[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 3, 1996
.0944 
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): I call this meeting to order.
I'd like to welcome our witnesses today and thank the members for coming this morning as well.
Before we begin, the clerk has asked me to tell the members that if they have not indicated whether they're going in group one or group two for the European trip, they should do so as soon as possible. It's necessary to make arrangements. They should also indicate what their travel plans are - whether they have to leave earlier or later and from where.
We'll be meeting on it on Tuesday morning, so if you could have the information prior to Tuesday morning, it will allow us to work out the budget for the trip. There are no questions about that?
.0945
[Translation]
M. Bergeron (Verchères): It's important to know at what time we will be leaving an coming back and other details concerning the subcommittee's trip to Germany.
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): As for the people who are travelling on to Germany, we have to know who they are. There are five who are possibilities. The German government has been kind enough to offer to pay for those travellers, so we have to know as soon as possible who is travelling to Germany and who has an interest in doing so. Would you indicate those two matters?
Today we have, from the Grand Council of the Crees, Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come; Ted Moses, foreign ambassador; and Bill Namagoose, executive director. They will make a presentation to us today on Canada and circumpolar cooperation.
I would ask you to try to limit the time of the presentation so we can have time for questions afterwards. I notice the text is fairly long, and we will have the opportunity to read it, so if you could limit the time of your presentation, that would be helpful.
Grand Chief Coon Come, would you like to begin?
Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come (Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec): [Witness speaks in his native language].
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of this committee for your invitation to us to participate and share our experience in view of the international community.
For the record, I would like to table our submission and our statement. I will try to be brief. We've gone through it and crossed out certain things. That's not to say they're not important, but we'll skip some of those views. But for the record we certainly wanted to highlight some of the issues. Ted Moses, who is our ambassador, will help me, and so will my executive director, Bill Namagoose.
We have been involved in the international community since 1981. What we are presenting to you is our experiences and what we have seen of the behaviour of the federal government, the policies that affect us and the decisions that are made that drastically affect not just our lives but our own economies of scale. We'd like to present this to the committee.
We have had such a document since 1981. It looks as if we're complaining, but we are stating facts of what we see in the treatment of aboriginal peoples in the international community and the behaviour of the federal government that has evolved in developing these policies.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin with our text. As I go through it, I will tell you what page I'm on and what verse I'm at so you can follow.
The Cree territory of Eeyou Astchee links the circumpolar area east of James Bay and Hudson Bay with the boreal zone farther to the south. My people, the Cree, are a people of both lands. Our northernmost community is well within the circumpolar region, and as you all know, we hunt, fish and trap far into the subarctic. As such, the issues of the circumpolar region are of vital importance to us. We hold our concerns with the rights of the aboriginal peoples, who have always lived in the circumpolar region, to be paramount.
In recent times our territory has been controlled by others, by those who live far to the south. The consequences have not been good. Our territory has been contaminated, our forests clear-cut, our rivers dammed, and our lands flooded and mined with little thought for the peoples who actually live in Eeyou Astchee.
.0950
Perhaps if we begin with a short explanation of our international work, you will better appreciate the significance of our appearance here today. We have a great deal to discuss.
Our organization, the Grand Council of the Crees, first went to the United Nations in 1981. We went to the international community because we had come to the unhappy realization that there was little likelihood of solving our problems, grievances, and differences by addressing ourselves exclusively to the Government of Canada or the province of Quebec, or by raising our issues only inside of this country.
It was in early 1980 that our communities were swept by an epidemic of gastroenteritis, tuberculosis, and measles, and eight infants died that year as a direct result of disease that was entirely preventable. It was at that time that we initiated some studies in the Cree and Inuit communities, and found that the epidemic would in all likelihood not have occurred had the specific sanitary infrastructure and service provisions in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement - the 1975 treaty between the Crees, the Inuit, Quebec, and Canada - been implemented in a timely way.
The fact was that no number of requests seemed sufficient to cause the governments to respect their solemn treaty obligations, or even their normal program responsibilities to James Bay Crees. It was only after five years of largely futile attempts to have our rights respected that the Crees decided to go to the international community.
Before that very first trip to the World Health Organization and United Nations office in Geneva, Switzerland, a federal official advised the Crees not to go. He told us that our visit to the United Nations would have ``negative repercussions'' on the resolution of our problems here in Canada. We went anyway. We went to the United Nations to accomplish what we could not accomplish in Canada, and we should not have had to go.
The circumstances that forced us to go in 1981 - the failure of governments to adequately and fairly address our issues and our rights within Canada and within a Canadian context - still unfortunately persist. More and more we find it necessary to travel outside of Canada to have important Canadian issues addressed.
During the past several years the Department of Foreign Affairs has sent large government delegations to all United Nations meetings on indigenous issues. Even the Province of Quebec regularly places the provincial government officer on Canada's official federal delegations to these meetings, and is the only province to do so.
Turning to page four of our brief, Canada's campaign against the international recognition of the human rights of indigenous peoples, from that first moment when a federal official warned the Crees against a visit to the United Nations, the Government of Canada has worked actively to thwart the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples by the international community.
I want to assure this committee that this is not solely the opinion of the Grand Council of the Crees. This view is shared by the Assembly of First Nations and by most if not all of the aboriginal organizations representing the aboriginal peoples of Canada. This is also the conclusion of most if not all of the organizations representing indigenous peoples in other parts of the world.
Canada is recognized internationally by indigenous peoples as the country most active and most persistent in its efforts to constrain the international recognition of the rights of the world's indigenous peoples. This does nothing to support our efforts to control development activities in our own territory, to protect the northern environment, or to contribute to the social and economic development of the circumpolar peoples.
A prime example is the discrimination against Indian women. Until it was amended in 1985 the Indian Act contained provisions that denied Indian status to Indian women who married non-natives. An Indian woman who married a non-native - but not an Indian man who married a non-native - would have her status rescinded. From then on, she and her children and all of her progeny would forever be denied Indian status.
