EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, May 15, 1995

.1530

[English]

The Chair: Members of the committee, the Métis National Council is here and we have their brief. The Assembly of First Nations are not here yet, but I think we should proceed with the Métis' brief, then we'll do the AFN second. I will call the meeting to order.

We are continuing with our consideration of Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and other weapons. We have already in the room before us Gerald Morin, who is the president of the Métis National Council.

Mr. Morin, you can introduce the people you have with you. Our usual rule is that we try to have the witnesses stay to about 15 minutes with their opening statements. We have your brief, which was distributed to all members of the committee. You may read parts of it if you wish, or if you think you can read it all in 15 minutes, that's fine, too. Then we will go to Mr. Mercredi, when he comes in the room, after you finish your brief. There will then be questions to both of you at the end. The floor is yours, Mr. Morin.

Mr. Gerald Morin (President, Métis National Council): The members of our delegation include Christi Belcourt, member of the Métis Nation of Ontario, and Michel and Sue Bertrand. Both these individuals hunt, trap and live off the land, basically. They have a trapline in the Timmins area.

As president of the Métis National Council, I am pleased to present the Métis Nation's position on the federal government's proposed gun control legislation.

The Métis National Council represents the Métis Nation, the second-largest aboriginal population in Canada at the national level, composed of provincial affiliates representing the Métis Nation at the regional and local levels in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

The Métis Nation is made up of the Métis people, who are descendants of the historical Métis of the plains and northwest. The Métis have a long and honourable history in Canada. Métis were the backbone of the fur trade. Our ancestors opened up trade routes and hunted and trapped as a way of life. Métis founded the province of Manitoba. It was Louis Riel who ensured that responsible government and democracy were introduced to the west.

The Métis of Canada are a unique people, with aboriginal rights and status as one of the aboriginal peoples, as confirmed and recognized in the Constitution Act, 1982. As a people, we share the same social and economic conditions as other aboriginal peoples; conditions far worse than those of the general Canadian population.

We are still living with the legacy of the historic marginalization of the aboriginal people of Canada, socially and economically. We are still being excluded from equal and fair participation in Canadian society and the Canadian economy. This is being done - without consulting aboriginal people - through legislation and a whole range of rules, policies, attitudes and informal networks that we have only begun to understand.

The issue is whether or not it is within the power and authority of the federal government to enact legislation governing the ownership and use of firearms by aboriginal people. We also question the basis of those provisions creating a regulatory regime requiring our people to be licensed and to register their firearms.

Measures such as those you are considering today are premised on the assumption that to require licensing of gun owners and registration of guns will decrease the misuse and illegal use of firearms and reduce the incidence of death and injury involving the use of firearms for all Canadians, including aboriginal people and hunters from the United States.

We ask you to examine the success of the regulatory regime governing vehicle owners and cars. The requirement to license drivers and register vehicles has not decreased the misuse of vehicles nor the rate of accidents and deaths involving motor vehicles. Is the government suggesting the licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms will result in a decrease of misuse of firearms? Although the goal of other portions of the legislation is not completely without merit, the provisions we are here to discuss have become questionable, especially in their application to aboriginal people.

.1535

Regulating and criminalizing the traditional activities of hunting and trapping by aboriginal people is not a solution.

Aboriginal people are under a regulatory attack throughout North America. I am deeply concerned about the heavy burden that existing and proposed legislation places on our people, especially in light of the many existing provincial, federal and international regulations governing and directly impacting on our people.

Existing legislation already regulates and violates our aboriginal rights and way of life in requiring firearms acquisition certificates, hunting licences, and so on. Should our people exercise their right to hunt and not obtain a licence, they will be charged and fined.

European regulations have now regulated the sealing industry out of existence and destroyed a way of life for the Inuit.

Proposed European regulation of the fur industry currently threatens a way of life for aboriginal trappers and communities who depend on the fur industry - an industry which aboriginal people have always occupied and which is now being consumed by fox and mink farmers, who will not be negatively impacted on by the regulation.

Aboriginal people have not been consulted and my appearance before you does not constitute consultation on this regulation or the proposed gun control legislation. This assault on our people is destroying the fabric of our societies and the way of life we have struggled to maintain.

The Métis National Council does not reject the legislation in its entirety, but we cannot support it in its present form. Bill C-68 provisions on licensing and registration will impose unnecessary financial and other burdens on our people and will not address the intent of the legislation. It should not be applied to our people.

We are in agreement with the general intent of the legislation and many of its provisions, such as those dealing with punishment for crimes involving firearms, which is in line with the goal of reducing or eliminating the illegal use of firearms and incidents of violent crimes involving firearms. We have no difficulty with many of the provisions in the form of amendments to the Criminal Code and creation of a new Firearms Act, which we feel are sufficient to address the intended goal of the legislation. We do not object to the Criminal Code.

We have no difficulty with the mandatory minimum sentence of 4 years and lifetime prohibition against possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm, upon conviction of any of 10 specific violent offences with a firearm. We have no difficulty with the stiff penalties for illegally importing and trafficking in firearms, and other measures aimed at enhancing border control. We have no difficulty with the bans on the future importation and sale of .25 and .32 calibre handguns and those with a barrel of 105 mm or less.

We have some difficulty with the provisions requiring hunters from the United States to register firearms and obtain a licence, for the same reasons provided by other witnesses who have appeared before you. Such will have the effect of reducing the number of hunters using the many services provided by our people in our communities.

In light of the intent of the legislation, there are many areas where we feel it is unnecessary to legislate. The requirements to obtain a registration certificate for each firearm, at a starting cost of $10, and to obtain a firearms licence identifying the owner but not the firearms within five years, for an additional starting cost of $10, are onerous. The requirement for renewal of a firearms licence every five years at a cost of $60 has not been demonstrated to be necessary.

When the firearm is sold or transferred it must be registered to the new owner at a cost of $10. Our people traditionally loan, sell, borrow, share and hand down their firearms to neighbours, family and friends.

The estimated cost to set up such a registration system, according to conservative government estimates, is $85 million. Others estimate the cost could run anywhere from $500 million to $1.5 billion, to set up such a registration system. The burden of administering such an elaborate registration system will fall to the provinces; and members are aware of the positions held by many of the provinces.

.1540

Often the most expensive item a Métis person may own is a firearm. This firearm is an integral part of our traditional way of life and our right to hunt for food. Métis are at the bottom of the income scale. According to the latest census, Métis had an average income of $16,164, 33% less than the Canadian average of $24,000. Close to 75% of Métis had yearly incomes of less than $20,000 in 1990. This low-income pattern and high rates of unemployment and dependency on social assistance are shared with other aboriginal peoples. Our people cannot afford to bear the financial burden of legislation intended to provide a false sense of security to Canadians.

We are also extremely concerned about the criminalizing of our people because of non-compliance, in addition to imposing fines for violations or failure to comply. The result will be the punishment of our people for carrying on a traditional way of life. The legislation flies in the face of the government's commitment to work in partnership with aboriginal peoples towards improving economic and social conditions, since it will only impose costs on the traditional activities of harvesting, such as hunting and trapping.

It has not been shown to the satisfaction of aboriginal people and other Canadians that the proposed registration system will deter the illegal use of firearms or rate of violence involving firearms. With all due respect, it is unacceptable that the Minister of Justice should attempt to impose additional burdens on aboriginal people and other Canadian taxpayers, who are calling for a halt to unnecessary government regulation, spending and increased taxation in the form of well-intentioned regulation.

Our concerns about the proposed legislation are shared by other aboriginal groups, as most of our people continue to hunt for food as a way of life and continue to do so in the face of increasing regulations and legislative requirements.

About the government's constitutional and fiduciary obligations to aboriginal peoples and our aboriginal rights, including the right to hunt and the inherent right to self-government, it is our position that only aboriginal governments or communities have the authority to enact and administer regulatory provisions over the ownership and use of firearms.

The Minister of Justice has directed that specific consultations be established to provide aboriginal peoples with the opportunity to voice their concerns and to identify outstanding issues to be addressed. A major problem is the lack of resources, which makes it impossible for us to consult with our people, although possible for justice officials to consult with some aboriginal communities. Our concern is that most Métis and aboriginal communities in Canada have not been consulted in the development of this legislation and will not participate in the development of proposed regulations.

The federal government has committed itself to developing a more comprehensive process for consultation on decision-making that directly affects Métis people, but it has violated its fiduciary responsibility to Métis by introducing the legislation without prior consultation with Métis. Justifiably, we do not have a great deal of confidence in department officials implementing the changes suggested by aboriginal people nor in establishing the regulations governing our people. Such a process is unacceptable. We have been elected by our people to advocate for the best interests of our people and it is our position that it is the elected aboriginal government representatives who should be doing the consulting on any regulations directly impacting on our people.

The proposed legislation and process for consulting aboriginal peoples does not respect Métis aboriginal rights. This can only be done through our direct involvement in the development of legislation and/or regulations impacting on the rights of our people.

In its present form, the proposed gun control legislation limits the rights of aboriginal people to hunt as a way of life and for food - a right we have maintained for generations. Clearly, this legislation flies in the face of the government's commitment to implement the inherent right to self-government. The proposed legislation is an unjustifiable interference with and flagrant infringement of constitutionally protected aboriginal rights.

The development of regulations governing our people has not taken into account Canada's constitutional and other obligations and commitments to aboriginal peoples. The focus, rather than being on regulating and violating the rights and lives of aboriginal people, should be on acknowledging and implementing the inherent right to self - government.

Further, the legislation violates the government's commitment to building a new partnership with aboriginal peoples based on trust, mutual respect, and participation in the decision-making process on matters that directly affect our lives.

The regulation of aboriginal citizens and their firearms rightfully belongs to aboriginal governments and aboriginal communities. We are willing to sit down on a government-to-government basis to discuss the need for any legislative or regulatory provisions concerning the use of firearms by our people. Let us do what we feel is necessary in regulating firearms held by our people in our communities.

