[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 3, 1996
.1114 
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): I now call the meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to order.
I will introduce our guests. They are Mary Sillett, the president of the Inuit Tapirisat Corporation, Wenda Watteyene, the executive assistant, and Peter Williamson, research and special projects coordinator. We have an hour, ladies and gentlemen, and the floor is yours.
Ms Mary Sillett (President, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before I begin, I'd like to introduce another person in our party, Michael McGoldrick. He works with the Makivik Corporation in Nunavik, which is in northern Quebec.
I am the interim president of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. I'd like to thank you all for giving us this opportunity to appear before you. I'm really glad that we were able to arrange a time. We tried for about two months to get here and we're finally here.
.1115
The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada - or ITC - is the national political voice of Canada's approximately 41,900 Inuit. We live primarily in 56 communities spread across the Northwest Territories, Nunavik - which is in northern Quebec - and Labrador. ITC works with all of our agents in all of these areas, including the Pauktuutit, the Inuit Women's Association of Canada, and the National Inuit Youth Council.
Canada as a nation covers almost ten million square kilometres of territory. Approximately three million square kilometres of this territory is under Inuit stewardship. These lands include the western Arctic, the central and eastern Arctic, northern Quebec and northern Labrador.
We're a distinct people. It is not our race in the sense of our physical appearance that binds us together. Our culture, our language, our homelands, our society, our laws and our values make us a people.
We are part of a circumpolar people who live in Alaska, Siberia, Greenland and Canada. Today there are over 115,000 in the circumpolar north. We have lived north of the tree line for thousands of years.
For two decades we have been negotiating land claim agreements with the federal government. Internationally, we have developed models of public government and have sought to protect our way of life through various means. For example, through the Inuit Circumpolar Conference we have developed the Arctic policy and were instrumental in the new created Arctic council. We pride ourselves on being nation builders, while at the same time recognizing the need for the development of a stronger relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples in Canada.
With the recent release of the final report of royal commission on aboriginal peoples, I feel it is timely to discuss the fundamental principles of this comprehensive review of the historic, current and future state of aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people in this country. As a former commissioner of the royal commission on aboriginal peoples and as the interim president of ITC, there are a number of issues that I feel are of the utmost importance to the well-being of Inuit.
This in-depth analysis and blueprint for the future is of critical importance and calls for a renewed relationship between the Government of Canada and the aboriginal people. ITC believes that the royal commission recommendations are a tool to reach concrete solutions and must be fully examined by all levels of government and aboriginal leaders.
The mandate and creation of the RCAP in 1991 was supported by all parties in the House of Commons. The terms of reference - which were the broadest in all of Canadian history - and the mandate provided to the commission were to find solutions to ``break the pattern of paternalism''.
The royal commission was created at a time when there was public recognition of the ongoing crisis in aboriginal communities. No longer were the social, economic and political challenges of aboriginal people in Canada being lost in the back rooms. Aboriginal issues were brought into the living rooms of all Canadians through national television, through the Oka crisis and through the Meech Lake accord process.
Although there have been some positive developments since 1991, and although some will argue that public perception has shifted and that sensitivities are weaker, the fundamental issues of concern to Inuit remain unchanged.
We live in third world living conditions. All one has to do is look at the conditions in aboriginal communities. This evidence has been well documented. This inequity in living conditions between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians is a violation of our fundamental human rights and is contrary to any sense of justice or fairness.
.1120
In 1994 the federal government unilaterally cut all social housing dollars for off-reserve aboriginal peoples, including Inuit. We have demanded and continue to demand that this funding be reinstated immediately, before the devastating effects of the social crisis in our communities becomes irreversible.
The housing crisis is but one example; however, it is inextricably linked to the other social issues we face. There are urgent needs for housing and living conditions in our Inuit communities. Inuit dwellings have the highest rate of overcrowding in Canada, and overcrowding creates social and health problems.
Housing, sewage, and water supplies for Inuit communities fall far below Canadian standards and pose an unacceptable threat to our health. In the north, solid waste dumps and untreated sewage are contaminating our lands and waters. The rate of many illnesses, the risk of future illness, and the rate of premature death are significantly higher among aboriginal people.
It is imperative to take a holistic approach when examining health and other social problems. Inuit are on the front lines of exposure to contaminants which originate in the south. Levels of certain contaminants in Inuit far exceed levels found in southern Canadians, yet Inuit have not derived many of the economic and social benefits that their production has generated. While the effects of these contaminants on the health of our people is not yet quite clear, a lack of direct proof at present should not preclude immediate action to stop the flow of contaminants into the Arctic and the sub-Arctic.
It is well known that economic factors, including the lack of employment and economic opportunities, play a central role in determining health. Currently 65% of Inuit in this country are under the age of 25. Our youths are troubled by the bleak future they see before them, and this hopelessness is overwhelming and sometimes results in suicide. Unfortunately, Inuit communities in Canada have the highest youth suicide rate, and we must address this urgent issue by providing hope to our young people and our children.
In the words of the co-chairs of the royal commission, the legacy of Canada's treatment of aboriginal peoples is one of waste: wasted potential, wasted money, wasted lives. It is measured in statistic after statistic in the rates of suicide, substance abuse, incarceration, unemployment, welfare dependence, low education attainment, poor health, and poor housing. Today I am not going to focus too much on these statistics but rather on the broad solutions to these problems.