.0955
This instance of blatant gender discrimination was eventually taken all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Government of Canada argued that the Indian Act was valid, and prevailed. Gender discrimination under the Indian Act was protected.
That would have normally been a typical end for an Indian rights case in Canada. But in 1977 a courageous Indian woman named Mrs. Sandra Lovelace decided to appeal to the human rights committee of the United Nations under the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government of Canada argued strenuously before the committee that it should refuse to hear the case, that this was a domestic aboriginal issue and not a matter of international law.
The United Nations human rights committee nevertheless agreed to hear the case. The Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Indian Affairs met and prepared the case against Lovelace at the United Nations. This was not very long ago. Canada's arguments remain shameful and embarrassing.
The United Nations human rights committee decided that the Indian Act discriminated against Indian women, and demanded that Canada's Indian legislation be changed. Canada waited four years to respond. It then made amendments to the Indian Act through Bill C-31 to remove the offending provisions, but to substitute others that passed the discrimination on to the second generation of children. The new legislation also introduced for the first time the racist concept of ``blood quanta''.
When Bill C-31 was introduced, Canada gave no notice that it was doing so because it was forced by a decision of the United Nations. It made no mention of the fact that Canada had been found to be in violation of the international covenant prohibiting gender discrimination against aboriginal women.
Then there is the topic of ``peoples'': the battle over the ``s'', so relevant today in the political climate and the uncertainty in Quebec with the PQ platform, and the Bloc Québécois platform. It so relevant to us in our day. This is possibly the greatest threat to the aboriginal peoples of Quebec.
The United Nations is currently in the process of reviewing for approval a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, which has been the subject of a dozen years' work by a subcommission of the United Nations commission on human rights.
Canada has led a battle at the United Nations, now taken up by several other states, to refuse to employ the term ``indigenous peoples'' when speaking about the subject of this declaration. Canada has suggested several alternative words: ``populations'', ``communities'', ``societies'', and finally ``people'' in the singular, without an ``s''. This is what has come to be known at the United Nations as the battle over the ``s''.
What is Canada's problem? The Constitution of Canada refers to us as aboriginal ``peoples'', as does every textbook, scientific and legal document, including the brief prepared by the Library of Parliament for this meeting. This is the standard terminology in Canada and Australia and indeed throughout the world.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Excuse me, Chief Coon Come.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Sorry for interrupting you, Mr. Coon Come.
I don't know if it's germane, at this point, to raise this point of Order, but today's agenda does specify that we were to examine circumpolar cooperation. I'd like to know if the discussion will bear on circumpolar cooperation or if we'll be engaging in a general discussion of native problems.
Are we going to discuss the matter of circumpolar cooperation or are we going to be talking about Natives?
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Chief Coon Come, as Mr. Sauvageau pointed out, today's subject is Canada's circumpolar cooperation, and especially since our time is rather limited, would it be possible to move to topics that do touch upon circumpolar cooperation? We appreciate the points you're raising, and we do have the written document here with some of those points, but we have limited time this morning; we have another briefing after this. I was wondering if you could move more rapidly toward the other questions.
.1000
Grand Chief Coon Come: Mr. Chairman, could I have an indication of how much time we have?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): About 10 to 15 minutes to allow adequate time for questioning. We have 12 members here, and we would like everyone to have the opportunity to question. We allow generally 10 minutes for each party to ask questions and then to move on to others. So perhaps we could have about 10 minutes more.
Grand Chief Coon Come: Mr. Chairman, when we looked at the declaration on the establishment of the Arctic Council, we're talking about making references to the right of self-determination, about the use of the term ``peoples'' in an Arctic declaration. So the comments we are making certainly touch the mandate of this committee.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Much of what you say is true. From glancing through your document, I think some of the topics later - European Parliament, fur, forestry, international fora, ILO - are all relevant, but I'm just concerned about the amount of time we have left. If you get to those topics, which we have been considering with other witnesses before, we would welcome your testimony at that point. In any event, we do have the written document.
So if you would like to continue for perhaps 10 to 15 minutes more, then we can move to questions and expand upon this at that point. As far as possible, simply focus on the circumpolar matters, if you can.
Grand Chief Coon Come: What I'll do is pass it to Ted Moses. He has been involved in the international committees, subcommittees, etc. I'll get him to summarize some of the issues.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thanks very much. Mr. Moses.
Dr. Ted Moses (Ambassador to the United Nations, Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec): Thank you, Mr. Grand Chief.
Mr. Chairman, let me just make a comment to you before I try to do a summary to fulfil your request. First of all, allow me to say that the presentation of the Grand Council of the Crees is a reflection of our experience of at least 15 years in the international community and of at least 20 years in our relationship with the Government of Canada. So each and every one of these issues we have identified before members of this committee are very much relevant to the work of the committee and very much relevant to the establishment of the Arctic Council.
These are not just indigenous issues that you can simply isolate and identify as indigenous issues and not look at in the context of establishing an Arctic Council, which obviously involves indigenous peoples in the Canadian Arctic. It implicates lands of indigenous peoples, and questions as to what their role would be, their participation. You bring into question the role Canada has played in other areas of the international fora, what Canada's relationship has been and what the relationship has been between the Government of Canada and the Crees.
So we are here to express our experience and to say, hey, this is what happened to us. When we go before international fora, whether it be the United Nations or the Organization of American States or others, even domestically, lessons can be learned from experiences, as we know, and we'd like to share them. It's unfortunate we could not read the whole text so that it could go into the record of this committee, but we will try to comply with your request.
The Grand Chief has already spoken on the question of ``peoples'', and the battle over the ``s''. It's an important issue, very much relevant not just to indigenous peoples but also to other peoples in Canada. It is certainly a fundamental issue that the United Nations is very conscious of. Insofar as the Crees and other indigenous peoples are concerned, we are peoples with an ``s'', peoples with the right of self-determination. I just wanted to make that point.
