JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 24, 1998

• 1542

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Welcome. This afternoon we're continuing with Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other acts in consequence.

Today we have Sidney Garrioch, the acting grand chief. Chief Garrioch, do you want to introduce yourself, your organization and your people who have travelled with you.

Acting Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch (Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc.): Certainly, Madam Chair. With me are Chief Ila Bussidor of Sayisi Dene Nation; and Mr. Michael Anderson, who is from the secretariat, and researcher and technical adviser to MKO. We apologize, as we have someone absent from the group. We were supposed to travel with Chief Jerome Denechezhe of the Northlands Dene. So these are the people I'm travelling with.

The Chair: If you'll allow me to take a moment from your time, sir, I see that a former colleague of ours has just entered the room, Elijah Harper, who was the member for Churchill. Good to see you. I also see Ovide Mercredi in the room, and I want to recognize his presence as well.

Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Go ahead.

Oh, I'm sorry, we have two other groups here. From the Inuit Women's Association we have Veronica Dewar, president, and she is here alone today. We also have Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak, president of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada.

Did you bring anyone else with you today, Ms. Eegeesiak?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak (President, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): I just have my executive assistant, Ms. Violet Ford, sitting in the back.

The Chair: Hi.

Okay, thank you. I want to welcome all of you.

Chief Garrioch, I think we'll start with you, and then we'll move to each of the other groups. We'll have you each say what you have to say, and then we'll all have questions to ask.

Acting Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, members of the standing committee, observers, ladies and gentlemen.

Today, on behalf of MKO and the Dene Nation, we have a presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We have a package that we need to circulate, but we apologize that we did not translate this into the French language. Do I have your permission to circulate that only in the English version?

The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to do that?

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): No.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): I think that from previous discussions at this committee, our decision for that type of documentation would allow the documentation to be made available by the witness in one language, but it would not be distributed by the clerk.

So if there is a document available, it could be made available at the table, and members who wished to do so could avail themselves of it, could go and get it.

• 1545

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

If you want to leave the brief that's available there, if members want it, they'll come and get it. Thank you.

You can proceed.

Acting Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch: Thank you. We're certainly happy to be here this afternoon.

In consideration of the solemn relationship established between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and the first nations of northern Manitoba through the treaty-making process, we of the Sayisi Nation, the Northlands First Nation, as well as the Manitoba Denesuline and the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc. come before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights taking amendments to Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other acts in consequence.

The requested amendments are necessary to ensure that the aboriginal treaty rights of the Manitoba Denesuline, which are recognized in their form by subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, can be exercised within the territory of Nunavut. We also will be recognized and affirmed by the Nunavut Court of Justice.

The requested amendments are also necessary to fulfil the honour of the crown and are in the interest of justice and human rights of the Manitoba Dene Nation.

The positions of the successive ministers of Indian and Northern Affairs with respect to the process leading to, and the provisions of, the land claims agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut settlement area and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, signed on May 23, 1993, form the basis of the requested amendments.

I will now pass to Chief Ila Bussidor. After her presentation, I'll ask Mr. Mike Anderson to lay out the amendments, as well as the technical items.

Chief Bussidor.

Chief Ila Bussidor (Sayisi Dene Nation): Merci.

I come before you today to present one issue that affects the Dene Nation in northern Manitoba and continues to be ignored by the federal government: the creation of Nunavut, which involves a deliberate exclusion of Dene input and the deliberate theft of our traditional territory.

The urgency is that the Nunavut settlement area will come into being on April 1, 1999. Time is of the essence, and the timing of our trip is crucial to our efforts to seek resolution on these outstanding issues, which have lingered far too long.

In 1910, we, the Sayisi Dene First Nations, signed an adhesion to Treaty No. 5 with Canada, which states that we have the right to our traditional lands. We signed this in good faith, believing that these things which were promised would hold true for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the river flows. However, we find that Canada has given away our traditional lands north of 60° without addressing our rights to our lands.

The Nunavut agreement, an agreement which was created by Canada and the Inuit of the Northwest Territories, will strip us of our sovereign rights to our traditional lands.

We are now at the eleventh hour. In a few short months our ancestral lands will once more be turned over to strangers. It is critical that this committee deal with this issue immediately. We have raised this issue with the last four federal ministers of Indian affairs and other political representatives, and we are enraged and disgusted by the manner in which this has been received.

If we as first nation leaders are to have any credibility and are sincere in our quest for self-government, then we as a national people must demand a full investigation of the exclusion of our treaty rights in that creation of Nunavut.

We are the victims of a welfare state. We have no financial resources beyond the bare minimum that is granted to us to govern our small reserve. Yet we have been using band funds to chase this exclusive quest to seek justice.

• 1550

We were once a proud and independent people who chose to remain far out on the northern tundra and close to the caribou. The caribou was all we needed to exist on for thousands of years.

For over six generations we have been slowly dragged into this world of dependency on another race of people. The fur trade and the treaties were instrumental in destroying what we all once were.

We have become too dependent on the government. Some days there are people who suggest that we throw that document back at them and say that we want our lands back, all the 100,000 square miles of it, including the 50,000 you gave to our Inuit neighbours.

We have suffered enough as a result of what the government has done to us. We did well for ourselves for thousands of years. Look at us now after 80 years under their treaties.

It is our understanding that since around 1976 the federal government has been assisting in the plan to create a new territory for the Inuit people. We have been requesting recognition since 1976, and have made it clear where our territorial boundaries are.

The insult and reality of it all is that we were ignored, and we're still ignored today. We have repeatedly asked the federal government to note and take action concerning our plight. Yet to date we continue to wait. We are growing impatient as we stand hopelessly while our treaty rights have been disregarded.

We should all be proud of our relations to the north who have managed to secure a future for themselves, but why at our expense? We've given up too much already. Our caribou calving grounds are north of 60° and that is where our paths and our future is.

Every lake from Yathyed Lake to Tadoule Lake to North Knife Lake holds pieces of our history. When the maps and place names of Canada change forever on April 1, 1999, a huge part of our heritage and history will be lost.

Denendeh, once a vast land, has been reduced to a few acres where my people dwell in poverty and despair. My people desperately need help, and we need to heal. For this to happen we need the Nunavut issue to be effectively dealt with. If we cannot address the issues in our backyards, then we cannot hope to set examples for other first nation people around the world.

Therefore, I urge you to support the Dene people in northern Manitoba. We as a government body have an obligation to demand that the federal government be held accountable for this unjust act upon us.

Our national leaders are in essence the only leaders in this nation who can persuade the Government of Canada to act on our behalf, as they promised us so many years ago, and make them take note that the lands they are so generously giving to the Inuit people are lands that are part of our inherent rights as first nation people.

We want to pass on to our children a legacy that includes our ancestral lands, lands that contain the echoes of our father voices. Please take this seriously, and take immediate action.

The Chair: Thank you. Thank you Chief.

Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Michael Anderson (Research Director, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc.): Mr. Chairman, I will just use the overhead projector. I appreciate the effort that the clerk and all your staff have made to help us do this.

The Chair: Well, they're a good bunch; they make a lot of effort for us, too.

Mr. Michael Anderson: Well, I appreciate it. They've been very helpful.

To assist in illustrating the comments made by Acting Grand Chief Garrioch and Chief Bussidor and to put the concerns into some visual context, we've brought some images with us. These include a map of Nunavut, the Nunavut settlement area, and soon to be the territory of Nunavut, which appeared in Canadian Geographic magazine some time ago. What also appeared within the article, as originally placed, is a depiction of the territory being discussed by Acting Grand Chief Garrioch and Chief Bussidor.

One of our images shows Denesuline NeNe, the territory currently used and occupied by the Dene of Manitoba. You'll note that even Canadian Geographic indicated that it was an area in dispute during this period of time.

• 1555

With respect to Nunavut, it is less than 5% of the territory and it is an area in which the Dene of Manitoba have continuously used, occupied and inhabited the lands for at least the last 2,600 years. The territory was once much greater, but this is the area that is used today. The results of our land use research with the communities of the Northlands Dene Nation and Tadoule Lake show it in a bit of a different format closer to home.

The green boundary is the boundary of the Nunavut territory, the Nunavut settlement area. This is the Hudson Bay coast, and this is Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The blue line represents the outer boundary of the extent of current land use and occupancy of the Northlands Dene nation and the Sayisi Dene nation. We can see from this image that more than one-half of Denesuline NeNe lies north of the 60th parallel within Nunavut, within the settlement area. This territory, the recognition of this region of land use by Denesuline, was also made by the Northwest Territories government some time ago, even prior to the conduct of our land use research.

This grey area represents what is known under the Northwest Territories game ordinance as the border A licence area. This region was established explicitly by the Northwest Territories government to acknowledge the use of lands north of the 60th parallel by Denesuline from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We can see the Saskatchewan boundary here. This area, if you combine the Saskatchewan and Manitoba land use maps together and combine that with the border A licence, you'll see is remarkably coincident. The border A licence area is the yellow zone in which the land use maps have been combined. It is important to note that this area was designated by the GNWT, the Government of the Northwest Territories, prior to the completion of our land use research. But the Government of the Northwest Territories that is presently constituted explicitly has made representation and recognition of Denesuline south of 60.

What's important about this is that while the Government of the Northwest Territories has established a program for issuing licences for hunting caribou north of the 60th parallel, the official position of the Government of Canada, which of course is the ultimate jurisdictional authority in the NWT, is that the Denesuline have no treaty rights whatsoever the instant they step over the 60th parallel. This is a circumstance that has been established officially by the Government of Canada in their representations.

As you may know, several years ago, in 1993, the Denesuline of Manitoba were invited by the former Minister of Indian Affairs, Tom Siddon, on March 10, 1993, to take the clarification of Denesuline rights north of 60 before the courts. He made these comments before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in response to very detailed questions from the members of the committee, after a presentation that we all had made on February 4, 1993. The minister was asked whether this issue would be put before the Supreme Court as a reference, and he indicated no. He was asked whether he would take any steps to clarify the issue of treaty rights of the Denesuline north of 60; he answered no and invited the Dene repeatedly to take the issue to court, which was done.

There is a Federal Court action that is now before the Federal Court. What Canada has said in response to the issue of rights in a statement of defence is, as far as the plaintiffs go, the Manitoba Denesuline, or any of them, use or occupy land north of the 60th parallel of latitude for the purpose of hunting, trapping or fishing, then the said Indians do not do so as of right but instead under licence of the crown, express or implied. In the premises, any such supposed rights to hunt, trap and fish aforesaid exist at the sufferance of the crown.

This is clearly inconsistent with the treaty promises made to the Northlands Dene Nation and the Sayisi Dene Nation some time ago. Literally, again, this means that is the position of the Government of Canada, and implicitly the legal position of the Government of the Northwest Territories as it currently exists, that if a Denesuline crosses the 60th parallel they become ordinary Canadians and are no longer treaty first nations people.

An example of the argument presented by the Government of Canada can be seen starkly in this image. The government's position is that the treaty rights of the Northlands First Nation apply only within the meets and bounds of treaty, that is, the defined treaty boundary as set out in treaty. For the Northlands Dene Nation that is Treaty No. 10, the meets and bounds are the Saskatchewan boundary of Treaty No. 10. The blue is the traditional land use area of the Northlands Dene Nation. If you took the position presented by the minister before the standing committee in 1993, and by the Deputy Attorney General of Canada in July 1993, literally the result would be that the treaty rights of the Northlands Dene Nation apply to this tiny sliver of Saskatchewan, and they somehow surrendered all of their interests in land, resources, caribou migration grounds, campsites and burial locations throughout this vast territory of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.

• 1600

This is literally the issue that Chief Bussidor is explaining to you today. This is literally the position of the Government of Canada with respect to the rights of the Denesuline. With respect to the Denesuline of the Northlands Dene Nation, they say they have no rights within this area. Subsequently they have adopted that they have rights south of 60 within Manitoba, but again for that portion of Denesuline NeNe north of the boundary, they firmly assert that there are no rights.

In addition to harvesting rights, the treaty has provided, in exchange for the surrenders of those vast territories, the provision of treaty entitlement lands as reserves. The development of the Nunavut Territory and the Nunavut Settlement Agreement has added another dimension to the issues of concern to the Denesuline.

These red dots are treaty entitlement selections, reserve land selections made under the terms of treaty as understood by the Denesuline. These blue areas are fee simple lands under the Nunavut Settlement Agreement, and as we can see, there are at least two points where there are direct collisions between treaty land entitlement selections and the fee simple land selections of the Inuit. Also, these fee simple lands occurred within the traditional territory as identified by current use and occupancy of the Denesuline.

So the issue we're bringing before you today is that it is clearly in the interests of the Denesuline to resolve this issue prior to the establishment of the Nunavut Court of Justice. And the reason for that stems directly from Canada's official position with respect to the rights of the Dene, that is, that there are no rights north of 60.

At present, the Government of the Northwest Territories does not enforce the border A licence. That is, no Dene has been charged for the single offence of not being able to produce a border A licence. The issue clearly is that the provisions of the Nunavut Settlement Agreement provide considerable powers to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board and to the entire Nunavut government. The Nunavut implementation agreement establishes the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board as an arm of public government, although not a representative of Her Majesty.

But we've noted with some great interest the recent case in the Federal Court, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. v. Canada, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Exercising its jurisdiction under the Nunavut Settlement Agreement, the NTI was successful in overturning a decision of the federal Minister of Fisheries on turbot quotas on the offshore regions beyond the land mass of Nunavut. It was very impressive.