A recurring theme of our people has been the demand for Inuit-specific policies and programs. We have been largely excluded from policy and program decision-making in Inuit, bearing an unfair proportion of the burden of government cutbacks. Developed in consultation with Inuit, Inuit-specific policies and programs would provide programs and services that focus upon the unique needs of Inuit rather than having these heaped together with other aboriginal groups or with other Canadians as a whole.
Since 1987 our core funding has been reduced by approximately 60% to a level of $341,000 this year. It should be understood that the national organization differs from the regional organizations and that the regional organizations do have land claims. They have the ability for corporate structures and corporate finances. ITC is an advocacy group that promotes land claims but will never have those corporate structures.
.1125
The substance of Inuit aboriginal rights have now been recognized and codified in most of the Arctic in the form of the comprehensive land claims with Canada. These include the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which was signed in 1975; the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which was signed in 1984; and the Nunavut Final Agreement in 1993. As you may be aware, negotiations of the land claims agreement in Labrador is underway and is rapidly progressing.
Our survival as Inuit is dependent on our continued existence as a people and our right to choose our path as a people. We consider ourselves a practical and peaceful people. We recognize the interdependence of peoples in the modern world, while asserting our own identity. This is one of the reasons Inuit accept the Charter of Rights and Freedoms while acknowledging it has flaws, and why we tend to favour non-racially based democratic governments in our northern territories. Inuit propose to establish democratically elected non-racially based governments in our traditional territories within Canada where we currently constitute the majority of the population. We continue to urge the Government of Canada to deal with Inuit on a nation-to-nation basis.
The Inuit of Canada are committed to playing a constructive role in renewing and restructuring the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. We endorse the royal commission's recommendation that a renewed relationship must be based on four principles: recognition, respect, sharing, and responsibility.
If the Government of Canada is committed to a healthy country in which equality prevails, it is imperative that it renew the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. A new royal proclamation issued by Her Majesty the Queen would lay a new foundation for the Government of Canada to introduce the legislation necessary for self-sufficiency and self-governance. The ITC views the RCAP report as being progressive, and we will be working with our land claims settlement areas to further discuss the proposed legislation as put forth by the final report, including an aboriginal nations and government act; an aboriginal treaties implementation act; an aboriginal lands and treaties tribunal act; an aboriginal parliament act; and an aboriginal relations and Indian and Inuit services department act.
The conclusions of the royal commission's final report are not being taken lightly by us. The ITC supports the proposal of a meeting amongst the aboriginal leaders and the first ministers to discuss the final report recommendations at length and to work together to establish a foundation that is conducive to the required change, and we stress that implementation must be done with our involvement. It is recognized that the successful implementation of the basis for a renewal will require a twenty-year commitment from the governments and from the Canadian society as a whole.
However, it is known that the financial and human cost of doing nothing, of allowing the final report to collect dust on government shelves and of governments continuing to make decisions for Inuit, far exceed the costs of working together with Inuit toward the same objective: the objective of self-sufficiency and self-government.
In the days following the release of the final report, I watched the news clips and read the newspaper articles with deep disappointment. To put it simply, it shocks me that approximately half of Canadians believe aboriginal people enjoy a standard of living equal to or better than other Canadians. Being born and raised in northern Labrador, having been involved in aboriginal political and social issues for 25 years and having worked with other Inuit leaders in our attempt to keep this nation united and informed, I know the realities. I am also aware that the current political climate requires tough decisions, that this is the age of fiscal restraint and government cutbacks. However, the financial and human costs of creating a dependency of aboriginal peoples have been are much too great. The costs of not taking immediate action will be devastating.
I sat back and watched with disappointment the initial reactions of government people who focused on the monetary cost of implementing the recommendations and who said we've already implemented many of the recommendations.
.1130
Before the commission was created, many aboriginal people expressed their concern that the commission would be used by governments to do absolutely nothing on aboriginal issues. These concerns were taken so seriously that there were written assurances from the federal, provincial and territorial governments that they would continue to address aboriginal issues. During the life of the commission, the governments have honoured these promises, and we applaud them for that. However, it is vain to say they have implemented many of the 440 recommendations, or even to suggest that there has been implementation of major recommendations, such as changing through legislation the fundamental premises of the policies that govern how governments deal with aboriginal peoples.
Let me remind all present that this commission consisted of seven people, three of whom were aboriginal. From 1991 to 1993, the commissioners visited 96 communities, held 178 days of hearings, heard briefs from 2,067 people, and accumulated more than 76,000 pages of testimony. By the time we had finished as a group in August, 1995, all of us had been convinced from seeing, hearing, studying, debating and considering, that the hope for the future of our relationship in this country was to make major changes, and those major changes are not free.
