Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 40
Janet Smylie
View Janet Smylie Profile
Janet Smylie
2015-05-26 15:38
Good afternoon.
I want to acknowledge my colleague, Dr. Lalonde.
[Witness speaks in Cree]
My name is Janet Smylie. I'm a family doctor and public health researcher living here in Toronto, the land of the Mississauga people.
I want to touch on four content areas.
The first one is the burden of mental health challenges and the inequities that face indigenous people in Canada compared to non-indigenous people. I'm glad to follow Dr. Lalonde, because he has talked about suicide and put it in a good context for us. I think most Canadians are aware of the disparate rates of suicide experienced by indigenous people and indigenous youth.
I want to discuss some emerging evidence that we have been able to develop in partnership with provincial and local aboriginal health service providers here in Ontario. With the majority of aboriginal people now living in urban areas, we were able to use respondent-driven sampling over the past couple of years, in partnership with an urban aboriginal health access centre called the “De dwa da dehs nye>s Aboriginal Health Centre”, to develop population-based estimates in looking at the determinants of urban indigenous health as well as health status and mental health status indicators.
Respondent-driven sampling has emerged in urban health as a major source of population-based data for hard-to-find groups of people. Unfortunately, in urban areas, our federal statistics are very poor at getting actual counts of aboriginal people, and that's gotten worse with the switch of the indigenous identity question from the long form census to the national household survey. I recently published on this topic in an international journal of statistics.
With respect to this study, which is under final review for the Canadian Journal of Public Health, we found out that 42% of the self-identified first nations adults in Hamilton had been told by a health care provider that they had a psychological and/or mental health disorder. I should mention that the dataset is owned by the aboriginal community, and they gave permission to share the data.
Using the recognized tool, the Kessler, we found high rates of depression and anxiety. Shockingly, though, using a PTSD screener, we also found that 33% of the adult population, or one in three self-identified first nations people in this urban centre, met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. Also, 41% had suicidal ideation and over half had attempted suicide. Then, and not surprisingly, I guess, given this high burden of mental health challenges, half the sample reported marijuana use in the last 12 months, one out of five reported the use of cocaine, and one out of five reported the use of opiates.
One remarkable thing, given this and other burdens—including, for example, that 16% of adults in a non-age-adjusted sample had diabetes, and that over half of respondents reported making suicide attempts and one in three had symptoms of active PTSD—we found, using the tool that was developed for veterans, that 25% reported excellent or very good health and 33% reported overall good health. When we asked specifically about mental health, 21% reported excellent or very good mental health and 43% reported good mental health. Three-quarters of the people, if you ask them in a self-reporting way, would say they're doing fine or good.
There are things I wanted to mention. I'm going to drill down a bit on the issues about post-traumatic stress disorder just because I think this is something that we really need to be thinking about if we're going to think about adequate responses to these inequities in indigenous and non-indigenous mental health.
Basically, it's an inadequate measure because what we're really looking at is complex trauma. On this, we have some distinguished scholars, including Dr. Renee Linklater here in Toronto, who's published a book about the nature of the trauma experienced by indigenous people. It's linked to the impacts of multi-generational trauma and trauma in family of origin, as well as ongoing trauma and insults. The PTSD screener was developed for veterans of war who, of course, would have experienced a very severe trauma, but it would have been for a limited period of time.
The other thing I wanted to say about this PTSD screener is that one out of three adults in this population is experiencing three or more of the following four symptoms on a regular basis: nightmares of traumatic experiences; actively needing to suppress memories of trauma or avoid situations that remind them of trauma; feeling constantly on guard, watchful, or easily startled; and feeling detached from others or surroundings.
To me this is really a huge and mostly hidden burden. Substance use has been a way of self-managing this huge burden of complex trauma, grief, depression, and anxiety for generations.
Of course it's important to note, as I've mentioned, that there are physical co-morbidities that make it even more complex. What we found in addition to the high rates of diabetes were rates of hepatitis C that were over ten times the rate of those in the general population. Actually 52% of adults and three-quarters of those over the age of 50 report activity limitations.
Given all this burden, there is also an incredible degree of resilience in the self-reported measures, but I would raise concern then, and I have been for years, around the use of these self-reported measures. So here we have one-third of the population experiencing active symptoms that you could compare to those of acute war vets and over half of them having activity limitations, but there's this huge under-reporting when you ask people how they're doing. We see that kind of reporting used still in the reports that are being generated by the federal government, based on studies like the “Aboriginal Children's Survey” and the “Aboriginal Peoples Survey”.
Turning to the root causes, another resource that I would like to bring to your attention is a report that we released in February of this year, commissioned by the Wellesley Institute, a non-partisan institute in Toronto, and called “First Peoples, Second Class Treatment: The role of racism in the health and well-being in Indigenous peoples in Canada”. In this report, with my co-author Dr. Billie Allan, who's another indigenous scholar with a doctorate in social work, we were able to draw on the extensive work of my scholarly colleagues and community members and a council of grandparents.
We detailed the impacts of specific historic and ongoing colonial policies, including the Indian Act, land dispossession and political persecution of Métis, the forced relocations of the Inuit, as well as the traumas of residential schools, the sixties scoop, and the ongoing and contemporary overrepresentation of indigenous children in the child welfare system. As many of you may be aware, there are now more children in care than at the height of residential schools. In the province of Saskatchewan, for example, aboriginal children represent 80% of the children in care.
In this report we were able to detail the pervasive nature of ongoing systemic attitudinal and epistemic racism and its adverse mental health impacts, including trauma and re-traumatization when someone tries to access services.
The adverse impacts of racism on health and mental health have been well documented in the literature internationally for other racialized populations. In fact, we had an international gathering associated with the release of the report so we were able to invite Dr. David Williams, a pre-eminent scholar who developed the measures of racism in the U.S. at Harvard University, as well as our international indigenous colleagues. For example, our indigenous public health colleagues, including Ricci Harris, have been able to demonstrate—because the New Zealand health survey asks about racism—that if you control for class and racism, health inequities actually disappear. Their research has been published in The Lancet.
We have less data in Canada, and in the report we discuss the strong stigma that interferes with acknowledgement of racism. However, there is evidence that has been generated, for example, about “racial battle fatigue” among aboriginal students in Edmonton, and a level of perceived racism, described by my colleague Dr. Annette Browne in her study of an inner-city emergency room, that was so severe that clients actually regularly strategized on how to manage racism in their encounters with emergency room staff in advance of their visits. In the Hamilton study that I previously cited, the respondent urban sampling study, we found that half of the self-identified adults had recorded experiencing unfair treatment as a result of racism.
In terms of other routes, of course, one also needs to be thinking about the gendered impacts of colonial policies and how this intersects with—
Sungju Lee
View Sungju Lee Profile
Sungju Lee
2014-10-02 13:04
Good afternoon, respectable Chair, members of the human rights subcommittee, and distinguished guests.
Before speaking about my story and explaining the situation of North Korean refugees, I would like to express my profound gratitude to the subcommittee for inviting me to your honourable meeting.
My name is Sungju Lee. I used to be a North Korean refugee, but now I'm a South Korean citizen. It's been almost three months that I have stayed in Canada as a pioneer of the HanVoice Pioneers Project this year. Now I'm privileged to have an internship with Mr. Devolin's office this fall in this beautiful building.
One day in February 1998, my father left for China to seek food. Four months later, my mom also left home, for the same reason. When I was 12 years old, I lost everything. I wasn't able to go to school after that. I had to learn how to survive rather than study at school and was on the streets for four years. During the day, my friends and I usually went to the open-air market to get some food. At night, we went to the train station to sleep. During four years, I lost two friends of mine on the street, in the winter of 1999 and in the summer of 2001.