We recognize that this intent to implement the terms of their agreement is identical to the intent of the Dene to clarify and implement treaty, but the concern really is that it's quite clear that unlike the current situation in the NWT where there effectively is a non-enforcement policy for Denesuline hunting practices conducted under other traditional ways, the Inuit of Nunavut intend to implement the agreement. They've gone to the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal has upheld this decision, and we understand the intent. The object is that there's an agreement that is enforceable before the courts and they are enforcing it.

We support them in their objectives to seek self-determination within their own lands. But the outstanding issue is this critical issue of the application and the extent of rights north of 60, and things that need to be resolved prior to the establishment of the Nunavut Court of Justice. So the recommendations that are being made specifically to amend the current version of Bill C-57 require that this matter be resolved—that is, that Canada shall refer to the Supreme Court of Canada the matter of the claim presently being advanced for and on behalf of the Sayisi Dene Nation and the Northlands First Nation in the Federal Court of Canada Trial Division in a statement of claim dated March 9, 1993, as amended, initiating suit T-70393 against the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Attorney General of Canada. That is to resolve this issue with finality.

• 1605

This case was originally filed at the invitation of the minister in 1993, and it is still proceeding through various levels of preparatory action. Furthermore, while this case is before the Supreme Court in reference, any proceedings before the Nunavut Court of Justice that involve any Denesuline of Manitoba claiming as a defence any matter set out in the claim presently being advanced for and on behalf of the Sayisi Dene First Nation and the Northlands First Nation in the Federal Court of Canada shall be stayed pending the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the reference provided for.

In addition, we note that there are provisions in part 11 of the Nunavut Settlement Agreement for invalidity, that should the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the reference provided for include a finding or declaration that any portion of this act, the Nunavut claims agreement act, or the agreement is invalid or inconsistent with respect to any matter set out in the claim before the Federal Court, Canada shall ensure that any affected portions of this act, that is, the Nunavut Act, the Nunavut claims agreement act, and the agreement, are amended in order to remedy the invalidity, or replace the invalid provision, or remedy the inconsistency.

It's our position that leaving this issue, this serious case that cries out for resolution, hanging while the new Government of Nunavut is established and the Nunavut Court of Justice is established is really not in the interests of justice, and it is certainly not in the interests of the human rights of Denesuline with respect to their interests in their lands, their tradition and their culture. So we call upon this committee to carefully consider these recommendations to resolve this with finality so that the rights of the Dene are understood and that the Nunavut Court of Justice can proceed with the management provisions that exist under the agreement with certainty with respect to the rights of the Denesuline.

That is not to impugn in any way the impartiality of the Nunavut Court of Justice, but it's recognizing that matters brought before the court are a reflection of government policy, legislation and regulations. All of these regulations clearly would require revision should the court determine with finality that the Denesuline of Manitoba have treaty rights that extend fully throughout their traditional lands within Nunavut.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Chief, is that the end of your group's presentation, until we ask questions?

Acting Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch: Yes, we are finished our presentation.

The Chair: Thank you.

Next, then, from the Inuit Women's Association, we have Veronica Dewar.

Ms. Veronica Dewar (President, Pauktuutit, Inuit Women's Association): Thank you for inviting me. With me is Tracy O'Hearn, who is a special project coordinator in our office here in Ottawa.

I have a 10-pager, and I'll try to read it. English is my second language, so you'll have to bear with me.

I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to discuss the issues and concerns of Inuit women. The administration of justice has been a priority for our membership since our incorporation, and we have done significant work at the policy level.

I will begin by giving you some background about the Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association and the women I represent. I say that with this strongness in my heart, that Inuit women need to be heard. Despite what is going on with other organizations, the opposition we've been having, we will continue to stand and represent the women that I represent.

Pauktuutit was incorporated in 1984 to act as the official representative of all Inuit women in Canada. Our mandate, to foster a greater awareness of the needs of the Inuit women and to encourage their participation in the community, regional and national concerns in relation to social, cultural and economic development, achieving equality for Inuit women, both in our society and the broader Canadian society, has been the guiding force of our work.

• 1610

I'm just giving you some background information on what Pauktuutit is all about. Towards the end, I have some recommendations I'll give to you.

Pauktuutit has established a reputation as a national organization with strong community roots and support for one significant reason. Pauktuutit derives its mandate and seeks its instruction and direction from Inuit women in the communities in the north across Canada. Their views were expressed, and policy reforms were advocated out of the views and reforms called for by women in the communities. Our work relies on keeping Inuit women in the communities not only informed but actively involved in the development and implementation of our initiatives.

Since our incorporation in 1984 we have addressed many of the serious social and health issues that affect our communities. We have undertaken comprehensive projects on family violence, child sexual abuse, traditional Inuit midwifery and birthing practices, and we are active in the wide range of health issues.

We have also addressed the question of access to justice in our remote communities. Our communities are largely still served by the circuit court system, which continues to cause immense problems for those who encounter the criminal justice system. We have heard anecdotal evidence that links suicide with the anxiety caused by lengthy delays and uncertainties caused by periodic visits to the communities by circuit courts.

In the early 1990s we received funding from the aboriginal justice initiative of Department of Justice to address many aspects of the administration of justice and its impact on Inuit women. Our work examined proposed alternatives to current justice systems, such as sentencing circles, and the realities of life in the communities without permanent policing. We have developed a pilot project to develop a program for men who commit acts of violence against women, as our community must be ready to respond to diverse measures in community-based corrections. Our association is not in a position to make a presentation on the technical merits of a unified court system.

Pauktuutit has been extremely busy, if not overwhelmed and overworked, during the last several years simply trying to keep up with the many serious issues facing Inuit women, our families and our communities. Among the many social problems we face, family violence—that is, all forms of violence against women and children—is the most frequently discussed issue in many of our workshops and meetings. Family violence has links to virtually all the other problems we are trying to deal with. It impacts on the physical and mental health of people. Women's safety is further jeopardized by the housing crisis in our communities, and our children cannot possibly do well in school when trying to deal with violence within their homes and families.

Pauktuutit plays a very important role for Inuit women in small remote communities. Many women face very real and serious repercussions when trying to speak out against violence against women and children in their own community. I am not saying all of our community leaders are abusers, but there are many men in very powerful positions at the community level who are known to be abusers. They have a vested interest in suppressing discussions that lead to increasing awareness that all forms of violence are criminal offences, and also want to protect their power and privilege. They certainly do not want to be held accountable for their own violence.

Inuit in Canada have achieved greater success with self-determination than many other aboriginal peoples in Canada. In 1999 we will see the birth of Nunavut, which means “our land” in our language, Inuktitut. Canada will actually redraw its map to include a third territory. Both native and non-native peoples live in Nunavut, but Inuit are by far the majority of the residents. We have adopted public government as a means by which we will govern ourselves, but to Inuit Nunavut means self-government at last.