I do not dismiss the criticism about cost, but I also know the federal government found $10 million overnight to implement many of the recommendations of the royal commission's interim report on the high Arctic relocatees, and this occurred even though there were strong public objections from non-aboriginal and aboriginal people. And we also know the federal government was able to secure $112 million to support a military presence during the Oka Crisis. So the truth of the matter is that when government does not have the will, they do not have the money. When the will is there, there is a way, and financial resources are found regardless of public criticism. During the release of the royal commission's final report, co-chairs Georges Erasmus and René Dussault stated it best:
- At the bottom, of course, it is a question of priorities, leadership and vision. Our view is that it
would be a tragedy of historic dimensions, if, at a time there is finally awareness of the errors of
past aboriginal policy, governments were to say: We now know what the problem is and we now
know how to solve it...but we just can't.
- Or, in my words, they just won't.
In closing, I would like to thank you once again for the opportunity to address this standing committee. It is my sincere hope that we can work together to make some positive changes.
Before we conclude, I would like to give Peter Williamson an opportunity to talk primarily about the work he's done on the fur issue.
Mr. Peter Williamson (Research and Special Projects Coordinator, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): My name is Peter Williamson. I work as a research and special projects coordinator.
Before I touch on the sealing and fur issue, I'd just like to mention a couple of points that Mary Sillett brought up, dealing with housing and Inuit-specific policies and programs.
Before I started working on the fur and sealing issue, I worked on Inuit housing. I travelled from Inuvialuit to Nunavut to northern Quebec and Labrador, and met with Inuit dealing with this issue. There's a crisis in housing in our Inuit communities. When I first started working on this, the federal government said it was committed to dealing with housing for aboriginal peoples. Subsequently, the federal government cut funding for new housing, and also from the rehabilitation of housing for aboriginal communities, namely the off-reserve housing that Inuit housing is covered by. This is something that our Inuit communities feel very strongly about. We know that even among the aboriginal peoples, Inuit housing is the worst in Canada. When we live in small, isolated communities in extreme weather, we, the Inuit, feel stuck.
You can go to any Inuit community and you will find two or three generations of the same family living in the same house. It isn't an isolated case. There are dozens and dozens of families in each of these communities living under such circumstances. There are 53 Inuit communities in Canada, so when you take a look at the impact that this overcrowding will have, you can see that it affects Inuit right across Canada.
With regard to Inuit-specific policies and programs, there is no specific housing policy or program for Inuit. We are covered by the off-reserve housing program of the federal government, which was cut. This housing program that the federal government has applies to all the jurisdictions that Inuit live in - the Northwest Territories, northern Quebec and Labrador. The provincial and territorial governments have their own ways of dealing with housing too, so there is inequity between Inuit and Indians who live on-reserve. And there is also an inequity between Inuit who live in the Northwest Territories, Quebec and Labrador.
There is a real need for the federal government to take a look at how Inuit housing is dealt with in comparison to other aboriginal peoples, but also in comparison to different jurisdictions in Canada. There is a very real need to look at the policy and planning in dealing with Inuit housing. It has to do with priorities and with how governments see the need to deal with housing, municipal services, sewer, water. In some of these communities, particularly in Labrador, they don't have any sewage. They don't have any running water. You see human waste going into the backs of these houses. This is something that would be completely unacceptable in any other communities.
When you take a look at and examine the way that governments plan housing and municipal services, you can see there isn't any coordination, no thought given to how governments will deal with these problems in our Inuit communities. They haven't even taken a look to see how they can coordinate their planning in a better way. If they did do that on a long-term basis and with the idea of bringing an end to this housing crisis, we would be able to see an end to this crisis.
Before the money for housing was cut, the level of money was so low that there was no end in sight to this crisis. This was even when there was money in place. Now that the funding has been cut, we're in an even worse position. One of the recommendations the royal commission made was to deal with these problems and to bring an end to this housing crisis, not only in Inuit communities but in all aboriginal communities. For Inuit specifically, in order to bring it into the housing crisis in Inuit communities, we need our own program. We need to plan our own way of dealing with these problems.
.1140
By way of example and in leading into one of the other issues I deal with, which is sealing, there is no Inuit-specific program or policy to deal with Inuit sealing either. The federal government deals with sealing in a very general way, particularly with the east-coast fishermen. That is who the policy and the planning from the federal government is mostly directed towards.
To really understand the need for an Inuit-specific program or policy to deal with sealing, you also have to realize the importance that sealing has had in our culture, in our communities, and in our economic activities. When the Inuit still lived off the land and on the coast, sealing was one of our primary economic activities. It brought families together. When we were established in Inuit communities, the sealing industry was one way for us to maintain our way of life, of living off the land, and to maintain our traditional economic activities. Having a basis that allowed us to continue our culture, our way of life, kept us grounded while we were living in communities. There was a tremendous amount of change in our lives when we moved to communities, but when we continued this sealing, it was a way for us to continue our way of life as well. That is why it has been so important, and that's another example of why we need very specific policies from the federal government to deal with Inuit issues.
I guess we should leave some time for any questions there might be.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Thank you very much, Peter. Thank you very much, Mary.
Monsieur Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): I would like to address my first comment or question perhaps to Mr. Williamson. Last year, the Department published a housing policy. From what you say, the policy is not being very productive, at least in the Inuit communities. I know that on reserves, several families live under one roof. Could you tell me if there are communities where the problem is more chronic than in others, or whether all Inuit communities are faced with this housing problem?