.1005
There is also the question of the national interest and the role that the Government of Canada has been playing in that respect. In respect to Canada's role, there is a thread that runs through many of the issues that we point out. Notwithstanding the fiduciary responsibility that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled upon several years ago, which has become common law in major parts of the world with other governments, Canada fails to respect this fiduciary role.
Canada, in many international fora, has become an adversary. It has made every effort to prevent progress from happening. It has taken different positions. We have had a big battle over the use of the word ``peoples''. Canada often comes out with the arguments that maybe we have a right to express certain things insofar as our rights are concerned, but it has a policy and therefore must act in and uphold the national interest of Canada. We've presented at least two or three pages on that.
There's also the whole question of Great Whale and Hydro-Québec. Here again we have questions. We point out in our document that Canada's role has basically been an adversarial one. They have not respected their role as a fiduciary. They have not complied with and respected their obligations under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which was a modern-day treaty in 1975. Regimes were established to protect the environment in northern Quebec, where certain developments would be subjected to environmental assessment and environmental evaluation. Canada was supposed to play a role in that. Unfortunately, Canada seems to have sat back and just watched the Crees fight their own little battle in ensuring those provisions of the agreement are respected. Canada and Hydro-Québec work behind closed doors to insure that they can work their way around it. This is particularly so in the case of Quebec, which uses its own laws to get around other laws that have been created by virtue of the James Bay agreement.
Anyway, it was a big fight for the Crees - and we had expected it - and it warranted the intervention of Canada in many instances, but we got very little help from Canada. I think this is relevant when you look at the Arctic Council. What role will Canada see itself playing insofar as its relationship with indigenous peoples is concerned, in environmental development, and in ensuring that indigenous peoples participate in such things as environmental protection? Do indigenous peoples have a right to vote on or participate fully in the decision-making that affects the Arctic and its peoples?
Canada has used all of its powers and wealth to work in concert with the largest corporations in Canada, as well as with the Province of Quebec, to defeat beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement insofar as the Great Whale project is concerned.
We can also draw your attention to conventions in which Canada has an obligation to provide periodic reports to the United Nations. Here again, I just want to quickly say that Canada has played a role in which it likes to demonstrate to the rest of the world that Indian people are taken good care of in Canada, that the world doesn't have to worry about indigenous peoples in Canada, that the Department of Indian Affairs spends over $1 billion for programs and services to Indian people. In its reports, Canada has deliberately omitted certain information, certain facts - and we can demonstrate this, since we say in the brief that we are providing to you copies of Canada's report. They have made misstatements regarding the situation of indigenous peoples. They have failed to recognize that certain things are wrong, are not happening, that the Government of Canada is not doing them.
.1010
We've had to go before many bodies of the United Nations and lobby with committee members and insist that they ask certain questions about Canada's report. This takes time and energy. We are a small organization with small resources. Most of the benefits of the resources in northern Quebec go to Quebec and Canada instead of to the Crees.
We can go on and talk about Canada's policy papers and Habitat II. Here again there was an outright attempt by Canada to omit the indigenous peoples from Canada's position papers. There was very little participation or participation was denied at the outset. The report did not accurately reflect the housing situation of indigenous peoples across Canada, notwithstanding that there is a report by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development saying there is a large backlog of housing, including infrastructure, in the communities.
We have recent experience with the upcoming world summit on food security. Here again, Canada worked in isolation from the indigenous peoples. We had to write many letters, and the day before the final report was supposed to be concluded, we were finally asked to submit our comments or changes to Canada's position paper that night. We are not talking about a ten-page document, but a couple of documents. It takes some reading through and knowing where you should comment. Even now there's no assurance that our comments will be integrated into the report.
Again, Canada has taken the position that the agricultural aspect of where food comes from is the only source of food. Indigenous peoples, who have managed over 5,000 years to practise their traditional economies and have managed to survive, have managed to obtain an important source of food from the land and the waters and the seas, are not reflected in Canada's document.
The draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People about which the grand chief spoke earlier includes the term ``peoples''. Here again, we are in a situation where Canada has taken the leading role internationally to oppose and to seek changes to the draft declaration, which has been the work of five expert members over twelve or thirteen years. The draft declaration reflects many years of debate. It is not my intention to go into the provisions of the draft declaration, but simply to say that Canada's role has been questionable to us. They have not played a fiduciary role. They have not granted us the trust and responsibility that's supposed to come from Canada in protecting our rights. As a matter of fact, in those debates Canada has taken more of an adversarial position on most of the issues.
We don't know who determines policy. We have not been able to meet with ministers who would have an influence on how policy is being determined. Participation in policy-making has been denied us. There are so-called consultations once a year that include many of the non-governmental organizations; however, those are not consultations from our point of view. They are merely to tell us information. There's no consulting in that.
There is also the proposal for a permanent forum for indigenous peoples at the United Nations. Here again, Canada has taken an adversarial position, saying there is already a working group on indigenous peoples within the United Nations and that should be sufficient for indigenous peoples in addressing their issues.
.1015
There are other international fora we have a relationship with in the international community. I won't go into great detail about them. There is the ILO-169 from the International Labour Office, which was amended in 1989. It was called 107 at the time, and 107 was adopted in 1957 and was up for review. Again Canada took a prominent role in the conference, which resulted in only existing, binding and enforceable international instruments regarding the race of indigenous peoples. Canada took another adversarial position. It tried to weaken the clauses that indigenous people thought were important. Canada tried to make ILO less binding. It took a leading role in qualifying, and it did successfully qualify, the term ``peoples'', notwithstanding that the word ``peoples'' exists in the Canadian Constitution. However, the convention has not been approved. Canada has said that the consent of the provinces is required for it to be approved.