• 1615

So often women are seen as a special interest group. We are not a special interest group, but fully half of the world's population. Women encompass all sectors of our society, such as elders, youth, persons with disabilities and other groups of people within our society who share common and specific concerns and needs.

While most of our leaders now understand the need to at last publicly provide lip service to women's equality, I do not believe that as Inuit women we are equally consulted, nor are our issues and concerns adequately considered or addressed. It is still primarily men who are making the decisions.

While much of the Pauktuutit work is seen as cutting edge by many people, both in Canada and around the world, we do not receive adequate recognition or resources to fulfil our mandate and contribute to the many policies and processes that have a direct impact on our lives and equality within Canada. We occasionally receive limited financial support from other Inuit organizations, but our very survival is a day-to-day struggle.

While men and women may share many of the same goals, our priorities can be quite different. I will give you some examples to illustrate what I mean. Too often the issues that are priorities for women, such as violence, poverty, substance abuse and the treatment of victims and survivors by the criminal justice system are aggravated, segregated or dismissed by legislators, policy-makers and others in positions of power and influence.

Just as the issues of particular concern to women are everyone's issues, so are all issues women's issues. Having more women in the decision-making positions would also have a direct impact on many of the issues that concern and affect us as individuals on a daily basis.

The existing justice system is built on values that too often place the interests of men ahead of those of women and it fails to acknowledge that women experience the justice system differently. It is a system based on European values of what justice is, and these often conflict with Inuit values; for example, ideas about property and property ownership, ideas about child rearing, and ideas about how people are to be encouraged to take responsibility for their actions.

Inuit women have not been well served by the existing justice system. Inuit women too often come into contact with the justice system as victims of male violence, and the justice system itself is often a source of further pain and oppression. Inuit women want change and have begun expressing their concerns, questions and opinions about how justice is delivered or not delivered in their communities. Inuit women want more information about the justice system and their rights, and they want to participate fully in decisions about their justice system in the north.

We recognize that the existing system is failing Inuit, yet at the same time alternatives must be seriously examined to ensure they do not compound the damage and suffering already caused by the existing system.

• 1620

While intended to protect, the existing justice system contains a number of barriers to achieving real justice in its assumptions about the meaning of equality between individuals. For example, all individuals are supposed to be treated equally under the law and have equal access to justice, but how can a child victim of sexual abuse have equal access to justice when the existing legal system expects all witnesses to be good talkers and to be able to discuss painful and humiliating experiences with strangers without shyness or restraint?

There is a perception that it is an institution populated by legal experts such as judges and lawyers, where people without a legal education do not belong. Pauktuutit seeks to eliminate barriers to justice and equality faced by Inuit women by empowering women at the local level with the tools to make change and advocate for change within the justice system and within Inuit society.

The justice system in all parts of the Arctic now consists of a system of courts, justices of the peace, justice committees, and other processes for dealing with matters of criminal law, family law, child protection law and many other areas. Most of the structure, values and processes that make up the justice system today have been determined by non-Inuit and men. It is time for Inuit women to have a voice in justice matters at all levels.

Inuit are faced with the challenge of constructing a new territorial government in Nunavut that will better serve the interests of Inuit and deliver justice in a more meaningful and effective way for everyone. Decision-makers in Nunavut need the expertise and knowledge of Inuit women to develop a justice system that truly serves the interests of women, children and the Inuit community as a whole.

Nunavut is an opportunity to try different approaches to justice and to do so with the full and equal participation of Inuit women. I will now tell you what some of the guiding principles of administration of justice should be from the perspective of Inuit women.

In the design of any justice system we must ensure that what are commonly regarded as Inuit women's issues, such as family law, the prevention of violence and the need for victim supports and programs for abusers, are integrated into the mainstream issues and concerns that decision-makers see as their program of work.

Women's needs and experiences must be fully reflected in the design, delivery and evaluation of every aspect of any justice system. We must ensure that community-based justice models for Inuit communities are truly based on Inuit culture; developed with the full and equal participation of Inuit women; have guidelines and standards for delivery of such programs; ensure the safety of women, children and all Inuit; and are founded on the principle that resources must accompany responsibility.

Two years ago at our annual general meeting we held discussions with delegates from all regions of the Arctic on the administration of justice. I will share with you a summary of the findings of our workshop.

The existing criminal justice system does not work and, in particular, does not serve the interests of Inuit women. It is geared too much toward the protection of offenders and does not provide enough assistance to victims.

The existing adversarial system of justice does not work well enough in determining the facts of a crime. The Young Offenders Act does not work. There is a need for elders and community representatives to prepare our programs to deal with youthful offenders and show them Inuit life skills. The practice of releasing offenders to communities that are not their home is not favoured. And communities should be notified and asked before individuals are sent back for reintegration.

• 1625

There should be more outposts used for the detention and treatment of offenders, where elders would be used to talk to offenders. Both offenders and victims should receive counselling suitable to their individual needs.

There is a concern about initiatives that result in the establishment of justice committees or similar bodies that act in an ad hoc manner, that is, without the benefit of policy guidelines or that are established without training being made available to the community members who sit on such bodies.

Justice committees could have powers to deal with minor crimes, but not crimes of violence against women or children. They should be made up of respected individuals from the communities concerned.

Governments and Inuit organizations should concentrate on developing proper release policies and programs that would include the assurance of safety for victims in communities as the first order of priority.

There is generally a need for more legal aid services, more court workers and more public education to explain the legal process to offenders and families.

Non-Inuit justice system employees should be required to take cross-cultural training delivered by Inuit and other training to deal with issues of biases.

Programs are needed to encourage and support Inuit women pursuing legal training and to recruit Inuit women lawyers and judges.

Public education and programs are needed for single mothers to understand their rights and to assist them in securing child support from a partner or spouse. If we don't know what our rights are, we are effectively denied those rights.

As Inuit women we take a holistic view of justice, with the need to provide effective treatment for offenders being equally important to the need to provide victims with adequate and appropriate services. While we are clear in our view that crimes of violence against women and children are not tolerated in our society, we are deeply concerned about the effects of the incarceration of offenders in the existing penal system.

Currently, Inuit serving federal sentences are merely warehoused until the completion of their sentences, with few, if any, appropriate treatment services available to them during their incarceration. Our communities have few permanent community legal services and we are not able to provide adequate reintegration assistance prior to offenders being released. They return to their families angrier and more damaged than when they were sent away.

The correctional system is also revictimizing Inuit. We hope to begin working with several government departments to discuss how we may be able to work together to better address the needs of Inuit offenders.

While ensuring the safety of women, children and communities, Pauktuutit has been developing a pilot project with community and clinical partners that will develop and deliver counselling services for Inuit men who commit acts of violence against women.

Resident police services should be available in all communities. In the meantime, there should be programs or services to support the ordinary citizens who are called upon to assist in the maintenance of law and order when the police are not available.

