addressed to protect the rights of Canadian Inuit.
We have four recommendations.
First, we are requesting a delay in the application of Bill C-68 until there are amendments that reflect the constitutional and legal obligations of Canada so our traditional Inuit and customary harvesting rights will be protected by our land claims agreements and by the Government of Canada as contained in section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act.
.0955
[English]
Second, the Government of Canada should respect the obligations under Sparrow and those that have been specifically undertaken in land claims agreements to consult with the Inuit organizations.
Third, Bill C-68 should contain a non-derogation clause for aboriginal peoples and not interfere with our aboriginal rights. This clause should state that the legislation does not derogate from and is not to be construed as derogating from the existing aboriginal treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to hunt.
Fourth, clauses of Bill C-68 that do not interfere with the rights of Inuit as protected in both land claims agreements are constitutionally protected and do not go against the application of the Sparrow case of the Supreme Court should be implemented by local Inuit authorities in each region.
That is the presentation from the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada.
The Chair: Thank you.
Will the committee agree that we shall print the entire brief as part of our record?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: We will now proceed to the rounds of questioning.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne.
Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Braidek, you said earlier in your presentation that Bill C-68 imposed restrictions on the hunting and fishing rights of the Inuit. I'd like to know where you read that in the bill.
In my opinion, there is no clause in this bill which restricts hunting or fishing by Inuit. I'd like to know where this allegation comes from and on which clause of the bill you base it.
[English]
Mr. Braidek: The requirements of the bill that would require an Inuit to have a licence to have possession of a gun, the requirements to register a gun, the requirements of the bill to pay fees to do both of those things, and the imposition of criminal sanctions for not having registered your gun or obtaining your licence together have the effect of imposing on the Inuit a fee and a licensing requirement for harvesting. That fee and the licensing requirement on harvesting pursuant to the Inuit of Nunavut agreement are improper.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: You come to the same conclusion as Mrs. Kuptana, who is beside you and who said that Inuit will now have to obtain a license from a government official to go hunting and fishing.
I'd like to tell you both, and you can comment on that afterwards, that in fact at the present time Inuit, like all Canadians, must obtain a firearms acquisition certificate from a government official to buy firearms. As well Inuit who practice hunting as a means of survival do not have now to pay any fee. The same clause can be found in Bill C-68.
.1000
[Translation]
Therefore, I'd like to know why you come and tell us now that you'll have to pay fees and that's something new. You would swear that you haven't heard of it before. In fact, you must already make the same application now, as everyone else in Canada who hunts or fish, or more precisely traps for a living as it is said in the bill.
I'd like you both to give us your comments. Why, suddenly, are you saying it would be outrageous to go and see a government official when you have, anyway, to do it now even to get a firearms acquisition certificate?
[English]
Mr. Braidek: The firearms acquisition certificate only applies to new weapons, so this bill would be an additional requirement on weapons that have been in use for some time. The Inuit are not a wealthy people. Weapons have been in use for many years.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I am sorry, sir. I don't want to interrupt you, but I just have one comment. With regard to the firearms acquisition certificate, it has been in existence since 1978. So, the Inuit too had to conform to that requirement all that time. They certainly have bought firearms since 1978.
[English]
Mr. Braidek: Yes, I acknowledge that many of the weapons have been in use since before that time. This is an additional requirement. This is a new licence, a new fee, and places further restrictions on them.
Ms Kuptana: Maybe Mr. Gladders can answer that question, because he's an expert with respect....
Mr. David Gladders (Executive Director, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): I appreciate the member's comments.
There have been problems with the implementation and the use of the FAC within the Inuit community. These problems apply to things such as translation of the material and understanding of the FAC. I understand that there is a dispute between the Department of Justice and the people from the Nunavut region in northern Quebec.
Again, as Alan pointed out, the FAC applies generally to the purchase of new firearms or where a transaction is taking place. Within the Inuit community you're talking about people who have been using guns that have been around for some time, such as surplus Lee-Enfield rifles. The ability to purchase new rifles is not as frequent as you would find in the southern Canadian population.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I'll have one last question, Mrs. Braidek and Gladders. You are not Inuit. I suppose you're not employed by the community. Am I right?