.1545

Métis governments and people must be empowered to manage and administer any regulations directed at our people. This is the only way to take practical steps to implement the federal government's obligations and overcome the ``marginalization'' that has characterized relations between Canada and the Métis Nation for so long.

Our people must play a key role in every step of the process beyond mere consultation. Our people and their elected representatives must be directly involved in the development of...and agree to any regulations or measures governing our people.

As with the federal government, our governments are in a position to play a major role in consultations, amendments, developing regulations and administration of the proposed legislation as it applies to our people. Aborginal governments and community representatives and their representative organizations are in a position to provide input at every stage of the process, provided we have adequate support.

As a representative of one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, I wish to make it very clear we would only support legislation or regulations that aboriginal peoples are in agreement with. Our people do not support the legislation in its present form.

It is Canada's responsibility to ensure that aboriginal peoples are afforded the full measure of human rights and freedoms without hindrance or discrimination and to be consulted in good faith, with the objective of achieving our agreement or consent, whenever consideration is given to legislation or administrative measures which may affect us directly. This is clearly stated in the United Nations Convention 169 on the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, which received a majority vote of the Canadian delegates and which Canada has yet to ratify.

The proposed legislation and accompanying regulations will impact our people directly and must be drafted with the direct and full participation and final consent of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. This has yet to be done.

Finally, we are not asking for an exemption from the proposed gun legislation. The Government of Canada has a fiduciary responsibility and does not have the power or authority to regulate our constitutional and aboriginal rights. This legislation, as a matter of law, rights and constitutional authority, cannot and will not apply to the Métis Nation.

Gun control laws and regulations will only apply to the Métis Nation if we consent, and this will only occur through the Métis Nation passing its own laws and regulations on gun control and administering their application to our people and in our communities. Such could only be done through our own internal law-making processes or by entering into co-management agreements with federal and provincial governments. The federal government's commitment to promoting co-management agreements between aboriginal peoples and federal and provincial and territorial governments supports this latter position.

We are prepared to engage in a process with federal and provincial governments to put in place gun control measures as they would apply to our communities. We are willing to negotiate the terms of the regulatory regime that will apply to our people and our communities.

We are simply exercising our rights. We cannot compromise our fundamental principles and rights on an issue such as gun control.

We trust this committee will consider our position and the government will address the concerns raised.

The Chair: Mr. Morin, you stay at the table for questions later.

Now I invite to the table the Assembly of First Nations, represented by National Chief Ovide Mercredi, who may bring with him whatever advisers and colleagues he may wish.

Mr. Mercredi.

Mr. Ovide Mercredi (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations): ...[Inaudible - Transeditor].

The Chair: They finished their submission and you were both invited together as a panel, not to comment on each other's work, but to give your briefs one after the other. Actually, I was going to call on you first, but when the meeting was to start, for one reason or another, which I don't criticize, you weren't here, so we started with the Métis National Council. Now we are asking that you give your submission and then we'll allow people to address questions to either one of you as they wish.

I understood you were advised...you're both here separately, but we're hearing you together because we were strapped for time.

Chief Mercredi: [Inaudible - Transeditor]

.1550

The Chair: I understood you were advised. You're both here separately, but we're hearing you together because we were strapped for time.

Chief Mercredi: [Inaudible - Transeditor]

The Chair: I have a hard time hearing you.

Chief Mercredi: [Inaudible - Transeditor]

The Chair: You can do that.

Chief Mercredi: [Inaudible - Transeditor]

The Chair: They aren't. The instructions that went from this committee to both groups - and by the way, we've done this with several other organizations - are that we would hear two groups this afternoon, as we heard many groups this morning - all separately. We've done that on other days as well. I understood that the clerk advised both the Assembly of First Nations and the Métis National Council that we were hearing two groups this afternoon.

Mr. Morin, is that correct?

Mr. Morin: No, I wasn't so advised. I have similar concerns as well, because as Ovide correctly points out, we represent the Métis Nation in Canada.

The Chair: I know you do.

Mr. Morin: We want to make our presentation separately and distinctly. I think the First Nations of Canada, whom he represents, also deserve to be heard distinctly. So we would like to make our presentation, go to a question-and-answer period, make comments, and be able to complete our presentation and our discussions with the standing committee. Then you can have your discussions with the First Nations after we're done.

The Chair: I see. Our intention was that we don't confuse the two of you. We know you're the Métis National Council, and we know who the Assembly of First Nations is.

I presume in your case - as with in all the other panels we had - you were instructed you would be invited here this afternoon. If you weren't so instructed, then I'll have to look into that. That surprises me. I thought you knew this.

By the way, it has nothing to do with confusion. We're not confused. We know you represent the Métis and Mr. Mercredi represents the Assembly of First Nations. But we're short of time, and we've done that in many cases. The chiefs of police came here with the Association of Chiefs of Police, who are the men on the front line and not the chiefs. As a matter of fact, they're the union that is often opposed to the chiefs.

Ms Torsney, on a point of order.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): Just as a point of clarification, we had separate and distinct provinces come at the same time. We've also had separate and distinct groups, such as the Northwest Territories outfitters, with another group of people from another part of Canada, representing their own associations, people who came and made their presentations one after the other. We directed our questions specifically to them. There was no confusion as to which group we were talking to.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think that putting people together or not putting them together will not change anything to the quality of what we can accomplish. Given the circumstances, since the witnesses are really important people for our committee considering the information they bring to us, I would suggest that we proceed as they wish, because they will feel more at ease that way.

The Chair: I have nothing against your suggestion but may I remind you - you were not present maybe but representatives of your party were there when we decided to proceed that way.

We can follow your suggestion but we only have till 3:30 p.m. We could continue with the Métis representative until 4:30 p.m. and hear after that the Assembly of First Nation for a fixed period. We will have to limit the duration of our question period.

In general, with panels, we ask questions to both groups. I thought our clerk had made sure the two groups were fully aware of that but Mr. Morin says that it is not the case and it seems that Mr. Mercredi said the same thing. I do not understand why.

.1555

[English]

We'll have to look into this further. Both Mr. Morin and Mercredi have said they weren't informed as to this format. We'll have to investigate that. I don't personally go around and do those negotiations, or those arrangements.

We could hear one after the other, but there'll be limited time for questioning. Both groups will have a chance to give their briefs separately, but we won't have the same amount of time for questioning.

Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine): We should probably accommodate the two groups in question, the Métis National Council and the Assembly of First Nations. We should have a presentation made by each group and separate questioning. We should probably agree to their request and we could probably make it up in extra time here this evening.

The Chair: We won't be able to have extra time here, because we have further meetings tonight, and we have a vote. We had scheduled from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. but we can still do it in that way. If it is agreed, we'll put our questions to Mr. Morin and at 4:30 p.m. we'll hear from Mr. Mercredi.

We will have just one round of questioning in this case.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Morin and your companions, I have to tell you that I was quite interested by your brief. You may understand that as a member for the Bloc Québécois, I'm quite sensitive to your arguments when you say that you wish to legislate yourself in all matters of importance to you, including legislation concerning gun control.

But before talking about the problems that you mentioned, I would like to get some more information. You see my anscestor had settled in the North West Territories at that time and he knew Louis Riel, but as for me, I am not very familiar with your daily life. As well, I know that in other parts of Canada, guns are usually associated with violence but I'd like to know if in the Métis Nation you find the same violence associated with guns and, if that is the case, could you please tell us more about that subject? At the same time you might tell us about your customs relating to the use of firearms and the transfer of firearms between living persons and from one generation to the next?

[English]

Mr. Morin: As with other segments of society, we do have instances where firearms are used in the commission of crimes and there's also accidental use of firearms. It's no different from mainstream society. I think in our presentation we said we support certain sections of the proposed legislation and we outlined some of those sections in our presentation. Perhaps there could even be other discussions in the future on how we can enhance those types of provisions, or maybe even add more, to the whole issue of gun control to prevent accidental use of firearms or the use of firearms in the commission of crime.

That's the gist of our presentation. We fail to see how a registration system and gun licensing system would prevent the accidental use of firearms and also the use of firearms related to crimes. We support clauses of the legislation, as far as that goes, but not the registration and licensing system.

As far as transfer of firearms goes, you raised a very good point there. Traditionally, in Métis communities, a gun is probably one of the most important possessions we can have in the household. It's not only used as an item to hunt for food, to trap and overall to support the family...but also the gun represents something quite important. It's usually something to which we attach a lot of value. Usually when members of one generation get older they pass their firearms on to those in the younger generation, people within their family, or friends and neighbours. That's an important part of our tradition. Even if the firearm ceases to have any use as a firearm in terms of hunting and trapping, it's still kept in the family for one generation to the next as a replica, something that indicates it was an important part of our tradition and belonged to someone in our family, one of our descendants. That's an important tradition in our communities and we're very, very concerned about the legislation.

.1600

The legislation is very broad when it comes to transferring firearms. Of course, the existing firearm owner, as you know, has to notify the proper authorities that they are transferring the firearm. And, of course, the person who acquires the ownership of the firearm also has to register the firearm once again.

We're really into the business of transferring firearms - whether giving, lending or selling firearms to other people. I'm very, very concerned that re-registration has to take place. I don't think a lot of our people will take those steps. A lot of people won't understand the law. A lot of our people are intimidated by legislation, formal applications and so on.

You also have to remember that literacy is an issue within our communities. I don't think you should assume Métis people automatically have university educations, or can all read and write. Many of our people cannot read and write. There are many, as I've said, who are intimidated by the formal documentation and will simply opt out; will not respect the registration requirements when it comes to the transfer of firearms. That's going to create a serious problem in our communities. As I've said, it will criminalize our people for non-compliance with the legislation.

I want to point out to you that in your background information on firearms control produced by the Department of Justice, it indicates that the transfer of firearms within the country without proper registration, without proper procedures having been followed, is an offence and will result in a minimum one-year prison term...if prosecuted on indictment. That's pretty serious for someone who doesn't really go out of his or her way to violate the legislation but because of our culture and our tradition - many of our people are not into reviewing statutes and regulations or have a problem with reading and writing, or are simply intimidated by the official documentation - will violate the statute and therefore will be liable to imprisonment for a term of one year.