When I was 17 years old I escaped from North Korea to China with a broker sent by my father, who had resettled in South Korea first. The broker and I went to the city of Hoeryong, where there is a border city between North Korea and China. He and I crossed the Tumen River, which is the border. After that, I met another broker in China near the border. The first broker went back to North Korea after he got some money from the second one. The broker made a fake South Korean passport and gave it to me, and I finally got to South Korea with the passport.
My case is very unusual compared to that of North Korean refugees normally coming to South Korea, because my father paid out a lot of money to a broker in order to bring me to South Korea. I met father in South Korea, and the first thing he told me was not to tell my family background to anybody in detail, since all my relatives live in North Korea.
I think North Korean refugees have different situations compared to those of other refugees. First of all, North Korean refugees in South Korea continuously are threatened and chased by the North Korean government, while other refugees are relatively secure once they get to the place where they want to live. Especially since the Kim Jong-un regime, the North Korean government has frequently threatened North Koreans resettling in South Korea through TV announcements. Under the Kim Jong-un dictatorship, the direct family members of a friend of mine, because of his escape, were executed in front of people as an example of high treason. Also, because of his defection, his relatives were detained in a restricted area, because defecting from North Korea is viewed as high treason.
Secondly, North Korean refugees in South Korea hardly trust other North Korean refugees in South Korea, because most of them have a strong fear of North Korean spies in South Korea. Many North Korean refugees in South Korea change their names and social security numbers to disappear. I also changed my social security number once, and I'm not using the official name that I used in North Korea. Most North Koreans in South Korea are living quietly, hiding their backgrounds, except for some North Korean human rights activists. Even though they are living in a free country, they cannot enjoy the freedom, unlike other refugees in free countries such as Canada.
Thirdly, in North Korea there is [Witness speaks in Korean], which means a three-generation punishment system. If somebody commits high treason, his or her relatives for up to three generations will be punished, especially so for the family of a North Korean refugee living in South Korea. The family that is still in North Korea might be executed horribly or at least sent to prison camp or labour camp for their lifetime.
Going to the sworn enemy countries of North Korea, the U.S.A. and South Korea, is high treason. When I was 10 years old in North Korea, I saw public executions. One of the biggest crimes was high treason. Because of this reason, many North Korean refugees are not willing to go to either South Korea or the U.S.A.
I think that North Korean refugees, having such a unique situation, need help from international communities. However, in my understanding, there are only two countries, South Korea and the United States, that bring North Korean refugees to their country directly from Thailand. Therefore, North Korean refugees in Thailand do not have a choice in choosing a country for their safety. They have to go to either South Korea or the United States even though those countries are not safe enough for themselves or for their families and relatives in North Korea.
Respectable Chair and members of Parliament, please understand this unique situation of North Korean refugees. I beg all of you who cherish human rights to give hope to North Korean refugees by offering an opportunity for them to resettle in Canada.
Thank you so much.
View Romeo Saganash Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you, Chair.
[Member speaks in Cree]
Allow me first, Mr. Chair, to welcome and thank our guests from the Cree-Naskapi Commission. I'm from the area so I've known these three people before us very well for many years.
I should say, Mr. Chair—I'll use the word you used—we are privileged to have Mr. Awashish and Mr. Kanatewat at this committee because for many Cree people these two are legendary figures. Both Philip and Robert are one of the very few remaining signatories of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
Welcome to you both, and thank you.
Secondly, I'd like to express my appreciation for the recommendation to recognize Waswanipi Post as a heritage park. As you probably know, that is where I spent my summers as a boy before being taken away to residential school. Thank you for that recommendation.
I want to talk about some of the issues. We've talked about the change that has happened over the last 30 years in the Cree territory. I've noticed that as well. The Cree world today is not the Cree world we knew back in the early 1980s or late 1970s. Much has changed. The legal, political, and economic landscape has changed a lot over the years. I share your view that these changes have not been incorporated into the Cree-Naskapi act.
You write in your report that the act remains a “rigid, inflexible, and unchanging instrument as it fails to evolve with the changing realities and dynamics of Eeyou local government.” I certainly share that view.
Could you tell us a bit more about the changes you've seen in the Cree world and how these changes can be reflected in a contemporary, actualized Cree-Naskapi act?
View Linda Duncan Profile
NDP (AB)
Thank you very much. I would like to go to Poland first. I apologize for my rendition of your language.
[Member speaks in Polish]
Anna Barbarzak
View Anna Barbarzak Profile
Anna Barbarzak
2014-04-29 9:37
[Witness speaks in Polish]
Rebiya Kadeer
View Rebiya Kadeer Profile
Rebiya Kadeer
2014-03-04 13:15
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, for organizing such a hearing today. Six years ago I was sitting in this chair attending the first testimony held at the human rights subcommittee of the Canadian Parliament. At that time I raised the issue of human rights violations of Uighurs, religious oppression by China, and some other population transfer policies of the Chinese government to the region.
Since the 64 years of Chinese occupation in that area, the last two years have been an especially horrific time for Uighurs and other minorities facing human rights violations. Today, we are talking about more and more extrajudicial killing by Chinese police, just shooting randomly at demonstrators and civilians without any due process. I know that time is limited; therefore, instead of giving my testimony, I will ask my assistant to read the statement.
Carol Hopkins
View Carol Hopkins Profile
Carol Hopkins
2014-02-11 8:47
[Witness speaks in Ojibwe]
I'm from the Lunaapeew nation, otherwise known as the Delaware first nation of southwestern Ontario. I'm the executive director of the National Native Addictions Partnership Foundation. Thank you for the invitation to speak with you today.
I want to cover five different areas today if I have enough time. I want to give you an overview of some of the issues related to addressing prescription drug abuse with first nation communities, a little about public health, primary health care, and community development and those linkages. I want to talk to you about collaboration and integration, and then look at a systems approach and our broader ecological systems approach.
In terms of issues, common strategies to address prescription drug abuse are not readily available in first nation communities and are even more challenging in rural and isolated areas. For example, there's no public health or comprehensive primary health care systems in first nation communities. There's a lack of coordination and collaboration between public health and primary health care systems and first nation communities. There's a lack of coordination across jurisdictions: provincial, territorial, and federal health authorities. There's little understanding of the benefits of pharmacological interventions to address prescription drug abuse issues among first nations people.
There's also a lack of and no access to withdrawal management and opiate medication-assisted treatment such as methadone, buprenorphine, or naloxone, specifically as they are linked to or working in collaboration with first nation communities and community health programs. When methadone maintenance treatment is available, clients from first nation communities often have to travel long distances, putting strains on medical travel budgets administered by first nation communities, and this adds up to significant daily costs.
There's a lack of appreciation of the impacts of colonization among prescribers and service providers. Therefore there's a lack of trauma-informed care to first nations people.
Approaches to health promotion, prescription drug abuse prevention and treatment don't often consider broader issues such as the relationships between addictions, mental health, co-morbidities, concurrent disorders, pain, and chronic disease. Some of the impacts of those issues are increased use of alcohol to manage withdrawal and increased use of heroin. There's an increased risk of blood-borne communicable diseases, and there are accidental overdoses and deaths, and increased violence.
First nations children are 15 times more likely than the rest of Canada to be in care in the child welfare system. Drug trafficking is almost four times higher than the rest of Canada, according to Public Safety Canada. Rates of domestic violence are five times higher than in the rest of Canada, and mental health and addiction issues certainly play a significant role in employability.
The change required to address prescription drug abuse issues requires change in the way governments do business. We need more horizontal work across governments and between government departments with first nations as key partners. We need support for a comprehensive framework that can be used to guide communities, regions, tribal councils, health authorities, provincial and territorial governments, and federal departments in knowing how to adapt, optimize, and realign programs and services to be more responsible and flexible in meeting the needs of first nations people.
We need to recognize that first nation communities aim to achieve wellness, and that this perception of health is often distinctly different than a medicalized model of health because the first nations' focus on wellness is more holistic. It promotes an equal balance between mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual aspects of life.
The issues among public health, primary care, and community development are that they don't often work together, especially when it comes to working with first nation communities.