[English]
Mr. Gladders: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Welcome to Ottawa and to this committee. I appreciate your presentation this morning. What concerns me gravely about what you have said this morning is that there has been a violation of the consultative process that ought to exist between the federal government and your people by way of agreements that are now in place.
To my mind, there are two issues in this bill. One is whether or not it's designed by design and will in fact reduce death by gunshots. There are many who feel that it won't. The registration of all firearms is not going to reduce the domestic incidents or the suicide incidents, because it doesn't address the cause of these problems.
.1005
[English]
That's one aspect of it. But what has emerged as a result of presentations here by the James Bay Cree and the Yukon delegation of Indian people, as well as your own, is something far more serious, I think, and that is whether or not the constitutional rights of aboriginal peoples are being violated by a lack of consultation between the federal government - the justice department in this case - and yourselves.
What I would like to ask you is, do you feel that your contractual, your constitutional rights are being violated by this bill as a result of a lack of consultation between your people and the justice department?
Ms Kuptana: Thank you for those comments. Just before I answer them, I want to state to the French lady - I don't know what her name is - that these two gentlemen are technical people from the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. They're here to answer technical questions that you ask of us.
To go back to your point, the answer is yes, our constitutional and legal rights are being compromised by the way in which this bill has been drafted. First of all, as I said in my presentation, the recognition and the affirmation of our aboriginal and treaty rights, as contained under section 35, have not being adhered to in the drafting of this bill. Inuit rights and aboriginal and treaty rights are not reflected in any way. There is no provision for future self-government agreements.
We're now in discussions with the government in negotiating self-government agreements with the Government of Canada. So it seems to me that there's one department that's able to negotiate us having controls and governance over certain parts of our lives while another part of the government is saying ``Well, we're going to impose these laws and these restrictions on aboriginal peoples''. They have not consulted us.
Whenever there is policy or legislation drafted in this country, it's often drafted with very little regard for aboriginal peoples. Bill C-68 is a prime example of how the government views aboriginal peoples.
I believe the drafting of Bill C-68 violates the fundamental human rights of Inuit and other aboriginal peoples in this country. By virtue of not considering Canada's obligations with respect to aboriginal and treaty rights, it is violating its own Constitution.
Mr. Ramsay: Has there been any consultation between the people you represent - in other words, the legally constituted elected representatives, whoever that might be, who represent your people - and the justice department on Bill C-68? Has there been any consultative process to any extent? Would you tell the committee what consultations your people have had with the justice department in the creation of Bill C-68?
Ms Kuptana: The proper consultative process in the Inuit community with respect to the proposed legislation, Bill C-68, is contained in our land claims agreements under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, the Inuvialuit Game Council, the Hunting, Fishing Trapping Committee of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement with respect to the Nunavut Inuit, Nunavut Tungavik Incorporated and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board. These are the proper bodies with which the Government of Canada should consult.
.1010
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: Has there been consultation?
Ms Kuptana: I am told that there has been some consultation. But having lunch and showing members of the Inuit public documents does not constitute consultation.
The Inuit consultation process is very specific, it's well defined in our land claims agreements, it is very democratic - and those are the proper bodies to consult with.
Mr. Ramsay: Have you been consulted by the justice department?
Ms Kuptana: No.
Mr. Ramsay: I have grave concerns about this. I think that we are a society governed by the rule of law, and once the law is in place, regardless of what anyone might think of it, it must be abided by.
My feeling is, if there has been a violation of the process of your constitutional rights, then we are continuing to aid and abet that violation through the continuing process of this committee. My grave concern is that I am sitting here aiding and abetting the violation of your constitutional rights simply by this process.
I have asked this committee to suspend its actions by way of a motion. It was declared out of order. I asked for a vote on it. The government side voted in favour of it. We on this side voted against the decision of the chair - and on we go. That's why I'm here this morning, and that's why you're here this morning.