I also want to point out that registration and licensing are an important component of the legislation, but on the other side of the coin an important cornerstone of the legislation is also giving the state the power to take away - deny or take away - our use of firearms. This provision and the offence created by refusing to register a firearm because of a transfer are a good example. The proposed legislation gives the courts the discretion to prohibit the offender from owning a firearm for up to 10 years. Even if there were no prison term, if people live off the land, they trap and hunt and do not fulfil the registration requirements because of transfers, which are an important part of our traditions and culture, they can be denied the use of firearms for 10 years and denied exercising their culture, their way of life and living off the land.

[Translation]

M. de Savoye: Mr. Morin and Mr. Chairman, thank you.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): At the bottom of page 4 of your presentation, the second-last paragraph, you state:

The federal government has committed to developing a more comprehensive process for consultation on decision-making that directly affects Métis people but has violated its fiduciary responsibility to Métis by introducing the legislation without prior consultation with Métis.

In order to meet their fiduciary responsibility, what kind of consultation process do you feel the justice minister or the justice department ought to have entered into, prior to the submission of Bill C-68 to the House of Commons?

.1605

I note there's a provision in the legislation that gives the authority to the federal government to consult aboriginal people in putting in place regulations that are appropriate for aboriginal peoples and communities. But that's definitely not good enough, because the legislative framework will be in place. By enacting regulations, cabinet certainly cannot overrule legislation that's passed in the Parliament of Canada.

So we have a fundamental problem with the legislative framework as it's being proposed. In order for the federal government to meet its fiduciary obligations and meet its red book commitments saying they will consult with us in any decision-making processes on matters that directly affect our lives, what ought to have happened is there should have been comprehensive consultations with the aboriginal peoples of Canada and the Métis nation on the legislation as it was being proposed. That should have happened a long time ago. It just never happened.

Also, I noticed in this document I just read to you, in Saskatchewan, for example, they list the different organizations they have consulted with on the legislation or the whole issue of gun control. They have the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan registered on there. At the time, I was the president of the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan. We sent a representative to a hotel downtown in Saskatoon where there were about 150 other groups and officials. The Minister of Justice sat down at the table and spoke to us for about two minutes. That was the extent of the consultations that took place with the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan. By far, that's inadequate consultation.

From our point of view, I think serious consideration has to be given before the legislation is introduced for the final time and before it comes into force. There have to be major consultations with aboriginal people on the issue of gun control. And that has not happened.

Mr. Ramsay: We're told by not only the justice minister but his assistant deputy minister that consultation has in fact taken place and is ongoing. Can you tell the committee to what extent consultation has taken place and what type of consultation is ongoing?

Mr. Morin: As I said, in many cases there's been no consultation with Métis people, and in some cases very limited consultation. I gave you an example just now of the consultations that took place with the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan. There are many provincial Métis associations in the provinces that were not consulted at all. The Métis National Council was not consulted at all. So there's been almost no consultation at all with the Métis Nation on the legislation, or on any matter relating to gun control.

Mr. Ramsay: What do you make of the assurances we've been given that this kind of consultation has occurred?

Mr. Morin: I submit to you that there have been extremely limited consultations.

Mr. Ramsay: Is it sufficient to fill the legal obligations of the federal justice department?

Mr. Morin: No, not at all.

Mr. Ramsay: Why do you say that?

Mr. Morin: The federal government has a constitutional and fiduciary responsibility to consult with Métis people and aboriginal people on measures that are going to have a direct and severe impact on the lives of our people. Canada has that legal responsibility.

Also, as a matter of politics, they've made that commitment in the red book, where they've said - and I've said it in my brief - that they are committed to building a new partnership with aboriginal peoples based on trust, mutual respect and participation in the decision-making process on matters that directly affect our lives. Quite honestly, I can't think of any matter that more directly affects the lives of our people than legislation having a severe and negative impact on hunting, fishing, trapping and living off the land.

Mr. Ramsay: Perhaps you exaggerate a little bit with the two minutes. Perhaps it was half an hour of consultation in Saskatoon. Is that not enough to justify the legal requirements the federal government has under this fiduciary responsibility?

Mr. Morin: No. I stand by my earlier statement, but even it was for half an hour it would still be severely inadequate. Our people have representative structures at the national, provincial, regional, and local levels. There are distinct Métis communities which exist in Canada. Our people live in rural Canada and isolated communities in urban centres.

.1610

We can hardly say any of our people have been consulted whatsoever. There have been no consultations with our people on gun control.

On the issue of consultation, we got into a debate here and took up 15 minutes of our time in the standing committee on who was supposed to make presentations when. That's why I make a point in my brief that for us to come here for an hour and a half to make a presentation, engage in a dialogue with the members of the standing committee, who are charged with the mandate of reviewing gun control, does not constitute consultation with the Métis Nation.

Mr. Ramsay: Let me go on to two other issues, if I can, within the time that's left. To what extent do the Métis now comply with the firearms acquisition certificate requirements?

Mr. Morin: To be quite honest with you, I don't know. It's one of the issues that have been raised by previous witnesses, where there has been no objective assessment of how current gun control measures work in Canadian society. So we have no empirical information out there to tell us that the existing measures do work or don't work. I don't know that myself. So we don't have that information.

Mr. Ramsay: I have one final question. Under section 5 of Bill C-68, the chief firearms officer and his agents will have to go through a number of checks for people wishing to obtain a licence to own a firearm. It has to do with criminal record checks, dealing with violence, record checks under the Narcotic Control Act and other acts. They have to take cognizance - they call it ``regard'' - for any mental health problems the applicant has. Also, it sounds like a neighbourhood background check to determine if there's any history of violence.

I've asked this question of the outfitters and guides. How many of your people do you think will be ineligible as a result of that check?

Mr. Morin: You raise a very good issue. I was reviewing the legislation and I'm very concerned. I had my concerns to begin with, but after having reviewed the legislation, I was even more concerned. Now we have another federal piece of legislation where you're giving the federal and provincial Ministers of Justice the authority to appoint officials who have legal and judicial powers. Instead of just having police officers and conservation officers we have real difficulty with, especially out in the field - and there's been a lot of confrontations between our people and those officers - you're adding another officer, called a ``chief firearms officer''. One will be appointed for each province by the provincial Minister of Justice and one will be appointed by the federal minister for a territory or region within the province.

I am very concerned about this chief firearms officer, because in reviewing the legislation...he has broad, sweeping powers and authority; an incredible amount of discretion within the bill. I don't have to come here with volumes and volumes of reports and documents to show the terrible and sad history that our people have had in confrontations in our dealings with the criminal justice system. That's well documented, and I think we can all take note of that.

Here we are now, as far as we're concerned, adding another layer and another bureaucracy to the criminal justice system that is going to operate further as part of that criminal justice system, which doesn't work as far as Métis people are concerned. You're adding an officer who is going to have these incredible powers, in my view, to play God with our people. I have my suspicions that many of the chief firearm officers or the registrars will not be aboriginal people. Many of them will not be. They have this broad, sweeping power.

Clause 5, which you raised, is a really good example. First of all, clause 5 says he or she shall determine whether someone is eligible for a licence under section 736 of the Criminal Code. So they will have to satisfy themselves that they have not committed certain offences under the Criminal Code in the past. That's the first requirement.

.1615

The second one is to determine whether the person has some sort of mental illness. I have some very big concerns about that clause. If someone has difficulty in their marriage and has gone to see a marriage counsellor in some sort of clinic or institution, does that mean it gives the authority to the chief firearms officer to say, ``You're not mentally stable, therefore I am going to deny you a licence''? It gives them broad sweeping powers.

The one that is even broader and which is a catch-all clause as far as I am concerned, is paragraph 5.(1)(c), which says essentially a chief firearms officer can deny you a licence if you have a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person. You have to read the entire legislation together. One thing I've learned in law school is that you have to read the whole piece of legislation together.

Basically, the applications will be forwarded to the chief firearms officers. Under clause 53 of the legislation, it also says that a chief firearms officer may require an applicant for a licence to submit such information in addition to that included in the application as may reasonably be regarded as relevant. That's pretty broad. Essentially it means they can ask you for anything, I think.

It gives broad, sweeping powers to the chief firearms officer and under subclause 53.(2) it says without restricting the scope of the enquiries that may be made with respect to an application for a licence, a chief firearms officer may conduct an investigation of the applicant, which may consist of interviews with neighbours, community workers, social workers, individuals who work or live with the applicant, spouse, former spouse, dependants or whomever in the opinion of the chief firearms officer may provide information pertaining to whether the applicant is eligible under clause 5 to hold a licence.

They enumerate a number of people they should probably talk to, but it basically gives them the power to talk to whomever they want. My concern is that under paragraph 5.(2)(c), about having a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence, this chief firearms officer can say, I spoke to five people and one person can recall a time when you guys were having a few beers and you attempted to give him a slap or something like that. If you can document five or six instances like that, then as far as I'm concerned, the legislation gives the authority to that person to refuse you a licence.

As I've said, our exposure to the criminal justice system has been a very negative one. Many of the people - police officers, conservation officers, and now you're adding chief firearm officers - will have all of this broad discretion to refuse our people a licence. It concerns me a great deal, because under the legislation the chief firearms officer and the registrar have the power to deny you a licence or a registration and have the power to revoke your licence and registration.

I am very concerned about the entire framework of the legislation. I doubt very much that many of our people will become chief firearms officers. It will be part of the criminal justice system. It will be police officers, for example, who can enter the home of our people and inspect basically whatever they want and seize guns, documents, whatever they want, without warrants. I am very concerned about that.

People who sit in Ottawa and some of the urban centres across the country can say, but we have Charter rights. The reality for those of us who grew up in the hard reality of our communities is that Charter rights don't mean very much.

We were told, for example, that police officers do not have the authority any more to stop you unless they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe you have committed an offence, are committing an offence, or are about to commit an offence. You can go to many aboriginal communities or major urban centres in which there is a fair concentration of aboriginal people and police officers don't have any regard for that. They'll stop you even if you're driving as straight as can be and are respecting and observing the law as much as possible. They have no regard for Charter rights.