There are other instruments. There is the Organization of American States juridical instrument on the rights of indigenous peoples. This instrument, I would like to point out, would be binding on all American states, which would address the rights of indigenous peoples. Again Canada has taken a role of wanting to water down many of the provisions that might lead to recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples.
We have participated. We have had to take certain issues to the international community, such as to the European Parliament. Fur is one example. Forestry is another. I won't speak too much on that. But here again, we had to leave Canada and go to Europe to present our case. Yet when we're there, the Government of Canada has taken...not one of support so that we can work together or work in partnership, as the United Nations international year was meant to be... We've basically had to go there and defend our rights. Canada has again taken an adversarial role.
Forestry is currently an issue affecting the Crees. Canada is failing to play its role and respect its obligations under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The Crees are faced with clear-cutting. A whole way of life is now being put under threat.
The International Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples was declared by the United Nations, and Canada purported to be supporting the declaration. However, domestically there is no support and no funding to make the international decade meaningful. The idea behind the decade was to ensure an educational process that people could learn from with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples. Unfortunately Canada did not see fit to put any funding toward it.
We have practical experience with the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development as well, but I won't go into it.
We have other areas that are relevant to the work of this committee and to the whole context of setting up the Arctic Council, the whole question of funding for international aboriginal activities. The band council hasn't received any funding. We've had to do all of this with our own money.
.1020
The number of indigenous organizations who get to participate in international fora to be able to take advantage of expressing their views, talking about their own situation and advocating their rights has been very few, because Canada has seen fit not to provide funding to allow them to participate effectively.
Last week we also went to hear the United States House of Representatives talk about the break-up of Canada. We know these discussions are just commencing, but Canada gets to go, the Government of Quebec gets to go, and the Crees are not notified of such situations, never mind receiving financial assistance to go.
The House of Lords has taken an interest in the whole question of the rights and the status of the Crees in the context of Quebec secession. Here again, Canada has taken certain positions with respect to a study that has been taken up.
All of these are not good experiences we've had. We've had to be at odds with Canada. We cannot rely on the Government of Canada to fairly, accurately and reasonably reflect the situation of indigenous peoples.
Here in Canada, we cannot expect the Government of Canada to advocate our rights, because Canada has proven in many fora that it has taken the position that it has some policies that have determined... We don't know who determines those policies.
Basically its position is to be an adversary against indigenous peoples on many of these issues, and not fulfil its fiduciary and trust responsibilities towards the indigenous peoples of Canada.
I would have liked to have been shorter. I'm trying to restrain myself.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thank you very much.
I'm sorry we have time limits, but committee members are busy and there are other responsibilities. We have another briefing that had been postponed, and it comes after this meeting.
Thank you very much. I think you did get your argument across quite effectively.
I'd like to begin the questions with Mr. Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): I'm a bit surprised at your presentation. First of all, we're here to discuss circumpolar cooperation. I'll admit it's important for you to paint the broadest picture of the stakes leading you to a position on the circumpolar question, but I was surprised to hear you say all through your presentation, if I didn't misunderstand you, that Canada is an adversary for you in terms of recognition, not only within Canada itself, but also at the international level. I'd like to know if this is a new director for you.
I'm conscious that you have always been critical of governments, but I have never heard such a scathing criticism of Canada. This seems to go beyond anything you have ever said in past years. You're going a lot further than anything I've ever seen from the Cree before.
I'd like to see your answer reflect the situation in Quebec which has actually recognized 10 or 12 nations on its territory and that's something Canada has not done.
I'd also like you to comment what was said by Brad Morse, Minister Irwin's ex-assistant, who stated that the nations in Quebec, with the Cree probably heading the list, were far more advanced in the area of economic development, control of their language and protection of their culture than anywhere else in Canada.
.1025
So you are Canada's adversary. Am I to understand that you are now Quebec's friend?
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Who would like to answer that question?
Grand Chief Coon Come: Only a member of the opposition party would take advantage of -
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Grand Chief Coon Come: We hoped that in establishing the Arctic Council there would be a departure from the past and you'd instead begin a new relationship with the aboriginal peoples. That is the message we were trying to get across to the members.
As we appeared before this committee in our presentation, yes, we are very critical of Canada, and definitely Quebec has not supported the views of the aboriginal peoples in the international community. Quebec is just as guilty as Canada is, for reasons I do not have to tell you.
We have not changed our position. We are stating facts before this committee, which hopefully wants to try to establish a new relationship in its dealings with aboriginal peoples. You're establishing an Arctic Council in which you'll be talking about issues related to the environment and the health of the Arctic ecosystems. You're going to be talking about the biodiversity of the Arctic region and about conservation and sustainable development. All this will affect aboriginal peoples.
Development in Canada, as you all know, will happen on Indian lands. In Quebec, when you want to cut trees and build dams, it will happen on Indian lands. Do you think Quebec is going to say ``Hey, we recognize your rights. We recognize you have the right to self-determination. We recognize that you should be involved in these forums''? I don't think so. They're just as guilty.
Quebec says they recognized the 12 nations in Quebec by a resolution. What did they do? Their actions spoke louder when they passed their bill denying aboriginal rights and making all aboriginal rights, treaty rights and human rights subject to Quebec's self-declared rights. That legislation spoke louder than the resolution you always raise in committees like this, where Quebec is treating its aboriginal peoples better. Quebec is just as guilty as Ontario, Alberta and the other provinces when they say ``We treat our Indians better''.
Why do we say that? Because we feel it is not the Province of Quebec, it is not the Province of Ontario, it is not the Province of Alberta that can speak on behalf of the aboriginal peoples. We are confident enough to present to you our case. We have the experience. We live in these conditions.
We have solutions. We're not just anti-development. We have lived in these conditions because of the projects you have initiated as governments, and we certainly feel we have something to offer. We are on the outside. Somebody who sits on the outside can see better than the people who have tunnel vision because they're so focused on what they're doing. That is why we came here before, to be able to say to you that we support this Arctic Council.