In your presentation, you didn't mention the price of food once. I think it is very important. When I first went to Iqaluit, I was not yet a member of the House. Mr. Bouchard had appointed me official spokesperson for Indian Affairs and I left immediately for Iqaluit. I was overwhelmed by the price of food in these territories. Furthermore, these people earn half the Canadian salary and they're paying twice as much as we pay in the South for our food.
.1145
I would therefore like to know if there has been any development in this area, because Mr. Bonin and myself are even thinking of having a debate on the price of food in the North. I think that it is unacceptable.
You mentioned self government negotiations in Labrador and Nunavik. I wonder if you could tell us about this because I know that this is currently happening. I would also like you to tell us about representational equity in the new Parliament of Nunavut. I know that there have been discussions about this and that some people would like Parliament to be made up of half men and half women. I think that is a very original idea and I would like to know what the state of these discussions is.
[English]
Ms Sillett: Thank you very much.
There are four issues that you have outlined with respect to the housing. I know it is true that the Government of Canada did announce a major injection of funds for housing, but that was primarily for first nations communities. I remember that very well simply because CBC did ask me how I felt about the fact that the Indians got all the money and the Inuit never did. My response was that I understand there is a housing crisis all across Canada, and I think we should applaud the fact that first nations did get money. But I also really feel that equal money or more money was necessary to address the housing issues of Inuit communities.
With respect to the cost of food, this is one of the major issues that dominates the themes in the fur program. The fact is that people have to hunt, they have to fish, they have to trap because they have to eat, they have to make a living, and much of the country food is much more nutritious than store-bought food. I think we've been to many places in the north where they say the mainstay of many Inuit families is chips and Coke. Many children eat that. What we've been saying is that it's really necessary to protect our lifestyle so that people can hunt country food in order that they can eat well and can make a living.
With respect to what's happening with Nunavik self-government, Michael McGoldrick is here and is probably in the best position to address that.
With respect to the developments in Nunavut, recently they did have a Nunavut leaders' meeting. At that meeting, they discussed many issues. One of the most controversial and most debated was equal representation, that of a two-member, male-female constituency in the Nunavut government. We understand that they discussed this for many days. The majority of people, when they did vote, voted that they would desire a constituency in the Nunavut government whereby they represented men and women equally. This would be to more or less balance the power that's not there right now, and more or less to show the way in which things should be done as a government.
Michael.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Do you want to comment briefly, Mr. McGoldrick?
Mr. Michael McGoldrick (Adviser, Makivik Corporation): My name is Michael McGoldrick, and I work with the Makivik Corporation. I'm also involved specifically with the Nunavik issue, so perhaps I'm in the best position to answer the question as to what's happening with Nunavut self-government negotiations.
Essentially, the short answer is that things aren't going anywhere at the moment. There was a lot of headway made on this issue in the last three years, until about a year ago - until the referendum, essentially. The referendum came in and disrupted a lot of the routine political issues that were unfolding in the province. There were good negotiations going on with the former Liberal government, and also with the current PQ government when Mr. Parizeau was the premier. But when the new cabinet came in, it seemed that different priorities were put in place and those negotiations basically fell by the wayside.
In theory, the negotiations may resume at some later date, but there have been no active negotiations with Quebec in the last year and a half. There are some bilateral negotiations with the federal government at the moment, but all parties acknowledge that those negotiations really can't be implemented or can't be fulfilled without provincial input.
.1150
So in many ways people are simply negotiating in anticipation of having Quebec come back to the table, because it's simply impossible with the regimes and the objective of those negotiations, which is to have a regional government, bringing together various issues under Quebec jurisdiction and under federal jurisdiction under one roof.
In many ways the current negotiations with the federal government are important, but you can't complete them without the resumption of full tripartite negotiations.
The Vice-Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On the housing issue, which you spoke so eloquently on, the federal government is the sort of primary vehicle for construction, repair, and replacement of housing. That's all based on policy. It's a commitment the government made and fulfilled for some period of time. As you've explained, it has been backing away from it quite consistently.
I think this is possibly, particularly in the case of Nunavut, very much overlain with the fact that new territory will be established. My prediction would be that the government will continue to remain at arm's length from housing and use the vehicle of Nunavut as its rationale. In the settlement, I think something over $1 billion will be sitting there, certainly not in your organization.
Has anyone seriously contemplated that maybe there's a way to achieve some breakthrough on the housing front through that vehicle? I don't mean as an expenditure so much as using it as some kind of a housing kick-start. There'd be a repayment schedule, but it would be closer to the way housing is built by other parts of the population. Is that a realistic way to approach this problem? I don't think it's going to go away.
Mr. Williamson: The obligation of the federal government to deal with housing for Inuit comes from how the relationship between the Inuit and the federal government developed. When the federal government established Inuit communities and asked Inuit to move into these communities, it was on the promise of housing, health care and social services. Right from the beginning the federal government made promises for Inuit housing. Since then it hasn't fulfilled those promises about housing needs.
In Nunavut there is the opportunity to deal with housing in a more constructive way, but if the federal government doesn't put in money, it won't be fulfilling its obligations. The Nunavut government may be in a better position to negotiate funding with the federal government, but the federal government will still have to put up the money.
.1155
The Inuit may wish to consider using the money from the land claims settlement to construct housing on a contract basis. They're talking with the federal government about constructing the infrastructure for the Nunavut government, so this is something that could be considered as well.