My concern is giving that kind of power and jurisdiction to police officers in this legislation is going to mean an abuse of power and authority. They are going to be able to walk into any of our people's houses and seize our guns and seize documents. I think it is just another sad addition to the criminal justice system and its unfair treatment of our people.

.1620

The Chair: Mr. Morin, you're absolutely correct when you say a presentation before this committee is not to be considered as consultation between the government and the presenting group. We are a parliamentary committee, which is a branch of the legislative side of the Government of Canada. We're not the government, i.e. the executive or administrative branch. Consequently this is not...while it's an opportunity for you to express your views to a parliamentary committee, it's generally not considered consultation as generally understood.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): My question initially will deal with this whole business of fiduciary duty. I assume you are not claiming this fiduciary duty arises as a matter of operation of treaty. I'm talking about a treaty between the people you represent and the Government of Canada. Is that correct?

Mr. Morin: It is not an easy question to answer. Some Métis people and Métis leaders do maintain that treaties have been entered into between the Métis Nation and the Government of Canada. That's a whole new discussion, but they would maintain that under those treaties there are fiduciary obligations by the federal Crown to Métis people.

Mr. Gallaway: Then can we say as a general rule the fiduciary duty that exists, that you're maintaining exists, as between the government and the Métis, arises as a result of the Constitution, or is it a result of the Sparrow case, which effectively interprets the Constitution?

Mr. Morin: Both are the result of a long history of dealings between the aboriginal people, including the Métis nation, and the Government of Canada, and prior to them the Government of the United Kingdom. I think it's because of those history of dealings, common law doctrines, constitutional law doctrines, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, that the courts have ruled there is a fiduciary responsibility owed by the federal government to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Section 35 reinforces and confirms that. The Sparrow case, in the Supreme Court of Canada, of course has also confirmed that.

Mr. Gallaway: In light of this fiduciary duty and the fact that you have studied law, would you explain what you regard as being consultation.

Mr. Morin: It's hard to say exactly in what form or how those consultations would manifest themselves, but I think you have to have regard for our principles. As a matter of principle, because of the constitutional and fiduciary responsibilities of the federal government, there have to be in-depth, major, comprehensive consultations with the aboriginal peoples of Canada. We have representatives at many levels. There are representatives at the national level, the provincial level, in regions. There are Métis representatives in our communities too.

We can't discuss this in a vacuum. You have to discuss it in the context of those responsibilities of which we spoke, commitments to the implementation of the inherent right of self-government. We do have long-established, democratic structures in place within our Métis governments that have evolved over a long period of time. They are well established.

The federal, provincial and territorial governments have to be involved with the legitimate representatives of the Métis Nation on a comprehensive basis on the issue of gun control. If the federal government is going to be passing gun control, and if we consent to it...that's something that has to be determined through the consultations, because I think we can safely say that currently there is no consent. I think there also have to be discussions on what appropriately falls under federal or provincial jurisdiction and what appropriately falls under the jurisdiction of aboriginal governments.

You all heard, of course, in the past week or so there was a secret and leaked document The Ottawa Citizen was able to get its hands on. Even though it's inadequate, in our view, and we're not happy with the document, which is another issue altogether, I want to bring to the attention of the standing committee part of what's in that draft document on self-government.

.1625

Just to illustrate my point, it's the first two clauses under part I of that policy framework. It says:

The federal government recognizes the inherent right of self-government as an existing aboriginal right within the scope of section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982. The inherent right of self-government may also find expression in treaties. This recognition rests on the view that the aboriginal people of Canada have the right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal and integral to their cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and with respect to their special relationship to their land.

As I said on this particular matter of gun control and its potential negative impact of denying the right of our people to live off the land, to trap and to hunt, I can't think of anything that is more integral to our life than this issue.

Mr. Gallaway: About the fact that you maintain there must be consultation - and you've also talked about self-government - would you agree with me that if your nation does not agree with it, consultation is a meaningless concept? You have stated in your brief:

Gun control laws and regulations will only apply to the Métis Nation if we consent and this will only occur through the Métis Nation passing our own laws and regulations on gun control and administering their application to our people and in our communities.

Consultation is more than a discussion, or perhaps a long-drawn-out process of discussion. In your opinion, the Government of Canada cannot pass laws, whether it be gun control laws or anything else, unless you, as a self-governed first nation, agree to it. Is that correct?

Mr. Morin: We're a self-governing Métis nation. You have to take this given the political context, and particularly the recent history that has taken place in Canada. I and other people were participants in the Charlottetown round of discussions. The significant thing about that for us was that for the first time in the history of Canada all governments acknowledged and recognized the inherent right of self-government, and confirmed that.

Since that time, we've had two annual premiers' conferences where the premiers unanimously reaffirmed their support for the inherent right of self-government, their belief that it exists, and that it's a current constitutional right. The federal Liberal government has taken that position in its red book. It's confirmed it in the throne speech, and we're supposed to be well into implementation of the inherent right of self-government.

We can't achieve everything overnight, but certainly those matters that are at the core of our societies and that are integral to our way of life, such as hunting, trapping and living off the land, are matters that we would priorize in those sorts of discussions. So there would be discussions going on with aboriginal and Métis representatives, Métis governments, and the federal and provincial governments in a very intense and comprehensive way. Foremost, that should involve the whole issue of what, if any, gun control measures will apply with our people. So we're saying this cannot apply because it strikes at the heart of our societies and our communities.

Instead, they should be supporting and working with us in putting in place our own laws, regulations, and guidelines pertaining to the issue of gun control, addressing crime and accidental deaths taking place in our communities, and addressing the whole issue of co-management agreements. There's nothing wrong with federal and provincial governments entering into co-management agreements. As part of the framework of self-government, co-management agreements should be entered into with us as a Métis nation.

Mr. Gallaway: I just want to clarify a point. If consultation takes place and there is some form of self-government and you, as a first nation, do not agree with a law passed by the Government of Canada - because in your opinion it interferes with your way of life - are you telling me that is a shield to the passage of federal laws; that you are in some way exempt, immune or shielded from them?

Mr. Morin: I think you have to be very careful. When it comes to legislation and regulations that are going to have a severe impact on something that's integral to our way of life and is going to have an extreme negative impact such as this gun control legislation as we see it, and if it doesn't have acceptance in our communities, then as far as we're concerned it should not, cannot and will not apply. That's not only constitutional law and a right of our people, it's the reality.

I suppose if you want to test that reality you can go ahead with your legislation and start putting more of our people in jail. But that's not going to be the solution.

.1630

The Chair: Mr. Morin, I want to thank you and the Métis National Council for your appearance here today. I assure you that your views will be taken seriously by this committee. But we're not the government. We're a committee of Parliament. We have to deal with the legislation after we hear all the witnesses, and we will be passing, rejecting or amending the clauses as a result of the hearings that take place.

Thank you very much.

I would now like to call the Assembly of First Nations before the committee. The Assembly of First Nations is represented by national chief Ovide Mercredi. As I said earlier, Mr. Mercredi could bring whatever advisers or counsellors he wishes to sit at the table with him.

If you have a brief, you could read the brief; or you need not read the brief. If you don't want to read the brief, we will publish it completely in the record, and of course it would be distributed to all the members so they may read it themselves.

So Chief Mercredi, I would give you the floor and ask you to introduce the people you have with you. We have an hour. The full meeting was called from 3:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., so we can go on until 5:30 p.m. We would hope we would have enough time for questions and an exchange of views.

National Chief Ovide Mercredi: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have provided you a written copy of our submission that was translated into French.

My delegation consists of Chief Bill Erasmus, from the Dene Nation; Vice-Chief Allan Adam, from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians; Gord Peters, who is the regional chief from Ontario; and our legal counsel John Briggs. John Dantouze has joined us as well.

Mr. Chairman, I propose to read our submission and then turn the meeting over to my colleagues to make their opening comments from their respective areas. We'll try to stay within the parameters of the 15 minutes you have assigned to us.

The Chair: Very good. The floor is yours.

Chief Mercredi: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I welcome the opportunity to appear today before your committee on behalf of the first nations of Canada.

Unfortunately, many first nations and their representatives have been denied the right to appear before the standing committee. This is unacceptable. To deny first nations that wish to be heard on legislation significantly affecting their basic rights is a denial of fundamental justice.

The first nations I represent include both treaty first nations as well as those who to date have never entered into treaties with Canada. All first nations in Canada have aboriginal rights to hunt. Many also have treaties with Canada that specifically guarantee the continuation of their rights to hunt without interference from Canada. Those aboriginal and treaty rights are now part of the Constitution of Canada and are protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. It is our submission that certain provisions of Bill C-68, as now drafted, seriously interfere with the exercise of aboriginal and treaty rights and as such are unconstitutional insofar as they affect the first nations peoples.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at the outset let me be very clear about several important points.

.1635

First, the first nations of Canada share equally with the majority of Canadians a concern with reducing the incidence of violent crimes and enhancing the safety in their communities. Consequently we support many of the broad underlying objectives of this legislation.

Secondly, first nations do not object to all the provisions of Bill C-68. Indeed, most first nations people, like most Canadians, are supportive of those provisions designed to deal with the illicit traffic in firearms, to restrict paramilitary weapons and to increase the mandatory minimum sentences for persons convicted of using a firearm in the commission of an offence. These are problems of concern to all of us, and to the extent that Bill C-68 addresses such problems, first nations are supportive.

The third point, which I wish to emphasize at the outset of my submission, is that the first nations people of Canada, unlike other groups of Canadians, have unique rights, rights that are recognized and protected by the Constitution of Canada. As parliamentarians, you have a special responsibility to uphold the Constitution of this country and to ensure that Canada honours its obligations to first nations peoples.

As I have already indicated, the position of first nations is that certain provisions of the proposed legislation set out in Bill C-68 are an unjustifiable interference with constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt. I refer principally to the licensing and registration requirements applicable to rifles and shotguns, and related provisions dealing with storage, lending, handling and search and seizure of firearms and ammunition.