But I have some grave concerns over the proper constitutional process, if you and others, as they have, submit testimony to us that there has been an improper process initiated to create a law of this land. So I would like your legal counsel to comment on that.
Ms Kuptana: Perhaps before my legal counsel comments on it....
What is happening here is that the fundamental human rights of the Inuit are not being respected. We are simply asking for the recognition that we are a hunting society and that, in most cases, we use guns in a safe manner.
We have given up a lot in terms of our society because we are a colonized people. I recognize that there are many different factors as to why there are problems with the use of firearms in this country. Some of those same problems exist in northern Canada. But there has to be a proper analysis of this special situation of Inuit and other aboriginal peoples and their need to use firearms for food. That is something that is very basic and very fundamental to our culture. I believe that this bill...and the Government of Canada violates their own parliamentary and democratic system because of the rule of law.
.1015
[English]
If implemented, I believe this proposed legislation will be a continuation of the colonial system that existed in the 19th century and that will continue to exist in Inuit society.
The Chair: Ms Kuptana, there's no doubt that we have to take very seriously your statement that your constitutional rights have not been respected. We already have the specific provisions from the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement with respect to consultation and hunting rights, and also from the Council for Yukon Indians. Their words are a little bit different from those of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, but in substance somewhat the same. But we don't have them with respect to the Nunavut Settlement Agreement or the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.
It would be helpful to us if we had the provisions from the Nunavut Settlement Agreement dealing with the consultation on hunting - just those sections. I'm wondering if, before Friday, somebody from your office could send those clauses that have the specific words. I'd be pleased if you would do it. Then, in preparing our approach to your submission, we would be in a better position.
Mr. Ramsay: I have a point of order. I had asked for the opinion of the legal counsel as well.
The Chair: Mr. Gladders, are you the legal counsel?
Mr. Gladders: No.
Mr. Ramsay: Oh, I'm sorry.
The Chair: Is Mr. Braidek legal counsel?
Mr. Braidek: I'm legal counsel for Nunavut and Tungavik. I am not aware of the specific requirements of consultation, so I'm afraid I can't comment at this time.
The Chair: I'm sure you have them. It's just for us to read the exact words.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Ms Kuptana, how many people do you speak for?
Ms Kuptana: As I indicated in my presentation, there are 40,900 Inuit in Canada. We live in four land claims regions in the western Arctic, in Nunavut, northern Quebec and Labrador, which is basically one-third of Canada.
Mr. Gallaway: We've had groups here from the Yukon and the Government of the Northwest Territories who have also talked about it from an aboriginal perspective. Does your territory in some way - I'm trying to put all of the geography together - overlap with the Northwest Territories and the Yukon?
Ms Kuptana: Yes. It's not only Inuit who reside in the Northwest Territories. There are many other peoples.
While there may be issues of common concern with respect to how this bill will affect aboriginal peoples in Canada, we come basically with an Inuit perspective.
Whenever legislation is drafted for aboriginal peoples in this country, it's usually drafted with the first nations community in mind. Inuit are often overlooked. This is one of the reasons why we are seeking special consultation processes as contained in the specific sections of our land claims settlements so that when policy is being created, when legislation is being conceived, when legislation is being drafted, there have to be discussions with the Inuit community prior to the legislation being submitted to Parliament.
.1020
[English]
Mr. Gallaway: You mentioned that there had been some meetings - you referred to them as lunches - with individuals or groups within your area. Is that correct?
Mr. Gladders: We provided some information to the technical team from the Department of Justice on our different contacts within the Inuit community. We also met at the officials level some time back to discuss ways in which our particular organization could be helpful within this process.
Mr. Gallaway: And is your organization one of the organizations that Ms Kuptana maintains is required to be consulted within the framework of the land settlement agreements?
Ms Kuptana: The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada is the national organization representing Canada's 40,900 Inuit in Canada. We have a board of directors, who are democratically elected. All of the presidents of the land claims organizations are members of our board of directors. The president, which is my position, is elected in a national election every three years by all Inuit in Canada 18 years of age and over. So it's a national organization. We represent all Inuit in Canada.