In the smaller Inuit communities of 1,000 people or fewer, which are the majority of the Inuit communities, there is basically no economic base except for welfare. There are few jobs. There are jobs with that hamlet office, with the nursing station and with some of the government services, but there is no economic base besides that.
The majority of the people in those communities wouldn't be able to afford to go into a home ownership program where they would be able to repay part of the cost of the construction of the house. That is not feasible for those people. So really, for most of the communities and most of the people, federal funding to deal with Inuit housing is the only option.
Ms Sillett: I'd like to add to that.
In the areas that have concluded land claims, they've considered this question for a long time, probably much more than we have at the national level. It's an issue for them every single day.
I know that in northern Quebec, with their land claims agreement, some very interesting things have happened. I'm sure Nunavut has looked at that experience and all the other housing experiences in the development of its land claims negotiations.
I'd like to get Michael to tell you about the kinds of things that are happening in northern Quebec amongst the Inuit, because they actually have that as a part of their land claims agreement. I know they have really nice houses in that area.
Mr. McGoldrick: The housing situation in Nunavik, northern Quebec, has improved dramatically with the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It was the worst in the north by far. The housing development was frozen for a long time while they were negotiating. Now the homes there are quite nice. The amount of houses that were built haven't quite caught up to the actual need, but it was well on its way, and suddenly the federal government pulled the plug on new housing starts.
It was a joint program between Quebec and the federal government under the terms of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. We understand the Quebec government is still willing to inject new moneys into housing starts, but they were the minority player in this program. It simply won't even come close to providing what they need right now.
It's very dramatic, because already they're starting to slip in terms of the progress that was made over the last 10 years. The houses are of good quality. People were living well. One of the interesting impacts of this good housing was a dramatic drop in health care services and the moneys they needed for that. The doctors said that over and over again. The number of diseases and health problems dropped dramatically with those houses. For the first time people started feeling they were living in real houses in the same way most Canadians do.
Right now, in many of the communities, it's not taking long. There are no new houses, and you're starting to see social pressures building right now. That's the situation right now.
Again, I might mention that in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement there's a clause saying the federal government will contribute to a housing program in the same manner or to the same extent as applicable to aboriginal peoples on reserves. When we point that out, they say, ``Well, since Inuit don't live on reserves, we won't contribute''. It's a rather ridiculous position to be maintaining in view of the fact that there's an obligation in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
It's under discussion. We're waiting to see. In many areas across the Arctic right now, it's under discussion. We're hoping the federal government will resume its role in funding new housing starts, not just funding the maintenance costs.
The other thing too - and many discussions have taken place here on this issue - is that people in the Inuit communities and the Inuit organizations are very confused by the fact that the program was maintained for on-reserve, status aboriginal communities and not for Inuit communities. Why is that distinction being made?
.1200
Again, it harks back to that whole notion that for too long there have been no programs or policies directed specifically at Inuit. Perhaps it's time that be the case, because then the policy-makers pay particular attention to Inuit issues rather than just having a general approach to things where perhaps Inuit are sideswiped with another policy decision. I think that's the point that was being made earlier.
Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Elijah, do you have a question?
Mr. Harper (Churchill): Yes, I have a lot of questions.
I'd like to thank the people who are here with us. I'd like to thank Mary for appearing before the committee.
I have so many questions for the royal commission. I wish the other commissioners would appear at some point to discuss the royal commission so we could deal at the committee level with some of the issues we can recommend to the government for action.
But you are here to talk about Inuit issues. Are there any issues that may be quite different from the first nations' or that may converge or diverge from the aboriginal issues for the government? Would they be treated differently?
I know for housing, as you mentioned, the federal government seems to provide more funding to first nations communities or treaty Indians than to the Inuit people. You mentioned an agreement was in place to address the needs, such as housing when they were being relocated, and you talked about some of those promises in providing for homes.
Ms Sillett: I can begin, but I'm going to ask the group to help me with this one.
Where Inuit live in terms of geography, the costs actually are quite high. I understand the costs to first nations on certain reserves in northern provinces are really high too, but I really do think there's a difference in terms of degree and severity. That in itself creates special circumstances.
For example, people don't have access to health care. There have been many cases where people in our communities actually have died because transportation was not available or the weather prevented people from getting emergency rescues. That happened as recently as about a month ago, with a little boy who had been burned. Actually it's a terrible story, because he suffered close to 13.... He was only four years old. He had been burned by a camp stove, and they couldn't get in. He just.... It's really sad, but those kinds of stories are very common in our communities, and there are certain implications.
The other thing too is that of all the aboriginal languages in Canada - there are 53 - the strongest languages are Inuktitut, Cree and Ojibway. Inuktitut is right on top, so there is a difference in many of our communities, and that creates a difference in the way we approach communication services and our school systems and in how we teach languages.
We have four land claim settlement areas. Three have concluded land claims and Labrador is under negotiations. That's really quite different from first nations, because we have a greater degree of self-government. That in itself is a difference.
The other real difference is that we've opted primarily for a public government, because of the way we're constituted, whereas that's not a very favourable notion in many first nations communities. In Inuit communities I have to explain that public government is logical when you consider that we're the majority. And if you talk about a public government, in terms of the negotiations it expands the amount of traditional territory you can negotiate. That's what I've been made to understand.