• 1630

In conclusion, our work so far has given Inuit women a sounding board. It has provided some tools to women who have historically been left out of legal reform discussions. We have identified many of the systemic barriers we face when seeking justice. We have informed many government officials, members of the judiciary, and other Inuit organizations of the role Inuit women are entitled to play in this area, but our work has only just begun.

To be truly effective, we must empower individual women at the community level by developing skills to identify the solutions to the issues we have raised. We must negotiate the implementation of those solutions with those who have the power to make changes. It is our view that if the Government of Canada, the GNWT and the provinces are truly committed to consulting with and hearing the views and positions of Inuit women, they too will have to hear from women.

This can only happen if we are given the resources we need to become ready and to take our rightful place in the negotiations to reform the administration of justice in Inuit communities. Only then will the reform of administration of justice in Inuit communities be just and equitable. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Dewar.

Next we have Ms. Eegeesiak of the Inuit Tapirisat.

Ms Okalik Eegeesiak: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good afternoon.

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in her native language]

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the standing committee for hearing this presentation on behalf of the Inuit of Canada. I'm sorry that my presentation is not in French either, but it's available in French if people would like a copy of it.

ITC is a national organization that represents the more than 41,000 Inuit living in 55 communities within the western Arctic, Nunavut, Nunavik in northern Quebec and Labrador, and those living in southern Canada.

To respond to the changing needs of the regions ITC was restructured a year and a half ago. On the ITC board we are represented by the presidents of the Labrador Inuit Association, Makivik Corporation, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. The president of the Canadian office of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, ICC, sits as our vice-president. The presidents of Pauktuutit and the National Inuit Youth Council are ex officio members of the ITC board.

I brought along a copy of our pamphlet on the Inuit of Canada, if people would like copies of it. It's in English, French and Inuktitut. There are statistics on the population in the different regions, the mandate of the ITC and some other information. As well, I brought some ITC pins for those pin collectors of the committee.

ITC has appeared before this committee on earlier amendments to the Nunavut Act and it welcomes this opportunity to speak to these new amendments. ITC has been working towards the establishment of Nunavut since ITC was formed in 1971. Bill C-57 is another necessary step in the long process in bringing effective, accountable government home to Nunavut, and for this reason, ITC strongly supports the bill.

Bill C-57 is of special interest to ITC because of two other particular reasons that I want to discuss in more detail. They include the reason for the development and proposal of a unified court system that will be established under the bill and the process through which the bill was developed.

• 1635

The reasons Bill C-57 is before you today might be summarized by saying that the Inuit of Nunavut, and those involved with the delivery of justice in Nunavut, from the RCMP to judges, all agree the current system does not appropriately respond to the specific needs of the Inuit of Nunavut. Everyone involved recognizes that facts like the geographical isolation of Inuit communities, the Inuit culture and language, the strength of Inuit families, and the attachment of Inuit to our land had to be considered when designing a justice system for Nunavut.

While Bill C-57 does not represent an ideal system for the administration of justice for Inuit, it was developed in response to the fact that Nunavut needs a Nunavut-specific justice system that is workable and responds to the needs of the people it will serve. The board of directors of ITC has adopted an Inuit-specific action plan that calls on the Government of Canada to adopt and implement specific policies and programs in response to the specific needs and concerns of Inuit. Clearly, at this time Bill C-57 is a step in this direction, because Nunavut's residents are 85% Inuit today and Nunavut represents approximately half of Canada's Inuit.

As other presenters have described, the process for the development of Bill C-57 involved extensive consultations with the Inuit of Nunavut. Nunavut Tunngavik, representing the Inuit of Nunavut, was involved in the development of the bill from the beginning, right through to a line-by-line review. ITC congratulates Nunavut Tunngavik for the excellent work it has done in representing the interests of the Inuit of Nunavut in the development of this bill.

In summary, ITC fully supports Bill C-57, firstly because it was developed in response to the specific needs of Nunavut, and secondly because the process for its development involved extensive and real consultations with Inuit. For these reasons, I urge each member of this committee to give the bill your full support.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'll just open the floor to questions. So far only Mr. Lee has indicated that he—

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): I'm fine, Madam Chair.

The Chair: You don't have any questions?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, I'd just like to thank the witnesses for their presentations. They were very well done. I have no questions.

The Chair: Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): I don't have any questions, Madam Chair, but I do have a comment to make. If you have anything to add, then please feel free to do so.

First of all, I'd like to congratulate you for your presentations. It was very interesting. I am not a regular member of the Justice Committee but I did learn something today. When you talk, Ms. Dewar, about the role of women in your community, it does give us pause. We have made some progress but we still have a lot of catching up to do in all kinds of environments. Women's abilities are still not given full recognition in so many areas. We have to be able to fight. We must keep on struggling and working. You can count on us to support you in your endeavours because it is very important to keep on with this work.

With respect to your comments on children and family violence, I was also present at the meeting of the environment committee in Yellowknife and Iqaluit. I talked with Inuit women there. Even though it was very hard for them to talk about it, because it is very hidden and a taboo subject, they said that there was a great deal of family violence and they suffered greatly from it. We must keep on working to end this violence.

When you talk about territories, Mr. Anderson, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. I gather you want a part of Saskatchewan to be included in Nunavut or... Would you please explain what exactly you mean.

• 1640

[English]

Mr. Michael Anderson: Perhaps if I used one of my overheads again, it would be clearer. The issue is that there are lands within the present-day southwest Keewatin District of the Northwest Territories, lands that are now or about to become part of Nunavut, north of the 60th parallel, that have been traditionally used by the Denesuline of Manitoba.

The issue is interesting in terms of Saskatchewan, which is exactly why this clarification is required. The Northlands First Nation, which is presently at Lac Brochet, Manitoba, signed treaty at Brochet, Manitoba, but the territory defined in the language of treaty was Saskatchewan—the northeast corner of Saskatchewan. So at the time of the signing of treaty, the treaty commission knew the ancestors of the present-day Northlands First Nation primarily used lands in what is now Nunavut.

The issue is that the minister and the deputy attorney general have indicated that treaty rights apply only within the defined boundaries of treaty as stated in the treaty text, which would mean, of course, with the image I showed, Canada's literal position is that treaty rights apply to only a tiny sliver of their treaty areas. So either the Dene would have committed cultural suicide by knowingly signing a document that eliminated access to their territory, or the government is guilty of sharp dealing by deliberately taking lands from the Dene and giving almost nothing in return. Clearly we wouldn't want to think either of those two are possible.

The only possible two remaining arguments are that rights apply fully throughout all of the territories surrendered under treaty, because there are two surrender provisions. The first is the actual meets and bounds, and the second is what is known as a blanket extinguishment clause. All other lands, wherever situated in Canada, are surrendered to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. That would mean rights must apply throughout all of those former lands.