The Chair: If I understand well, under the land claims agreement the consultation must be between the Government of Canada and Nunavut, the Government of Canada and Inuvialuit, the Government of Canada and the James Bay Inuit and the Labrador Inuit, not with the ITC. I think you're not suggesting that the consultation be directly with the ITC, but with the group that signed the land claims settlement.
Ms Kuptana: As I stated in my presentation, we've defined the nature of the consultation we wish to have. We've said that the ITC has been designated the organization to deal with the Government of Canada on this issue, which the membership has the ability to do. All of those land claims organizations sit on the ITC board of directors, on our executive.
Mr. Gallaway: So what you're maintaining this morning is that there has been some type of consultation with individuals or perhaps groups in the community, but they're not the authorized groups or individuals. Is that correct?
Mr. Gladders: I wouldn't call it consultation. There have been some discussions and some community meetings have been held.
Mr. Gallaway: You are saying that consultation did not take place with the authorized groups. Does the act define ``consultation''?
Mr. Gladders: Which act are you referring to?
Mr. Gallaway: I'm talking about the acts to which -
A voice: The land claims itself.
Mr. Gallaway: Yes, the land claims settlements.
Mr. Gladders: The settlements are very specific about which organization should be -
Mr. Gallaway: But my question is, does it define the actual act of consultation?
Mr. Gladders: I'd have to take that under advisement. We'd have to check it.
Mr. Gallaway: All right.
Are you aware, Ms Kuptana?
Ms Kuptana: Under the land claims agreements, whenever there is an issue that affects the aboriginal and treaty rights of Inuit and other aboriginal peoples, those peoples of that region must be consulted.
Mr. Gallaway: So we know that some people have been consulted. You're maintaining that certain authorized groups have not been consulted. But does the act define ``consultation''?
What I'm asking you is - and let me be a little bit more specific then - in terms of a discussion or a dialogue, is that sufficient to amount to consultation within the terms of the settlement agreements, or is it something that's subjective?
Mr. Braidek: As far as I'm aware, within the Nunavut land claims agreement consultation is defined in different places within the context of that particular issue.
.1025
[English]
Mr. Gallaway: In terms of this legislation, it's a question of opinion as to whether consultation has taken place at this point.
Ms Kuptana: I think we've been very clear, Mr. Gallaway. We're saying that, from our point of view, we have a national perspective as a collectivity, as Inuit. We're saying that consultation has not taken place in the manner in which we wish to be consulted.
The Department of Justice may have done some consultations with the Inuit community, but we're saying that is not consultation. We have proper agencies, and whenever legislation or policy is being drafted in Ottawa and it affects the Inuit in Canada, we need to be informed and we need to be involved. In this case, there are very specific provisions in Bill C-68 that affect our very livelihood. We're saying that as far as this bill is concerned Inuit have not been adequately consulted and our rights to hunt are being compromised.
The Chair: In response, I want to assure Ms Kuptana that we will be taking these statements and your submission very seriously. We have heard from the northern Quebec Cree, who had the same point. We have heard from the Council for Yukon Indians, who had the same point. This afternoon we're hearing from other aboriginal groups. This certainly has to be dealt with.
As I said, it would help us if we could have your more specific provisions sent to the clerk, who will distribute them to all of us, so that in two weeks' time, when we'll be coming to a conclusion as to what to do about the bill, we'll be in a better position to respond to your very specific recommendations.
Ms Kuptana: Mr. Chairman, those agreements can also be obtained from the land claims secretariat at Indian Affairs and Northern Development within the federal government system. To facilitate the process, we would be willing to provide those specific provisions.
The Chair: Actually, I have the full claims in my office, having been responsible for some of them. But it would help if we got just the very specific provisions. Also, because a lot of the members of this committee are new members of Parliament since 1993, they weren't here at that time. So it would help us to deal with it.
The meeting stands adjourned.