But there is good evidence that there are great benefits when they do collaborate—public health, primary care, and first nation communities—specifically in the areas of maternal child programs, communicable disease prevention and control, health promotion and health protection, chronic disease prevention and management, programs specific to youth, programs specific to women, and substance use and mental health issues.
Solutions have to focus on the social determinants of health for first nation communities, and they have to include and be reflective of indigenous knowledge and culturally relevant evidence. There's a need for increased support for protective factors, such as appreciation of culture and linkages to cultural identity, use of our traditional first nation languages, culturally relevant education, access to high school, recreational activities, and linkages to cultural practitioners and elders.
We need resources and policies focused on community development and capacity building, and increased support to identify, develop, promote, and evaluate evidence-informed and culturally safe practices. We need comprehensive workforce development in first nation communities.
One of the systems approaches that has been developed culminated over four years in the creation of what is known as “Honouring our Strengths: A Renewed Framework to Address Substance Use Issues Among First Nations People in Canada”. This was a collaboration between the Assembly of First Nations, Health Canada, and the National Native Addictions Partnership Foundation. It describes an integrated, culturally relevant, client-focused system of services and supports for addressing substance use issues for first nations. The framework identifies best and promising practices to strengthen and support programs at the community, regional, and national levels and across related jurisdictions. The framework implementation to date has focused on strengthening a system of care; improving the quality of programming that currently exists in the national native alcohol and drug abuse program and the national youth solvent abuse program; ensuring better measurement, oversight, and research; and enhancing coordination and integration at all levels. The implementation of the framework represents an opportunity to support a comprehensive response to prescription drug abuse issues for first nations.
An example of some promising practices is this framework was used to inform a discussion between the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Chiefs of Ontario, and the first nations and Inuit health branch of Health Canada. There have also been community development programs in place, called mental wellness development teams in Ontario, that have a focus on community development and show promising practices.
There have been culture-based opioid replacement therapy programs, where first nations have invested their own funds in Suboxone for opioid replacement therapy, because it wasn't readily available to match the needs of the community. The community has found that it's easier to store than methadone, and easier to dispense in remote communities. They found it worked well with holistic treatment programs that were land-based programs that included counselling with cultural practitioners, culturally relevant community development initiatives, and life skills development.
Currently we're in the process of developing a broader ecological systems approach. It's called the first nations mental wellness continuum framework. It's currently under way, and it describes the vision for first nations mental wellness with culture as the foundation. It emphasizes first nations' strengths and capacities. It provides advice on policy and program changes that should be made to improve first nations mental wellness outcomes, and it focuses on cultural values, sacred knowledge, indigenous knowledge, language, practices of first nations, and understanding that these are essential to the social determinants of health for individuals, families, and overall community wellness. It has five themes, identified after regional discussions, national discussions, and discussions with federal government departments.
The first theme is that culture has to be the foundation. Two is community development and ownership, and the others are quality health systems and competent service delivery, collaboration with partners, and enhanced flexible funding investments.
What we've heard to date is that new investments are needed in addition to the realignment of existing resources. Also needed is improved information-sharing among federal departments, improved coordination of programs and services, and the mapping of authorities to see where collaboration is possible. There is a need for more flexible ongoing funding to support community-identified needs. There is a need to build on what is working in first nation communities, and align federal programs and services that impact mental health and addiction services for first nation communities.
Overall some of the key aims are to move from an examination of our deficits as first nation communities to a discovery of our strengths by focusing on culture. From the use of evidence absent of indigenous world views, values, and culture, we need to move to indigenous knowledge that sets the foundation for evidence in approaches for addressing prescription drug abuse. It also involves moving from a focus on inputs for individuals to a focus on outcomes for families and communities, and finally, moving from uncoordinated and fragmented services to integrated models for funding and service delivery.
I'm not sure where I am in time but I'm just going to keep talking until you cut me off.
Ethel Blondin-Andrew
View Ethel Blondin-Andrew Profile
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew
2014-01-27 9:36
First of all I would like to say something in my language, the North Slavey Dene language.
[Witness speaks in North Slavey]
Basically you've come here to bring a big law to us. It is a big thing. It is very major in that you say that this is the way things will be conducted on our land with this piece of legislation. We have our own opinions on that and we want to present them.
My name is Ethel Blondin-Andrew, and I am the chair of Sahtu Secretariat Inc. I represent and work for the Sahtu land claim beneficiaries. I am pleased to present the submission to you on behalf of SSI with respect to the proposed amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, MVRMA, that are set out in Bill C-15.
Daryn Leas is our legal counsel and is attending with me this morning. Grand Chief Frank Andrew of the Sahtu Dene Council is accompanying us as well. The Sahtu leadership delegation here includes Frank, Daryn, and me, as well as Chief Alvin Orilas of Colville Lake, and Wilbert Kochon, the president of the land corporation in Colville. Joseph Kochon is here as well. There is Charles McNeely, vice-chair of SSI and the president of the Fort Good Hope Métis, as well as Gina Dolphus, the president for the Deline Land Corporation and a director for SSI.
To give some background, the Sahtu Dene and Métis have lived in the Sahtu settlement area since time immemorial and now live primarily in the communities of Norman Wells, Tulita, Deline, Fort Good Hope, and Colville Lake. The Sahtu Dene and Métis entered into the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, as it's known, with the Government of Canada in 1993.
Among other matters the Government of Canada and the Sahtu Dene and Métis committed to the land claim agreement to work together to manage and preserve the lands and waters of the Sahtu settlement area in accordance with the MVRMA that was developed pursuant to the terms of the land claim agreement.
Following six years of negotiations, the SSI signed the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement on June 25, 2013. Now we are working with the other signatories to implement its terms. It is not an easy task.
Before making any specific comments about Bill C-15, the SSI confirms its general support to amend the federal legislation to give effect to the devolution agreement. We also support the enactment of territorial legislation to implement the devolution agreement, including territorial legislation to continue the obligation for proponents to negotiate benefits planned with the Sahtu relating to oil and gas activities in accordance with section 22.2 of the land claim agreement. This, I stress, is very important for the Sahtu. This is the real deal-breaker, section 22.2.
While Bill C-15 proposes amendments to the Northwest Territories Act, Territorial Lands Act, Northwest Territories Waters Act, and other federal legislation in order to implement provisions of the devolution agreement, it also proposes to amend the MVRMA to give effect to the federal action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes. SSI reiterates its opposition to the proposed amendments that serve only to implement the action plan.
In particular, SSI opposes the federal intention to eliminate the Sahtu land and water board and other regional panels and have the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board manage all land use and water licence applications. These proposed amendments serve to implement the federal action plan.
They are not related to devolution but are proposed to be lumped into Bill C-15. I heard said this morning that these are two separate things. They were until they were omnibused. We got very late notice on that.
The SSI has consistently voiced this opposition over the past five years to federal officials as well as to federal representatives and ministers throughout the devolution negotiations. Most recently we expressed this concern again, which is shared with the Gwich'in and Tlicho, to the federal officials in our written comments in October 2013. The SSI questions the need for these amendments since we do not see any need to change or alter the operation of MVRMA.
In this short presentation I will summarize our key concerns relating to Bill C-15. First, the SSI is opposed to the elimination of the Sahtu Land and Water Board. In accordance with the terms of the land claim agreement, the current provisions of the MVRMA establish a land and resource management system for the Mackenzie Valley that is effective, efficient, and honours the spirit of co-management as set out in the land claim agreement.
For the past 15 years the Sahtu Land and Water Board and other regional land and water boards have been able to balance various values and perspectives, and ensure that the affected communities are involved in the reviews. The involvement of communities and the consideration of regional information have led to better decisions with respect to land and water management.
The proposed elimination of the Sahtu Land and Water Board is contrary to the principle of partnership and co-management embodied in the current terms of the MVRMA, which underlie the land claim agreement. There will be less regional engagement with respect to the review of applications or proposed development. The proposed reconstituted board will not be able to foster regional participation and obtain community input as effectively as the regional boards have been able to achieve over the past 15 years.