The fourth possibility is that if the minister and the Attorney General can persist in saying rights apply only within the defined meets and bounds of treaty, the Denesuline have an unresolved aboriginal title claim within Nunavut, which is actually a subject of our court case.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): I know you mentioned this, Mr. Anderson, in your presentation, but could you just expand a bit on how the denial of the aboriginal treaty rights north of 60 has affected or will possibly affect the Dene if it's put into absolute practice? Why do you feel the rights must be guaranteed under the Nunavut legislation?

Chief Ila Bussidor: I think our rights as an aboriginal people have to be recognized, and our rights have been infringed upon. I think according to the elders, for as long as we have existed on our lands, our people—the Sayisi Dene people—have had the right to hunt, harvest, and travel freely in our territory. At the turn of the century, our rights are being stripped away from us, even though we have signed a treaty, in adhesion to Treaty No. 5, which states that our rights are protected.

• 1645

I guess we want to be recognized as a people who have a treaty with the crown and rights that have to be recognized based on our treaties. We should be able to select our lands in our traditional territory.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Can I have one more short question?

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Correct me if I'm wrong. I just want to clarify this. What you're asking for, then, is a delay in any prosecutions that may take place until the Supreme Court has the opportunity to make a ruling on the case before us. Is that correct?

Mr. Michael Anderson: The linkages that at the present time.... The issue hasn't been resolved. Up to this point, government has made really no effort to ensure that it will be resolved, leaving the rights and interests of the Dene effectively in legal limbo as a new territorial government and court system is established. So the object is to resolve the issue with finality before the Supreme Court. Certainly while that reference is before the court, there should be a stay of any proceeding that may be advanced within the Nunavut Court of Justice against the Denesuline, who as a defence claim a treaty right, for example.

The Chair: Nancy Karetak-Lindell, welcome to the committee. I didn't see you sneak in.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I guess part of it is that I just want to make it known that I live in that very area in dispute. I'm in that southernmost community, just north of Churchill, Manitoba.

We're reasonable people. I don't know if they've taken measures to negotiate the joint use of that area. From the presentation, I'm sort of getting the picture that we had no traditional use of that area. People live in Arviat who lived in those areas. So both groups of people have lived in those areas, especially around Heninga Lake and Ennadai.

So I just wanted to get on the record that there's joint use. I'm sort of getting the feeling that there's only one group of people who had this as their traditional land. I also noticed that on page 8 of the court case, paragraph 32, the minister and Canada deliberately excluded the plaintiffs from any involvement in the process by which the southern boundary was set.

I seem to recall meetings with the president of the regional Inuit association, which is KIA, taking a group of people to Churchill—a couple of elders from my community went—to try to come to some agreement. I'm just wondering what might have happened with those discussions. If that really wasn't the case with what's being stated in item 32, does that not fall under some involvement? Quite recently, I know there were some more meetings in Tadoule Lake or in Churchill. I'm just wondering what happened with those discussions and if any agreement was made.

Also, I thought people from my community were allowed to hunt south of 60, so I wonder why we wouldn't give the same reciprocal movement to hunters?

I know that's about six questions, but can you just comment on them?

Chief Ila Bussidor: There was a meeting that took place between elders of the Dene and the Inuit, and there were plans for another meeting to be scheduled. I know they put a stop to it. Whatever the reason was, I really don't know. Maybe Michael can talk a little bit about that.

• 1650

I just want to point out that, according to our elders, traditionally the Dene and the Inuit were clashing 200 to 300 years ago, and maybe even further back than that. But when we talked to the elders, they said this dispute wasn't between the Inuit and the Dene. That was what was understood between our elders. So it's the government that has to fix this problem that it created.

Mr. Michael Anderson: I'm glad you raised some of the issues about boundaries, shared use and reciprocal hunting rights. They're the things that seem to be spoken about most frequently, using words that have different meanings to different people, depending on who's listening, like the word “rights”.

There have been attempts. Taking your comments about paragraph 32 of the statement of claim on the boundary issue, a couple of different activities took place. You may recall the report of Magnus Gunther to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, made when the Dene-Métis negotiations were still going on under the Iqaluit agreement with respect to dividing the boundary.

Subsequent to that, after the Dene-Métis negotiations basically collapsed or were in the process of being terminated by Minister Siddon, the former Deputy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, John Parker, was assigned the task of examining the boundary between what would have been Denendeh and Nunavut, in the terms of reference that he received. The Denesuline from Saskatchewan to Manitoba were explicitly excluded from his terms of reference. We wrote Minister Siddon—that is, the chiefs from all the Saskatchewan and Manitoba Denesuline communities—to request that he revise his terms of reference in order to allow Mr. Parker to examine this boundary. The minister declined. The leadership and the communities didn't take that as an answer of no.

Preliminary raw land use information was carefully carried to Yellowknife to be given to Mr. Parker as the studies were going on to explain the territory. In his report, after recommending the current boundary of Nunavut, he said:

An additional issue which lies outside my terms of reference concerns the claims of the Chipewyan people of northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. These bands have traditionally utilized and currently continue to utilize areas within the Northwest Territories immediately north of the 60th parallel, adjacent to the northern borders of the provinces for hunting, fishing and trapping. In fact, they regard these lands as part of their homelands, although they do not form part of their treaty areas.

Again, I'll make further observations on these concerns. Essentially, none of his conclusions and recommendations with respect to the actual single-line boundary he was charged with developing dealt with the territory that's currently in dispute. In fact, he was explicitly instructed not to do so by the minister. So that's what paragraph 32 refers to: formal exclusion from processes that were set in motion to establish the boundary between what would have been Denendeh and Nunavut.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Not the Manitoba and—

Mr. Michael Anderson: No, but those are the decision-making processes. You may recall that in February and March 1993—I referred to that time—the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development had a series of hearings on the competing boundary claims. I know the Inuit from northern Quebec also appeared at that time. The Denesuline appeared. The chairman of the Indian Claims Commission appeared because there was a hearing going on. The commission examined claims of the Saskatchewan Dene, and it agreed with our basic position that rights apply north of 60. This was a finding of the Indian Claims Commission.

• 1655

At that time, in March or April of 1993, Canada filed formal complaints and objections with the Indian Claims Commission to try to stop it from examining this issue of the application of rights north of 60. Canada was putting a fair bit of effort into making sure the Denesuline had no forum, although the standing committee heard us clearly and asked that the minister not sign the Nunavut Settlement Agreement until TFN, at the time, and the minister had appeared before the committee.

On the issue of reciprocal hunting rights, which were referred to extensively by the minister in his presentation on March 10, 1993, and which in part comforted the committee before the signing of the agreement, article 40 of the agreement was established really without our direct involvement. In his presentation to the standing committee, the minister referred to that, and there's a mention of it in the MKO presentation. In the anticipation that no agreement would be arrived at, article 40 was added to the agreement.