Will you involve aboriginal peoples? Will Canada, under its present Constitution, the highest law of the land, which recognizes aboriginal rights - and I hope Quebec does, because that is still in the Constitution - will they involve them? Will they say ``This is the past. We're going to redress history. We're going to look at a new relationship. We're going to involve aboriginal peoples''?
Will we be members of this Arctic Council? Will we be involved? Or are we going to take an observer status and watch Denmark, Finland and Canada make decisions that affect us? Will we just be observers sitting around at the back while decisions are made that directly affect us? Could we not be involved in that? Will this committee take this into consideration? Are you going to forget the past and say you're good and you treat your Indians well?
.1030
What about the future? Don't remind me of the resolutions you've passed and laws you've changed. We have lived that. Tell me what you're going to do tomorrow. What are you going to do on the Arctic Circle? Tell me how you're going to involve aboriginal peoples in the decisions you make that will affect us.
Here you have a chance with the Arctic Circle. Development will happen in the north and you'll run into aboriginal peoples. Will you involve us?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thank you, Chief Coon Come.
I think we're going to have to have five minutes for each party; otherwise, we're only going to have three questioners. I'll move to Mr. Duncan, then Mr. Assadourian, and then back to Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I've only got five minutes, I'll be as brief as I can to allow for an answer. I did have three items, but I'll bring up two for starters.
One thing is the creation of the Arctic Council. You seemed to welcome that. I got the same impression when I spent a week in the western Arctic. The aboriginal leaders I talked to there also seemed to place more confidence in the Arctic Council than they did in any other pre-existing organization. There is a million dollars per year right now in federal funding that's going to the Canadian Polar Commission, which they questioned very much. Seeing as how there's no dedicated funding at this point for the Arctic Council, they thought this might be a more appropriate place to park that million dollars. So I'd ask you to comment on that.
Second, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development will be debating a motion on Tuesday. I'll just read it into the record and ask for the grand chief's comment on the motion. The motion was moved by me.
- I move that this committee urge the government to guarantee the rights of Canada's native
people by protecting their Canadian citizenship and their right to remain part of Canada, if they
so desire, in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence by the Parti Québécois
government.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Mr. Bergeron.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: In the same spirit as before, I'd like the witnesses and the members of the committee to stick to the matter under consideration which is circumpolar cooperation. We're not here to settle Canada's internal affairs nor its constitutional affairs; those matters can be dealt with by another committee and should certainly not be examined by our committee.
We can ride off in all directions, but I don't think that would be useful for the matter presently before us.
Mr. Sauvageau: So the question is...
[English]
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Chairman, I think basically he's asking for these gentlemen's opinion on that, which is well within the realm of what we're talking about.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, is you don't mind, these witnesses will certainly have an opportunity to make their point of view heard before the proper parliamentary committees or even elsewhere as they have been doing abundantly for many years.
I don't think we should grant them the few minutes remaining on this theme because we're supposed to be sticking to circumpolar affairs. I'm calling for your judgment, Mr. Chairman. I'm asking you to rule the member's second question out of order.
[English]
Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we have freedom of speech here. As the Bloc raised this issue when its own colleague started this line of questioning, I feel the Reform member is in order, and I think we should hear the response.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): To whoever wants to answer that from among our witnesses, try to focus as much as possible on Arctic Council matters. The first part of this question was definitely along those lines.
In terms of the second part of the question, it is a matter that will be considered by the committee, but if you, the witnesses, think it's relevant to our considerations, feel free to make a comment on it.
.1035
Grand Chief Coon Come: This committee that will be struck, the Arctic Council, is an international committee. There are international covenants Canada has signed and ratified. It is about those international covenants Canada has ratified that we make our presentation, that all peoples have the right of self-determination.
It's by virtue of the right of self-determination that we have the right, from natural resources, not to be denied of our own right of subsistence, because in the Arctic Circle you'll be making decisions on the environment and on sustainable development with regard to the Arctic region.
Certainly we have the same human rights. Those are international instruments to which Canada is a signator and has ratified. We are using those instruments as part of our arguments, to be able to have a say, to be able to participate in what is happening there. That is why we bring them.
Dr. Moses: Certainly the grand chief has spoken in favour of the establishment of an Arctic Council, and that such an establishment is supported by the Crees.
What we are pointing out is basically what our experience has been in the past. The establishment of the Arctic Council provides Canada and the indigenous peoples with an opportunity to begin a new relationship. So I don't think you can say you should forget about what happened in the past, forget about what Canada is currently doing. You can't. Those are experiences we have had, and those are exactly the same types of things the Government of Canada will be bringing to the Arctic Council, hoping that the indigenous peoples won't say boo about it.
You have to look at those things. Here is an opportunity to begin a new relationship. Let's not just say let bygones be bygones and forget about the past. Let's learn from our experiences. Let's start with a new beginning.
Insofar as the funding is concerned, if the Government of Canada has no better place to park $1 million than the Arctic Council... I'm not saying the Arctic Council shouldn't have any funding. I think it should be accorded all the proper and sufficient resources, financial and human. But if it doesn't have any better place to park it, then why not park it within the indigenous organizations in Canada? At least you'll get us to Geneva or New York, and we'll be able to advocate and defend our rights properly.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thank you.
For further advice on parking, Mr. Assadourian.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): You have to have a parking tag to park in this place. If you don't have it, they tow the car - and the money - away from you.
First, I don't know whether you know this, but the committee will be travelling to European countries to discuss the situation in the Arctic. I want to hear your suggestions as to what we should look out for, what we should discuss, when we go to Russia or Scandinavia or north European countries.
The other question I have concerns what kind of relationship you have with other aboriginal nations in seven other Arctic nations. Is there something we can take from you when we go to those meetings so that we can have some constructive discussions? The committee will be travelling to those countries and we'd like to know what you have to say in that regard, your point of view.
Dr. Moses: I'll try to answer the question.