The federal officials have failed to provide any justification or rationale for the elimination of the Sahtu Land and Water Board. While they have pointed out that there have been protracted delays or reviews under the MVRMA, these delays have been caused largely by the lack of federal coordination to review the decisions made by the regional boards, and that goes all the way up to the minister's office. Some of those applications have been sitting there in excess of a year.
Committees of the board is the second point. In the place of the Sahtu Land and Water Board, the regional land and water boards, Bill C-15 proposes that the chair of the board may designate three members of the board to deal with any application made to the board. A decision made by a majority of the three members would be considered to be a decision of the board.
Bill C-15 proposes that Sahtu will nominate one of the 11 members of the board. It is unacceptable that the Sahtu would only have one single representative on the reconstituted board. There are no assurances that the single board member nominated by Sahtu would be able to participate in the review of proposed activities located within the Sahtu settlement area. As a result these reviews may be conducted without any regional participation or representation. This is unacceptable and contrary to the spirit and intent of the land claim agreement. Therefore the SSI seeks assurances that these reviews will include regional representation, engage with communities, and take into account local information and knowledge.
Third is the office of the board. Bill C-15 provides that the main office of the board would be at Yellowknife or another place in the Mackenzie Valley that is designated by the Governor in Council. The minister advised that he has instructed his departmental officials to work closely with aboriginal organizations, governments, and boards throughout the implementation process to address the retention of a limited administrative function in each region. The SSI submits that an office of the board must be established in the Sahtu settlement area that can serve the northern portion of the Mackenzie Valley.
The board must have a presence and a working office in the Sahtu settlement area where a significant volume of development continues to be proposed. The office must be more than the retention of limited administrative function in the Sahtu settlement area. The regional office would be well suited to certain functions including reviewing applications, undertaking conformity checks with the Sahtu land use plan, and carrying out certain aspects of the consultation process, such as facilitating the hearings, doing community visits, and running technical sessions. The centralization of decision-making powers in Yellowknife does not benefit the public or promote effective and efficient resource management under the MVRMA.
The fourth point deals with consultation regulations. Bill C-15proposes that, following consultations by the federal minister with the territorial minister, first nations and the Tlicho government, the review board may make regulations relating to a consultation with the first nation including those with regard to the manner in which it is to be conducted. The SSI submits that this consultation process must be established in order to provide certainty about the consultation and accommodation process and to clarify roles and responsibilities. Given that Bill C-15 proposes the consolidation of federal decision-making, this certainty and clarity will be required.
The SSI must be involved in the development of this consultation process. The consultation provisions cannot simply incorporate the consultation process defined in section 3 of the MVRMA, since that definition does not incorporate the obligation of the crown to take steps to accommodate the matters raised by the first nations during the consultations.
Consultation with Sahtu is the fifth point. Throughout the MVRMA the federal minister is directed to consult with the Tlicho government, and in some cases there is no corresponding consultation provision relating to the Sahtu. For instance, a federal minister and the Tlicho must consult each other before making appointments to the board, and the federal minister must consult with the board and the Tlicho government before giving written policy directions binding on the board with respect to the exercise of its function under MVRMA. While some of these consultation provisions are rooted in the Tlicho land claim agreement, there is no reason why these provisions cannot be extended to the Sahtu and other aboriginal groups. Our focus is on how the government is doing this—not necessarily on the Tlicho themselves but the process. While the SSI supports the broad consultation obligations owed to the Tlicho, this shows the inconsistent approach of Canada in dealing with aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories. Therefore, SSI submits that the MVRMA be amended to ensure that similar consultations are carried out with the Sahtu.
Number six is on policy directions. Bill C-15 proposes that the federal minister, after consultation with the planning board, give written policy directions binding on the planning board with respect to the exercise of its functions under MVRMA. Perhaps such a policy direction could relate to an amendment of a land use plan. Given the broad range of his or her proposed authority to give policy direction, the SSI submits that the federal minister must be required to consult with SSI about proposed policy directions. The Sahtu land use plan was recently approved by SSI and must protect its integrity. This is very important to us.
Number seven is the regional studies. Bill C-15 proposes that the federal minister may establish a committee to conduct a study of the effects of existing or future activities carried out in the region of the Mackenzie Valley. The federal minister would establish terms of reference for the committee and appoint the bodies and the members of the committees including any person or body with relevant knowledge or expertise. In our view these regional studies could be a valuable tool in the review of proposed developments. The SSI submits that the MVRMA must direct a federal minister to include a person nominated by the SSI to any such committee when the study affects or is related to the matter of the Sahtu settlement area.
The SSI further submits that where a committee is dealing with respect to wildlife and wildlife habitat relating to the Sahtu settlement area, the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board or the Sahtu Renewable Resource Councils must also be part of the membership. The SSI submits that the federal minister must be required to submit and consider a request from the Sahtu or other aboriginal groups to establish a committee to conduct the regional study.
In regard to time limits, Bill C-15 proposes fixed time limits for the completion of reviews. While the minister could have the authority to extend the time limits, that authority is limited, and only the federal cabinet would have the authority to grant further limits.
The SSI acknowledges the importance of a timely process, but the process must be flexible to deal with complex matters and accommodate new issues. The minister or the federal cabinet must have the authority to stop the clock to deal with certain matters, including the crown's duty to consult and accommodate. It would be nonsensical if neither the minister nor the federal cabinet were able to grant an extension for any reason—for instance, due to delays stemming from a federal election—or if the crown's duty to consult were left unfulfilled.
In regard to fines and administrative monetary penalties, Bill C-15 proposes that the fine amounts in the MVRMA.... This is point number nine. Sorry. I haven't talked this fast since I left Parliament.
Edward Erasmus
View Edward Erasmus Profile
Edward Erasmus
2014-01-27 9:57
[Witness speaks in the Tlicho language]
I would just like to say that I do have people here with me. If you have any questions, I have legal counsel here to answer any technical questions that may arise. I also have people here in the audience. We brought our elders here, and elders' advisers, and also Tlicho government assembly members. They are all here in the room.
My name is Eddie Erasmus. I am the Grand Chief for the Tlicho Nation. I will be making the Tlicho presentation this morning. I have here with me, as I said earlier, Bertha Rabesca Zoe, our legal counsel. She will answer any technical questions you may have.
I would like to take this opportunity to voice our deep disappointment with the committee in the process here, giving us only an hour to speak to the committee on such an important issue that affects our way of life, our equal say in development of our lands, and a bill that seeks to destroy what we had agreed to in our Tlicho agreement.
It has been nine years since the Tlicho agreement came into force and our governments, lands, and jurisdictions were recognized. We have taken on huge tasks in setting up our institutions, building our laws, responding to the needs of our people, promoting a thriving economy, and building upon our rich cultural traditions. We have come so far in such a short period of time, and all the parties to the agreement should feel a great sense of pride in how much we accomplished when we entered into the Tlicho treaty. This is the foundation for a strong and prosperous relationship for decades to come.
However, there is a serious issue that threatens all this good work, our future, and our way of life. We, the Tlicho people, are tied to our lands. We are active users of our traditional lands. Our lands are central to our everyday way of life. It is for this reason that our elders told us that we have to have an equal say on what kind of development would be allowed on our lands, because only with that equal say could the importance of these lands be taken into account in decisions about large developments.
Tlicho's equal voice in those decisions about the use of land or water was at the heart of a promise enshrined in the Tlicho agreement. It took 13 years of negotiations, negotiations with Canada and the GNWT, to arrive at the compromise that could have true co-management in the Wek'eezhii region, what we call the heart of the territory and the management region that affects our way of life. The parties to the Tlicho agreement set up an independent board that we call the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board. The Tlicho government appoints half of the members, and half are appointed by Canada and the GNWT. This way we find a balance between the interests of Canada and the interests of Tlicho in preserving our way of life. We have an equal say about development that could profoundly affect our way of life.