The issue is that even though the minister referred to protecting Denesuline hunting rights north of 60 in his presentation to the standing committee, article 40 says: “Nothing in the Agreement shall be construed to affect, recognize, or provide any rights under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, for any aboriginal peoples other than Inuit”. That's very important, because when you then go to the provisions dealing with.... The settlement agreement doesn't provide any rights for Denesuline within Nunavut; it explicitly says that it does not.

When it gets to the area discussing the Denesuline Indian bands in Manitoba, part 4 of article 40 indicates that: “Notwithstanding any provision of Article 5”—which, of course, deals with quotas, licences, provisions and things like that—“the members of the Bands may harvest wildlife for personal, family or community consumption and may trap”, etc.

The next section, though, is where the confusion began in almost everyone's minds: “For the purpose of exercising the rights under Section 40.4.2”—there are no constitutionally rights provided by this agreement. The word “rights,” in my view, is misused. In essence, there are perhaps enforceable benefits or privileges, but they are not rights in the context that would be naturally understood by the Denesuline as signatories to treaty. They're not the same at all.

I think this is where everyone became confused in 1993, when there was a genuine interest in resolving this issue about the application of constitutionally protected harvesting and land rights north of 60. The package in article 40 used language that purported to provide for them. However, we know from the evidence, from the statements of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, that they're saying there are no constitutionally protected rights north of 60. That's where it's gone round and round.

In other words, in law, according to the structure of the Nunavut Settlement Agreement and the position of the Government of Canada, the Denesuline are stripped of their rights as they walk across the 60th parallel. If they cross the 60 degrees north latitude, they are no longer treaty first nations persons; they become ordinary Canadians hunting within Nunavut, and are subject fully to the jurisdiction of the Nunavut government. The distinction is that Supreme Court decisions like Sparrow, Horseman and Badger, all of which provide considerable limitations for the regulatory powers of provincial and territorial governments, would no longer apply in Nunavut. That's what this is all about.

The issue in the requested revisions to Bill C-57 are to clarify this issue, so that the Nunavut Court of Justice also recognizes and affirms the section 35(1) rights of Denesuline within Nunavut.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: That was my next question: how does it tie in with Bill C-57, the unified court system? You answered that.

Mr. Michael Anderson: Yes, and then it's a matter of establishing a stay of proceedings until this matter is resolved. It is quite impressive how the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board has pursued implementing the agreement. We have several co-management agreements related to hydro-electric flood compensation arrangements in northern Manitoba, and the arrangements and powers that the government shares with the Inuit of Nunavut are quite impressive. You can't help but be impressed. Certainly the intent to implement it and to take on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to do so is also.... So it's critical that the rights of Denesuline are clarified as this new government structure is put into motion.

• 1700

The Chair: Thank you, Nancy.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

You've worked through some of the area I wanted to address, but I must admit the impact of all of this on Bill C-57 is generic and structural. I suppose some of the witnesses are saying Bill C-57 ought to contain a provision that would effectively freeze some types of litigation where that litigation dealt with the harvesting and hunting privileges or rights of the people you speak for here. All the other litigation can go on, but any litigation that would impact on harvesting or hunting would have to be frozen. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Michael Anderson: That would be part of it. The language of the amendments deals with all of the issues specified in the Federal Court action, which is why it's attached to our presentation, so the substance of the relief that's sought from the court is clearly understood. Essentially it's correct that it would not interfere with the establishment of the Nunavut Court of Justice. It would stay proceedings in these areas that remain in dispute, which is a common thing courts will do when large issues of substance are being considered.

Mr. Derek Lee: Is it your view that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement excludes the reaching of an agreement of the nature you are pursuing?

Mr. Michael Anderson: That's an excellent question.

Mr. Derek Lee: I'd like as short an answer as you can give me.

Mr. Michael Anderson: I will. The agreement does provide, depending on how the agreement is arrived at. As I mentioned, part 11 deals with invalidity of the court of a competent jurisdiction—it determines that.

Mr. Derek Lee: I realize you want to give as complete an answer as you can, but either yes—

Mr. Michael Anderson: Or no?

Mr. Derek Lee: I want to hear your view on whether the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement precludes reaching any agreement with the people you represent or not.

Mr. Michael Anderson: Absent a clarification of the rights of the Denesuline, the mechanisms for reaching agreements are limited or non-existent. It's the principal fulcrum on which everything else is balanced.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. On the map you showed us there were blue hatch marks representing fee simple grants. Are those the lands that are owned privately now, or are they lands that are included in the actual 350,000 square kilometre land grant in the land claims settlement in Nunavut—or are they both?

Mr. Michael Anderson: The 2 million square kilometres is the Nunavut settlement area about to become the new territory of Nunavut. There are two areas. One still remains crown jurisdiction over which there are agreements, but the lands I showed on the map are actually the fee simple lands that are provided for under the settlement agreement.

Mr. Derek Lee: In the settlement agreement they would belong to the—

Mr. Michael Anderson: They are Inuit-owned lands.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, that's fine. Would those lands under this settlement be off-limits then to the traditional hunting of the Denesuline and others?

Mr. Michael Anderson: According to article 40—

Mr. Derek Lee: They're not off-limits.

Mr. Michael Anderson: —they're not off-limits but they are subject to regulation. The extent to which that activity is subject to regulation is the whole point of the amendments we're seeking.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. So it's possible for one of the people you represent to make their way there and hunt, but they might bump into somebody who would say they really shouldn't be there. The question of whether or not that would be enforced is still up in the air, and there is some risk that paper may start to fly, as opposed to bullets or something else.

• 1705

Mr. Michael Anderson: That's exactly correct. We would probably litigate decisions of the management board affecting Denesuline until this matter is clarified.

Mr. Derek Lee: I may be slightly misinformed about the name, but there's a land claim negotiation process involving several first nations that have already been described here in relation to treaties that were negotiated over the last couple of hundred years. That negotiation is continuing and the two first nations groups you have referred to here today are part of that negotiation process, is that not correct?

Mr. Michael Anderson: With respect to the outstanding treaty entitlement lands, the basic issue is that in exchange for the vast territories surrendered to Her Majesty The Queen or His Majesty The King, depending on when the treaties were signed, came reserve lands, an identified amount of land per family or per person. In Manitoba, 19 of 62 first nations had not received their full entitlement of lands. The framework agreement on treaty land entitlement was signed between Her Majesty The Queen in right of Canada, Manitoba and the 18 entitlement nations.

Mr. Derek Lee: That happened when?

Mr. Michael Anderson: On May 29, 1997. But what's important in this and why I'm linking it to that type of specific claim is that it's not settled. There is now a three-year process in which to select lands with two possible one-year extensions—so a total of five years. Even though the arrangement has been signed on the process and policy, the selections still are ongoing.

In the general release provisions there was also quite a struggle over this. Canada insisted that the Denesuline drop the Federal Court case in exchange for their signature on this document.

Mr. Derek Lee: But they didn't do it.