First of all, you've heard from us, and I'm sure you'll hear from other indigenous peoples - or I hope you'll hear from other indigenous peoples - in Canada. Don't be surprised if you hear the same issues over and over again. I don't think you can isolate those issues from the establishment of the Arctic Council. I want to be very clear about that.
When you go to those other countries that have an interest in establishing the Arctic Council, I think the indigenous peoples who live in that part of the world should be invited, such as the Saami, indigenous peoples in the Arctic region of the former Soviet Union and in other parts of the Arctic. I'm sure they will express the same issues, the same concerns, on the whole aspect of a new relationship.
.1040
Let's design something we can all work with and that will be workable. Let's not take an old design that we didn't like and that doesn't work and try to apply it to a situation in the late 1900s.
The issues we have addressed are practical issues, and not just for the Crees. They're issues that concern indigenous peoples, that are very common among other indigenous peoples, and they are not just exclusive to the Arctic region but to other parts of the world as well.
The issues we have pointed out today certainly deserve more consideration by this standing committee, perhaps in the future. Things have to be corrected in order to begin a new relationship. You can't keep doing the same things over and over again and expect indigenous peoples to call that the beginning of a new relationship. You can't expect that the Arctic Council will become the solution to all of the problems we've experienced. You're just creating another body under a new name and perhaps a new budget, one that carries over all the old ways of doing things, all the experiences that indigenous peoples have had.
Mr. Assadourian: If I can follow on the second part of my question, I would have preferred that aboriginal people from all these nations gathered together to present a common front. It would be easier for every nation to discuss this issue, rather than... Here in Canada, we have three or four points of view on the same subject. If you multiply that by six, you have 24 or 25 different points of view. If you were to meet in advance to form a council that presented one solid point of view on aboriginal concerns, it would be much easier to address these issues. That's why I ask whether or not you have any relationships with other aboriginal people in other nations.
Dr. Moses: We have a relationship with many of the indigenous peoples in many parts of the world. Our concerns are very similar to theirs. However, if you're talking about bringing indigenous peoples together, I think the will is there insofar as indigenous peoples are concerned, but certain things constrain us from doing so.
Mr. Assadourian: Such as?
Dr. Moses: Resources. We come from different parts of the world, and we don't necessarily have the resources to meet over a long period of time, to come together and to work on one common position. If the Government of Canada were to take the initiative to do something like that, I think it certainly would be welcomed by the Crees and other indigenous peoples.
Mr. Assadourian: I have one more quick point. Earlier you mentioned that this represents twenty years' frustration. I would think twenty years' time is enough to bring six or seven nations' aboriginal people together to present one point of view that could be sold to Canadians and to other nations, one point of view that says what the most important issues are as far as you're concerned, let's sit down and address them. If twenty years then went by, you could say to the government that this is our job. But I would have thought you would have taken positive steps to bring together everybody's points of view, which you could then bring forward here to everybody else. So my concern is that of being positive.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): That may have been a comment rather than a question, but if you just wanted to respond very quickly, please feel free to do so.
Grand Chief Coon Come: It sounds to me like you're asking us to do something that your governments haven't been able to do because you have different parties yourselves - the Bloc, the Reform, the Liberals and the Conservatives - and that's to come in with one view.
All the amendments that were made, either in the declarations on the treatment of indigenous peoples with member states, on the recommendations of the ILO, or on the recommendations that directly affect conservation and sustainable development of natural resources, were positions we had worked on, either in subcommittees or in working committees, in order to come up with a common document. We always succeeded in being able to put forth concrete positions on which we all agreed because we were all suppressed. We were all denied access, were all denied the benefit of natural resources, so it was easier to come up with recommendations.
.1045
But we do not speak for the other indigenous peoples you will encounter, whether it be the Saami people in Finland, the Russian indigenous peoples, or the ICC of the Inuit. We do not speak for them, but we do have views and experiences we can share and be able to make, hopefully, a substantial contribution toward creating the Arctic Council.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Mr. Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: According to what you have just said, Mr. Coon Come, and according to the notes I have before me, the Arctic Council would be comprised of eight countries sitting around a same table as well as three groups of Natives which would be the Inuit, the Samis and Russia's Native populations.
Are you asking to join the Native groups around the table? Are you asking that the Native groups present, the Inuit, the Samis, the population of Russia, and the Cree eventually, not only have something to say but also that they take part in the decision-making? For the time being, they can't be part of the decision making; they can only be part of the discussions.
So do you wish to be included with those native groups or do you want the native groups to have a decision-making power equal to that of the eight other countries?
[English]
Grand Chief Coon Come: The work of the Arctic Council guaranteed the work they undertake will affect the indigenous peoples, the term used by the international community, or the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Certainly the time has come for us to be involved. We've always been outside of the circle; we've been excluded. Certainly it would not hurt to change the course of history, of involving the people that are directly affected in having a say in the way development takes place and being able to sit at a table where decisions are made.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: I have a map of Quebec here and yesterday I looked at the big map in my office to find the circumpolar circle. Is it north of the 60th parallel or north of the 55th parallel? Would your participation be justified by the fact that your traditional activities like hunting, fishing and trapping lead you up to the limits of the circumpolar circle?
I know that you don't really like that idea of borders, do you? I also understand that your traditional activities have brought you that far. However, I thought that the work done here on the circumpolar questions happened north of the 50th or 60th parallel where you don't go. I imagine that you'll answer that your traditional activities have lead you there.
So how could we justify your presence? I agree with you, because I think you should be there, but give me an extra reason which would give us more tools we could use to help give you a hand to justify your presence on the council.
[English]
Grand Chief Coon Come: Thank you very much. I'm not sure which map you are looking at, whether it's Quebec's interpretation or whether it's Canada's map.