In terms of how it works, the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board has been a huge success here in the north. It has approved development. It has done a great job of taking into account the Tlicho way of life. In fact, the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board has never turned down development proposals. Better yet, because we are involved in the process as equals, none of the decisions made by the board have ever been legally challenged. The reason for this is that the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board process has a confidence of industry, government, and the Tlicho. Furthermore, the Auditor General of Canada reviewed the board and found that not only was it doing a great job but it was significantly more efficient than any other larger boards in the Northwest Territories.
The board works and it works well, but Bill C-15 wants to take all that away. It wants to destroy what took so long to build. It wants to do so with no rational reason whatsoever. Bill C-15 seeks to destroy the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board. It wants to terminate it and replace it with a super-board with jurisdiction over the whole Mackenzie Valley where the Tlicho will have only a 0.1 member.
If Bill C-15 becomes law, the Tlicho will no longer have equality as decision-makers because of the use of land and water in Wek'eezhii. In fact, decisions about development in the heart of our territory, Wek'eezhii, will be made with no Tlicho input whatsoever. This is devastating to our ability to protect our way of life. Our voice is being silenced. It is contrary to our agreement and the constitutional promises that we will be joint decision-makers about the use of land and waters in Wek'eezhii. We cannot and will not let this happen.
We cannot let down our elders who told us that protecting our way of life was the most important thing. Why is Canada doing this? Why, when according to the Auditor General the board is working so effectively, is Canada trying to kill the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board? Why, when the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board has worked so well to bring peace to the development approval process, would Canada try to set up a system that will result in development approval delays and legal challenges? They will strangle development and hurt the economy of the north. The Tlicho have always been open to development. The largest diamond mine industry in Canada has played out in Wek'eezhii. It has been a huge economic and regulatory process. It's a huge success. It has been at the heart of the economic engine in the Northwest Territories, so it cannot be that economic development demands removing the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board.
Is it because of devolution? We supported devolution. Nothing in the devolution deal requires that the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board be terminated. Devolution would be more successful with the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board and the system we have put in place.
Simply put, there is no good reason for killing the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board.
There are profound problems with this super-board. Canada is taking the northern regulatory process from one where aboriginal people had confidence in a proven reliable and efficient set of regional boards, and it's imposing another board in which we do not have confidence, which has zero experience dealing on a territorial basis with all the matters that would be before it.
Canada better prepare industry for the reality of opposition with the land claims settlement people and the probable systematic delays that this will cause. Every aboriginal government and organization in the Northwest Territories has opposed Canada's initiative to revise the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and kill the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board and other regional boards.
Canada has returned to the old colonial way of thinking, that they know what is best for us. They are silencing our voice. That cannot be the way of the future. That is not the constitutional promise made in the Tlicho agreement. We demand better. We will stand up to this proposed law and challenge it if need be. We need to be equal in decisions about the use of land and water in Wek'eezhii. There is no other way we can ensure that our way of life is protected. To the Tlicho there is nothing more important than this.
Thank you.
Edward Sangris
View Edward Sangris Profile
Edward Sangris
2014-01-27 13:33
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Witness speaks in his native language]
I'd like to welcome the standing committee to our traditional territory of Akaitcho. You're in the traditional territory of the Yellowknives Dene, which we, as Yellowknives Dene, call Chief Drygeese territory. It's within the Akaitcho region.
The Akaitcho count has four first nations: the Yellowknives Dene Dettah and N'Dilo, the Deninu K'ue, and the Lutsel K'e.
I'd like to welcome all the elders and all the people and the youth who are here today.
To begin, the Akaitcho have used and occupied our traditional territory, which we call Akaitcho territory, and within that territory, specifically for the Yellowknives Dene what we call Chief Drygeese territory, since time immemorial.
We as Akaitcho entered into the treaty with the crown on July 25, 1900. We, the Akaitcho Dene, still have those existing Akaitcho and treaty rights within our territory. In those days, our people always had treaty rights, right from the first contact. Our people have lived here in our territory and have hunted, fished, trapped, and gathered for the livelihood of their people, as we do today.
The aboriginal treaty rights of Akaitcho Dene do not only exist on paper. We have actively lived this right up to this date. We have provided subsistence for the lives of our people in the treaty. When they made a treaty, our ancestors said, “As long as the sun rises, the river flows, and the grass grows, our people will not be hindered or interfered with to pursue their way of life.” We still follow that protocol today.
On July 25, 2000, one hundred years after the treaty was signed, the Akaitcho entered into a framework agreement with Canada and the GNWT to negotiate lands, resources, and a governance agreement, which we call the Akaitcho framework. In our framework, there are some subjects that are being negotiated, such as: economic development; resource revenue sharing, including royalties; lands and waters; hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering; and renewable and non-renewable resources.
Now I'm going to introduce Don. We will share our presentation.
Bill Erasmus
View Bill Erasmus Profile
Bill Erasmus
2014-01-27 14:00
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Witness speaks in his native language]
I want to thank you for being here so that we have an opportunity to speak to your committee. You invited us to appear. As others have said today, you're in our homeland, and you're welcome here.
I want to support the people who made presentations and who are part of our nation, the Dene Nation. We heard from many of them this morning. You have key people here to help explain the reality that exists here in a legal context, because this is all legal.
I have beside me Elder Francois Paulette, who chairs the Dene Nation Elders Council. I'll make reference to him and other leaders, who on our behalf in the early seventies went to court to challenge Canada's claim to our homeland here. Francois Paulette was the leading chief of the time, and we have two more of those chiefs who are still alive. We have Elder Daniel Sonfrere on the Hay River Reserve—and we'll hear from Chief Roy Fabian a little later today—and also Chief Charlie Barnaby, who is still alive. Those are the three people who we still have alive from that time. We heard from Chief Sangris a little earlier; his father also represented us from this area.
It has to be clear that we are direct descendants of people who entered into the legal instruments with Great Britain on behalf of your people, on behalf of your subjects. We are not subjects of the crown. We are part of what are called “Indian Nations”. The royal proclamation that your king endorsed in 1763 made it very clear that in order to come into our territory you had to enter into treaties with us.
Those treaties in 1899 and 1900 were made to gain access to the Yukon, which people referred to this morning. The gold rush was taking place in the Yukon. Many people were coming through this territory. They were interfering with us, so the crown was compelled at that time to enter into an agreement with us. Later, in 1921, the next treaty, Treaty No. 11, the last numbered treaty, happened because oil was discovered down the Mackenzie River in the Sahtu territory, so a treaty was made again in 1921 to have legal access into that territory.
We found out in the fifties and sixties that Canada in fact believed they owned our land, so we got ourselves organized. Our organization in the early days was called the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories. I have evidence here that I'll provide to you, which includes our constitution, bylaws, and other documents.
We organized ourselves. We went to court to challenge Canada's assertion over our lands, and Justice William Morrow came up with his decision.
What he did was very remarkable for that time, because rather than asking people to come to Yellowknife from all of our 30-odd communities, he went into our communities, our settlements, and our villages, and he spoke to people who were still alive and had been present at treaty time. There were interpreters and there were chiefs, and this included people on both sides, because Canada still had people alive who were there at treaty time.
He heard all the evidence and concluded that our people are the prima facie owners of the land, so we are the landowners, as Chief Norwegian just stated. That has never been contested in court.
So whatever happens here is very, very important. You're attempting to pass legislation on lands that belong to Indians who you have no legal authority over.
There's one question I want to pose to you, Mr. Chairman. Your legal obligation as a parliamentarian is to have authority over whatever it is you propose to legislate, so please provide to us the legal authority and boundaries that you have to pass legislation in our territory. That's one question we'd like to present to you. I don't know if you do that, or if indeed the Prime Minister does that, or the Governor General, but we would like to see that, because nowhere will you find it on paper that you have the authority. We'd be very interested to see it.