We believe those provisions of Bill C-68 would not survive a court challenge by the first nations, for the following reasons.

First of all, to the extent that treaty rights to hunt are implicated, such rights can only be changed with the consent of the treaty first nations involved, not by unilateral federal legislation. Bill C-68 interferes with the treaty right to hunt so seriously as effectively to constitute a denial of those rights. Such interference is contrary to the constitutional recognition and protection provided in section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

Secondly, to the extent that aboriginal rights to hunt are implicated, the proposed legislation does not meet the justification tests set down in the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sparrow case. In particular, the government has failed to consult adequately with first nations over this legislation.

In addition, the provisions of Bill C-68 dealing with licensing and registration requirements for rifles and shotguns, rather than causing the least interference with aboriginal rights to hunt, causes substantial interference with the exercise of such rights.

Mr. Chairman, there can be no doubt that this legislation would infringe on our aboriginal treaty rights. Equally, we believe certain features of Bill C-68 are quite clearly unconstitutional. What is at issue here for first nations is not simply a matter of some abstract or theoretical principle. What is at issue is the legacy and heritage of the people I represent, and for many of them their culture and their way of life.

It is important to note that the majority of on-reserve first nations people live in rural or remote communities. There are also some 50,000 to 60,000 first nations harvesters for whom hunting is both a central part of their culture and a vital and essential economic activity in support of themselves and their families.

The licensing and registration provisions of Bill C-68 will impose undue hardship on these first nations people. Those provisions are designed to deal essentially with the reality of southern urban Canadians, not the reality of northern remote first nations communities, for which people hunting, trapping and fishing are an essential activity to their very survival.

.1640

Mr. Chairman, our people don't use handguns to hunt moose. Our people don't use assault rifles to hunt goose. Our people use rifles and shotguns to put food on the table. This has been the case since long before Confederation.

Hunting is more centrally important to first nations people's culture and way of life than it is for most non-aboriginal people. First nations hunting practices are also significantly different. For example, first nations peoples share the success of the hunt with members of the community. They also freely lend their tools of the hunt, that is, guns and ammunition, amongst their family members, friends and neighbours. Unlike the southern urban child, the first nations youth is traditionally trained from an early age on the proper and safe handling of firearms.

Another real example is that in many northern communities during the winter months at their camp, firearms are not stored inside. If they were, the resulting condensation freezing would cause the firearms to misfire or malfunction.

Most northern first nations communities do not have the kind of safe storage facilities envisaged by this legislation, nor ready access to photographic facilities in order to comply with the licensing application requirements. There are not yet any firearms safety course materials in first nations languages, and many first nations people do not read or speak English or French.

Bill C-68 does not take into account these concrete realities facing many of the people I represent. This legislation will impose a complex and burdensome system of licensing and registration on first nations people notwithstanding the Minister of Justice's numerous assurances that the system will be user-friendly. For first nations, there is nothing friendly about either the system or its imposition on them.

Under this legislation, there are several penalties for even a first offence. As Chief Ignace Gull of the Attawapiskat First Nation stated recently in an article that appears in the Globe and Mail on May 1, 1995, the laws are going to make criminals out of our people, and they are not criminals.

Chief Gull went on to say:

I trained and taught my four boys at the age of five how to handle a shotgun and rifle. Everyone does that and now a 60-to-65-year-old man, who has been hunting all of his life, all of a sudden he has to take a gun safety course. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make a lot of sense to an elder or a man who has been handling firearms in a very safety conscious manner all of his life.

The article continues:

Proposed changes to gun control laws will make the buying, storing and registration of firearms even more complicated, expensive and potentially punitive than it already is. Under the proposed legislation, giving a single round of ammunition to an unlicensed person could result in a mandatory year's imprisonment for both the giver and the recipient.

Chief Gull said that from tradition and out of economic necessity, people at Attawapiskat continue to lend or buy firearms for people who do not have an FAC. Both are criminal offences punishable by up to five years in prison. Is it fair and just that people who have been lawfully exercising their aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt all their lives should become criminals simply by continuing to do what they've always done; indeed, must do out of economic necessity?

Given the severity of the penalties, the complexity of the system, and the practical reality of northern and remote communities, will the government be providing the necessary resources to facilitate the implementation of their legislation? Will they be providing photographic facilities, firearms safety course trainers, and the necessary training materials in first nations languages? Will these resources be provided on a timely basis and in sufficient numbers so that no first nations' person will be denied their right to hunt because of their inability to comply, through no fault of their own, with all the requirements being imposed by this legislation?

The offensive licensing and registration provisions of this bill impose real costs on our people for simply exercising their treaty and aboriginal rights. This effectively amounts to a tax on the exercise of our rights, and it's completely unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, last November, when the Minister of Justice announced in the House the government's plans for firearm control, his department issued a document entitled, ``Background Information on Firearms Control''. The document acknowledges that many aboriginal peoples have aboriginal treaty rights to hunt and trap.

Unfortunately, neither the constitutionally protected aboriginal treaty rights nor our culture and traditional values are reflected or respected by this legislation.

.1645

Furthermore, although the federal government has repeatedly stated it recognizes the inherent right to self-government of first nations, Bill C-68 provides no evidence of this recognition whatsoever.

Although I had urged upon the Minister of Justice a full consultation process with first nations prior to the introduction of Bill C-68, a limited consultation process has only just begun in the last few weeks. This almost after-the-fact approach to consultation does little to build new relationships with first nations based on trust and mutual respect, which his government promised during the last election.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the position of the Assembly of First Nations is that licensing, registration and related requirements for rifles and shotguns are unconstitutional because they unjustifiably infringe upon the constitutionally protected treaty and aboriginal rights of first nations. The legislation creates unnecessary hardship, especially for the people from the northern and remote communities. Ultimately, aspects of the legislation are simply unworkable, because they do not take into account the practical reality of these communities.

It is therefore the recommendation of the Assembly of First Nations that Bill C-68 be amended to provide explicitly for the immunity of first nations people, based on their treaty and aboriginal rights, from the provisions related to the licensing, registration and storage of rifles, shotguns and ammunition.

It is the further recommendation of the Assembly of First Nations that at the very least this committee recommend to Parliament that the licensing, registration and related requirements concerning rifles and shotguns not come into force with respect to first nations until this legislation has been amended to comply with constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights following a proper consultation process with first nations.

Ultimately, we are asking Parliament, through this committee, to do no more than uphold the Constitution of Canada and thereby ensure that Canada honours its obligations to first nations.

Now I will ask my colleague, Chief Allan Adam, to make the presentation on behalf of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians.

Chief Allan Adam (Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations): Thank you, National Chief Ovide Mercredi.

Mr. Chairman, members of the standing committee....

[Witness speaks in his native language]

That was just a simple introduction on who I am, where I come from, what my job is. The point is not one of you understood what I said. The same goes with the laws as our people interpret them in the communities. We have a great deal of documentation that is not understood adequately by the people it's supposed to govern and it's supposed to provide a basis of some sort of law and order for.

Here is some background information on the $5 agreement our first nations have with the Crown. A quotation from the prairie treaties that were signed with our people 100 or 125 years ago. A quotation from that, an assurance to first nations people...

...that your way of life will continue as you've always lived it. What I have offered here does not take away your living. You will have it then as you have now, and what I offer is put on top of it.

I continue with the quotation:

Now the whole burden of my message from the Queen is that we wish to help you in the days that are to come. We do not want to take away the means of living that you have now. We don't want to tie you down. We want you to have homes of your own and where your children can be taught to raise their children, and their children....

Understand me. I do not want to interfere with your hunting and fishing. I want you to pursue it through the country as you have heretofore done. You want to be at liberty to hunt as before. I told you we do not want to take that means of living away from you. You have it in you the same as before. On this, if a man, whether Indian or half-breed had a good field of grain, you would not destroy it with your hunt.

What was offered was they would still have their mode of living ``as long as the grass grows, the rivers flow''. We still have that $5 symbol, which is a binding contract between two nations.

The quotation above was from The Treaties of Canada with the Indians, by the Honourable Alexander Morris.

.1650

Again,

Her Majesty further agrees with her said Indians that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered and hereinbefore described.

That statement is basically what my foreparents signed a treaty under: the ability to carry on their life as they have always done, and to carry on that avocation as long as the sun shines, rivers flow, and grass grows.

Since that time we've had many sunsets, we've had many sunrises. Every day a new sun rises and the sun sets, more changes happen to our people; more changes we do not agree with. Our reason for being here is that we strongly believe our right to hunt as we have always done is protected by the treaties. Now we see these rights being further eroded.

When first nations people first obtained muskets from the traders, they had to work hard for the right to use them; and I mean damned hard. Some of these people worked two and three years just to get enough beaver pelts to pile them as high as the extended musket. It was two or three years of their lives just to obtain the right to provide a better living for their family.

That was back then. Almost 200 years later we see a big circle here. We see a reverse, but a repeat again, impinging upon our rights. Now it's not beaver pelts any more, it's paper we have to pile as high as the rifles we use.

Where does it stop? How do I tell an elder in Black Lake, Saskatchewan who knows no other way but the life his grandparents, his father and his mother taught him, no way but the land, who wants to continue to pass on that way of life to his young people, that with the passing on of your knowledge and wisdom you have to be aware of these laws and these papers; these laws that say you have to carry and pay for a piece of paper in order to carry a firearm, or to utilize it or lend it or whatever. In a way, when you really tell these elders about the implications of this law, they could feel they're hostages.

A good description by one of the elders not long ago was...he said governments through their actions, what they're doing, have put us just like in the bottom of this cup. We can't seem to get out no matter how hard we try. When we try to exercise our rights, the walls of the cup get higher.

That, my friends, is a point which is straightforward, it is open, it's honest. I must commend the national leader for making the strong points about of the constitutionality...and other legal ways in which these laws will affect us.

In closing, I'd like to remind you of our $5 deal with the Crown. We've lived up to our end of it. Now we just want the Crown to live up to it. [Chief Adam speaks in his native language]

Chief Mercredi: I now ask Grand Chief Bill Erasmus to make a statement on behalf of the Dene Nation.