When you talk about the definitions, when they refer to us, they always refer to us as the subarctic area, the tundra area. Is that not the geographical terminology that's used to define the area you referred to as the Arctic? Not only that, Hudson's Bay, James Bay, is not part of the Arctic, so whatever are you doing in that area? If you happen to find oil and it would be good for Canada, then certainly that would affect the aboriginal peoples. But not only that, there are about 300,000 Cree right across Canada. They will be affected, and they have the same livelihood as we do, when you go to Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, and even B.C. We have Cree right up to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. So we will be affected.
.1050
So yes, we are making a presentation as the Grand Council od the Crees. We have the experience. We want to be involved. We want to be added as members to the committee. But look across Canada. Look at the whole boreal forest area. Let's look at the map; in the whole northern part, development will happen. It's going to happen to Crees right across Canada.
Dr. Moses: I have just one small comment, but an important one, for the honourable member.
Looking at the map, I notice it is a map from the province of Quebec. The map is not drawn to reflect the extent of the rights of indigenous peoples or the traditional territory of the Crees or the Inuit, our friends to the north. The map reflects the so-called Bill 50 territory at the time, which was created by the late Premier Robert Bourassa, and the bill unfortunately stops at the 55th parallel.
The Crees traditionally have never let parallels stop them. Where they want to hunt, they follow the game. Our rights extend beyond the 55th parallel. Administratively speaking, we had an understanding in the agreement that for the Inuit jurisdiction, the Cree jurisdiction and so forth - all of the entities and complexities that come with the James Bay agreement - at least the 55th could be a dividing line, but that was never meant to say Crees don't have any rights beyond the 55th parallel.
As a matter of fact our rights extend beyond that. We have rights in the offshore area of Quebec, which undoubtedly is part of the Northwest Territories, which obviously will become a part of the Arctic Council. Therefore we're affected in one way or another, even if we're not right within the Arctic Circle per se.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thank you very much.
Mr. Dupuy.
Mr. Dupuy (Laval West): Grand Chief, I would like to have an even clearer view of the status you would wish to achieve for the Crees vis-à-vis the Arctic Council.
I think we all recognize that one day some decision may be taken by that council - which incidentally is still an embryonic form of an international institution - that will indeed affect the interests of your people. Therefore it is quite legitimate, in my view, that you should present a case that you would have an input into these decisions. But this council is an interstate council. Those who sit on the council are representatives of governments of international entities, state entities.
At the same time, you say you're not satisfied with a consultative status. Should I take it from what has been said that, rejecting the consultative status, you would like to have a seat at the table on the same footing as the representatives of states? If that is so, it opens up an interesting subject, an interesting dimension.
If you do not want that, basically what you're saying is that the constitution of the Arctic Council is wrong, that it should not be made only of states but also of other entities that are not states.
Could you give us a clear indication of the objective you're pursuing?
Grand Chief Coon Come: Thank you very much.
As mentioned in our brief, we believe the indigenous peoples should be full voting members of the Arctic Council, not merely observers. Keeping that in mind, the logistics of how you want to work it out - three seats or five seats - is something you as members will have to recommend. But we certainly feel the aboriginal indigenous peoples should have full voting membership and should have a seat.
.1055
Mr. Dupuy: So what you're telling us is that the way in which the council is designed is wrong, that it should not be an intergovernmental body as it is now; it should be a mixed body comprised of governments, but also of representatives of stakeholders - and that obviously means going back to the drafting board.
Grand Chief Coon Come: Well, we certainly don't want to make this a sovereignty issue, although I think my friends from the Bloc Québécois would want that. But we certainly would like to get involved, and the suggestion is to either do that through Canada - if Canada wants to re-address and deal with it in the way in which they have dealt with it in the past - and involve aboriginal peoples, which might be one way to redeem yourselves, or we certainly would like to have an indigenous seat with full voting powers. That's all I can say at the moment.
Mr. Dupuy: It is important to us, because if you want a seat at the table on the same footing as Denmark or Russia, it's one set of issues. On the other hand, if you want to make sure you're listened to, there are other ways of achieving that. Basically, these ways involve a relationship between the Crees and the Canadian government, which will be sitting as a full member.
So depending on the degree of cooperation you want to have with Canada, you have one line of approach. On the other hand, if you want to have a full seat as a decision-maker, then obviously the whole Arctic Council has to be rethought.
Grand Chief Coon Come: I understand.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): You touch upon that in some ways in your document when you talk about some other organizations in which you wanted representation. It's an important question. Perhaps we can talk to you...
We have three more people who want to ask questions, but I think we only have time for two. I'll therefore take one from the Reform Party and one from the Bloc. Mr. Duncan or Mr. Mills, you can decide who is going to ask it.
Mr. Duncan: Thank you. I realize time is short.
I'm going to dwell on the fur issue. I think we're at a very critical juncture right now. I believe I understand what you're saying in your paper, but what I'm looking for... Again because of my visit to aboriginal communities in the western Arctic, I understand that they have some definite initiatives this year. Those initiatives don't involve the Canadian government, because they feel they have been very poorly served in terms of strategy with the European Community. I gather you feel the same way. Is there a specific practical recommendation you can give that the Canadian government could pursue immediately with the European Community on this issue?
Grand Chief Coon Come: I'm going to ask one of our advisers, who actually just came back from Europe when they were discussing this. He has the latest developments from the European Community on the fur industry. He was just there during this last week and may briefly answer that. His name is Brian Craik.
Mr. Brian Craik (Adviser to the Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec): Thank you, Grand Chief and Mr. Chairman.
The role of the aboriginal people in the fur issue has been a rather difficult one in Europe. Many of the aboriginal people who have been involved have not liked their relationship with Canada because they felt they were used by Canada in this process to some degree.
.1100
The interventions made by aboriginal people and supported by Canada in the past have been that they should basically blast the European Parliament on the issue of banning the leg-hold trap and leave it at that. But the discussion has not gone on to be more sophisticated than that on the part of the aboriginal peoples, nor has the strategy with the Canadian government been very well developed in terms of working with aboriginal peoples.