I could go on to a large extent here, but I want to tell you that I have copies of the Paulette case. I don't have copies of the Frank Calder case, which proved that the Nisga'a also had title, but as a parliamentarian you could find that easily in your government library.
It's significant because prior to that—I believe all of the people here at the table remember 1973, when the judgments were made—we were told that we didn't have anything called “treaty” rights or “aboriginal” rights. If there was such a thing, it was either legislated away or it was extinguished at treaty time.
So when these judgments came down, we were very pleased. It was 41 years ago. We thought at that time that we would be able to exercise this right that is clearly inherent. It doesn't come from Canada. It doesn't come from Great Britain. It has always been here. We've been here for at least 30,000 years.
Today we find ourselves in this predicament that is, as Chief Norwegian says, very awkward. Indeed it is.
I have been the elected leader of the Dene since 1987, and I've had the privilege, Mr. Chairman, to be involved in discussions like this and to sign agreements on behalf of our people. I will present to you—contrary to what we heard this morning from some of the witnesses—that we indeed signed an agreement in principle. On behalf of the Dene, I signed. On behalf of the Métis, Mike Paulette signed, and on behalf of Canada, Prime Minister Mulroney signed. The territorial government didn't have an official signature. As you know, they are an administrative arm of the federal government. They were there as witnesses but not as sub-signatories. We then did sign a final agreement in April 1990.
So we do have a final agreement that was signed. This first document was signed in Behchoko, commonly called Rae-Edzo. This document was signed in N'Dilo in 1990. It was signed by the federal government, ourselves, and the Métis, with the territorial government again as witnesses.
There was a final agreement in April of that year, and by November, in this very room that we're meeting in, Canada met with us and walked away from the table. When people say the agreement failed, it's because Canada walked away from the table. They then unilaterally imposed a whole new way of dealing with our people. Rather than all of our 30 communities, they changed their policy, which at that time was to deal with all of our people. They began to deal with regions.
We have five regions, and they vary in size—some as few as four communities, and others as large as 11. In 1992, as you heard this morning, the Gwich'in came up with their agreement, which we've always supported. It's constitutionally entrenched. It's subject to treaties 8 and 11, which are the foundation of the fabric of the country up here.
The Sahtu came up with their agreement—signed, endorsed, constitutionally entrenched—in 1993.
The Tlicho, as we heard, are now in their ninth year of governance. They have 39,000 square miles of land that they outright own and legislate with legislative authority. Someone now is trying to change that.
So we have a huge issue that we need to deal with.
I don't want to take all the time because I want to have Elder Paulette also make some comments because it's paramount that he does.
The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the consent of the Dene Indians is required. If you look at treaties 8 and 11, which we will give you copies of, it was very clear that Queen Victoria for the first treaty, and King George V for the next treaty, came up to acquire our consent. Justice Morrow made it very clear that we did not surrender. We were never defeated in war. We never relinquished our rights. Our treaties were instruments of peace and friendship, international instruments. They go all the way up to the Arctic Ocean, which in law means 200 miles out into the Arctic Ocean. So you begin to get into it.
Treaty 11 also goes into the Yukon, so what happens in the Yukon is subject to Treaty 11. The present day Nunavut Treaty 11 goes to Coppermine. It encompasses Coppermine, Paulatuk, Inuvik, Sachs Harbour, Tuktoyaktuk—where they want to build that new road—and so on. That is all Treaty 11 territory. These instruments cannot be denied. They're valid. We need to talk about what the future's going to compel us to deal with.
In my conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to support what Mr. Bevington said, who's a resident of the Northwest Territories, who grew up with us and married among us. His grandchildren play hockey with our grandchildren. He talked about the fact that we have always talked about our future. I'll also provide you with a report that Commissioner Jim Bourque provided to people of the north in the early nineties, which talked about options for constitutional development. We've had very in-depth discussions. We've always been regarded as people who would determine their own futures, not someone from the outside.
Finally, I want to make reference to two letters, one that I sent to Justice Beverley McLachlin, the Right Honourable Chief Justice of Canada in the Supreme Court, which I sent on October 25, 2012, because of our deep concerns as to what was being proposed in devolution and other developments in Canada. What I outlined to Justice McLachlin were some of the things that I mentioned today, but I made specific reference to the courts, because in a parliamentary democracy, which you are part of, we have our own government on this side. The parliamentary democracy that you are a part of has a separate institution called the judicial fabric, which you have to follow. It has to be enforced. You make the laws and the executive arm tries to enact them. If they don't enact them properly, and someone challenges it and they win the court case, then things have to change.
The problem is that things have not changed according to the ruling, so we made reference to Supreme Court judgments. For example, Chief Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada, on the aboriginal right to self-government, said, “the Crown is under a moral, if not a legal, duty to enter into and conduct [self-government negotiations with first nations] in good faith.”
Per Justice Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada on the aboriginal right to self-government:
Shared sovereignty, in our view, is a hallmark of the Canadian federation and a central feature of the three-cornered relations that link Aboriginal governments, provincial governments and the federal government. These governments are sovereign within their respective spheres and hold their powers by virtue of their constitutional status rather than by delegation.
In other words, no one delegated authority to us. We are here in our own standing and sovereignty.
Per Justice Binnie of the Supreme Court of Canada on the aboriginal right to self-government:
What is significant is that the Royal Commission itself sees aboriginal peoples as full participants with non-aboriginal peoples in a shared Canadian sovereignty. Aboriginal peoples do not stand in opposition to, nor are they subjugated by, Canadian sovereignty. They are part of it.
We are very fortunate, Mr. Chairman, to have people like George Erasmus, who lives in this community and is still alive, and who chaired this commission. I suggest you speak to him and ask him what the Supreme Court meant when their report came out in the early 1990s when Canada spent over $60 million on the subject we're talking about today.
Also, per Justice Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada and Justice Dussault of the Quebec Court of Appeal, who was the co-chair of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples with George Erasmus, on the treaty right to self-government, after noting “the essential link between the right and power of a people to govern themselves and the act of treaty making”, they wrote that the “implicit treaty right of governance has not been recognized” and that the time was right for Canadians and their governments to recognize the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to self-government and to make room in the Canadian federation for its exercise.
The Royal Commission found that the spirit and intent of the treaties required the crown to respect the inherent right of the treaty nations to govern their own affairs and territories. It has also confirmed that in entering into nation-to-nation treaties with first nations, the crown has already acknowledged their self-governing nation status.
Finally, per Justice Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada and Justice Dussault of the Quebec Court of Appeal on the treaty rights of self government:
[The first nations of Canada] have waited steadfastly for implementation of their treaty rights.... It is the Crown that has marginalized the treaties to the point where questioning their validity—clearly as a last resort—might become an option....
If the validity of the historical treaties—or certain key components of them, including the extinguishment clauses—were placed before the courts, key aspects of many portions of the written texts might be set aside.
If this occurs that would result in a crown having to negotiate the historical treaties from scratch.
Mr. Chairman, it's clear that what you're doing is in question. You are here under section 91 powers. The provinces have section 92 powers. We have section 35 powers under the Canadian Constitution. We ensured that happened in 1982. Our people went to England. We had Lord Denning render a judgment saying that if the constitution indeed comes to Canada, you have to act as if you were England. In other words, you have to honour the treaties.
Mr. Chairman, with that I thank you. We will present you with some of our documents. There's a table of contents. I won't read them out because of the lack of time, but they are provided for you.
Thank you for this opportunity. Mahsi cho.
Roy Fabian
View Roy Fabian Profile
Roy Fabian
2014-01-27 15:02
[Witness speaks in the Dehcho Dene language]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak here today.
As the chief of Katlodeeche First Nation, I would like to talk about several things. Eventually, I'd like to allow my technician to say a few things about some other things that I can't deal with.