Chief Bill Erasmus (Dene Nation): I would like to thank the chairman and members of the committee for giving us this opportunity to speak to you.

As members of the Dene Nation, we were hoping to have more time to have this opportunity before you. We wrote a letter requesting that there actually be a full day for you to listen to first nations peoples. I don't know if that message got through to you. It was sent to the chairman.

.1655

I wanted to give you a bit of an understanding of the relationship we believe we have with this country. As National Chief Mercredi has stated, it is unique. I can speak only from the way I understand it, from the Dene point of view.

We entered into two treaties in north. They are Treaty No. 8 and Treaty No. 11. The first was at the turn of the century, around 1899-1900, when gold was discovered in the Yukon and people had to go through our territory to get to the Yukon. The second was in 1921, when oil was discovered around Norman Wells. As you are probably aware, that oilfield is still quite alive today.

I'm making the point that people weren't too concerned about us until they came to get our resources. They were compelled to make treaty with us because of the Royal Proclamation, which stated you couldn't come into our territory unless we allowed you access.

So we do have two treaties. The question is what do they mean? To us, they're alive and living and we're in the process of keeping them in effect.

Until quite recently we remained on the land. We continued to live our own way and depended on our resources. It didn't become necessary for us to depend much on the Canadian government or Canada until around the time of the Second World War, when our fur economy began to subside. The world economy affected the fur economy for us and then we began to look at our treaties for support of our way of life.

It wasn't until then we realized, once we tried to get support from Canada, that Canada had quite a different version of the treaties. By the early 1970s, we felt the only way we could get our rights entrenched and put into effect would be to take Canada to court. That's what we did. If you look at the records, they talk of [Re: Paulette et al.], because it's one of the only cases in Canada where the British legal system in Canada recognizes oral evidence on a par with the written word. I want to refer to that case because in the end Judge Morrow ruled in our favour that Canada has a great deal of unfinished business with that treaty, and Canada has to attend to it.

I want to go to the legal records where some of older people spoke. We were quite lucky that our people were still alive. In the 1970s we had people who were actual signatories. We had chiefs who were still alive. We had interpreters. We had different people who were present at the treaty. Unlike some of the other treaties, where people just talk about what they felt happened, we had people who were actually there and were still alive. The courts came to our communities. They heard us out, and a judgment was made. I want to refer to some of that so you can understand the feeling we have.

I want to refer to Victor Lafferty, who was an elderly man at the time, an interpreter in Fort Providence. He mentions Conroy, the commissioner, and Lafoin, the chief. When Conroy asked Lafoin if he wanted to take treaty, Lafoin said:

Well, if we do, what I say about my country? This is my country. I would like to hunt all over as far as I can go. There's forts all around us now - Fort Rae, Simpson, Liard, Upper Hay - in fact, nearly everywhere I go, that's my country. If you don't stop us from hunting, we want to hunt just the same as before, the way we were making a living. Hunt big game, and fur and fish, birds, everything. And we don't want you to put us on a reserve.

.1700

He says, ``I'm an Indian. I don't read; I don't write. But still I know what you have done outside in the other provinces. You put the Crees on reserves and the country is so small, it didn't last long. They didn't have nothing to hunt and we don't want to be like that here''. ``Do all that'', Lafoin says, ``then I will take treaty''.

One of the elders, Michel Landry, at the same time says:

The commissioner went on to say as long as the earth is still here there shall be no more restrictions placed on the Indians in regard to hunting, fishing, etc.

The chief said:

You people say things like that, but you lie, so you'd better put it down on paper.

The commissioner returned to mention the sun and the river and said the government will not run back on their word. The treaty was interpreted again and it was at that time satisfactory to the chief, so he accepted the treaty.

All the witnesses stress the fact that it was only after complete freedom to hunt, to trap and to fish had been promised to the Indians that they accepted the treaty. Again, he goes on to say that:

On the last day at the handing out of the money the commissioner said: This money you are accepting will be taken as a token of peace between us and we shall be friends. The treaty, as accepted, was mainly for keeping peace between the white man and the Indian people.

The commissioner promised the people that this was their land. He said ``You can do whatever you want; we are not going to stop you; just do what you were doing before. Also the birds and ducks and things like that: just continue hunting as you used to before.''

This was a promise he made to the people, that we could go hunting and fishing and do whatever we wanted. That's the promise they gave. They talked about hunting moose and caribou, birds; anything. Nothing will change, they said; everything will be free to you people as it has been in the past; you people can hunt all you want, do what you want to do and have free lands like you used to; do whatever you want.

The people just kept on asking about hunting things such as birds and moose, and also trapping. Conroy promised the people they could do as they had done, nothing would change. Chief Wright kept asking them about a dozen times about the hunting and trapping. They said nothing would change. The Indians would keep on hunting as they used to. Nobody would bother them at all. That was the promise they gave to the people when they took the treaty.

The people asked about land, game, moose, trapping and stuff. They all said yes, yes. They never turned the people down at the time. That's why they took the treaty: because they promised free land, freedom of hunting, and everything. You can keep on hunting and fishing and trapping. It will be just as you did before. Nothing will change.

Yet the people didn't agree with what the government said. All we want, said the commissioner, is just that you take the treaty money. But the people said no.

Finally on the third day the bishop said the white people were not lying. They would keep their promise. ``They are telling you the truth.'' So the bishop started helping the treaty party. In those days people were 100% Catholic.

So they began to talk amongst themselves. The bishop was just like a god, so he must be telling the truth, they said. The bishop said the people in the government don't lie. He said they would be honest about the promises they gave the people. He said they should take it.

So they decided God was not lying. He told the people they should take the treaty. So they figured that he was God and God would not lie.

We have an affidavit from that bishop. It was made in 1937, because he was not happy with the way Canada was dealing with our peoples. He came before Canada with a written affidavit. In that affidavit he states:

I gave my word and honour that the promises made by the royal commission, although they were not actually included in the treaty, would be kept by the Crown, as the text of treaties 8 and 11, which have been brought from Ottawa, was not explicit enough to give satisfaction to the Indians who were afraid to be treated as the Indians of the prairies had been treated. The conditions of the north being altogether different, the following promises were made to the Indians by the royal commissioner in the name of the Crown.

They were promised that nothing would be done or allowed to interfere with their way of living as they were accustomed to, and as their antecedents had done. The old and destitute would always be taken care of. Their future existence would be carefully studied and provided for. Every effort would be made to improve their living conditions. They were guaranteed that they would be protected from white competition, especially in their way of living as hunters and trappers. They would not be prevented from hunting and fishing as they had always done, so as to enable them to earn their own living and maintain their existence.

.1705

It was only after the royal commission had recognized that the demands of the Indians were legitimate and it had solemnly promised that such demands would be granted by the Crown, and also after I had given my word of honour with the Hudson's Bay officials and the free traders and the missionaries that they could fully rely on the promises made in the name of Queen Victoria, that the Indians accepted and signed the treaty.

I think it's clear that our people were not on their hands and knees. They didn't ask Canada to come into our territory, or England on behalf of Canada. When they did, it was made clear that they did so on the premise that they would continue to live as they always did, that our own laws would apply, that our own jurisdictions would still be intact, and that people would have limited access and limited authority as to what they would do in our lands.

That's the way we see the treaty today. Most of our peoples are in discussions with Canada on how to put that into effect. We firmly believe we will put our own laws into effect. It's a matter of time.

I have a final quote here from one of our chiefs, who recently passed away. He also made evidence before the courts at that time. Chief Andrew Stewart is commenting on their feelings towards the country and the north. He's from Aklavik.

I talk my own language pretty good and from what I gather I have never heard an Indian say ``we gave our country to the government''.

I think that statement is still relevant today. The more you look at the record, the more we realize that Canada needed our assistance. They needed access to our lands. In order to entice us they gave us shells, nets, twine. They supported our traditional economy. They entrenched our way of living. They entrenched our nationhood.

Even so, in 1988, when we signed an agreement-in-principle in Fort Rae, Minister McKnight, on behalf of Canada, presented rifles to myself and other leaders in the north. He gave me a .30-30 rifle. To me that's significant. I think Canada recognizes the relationship we have. What am I to do with that rifle now?

Those are some of the things that are before us. I think we seriously have to understand what it means.

The last point people at home told me to mention is that that treaty also recognized our right to reciprocity for trade, barter and selling. Those are some of the things we still do, and guns are part of that. Canada doesn't have any jurisdiction to tell us how that's going to apply in our own areas.

Thank you very much.

Chief Mercredi: Now I will ask Chief Gordon Peters to make his presentation.

Ontario Regional Chief Gordon Peters (Assembly of First Nations): I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I bring greetings from the first nations leaders in Ontario. We passed a resolution in our assembly in February rejecting the bill, based on our treaty relationship. Our people did express their concerns about the violence with the assault rifles and any kind of violence that results from the wrongful use of firearms.

The idea is very simple why people have rejected that bill. It is because no consent has issued on our part.

When we start talking about these kinds of things.... I was sitting here and I was reflecting back to 1985. We were sitting in the same room talking about the firearms certificate at that time and its application to first nations people. At the same time, 10 years ago, we came forward and we said the same things: that you can't apply those particular regulations to our communities.

At the time most people said we're involved in a constitutional debate, we're involved in consitituional issues, and we'll let the Constitution take its course on those particular areas.

.1710

The fact remains that in 1985 there was no one who politically recognized the existence of our inherent rights. Today, all of those elements have changed. So we've come here today and we're saying the same thing. Who gives you the right to impose systems on our people? Where do you get the right to be able to impose those kinds of standards of conduct on our people? The message is very clear to our people again, and it's consistent, that we don't have the capability to look after ourselves; we don't have the ability to take care of ourselves.

People raise issues about the use of firearms in regard to the social problems we have in our communities. Certainly the registration of firearms is not going to be the answer to those particular issues that we have. I think it's very unreasonable for people to suggest those kinds of things are any solution to the problems we have and we're forced to deal with in our communities.