The aboriginal peoples initially wanted - and the Crees represented this case over there - an exemption from the fur boycott Europe was proposing, but they did not necessarily want an exemption from the ban on the leg-hold trap. The Cree trappers themselves substantially gave up the use of the leg-hold trap some years ago; there may be a few still in use. They said this should not be seen as an obstacle to selling furs to Europe. The view is that Canada has put a black cloud over the fur industry by taking the approach it has, which is to say, fight for the leg-hold trap and go contrary to the fur boycott.
On the other hand, Canada has been involved in another forum to set up trapping standards. The real problem we have with this two-pronged approach is that Canada has involved native people only in the publicity aspect, not in working out the trap standards process. The real measure for Canada right now would be to lift the black cloud off the trapping industry and start giving the impression that this is not just a trade issue, that Canada is also interested in improving trapping standards.
Canada took money out of the programs it was providing for aboriginal training in the trapping area, and it put that money into a fund to pay the expenses of the aboriginal peoples who went to Europe to lobby and blast the European Parliament members. The concrete measures that were on the ground in Canada were diminished by the public relations effort to go to Europe.
The concrete thing Canada should do now is to work with aboriginal peoples to set up programs in Canada for trapper training, for trap replacement and for the development of new forms of traps. That should be done with aboriginal peoples.
Canada should promote mention of the importance of involving aboriginal peoples in the new agreement it is negotiating with Europe on trap standards. There has to be mention of aboriginal peoples in that. So far the steering committee mentioned in that agreement does not involve or even mention aboriginal peoples. The only way in which aboriginal peoples are mentioned in the new trap standards agreement, which is not signed yet but is being negotiated, is that they are exempted from the development of new standards. That's a mistake. They should be involved in the development of the new traps, in the training programs and the trap replacement programs. Something positive and concrete has to be done...and stop using aboriginal peoples as a public relations stunt in Europe.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thanks very much for those helpful comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau, please.
Mr. Sauvageau: The Arctic Council would comprise three native nations, or maybe four if your people is accepted, and eight member countries. In your opinion, how should decisions be made on priority subjects on the agenda whether it's sustainable development or a specific sector of the environment?
I'll address my second question more personally to Mr. Coon Come. I'd like to ask you if your is opinion still the same. I'll just quote what you have already said, Mr. Coon Come.
As a people, we have won the assurance of being able to keep our lifestyle of hunting, fishing and trapping as well as our language and our culture.
Thanks to the Convention, we have obtained what we never had: total authority over education through the Cree School Board, over social services and health services, over the management of our lands as well as a strong voice in approving new development on our territory, rights that respect the earth's resources, rights to guaranteed police protection and a legal system adapted to our needs and guarantees that we will be able to participate fully in the development of sub-arctic Quebec.
.1105
That statement is from you. Do you still maintain it? My first question remains the same?
[English]
Grand Chief Coon Come: Mr. Chairman, that comment was made in the context of the spirit and the intent with which we understood the agreement, what we thought we would have achieved. After 20 years of being involved in negotiating with governments, both federal and provincial, taking them to court, we say that with budget cutbacks - and I understand the budget cutbacks in health and education and policing - and the continued attack on -
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: I forgot something. That statement was made...
[English]
Grand Chief Coon Come: You should let me finish that. You keep interrupting me. How can I answer your question if you keep interrupting me?
Mr. Sauvageau: Sorry, I forgot something.
Grand Chief Coon Come: That's twice you've interrupted me.
Mr. Sauvageau: I forgot something.
Grand Chief Coon Come: You've asked me a question. I want to answer it.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: I forgot something. You made that statement in 1989. I just wanted to put everything in context. Thank you.
[English]
Grand Chief Coon Come: It was written in the context of the spirit and intent of the agreement. That was the intent, and that is what we thought we would achieve. We are trying to be very up front. We feel we have lived up to our commitments. Why is it we are the ones who are always trying to preserve the agreement?
We believed in it. We thought honourable men signed it, including the late Premier Bourassa. We signed with the governments. Recently we thought they would live up to their commitments. The spirit and the intentions were right. Those were the principles.
If you look at history, what is happening? You're eroding the rights. You're excluding aboriginal peoples. You deny us our rights. You say we don't have them. There are double standards in the treatment of our relationship. You have the right to self-determination, but we don't? You have the right to a referendum, and we don't? You don't recognize that? And on and on. But that's not why we are here.
With regard to the first question, I'm not sure if I have it right, but definitely there are issues where some kind of policies will have to be developed, where some international governing body, solely independent, can reflect, hopefully, and take into consideration aboriginal peoples. Those policies will be developed by this council - we hope.
I don't necessarily rely totally on the federal government's policy on the environment. I know their behaviour. It's the same with Quebec's policy on the environment. We need some kind of a national standard. Definitely aboriginal peoples would like to be involved in...
You mentioned the environment. You mentioned development. Development is what - natural resources? Certainly we would like to get involved in this policy decision-making. From there, those would be the governing guidelines and principles and the parameters of how decisions will be made.
So at least there would be an avenue where if we feel our rights are eroded, and where we think what we achieved is being taken away, we have another level we can go to. That's not to say that this will be our saviour because of the behaviour of the federal government or the provincial governments, but there is another standard, another level in which you can appear.
That's why we went to the International Water Tribunal. It was an international forum available to all citizens, to all peoples. Definitely we should be allowed to do that. But before we get to that, why don't we get involved in the development of those policies that will govern the environment, which we have an interest in, and the natural resources?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thank you very much, Grand Chief Coon Come.
I notice our witnesses are here for the next session. I'd like to thank you for your presentation. We have your full document. I think with the questioning, we've had a lot of clarification of what your views are on these questions. So on behalf of all members of the committee, I'd like to express our thanks to you for being with us today.
Grand Chief Coon Come: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): We will take a five-minute break at this point.