My great-grandfather signed the Katlodeeche First Nation treaty in 1900. I want to talk a little bit about under what conditions he signed that treaty. I think it's important, because a lot of times we miss that point. What gave him the right to sign that treaty? I want to talk about that a little bit.
As for the people, we have been living on this land from time immemorial. We developed our integrity based on the integrity of the land. We developed our culture, our language and our capacity. Through those things, we thrived on Denendeh. Our people were thriving. When Canada came to us hat in hand and asked us to share the land with them, our forefathers did that. My great-grandfather shared the land with Canada and the crown, but he did it with the crown. Canada's people are subjects of the crown. You need to remember what the relationship is here. As subjects of the crown, you should make sure that you get direction from the Queen before you come and talk to us. That is something that is really important which I needed to say.
As a Dene people we had our own government based on our integrity, culture, language and capacity. We had a full-blown government just like yours. In fact, it was such an intricate form of government that we thrived on this land. Today, after over 114 years of treaty relationships, I don't sit here like my great-grandfather. Therefore, my people, the Katlodeeche First Nation people, told me that we are not to negotiate another treaty, that we are to stick to Treaty 8, because we cannot negotiate a better treaty than the one that our forefathers made when they were thriving on this land and had full capacity to be able to thrive on this land. Today we don't have that, so don't even think about trying to negotiate a new treaty.
What the Katlodeeche First Nation wants to talk about is treaty implementation. We're not going to sign any kind of a land claim. I don't think I can do a better job of negotiating a better treaty than my forefather did. I always need to remember that.
As previous speakers said here, we as Katlodeeche First Nation do not cede, release or surrender our land. We still have full authority over our traditional territory.
As they said before, when the Paulette case took place, Judge Morrow confirmed that the Dene version of the treaty is the correct version, and that the English version does not apply. It was a year after that, that we, the Katlodeeche First Nation, took a reserve. When they were negotiating that reserve, the elders at that time made sure that they did not cede, release, or surrender. Canada told us, told our chiefs, “If you settle this reserve, you will also have the opportunity to settle the land claims later on.” It's based on us taking a reserve. Therefore, we believe we still have full treaty and aboriginal rights on our traditional land. We did not cede, release, or surrender.
That means that there are four things that we have. First, we have the right to harvest, hunt, trap, and fish on our land. Second, we have the right to manage our resources. Third, we have title to our land. Fourth, we have self-government and we govern our land.
The unfortunate situation we are in is that we have an administration governing us. As Bill Erasmus pointed out, the Government of the Northwest Territories is an administrator of Indian Affairs, yet somehow you're going to devolve all this power to them. In order for you to do that, for us we still have control of our lands and resources. We have a right, an aboriginal and treaty right, to our lands and resources. You can't devolve it to the Government of the Northwest Territories without our consent. That means that you're going to have to accommodate me. Somehow you're going to have to make it right so that I can have a say on my land.
Right now I don't have a say on my land. For example, the Government of the Northwest Territories is passing legislation on my land that I believe is illegal. Things like the Wildlife Act, the Forest Management Act, and all these other acts that the Government of the Northwest Territories passes, are not supposed to apply to my land. The Katlodeeche traditional land is not ceded territory, so you can't do that.
We reluctantly participate in a lot of things your government applies to us. The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is one of them. We did not get consulted when you devised that thing, but we participated in it. As we participated in it, we began to see that it was something that worked for us to be able to protect the environment. That's the most important thing that we do as first nations, protect the land, because without the land we're nothing.
And you, as Canadians, are nothing without the land. You know that, and that's why you are fighting so hard with us to try to gain control of it. But you're not worried about the environment. You're worried about trying to exploit the resources and to kill the land. That's not where we want to go. As a first nation, we want to protect Mother Earth, so we will not support this resource management act revision. We have treaty and aboriginal rights that my technician is going to talk to, that are going to be important to us. We've given you our submission. You know what our issues are.
We can't sit by and allow this thing to take place. We don't necessarily agree with devolution, but we have no choice but to participate. At the same time if you're going to give the resources to the Government of the Northwest Territories, make sure that the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is in place to make sure they're going to protect the land the way you did. You're the ones who devised that document and now you want to change it. Why? Because you want to exploit the resources.
There's talk that this is a sustainable process. It isn't a sustainable process. What you guys are talking about is that you're just going to blow it wide open. What's going on in Alberta is going to go on here. That's something I could never agree to. The thing about it is that the resources are limited. If we exploit it all at once in the next 50 years, what are the future generations going to have? They're going to have nothing. They're going to look back and wonder what the hell those guys did. Your children are going to be in the same place, not just mine. Your future children are going to look back and say what did those guys do? Now we have nothing to live with here. That's what we're talking about here. We're not talking about anything else. As a Dene person, I need to look forward. I need to look into the future to my grandchildren and ask what I am going to do for them, not what I am going to do for myself.
This is the question all of you need to ask yourselves: what are you willing to do for your children? You guys hear all the horror stories that are going around as a result of all this development that's taken place—global warming and all that. We're ignoring it. We can't. We mustn't if we want to create a future for our future generations.
I hope you think twice about what you're doing with that resource management act. What you're going to do is destroy the land. That's what we're talking about.
With that, I'll let my friend Peter Redvers talk to a few of those issues.
Mahsi cho.
Robert Pictou
View Robert Pictou Profile
Robert Pictou
2013-12-09 11:07
[Witness speaks in Mi'kmaq]
We ask the Creator to forgive us, to have pity on us, and to help us, especially the ladies here today who have lost their daughters, lost their mothers, lost their sisters, and lost the fair sex as all we men say. The women are the fair sex. I ask the Creator to help us with what's going on here today.
[Witness speaks in Mi'kmaq]
Sharon Johnson
View Sharon Johnson Profile
Sharon Johnson
2013-12-09 11:13
Bonjour.
[Witness speaks in Ojibwa]
Hello, everyone. My name is Sharon Johnson. I come from Thunder Bay, Ontario. I'm from the Seine River First Nation. I'm Ojibwa from the Treaty 3 area.
I was invited to attend by NWAC this past weekend. It was my first time attending their dialogue for families. I found it very helpful to attend the event, although I didn't really know what to expect.
In doing this, I'm speaking on behalf of my family for the loss of my younger sister, Sandra Johnson. It doesn't.... It gets somewhat easier, I guess. It gets somewhat easier, and I think that through just continuing to sit with families at gatherings like this, I'm finding that it's what I can do to make sure my little sister is not forgotten. This flag I have here is from a memorial walk that I started with an elder in Thunder Bay. We started the memorial walk in 2005. My sister was murdered on February 13, 1992, so it's been 21 years now, pretty close to 22 years in February.
Since starting the memorial walk, I've had a lot.... It's been growing. In a way, it's good to see the families coming forward with their stories, but at the same time, it's sad, because we shouldn't have to be doing this. We shouldn't have to be walking to make sure that people don't forget that a sister, a mother, a daughter, or a granddaughter was murdered or has gone missing.
For me to sit here today for my little sister Sandra, I just hope that it brings healing to the people, to other people like me and to other families like mine, and that some day we'll know, and we'll put closure to our grief.
We don't know if that's ever going to happen, but in the meantime waking up every day to remember that we don't know the answers, it's hard to get up and walk every day and do what I need to do. So many times throughout the years since I started doing this memorial walk, every time we finish a walk, I tell myself, “That's it. I'm not doing another one,” because the work is too hard, organizing the walk and just everything else I'm invited to do. I always say, “That's it. I'm not doing another one. It's too hard,” and then I get a phone call or an e-mail saying, “Sharon, do you want to come and help out? Do you want to come and join us?” I just say, “Yes, sure, I'll come. I'll come and do it,” and I'm doing it again.
I think that's because it's in here, it's in my heart. I carry my little sister in my heart, and I know that every time I agree to do something, she is right here beside me and she's telling me that it's okay.