.1205
Very quickly, that would be my initial response.
Mr. McGoldrick: Maybe I could just add to that. I think the one area that underlines all the differences in policy is the notion of reserves and what you were just saying about the ethnic approach or nation approach to institutions.
Inuit have generally shied away from reserves to land specifically controlled by Inuit in terms of an institutional framework. There are lands owned by Inuit as a resource, but a lot of government policy - and I'm talking about policy here - tends to focus on reserves, on status aboriginal peoples. Those policies don't easily translate to what the situation is in the north, where there isn't a strong land base. It's a non-ethnic jurisdictional base operation. Often we run into policies that weren't even directed at the north but are being applied to the north.
Ms Sillett: That reminds me. I take this for granted most of the time; it's section 91.24 that says that primarily the federal government has responsibility for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. I think Inuit were included in that because of a Supreme Court decision in 1939.
The problem is that we've never lived on reserves. We've been treated like Indians for many purposes, but we don't live on reserves. We feel the government treats us like first nations people, but it shouldn't. That kind of legislation, that kind of history, is not necessarily our history.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Thank you.
Do you have another question, Elijah?
Mr. Harper: Maybe just one more. I don't want to take up too much of the time.
You mentioned that you are treated like Indians because of section 91.24. When you negotiated a new territory in which Nunavut will be created, with the Indian people the government's policy is that it honours its treaty obligations to a certain extent. There are a lot of issues that were promised and have not been honoured with respect to the Indian people. Once they get off the reserve they don't seem to be getting the same benefits. It seems to indicate that their rights end at the reserve boundary, rights like health care or education.
How is that being addressed by the Inuit people in Nunavut? For those people who have those rights, would those rights continue to benefit the Inuit who may leave their territory to come and live in urban centres? Would they be extended the same rights and would it be funded accordingly?
Ms Sillett: It's funny that you ask that question, Elijah, because I asked that very question when I was a commissioner of the Nunavut negotiators. If I remember correctly, this was a public hearing in Montreal.
Paul Okalik was the one who answered that question, and he answered it in this way. That whole issue of portable treaty rights is a major issue for many people. He said that all the people who should be beneficiaries of Nunavut are on a certain list and we make sure that list is as inclusive as possible.
Logically, when you think about it, are aboriginal hunting rights portable? They couldn't see the argument for being able to persuade the beneficiaries that they could hunt and fish off their traditional territories, so that would not be portable.
.1210
For example, education and health are national rights, so they would extend beyond the boundaries of Nunavut. The other example was.... Can anyone help me here?
Boating was the one I was going to mention. All the Inuit who were beneficiaries.... If there is a polling station there - in Ottawa, for example, there's a very large Inuit population. They have polling stations here, and Inuit outside those territories can vote for the public officials of that government.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Thank you.
Mr. Bachand, do you have another question?
Mr. Bachand: No.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Williamson talked about Inuit sealing, and that's never really come to the committee's attention to any extent. You're right, there has been a major emphasis on east coast sealing. I think this may be something very important. I know that you know it's very important, but maybe from an economic, community and family standpoint this is a key item on which this committee needs to be promoting some initiative from government. What change would this require? Would this require a national, a federal change in regulations? Would it require a policy? Surely you've thought about all this, and I'd like to be enlightened as to what you've concluded.
Mr. Williamson: We've talked about this for the last several months at ITC. I think there needs to be a shift in policy, or at least a shift in the way the government deals with these issues between east coast fishermen and Inuit, which I guess is a change in policy, and the financial resources to deal with these issues.
The east coast fisheries have received financial resources to deal with sealing issues since the collapse of the seal industry in the 1980s, but the Inuit haven't. We have identified revitalization of the Inuit sealing industry as extremely important to our communities, our culture and our way of life - to maintain our identity for future generations - and we aren't finding that there is a place for us to deal with this. There isn't any program we can go to within the federal government because they are very much focused on the east coast fishery.
One of the areas we want to deal with is the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the United States. We want to open up the U.S. market for Inuit seal products. We've come to learn that our efforts, which haven't gotten very far because of the lack of funding, and our ideas for opening up the U.S. market have been taken by the east coast fishery. We understand that they have gone to Washington and have lobbied, and they're able to do this because they get money from the federal government and have the position that they will be included in opening up the market. We haven't been in a position to go down to Washington to deal with these issues. I think it would be good for this committee to look at how the federal government deals with Inuit sealing, and we would be pleased to work with committee staff on that.
.1215
Ms Sillett: I would like to add to that. The biggest thing happening on this issue right now is at the international level, where they're looking at international legislation as to whether to ban the import of certain wild furs. Foreign Affairs officials are negotiating on our behalf, but the direction they were given by a wild fur coalition meeting, which consisted of anyone who had a commercial, financial or life interest in furs, more or less directed Foreign Affairs to clarify certain issues, or at least to try to sign on the agreement with the U.S., because if there was no such agreement, we could say goodbye to the fur business. So that's what's happening at the international level.