It's very clear that the other thing we have right now, within our own midst, is relationships that are there, and we're trying now to understand how to implement those particular relationships. We've been trying for 18 months with the new government - which has recognized the inherent right - to figure out how we are going to involve ourselves in jurisdictional arrangements.

I think those are the recommendations that have to go forward here: the message that was given by the national office that there will be no application to first nations of this particular piece of legislation, and we require a political table for us to be able to sit down and negotiate the extent of federal laws and their application in order to work out the jurisdictional relationships we have, in particular, to those pieces of legislation that are being passed.

Those are not difficult things for people to be able to do. They're done on a regular basis every day with federal and provincial governments, with regional governments, and with municipalities. Those kinds of systems are there for us to be able to demonstrate this is possible to do. We need to be able to do those things.

I think it's clear in our communities right now that our people are being bombarded by enforcement agencies. I don't think our people are going to tolerate that any more. I believe with this particular piece of legislation that's coming down we are going to have lots of problems with non-compliance. We've already gone through enough problems in our communities where a lot of our people end up with criminal records because of incidents related to alcohol - not just with firearms, but in other areas as well. This will only add to the problems you've created with these kinds of legislation that may be applied, or may be attempted to be applied, in our communities.

I believe right now it's in the best interest of both the federal government and the first nations to be able to sit down and work out those jurisdictional arrangements. The policies that were intended to guide these processes are not available to us, but I think we all know if we're sincere and we're honest in our attempts to be able to go after these kinds of solutions, they can be done very quickly.

I'll end my remarks there in order for us to have some questions.

The Chair: Mr. Mercredi, have you completed your presentation?

Chief Mercredi: Not completely. It's up to you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Members of the committee, I'm faced with a difficulty. The meeting was called from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. We have votes at 6:30 p.m. and we have another meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m. I'm told some people have meetings scheduled in their offices after 5:30 p.m. The Assembly of First Nations have given us their views, so if we're going to stick to the timetable, what we can do is have three questions of five minutes each, one to each party.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Five minutes is very little time, Mr. Chairman, because the various chiefs who have addressed us have given us a lot of substance.

To really put the debate in perspective, you have made some very interesting constitutional arguments: section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, as heard by the Supreme Court in Sparrow v. The Queen.

.1715

I put the question to Chief Erasmus. I sense a contradiction, or at least a discrepancy between Chief Mercredi's position and the one taken by Chief Erasmus.

In his presentation, Chief Mercredi tells us that the First Nations are not opposed to all of the provisions of Bill C-68. From disposition, I infer that some provisions of Bill C-68 could apply to the First Nations. I'll ask him later to specify which ones.

However, I sense - correct me if it's not what you meant - in Chief Erasmus' position that there is a total denial of the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada with regard to the First Nations, an authority the Parliament is exercising with Bill C-68.

I'll ask my question directly to Chief Erasmus. Do you recognize that the federal Parliament of Canada has some legislative authority to pass any provision of Bill C-68, as it is presently proposed? This of course, with regard to the native people.

[English]

Chief Erasmus: It's an interesting question you're asking.

I'm not disagreeing with what Chief Mercredi is saying. What he's saying is that there are some provisions that make sense. He didn't say they make sense to our people. I think he was trying to be helpful in suggesting there is need to have a safer country to live in, so he was making that reference.

The main thing you should look at is page 10, the recommendation where he says the amendment to Bill C-68 should be explicit in providing immunity for first nations. That's the language I'm talking about.

To your final point on whether or not laws of general application apply to my people, they don't - quite clearly, they don't. Canada doesn't have the jurisdiction to tell my people how to live. I suppose, for example, one of the best ways to illustrate that is the Flett case, where Canada, for many years, said we could hunt migratory birds only in the fall of the year. That was taken before the courts and it was made very clear that the Migratory Birds Convention Act is not applicable to us, because of our special relationship through our treaties. This is the same instance, as far as I'm concerned.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Chief Erasmus, in subsection 110t) of the Bill, it is an Act that the governor in council - that is the government - can decide in what ways and to what degree various provisions of the current law or the regulations apply to any of the aboriginal of Canada, and modify these provisions to suit this application.

Therefore, if I understand correctly subsection 110t), the government can, strictly speaking, end a clause that applied to aboriginal nations. However, your policy statement on constitutional matters is so clear that I supposed that the only option that would be acceptable to the aboriginal nations, and this in an indirect fashion, would be that the Act set forth for the federal government of Canada de possibility to negociate, throught treaties, the application of any provisions of the Act.

Can it be said that your denial of the parliamentary authority of Canada goes that far? Is it only via treaties that you could accept the application of statutory provisions pass by a Parliament whose authority you don't recognize in the territories under your control?

[English]

Chief Erasmus: We have a treaty with Canada and our relationship with Canada is subject to that. What the treaty says is that there are two parallel systems in place; one for Canadians, and one for the Dene.

.1720

What is being suggested here is that Canada has an opportunity, especially because it now says it recognizes we have the inherent right to self-government and so on. That does not come from Canada but from ourselves. Canada now has an opportunity to work hand in hand with us, to put this parallel system in place.

You have a unique situation here to say, first nations want to have a safer place to live. They have their own system of gun control that's been in operation for years and years and years. Here's an opportunity for Canada to recognize the jurisdictions of our chiefs and councils, and to set up a mutual system. I think that's what we're saying.

Mr. Ramsay: I'd like to put on the record that I don't think it's right that we grant an hour and a half to this delegation. I think it's because of the deadline. I agreed with the deadline only if we could work in all our witnesses, give them the time this committee requires and they need in order to express their concerns to us, so all members would have an opportunity to ask questions. I object to what's happening here today.

Second, I would like to say that either you have the right to be consulted or you don't. If you have that right, then either you've been consulted or you haven't. The justice minister has not denied there is a constitutional requirement to consult with aboriginal peoples. What he and his assistant deputy minister have indicated is that consultation has taken place, and is and will be ongoing. That's the message I have received as a result of my questions to him and the assistant deputy minister.

I see that at the bottom of page 2 you state:

As parliamentarians you all have a special responsibility to uphold the Constitution of this country and to ensure that Canada honours its obligations to First Nations peoples.

Who else has that responsibility if it is not us? That's why, Tuesday night, I moved a motion to suspend proceedings of this committee until such time as the constitutional requirements were engaged in. Why? Because I felt as parliamentarians we were aiding and abetting the violation of the constitutional rights of the James Bay Cree and the Yukon people. Now we've heard from the Inuit, the Métis and you. They're all saying the same thing, and on we go. I don't know what process we, as members of Parliament, can enter into to ensure the constitutional rights of your people are recognized and adhered to.

You may want to comment on that in the time I have. I have grave concerns about what we're doing, particularly in face of the testimony we have received from the aboriginal people who have attended this committee. I don't know what to do about it, other than sit here and aid and abet the process you claim is violating not only your treaty rights but your human and constitutional rights.

Chief Mercredi: First I'll state that I supported your motion. I saw it from the tube. I watched the proceedings and I agreed with your strategy. The difficulty I have is that - as you can see from this presentation - we were called as the assembly to make a submission. The assembly speaks for first nations, but in the past the committees have worked to have broad representation from first nations organizations across the land. This committee should be no exception.

Why a decision was made to narrow the representation from the assembly is hard to understand, in light of the vital importance of the issues reflected here. I invited the leaders who are here to join me, so at least they can express their position. The ideal thing would be for us to state our position and have a discussion, a question-and-answer exchange. That won't be available to us, as an organization, or to any of the people who are sitting here with me, or the people who have no access to the committee.

.1725

I have here copies of letters I've written to the minister demanding consultation prior to the legislation being tabled in the House of Commons. A duty to consult is not just a duty after the law has been passed. It's a duty before the law is passed. Consultation has to be genuine. It can't be just an exercise, to make it look as if we were consulted, and then the government could proceed with their strategy, with their mindset; whatever it is.

So I can tell you that there have been no consultations prior to this legislation. You will see from the correspondence between myself and the Minister of Justice that I have advised him, prior to his intention becoming draft legislation, that he should talk to us in a bilateral consultation process with the Assembly of First Nations.

When the bill was introduced, I wrote him a strong letter of objection to the approach he was taking, and I indicated to him it was unacceptable. There has to be an honest effort made by the government to consult with our people when our rights are being impacted. And they cannot make laws without our consent. Effectively, by what they're doing, they will make laws without our consent.

Subsequent to that, after the legislation was tabled, I met with the Minister of Justice. You will see that in the correspondence I recommended to him that there be a consultation process in addition to this process, and that his department must go and see all the first nations, not just selected first nations. The process he has defined is a selective, limited consultation process where he does not go to all our communities. He does not consult with all our people.

Besides that, as I indicated to the deputy minister in a more recent meeting, I had hoped the result of that consultation process undertaken by the Minister of Justice would be fed to this committee, prior to this committee completing its work. Otherwise the whole effort is a sham. The first nations will not have the opportunity not just to express their concerns but to say to government how they want this issue addressed in their communities.

I think reason will prevail and we can come to some agreement in some areas as to how some of the objectives could be implemented in our communities, but it cannot be done in the style which was imposed on us. Although I respect the parliamentary process, and as national chief I have come before your particular committee on several occasions, the fact remains that the current process, as devised, is defective. It's deficient; and the proof is in the pudding.

We are not able as an organization to have a dialogue with you because of time limitations. I have three more minutes and I have finished in terms of this process. And no other first nation leader after this submission will have an opportunity to make any statements to government in this parliamentary process. There's something wrong there.

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Bodnar, Chief Mercredi, it would be helpful to the committee if we could have copies of that correspondence you've had with Mr. Rock.

Chief Erasmus, you were reading from a text when you were making your submission. In recording properly and accurately, it might help us if you have a copy, or even if you could give us the citation. We could check it ourselves.

I go to Mr. Bodnar for five minutes.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mercredi, I want to follow up on what you have already indicated about consultation. I recall when you appeared before this committee on the Young Offenders Act, and you, as chief, represented the Assembly of First Nations. You did not request that there be consultations with all different groups of first nations. But today you're indicating that what you are requesting is that there be consultations with the first nations on a fairly extended basis.

.1730

Could you touch on that as well as indicate to the committee whether you have already met with the Minister of Justice? It's my understanding that you've met with him on two or three occasions to discuss this legislation. Is that correct?

Chief Mercredi: The correspondence I'm tabling with the committee will clearly indicate the nature of those discussions with the Minister of Justice. At no time was I consulted on the provisions of any legislation.

When I met with him the first time in November of this year, the purpose of that discussion was to advise him that before he tables any legislation on gun control he must ensure that there are full consultations with first nations. In fact, he has a constitutional obligation to do so, because of the Sparrow decision.

The next meeting I had with him was after he tabled the legislation, following my strong letter to him objecting to the approach he had taken. In that second meeting I had with him I advised him he must have full consultations with first nations, in addition to this process being available to first nations.

Why do I insist on that now, when I didn't insist on that before in terms of the youth offenders provisions? We were dealing there with administrative provisions of the administration of laws as they affect juvenile delinquents. We were not dealing with the treaties, with aboriginal rights. When you deal with rights affecting our people, I would say that's quite different from procedural law dealing with how youth offenders will be dealt with.

You will recall when I responded to a question from Madam Venne I was not here to deal with the inanimate part of self-government or a parallel system of justice. I had come here to deal with the administrative aspects of a law that Parliament was intending to pass. I have reserved the comments, as I normally would as national chief, to deal with the parallel system of justice and the inherent right at another table, not in relation to something as specific as administrative changes to the law respecting juvenile delinquents.

So I don't think you can hang that on me. It's not the national chief who has the obligation to consult on laws that affect the first nations. It is you as a parliamentarian. You have to take the responsibility for the lack of an adequate process - not I.

Mr. Bodnar: You've indicated that the law as it is now tabled would have no effect. Certainly you've indicated that it breaches particular rights and treaty rights the first nations have. Am I correct - and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm not - in saying the treaties you have deal primarily with the right of first nations to harvest?

The right to harvest shall include the right to possess and use all equipment reasonably needed to exercise that right...

Then it goes on,

...subject to applicable laws and regulations of general application concerning weapons control, where such control is directed to public security and not to harvesting activity.

Are those generally the clauses that exist in the treaties you're indicating are being breached?

The Chair: He's reading from the James Bay agreement.

Mr. Bodnar: That's right.

The Chair: It's a recent treaty.

Mr. Bodnar: That's why I'm asking if they're similar.

Chief Mercredi: In Canada we have three kinds of treaties involving first nations. One is the modern treaty you refer to, the James Bay agreement. The other ones are post-Confederation treaties such as the numbered treaties in western Canada, including Treaty No. 5, my treaty. Others are pre-Confederation treaties.

The numbered treaties we have with the Government of Canada have been the subject-matter of many court cases involving hunting rights, because the position of provincial and federal governments has been to try to diminish the treaty right.

This effort in terms of gun control is the latest assault, as I see it, on the treaty right to hunt. The treaty itself, in terms of spirit and intent, has never been honoured by Canada. In some cases 125 years after the fact, our people are still waiting for their treaty land entitlement because Canada is not complying with the treaty.

.1735

We have a difference of opinion about the interpretation of provisions in some of the treaties with the Government of Canada. They take a very literal interpretation of the words - the white words - in the treaties that were made with people who didn't speak English. We take a different perspective, one of spirit and intent. When they put their X on the treaties, none of our people spoke the English language - and neither could they read or write what our people were told by the treaty commissioners, what they understood they were entering into. In light of that process, the Supreme Court has said they will interpret any uncertain or vague provisions in the treaties in favour of the Indians.

I think when it comes to you as a parliamentarian, you have to do the same. If you think there is some doubt as to the full extent and nature of our right, your duty is to give us a favourable interpretation of this treaty. That is the nature of the case law, which is binding on the courts. Therefore it should be binding on parliamentarians.

Mr. Bodnar: I want to ask one final question. I recently read an article by Doug Cuthand in Saskatchewan. He made reference to the problems that are encountered by status Indians. He refers to statistics from 1990-91 indicating that firearms accounted for the second-highest rate of accidental deaths. Then he goes on to say the accidental deaths among Saskatchewan Indians from firearms rank second, with 13.4%. In the case of Inuit in Yukon, firearms are the leading cause of accidental death.

How do you suggest we deal with this, or do you suggest we deal with this at all? Should we simply allow the first nations to deal with this issue or should we be taking any responsibility in trying to deal with a problem which is not exclusive to first nations? I simply refer to that article because we're dealing with first nations today. But how do we deal with this in both the first nations society and also with white man's society? Should we simply deal with white man's society and have you deal with yours separately? Help us out, in other words.

Chief Mercredi: There will be two responses. First, Chief Allan Adam of Saskatchewan will respond, because apparently that's where that gentleman resides.

Chief Adam: What you have in front of you is an opinion of an individual, an opinion that is supposedly substantiated by some facts about the so-called violence in first nations jurisdiction, in reserves and so on. What you have there is one opinion, and only one opinion, and it does not represent the opinions of a broad scope of first nations people.

What that article does not deal with is the social unrest within the communities which causes that violence that is pointed out in that article. We have a lot of communities that are very unhealthy right now, in terms of physical, spiritual, mental...and the well-being of the body and soul. Because of that, we run into a lot of these problems.

Sometimes you run into a situation where a guy could be angry and the nearest thing could be a firearm, and unfortunately he uses it. But we as first nations people understand those things. A gun does not pick itself up and shoot somebody. A gun does not cause somebody to commit suicide. It helps them in it, but the problem we have to deal with here is the healing of the communities, and education in terms of what firearms are all about. We are doing that on an ongoing basis.

As communities heal, as people begin to heal themselves, these things will fall into place.

Chief Mercredi: My response is to say that if registration of firearms would be adequate to prevent all violence in any society, including suicides in my society, I would 100% endorse this legislation. But the fact remains that registration alone, without any other measures being taken to deal with the social and economic conditions of first nations, is not going to deal with the issues of wellness in the Indian society.

.1740

If your government wants to be helpful in dealing with the violence and the suicides in our communities, you will help us to make sure there is economic recovery so our people have the resources they need to have a standard comparable to yours as Canadians, so they have jobs, so they have a future. That's the area where we expect government to intervene - not with gun control to reduce further our ability to hunt for ourselves to provide food for the table.

If you impose this legislation in the way you intend to do, it will restrict our ability, as Indian people across the country, to supplement our resources in terms of food in our homes. There will be a greater reliance on welfare. Is that what the Liberal government wants? If that's what you want, say so. If that's not what you want, then deal with the socio-economic needs of our people not through gun control but through economic intervention, economic development.

Deal with the social problems with us. Do something about residential schools and the crimes created by that system. Do something about the solvent abuse in our communities by making programs accessible to each community - and I must say, your government did something recently in terms of six treatment centres, which we welcome.

But do not cut back on health services. That's what your government is doing. Do you want to help us? Don't do what you're doing now. You're cutting back on non-insured health benefits. You're telling our people to fend for themselves. That would be a good statement to make if the economies of scale were equal, but they're not - and you know that.

So you cannot take solace in the comments of one individual who presents his analysis to you. He's entitled to his opinion, but it's not the position of the leaders. It is not the position of the first nations.

The Chair: Thank you very much. It's unfortunate we didn't have more time.

About the motion Mr. Ramsay presented the other night, I sought advice from the table and the experts. I was told neither the House of Commons nor a committee can rule on a constitutional matter. However, as I pointed out to the committee that night, that doesn't prevent us from pursuing and trying to resolve the serious issues you have placed before us. As a matter of fact, that's what many of us are trying to do while we carry on the work of the committee. Hopefully your words will not have fallen on deaf ears. We will try to pursue these matters as best we can.

Mr. Langlois, do you have a point of order?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Yes. I propose that we adjourn until 7:30 p.m. and come back at that time to go on with the same witnesses for a maximum of one hour...

The Chairman: You are aware that we have invited another group of witnesses.

Mr. Langlois: ...and to postpone the hearing of the next witnesses.

The Chairman: Mr. Langlois, you can propose this motion; our regulations specify that all motions proposed to the committee must have been tabled, but only after a period of 48 hours. Your party, along with all the other ones, has already accepted the list of witnesses. May be we'll want to pursue this issue later. You can propose your motion; I cannot table it tonight, but only after 48 hours.

[English]

Ms Torsney: On a related point, because we are being televised, I also wanted to put on the record that all three parties voted on the steering committee report and the steering committee report clearly identified the schedule of witnesses that put this afternoon's panel together. I believe Mr. Ramsay also voted in favour of that steering committee report. So lest there be any confusion about who's orchestrating what, we are all guilty of the same offence, if one has been made.

.1745

The Chair: I don't know if I'd put it in terms of guilt or innocence. We agreed to a report. Becasue of certain time restraints - I admit, there are time constraints, as with everything up on this Hill - we have to deal with it as we can.

Mr. Ramsay, on a point of order.

Mr. Ramsay: Just to set the record straight, I'm on record more than once about the deadline. I didn't like the deadline. It's the government's deadline. I agreed with the deadline as long as we could work the witnesses in whom we felt we had to see. It's worked out so we can't do that. That was my concern at the beginning and that's my concern now. It's not posturing. It's a simple fact, and the truth.

The Chair: In response, I have to say you did say that. But on the other hand, many of us proposed that we sit Fridays, even weekends. As a matter of fact, some of us proposed that we meet during the parliamentary recess. So there were additional times, if we had really wanted to sit...if we could have tolerated sitting much longer hours. But the committee felt it just could not do that. They had other duties to attend to.

We've already added meetings on nights when we didn't have them. On Fridays we've added, on Mondays we've sat through Question Period. We've done things that many committees don't do to put on additional witnesses. We could have done more of that if the committee had felt it could handle it. I'm in the hands of the committee and I follow the majority views of the committee.

We'll meet again at 7:30 p.m.

The meeting is adjourned.