I'm going to leave it at that now. I'm just going to share a little story here about this eagle feather, this white feather. This was given to me to do the work for our missing and murdered women. It's the same feather you see there on the flag for our memorial walk. I carry it with me everywhere I go and I hold it when I pray. This one here was given to me by my brother so I carry that, too. I'm just going to pass it along for other family members to use.
Thank you, meegwetch.
Brenda Bignell
View Brenda Bignell Profile
Brenda Bignell
2013-12-09 11:45
[Witness speaks in Ojibwa]
Thank you for inviting me. I really appreciate being here, and I look forward to sharing my story with all of you. I had to write down my story because I'm way too emotional to be able to just speak from my heart. Life is hard, life has been hard.
The first thing I want to talk about is mothers. I want to talk about women as parents. As women, we give birth to men and women and children—boys, girls—you know, that's our role; that's what we do; it's our life. I want to talk about how my mother felt when her son went missing and was found murdered seven months later. That's really difficult to have to go through. He died on my birthday, 40 years ago.
It's like yesterday when someone goes missing. It's like yesterday when you watch your mom and dad suffer, and you see the pain on their faces. How does the family function? How does the family function when the parents are lost? How does that happen? You know, as a child you go deep inside yourself, and you look at your mom and dad, and you think, and you wonder: “How do you keep on going, Mom and Dad? How can you look after the rest of us when one is missing?”
I'm not here only to talk about women. I have men to talk about because as women, we give birth to men. My brother Clark was the first one murdered. The police have the nerve to tell me, 35 years later, after I discover—after I get a phone call from a man telling me, “We know who killed your brother.” What does the RCMP do? They phone and tell me, “Shut up. Don't talk to anybody about this.” I know who killed my brother, and people know who killed my brother. Will those two men ever be on trial? Not likely, not freaking likely, because who cares? Who cares about us brown people? Does anybody care? I'd like to know. Because that's a death, that’s a murder. And those two men are still walking around today to torture other people.
Where is justice for our people? It just doesn't exist, does it?
That's just one man, and that's just two parents, my mom and my dad, but we all suffered, us brothers and sisters. We all suffered, suffered so much. My brothers can't even walk across the river because my brother was thrown into that river. That's how he died; he took a beating and they threw him over the bridge. Seven months' later, his body washed up, all swollen. There was my brother. But the people who knew he was missing knew where he was, right? The family knew where my brother was, but they never told anybody. Why would they want to? They committed a crime; they killed a human being. But it’s shameful that the RCMP would tell me to keep quiet. That is the most sinful part of our existence as Canadian citizens—when the RCMP tell you, “Keep quiet. Don't talk about this anymore.”
Now, we all know that we the native people are the bread and butter of this land. I know that. We know that. We've been kind, we've been generous. I'd like to see some of that generosity come back to us.
My niece Daleen went missing. Just so you know what it takes to find one missing person; for four years, my sister put out a quarter of a million dollars.
If my sister was not the superintendent of schools, if her husband was not an educator, a teacher, both making lots of money.... Both saved all their money all of their lives thinking that when they get old, they're going to retire. Where did their retirement dollars go? To finding their daughter, who was dismembered, burnt. That's how we found my niece, how my sister found our niece.
But on that quarter of a million dollars that she spent, would the provincial or federal government ever invest a quarter of a million dollars per family? It took my sister four years, and it took the heart and the compassion of my white brothers and sisters across this land to help my sister.
I don't walk here alone; I don't live here alone. We live here together as brown and white people and all colours of people. We live together. We need to show each other the conscientious minds and hearts that we have by taking care of one another.
When my sister's daughter went missing that first night, we were there the very next day. I went from The Pas to Saskatoon. I had to hike there. That's a 350-mile trip, one way. I walked there. I drove there. I've been to Saskatoon many times to go and help my sister, but that night, the second night that she went missing, my sister said, “My daughter is not the kind of person to go out and prostitute herself, get drunk, and be rowdy and disappear—not my daughter.” Her daughter was going to university.
Nobody believed my sister. The RCMP said, oh no, she's doing her own thing—the audacity.
If one of your children was missing, you would know your daughter or your son so well that you would know that they would come home or not come home. You'd know. All of us know our children and what they're capable of. My sister knew her daughter was not the kind of girl to go out all night long. Sure enough, four years later, the RCMP made a statement and they found out who killed my niece. They found out who killed her because he had told on himself. He was bragging about how much he despises native people.
That's pretty sad when racism is so thick in this country of ours that this person could actually brag about killing a native person—brag about it. The very nerve of that individual. That guy's in jail right now thanks to my sister and her quarter of a million dollars. The RCMP didn't help. They did in the long run, but it was the detectives who she paid from the get-go...and I was there, sitting with her and negotiating how much she was going to pay that detective. It costs a lot of money. It costs a lot of money to get into the hearts and minds of my white brothers and sisters so that you can think about us as a people.
She put out 89,000 shiny, glossy flyers in Saskatoon. That cost her $8,000 for 89,000 flyers. Who put out those 89,000 flyers? Her two boys and her two grandchildren. Four people put out 89,000 flyers to help find her daughter.
I couldn't help. It hurts me that I couldn't help, but we all do the best we can when it comes to finding a missing family member. It takes a lot of energy out of us.
There's my niece Daleen.
There's my almost stepmother.
My dad is a World War II veteran, a sniper, and he and mom didn't get along so dad decided that he would have a second wife. The second wife had the most bitter, toughest life that she could ever have.
It's not that my dad induced that life on her. She had one like that before she went to my dad. One winter night she left Pukatawagan, and no one has seen her since. But nobody could care less either as to where she was. Nobody could care. Nobody cared. There wasn't even a search. Nobody walked. Nobody looked. Nobody wants to know, I guess. But that's Elizabeth Dorian. She's out there right now, lost. Nobody has the manpower, the time to go look for her. For all we know, she might have fallen off a bridge. She might be in the river right now. She might have been taken by animals. We don't know. And until there's an investigation on that woman, then we will never know. But I think her children, two of her children—my half-brother and my half-sister—deserve some closure as to what happened to their mother. Even if all we find are bones, it's something to give those two—my half-brother and my half-sister—a future, an optimism that life could be better, that it could get better.
There's Andrew Flett, another one of my cousins. He's male. Again, he was up in northern Manitoba. He's been missing for two years now. My cousin's daughter, Amanda Bartlett, is another family member. I've come to you with seven names today just in my family alone of people I've lost, who are missing. That's what I've come to this table with. It's the pain that our family is living through right now. And they don't have a quarter of a million dollars like my sister Pauline. They don't. They have to depend on the resources of the province, the federal government, women's organizations, our own communities, and anything that we can pull up to help our people find their missing loved ones.
But finding the money: that's the biggest job there for our people. When you go out to start finding someone to speak for you and to help you look, that is hard to find too, because commitment is tough. So I agree with Brenda, that you have to do things yourself. Who else is going to do it? Who else is going to walk those 16 or 20 hours for us? Nobody is going to do that except us. That's the way our system is today. And I guess it's right too. Because that is our family and it is right that we are the ones who come to their defence. It is right. It is good, and I like that. It sure made me proud to be able to do eight years. My sister created an awareness walk for four years. When her daughter was found she did a four-year memorial run after that. But she's tired.
To the lady who said, “I'm tired”, we know how that feels—to be tired, to be exhausted. We know how it feels to not be able to sleep for 20 hours at a time. You're lucky to be able to sleep three or four hours in a night—that is a blessing to be able to sleep three or four hours in one night. That's amazing if you can go to sleep and wake up really energized because you had four hours of sleep. Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Creator. I've been blessed.
I would really like to see an inquiry into the RCMP and the injustices that have happened to our people and the lack of caring and attention. I really need to see a national inquiry into the loss of our children, our sisters, our mothers, our brothers. We really need that. I would like to see that.
[Witness speaks in Ojibwa] That's all I have to say for now. Thank you.
Results: 1 - 15 of 40 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data