One thing disturbing us is that there's been so much activity on this sealing and fur issue that it's incredible. Every single day we're dealing with animal rights groups who are more or less working.... It's a very active time, because of this legislation. This legislation is affecting the activity levels of different people. Animal rights groups are lobbying aggressively in Europe, trying to get people not to sign the agreement.
The animal rights groups have destroyed our people's way of life. We've never had the power that they have, but thanks to the fur program we've been able to make some representation.
I'm quite disturbed by what's happening with the Newfoundland fishermen. Their slaughter has been used by the animal rights people to destroy our lifestyle. Inuit don't hunt the same way they do. Inuit hunters shoot seals and use those seals in a different way. Right now they're trying to ride on the backs of Inuit to promote their own business.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Thank you for those comments.
Elijah, do you have any comments?
Mr. Harper: I have lots of comments and questions.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): I'll give you one more chance.
Mr. Harper: Just one more chance.
You mentioned the Inuit as being within the new territory establishing that public form of government, and that certain rights would apply to these individuals even though they may live outside the territory. Do you have non-aboriginal and non-Inuit people who live in that territory and were born in that territory? They would also take part in the voting of that public government.
Have there been any discussions in regard to these non-Inuit, non-aboriginal people? Are they given the same rights in terms of having a polling station in Ottawa? How is that being handled? Do they become like Ontario citizens, no longer having the right to vote in Nunavut territory? How is that addressed? Or is it only Nunavut as a nation of people in that territory that has that right?
Ms Sillett: It's addressed. Before self-negotiations even started, I think there was a lot of resistance from non-aboriginal people in our communities who thought that somehow their land, resources and rights would be threatened. So it has been under discussion. I think different situations, different organizations, and different land claims groups have dealt with that particular issue differently.
.1220
Michael can help me on this one, but based on what I've heard, in northern Quebec I assume that once you're on the beneficiary list, you have all the rights. You can be on the list for whatever reason, and it depends upon the criteria you've decided upon to be a beneficiary. Some areas might say you have to be married to an Inuk or you can be a child of an Inuk, or whatever the criteria are.
One thing we've heard quite often from Makivik is that there's a lot of resentment lately because there are a lot of what we call qalunnaat, or non-aboriginals.... Actually, I think qalunnaat means white. Someone once asked me whether that includes black people, and I said I don't think so. Anyway, I've heard that non-aboriginal people who are married to Inuit are probably the most aggressive in terms of taking advantage of the benefits, and there's a lot of resentment growing as a result of that. That would indicate that they're on the list in northern Quebec, for whatever reason. There are white people who are married to Inuit who become beneficiaries.
In Nunavut, what are the criteria for a beneficiary?
Mr. McGoldrick: It depends on whether he's talking about the public form or the land claim.
Just to add to that answer, when you're talking about public government, non-ethnic government, then aboriginal, Inuit, and non-Inuit all vote and all present themselves as candidates in the same fashion. Then, as part of these land claim agreements there are also the specific benefits given to Inuit and there are institutions that govern those beneficiaries, those benefits, and whatever else. So there are two distinctions being made as to how you plug yourselves into institutions, whether they're ethnic institutions aimed specifically at Inuit or non-ethnic.
To answer Elijah's earlier question about how a polling station outside of the territory would acknowledge that this person is a resident if it's a non-aboriginal person, basically it's a question of domicile. I don't know what the rules for Nunavut will be, but in Nunavik, where they were discussing this, if there's a student, who is clearly a case where someone's outside the territory studying just for nine months of the year and was living in Montreal, they might set up a polling station. All students who are clearly still domicile, whether they're Inuit or non-Inuit, would be eligible under that scenario.
The other question of Mary Sillett's was about the elections for the specific Inuit institution representation there, and there are criteria. I'm sorry, I don't know the Nunavut ones, but in northern Quebec the Nunavik has a lot of non-Inuit on it. Anyone who's married an Inuk would qualify.
Now there's a question that perhaps the definition has been too generous because these benefits were designed primarily for Inuit. The only reason there were non-Inuit in it was to respect the notion of a family unit. Now we're starting to see perhaps complications in that area.
Mr. Williamson: In Nunavut it's very similar. There are non-Inuit who are beneficiaries. It's self-identification, but in each community there is also a committee to approve who is a beneficiary. If somebody is rejected from that committee, then they can appeal that decision to an appeal board. That's the process.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): I want to thank all of you. I have two small questions from the chair; at least, I hope they're small.
One is on page 5. Mary, when you said in the second and third paragraphs that your core funding has been reduced, I take it that you meant the core funding of your corporation.
Ms Sillett: Yes.
.1225
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): On the next one, you also mentioned on page 2 - this was not necessarily as part of your introduction - the Inuit Circumpolar Conference and your part in helping to create the new Arctic Council, which I was involved with. I think it was forward-looking. In future, what do you see? Have you any specific goals or hopes for the Arctic Council?
Ms Sillett: All I can say is that we have had Mary Simon and Rosemarie Kuptana primarily involved in the negotiations. I think they represented our interests. They wouldn't have signed on to it had they not thought it would benefit the Inuit in Canada overall.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Yes, that was the point of my question. I hoped that it would bring more international recognition to the circumstances and problems. It impinges on the sealing business too, as Peter was talking about.
Ms Sillett: Isn't there a problem though with the Arctic Council right now in that they don't have any funding?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): I think there are probably some things to be worked out in that regard, yes.
Ms Sillett: Yes. Right now we work on the fur issue, which involves international work. I think the Inuit Circumpolar Conference worked very closely with them. They also have brought international recognition to our particular plight.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): I would like to thank you all for coming and enlightening the committee. It's very likely that we may have the opportunity to see you again.
Mr. Harper, I hope the members of the committee would stay for just a moment, because there are a couple of little housekeeping things I wanted to deal with.
Thank you very much.
Ms Sillett: Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): What I have to tell you is about Bill C-51. They're working on amendments. So we won't have a meeting on Thursday. We'll go back at it in February.
There's another comment here. Mr. Harper mentioned the royal commission report and that we might want to have the co-chairs appear before this committee. Apparently they are appearing before the Senate's aboriginal peoples committee next week. Jill suggested that they would likely be willing to appear before this committee in the new year if we invite them. Do you suggest we should do that?
Mr. Harper: The sooner the better. I think the royal commission and the people, especially the chairs, deserve to be heard. I would like to throw that out. I don't know when that will be.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Do you concur with that, Mr. Bachand?
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: I agree. I think that it is very important to do that.
[English]
Mr. Duncan: I'm sorry, I was busy talking to Mr. Williamson.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Mr. Harper suggested that we invite the co-chairs of the royal commission on aboriginal peoples to meet with this committee in the new year. Would you agree?
Mr. Harper: The sooner the better.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): The sooner the better. Have you read all six volumes?
.1230
Mr. Harper: No, no. There's a summary. But it appears that the royal commission is not being taken seriously. That's the reason for this.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): I will take that up with the chair.
Mr. Duncan: It would probably be unrealistic to think it could happen before the new year.
Mr. Harper: Whatever.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Is there any other business to bring before this meeting?
Mr. Duncan: Yes. I think this committee should formally thank Jane for her yeoman service to the committee.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): I tried to do that, but I think a formal motion to that effect would be quite in order.
Mr. Duncan: So moved.
Motion agreed to
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Thank you, Jane.
Mr. Duncan: And we wish you every success in your new duties.
Ms Jane Allain (Committee Researcher): Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): You'll find it just as confusing and exciting as this committee has been.
Mr. Duncan: We talk to a lot of different groups, but I think this representation today in terms of Inuit sealing is something we should take some level of interest in, and see if we can push or move it along a little bit. I'm wondering what the other committee members feel at present.
Mr. Harper: It's an important issue, not just the sealing, but the whole fur industry and what's happening.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): I think that would be my comment, gentlemen -
Mr. Duncan: To broaden it a bit.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): As the president said, it's in the international field and they have some confidence in what international affairs are doing with it. I hoped he would answer your question a little more specifically, because obviously if people don't want to buy Canadian furs it's going to impact on them. I'm not sure how much the east coast fishery affects or doesn't affect.... I guess they have more seals, they kill more seals, but -
Mr. Duncan: Right. I think your comment is appropriate about broadening it, because there is an aboriginal concern. I've talked to other groups as well. They were in attendance at the foreign affairs standing committee when I went and when the Crees were there with Matthew Coon-Come and their main representative on these fur negotiations in Europe. Basically the aboriginal community, from what I can gather, feels the posture they would have taken in the European lobby effort would have been different from what the federal government has been pursuing, in some subtle and some not so subtle ways. It sounds like that's a common theme, not just in regard to the furs, but in regard to the sealing and the fur industry in general, from an aboriginal context. So I think we could broaden it out quite logically and maybe make some recommendations.
I know this standing committee did work a lot on the fur issue in the last Parliament. Twice, you say?
Ms Allain: In the last Parliament they revisited the issue, but there had been a previous study done in the mid-1980s on the fur issue.
Mr. Duncan. Right, but I don't think we'd be reinventing the wheel, in that the issue has moved along and it has changed. It's a vital issue for northern communities and we know how much they need an economic base, so I'm thinking that if there's anything useful this committee could do, this might be a very practical approach to take.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): We're going to get so much on the plate we're not going to get it all done.
Mr. Harper: I think we just need to follow up on the report on the previous Parliament that sat on the committee.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): All right. We'll take that to the -
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: That is what I wanted to add: that we should continue what was being done on this committee before us; let us not reinvent the wheel. John, this is perhaps a discussion that I could invite you to participate in, at the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): That's right.
.1235
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: We could look at all the work there is to do and include it in that. I think that you also sit on the steering committee.
[English]
Mr. Duncan: Yes, I agree. I was just trying to ask the feeling of this group.
Mr. Bachand: Okay.
Mr. Duncan: I wasn't trying to push it through or anything like that.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): I would undertake to raise these topics with the chair and then put them on the steering committee agenda.
Mr. Duncan: The other thing I recognize is we're going into year four of this Parliament, and people are not going to want to launch into major initiatives as much as in years one, two and three. It's a political reality.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Yes, exactly. I agree with you. We should deal with the royal commission report.
Mr. Duncan: Yes.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): If we don't, then a lot of other people may not either. It seems to me we're the obvious committee to deal with it. It has cost a lot of money and taken a lot of time.
Okay, the meeting is adjourned.