Mr. Michael Anderson: In the end they left the Denesuline with the right to pursue the case. If the case is found to be in the favour of the Denesuline, the court would find they have a treaty right to select lands within Nunavut. Canada has even acknowledged it here as an issue.

Mr. Derek Lee: Good, that takes me to my next question. The conclusion is that although this Manitoba Treaty Entitlement Agreement is in existence, and it's hopefully a good process that will produce a good result, it doesn't take the parties into Nunavut. That's a problem as well.

Mr. Michael Anderson: That's correct.

Mr. Derek Lee: If this process is successful and it doesn't take another 100 years, then at some point it would be your view that Nunavut would have to become involved in negotiations to complete the treaty land entitlement process for these two first nations that claim harvesting and hunting rights north of 60.

Mr. Michael Anderson: That's correct.

Mr. Derek Lee: I understand all of that. We could probably fit it onto two pages and it would probably fly in front of most of the judges who will be busy up there. Why do you think we have to amend the legislation to cover that off? It seems most of it's fairly logical, although it takes some cobbling together.

The parties that will administer Nunavut...and most of them will be Inuit, but not all of them will be. The people living there are simply the inhabitants of Nunavut. Why couldn't they as Canadians simply take into account this difference, this potential conflict, the ongoing litigation, and deal with all of the equities in each of their courts, which are Canadian courts, on an ad hoc basis, as they come up? I suppose you're saying you'd have to be there at every courthouse, checking every piece of litigation to make sure the issue wasn't coming up.

The Chair: He can ask the questions and then answer them, and then you don't have to trouble yourself.

• 1710

Mr. Michael Anderson: The line of reasoning is really important. If I can add my view of it, what you're describing is similar to the classic non-derogation clause that's put into every agreement: “Nothing in this agreement shall affect the aboriginal treaty rights...”, etc. That's very important.

It's one of those clauses that doesn't need to be in every agreement signed in this country, because every agreement signed with the crown is bound by the Constitution Act. So that self-derogation clause appears implicitly in everything.

However, the effect of it means that the clause is only as good as the ability of the first nations affected by those rights to be vigilant, active litigants, etc. Basically, the clause is only as good as the budget you have to take people to court to do exactly what you've described with respect to examining and challenging every decision of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board until some policy is established.

So our approach in the work we've always done is to get the foundation of law established first so that everyone understands what the law is. And then all the policies and legislation, all the regulations that are developed, reflect it. So instead of having new regulations for wildlife management being passed that don't recognize the treaty rights of Denesuline, with this recognition they would have to because they would be constitutionally recognized rights within Nunavut.

Mr. Derek Lee: If there's a rational way to address that, we'll certainly look at it, but if there isn't, I want to commend you for your presentation. You've certainly made the issue known to us here and hopefully through Parliament to the government.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Lee.

Did you want to piggy-back on something Mr. Lee said, Ms. Desjarlais?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Yes. If the treaty rights are not recognized north of 60, I'm curious about how things would play. When we see the licensing issue being handled by the group that will look after it in Nunavut, that seems to be the type of issue you think might not get out of hand. Even if somebody does get charged, they go ahead fighting it.

What will happen if the treaty rights aren't recognized and we have aboriginal people there with weapons? Will that play into things a bit differently if their treaty rights are not recognized?

And I don't know whether this is an issue. I go to the north and often people are hunting in places a lot of people in Toronto wouldn't expect to see them hunting, but they're there and I recognize that it's part of life.

I can see this happening; it becomes a more serious issue to me as something that might get out of hand. Is there a concern that this could become a real problem in respect to hunters being over there and feeling the consequences of not being able to access their treaty rights?

Acting Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch: Chief Bussidor explained the treaty issues: the traditional uses, hunting and resources, and the boundary north of 60. The elders have met and it's the issue in regards to the agreement. The owner of the ground is the matter we're trying to confront. The Manitoba Dene Nation feels left out from the process in regards to not getting their issues addressed in the act. There is a process in regards to Bill C-57.

We want the matters we are putting before the standing committee to be considered and put forth in the amendment process so those issues can be dealt with accordingly, so there is no dispute, no conflict or confrontation from the two parts of the country that are being established because of the boundary. So we're trying to extend that process and also relieve those circumstances, so there is no partisan issue in the future. That's why we're trying to present these matters before the standing committee.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you, Madam Chair.

You won't be at all surprised that I wander a bit off the subject, but I think it's important. I'm becoming increasingly concerned with the number of reports that are accepted by committee in only one official language. I believe it's the responsibility of the clerk to advise delegations that reports are expected in two official languages and I believe the government will help with the translation. Is that not true?

• 1715

But this doesn't seem to be the case. And I'll tell you—and I use the term advisedly—that as a unilingual Canadian I'm beginning to be insulted by the fact that only one language is used and, whichever one it is, the other people have to accept it. And I don't think that's right. I'll tell you bluntly that from now on at any committee I sit on, where a report is presented in only one of the official languages, I will leave that committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Grose.

Do any other colleagues have questions? Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): I apologize, Madam Chair, if this question was asked while I was absent because I had to make a few phone calls.

I want to address it to Ms. Dewar. She made a very effective presentation on where women's rights would be in all this process of what has already happened. And as I said, I'm sorry if you've already answered the question.

Do you not feel there was sufficient consultation and that the women's point of view...and as you said at the end of your presentation, you don't believe there's a women's point of view because women's issues are also family issues. It's not a women's issue; it's a family issue. You don't feel there was enough consultation done to take that point of view into account when the bill was drafted? That's what I've gotten out of your presentation, I must admit.

Ms. Veronica Dewar: Yes, that's true. A lot of times when this policy-making and decision-making is begun, Inuit women are left—

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: If I can make where I'm going with this clear, if we're establishing a justice system that is supposed to be more responsive and have community input, isn't the end result that the women will have more input into the justice system because it is community based and, if nothing else, because of the fact that you have more of a population that is female? That's the thrust of what we're trying to do for the government.

Ms. Veronica Dewar: That might appear to be from your point of view. But from the point of view of the communities, if you look mainly at the organizations, at the hamlet councils and other organizations, it's mainly men who are in these positions. And women are excluded a lot of times in the communities. For this reason, I was so happy to be here so that we could bring these matters to your attention. Women need to be included at all levels of consultations.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I would also like to make a suggestion. I'm sorry, the bell—

The Chair: We're being told that we only have 10 minutes.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Because of the fact that there will be more justices of the peace needed in order to administer this type of system, I would make a very strong recommendation that you work to try to get more females as justices of the peace if you feel that is the division that will be lacking in the set-up of this system. And you should encourage young women to go and study law and order to become part of the system.

Anyway, I'll stop there. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bakopanos.

Those bells mean we have to go and vote on some bills that are before the House.

I want to thank all of you for coming. I know we grouped you in an odd way, perhaps, from your perspective. But from our perspective, it was very helpful and it was very interesting. Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned.