;

AANR Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, February 24, 2003

1450

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.))

Ms. Pauline Giroux (Driftpile Band Member, As Individual)

1455

The Chair

Ms. Gloria Silver (member of the Dene Tha' First Nation, As Individual)

1500

1505

The Chair

Ms. Gloria Silver

The Chair

Ms. Gloria Silver

The Chair

Mr. Don Silver (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Don Silver

1510

1515

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Don Silver

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Don Silver

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Don Silver

The Chair

Mr. Don Silver

The Chair

Mr. Sam Sinclair (As Individual)

1520

The Chair

Mr. Sam Sinclair

The Chair

Mr. Sam Sinclair

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Sinclair (As Individual)

1525

The Chair

Mr. Dwayne Plante (As Individual)

1530

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)

Mr. Dwayne Plante

The Chair

Mr. Dwayne Plante

The Chair

1535

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Dwayne Plante

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Dwayne Plante

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto (Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation, First Nations Accountability Coalition)

1540

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto

Le président

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Verna Soto

1545

Mr. David Chatters

Ms. Verna Soto

Mr. David Chatters

Ms. Verna Soto

Mr. David Chatters

Ms. Verna Soto

Mr. David Chatters

Ms. Verna Soto

Mr. David Chatters

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Verna Soto

1550

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Verna Soto

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Verna Soto

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Verna Soto

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Verna Soto

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Verna Soto

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Verna Soto

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Verna Soto

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1555

Ms. Verna Soto

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Verna Soto

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto

1600

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto

The Chair

Ms. Verna Soto

The Chair

1605

Mr. Ron Walker (Member of the Sucker Creek First Nation, As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Ron Walker

The Chair

Mr. Ron Walker

The Chair

1610

Mr. Ron Walker

The Chair

1630

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg (President, Native Council of Canada (Alberta))

The Chair

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg

The Chair

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg

The Chair

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg

1635

1640

1645

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Ms. Betty Horseman (Member, Native Council of Canada (Alberta))

1650

The Chair

Ms. Hazel Vicklund (Member, Native Council of Canada (Alberta))

Mr. Lawrence Cunningham (Member, Native Council of Canada (Alberta))

1655

The Chair

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg

The Chair

Ms. Lillian Shirt (Member, Native Council of Canada (Alberta))

1700

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg

Mr. David Chatters

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg

Mr. David Chatters

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg

Mr. David Chatters

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1705

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg

Mr. Richard Long (Executive Director, Native Council of Canada (Alberta))

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg

1710

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Le président

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

1715

The Chair

Ms. Hazel Vicklund

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

1720

The Chair

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg

The Chair

Mr. Richard Long

1725

The Chair

1730

Chief Rose Laboucan (Driftpile First Nation)

The Chair

Chief Rose Laboucan

The Chair

Chief Rose Laboucan

The Chair

Chief Frank Halcrow (Kapawe'no First Nation)

The Chair

Chief Frank Halcrow

Mr. Joe Willier (Elder, Sucker Creek First Nation, As Individual)

The Chair

Chief Frank Halcrow

1735

The Chair

Chief Frank Halcrow

1740

1745

Chief Rose Laboucan

1750

The Chair

Chief Rose Laboucan

1755

Mr. Harold Cardinal (Legal Counsel, Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta)

1800

1805

1810

1815

1820

1825

1830

Chief Frank Halcrow

1835

Mr. Harold Cardinal

The Chair

Ms. Catherine Twinn (Sawridge First Nation)

1840

1845

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Harold Cardinal

1850

The Chair

Mr. Harold Cardinal

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1855

Mr. Harold Cardinal

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Harold Cardinal

1900

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters

1905

The Chair

Ms. Catherine Twinn

The Chair

Ms. Catherine Twinn

The Chair

Ms. Catherine Twinn

1910

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Ms. Catherine Twinn

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Le président

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Le président

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Le président

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Catherine Twinn

1915

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Harold Cardinal

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Harold Cardinal

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Harold Cardinal

The Chair

Mr. Harold Cardinal

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Harold Cardinal

1920

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Harold Cardinal

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Catherine Twinn

1925

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Le président

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Harold Cardinal

1930

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Harold Cardinal

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1935

The Chair

Chief Alvin Cardinal (Sucker Creek First Nation)

The Chair

Chief Alvin Cardinal

The Chair

Mr. Jeff Shawana (Individual Presentation)

The Chair

1940

Mr. Jeff Shawana

1945

The Chair

Mr. Jeff Shawana

Ms. Betty Horseman

1950

Mr. Jeff Shawana

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 036

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, February 24, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¸ (1450)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We will call the meeting to order to resume public hearings on Bill C-7, an Act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other Acts.

I welcome and I thank at the same time Pauline Giroux, Driftpile Band member, who has accepted to present ten minutes early. That ten minutes will be very valuable to us at ten minutes to midnight tonight.

We thank you very much. We have ten minutes and we are sticking to schedule. You may use all of your time to make your presentation. If you use less, maybe there will be time for questions from members.

Please present.

Ms. Pauline Giroux (Driftpile Band Member, As Individual): Good afternoon. My name is Pauline Giroux of Driftpile First Nation. I would like to thank you for allotting these few minutes to listen. Hopefully you will listen to my viewpoint regarding this proposed Bill C-7, a.k.a. Bill C-61.

I am a freelance consultant, and my vision is to collaborate and work collectively with first nations on their issues. I have a University of Alberta Master's degree in education, majoring in first nations.

One of the crucial humiliations the federal government has imposed on first nations people is the concept of paternalism. Throughout history, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has portrayed the notion that first nations people need direction and cannot make decisions for themselves. We cannot make any major decisions that will affect us as a society; therefore, our father, the minister, has come to our rescue by developing a piece of legislation that will address the needs of first nations governance within first nations communities—meaning Bill C-7.

I will be presenting this from an analytical perspective; humour me as I continue. Fortunately I am a mere child at this stage, and there are discrepancies I don't understand within Bill C-7. I would like my father, the minister, to clarify the meaning of various words and phrases so that it is possible for me to reach an understanding and pass it on to my children and grandchildren.

I will quote some of the following words or phrases that are presented in the bill that could be misleading to many first nations. I realize I have limited time, so I can only bring forth a few words and phrases. I will start at the beginning of the proposed bill: “An Act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands and to make related amendments to other acts.”

Who will verify that this act will actually respect all that is quoted here? Obviously not the first nations; otherwise we would not be here today presenting before you.

Unfortunately, I will probably have time only to do the preamble portion of the bill:

Whereas representative democracy, including regular elections by secret ballot, and transparency and accountability are broadly held Canadian values...

Give me a break. I don't even know what I'm supposed to make of this. The word “democracy” is misplaced here, since it means consensus and social equality. I don't see how this bill is going to represent that when the idea of paternalism will encompass this bill.

The words “transparency and accountability are broadly held Canadian values”: what does that mean? Is this a form of assimilation, since we are most of the time not considered Canadians? This could therefore not be our values in question.

Another one reads:

Whereas neither the Indian Act nor this Act is intended to define the nature and scope of any right of self-government or to prejudge the outcome of any self-government negotiation...

In my opinion, to pass Bill C-7 would do just the opposite of the above statement, since the bill will set a template for first nations governance. The bill may not prejudge the outcome, but it will alter the outcome through the powers of the council. As we stand now, first nations have successfully negotiated self-government agreements, for example Nisga'a, without any amendment to the Indian Act.

In conclusion, please don't prejudge me, as I am aware that improvements are needed within the present first nations governance. I just think Bill C-7 is premature and needs to be re-examined, improved as to the first nations contribution, dismantled, or tossed out.

I believe Bill C-7 affects first nations people personally; therefore they need to participate fully in creating a bill that will meet their needs and those of the community. As I continue to read Bill C-7 documents, I am appalled at the ludicrous hidden innuendoes perpetuating the concept of paternalism. Some of the examples are: “requiring”; “the governor in council may make”; “in accordance with regulations”; “ not exceeding”; “the band must”; and of course the reference to the Indian Act, the paternalistic manual.

¸ (1455)

Truly determining first nations needs can only be attained by actually living in first nations communities. It is obvious that Bill C-7 neglected to consider that concept.

In closing, I quote Minister Nault, from his speech of January 27, 2003, in Ottawa where he states: “The bill puts the power back where it belongs, in the hands of first nations.” Well, I must have been out of this planet, because we as first nations have never had the power—not in my lifetime, anyway.

I have some recommendations for the committee. Re-evaluate the effectiveness that Bill C-7 will have for first nations people from their perspective, through consultation—through a thorough consultation. Provide opportunities to start over and include first nations perspectives, participation, design, and implementation of Bill C-7. Analyze the document's entirety for statements of paternalism. Change “council” to “chief and council”. Arrange for meetings with national first nation leaders to discuss the direction to take regarding Bill C-7 before it goes to second reading.

Finally, I would like to thank you for this opportunity and express my gratitude to you for allowing me to present my views on Bill C-7. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have time for one question. Does anyone want to take the opportunity?

Thank you very much for an excellent presentation.

Gloria, would you be prepared to present now? We appreciate that. Thank you very much for accepting to go ten minutes early—well, more than ten minutes for you. It really serves us well because we're arriving at our next destination at midnight. Ten minutes will make a difference.

Would you make your presentation, please, of ten minutes.

Ms. Gloria Silver (member of the Dene Tha' First Nation, As Individual): My name is Gloria Silver. I want to speak to you about the way I feel about what is happening to us.

As a first nation member who works for her nation, who is getting positive results, who has a proven track record and has gained credibility and trust with the people, I want to say that we are being victimized and manipulated by INAC and outside sources. This happens in many ways.

INAC and tribal councils play communication games with us. For example, in a letter to Dene Tha' First Nation, INAC referred to documents concerning funding methodologies that I was not privy to, so I wrote INAC and asked them to send me the information they were alluding to. I never received a response. I phoned to ask why and was told that my chief and council had received the information I had asked for and to go ask them. When I approached council, they didn't know what I was talking about.

This is a game INAC always plays with first nations so we can never properly prepare for negotiations and get proper funding levels. The end result isthat we end up looking like dummies at negotiations and our program needs get underfunded. This sets us up for failure. It would seem that INAC operates only with a concern for its bottom line, rather than having the vision to see that the situation is remaining stagnant and unchanging.

Throughout the years, people like me are proving themselves as serious program managers, gaining results and staying within budgets. INAC and its middlemen do not view this in a positive way because a successful first nation would tend to question their worth and need. INAC tribal councils do not want to cooperate and communicate and build strong nations. That would be like committing suicide, right?

For example, currently I'm involved in negotiating a tuition agreement for our children who attend schools off reserve. I recently came across a document wherein the director of operations of tribal council states that the negotiator--me--has ill feelings toward the school division and that negotiations will not proceed while I am the negotiator. My reaction to this was to contact the school division and clarify our relationship, that document, its misinformation, and that the claim was not true. I did this because I am building a positive relationship with the school division. Our last meeting had been very positive and laid the groundwork for our subsequent meetings.

I am suggesting that it was the tribal council's intent to interfere in our affairs and our positive progress. In fact, it had been tribal council who initially suggested to the school division that tribal council should be an administrator of a master agreement for all area first nations. In short, tribal council is trying to ferret its way into the affairs of area first nations, and all first nations end up telling them to back off. Yet, today they are still interfering.

People in our first nations are good-humoured and very astute in their observations. They have a unique way of seeing a situation and commenting on it to put it into perspective in a simple but humourous fashion. In particular, when they see an INAC--or tribal-council--funded consultant pull up to save our first nation in a beat-up old car or truck that barely makes it to the band office, they automatically know it won't be too long before the consultant will be driving a fancy new SUV or 4X4. I have to laugh because they are exactly right; and I have to cry because of the tolerance and hope that our people cling to, thinking that something might change.

And when the consultants drive off with their fancy vehicles and perks a year or almost two years later, all they usually leave us is a mess that we have to clean up with limited funding. Our elected leaders--the ones who can be manipulated--are wined and dined and praised by INAC and its network of tribal councils and consultants. Tribal councils control professional advisory services funding and parachute a variety of different consultants into our band organizations. It is difficult to determine who these people are actually working for--us or the tribal council.

¹ (1500)

The committee has to know that INAC and its myriad of middlemen and consultants areprofiting quite nicely while our people live in third world conditions. The whole system is about controlling us, manipulating us, and bleeding off dollars before they get to the people. As cynical as that may seem, it is the absolute truth.

Under a previous chief who was in office for eight years, we received very little information from INAC or the tribal council. During his tenure, the tribal council's involvement in our affairs grew. The tribal council now runs our tuition for one of our schools, our Bill C-31 post-secondary tuition program, our HRDC funding, medical transportation services, child health and welfare, our children's centre; and yet, when a band member asks them for information, they don't respond. When you ask the executive director of tribal council for information, you are dismissed, and his response is that he will respond to the five chiefs who are the directors of board.

Our former chief had stars in his eyes for tribal council and never asked them for information on our behalf. In fact, he was instrumental in creating the tribal council and involved our nation in it with a simple BCR. The people never had a say.

Our nation wants to know what is happening with the programs tribal council is managing for us. What dollars are they receiving? Do they end in a positive or a negative? If positive, is it carried forward to the new year or is it spent elsewhere? As for results, we are expected to report results annually to INAC--and we do. Tribal council never gives us the results of any of the programs they manage on our behalf.

Another example, tribal council told Treaty 8 they would attend education meetings on our behalf. In the eight years they attended on our behalf, information flow to us was like a joke. For meetings, we received information too late--the day before, on the day, or after the day of the meeting--not giving us a chance to prepare for the meeting, let alone go to the meeting. What was discussed at any meetings they attended on our behalf was not reported.

I have never seen INAC or tribal council step into a Dene Tha' house to visit, yet they seem to know what is best for us. I am an educated Dene Tha' who has a track record of good work performance. Tribal council always finds ways to attack me and INAC goes out of its way to undermine me.

They do this by communication games. I ask them questions and they respond to someone else. They do not notify me about new program initiatives and changes in my area of responsibility. The attack method stems from fear that we as a nation can work together and run our own affairs.

So how does this relate to the First Nations Governance Act? If Bill C-7 is truly about governance, then let us take control of our governance. Isn't it time to start dismantling organizations like tribal councils, which are nothing more than parasites feeding off first nation hosts? Why does Bill C-7 allow band council to transfer all its power to an outside entity after being elected? How does this relate to building governance? Isn't this just another mechanism that is promoting governance from the outside and the strength of these parasites?

Why is INAC building these middle organizations and not interacting with us directly? Isn't that the problem, lack of communication? In Bill C-7, the clauses that allow the band council to transfer control to an outside entity should be removed.

Thank you for your time.

¹ (1505)

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation, also.

I'd like everyone to know that everything you are saying when you present is recorded, sent to Ottawa, and typed--put on record. So you're not just making statements that will be forgotten when we leave here. Everything is recorded and your positions are put on record. And we thank you very much for having done this.

Ms. Gloria Silver: Are there any questions?

The Chair: There are only 45 seconds left. It wouldn't be enough for a question and an answer.

Ms. Gloria Silver: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: We welcome Don Silver as an individual. If you are prepared to present now, sir, please do.

You have ten minutes. Please proceed.

Mr. Don Silver (As Individual): Thank you for inviting me here. This is kind of new to me, so I'm a little nervous.

The Chair: I'll make one thing clear right now for everyone. To us, this is the kitchen table. So everybody relax; we're at the table.

Mr. Don Silver: Okay.

I would like to thank the committee for allowing me the time to speak on Bill C-7. I have read the transcripts from some of the meetings you have held and I am encouraged that many members have a good knowledge of detailed life on a reserve.

I`ll start by saying I don't support Bill C-7 and I would like to see it scrapped. In the transcripts there is the suggestion that the committee can't do any more than modify the bill. I am hopeful, and a large number of people are hopeful, that perhaps the committee can do a little bit more and actually scrap the bill, send it back and tell the minister to do it right.

I have a lot to go into and not enough time, but it's in my evidence package that I am giving to the committee. I hope you will go through it.

Perhaps I should start with a couple of clauses in the bill. In subclause 4(2), the 25% is way too low. Traditional first nations communities live by a higher standard; they have community consensus. The 25% will allow a small number of people to control some communities. I think at least 75% of eligible voters must take part in a vote and provide a 66% majority to pass some kind of code, if the bill stands.

Paragraph 5(1)(e) is a recipe for disaster for court litigation. What does this term “prescribing the qualifications” really mean? It's not really defined.

Paragraphs 5(1)(h) and 5(1)(i) again rely on the court results.

Subclause 5(5) is just a general direction that will be interpreted and provide scenarios that will end up being decided by the court.

I turn to paragraphs 6(1)(b), (c) and (d). In my evidence package I give examples of INAC's inability to respond to the public in a satisfactory fashion and provide transcripts of governance meetings and that kind of thing. If INAC itself can't respond to the public in an accountable fashion, why is INAC expecting first nations to aspire to a higher standard?

Paragraph 6(3)(c) doesn't recognize the capacity of different first nations.

Clause 14 seems contrary to Bill C-7. On the one hand, Minister Nault's premise for Bill C-7 is accountability, yet this single clause nullifies that. It makes me also shudder concerning the absolute free rein it gives to a bylaw officer.

Clauses 16 and 17 could allow punitive action against the majority of the population by the 25% who hold power and decide. Again, the 25% is wrong.

Paragraphs 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(b) and subclause 18(2) really scare the heck out of me. They allow for the band council to be voted in and then transfers its full authority to an outside entity, such as a tribal council. If Bill C-7 is about building governance in the capacity of a first nation, why does Bill C-7 allow governance to be provided from outside the first nation?

Bill C-7 also doesn't say how the next band council might recover any authority or power a band council might give up. These clauses should be struck out entirely.

If the powers of the band council are conferred to a tribal council, can the tribal council use its bylaw officers and its police to harass and/or control dissidents and band members who voice their opposition to the tribal council?

Does anybody here remember the story of the tribal council chairman Dicky Wilson and his guardians of the Oglala Nation, affectionally called GOONs, who terrorized band members who opposed the qualities of the tribal council? Our tribal council police have provincial jurisdiction off reserve. Will that allow them to harass me for speaking on these matters?

Why is Canada implementing and supporting first nations governance structures that were already deemed bad almost 30 years ago in the U.S.? They didn't work there; why would they work here?

Subclause 27(1) and clauses 23 through 29 are really scary. Subclause 27(1) may be invoked for the simple reason of being in a remote location, a situation applicable to many first nations. What about the legal principles of just cause and due process?

¹ (1510)

Subclause 27(2) does not afford the occupant any protection whatsoever. How can they prove they did not give consent for the bylaw officer to enter their premises? What about intimidation? Will a band member know their rights and be bold enough to speak up and deny entry?

Clauses 24, 26, and 28 allow the bylaw officer to possibly destroy materials and not be accountable for property damage. Suppose improper computer access results in a corrupted hard drive and destroys company or personal information. Who pays?

These also allow the bylaw officer to go on a fishing expedition without probable cause. There's more to it, but it's in my evidence package.

I view this whole process of Robert Nault and the Indian Act as a simple analogy. Robert Nault is driving a car and he tells the first nations to get in but doesn't tell them where they're going. He just says he's going to take them someplace. So he drives and drives and gets somewhere and asks them, “What do you think about this?” The first nations people say, “Well, what's so great about this place?” So Robert Nault then says, "Well, let's do something else. Get back in.” Now we have Bill C-7. It's the same kind of process.

In my evidence package you will find that the consultation meetings were a sham. INAC has actually reported fraudulent data on their FNG website. If you inspect my evidence you will see that the attestations were not attested to by either INAC or the co-host of all those meetings that took place.

If this committee handled its record-keeping like INAC handled its record-keeping for those governance meetings, I wouldn't have any faith in the government whatsoever.

Maybe I should just stop there and take some questions, if there's time.

¹ (1515)

The Chair: There are three minutes left. Thank you for an excellent presentation.

We won't have time for a round. Is there a member who wants to ask a question?

Mr. Vellacott, three minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): This is the first time I've heard testimony from a witness on problems with tribal councils. I don't know if that comes from your unique experience. Maybe you can respond to that. Is this something across the board elsewhere or unique to your situation here?

Mr. Don Silver: We don't really know, but the process whereby a chief and council can pass a BCR, invoke their affiliation with a tribal council, and transfer their powers to tribal council is wrong. It should be done through a majority vote of the membership.

There were some additions to Bill C-7 that I suggested putting in. If Bill C-7 goes ahead, there should be a clause that says a majority vote of the membership is required for powers of a first nation to be transferred to an outside entity. On the existing tribal councils that already have control or involvement in first nations affairs, there should be a clause whereby those relationships are reviewed before Bill C-7 comes into force, so unhappy band members can regain control of their affairs away from these parasitic organizations that don't really help them.

The Chair: You have a minute and 20 seconds.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I had the impression from places where it seemed to be working not badly that in a lot of cases it wasn't viable and feasible for small bands of a few hundred members or less to provide for health, education, and so on. So in some cases is there any merit to making it more viable and feasible when you have a lot of small bands?

Mr. Don Silver: From our observations it's not. Actually, it's the INAC administrative policies that create tribal councils. They say they will not support bands directly if they have an on-reserve population of less than 2,000 members. That automatically discriminates against 93% of the first nations in Canada. They can't access professional advisory funding directly. They can't access the kinds of funding INAC will give to tribal councils.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do they get funding if they have under 2,000 members?

Mr. Don Silver: If they have under 2,000 members a band can't directly access funding that would allow them to hire lawyers and pay for their own professional services. If a band opts out of a tribal council they don't get support for that from INAC, so INAC basically squeezes them to be in a tribal council.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Don Silver: Thank you very much.

The Chair: We appreciate your presentation.

Is Mr. Jeff Chawana in the room? No.

Thanks to the people who have presented already, we are a little bit ahead of time, so we will invite Sam Sinclair to make a two-minute presentation.

Mr. Sam Sinclair (As Individual): You're only allowing me the same thing I get at home: just listen, don't talk.

¹ (1520)

The Chair: I don't get the last word there either.

Mr. Sam Sinclair: I'm pleased to be here representing our nation as a whole on some of the problems that have been accumulating over the years. I was born here 76 years ago and I have lived here most of my life. I've tried to live off the land, which my father and mother did. We were quite successful in those days.

Sawridge at that time was not even called Sawridge, but it was the original name so we can't argue that part. We have over 200 years of background in this general area, not necessarily on the reserve but as aboriginal people under the nation of today. We rightfully belong here as full members, hoping to be under one nation.

Bill C-31 actually opened doors for us people who were getting left out. Even to this day I can't vote. I'm not included in any major decisions that deal with our people, even though I have experience in Ottawa and other places as an aboriginal leader.

We only want to belong politically to what pertains to our people for gaining power over the resources that belong to the people of these nations. We'd like to share that equally, hopefully under the governance of the new organization they talk about, so it's done in a manner of their own choosing. We don't necessarily want to squeeze out any government. We want to try to work things out together. That's been a failure on our part, because we haven't been involved in the decision-making.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I gave you three minutes and that's as much as I can permit. That's the end of the presentation. I'm sorry.

Mr. Sam Sinclair: I just want to let you know I'm a war veteran.

The Chair: I understand and I congratulate you for that. Thank you for your services.

Is Gordon Sinclair in the room and prepared to make a statement?

Welcome, Mr. Sinclair. I will allow you three minutes.

Mr. Gordon Sinclair (As Individual): Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a couple of words.

I'm the son of Sam here, my dad. Our family's been here for a couple of hundred years. We come from the two major nations that were here when the treaty was signed, the Saulteaux and the Ottawas. The two rivers you came by on the way out of town here are named after our nations, and our families come directly from them.

Previous government legislation took away our rights because people unwittingly didn't know what they were signing and so on. We had approximately, I would say, four quarter sections of land in this area under our names and lost it. Maybe that stuff shouldn't be brought up here, but I do want to put it in so it's in the library, the archives, or whatever.

I would like to say that as a Bill C-31 Indian, I would like to have the right to take part and participate as a member. On the street you can't tell the difference between a Bill C-31, a Métis, a treaty, or a non-status. Those are all words put out by the government, words that make us divide and fight amongst ourselves.

Our family has helped out a lot in the sports in this town. My father has put in about thirty or forty years between politics and sports, helping human beings in general.

I myself am fifty-some years old now, and I may have paved the way for my kids' life to be better. Right now we're concerned about little things in this town that shouldn't be brought up in the newspapers, where they don't understand the rights of aboriginal people. I do think I had to mention that.

Thank you for your time.

¹ (1525)

The Chair: Thank you very much, and I'll mention this to you and all the others. If you have written documents you wish to leave with us, they will be translated and distributed to all members, even to those who couldn't travel with us. We'll put those on the record also.

We welcome Mr. Dwayne Plante to make a 10-minute presentation.

Mr. Dwayne Plante (As Individual): Thank you.

I am for holding chief and council accountable to the people they serve and not to the Government of Canada, as this bill proposes. It is the local people who are directly affected by chief and council's decisions, and it is the local people who suffer the consequences.

We need to form a policy by the local grassroots people to overlook the actions of the chief and council. A process needs to be in place to stop chief and council from selling off resources without the people's consent. Revenues from resources such as timber, oil, and gas should be controlled by the people, not put into the general account for discretionary use by chief and council.

Band-controlled products are failures because they are used by chief and council to serve their own political aspirations and are not based on solid business decisions. HRDC program dollars are being utilized by chief and council to serve and secure their positions, when the intent of HRDC program dollars is for training and economic growth for our community as a whole.

Tribal councils are being run by chiefs and councils for their own political interests, and decisions made at tribal councils are politically motivated and not for the benefit of the community they have sworn to serve. Educated, ethical, and moral individuals are moved down the waiting list line in regard to education funding if that individual is viewed as a threat to chief and council's political standings. Education policies are followed only when it serves chief and council's best interests.

Policing: Some people are provided police services while others, such as any opposition to chief and council, aren't. Chief and council receive favourable consideration on complaints.

Housing is another political tool for chief and council. Applications are submitted to CMHC on behalf of people who are in dire need, yet when housing is built, the house is then given to supporters of chief and council. Housing allocations are also given to chief and council a number of times when others residing on reserve never receive one. There is favouritism in renovations, for some houses get renovated over a period of three to five years. Those in dire need of renovations but who are not supporters of chief and council don't receive them.

Economic development: Patronage appointments in employment must be eliminated for ex-chiefs and ex-council members because they do not do their jobs properly. Current chiefs and councillors appoint former chiefs and councillors to jobs and positions, and they fail to live up to their job descriptions for fear those appointed people become chief and council again.

Grants, employment, and health services are distributed to individuals who are politically connected, while those in need of services, such as welfare recipients, are dismissed when requesting the same services. Discrepancies in services such as housing, medical services, HRDC programs, etc., are vast. Program dollars are used to build housing, giving chief and council credit for those they hire but at the same time putting certified, employable carpenters out of work because they have no control over who is hired.

Children's services: Family members and political allies are exempt from Alberta Child and Family Services investigations and laws as the social workers fear losing their jobs or having their careers destroyed.

Election processes need to be changed in order to incorporate some of our traditional practices into electing our leaders while also keeping the democratic process in place. At present, Sturgeon Lake has a band custom election map that has been implemented without ratification, and in order for the band custom to work it must be ratified and approved by the membership.

The need for a community authority is obvious. Currently, strangers in Ottawa are making direct decisions for a community they have no commitment to. It is the local residents of the community who live with the decisions made by the strangers, and it is the local residents who suffer the consequences.

Finished. It took five minutes.

¹ (1530)

The Chair: That was good. Now you're going to pay the price. We're going to ask you questions. Don't worry, the questions are all friendly. It's to help us do our work better.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier, are you willing to let Mr. Dromisky go first?

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) : That's fine.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Dromisky, five minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'm sure everyone on the committee is very impressed. I'm hoping you will leave that with us so that copies can be made for everyone on the committee.

I am very intrigued by the perception you have and that you're willing to share it. Everybody else is condemning Bill C-7. You know that with the way the Indian Act is right now, it's practically impossible to get rid of some of the illnesses within the system that you are referring to, especially with regard to chiefs and councils. What you're talking about is not only common here, it is common in many places coast to coast. People are afraid to talk about it. But you have the courage to come before this committee and declare what you know to be true from your experiences and the experiences of other people here. I admire you for that.

Bill C-7 is going to be providing the machinery, you might say, to allow a lot of the things you talk about to disappear, because the Human Rights Act and the act regarding rights and freedoms will become a reality. Women will be treated differently on many of the reserves. The acts that exist at the present time will become part of the judicial network to make life more pleasant, more fair, and equitable. I could go on and on.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I have no questions to ask of you. All I have to say is I admire you.

Mr. Dwayne Plante: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I will go beyond what Mr. Dromisky says, because I know that you will agree with what I say. On the same note of the example given, this committee is very conscious that we can't paint with the same brush all Indian bands across this country. There are many excellent examples, and we are conscious of that. So when we talk of problems that may exist, we certainly are not labelling all of the bands, far from it.

Mr. Dwayne Plante: One of the reasons I say I support chiefs and councils being held accountable to the people and not to the Government of Canada is that I see how being held accountable to the Government of Canada works right now. According to my reading of the bill, we're still going to be faced with a lot of these problems because somebody in Ottawa or somewhere else, who has no interest in our community and will not suffer any consequences, will be making decisions that affect us. That's why we should incorporate some of our traditions in either an election process or a policing body to look after our chiefs and councils so that this quits happening.

The Chair: Absolutely.

We have a minute and a half left, if anybody wants it. Mr. Vellacott.

¹ (1535)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I gather you've looked over or read at least parts or maybe all of Bill C-7. It does allow or appears to give allowance for traditional ways of doing things. Within the provisions of Bill C-7 as set out, do you think there are some good things in terms of leadership selection, financial accountability, administration, those kinds of things? Are there good aspects?

Mr. Dwayne Plante: There are some good things, but also--

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You're deciding, supposedly, as a council, as a first nations people, a band, and you have to draw these things up yourself.

Mr. Dwayne Plante: Well, you see, there are some good points and some bad points, and I think it needs to be improved upon.

As it stands now, I can still see a lot of these problems happening, because we do not have any local control. Somewhere in there, there should be a provision made for the local grassroots people to have some control in what chief and council does.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

I invite Verna Soto from the First Nations Accountability Coalition. We have 30 minutes together.

Verna is a grassroots band member of the Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta, speaking on behalf of the First Nations Accountability Coalition.

We invite you to make your presentation, which will be followed by questions and answers. I want everybody to relax. We are around the kitchen table.

Ms. Verna Soto (Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation, First Nations Accountability Coalition): I'm from the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation. I am a descendant of one of the chiefs of our forefathers from 1899. My concern is in regards to the accountability and bondability.

Within the three tiers of government enforcement, regulations must be put in place due to the manipulation being done by all government levels. Now the native governments are following their paths.

As aboriginal people of Canada, we must work together to make a bigger picture with all the branching of government systems. I am here to bring my presentation before all of you who are sitting here in this room to help you visualize the mistakes that are being put upon the people of our reserves and to focus on how many more reserves and settlements are being treated like this in Canada.

Accountability and bondability must be placed within the new government budget immediately. We, the aboriginal people, are seeking righteousness in our governing bodies, and to prevent ourselves from turning our way of living into the white society's way of living. Righteousness will prevail if we work together...and also the utmost standards such as health care, communications, and education to all people of this world. Everyone is a part of the world economy. Freedom is what we need, and it can be accomplished by treating people as equals.

Within all governments the criminally inclined have been in charge, and now the aboriginal grassroots are asking for it to stop. We should give the narrow-minded leaders a place for input, but the final decisions should be open to all.

In regards to my reserve, Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation of Treaty 8 of Alberta, our financial management code is not being followed, yet we are amalgamated with the Horse Lake Reserve and the Duncan Band as one.

With the old Indian Act we should have respect in our lives today to create our time line of the past, present, and future. Everyone can adapt to whatever changes come forth for the people. People must want to learn not only of mankind but also of all things, great or small, that are within our universe.

Everything that individuals can create in their mind can be made possible. A question: what is right or wrong?

A division, a body of people, is needed to hear everyone as part of the economy in today's world. Education, the Canada Elections Act, equal rights for our people of Canada--the changes have to be made with full accountability and bondability to succeed. Whether or not we all share the same vision, by sharing our visions of the future generations in peace and harmony, we, the aboriginal grassroots, may be the ones to make the governance bill right...not what the chiefs and councils are implementing in their codes of the Sturgeon Cree Nation as well as others in Canada.

I would like to pass some documentation to the people around the table. It's in regards to a letter I received from the Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, to appear at the throne speech. I wouldn't go to the session because there were three others with me at that time and I didn't want to leave the others out. So I didn't get into the throne speech.

¹ (1540)

Other than that, in regards to bondability, there are documents here...with criminal charges, some people sitting as consultants for the band and some for Treaty 8 relations in regards to that person with PDD, which means persons with development disabilities. Basically, regarding bondability, I really would like it to go through.

There's a concern with regard to our oil and gas revenues. The leadership are selecting... [Editor's Note:Technical difficulty] ...that they are under the Indian Act.

Perhaps I could pass these documents around.

The Chair: The clerk will collect them, translate them, distribute them to all members, and also put them on the record.

Ms. Verna Soto: Okay.

For the election codes, there's a fast election process that we would like to assemble. It would have the names, the social insurance numbers, the bands, the reserves, treaty numbers, elders, Bill C-31s, and other Métis settlements. This way, there would be no more confusion on each reserve, because all different band members would be amalgamated, no matter where they lived. They're left out, and that shouldn't be happening.

In regard to the Métis, they're coming in with their own land, their own treaty, and their own settlements, so they actually put everybody in together as one.

The Chair: Thank you. Are you prepared to answer questions?

Ms. Verna Soto: Yes.

[Translation]

Le président: Mr. Loubier, would you like to start?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, that's fine.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Chatters. We have 15 minutes, so five minutes.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hello, Verna. I've talked to you many times. It's good to see the face behind the voice.

Certainly it's been a wish of ours for some time that there be a mechanism put in place for grassroots aboriginal people who have these grievances with their chiefs and councils, and band leadership, somewhere where people can appeal without cost. In my experience, I've tried to help them find some redress to their problems and I can't get it from the department, I can't get it from the chief and council, and I can't get it from the RCMP. So we feel there's a need for some kind of appeal process, and we're proposing some sort of ombudsman so that when people have a difference of opinion or a grievance with their leadership, there's a place for them to go to have their grievance investigated and a report made on their problems.

Would you see something like that working for grassroots aboriginal people? Is that something you would support?

Ms. Verna Soto: Yes, I would support that, but it would have to be a person from a different area or somebody not known on the reserve.

¹ (1545)

Mr. David Chatters: Yes. And this bill, of course, proposes that it be appointed by chief and council, which I don't see working.

Ms. Verna Soto: No.

Mr. David Chatters: It needs to be outside.

Ms. Verna Soto: It would have to be up to the people themselves to really decide who they want, who they feel comfortable with.

Mr. David Chatters: That would perhaps be the difficult part of it, but surely there must be an elder first nations person in this country who would be acceptable generally to Indian people everywhere who could fulfill that position and have the respect of the different first nations across the country. I would think the people are out there and we should be able to find them. The trick is how we determine who that person is and how acceptable they are to the various 600-and-some first nations. It's a challenge.

Ms. Verna Soto: Yes, I know. But it's very concerning about the elders, because they're not being heard today. And for the ombudsman, we don't know. It has to be within the group of membership, but not chief and council. That's very wrong, the way I see it.

Mr. David Chatters: Yes. The independence is very important. Also, I think the ability for that person to be able to investigate band finances, to have the legal authority to access band records and band finances, would be vitally important as well. I know there's been a problem with members accessing band financial statements and those kinds of things, so I think this would be small step in the right direction, at least with this bill.

Ms. Verna Soto: I would like to really push on forensic audits. We know there's a lot of difficulties all over, and right now, the way we're sitting is that Indian Affairs are not complying with what we're asking for.

Mr. David Chatters: I would see this band ombudsman, this first nation ombudsman, as having the power to call for those kinds of forensic audits. If he investigated and saw that there were discrepancies, he would have the kind of power to do that. So that might be a way we would approach this, simply because I'm not sure that it would be achievable if you just open it up and every grassroots member who has a concern can ask the department for a forensic audit. The cost would be high. So there needs to be someone to do some preliminary investigation, before you get to that stage, to determine if it is warranted, perhaps.

The Chair: Do you have other comments on that?

Ms. Verna Soto: No, just that the concern was oil and gas, the election process, forensic audits, and also the bondability within the band system--for instance, whoever's controlling membership moneys.

The Chair: The control sheet that you showed us for elections, are you recommending that as being for the voters list or the candidates list?

Ms. Verna Soto: Yes, it's for people who live within the reserve or settlement.

The Chair: It's for the voters list, not for the candidates?

Ms. Verna Soto: For the voters list. So this way everybody will be equal.

The Chair: And everyone will know who's on the voting list?

Ms. Verna Soto: Yes.

The Chair: And where they're from?

Ms. Verna Soto: Yes, and that there's no discrimination whatsoever.

The Chair: You might want to give this also to the clerks so that it could be put on record.

Ms. Verna Soto: Yes.

The Chair: If you have any closing remarks, you have more time.

Ms. Verna Soto: I'll just say that I'm very happy to be here to bring my concerns in front of you. That's it for now.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott has another question.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: My question centres in on a couple things in the bill here itself. Bill C-7 seems to give pretty wide policing powers, search and seizure powers, to bands, and I would think that this would be possibly abused. It's broader by far than the powers in non-aboriginal society.

Have you looked at the bill in the respect of the wide search and seizure?

Ms. Verna Soto: Right now, where it stands is within the custom band code. There's no--

¹ (1550)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I mean within the bill. I'm talking about Bill C-7. I'm talking about specifically where it gives them fairly broad powers there. You haven't really looked at that aspect, I gather.

Ms. Verna Soto: Just some of it, yes, I did. But it just stipulates that policing is not turning out the way it's supposed to be.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: And why is that so?

Ms. Verna Soto: In any conflict on a reserve, police are notified, but they're actually not going into places.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: And why don't they go into places?

Ms. Verna Soto: Because it's one of the band member's family.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The police agent is a band member and he doesn't want to go investigate his own band member families. Is that what you're saying?

Ms. Verna Soto: No, I'm saying that if the chief and council's family members are the ones who are doing the domestic, then the RCMP will not do anything about it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Will not move in.

Ms. Verna Soto: So there are more enforcement regulations that have to be redone on that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right.

Matrimonial real property is sometimes being brought up by numbers of the women witnesses and groups and so on. Do you have a concern about that? It's not addressed in this bill. I'm not sure if that's possible or not, but is that an ongoing issue of concern on reserves, matrimonial real property?

Ms. Verna Soto: Yes, that's a real problem, because usually women are moving off the reserve, and yet they don't have any entitlement. They have to try to support their family off the reserve while the husbands live in the house, and that shouldn't happen.

So I suggest for the mothers to be more open in regard to this, and that they should have the right to live where they were allowed to live, not the men.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are you pleased with the fact that there is a repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and gender ends up being a category protected under Bill C-7 here? Are you glad that the Canadian Human Rights Act will be applying if this bill is passed?

Ms. Verna Soto: Yes, just as long as we all understand we have to make sure everybody is protected--the wives and children.

The Chair: Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier, it is your turn.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Soto, I am a little bit troubled by what I have heard here this afternoon. Most of the witnesses who appeared seemed to indicate that in this region, there is a climate of suspicion and mistrust. We have not heard many such comments so far, either in Ottawa or elsewhere. Here there even seems to be a great deal of tension between the Department of Indian Affairs, the departmental officials and the aboriginal representatives. One witness even spoke of potential intimidation. As for you, you referred more to the fact that illegal activities are barely mentioned.

Since this is the first time I have heard such comments, I was wondering whether these problems are peculiar to this area or whether they exist elsewhere. That is my first question.

My second question Ms. Soto, is about the doubts you have about band councils or aboriginal leaders being subject to greater control and that a check should be made, of both the codes and management, on and off reserves.

I would like to remind you that the Auditor General did say there was a management problem, but mostly at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs which, for example, had required first nations to submit 168 reports every year on the implementation of various programs, on top of the audit.

One witness last week or two weeks ago told us that nearly all first nations management activities were subject to audits.

When I hear you talk about the mistrust that seems to exist here and when I think of the reports given by witnesses such as the Auditor General, it is difficult for me to have an impartial view of what was said here so far. I would like you to describe the situation in a little more detail. Perhaps your problems are only at the local level, because they do not seem to exist elsewhere. As Mr. Dromisky said, things seem to be going well for many first nations.

¹ (1555)

[English]

Ms. Verna Soto: First, let me answer the second question. The second question is that it's all over Canada with the annual budget. We know some of the bands have not been bringing out in the audits the right amount for each project. We know there are cover-ups, which I have documents of in regard to my own band being in deficit, and yet the budget plan is not showing where the money is going. But as far as I'm concerned, it's all over Canada.

In response to the first question in regard to intimidation, it's just that we don't have the say in order to say anything to chief and council. It's the positions of chief and council that we do not like, not the persons themselves, and they're following the footsteps of Indian Affairs, the department.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Silver referred earlier to intimidation, not by the band council, but officials from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

Have you heard of that type of intimidation? Do departmental officials in this region really intimidate members of the first nations or is Mr. Silver under the impression that things could be done that way? Based on what he said earlier, one would think it was nearly a regime of terror.

[English]

Ms. Verna Soto: With regard to the intimidation, I got it through the provincial, the federal, and INAC, and it comes right down the line. I have documents in regard to this, with rejections. I could sit here all day just to show you all the documents that I have.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would like Ms. Soto to table those documents. I would be interested in having them, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: It's up to you if you wish to share those documents with the committee. If you do, you just give them to the clerk. They become public information; I want you to know that. If you table them, they will be on record for anyone to access.

Ms. Verna Soto: Okay. With regard to the Privacy Act that we have within INAC, it's basically that they are trying to state that we can search for what we're looking for, but in here it says no, we're not allowed to touch this. People are being intimidated because they might lose their jobs, and this is due to INAC, through tribal councils and through my own band.

There are some documents in regard to some of the band members getting together, and this is what they would like to see.

º (1600)

The Chair: Those will be translated and distributed to everyone on the committee.

Ms. Verna Soto: Also, with education itself, there was something that happened in regard to expenditures. This was in 2001, and all of a sudden in my audit, it says we're some $900,000 in the hole.

For example, our social workers, too, don't have the education. Those with criminal records will have to be looked into, just on my reserve. Basically, they're turning against their own band members. You have to have a certain name in order to qualify, and if you don't have that name, you're out.

The Chair: Are you giving these to the clerk?

Ms. Verna Soto: Yes.

Also, business entrepreneurs are in the same boat. They're being pushed out from what is allowed to them by the band. They've tried so much in blacklisting. I don't know how else to say it. They're turned away from all resources, all services, so they have to fend for themselves.

The Chair: The time is up, but yes, Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: On a point of order, I would urge you to caution the witness in presentation of her material that individuals not be named on that material, for fear of legal action taken against the witness if she were to present it. So I would ask you to caution the witness for her own safety.

The Chair: That is why I mentioned that whatever you share with the committee becomes on record, and it's public information. You may want to be cautious.

It's very delicate for me, because I would not want to appear as though I'm discouraging you from sharing certain information, but we have to caution you that whatever accusations might be made will be public accusations. Some of these documents you may want to go over with the clerk and decide yourself which ones you want presented and which ones you don't.

Now I'll make something clear. The information you give to us we will use only to judge the merits of the amendments to Bill C-7. But because it becomes public information, others may want to do other things with the information, so I would caution you to be very careful not to make accusations and name people, for your own protection. Okay?

Ms. Verna Soto: Okay, but that's just what I'm trying to get at. The bondability will have to be in place.

The Chair: At this time, we will conclude this presentation. I will invite you to sit with the clerk and go over all of the documents, even the ones you have presented already, and you decide. You can ask someone, if you have someone with you here, to help you with that. You decide which documents you want tabled or not.

But you have made the point very clear on the merit or the lack of merit of Bill C-7. You spoke to the bill, and you're assisting us in doing the work that we have to do.

Ms. Verna Soto: Okay, and I'm sorry I'm so shaky.

The Chair: There's no need to shake. I thought at one time to recommend to the members that we just come casual, with no tie, and just do it really around the kitchen table. I didn't want to be disrespectful to the first nations. We're always between two decisions and we try to make the right one, but there's no need to be nervous with us.

Thank you very much, Verna.

Is Jeff Shawana here? Jeff will be shown as a no-show, but if he does appear, we will try to accommodate him, because we are ahead of time.

Verna Smith--the same thing.

That brings us to the Native Council of Canada. While we wait to see if they're all here and willing to present, I would ask if Mr. Ron Walker would agree to make a three-minute presentation at this time.

Welcome, Mr. Walker. We invite you to make what's supposed to be a two-minute presentation, but you're entitled to three minutes. I won't be able to go more than that.

º (1605)

[Translation]

Mr. Ron Walker (Member of the Sucker Creek First Nation, As Individual) : Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: We will start now.

Mr. Ron Walker: Je m'appelle Ron Walker. I am from Sucker Creek First Nation. I am a direct descendant of Treaty 8 of 1899 signers, headmen Charles Nee Sue Ta Sis and Wee Chee Way Sis. I would like to express my gratitude to the government for making available this opportunity for hearing our voice.

First of all, I am not a representative of Sucker Creek First Nation. Rather, I'm interested in how this affects me as an off-reserve full band member. I'm a full band member and not a Bill C-31 member. However, many services are not as easily accessed as an off-reserve member.

It is my understanding that when a treaty is signed it is between two nations, according to international law. However, it does seem to me that the treaties are being regarded as having less and less political impact. As a nation, why are we not able to access self-governance? Self-governance is supposed to increase the group's decision-making powers, giving that group the jurisdiction to deal directly with its problems, rather than having them dealt with by federal and territorial administrators.

One aspect that Bill C-7 fails to address is mineral rights. Treaty 8 states that minerals and lumbers can be excavated on crown land. In this area our disagreements with local oil field contractors are being placed as a provincial issue. As a nation, we should be able to direct our economic futures as we see fit, not because a few non-aboriginals don't want to honour the treaties that their grandfathers signed.

I don't think Bill C-7 is detailed enough, because it doesn't offer the process of communication between nations, especially with regard to mineral rights and education.

With regard to oil field services, local media have reported that blackmail tactics are being enforced by local first nations government. I don't know about blackmail tactics. However, I do look at it as a misinformed group.

Local government has also stated that items sent to government should be non-politically correct. I construe this as racist policy, since in the Lakeside Leader on February 5, 2003, there was a comment made by an alderman stating that.

Bill C-7 should also discuss firearms legislation and how it affects first nations people and their right to hunt and feed their families. The policy isn't detailed enough in regard to what happens if a first nations person is hunting out on crown land and gets pulled over and doesn't have the proper PAL certification, which is a possession acquisition licence for firearms. As a first nations member, I know I have that right, especially being a direct descendant of two treaty signers of Treaty 8 of 1899. I have the right to feed my family by going hunting without fear of being incarcerated because I do not have a certain licence, which directly affects my first nations treaty right.

The Chair: We are over the three minutes.

Mr. Ron Walker: Okay. I want to thank you for--

The Chair: And I am cutting in because we will not be dealing with the gun legislation--

º (1610)

Mr. Ron Walker: Yes, I understand that this is the end of my time anyway, so the--

The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

As we wait for groups to present, is there anyone in the room who has not presented and who is not scheduled to present, wishing to make a personal comment for three minutes? Now is the time to come forward.

There are three groups left. We will suspend until the next group of witnesses is here.

º (1610)

º (1625)

The Chair: We will resume public hearings on Bill C-7, An Act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other Acts.

I understand that we have with us representatives of the Native Council of Canada (Alberta). I invite them to approach the table at this time.

Thank you for having accepted our invitation. I invite the president, Doris Ronnenberg, to make a presentation and to introduce to us all of her colleagues.

º (1630)

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg (President, Native Council of Canada (Alberta)): I'm Doris Ronnenberg. I'm president of the Native Council of Canada (Alberta). With me is Lillian Shirt, who is an off-reserve member of the Cold Lake First Nation; Betty Horseman, who is an off-reserve member of the Horse Lake First Nation; Richard Long, executive director; Winnie Cheecham from Fort McMurray; and Mrs. Vicklund and Lawrence Cunningham from the Peavine Métis Settlement. Mr. Sinclair is temporarily lost. That's who Mr. Long is looking for.

The Chair: Are you making the initial presentation?

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg: Yes, I'm making the presentation.

The Chair: So we can proceed. We have an hour together. I wish you would allow time for members to ask questions. I'm sure they will have some.

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg: Is it an hour starting now or three minutes ago?

The Chair: We're starting now.

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg: First of all, I'd like to introduce myself. I am a Treaty 8 Indian and an off-reserve member of the Saulteaux First Nation.

I've introduced my colleagues who will be making the presentation to you. I will keep my presentation to seven minutes, and my colleagues who wish to speak will have three minutes each. My math tells me that you'll have roughly half an hour left for questions and answers.

You've been given an envelope that contains our newsletter and a covering letter explaining who we are.

My presentation is entitled “Bill C-7: First Nations Governance Act. Recommendations for Change”, from the Native Council of Canada (Alberta).

From an Alberta off-reserve treaty Indian perspective, we recommend six changes to Bill C-7 for the parliamentary committee to consider. They include two formal amendments to Bill C-7, along with a dispute resolution mechanism, an Indian ombudsman, and a non-derogation clause. Draft texts are attached.

Recommendation one: that all off-reserve band members, including members of bands now governed by custom community election systems, vote for chief. The chief of a band represents all his or her members, so all members should vote regardless of residence. This is in accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada Corbiere decision. We would point out that Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, in her written judgment in Corbiere, page 45, spoke of the need for bands with customary election rules to allow off-reserves the vote in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In Alberta, 39 of the 45 bands are custom bands. See the attached list. Many, not all, have taken the position that Bill C-7 does not apply to them, because their lawyers have advised them that they are custom bands and not Indian Act bands. As such, future elections for chief in some places in Alberta, such as today at the Fort McMurray and Janvier first nations, will not see off-reserve Indian band members voting, despite Bill C-7, without further expensive and time-consuming litigation. We believe that Bill C-7 should be more explicit in the need for charter compliance by custom bands in allowing for off-reserve voting for chief.

Recommendation two: that a minority of council seats on a first nation council, outside of chief, be elected by off-reserve band members, and that a majority of council seats be elected by on-reserve band members. What fuels the feeling of many Indian people on reserve to oppose Bill C-7 is the fear that they will be overwhelmed by the greater numbers of off-reserve band members in electing council. Off-reserve issues, perhaps dominated by non-Indian people, will then prevail.

Bill C-7 defines an elector as an on- or off-reserve band member who is 18 or over. This committee may feel that such on- and off-reserve electors should be left unfettered by the bill in determining who shall elect their council. We think leaving who elects council with only a 25% rule in passing leadership selection and other codes does nothing to assuage the fears of many of our on-reserve band members about Bill C-7.

º (1635)

Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, in her decision in Corbiere, allowed that customary election rules may allow for different ways a council may be elected as long as everybody in the band has meaningful participation. Off-reserve band members electing a minority on council would be meaningful, along with the chief elected by all. However, given the way people actually are, there is no guarantee that a council elected by on-reserve members would vote against an off-reserve issue or that a councillor elected by off-reserve members would vote against an on-reserve issue. We live in an enlightened age.

We do not think the committee should be silent on this sensitive aspect of code development, but it should recognize the strong concerns and feelings of on-reserve band members on council selection and take a proactive stance in its report to Parliament.

Recommendation three: We recommend that Elections Canada organize and conduct all first nations elections for chief and council. Elections Canada should be given the money to hire an all first nations unit within Elections Canada to conduct first nations elections with fairness and impartiality. Having the Department of Indian Affairs or the RCMP supervise first nations elections, as is often done now, we believe is inappropriate. We daresay DIAND and the RCMP agree. A highly trained all first nations Elections Canada team should come into a community, conduct all aspects of the election, and then leave.

One further recommendation is that Elections Canada and first nations peoples immediately resource a five-year plan to develop a first nations electoral commission created by federal statute.

Recommendation four: We believe the repeal of section 67 in the Canadian Human Rights Act, through clause 42 of Bill C-7, to be a good thing. In fact, the NCCA sponsored this several years ago before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, but we do not feel that the new interpretation of proposed section 16.1, contemplated by clause 41 of Bill C-7, is well drafted or that it goes far enough. The vagueness of this new Canadian Human Rights Act amendment, proposed section 16.1, except for gender equality, will surely lead to protracted litigation in every case. It is a cash cow for lawyers.

Much more importantly, however, is that abolition of section 67, coupled with a vague interpretation section, proposed section 16.1, in the Canadian Humans Right Act will most certainly lead to non-Indian individuals and groups interfering in internal first nations activities. Further thought needs to be given to this whole section 67 repeal. We must think of the future use, as to whether it will harm or help.

We further recommend an Indian bill of rights be recommended by the committee, such an Indian bill of rights to be developed by Indians for Indians and resourced by the federal government. It would spell out clearly the rights of individual Indians within a first nations Indian collectivity in the 21st century. We must listen to our elders, but we must also recognize that we live in a modern era where individual rights need to be spelled out.

Ten years ago NCCA outlined such a bill of rights for all aboriginal people and we received the written report in 1993. We attached the outline and a letter from the then president of the Canadian Bar Association. We were told then by the Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, that this was too advanced a concept. Perhaps now is the time, as part of the Bill C-7 process, to look at a bill of rights for individual first nations peoples.

Recommendation five: We recommend that clause 11 and related parts of clause 18 of Bill C-7 be deleted in favour of an independent office of an Indian ombudsman organized in each of the five regions of Canada. We attach our draft amendment to that effect as appendix A to this brief, but here we are only setting out minimal content, not a legislative drafting.

º (1640)

If anything is true today, it is that we have a total failure in a workable and fair dispute resolution mechanism for individual Indians to have their complaints against band council properly redressed. Clause 11 of Bill C-7, on the face of it, calls for an impartial person or body established under clause 18 “to consider fairly and expeditiously any complaint” by a member of a band or a resident of a reserve. But one cannot police oneself and call it independence if chief and council appoint the independent members of the body. Retaliation or pressure are a certainty. Financial, familial, or personal conflicts of interest are the norm in most complaints, not the exception. Fear of making a complaint is a daily reality on many reserves. How many times are there sit-ins, violence, and even worse when a dispute arises?

Just as important is the inequity in funding available for an individual band member complaining about chief and council. Now the individual band members are left to their own resources to hire a lawyer, while the band pays the band lawyers out of DIAND-supplied band funds or band-controlled company funds. If the matter is sensitive or complicated, the individual has no money for experts or no power for the experts to access information.

An office of an Indian ombudsperson, regionalized and modelled on the Auditor General's office with appropriate rules as to confidentiality, must be established. It should report its findings to the complainant, to first nations officials, and, if the complaint is not redressed, to the Court of Queen's Bench or appellate court of the province or territory where the complaint began, with written recommendations for legal costs for all parties and criminal or civil penalty remedies made to the court. Only in this way will justice be served for the poor Indian.

We ask this committee to amend Bill C-7 by creating this new office of Indian ombudsman. An alternative would be to create such an office in the companion institution's legislation. Though we see a need for the office of an Indian ombudsman to be led by a first nations individual or other aboriginal person, he or she need not be a lawyer or hold a university degree but could have such helpers. Appointments should not come from chiefs or national aboriginal organizations; rather, appointments should be made by order in council and be impartial, independent of Indian politics.

Recommendation six: The fears that Bill C-7 will harm treaty or aboriginal rights, including the inherent right to self-government, have led to serious opposition to Bill C-7 in some quarters. Indeed, a lawsuit against Bill C-7 is contemplated in Saskatchewan. Attached as appendix B is a simple model of a non-derogation clause for the committee to consider. We are sure many of you have seen this model of a non-derogation clause before as it was used in legislation passed immediately after the Constitution Act of 1982.

For those who say Bill C-7 will not hurt treaty and aboriginal rights and who oppose a non-derogation clause, we say, why not agree to a non-derogation clause to make the matter certain? We favour this model with a non-derogation clause because it has the virtues of simplicity and directness.

One final matter is the aboriginal peoples act, recommended as a reform at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. We oppose an aboriginal peoples act at this time. It has no relevance here in this discussion. We participated in RCAP and have read the RCAP final report, but we do not want to see water in the wine of Indian treaty rights, which are for and with Indians only. Through recognition and legislation based on the word...I'll stop there.

This is our written submission, which has been handed to each of you, and I would like my colleagues to take their three minutes. They have their own issues that, as individuals, they wish to discuss.

º (1645)

The first one I would like to ask is Betty Horseman from the Horse Lake First Nation.

The Chair: Before you go ahead, I will note that the seven-minute presentation was 15 minutes.

I now have a point of order.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's about the presentation you keep referring to in terms of the attachments; I don't have that.

The Chair: It hasn't been distributed because it hasn't been translated.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's not translated; that's the issue.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Ms. Betty Horseman (Member, Native Council of Canada (Alberta)): Good afternoon to members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs hearing the presentations about Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act.

My name is Betty Horseman. I live off reserve in Edmonton. Twenty-five years ago I married into the Horse Lake Band. This first nation is located in the far northwest of Alberta, and it recently received $126 million in a land claims settlement.

First, let me thank the Native Council of Canada of Alberta, of which I and many others are proud members, and thank you for inviting me to appear here today.

I would prefer to use my time for questions and answers, but before that I'll tell the committee the following. I am a status treaty Indian and was so before Bill C-31. I have my card from your government. I have been a member of the Horse Lake First Nation for approximately 25 years, if not more. I was removed from the Horse Lake Band for no reason. After repeated attempts verbally and in writing, I am unable to find out the reasons I was removed from the band list.

I have been critical of the previous chief, Robert Dale Horseman, convicted of rape and now rehabilitated at Nechi to be a counsellor.

A referendum passed in 1985 set up a governance policy for the Horse Lake First Nation, which the present leadership under Dion Horseman refuses to follow. This refusal has led to the occupation of the band office and widespread fear on the reserve.

Attached are copies of six cheques, totalling $380,000, issued by chief and council to themselves without a band meeting at all and with legal advice either secret or non-existent. This land claims money was paid only to a selected few but should go to all those names that were used for the per capita, including Bill C-31.

I believe that the Horse Lake First Nation is a current example of corruption and a lack of accountability. I do not believe Bill C-7 protects off-reserve participants in code development. Furthermore, Bill C-7 does not, in its proposed code context, protect women, children, and other members from abuse and drug selling. Why do poor people, women in general, have to go to court to hire high-priced lawyers? Why isn't there anything for women like me or for my children and my grandchildren?

º (1650)

The Chair: Thank you.

Who will be next?

Ms. Hazel Vicklund (Member, Native Council of Canada (Alberta)): I think that most of you have the newsletter we have on the Peavine Métis Settlement.

There is a lot of conflicting...for the people who did not have any health services whatsoever in Peavine. Some of course were going to be taken to court by Alberta Health because they weren't able to pay for their health care. They have an inherent right, but because of their health, because they were in a position where they weren't able to get any health care, they chose to opt out and register as treaty Indians for health reasons.

I think what has been put in the newsletter really describes it very well, but even more today, it's really tragic to see your own people, who have been in the community for 50 years, not able to function humanly because a lot of them feel their souls have been ripped out. They have been in the community for 50 years, and now they're told, you're not a member, you have no rights. Yet we have people sitting on our council who have full treaty status, and somehow they have worked it to say that this is a grandfather clause and at the same time it shouldn't have been in effect.

We have a real problem in the Métis settlement under section 90, but at the same time, the reason people have done it, as I say, is for health reasons.

Did you want to add anything?

Mr. Lawrence Cunningham (Member, Native Council of Canada (Alberta)): I am Lawrence Cunningham. I'm the one who's affected by this. I'm the one who stayed in Peavine—I was raised there—for 50 years. I'm the one they removed membership from. Either way, I can't go into the Indian reserve or the Métis settlement. Where do I go? Because of section 90, to us the Alberta act is discriminatory against us in the community of Peavine.

That's all I'd like to say. Thanks.

º (1655)

The Chair: Thank you. Is there anyone else?

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg: Winnie is a little shy to speak. Winnie will be tabling two things with you. One will be a news article about her when she was evicted from her first nation. She's a senior, and we think her issue is with the authority aspect of governance.

She was evicted from her house, and it was in the cold winter. First of all, they shut her utilities down to try to force her to move. Finally she did say "uncle" and she moved. But in effect what has happened is that Winnie is homeless now. She's moving from relative to relative. She is an example of the abuse of authority in relation to seniors, and this is what she wanted to say, but she's a little bit shy.

Thank you.

The Chair: Winnie, and to the others, I will repeat what I said twice today already. We see this table as a kitchen table. If it helps anything, and if later on you feel like jumping in, feel comfortable.

We even went to the point where I was going to suggest that we not wear shirts and tie but come casually. I chose not to do it because I feared offending the dignity of the people we are meeting with. We were caught between two decisions too, because we would feel very comfortable being in plaid shirts, which I prefer to this anyway.

So if you feel like jumping in at any time, don't be shy. This is a kitchen table. I mean that.

We'll start with questions. Lillian, do you have something to add?

Ms. Lillian Shirt (Member, Native Council of Canada (Alberta)): I'm Lillian Shirt. I'm a treaty status Indian from the Cold Lake First Nation. All my children are treaty status, from the same band. I have 35 grandchildren.

What I would like to speak about is the quality of education that's being given to my grandchildren now, in the future, and for the ones unborn. The band now has the authority to say yes or no to an application to go to an institution such as a university, post-secondary institute, or a high school. My daughter Candace, who has nine children, was turned down for an application because the person didn't feel that it was.... It was a personal vendetta thing that happened there. She made the choice of not funding my daughter to continue to university.

My daughter Candace had to wait two weeks sitting in class without any textbooks. One book was $380; one was $150. She finally had to step back because she was told she could no longer occupy the chair until her money was in. She withdrew. As a result of that, she has been evicted from her house, where she has lived for eight years, and now they're without a home. It's winter; it's February, and there are nine children.

That has to be addressed under governance.

The other issue I would like to talk about is our handicapped, who are being treated the same way. They are treaty status living off the reserve. Once you live off the reserve, you have no right to your band for any kind of benefits—education, housing, medical, or recreation. You're not entitled to any of those kinds of funds once you're off the reserve. You're on your own. Many of our handicapped people are suffering because of that and are being mistreated by their caregivers. That's the second issue I wanted to talk about.

Thank you.

» (1700)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Does that complete the presentations for this time? I will allow seven minutes per party. That will leave us with about eight minutes for closing remarks. You may share your time if you wish.

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I ask my question I want to confirm the situation of Winnie Cheecham. She contacted my office, as I'm her member of Parliament. In an attempt to help her with her situatio, we contacted the chief of her reserve. To put it politely, he was less than cooperative with our inquiry.

We weren't able to be of much assistance, which is a dilemma for members of Parliament all around this table in dealing with issues on reserve with chiefs and councils. It's a very difficult situation for us. I was told quite bluntly that I wasn't a representative of Indian people and I should mind my own business. So I hope that is one of the issues we might resolve within Bill C-7.

To the group and Doris, how would you see first nations choosing a national ombudsman? How would you find and choose the person? It seems to me it would be a huge challenge to find somebody who had the confidence and trust of first nations across the country. How could that process work?

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg: At both levels of government, federal and provincial, there are mechanisms for choosing such people. The Governor General of Canada is chosen. What mechanism did they use to choose her?

Mr. David Chatters: Don't even go there. The last thing you want is a national aboriginal ombudsman appointed by the Prime Minister.

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg: Not that way.

Mr. David Chatters: If it's going to be successful, that person has to be chosen by first nations people. Perhaps you're advocating that Matthew Coon Come appoint someone, but I wouldn't think so.

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg: No. It's the quality of the individual you need. It's not necessarily whether they're a trained lawyer or a has-been politician. First of all, has-been politicians have too much baggage. It could be a person who has the commitment and some skills--but not necessarily a lawyer--to be able to do the job. They will create the confidence.

Mr. David Chatters: I don't want to use up a lot of time, because I want to share it with Maurice, but could your group do a little work on how that process might work, how that person could be chosen, the nuts and bolts of the process, and get it to the clerk of the committee so we might have a look at that?

Great. Thanks.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you very much. I think a number of us on the committee would pitch for an independent ombudsman with powers of investigation and the ability to follow through on reports, and so on.

I think the issue I hear a lot on reserve and off reserve is being able to have protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act, as all other Canadians do. A lot of first nations people have told me they'd just like a blanket kind of application of the Canadian Human Rights Act so they had the same protections as any other person in Canada.

You had some reservations and didn't go into a lot of detail on that, but maybe you can give me some response on the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act to all first nations people.

» (1705)

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg: I'll answer part of it, but I think you want me to give you a technical answer. First of all, if you're removing section 67, we're not convinced that the only people who will use that removal will be first nations people or aboriginal people themselves. Non-aboriginal people could use that mechanism to interfere.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can you give me an example of that? What exactly do you mean?

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg: I'll get Richard to answer that.

Mr. Richard Long (Executive Director, Native Council of Canada (Alberta)): Well, a good example would be the Canadian Tax Foundation, who would complain on behalf of some person on the Sucker Creek Reserve--and I don't want to pick on them--that the tax is unfair. They would then make a complaint and sponsor that person through the complaint process.

When you remove section 67, which you're proposing to do here, it means the Human Rights Commission could then look at any complaint from any person, whether it affected an Indian band or an Indian Act matter of any kind. It opens the door. The only thing you're saying in the subsection 16(1) you're proposing is that there should be some consideration of community values in such a complaint.

Doris is trying to indicate that there are really no limits to what you're proposing. Once you take section 67 out, the ball is over there. There are no restrictions. The interpretation clause, if you read it in the subsection 16(1) you're proposing, is very vague. The only thing serious about it is that it says there should be gender equality. There should be no sexist interpretation.

But she's concerned, and many Indian people are concerned, that you're opening up a gate--a non-Indian gate. Then you may have human rights officers running around reserves and looking into things and perhaps using different values in determining how to resolve problems--not that they're wrong or right, but that these things should be done with some care. There's serious concern that if you take section 67 out and replace it with subsection 16(1), you're not leaving any specifics. There aren't any rules.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Because there's a Canadian Human Rights Act, are you saying first nations people don't need or want--

The Chair: Time is up, Mr. Vellacott.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your presentations. I found some of them very moving.

Ms. Ronnenberg, you mentioned the possibility of creating a charter of rights for first nations. Would such a charter give anything more to first nations than the current Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and how could it resolve some of the problems you described so well?

[English]

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg: First of all, I envision a bill of rights being put together by the Indian people, the first nations people. I've always been concerned about the individual's rights within the collective's rights, and there's no mechanism to address that point.

By the way, I was around the constitution table when the equality clause was added and passed. So I go back quite a way.

Now, if people put something together, they have an ownership of it and they're more likely to follow it, whereas if you're parachuting an existing human rights legislation but also opening the door so it could be used in different ways, I think that's too destructive. If you have an ombudsperson who is Indian and you have an Indian bill of rights, which could be based.... It's going to require at least two, three, maybe five years of work, so that a lot of our values can be put into that legislation.

We had a government before Canada was Canada. I'm not saying we go to the more extreme examples of the way we conducted ourselves, but we did have a governing structure and some of it worked pretty well.

I envision the melding of our ways into the 21st century ways in terms of our rights, but it's the protection of the individual rights within the collective rights. That is a given. I don't want to see the federal human rights legislation being parachuted in, because it opens wide a door for other things that could be dangerous.

» (1710)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Ms. Ronnenberg, you said that before the Europeans arrived, the aboriginal nations had their own style of governance, their culture, their habits, and even a common law structure.

In fact, the Assembly of First Nations tells us precisely that Bill C-7 goes against all that and does not even respect the fact that, by virtue of their history, some first nations already have a common law system and a culture as well as very set ways of doing things. They feel that a good governance act should go hand in hand with existing procedures rather than broaching the problem from the other end and standardizing everything without taking into account your distinctive features, your culture, your history and your ability to govern in your own way.

You, however, seem more open to Bill C-7. You say that it could respect all that. I wonder how these two opposing views can be reconciled. It is all very muddled.

[English]

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg: First of all, I'm a woman and I have had to fight very hard for my rights and the rights of my sisters. In the most of the nation-building structures I have seen, there are no real equality rights for women, and if you are going to build a strong nation, then you have to consider strong equality rights for all members of your nation, including women.

I do agree. This is why we are recommending an ombudsperson. We are recommending an Indian bill of rights because, in effect, I'm saying that what you have in these dispute resolution mechanisms is not going to work. It's going to be far too interfering. In my mind, I call the person who is going to be doing that job a kind of a super cop. I don't think there's any room for a person of this kind with that kind of power.

In essence, I'm agreeing with Mr. Mercredi that we have to get back to the way we do things. I'm just saying we should do it through an ombudsperson and an Indian bill of rights.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: That's fine, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Soto.

Le président : Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

[English]

I understand the Liberals will split the time and Mr. Hubbard will start.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, everyone.

It is certainly a challenge you offer to us. You bring forward a lot of ideas, some of which we have probably discussed but some of which are very much new.

You mentioned, for example, in terms of an ombudsman--which we have discussed--the idea of a regional division of ombudsmen. This might be something different, Mr. Chair, in terms of our four or five general areas, where we do have people with similar circumstances and backgrounds. Elections Canada, I believe, talked with them. Yet you are suggesting Elections Canada might look after the elections process. And of course you brought to us some of the problems you encounter in terms of collective versus individual ownership of property and homes and so forth.

But I'm a little bit concerned here about what the visions of our first nations people are. We are talking today, Mr. Chair, with people both on reserve and off reserve. For the most part, I think Indian Affairs, in their past relationships, have thought of people on reserve. The people off reserve--your grandchildren, probably, and so forth--haven't had the attention others have had in terms of education, as with your daughter, Betty.

In terms of a vision for the aboriginal peoples in Canada, do you see them living on reserve or off reserve? How should governance and so forth work? The people on reserve seem to have most of the assets, shall we say, under their control.

Where I come from in Atlantic Canada, probably close to half the people are living off reserve. Some of them will be scattered from Atlantic Canada way down to the Boston states, as we call them. Where they live is a problem when it comes to maintaining a voting registry and so forth.

In terms of vision, I'm not sure, Mr. Chair, that we have any cases where houses are provided off reserve for first nations peoples. Yet we are hearing some people saying today that maybe people off reserve, who constitute probably nearly half of our population of aboriginal people, should be given the same consideration for education, for housing, for medical care.

Would someone like to respond?

» (1715)

The Chair: Who would like to respond to that? Hazel.

Ms. Hazel Vicklund: I think that because there is funding for.... I suppose all the heads are counted and the funding is being all spent in the reserve. We, as off-reserve Indians, are not getting that funding that was intended for us. At the same time, as aboriginal people I think we are all aboriginal people and should never be classed as any different. We're aboriginal people and that is it.

This is where we run into a whole lot of problems in our community of Peavine. This is what I feel and this is what a lot of our people feel, that the money that belongs to off-reserve people is being consumed by others it wasn't intended for.

The Chair: You have three minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I'll be very quick.

Thank you very much for your awesome presentation. It's amazing what you have presented in such a short period of time.

Of all the topics that you've introduced, the one I find the most disturbing is your comment pertaining to human rights. I'm thinking of my background of experiences with the native people in northwestern Ontario.

As a former educator and on the school board and everything else, I applaud representation on school boards. By law, they're supposed to be there as a trustee, for over 25 years. There are several school boards who still have not been successful in getting some type of agreement between and among various reserves to send a representative to the school board that serves the needs of all those reserves, on the secondary level and the post-secondary level. Do you understand?

Now, what's the problem? If you get them together in a meeting and get them from the different reserves, they walk in the door and they see a guy sitting there from that other reserve, they turn around and walk out. Evil spirits, or whatever it might be, they're not going to come into that room and listen to anything that those people talk about; they'll have nothing to do with them. Yet they're Cree, or they're Ojibway, but they do not get along together. Their boundaries are different, so different that I think it would be practically impossible for the nation with so many different reserves to come together in some kind of agreement.

I think it'll take far longer than five years. I think it'll take forever for them to come up with some kind of bill of human rights based on their values--never mind money, never mind activities. I'm talking about values here. I'm talking about a philosophy of living.

» (1720)

The Chair: You have a minute and a half if you wish to respond. I guess the issue is, how difficult will it be to find someone that everybody agrees with?

Ms. Doris Ronnenberg: I'm totally optimistic in this area. I think the climate is right to do something like this. I think we have enough educated people around and we also have committed people. I'm really optimistic it can be done.

We have bounced against brick walls too long. When you're talking about getting along, I sat on something called the Edmonton Multicultural Society for six years. I finally gave up. They were from all the different nations of peoples from all over the world. They were mostly Masters and PhDs, but they fought so much. Finally, after six years I gave up.

The Chair: We invite you to make closing remarks.

Who wishes to make their remarks? Mr. Long.

Mr. Richard Long: First, I want to tell you how much of an honour it is to be here. I appreciate that you're all travelling all over the country and you're hearing many points of view, and I'm glad you are. So whether or not we can make some small contribution to your effort, that's what we're trying to do.

Many people who wrote this brief, by the way, aren't here. Over 500 people were actually consulted on this document. Some of the things you've heard are perhaps new to you, but they come from treaty Indian people who live in cities and towns, who don't have a chance to come and speak to people like you. So whatever decision you make, we really appreciate the opportunity to make our point.

We have made six specific points to you, and in the closing moments, I would like to reiterate what has been said. First, I want to point out that all those at this table except me, and I had no choice in the matter, are Indian people. Perhaps if they had more time, there would be many issues they could talk about.

Specifically, the general consensus is that the dispute resolution mechanisms available to Indians in Canada are not doing the job. You read every day in the paper about sit-ins, about suits. We're sitting in a hotel owned by the Sawridge Indian Band. And with respect to the late Walter Twinn, the Native Council of Canada has been in court for 12 years about Bill C-31, and it is going to court next month because the Indians who got their rights through that legislation in 1985, to this day, 18 years later, are still not members of the bands.

The thousands, I should say the millions, of dollars spent on that particular dispute are as a result of a failure to have a way to deal with such a thing without the courts and lawyers and all the money and time involved.

So on the dispute resolution mechanism, we feel totally that you should be taking a hard look at clause 11 of the bill you're considering and, to some extent, at clause 18. We've proposed an ombudsman because it has worked in other places. There's an ombudsman with the military. There's one in various provinces.

It may not be a magic solution. We may have a lot of trouble, sir, in finding people. Your point is well taken, and we will do our best to come up with some ideas on how one might select somebody like that.

I don't think any rational person who looks at the papers every day and who looks all across this country can think that the system we have now is working. And it's certainly not working for poor people. The truth is that a first nation can hire a lawyer through the department's money, and the person complaining has to come up with their own resources. If we hadn't had the organization here that you're looking at, the Bill C-31 men, women, and children wouldn't be in court.

By the way, they're going to court next month. It's in the newsletter in front of you. A significant thing has happened. The Crown has decided to ask for an order from the court reinstating everybody. And if there's further delay, at least they'll have their band membership, because everybody's dying, including Chief Twinn.

A dispute resolution mechanism is one of our recommendations, and we've proposed an ombudsman, and Doris has talked about a bill of rights.

I agree with you, sir. If we use the words “bill of rights”, they may not be the right English words. What's more important than the words is that Indian people figure a way to settle their problems in some methodology that they are comfortable with, that doesn't involve the courts and lawyers and so on.

Secondly, on the non-derogation clause, the lawsuit in Saskatchewan, the second amendment we propose, you need a non-derogation clause because many Indian people believe that this Bill C-7 will hurt their treaty rights. I don't think so, but many of them do. If it won't, then why not say it? What's the harm in it?

Doris was one of the people at the constitutional table in 1984 with the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau. She wanted equality for men and women in section 35. Everybody said, you already have that in section 15 of the Constitution, in section 28. And the women said, no, we want aboriginal men and women to be equal because section 35 is outside the charter.

So, if a non-derogation clause is to be put in, what's the harm in it? How does it hurt anything?

In conclusion, there are the other four points.

» (1725)

First, we are very sensitive to the concept that on-reserve Indians feel threatened by this bill. They feel threatened by the Corbiere decision. They feel that off-reserve Indians will outmanoeuvre them and outnumber them. So we have proposed that, at least with the council, sensitivity be given to the development of codes where on-reserve people have the majority. But everybody should vote for the chief—that's what the judge said in Corbiere, everybody—because he represents or she represents everybody.

Finally, concerning Elections Canada, it's no denigration of anybody, but right now the RCMP and Indian Affairs often conduct selections, and they don't want to, if you ask them. We think there should be developed in Canada over the next five years or ten years a cadre of Indians—working first with Elections Canada, because they have the expertise—funded and with the money being spent, who would fly in, conduct the election, and fly out, so that there would be no suspicion.

There is a recent case in this province of the Alexander Band, where everybody calls everybody corrupt, and they are all in court, and the lawyers make a fortune. It's all done because the electoral officer did this, or did that, or didn't do this, or didn't do that. Why do we have all that stuff? Why can't we just have an impartial third party elect the thing and then train Indian people to do the thing in the future?

Each one of our six recommendations and conclusions is based on hundreds and hundreds of interviews and hours and hours of discussion. Whether or not you accept them, it's our best effort—not my effort—and we thank you again for the ability to come here and talk to you.

The Chair: We thank you enormously. We can say to you that your presentation and others today will be very helpful.

We understand that we're dealing with the Indian Act. Some people say to us, scrap Bill C-7. We can't, but if we did scrap Bill C-7 we'd still have the Indian Act. The Indian Act is a piece of legislation I have never heard one person say was a good piece of legislation. What we have been asked to do by the House of Commons is to make it better until we can have self-governance treaties and agreements. So our job is difficult, and you are all helping us do it. You can be assured that we are taking it very seriously.

We thank you very much for your presentation.

We need to know if the group who have asked to present together are all here. Is everyone here and prepared to go? You may all come forward.

Welcome, everyone. We will try to set the table. You heard us say we are at the kitchen table; we will set the table.

I understand the offer you made the committee is that each one of the groups would make a presentation, then we would open it up for an hour of questions, which the members would address to individual members. Is that correct?

Now, is it correct that you said you wanted each to make a five-minute presentation? No? How long?

» (1730)

Chief Rose Laboucan (Driftpile First Nation): We have negotiated for at least half an hour.

The Chair: Per group?

Chief Rose Laboucan: No, as a total. But we are not necessarily going to break it into the five minutes. We will just go with the original—

The Chair: You would like half an hour for a presentation?

Chief Rose Laboucan: Yes.

The Chair: That's fine. And if you go a bit over, that's fine.

I will let you do it: I won't introduce the groups or the individuals; you will do that for me, or as you go. Is that fair enough?

We will start with Mr. Frank Halcrow.

Chief Frank Halcrow (Kapawe'no First Nation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's part of our tradition to start any meeting in any setting with a prayer from our elders. We do have an elder here. Would the chair permit us to have that opening prayer by one of our elders who is here today?

The Chair: Absolutely, and members would be willing to participate.

Chief Frank Halcrow: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to call on Joe Willier to say the opening prayer for us.

Mr. Joe Willier (Elder, Sucker Creek First Nation, As Individual):

[Witness speaks in his native language]

The Chair: We thank you very much.

Mr. Halcrow, we would ask you to give the name of the elder so that we can get it on record, please.

Chief Frank Halcrow: For the record, that was Elder Joe Willier. He's from Sucker Creek First Nation and said the opening prayer.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce the group before you at this table. At the end is Chief Roland Twinn. Next to him is Catherine Twinn. Next to Catherine is Chief Alvin Cardinal. On my right is Dr. Harold Cardinal. My name, Mr. Chairman, is Chief Frank Halcrow. On my left is Chief Rose Laboucan. To her left is councillor Sid Halcrow, and on his left is councillor Leon Chalifoux.

Again, my name is Grand Chief Frank Halcrow. I, along with Dr. Harold Cardinal, will make a presentation on behalf of the Treaty 8 first nations of Alberta. To co-host our presentation will be Catherine Twinn and Rose Laboucan. Together we are prepared to answer where possible any question the members of your committee may have.

Before I start with my presentation, I wish on behalf of the 23 Treaty 8 first nations of Alberta to welcome you to our territory. You are holding your meeting here at a location that is not far in distance from the site where Treaty 8 was signed.

The treaty-making event was important for both our people and other Canadians. Canada and its Charter of Rights and Freedoms notes that Canada is founded on the recognition of the supremacy of God and the rule of law. Our treaty is part of the constitutional law of Canada. The treaty confirms the way in which our people and the Crown are to relate to each other. Treaty law and Canadian law must work together for the benefit of the people so that our people are strong, healthy, self-sufficient, and proud contributors to Canada.

» (1735)

The Chair: We're still at the kitchen table, so take your time. Don't worry about a thing.

Chief Frank Halcrow: The first nations of Canada were never conquered. The treaty part of the constitutional law of Canada confirms such. The treaty established the constitutional arrangement and transforms Canada law with sacred laws and principles that govern relationships.

My ancestors agreed to share their land with the newcomers. We retained our reservation lands for our exclusive use and enjoyment. Our shared and common history, not told in the school curriculums, is one of co-occupation and coexistence. The late professor John Foster understood and recognized that the explorers, adventurers, fur traders, and newcomers such as David Thompson, Alexander Mackenzie, Samuel Hearn, Peter Fiddler, Peter Pond, Simon Fraser, Samuel Black, Anthony Henday, Governor George Simpson, and Captain John Palliser would not have survived the land but for the help and support and stewardship of indigenous people.

In the 104 years since our treaty was concluded, you are the first parliamentary committee to arrive in our territory. You are the first to meet with us on our territory and to seek our views on a parliamentary legislative proposal affecting our interests as treaty peoples. For that, Mr. Chairman, we thank you and the members of the committee.

We appreciate the heavy responsibility that you have been given by the Canadian Parliament. We understand the personal sacrifices you make as you travel away from your homes and communities to seek the views and inputs from as many persons as possible across Canada.

Being before you today takes me back to 1980 and 1985. In 1980 we tabled a draft act with a special parliamentary committee on Indian self-government, which produced what was known as the Penner report. In 1985 we presented a brief to both houses of Parliament on amendments to the Indian Act known as Bill C-31. In both cases, we urged legislative recognition of our jurisdiction to balance rights and interests in establishing a clear legislative boundary between first nation governments and other governments.

Our concern is with impacts and waste. There is still outstanding business from 1985 and 1988 amendments to the Indian Act. The natural result of those amendments is that today people who were once friends no longer speak. We are still losing the goodwill and peaceful relations that is our shared treasure. These concerns have been echoed by the Supreme Court of Canada both in the 1970s and by the chief justice of that court in the federally funded John Corbiere case. That court clearly apprehended the destructive, costly, and hurtful impacts from an ad hoc legislative approach.

Our meeting today is important first whereby we, the legal stakeholders, are being been given the opportunity to comment on the specific legislative proposal tabled before the House of Commons. Before now, there has been no consultation on the specific contents of Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, nor for that matter on Bill C-19, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, nor on Bill C-6, the Specific Claims Resolution Act. It is impossible for us to intelligently comment on Bill C-7 without regard to the three trilogies comprising the nine bills that DIAND has been creating since the 1980s, the regulations that are under DIAND's control, the Indian Act, and other acts, which together create a full legal picture.

» (1740)

I know that any fair-minded, honest person would not view our presence today as discharging Parliament from ensuring that the constitutional duties and obligations to effect meaningful consultation with first nations has been legally discharged. It would be dangerous for Parliament, as the guardian of the Constitution, to rely on DIAND to discharge this duty. DIAND has its own self-interest and purpose. Any undertaking or proposed legislative action that impacts the legal regime governing the security and tenure of our lands, including the governmental structure that acts as a steward for the land and the people, triggers the Constitution and other laws of Canada and the sacred duties thereunder.

The duty to consult requires, among other things, that there be informed consent given by our people to any change to their rights as treaty people. That means that there must be a complete and full understanding of the contents of all proposals that may impact our constitutional rights, freedoms, powers, and interests and relationships. We need all the legal pieces out on the table, and much more than the time allocated for this presentation.

Indeed, even as we speak, we are not even sure which version of Bill C-7 is under consideration at your committee's present hearings. Is it Bill C-7 as tabled in June 2002 and reintroduced in October 2002 in the House of Commons, or is it Bill C-7 as amended by Bill C-19, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, which was introduced in the House of Commons in December of 2002?

We have heard a lot of talk about transparency. We are told that transparency means, among other things, that those in authority should do things in a way that can be seen or understood by those not involved in the process. We find the legislative procedures in place to consider Bill C-7 and Bill C-19 confusing. This is so because Bill C-19 contains clauses that further amend the Indian Act while at the same time containing other clauses that amend provisions internal to itself while simultaneously containing additional clauses that amend the First Nations Governance Act proposed in October 2002.

As a result, we find ourselves to be required to comment on the contents of Bill C-7 without an opportunity to fully consider or completely understand the effects of the proposed amendments on the First Nations Governance Act. We fail to see the transparency inherent in that process.

Given the time limitations on our presentation and the uncertainty we face with respect to the parliamentary review process regarding Bill C-7 and Bill C-19, we wish to make some preliminary general comments. We reserve our right to make more detailed comments on both Bill C-7 and Bill C-19 when and if there is a clearer parliamentary procedure in place to consider these bills together, together with our draft recognition legislation, which I am tabling with you today and which first appeared in its embryonic form in 1980 when it was presented to the Penner committee on Indian self-government. Our recognition legislation will be the matter of a later presentation, but suffice to say, it was negotiated with the Department of Justice and DIAND between 1988 and 1991, cabinet ratified it October 10, 1991, and it's been stalled by DIAND and the Department of Justice since then.

Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs have indicated they are open to change. On December 24, 2002, and twice thereafter, Minister Nault was asked and agreed to meet in our treaty territory to discuss the recognition legislation. So we invite Parliament to oversee that discussion and compare the general principles and the specific terms as between the recognition legislation and the nine bills, which we would ask that he produce. We suggest that Parliament, as the guardian of the Constitution, review which appraoch best respects the Constitution of Canada.

» (1745)

We take the following to be given. But first I'll ask Chief Laboucan to take over.

Chief Rose Laboucan: Thank you, Frank.

I'd like to just say welcome, on behalf of Driftpile First Nation, to Slave Lake, and I'll just continue on from there.

First, our people should be directly represented in the drafting, review, consideration, and passage of any federal legislation affecting our interest as treaty peoples. Your committee was told by the Minister of Indian Affairs that there were no precedents for letting aboriginal leaders who are not elected by the general public to sit around a table--a parliamentary committee table--and you were advised by him that if you wanted to pursue the matter, to take up the matter with House leadership.

Please do not exclude us. This would do violence to the Constitution. We respectfully request that you do in fact raise the matter with both the House leadership and the Prime Minister. Parliament itself passed and adopted the Constitution Act of 1982. Through it, it agreed to subject its supreme law-making authority to the terms of the Canadian Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the recognition and affirmation of treaty and aboriginal rights. Our treaty was first constitutionally recognized by paragraph 12 of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, 1930, which carried forward the treaty title burden.

In our view, section 91(24) should be read not in a context of a constitutionally incorrect colonial mindset, but through the transformative legal realities of all the constitutional instruments that together comprise the depth and richness of the Constitution of Canada. Section 91(24) provides a legislative tool whereby Parliament can discharge the legal obligation owed to first nations.

It was felt that leaving that responsibility to the provincial governments would subject first nations to invasion, predation, and molestation, and could dispossess them from their land. Parliament approved and gave effect to the constitutional framework. Parliament must now ensure that this framework is made meaningful. We believe that the rule of law and the Canadian Constitution partners Parliament with our governments to ensure joint recognition of the terms, respect, and mutual trust and benefits.

We are asking parliamentarians to ensure our people's involvement in the drafting, consideration, and passage of any federal legislation affecting us, such as proposed Bill C-7 and Bill C-19. Accordingly, we request that this committee seek the requisite authorities to enable this to happen. Second, we request that both Bill C-7 and Bill C-19 be amended to exempt Treaty 8 first nations from their application. Third, we request that on any matters of law, including the Constitution, we jointly refer such to an independent and impartial tribunal.

We now wish to turn our comments to the general themes contained in the proposed bills. Having said that, we wish to respectfully point out that this meeting represents the first opportunity for us to comment on the specific legislative proposal tabled before the House of Commons. There has been no consultation, before this meeting, on the specific contents of Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, nor for that matter on Bill C-19, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, nor on Bill C-6, the Specific Claims Resolution Act.

I am sure you will understand our position that this meeting today cannot be and should not be viewed as representing a consultation process that discharges Parliament and the Crown from its constitutional, statutory, and legal duty to consult our people. This duty exists with respect to any undertaking or proposed legislative action that impacts upon our treaty and aboriginal rights. The duty to consult requires, among other things, that there be informed consent given by our people to any change to their rights as treaty people. That means that there must be a complete and full understanding of the content of any proposals that seek to impact upon their treaty and aboriginal interests.

» (1750)

For those duties to be properly discharged, we would need much more than the time allocated for this presentation. We would need much more time in which to conduct a thorough, complete discussion and review of the complex first nations legislation proposal that has been tabled in the House of Commons.

And they made a mistake in the printing of the document. You said this already. This is a kitchen table, so that's all right, right?

The Chair: Right.

Chief Rose Laboucan: Secondly, we request that both Bill C-7 and Bill C-19 be amended to enable them to become consistent with the spirit and intent of our treaties. Where this is not possible, we ask your committee to remove and withdraw the parts of the proposed pieces of legislation that cannot be brought into conformity with our treaty and aboriginal rights.

We now wish to turn the comments to the general themes contained in the proposed bill, which I said already.

Bill C-7 repeals sections 74 to 80 of the Indian Act. In doing so, the removal of the Indian Act revisions dealing with the leadership selection removes the statutory recognition of the office of chief and councillors. It replaces the position of chief and councillors with a new no-name council. This is an affront and an insult to our nations.

Our treaty specifically recognizes the position of chief. We recommend that new federal legislation continue to recognize the office of chief, notwithstanding the fact that leadership selection codes have the theoretical leeway to create and recognize the position of chief or create any other designation or title to first nations leadership.

Bill C-7 repeals the definition of the “council of the band” found at paragraph (b) in subsection 2.(1) of the Indian Act. It thus removes a statutory recognition of any nation's inherent authority to power, to empower, and to structure and provide for leadership and accountability. It is our view that Treaty 8 acknowledges, recognizes, and affirms that customary authority, as evidenced by the uniform provisions of chief and council in the terms of our treaty.

Bill C-7 seeks to limit the source of our nations' authority for leadership selection and accountability. It seeks to limit those authorities through the confines of the proposed First Nations Governance Act.

We therefore demand that our customary inherent authorities be expressly recognized as alternative sources of power and authority, which our nations can use in designing leadership selection, accountability, and administrative instruments for our first nations.

On the impact on the treaty-making capacity of our nations, Bill C-7 purports to grant a legal capacity to our first nations governments by ascribing to them the rights, powers, and privileges of a natural person. The proposed provisions stand in breach of our treaty relationships with the Crown. The Supreme Court of Canada in the Sioui decision specifically recognizes the fact that private persons do not have the capacity to enter into treaties; only nations or public governments with the recognized treaty-making power have the capacity to make a treaty. By redefining our governments and ascribing to them only the powers of a natural person, you are effectively removing our nations' capacity to maintain and continue our people's treaty relationship with the Crown.

As noted by the Supreme Court in the Sioui decision, the Crown or Parliament did not have the authority or power to unilaterally define or redefine our treaties.

By removing the recognition of our nations' treaty-making capacity, Bill C-7 would effectively preclude us from implementing our inherent rights to self-government through treaty, as contemplated in the federal government's inherent right policy. Accordingly, we demand that the capacity provisions of Bill C-7 be amended. We want legislative language that respects and recognizes our nations' treaty relationship. We want legislative language that facilitates our nations' continuing relationship with the Crown.

Specifically, we request language in a revised bill that would accord and recognize the fact that our nation and our nation's government process similar legal capacities to that possessed by the federal and provincial governments. Such legislative language would accurately reflect and respect the status, standing, and the rights of our nation. It would stand as a necessary first step to the recognition of our nation as constituting a third order of government within the constitutional framework of Canada.

I need somebody to continue reading, please.

» (1755)

Mr. Harold Cardinal (Legal Counsel, Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta): Mr. Chairman, I'll continue the chore from here, with your permission.

On the impact of Bill C-7 on the adoption of a constitutional framework for first nations, Bill C-7 calls for the creation of three separate codes: a leadership selection code, an administration of government code, and a financial management and accountability code. The approach set out in these provisions offends the spirit and intent of our treaty. Our treaty acknowledged and recognized the pre-existing governance rights of our nations and indeed respected our peoples' right of self-determination. What those rights recognize, among other things, is our peoples' right to design, control, and evolve all political and governance structures, bodies, institutions, or laws required to sustain our peoples.

There is no reason why federal legislation could not recognize our peoples' right to address the issues identified in the proposed codes in a form of first nation constitutions or charters, rather than in the codes. Indeed, we demand that new legislative provisions be created that recognize and give statutory effect to the different options for structuring recognition, respect, and protection of our nations' ability to govern themselves effectively and of guaranteeing the fundamental rights and freedoms of our citizens.

Those instruments could, in our view, more effectively guarantee democratic rights enabling first nations citizens to participate in the selection of their leadership. These constitutions or charters could contain accountability requirements necessary for enabling citizens to hold those responsible for the conduct of their affairs accountable. We insist that these be rooted or anchored either in the customary inherent authorities of our nations or, if they choose, on the basis of revised federal legislation.

When we look to encapsulating notions of fundamental democratic freedoms and values in governance instruments, we see no reason why a constitutional model or format, adopted initially by our Haudenosaunee brothers and subsequently adopted by the United States of America, or one reflected in the Canadian constitutional framework should be found wanting. Indeed, the codification process set out as the only option in Bill C-7 seems to represent no more than an attempt by bureaucrats to design administrative structures masquerading as democratic institutions.

The Bill C-7 approach appears democratic from afar, but at close quarters it turns out to be no more than a thin facade attempting to screen or cover up the removal of some of the fundamental democratic rights of our citizens. That such should be the case is not surprising. In the 127-year history of the Indian Act, federal bureaucrats have not shown any great capacity to appreciate or understand, much less demonstrate, an ability to apply notions of democratic principles and freedoms to their Indian charges. Indeed, that may be the underlying reason for recommendations that were made by the Penner report on self-government and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which, if accepted, would have excluded the Department of Indian Affairs from any parliamentary process designed to address problems arising from the Indian Act.

We therefore demand that Bill C-7 be amended to provide a range of additional options that our first nations might use, such as charters or constitutions within which they can address, at minimum, the issues associated with each of these codes.

¼ (1800)

On democratic values and freedoms, our elders remind our leadership that our communities can only prosper and be healthy to the extent that we create consensus among our citizens. They remind us that the consensus model of governance has its roots in our traditions and teachings, and was designed to minimize community conflict and bring stability and cohesion to our communities.

The democratic model, which at its core requires a decision by majority, carries with it the inherent result that on particularly contentious matters deep divisions can be created by those who oppose the majority. Canadians and other western democracies have attempted to create a balance between majorities and minorities through a careful structuring of fundamental rights and freedoms where the rights of minorities are protected against the will of majorities.

Our elders remind our people that by birth we are our Creator's children, and the rights that accrued to us because of our aboriginal heritage accrued to each and every one of us equally. Our treaty recognizes the right of our people to continue to exist as a people with all the values and laws that existed before the coming of the white man to our territory.

The treaty recognizes the principle that each person possesses an equal right to benefit from our nation's treaty relationship with the Crown, including the right to participate in the decision-making processes of our nations. The Indian Act reflects a similar principle. In section 3(a) it states: “a power conferred on a band shall be deemed not to be exercised unless it is exercised pursuant to the consent of a majority of the electors of the band”. For us that represents a fundamental principle. While the scope of the Indian Act recognition is qualified by the way in which “electors” was defined until the Corbiere decision, the fact remains that first there is a statutory right or power that vests in citizens of a first nation and requires the consent of a majority for the exercise of a band power. Second, the provision is intended to apply to the exercise of all powers vested in a band. We purposely highlight the phrase “all powers” because that isn't reflected in Bill C-7 as it's currently designed.

While one might correctly say that the right of the majority of band electors to give or refuse consent has been honoured more in the breach than in its observance, it remains an existing statutory right that must now be respected.

Bill C-7 indulges in a series of shell games designed to give the impression that it is enhancing democratic values in ensuring that leaders become accountable to their members. First, it introduces the term “eligible voter” as meaning “a member of a band, whether residing on or off reserve, who has attained the age of eighteen years”.

On reading this definition one is left with the impression that Bill C-7, unlike the Indian Act, will extend the right to vote to all adult band members, regardless of residence. It appears from this section that this would include the right to participate in decisions where powers of a band are to be exercised, including, of course, in the leadership selection processes of first nations. Yet by the terms of Bill C-7 this is not the case.

¼ (1805)

Bill C-7 redefines the meaning of majority. Where approval of codes requires a vote by band membership, the law would no longer require a decision by a majority as traditionally understood. If you look at subclause 4(2) of Bill C-7, it reads:

A proposed code is adopted if it is in writing and is approved, in a vote conducted by the council in accordance with the regulations, by a majority of the eligible voters of the band who participate in the vote, and if those who vote to approve it constitute more than twenty-five per cent of all eligible voters.

The notion of one person, one vote, and the decision-making authority of a majority of voters sits at the core of western democratic values. The 51% majority rule threshold can be and is indeed increased when critical matters like constitutional amendments or issues of national importance are at issue.

In effect, Bill C-7 does away with the majority vote principle underlying Canadian democratic values. In many ways it is ironic that it is even less than the democratic threshold required by the Indian Act. It creates a new definition of majority. In the way the voting majority is formulated in Bill C-7, the new majority rule is that 13% plus one of a band's eligible voters can decide whether or not a band can adopt any of the codes called for in the Indian Act.

This proposal makes legally possible a situation where 13% of a band's population can impose its will on 87% per cent of band members who are eligible to vote. The Bill C-7 formulation of democratic principles is an affront to the notion of democracy and a disaster in the making for first nation communities.

But the problem does not stop there. That is clear when one reviews paragraph (5)(1) (e) of the leadership selection code. We draw your attention to that particular provision that leadership selection codes must include rules “prescribing the qualifications of persons to vote at elections of the council, to run for election to the council and to nominate candidates for election”. The leadership selection provision has a mandatory requirement for “rules prescribing the qualifications of persons to vote at elections of the council”. This is an unqualified rule requirement. Under it, rules can be designed that preclude a person from voting for leadership if they speak no English, if they do not speak their native language, if they do not have a university degree, if they do not know their cultures or traditions, or even if they are not Christian or any number of reasons the human mind might imagine.

It is this kind of voter qualification power that was used in the segregation days of the deep south to deny African Americans the right to vote. It is this kind of voter qualification power that paragraph 5(1)(e) now says must be included in the leadership selection code. In our view, it is not the kind of power that should now be allowed to become part of Canadian law.

As far as Bill C-7 is concerned, other than providing venting forums in which first nations citizens can rag against their leaders, for all intents and purposes it forgets first nations citizens, for it recognizes in the subsequent provisions of the act no further substantive role for them in the governance of their communities.

¼ (1810)

Bill C-7 purports to introduce the concept of representative democracy to first nations. It implies in its self-serving preamble that our nations are strangers to regular elections by secret ballot, transparency, and accountability. This preamble borders on being a racist slander. It implies that because we are Indian, or are first nations peoples, we are strangers to democracy, to secret ballots, to transparency, and to accountability.

It is despicable innuendo that blithely ignores the undertakings of many of our first nations to try to mitigate the provisions of the Indian Act in the leadership selection area, or the kinds of measures that our first nations have undertaken to try to make available the kinds of financial information that their citizens require, or the work they have done to adopt financial and administrative policies required of them by their citizens.

Our concern, however, is not to dwell on those matters but rather to express our grave concerns with the direction and content of the proposals contained within Bill C-7 and its companion legislation, Bill C-19.

Extensive public commentary has been made of the fact that the whole reason for the First Nations Governance Act is to make our leaders more accountable to their citizens. Indeed, there has emerged a well-orchestrated public relations campaign to the effect that if first nations leaders oppose the First Nations Governance Act, it is because they somehow want to hide something, or alternatively that they do not want to be held accountable as leaders.

We note the carefully cultivated perception of first nations leadership, but choose at this time not to give in to the temptation to respond to it. Instead, what we want to focus on is our attention on the content of the First Nations Governance Act, to ask you as parliamentarians why the proposed act fails to address the issues that would enable political and legal accountability to be advanced within our communities.

At the present time, our people and our nations have the legal right to hold both their leaders and the governments of Canada accountable for any breach of treaty or fiduciary duty held by the Crown and our leaders. Why is it that you propose, through Bills C-7 and C-19, to remove those political and legal rights of accountability from our peoples and from our nations? Why is it that you remove, in Bill C-7, our citizens' right to consent to the exercise of band power in the area of lawmaking? Is not lawmaking the exercise of a band power?

In our view, lawmaking is an exercise of band power that requires and should require the consent of a majority of our band members before it can be exercised on any subject matter. It is our view that at least a 50% plus one majority, not the 13% plus one of Bill C-7, should be used as a standard for determining decisions in this area. Where our lands or our treaty interests would be at stake, we would want a much higher threshold than a 50% plus one majority, particularly in the instance when any proposed laws would risk the integrity and security of our lands or our treaty interests.

Why is it that you appear to be afraid to entrust our membership with the responsibility of voting for or against any laws that might be passed on their behalf? Why is it that you want to restrict the role of our membership to only commenting on any laws that might be passed by lawmakers exercising our band's power to make laws?

¼ (1815)

Why is it that you appear satisfied with your admonition contained in Bill C-7 and Bill C-19 that we, the reserve lawmakers, give serious consideration to what members have to say about the laws that our leadership might pass? What has happened to the requirement of band consent? Why do you propose to do away with that? Does accountability not mean that our band members should have the right to say yes or no to any laws proposed by their leadership?

Your bills propose to create three separate, different lawmakers. One, you propose that the new no-name councils contained in Bill C-7 would have law-making authority. Two, in the bills before Parliament, third party managers will be given the authority to create, administer, or alter band laws. And three, you have the invisible bureaucrats, the regulators, who will have all of the law-making powers of bands for those bands that choose not to be part of Bill C-7.

There are no accountability provisions in this bill to hold those bureaucratic lawmakers to account, either by the band membership or, it appears, anyone else.

In the instance of the so-called third party managers, why is it that your bills propose to remove our band members' rights and our leadership's right to give consent to any laws that third party managers might enact or amend, using the law-making authorities of our bands? Where does accountability go in that instance?

Your bills not only propose to remove the requirement for our people's consent to those lawmakers, you go much further. Your proposed bills would remove the right of our people and our leaders to hold those new lawmakers accountable by providing those new lawmakers with legal immunity. Where is the accountability in that situation?

Your bill proposes to remove our people's right to compensation for the loss of any interest arising from the taxing authorities third party managers may exercise with respect to the law-making authorities in the areas. We ask, how does that help us achieve the right of accountability for our nations and our citizens?

Your bills propose to remove Crown liability for any lands or interests on lands that our people might lose as a consequence of action taken by third party managers, or the departmental mini corporations created by the proposed legislation. How do those proposals help to achieve greater accountability for our people? The minister claims that Bill C-7 transfers law-making authority to first nation communities.

First nation law-making by federal regulation: Where first nations choose not to enact codes pursuant to Bill C-7, the proposed bill states that law-making authorities will be exercised by way of regulation. There is no description of what the contents of those regulations will be, nor who in government will assume law-making authority for first nations. Nor is there any clear indication what, if any, accountability these regulators will have.

Given the pivotal role played by the regulators in the discharge of governance responsibilities and the absence of any information regarding their content or mode of implementation, we recommend that Parliament hold up consideration of the bills, or put the bills in abeyance until those regulations and the question of federal accountability and transparency is clearly spelled out.

The bills clearly do not recognize the right and authority of our citizens to give or withhold consent for any laws that would be enacted pursuant to their band powers by government regulations. This is in total contradiction of the goals of enhancing accountability and strengthening the rights of our first nations citizens.

¼ (1820)

We have other concerns that have to do with the way in which proposed new corporations are being assigned law-making authorities in first nation communities. Even as a claim is being made that law-making authority is being extended by Bill C-7 to our communities, Bill C-19 is following in its wake and removing authorities related to taxation laws from the set of laws previously contained in Bill C-7.

Bill C-19 proposes to transfer the power to approve all taxation laws from our communities to a new departmental “mini me” misnamed as the First Nations Tax Commission. In clawing back law-making authorities recognized in Bill C-7, Bill C-19 is proposing to create new legal entities whose leadership and management will be selected by the minister and confirmed by order in council. These boards or organizations will only be answerable to the minister and the federal government, not to our citizens, not to our nations.

What happened to the goal of accountability to our citizens and to our nations? What happened to the minister's desire to be relieved of some of the responsibilities he now possesses? Instead of decreasing the minister's responsibilities, the proposed bills increase control and increase the ability of the minister, either through these new federal corporations or through regulatory powers, to intervene even more completely than was ever possible under the Indian Act--but with a difference: this time, it's without the accompanying legal accountability or the accountability arising from his fiduciary duties.

And what is the price our citizens have to pay for Parliament's largesse in granting the minister these increased powers? By creating new federal corporations by virtue of Bill C-19, the bills create new firewalls for our citizens and first nations. These firewalls preclude our people from holding directly accountable the leadership, management, and employees of these bodies. What happened to the goal of accountability and transparency?

Further, our citizens and our leaders lose the right to hold persons or entities who would normally be charged with fiduciary duties accountable under the fiduciary law as it has emerged in Canadian courts. Our citizens lose as well the right to receive compensation for any lands or interest to lands that could be lost as a consequence of actions taken by these new corporate bodies, particularly where some of these bodies assume direct law-making authority for our communities. And all of this without the consent of our citizens.

What perverted sense of accountability and transparency do these bills purport to convey? Do parliamentarians assume through these bills that our legal interests as first nation peoples are worth nothing because they are merely first nation interests?

Your corporate laws recognize that fiduciary duties exist on the part of corporate officers and managers who have charge or responsibility for assets or properties they administer or control, assets or properties that do not belong to them personally. Are your bills saying through these proposals that only “white property” is worthy of legislative or legal protection?

We categorically, unequivocally, completely reject any and all legislative proposals that seek to dispossess our people of their treaty and land interests. We completely reject any legislative attempt to grant legal immunity to those who would seek to control and dispose of any assets arising from our lands without the informed consent of our people and leadership.

With regard to institutional and dispute resolution capacity, we have set out our position that law-making authority should be only exercised with the consent of our citizens.

¼ (1825)

We wish to point out to your committee that where law-making authority is recognized there is a corresponding requirement to create institutional capacities to support, nurture, administer, enforce, and adjudicate those laws. Bill C-7 and Bill C-19 do not contain any provisions that would enable our peoples to create judicial or quasi-judicial mechanisms to resolve or deal with any laws they may create.

At most, Bill C-7 proposes that the council of a band may designate “any person as a band enforcement officer”. We questioned why Bill C-7 does not go further. Why does it not, or why can it not, recognize our peoples' right to create judicial bodies or instruments? Why does it not contemplate a requisite check and balance system required by democratic governments and one required for the proper administration and enforcement of justice in our communities? No modern government can be complete without an independent judiciary to assist in the resolution of disputes in a community.

Many models of dispute resolution are available in Canada that could meet our needs. In the area of labour relations, for example, tribunals are created to deal with disputes arising from labour relations, mechanisms which have by and large served the business and employee communities in a manageable and effective way, resulting in a reduction of the caseloads of existing court systems.

Courts are already beginning to recognize dispute resolution mechanisms created through first nation customary election laws, deferring to the right of those mechanisms to deal at first instance with disputes arising from first nation communities. Your bills would remove that judicial recognition acquired by our nations.

Instead, the bills propose to create unchecked and dangerous powers of police enforcement, particularly with respect to “inspection, search and seizure” in our communities without providing any judicial institutional protection for the rights of our citizens, rights which are guaranteed by our treaties and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In our view, institutional and organizational capacity should be located at, or as close as possible to, the proximity of our communities, not in Ottawa, not in Kamloops, not in Vancouver, not in any other regions. The minister and his department already have billions of dollars in resources to enable them to meet their political and legal responsibilities to our people. They don't need any more institutional capacity. Our peoples and our communities require that capacity, and that is where the new legislation should direct the creation and allocation of new statutory and fiscal resources.

We therefore demand that Bills C-7 and C-19 be amended to enable capacity resources to be directed toward our communities and our regional bodies and to remove the four institutions called for in Bill C-19.

On Indian lands, our treaty guarantees to our people that a fair portion of the lands contained within the boundaries of Treaty 8 would be kept in perpetuity for our people and our nations. We categorically, unequivocally, and completely reject any legislative attempt as exists in Bill C-19 that would cause our lands or our interests in them to be subject to seizure, alienation, forfeiture, or removal in any shape, form, or manner. In our view, such legislation would stand in fundamental breach of our treaty.

We reject completely any legislative attempt that would enable the federal government to dump and run from its treaty and fiduciary obligations, particularly through legislative schemes that would have us mortgage and risk our lands for the provision of capital infrastructure or programs and services to which the federal Crown has legal treaty and fiduciary responsibilities and obligations.

¼ (1830)

We therefore demand that the legislative proposals that have the effect of alienating and removing our peoples' treaty lands, including any legislative proposals that would unilaterally remove Crown treaty and fiduciary obligations, be withdrawn, removed, and expunged from the terms of any proposed legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I would invite the grand chief to finish the conclusion.

Chief Frank Halcrow: Thank you.

In conclusion, we support the recognition legislation as a viable legislative option. We have authorized our organization to negotiate the implementation of the treaty and inherent rights with Canada. Our nations have instructed our leaders to fast-track the negotiations with Canada for recognition of our laws and constitution, which compose our inherent right to self-government.

Our communities, through their leaders, have instructed us to ensure that their informed consent is secured before any agreements are finalized. To that end, in negotiations with federal representatives, our leaders have agreed to referendum processes that will be designed to provide all eligible first nation voters with a right to approve or reject the agreements flowing from Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta and Canada bilateral process.

When we ask Canada, through its legislative proposal, to respect our citizens' right to consultation, we are asking no more of Canada than we ask of ourselves.

We therefore seek from Parliament, through your committee, an exemption from the three trilogies, Bill C-7, Bill C-19, and Bill C-6, including the other six pieces of legislation being contemplated; two, a parliamentary process that compares our recognition legislation with the three trilogies; third, independent and thorough legal advice on any question of law; four, a partnership directly with Parliament to advance our common interests; five, a cost-benefit analysis involving the Auditor General of Canada comparing our recognition legislation with the three trilogies.

We thank you for taking the time to listen to our presentation and accepting for your formal records a copy of our presentation and other materials.

¼ (1835)

Mr. Harold Cardinal: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, might we ask our technicians to clean up the document a little bit before it's submitted as a formal document to your committee?

The Chair: No problem.

Your 30-minute presentation is complete in one hour and one minute, but we're a little bit ahead of time and we'll stay around the table a little bit longer.

We would like to thank Catherine Twinn, who agreed to join the panel. This helps us also.

I understand Ms. Twinn has a presentation to make. I would ask you to make it now.

Ms. Catherine Twinn (Sawridge First Nation): We're here together to speak with one voice. I'm here with my stepson, who is the chief of the Sawridge Indian Band. Everything that has been said by the speakers we endorse.

You have before you a package of materials, and in that there is recognition legislation, which has been introduced five times, backwards, through the Senate. You're nodding your head, Chairman; I take it that you're familiar with that legislation. I want to speak to that.

In 1980 Treaty 8 gave the Penner committee on Indian self-government a draft act. I believe that committee spent approximately $150 million at that time. That draft act was favourably received. It was produced at no expense to the Canadian taxpayer.

The Penner committee reported in 1983. Basically, they took the cue from the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1970s that if there were to be ad hoc amendments to the Indian Act, in that case dealing with the status and membership provisions, they would in effect create a dysfunction within the act because the sections of the act were interlocking and interdependent. It's like the piston of an engine: if you took one section out, you would affect the operation of the act as a whole. Therefore, making ad hoc changes would be unwise and dangerous. In fact, you needed to look at the legislative regime as a whole to make sure you were doing something in a thoughtful, careful way.

Their report was followed in 1984 with two bills, Bill C-47 and Bill C-52. Bill C-47 represented the ad hoc amendments to the Indian Act status and membership provisions. Bill C-52 was an act for Indian self-government. Both bills died when Mr. Turner called an election that summer. The Tories swept into power in the fall of 1984. Mr. David Crombie became the Minister of Indian Affairs. He introduced Bill C-31, the ad hoc amendments to the Indian Act, but there was no companion legislation as contemplated by the Supreme Court and the Penner committee.

Treaty 8 presented a brief to the Parliament, and that is part of the package of materials. There's also a handout showing the actual population increases and the impacts on first nation communities. I say this because at the time Treaty 8 was providing money out of its own pocket and was not financed to appear before the committee because it was not a proponent of the bill. Only those who were supporting the bill were funded.

Treaty 8 was concerned because they only looked at three of the 62 legal categories, only went back to 1951, not to the 1800s, and had incomplete records. Even so, they could see that the Department of Indian Affairs was way out in terms of the average increase, which they said would be 7.5%.

There's a chart on page 15 of the Treaty 8 brief of 1985 showing what we thought would be the impact. At that time the Department of Indian Affairs indicated to Parliament that the one-time cost of implementing the bill would be about $360 million. My late husband, the chief of the Sawridge Band, knew that was incorrect and wrote letters saying that it would be at least $2 billion. The funding from Parliament increased from $1.9 billion in 1984-85 to $13 billion in 1995. The numbers the department gave were incorrect.

However, they funded people to go around the Hill and lobby against the Treaty 8 people and really to indulge in an exercise in racism, saying that the first nations bands were untrustworthy and male chauvinistic. I see that the same exercise has accompanied the three trilogies, which are not before us, and that is a sad state of affairs.

The recognition legislation came in 1988. In 1986 the Department of Indian Affairs, partly in response to the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, which became a runaway horse, set up the self-government unit.

¼ (1840)

The Auditor General of Canada noted that something like $50 million has been spent outside the department—we don't know what the department's costs were, but I suspect they could have been triple—and they hadn't produced one practical piece.

Sawridge was told it had to go through the community-based self-government process if it wanted to achieve recognition of its inherent right of self-government. It went through that process by tabling a draft act and going through a very extensive and protracted negotiation process with the Department of Justice and DIAND. An agreement in principle was concluded on April 27, 1991. It was signed by the chief negotiator and my late husband. It was ratified by the community in a referendum, in an overwhelming vote. It was watched by the Department of Indian Affairs. It was ratified by cabinet on October 10, 1991, with the instruction to departmental officials that it be reintroduced in the House of Commons in December of 1991.

In November of 1991 the Department of Justice and the Department of Indian Affairs intervened and basically took it off the tracks.

I believe it's very important that you examine the recognition legislation. We have done a powerpoint presentation comparing it with many other different models that have gone through the House of Commons: the Yukon Self-Government Act, Sechelt Self-Government Act, the Cree-Naskapi Act, the Indian Act, the FNGA, etc. There is no time permitted in these proceedings to take you through it on a clause-by-clause analysis. We would be pleased to do that.

I would just like to leave you with this thought. This trilogy you are dealing with—and there are two more in the set to come—I would be very concerned about. It is being presented as needed in terms of accountability, but as pointed out, the accountability is not to the people, for the people, of the people. If you look at the recognition legislation, there is a provision in subclause 4(4) that sets out what must be contained in the constitution. The constitution is by the people, for the people, of the people, and can only be changed by them, and it regulates the law-making jurisdiction of the first nation government. Those powers are found in clause 8 and in schedule I. It creates balance.

I believe it's a win-win for Canadians. It will cut down the bureaucracy; it will give the legal space to first nations; it will take away this problem we have been living with, which I call abuse on a macro level, in that there are no boundaries. And there must be boundaries; there must be boundaries for you and for me, for first nation governments and other governments, to interact. The accountability has to be to the people, not to Ottawa-created institutions and boards.

I hope and I trust that you will be very cautious and very careful in the information that is given to you by the department, because in my experience, at the same time that this budget increase went from $1.9 billion in 1984-85 to $13 billion in 1995, program and service levels at the reservation level decreased. Where did the money go?

We need to come together. We need to work together. Parliament really is the supreme court of the Constitution, and we want to have the relationship to work this thing out with you, because it's very, very important.

¼ (1845)

The Chair: Thank you very much. This is very interesting. It's a lot of information for us to absorb. Of course, we have it on record; we will have an opportunity to debate it, reinvestigate it, and refer to it. We assure you we will do a diligent job.

Colleagues, how would it be if I say fifteen minutes per party and give you the choice to take fifteen minutes in sections of ten and five, or of five, five, and five? It's up to you.

Mr. Vellacott, you have five minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you very much, all of you.

There's a lot to digest here, and certainly some new perspectives. I have seen the recognition legislation before, and I think there's a lot of merit in that, actually. Whether we can shoe-horn that in on this one, I guess I'm not sure. I appreciate that bigger piece.

I also want to say there are some other different aspects that came up here on some aspects of the bill. In particular, I guess I refer to the comments in respect to the lack of democracy or at least a violation of democracy in a number of the things Dr. Cardinal was reading in the brief you had before you.

I guess my first queston is a fairly general one. I'm gathering.... I don't want to put words in the mouths of anyone who cares to respond, but is it the whole process and the manner in which it came about that there's the greatest objection to? Or is it possible to “humour the department” and, if you have codes in these respective areas, kind of provide that and meet the conditions of the bill and be on your way from there? Is that a possibility, if you have leadership selection codes, financial, administrative codes? I guess each team might want to respond, but do you have codes that would simply apply?

The Chair: Who wishes to respond? I can't see your card there, but Harold Cardinal.

Mr. Harold Cardinal: Mr. Chairman, I'll deal with that question fairly quickly, I hope.

The issue is not about and ought not to be about humouring the department. The issue is how best to create governance structures, governance frameworks under which our communities can prosper, where there is a proper balance between the authorities of elected leaders, the rights of citizens, and that the institutional framework is in place to serve as a check and balance system, like any modern democracy.

The concern with Bill C-7 in large part, aside from the process question, the question of consultation, is that the contents of the bill, particularly when you weigh it against the amendments being brought by Bill C-19, completely do away with the whole accountability process.

I think you've had a fair number of witnesses already, some of whom have presented very clear information to this committee in terms of the problem that is inherent in the bills. We have basically said that as far as the bills are concerned, once the codes are passed our people might as well go home and sleep, because they've nothing else to do, except if--pardon my language--they get pissed off with the council, they can go give them hell at a forum created by these bills. Other than that, there is really no authority, no role recognized.

In our view, I think the notion of representative democracy that is implicit in the way these proposals are framed is one that may work if you're looking at a population base of 15 million or 20 million people, where you have a big parliament to which you elect representatives to go to enact laws. But if you're talking about smaller communities, unless you begin, as our people may well contemplate, in the inherent right of self-government negotiations to create law-making institutions to which people may be elected, when you're looking at the band situation, as we have it now, there is a need for people to have much more of a say.

The concern, I think, is not so much the accountability that elected Indian lawmakers may have to their citizens; it's the fact that you create two phantom lawmakers in this legislation: the third-party managers through Bill C-17 who can take over the governance of our communities, or the regulators. And to the latter, there's no accountability.

¼ (1850)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cardinal, I didn't see your name on the listing. Could you indicate to us, just for the record, are you a chief, are you legal counsel...?

Mr. Harold Cardinal: I work with the J. Wilton Littlechild law firm, from Hobbema. We work as legal counsel for Treaty 8.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Loubier, five minutes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would first like to thank our guests; for the first time since the beginning of these hearings, either in Ottawa or while travelling, we have heard presentations—including that of Ms. Twinn—that were very clear, specific and well documented. This is a wealth of information on the process launched several decades ago.

If I understood correctly, you think it is virtually impossible to amend Bill C-7 because when you combine Bills C-7, C-19 and C-6, the combination would flout the fundamental rights and the right to self-government, despite the minister's rhetoric to the effect that this bill will replace the Indian Act and therefore launch the process towards self-government.

Then when you say there is no non-derogation clause, obviously this is not a trivial oversight, but indeed a bureaucratic oversight. The fact is that that clause was deliberately left out.

So if I understood correctly, you would like those three bills to be set aside and that we go back to the drawing board and respect who you are, your beliefs and your fundamental values. I was stunned to hear you say that this bill was not democratic enough for your taste and that it had to be even more democratic so that every member of the first nations could be involved. That is good to hear, and in my view, we should base our efforts on your view of democracy; that might help us work better.

I would like to ask you another question afterwards. I will be able to do so if the chairman is nice with me today.

¼ (1855)

[English]

Mr. Harold Cardinal: Mr. Chairman, I'll answer the question briefly.

First of all, you understood our position very clearly, and we appreciate that.

I just want to make a quick comment on an issue you raised, because I think we referred to the trilogy of legislation, or the package of legislation, that is in the works. One of the things that really has our concern and adds to the sense of anxiety our people have with these legislative proposals is what we understand to be the federal cabinet's decision to do away with all non-derogation language from existing federal legislation. I gather that was the position tabled on behalf of the federal cabinet before a Senate committee.

We would be deeply disturbed by such a development, because the non-derogation language was created for a very specific purpose. Under the test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, while Parliament continues to retain the right to be able to impinge upon aboriginal and treaty rights, there are at least two fundamental requirements before that power can be properly discharged: one, there has to be clear and plain intent that Parliament is intending to abrogate or affect a treaty or an aboriginal right; and the second element of that is that there has to be justification for that.

The non-derogation clauses, from our perspective, were inserted into various legislation, various agreements, to make very clear to courts, where it was not the intent of Parliament to not derogate from treaty and aboriginal rights, that the legislation should not be interpreted as an attempt by Parliament to impinge on the treaty and aboriginal rights of our people. Removing those sections now from all those bills is sending a signal to the courts of this country from the Canadian Parliament that indeed Parliament may have intended on impinging upon the treaty and aboriginal rights of our people. It seems to us duplicitous, when you look at the set-up, if the only reason our people supported a particular bill was because there was a non-derogation clause in it, and then to go back after and change those doesn't seem very honest to us.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

For the Liberals, Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you. I'm very impressed with this document that's been presented by your group, but I'm really confused. Throughout your document you keep referring to the trilogy and various sections of it as you go along from page to page. And you keep referring to amendments that should be made: amend this; amend that; amend that.

Yet when I look at your recommendations at the very end of your report, you are clearly indicating that as far as this committee is concerned you want the committee, through work from this committee to Parliament, to make sure that—you have it here—“we therefore seek from Parliament, through your committee... an exemption from the three trilogies: Bill C-7, Bill C-19, and Bill C-6, including the other six pieces of legislation... being contemplated.”

What are we really saying? You talk about amendments all the way through, helping us to improve pending legislation—that's the impression I get—to make it better. Then at the very end you're saying, “Get rid of it all. We don't want it. It's not good enough for us. Maybe it's good for somebody else—I don't know—but it's not good for us.”

Mr. Harold Cardinal: First of all, I think when we look at the situation in Treaty 8 we are hopefully at the stage where we will be completing an agreement with Canada to begin negotiations on the implementation of our inherent right to self-government and on the implementation of our treaty rights. That for us is fundamental. We do not want legislation to emerge that will interfere with our ability to conclude the negotiations or processes we've agreed to enter.

In looking at the contents of the bill, some of which we've touched on, we feel those would have negative consequences for us in the negotiations we're talking about. We're trying to be fairly pragmatic, and if our position is confusing, it probably reflects a lot of what Parliament is doing, because we find what Parliament is doing is confusing.

We are clear. If we had our druthers, if the ideal thing happened, we would wish—we would fervently hope—that this committee would go back to Parliament and say, “Scrap all of this legislation; go back and go through a proper consultation process to develop a legislative regime that can be acceptable to both the Indian people and the Canadian Parliament.” That's our preference. That's our fervent wish.

The political reality, however, is that your Prime Minister has indicated—our Prime Minister has indicated—and the minister has indicated that the government is not about to completely wipe out the bills before it, that it wants to proceed. We don't understand the sense of urgency that all of a sudden the federal government has in enacting these bills within the next six or seven months, but what we are saying to the Canadian Parliament, and through you to the Prime Minister and the federal government, is if you are intent, despite our very grave and deep misgivings, on proceeding with this legislation, here are some of the aspects of the legislation that we find deeply troubling, which should not be part of emerging Canadian law. That's our message through you to the Prime Minister and the cabinet.

What we are saying is that the bill itself, Bill C-7, contains provisions that exclude different groups from its application because those groups have either negotiated a self-government agreement or have some agreement in place. We feel, by virtue of our treaty status as treaty peoples and by virtue of the agreements we hope to conclude with the Canadian government, that we can come up with a kind of self-government agreement that the minister says is the end goal of the federal government.

I think the minister has been very clear in the last couple of days that as far as the government is concerned, they intend to recognize the inherent right of self-government for aboriginal people and the creation of a third order of government. And we very much share that long-term goal.

½ (1900)

The Chair: Thank you very much. I know that at least one other member of your delegation wanted to respond, but we're over the five minutes.

I heard mention of our reporting to the minister or the Prime Minister. I will make one thing very clear here. This is not a committee of the Minister of Indian Affairs, the cabinet, or even the Prime Minister. This is a committee of the House of Commons, and we report to Peter Milliken, who is the Speaker of the House. That's why we have all parties represented. At least today we're working very well together. We're not being too partisan. Because of that cooperation, we should be able to come up with some better solutions. But we don't report to the Prime Minister, the minister, or the cabinet.

You can include your response to that in one of your answers. When you don't have enough time, you bootleg your remarks into the answer to the next question. You do like I do when I talk to reporters. They ask me what time it is. I tell them what the temperature is, because they don't report the question, they just report the answer.

Mr. Chatters, five minutes.

Mr. David Chatters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In spite of what our chairman has just conveyed to you, I think most of you are familiar enough with the political process in Ottawa to know that even with the particular way this bill is being dealt with, in that we bypassed second reading to go directly to committee, it is highly unlikely that this committee will be able to scrap or amend this bill in any major way.

I give the minister credit: he has indicated that he is open to some fairly major amendments. We may in fact be able to introduce amendments to put in a non-derogation clause and those kinds of things. But the reality is that this bill in some form is most likely to pass through Parliament.

Assuming that does happen, how does that specifically affect the negotiations for self-government you are involved in?

½ (1905)

The Chair: Who wishes to respond? Ms. Twinn.

Ms. Catherine Twinn: I'm going to take your advice, Mr. Chairman. I want to respond to the question Mr. Loubier asked.

The Chair: But you won't take up all the time.

Ms. Catherine Twinn: I will not.

The bills need to be scrapped. They're founded on the wrong policies. They violate the rule of law. As members of Parliament, you are the guardians of our Constitution, number one.

Number two, an Ojibway legal scholar by the name of John Burrows has written a paper on FNGA entitled “Stewardship and the Proposed First Nations Governance Act”. He says that one of the problems with it is that it does not recognize the polyfunctional decision-making of first nation communities. It imposes top-down power. It keeps accountability elsewhere. It's in effect founded on the colonial principle of third-party, outside control. It is anti-human, anti-family, and anti-relationship. It is not natural.

The Chair: Can we move to the response to the question now?

Ms. Catherine Twinn: With respect to self-government negotiations, we did it. It's been ratified. The recognition legislation is there in your package. It remains to be implemented through Parliament.

Mr. Chatters, you'll remember that in I believe it was March 1994, the then minister, Ron Irwin, met with Treaty 8 and was given resolutions from the communities because they knew that the department had from the 1980s through the LRT process been creating these bills that are now coming forward. This is not new.

And how many hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money has been spent? Those are the kinds of questions that should be asked by you. And that accountability should be questioned. I would think that's important to the Canadian people, and it's certainly important to us.

The recognition legislation was put before Mr. Ron Irwin. His lawyer or executive assistant, Brad Morris, was also lawyer of record, funded by the federal government, in a constitutional challenge to support the Crown's position arguing against the constitutional rights of first nation communities. The most fundamental right of self-determination is the right to be self-defining. If you are just a creature or a creation of someone else, they can legislate you into existence and legislate you out of existence.

Between the period 1896 and 1914 the Indian Claims Commission, through Dr. Peggy Martin-McGuire, has documented the systematic and massive land frauds that took place across the prairies with respect to Indian land: 25 % of Indian land was dispossessed. And it was done through the manipulation of membership rolls in which the department would transfer, without consent of the departing band, members into new bands without consent, declare the lands abandoned, and put the lands up for sale in public auctions at which companies in which departmental officials had interest would acquire those lands.

½ (1910)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier, you have five minutes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: If I may, I would like to give my time to Ms. Twinn so that she can finish her answer and respond to my first question.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Twinn, the time has been given to you by Monsieur Loubier.

Ms. Catherine Twinn: Thank you, sir.

So this recognition legislation, when Minister Ron Irwin appeared and was asked to honour it and implement it, no name, save the taxpayer money, cut down on the process costs, you remember what he said. He said “I can't do it; I can't get it through the House of Commons because the Reform Party is anti-Indian and they see themselves as the defenders of white men”, which is not true. He had a majority.

The grand chief knew this, and said “Do not, please, tell me these things, because that's not a rational, reasonable reason, and I'm not a fool”. And he ended up walking out on the people, walking out on the resolutions. And the next week in the House of Commons there was a brouhaha, which I think makes some fairly interesting reading, and a lot of defamatory things were said--untrue things, unkind things, hurtful things were said.

This is not acceptable. We have to talk. We have to work together. We are asking Parliament to negotiate with us. If you have concerns on the recognition legislation, you represent the Canadian people. You complained about the Nisga'a agreement, that it was negotiated in the back rooms and all you were being asked to do was rubber-stamp.

As Mr. Cardinal has said, we want to work with you. We want to educate you about our treaties. We want you to understand what they mean, because we realized that the Canadian public does not know anything about them. And as Socrates has said, there is nothing more dangerous than ignorance in action.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Do I have any time left?

Le président: You have three minutes left.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Irwin told you some tall tales. It was in 1994?

In 1994, the Bloc Québecois was the official opposition. There were 54 of us and we would have voted with the government if you had shown us your bill.

So Mr. Irwin was shooting the line. I remember that my colleague, Claude Bachand, who was the critic for Aboriginal Affairs at the time, had told us about your bill and convinced us that it was better. So you would have gotten a majority vote in the House if it had been introduced, despite the opposition from my Alliance colleagues.

Le président: Last week, we did not allow a political party to refer to another party. I would prefer it if you did not do so, all right?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I was getting to my question, Mr. Chairman.

Le président: I allowed you to attack Mr. Irwin because he is not a member of Parliament, but I would prefer to avoid attacks on the other political parties.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: All right.

Ms. Twinn, you said earlier that we should be cautious and not pass this bill without due consideration. Is that because of the multitude of legal bungling we might end up with and which could even lead several first nations, across the country, to legally challenge all of the federal government's claims as they appear in Bill C-7?

[English]

Ms. Catherine Twinn: The solutions, I believe, lay within the recognition legislation. There is the process for the building of the constitution, which I believe will bring the people together. I believe it can possibly drain the issues in a rational, reasonable way by working together to build the constitutions.

These constitutions already exist, by the way, for many first nations. It's just now a question in some instances of formalizing. My community, for example, the Department of Indian Affairs would say is under the Indian Act election system. We operate by customary law. The Indian Act election system merely concerns the customary result. There's always been the effort to try to fit treaty law, customary law, with Canadian law to work together. This is the goal. This is the track it has been on and needs to stay on.

Chairman, you mentioned the Indian Act, and that no one likes it. But are you aware that in 1874 Chief Simcoe Kerr drafted the amendments that became enacted in 1876? And are you aware of Solicitor General Drummond, who in 1850, in a memo in response to tribal petitions and concerns about the law that he had passed in the previous session, said, “I'm going to amend it in accordance with their ancient customs and practices”? There's always been a tradition of recognition.

½ (1915)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hubbard, five minutes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'm not sure in the hour, or the two hours, that we have in all of this we can attempt to look at it, but Dr. Cardinal, the document--and I assume that you have done a good part of the work and the writing of this--is a very weighty document. I'm not a lawyer by profession, and you are, but certainly in terms of historical law, you're putting a great challenge to us as a committee and probably also to the report that eventually will come from it, but some of the items you bring up are a little bit difficult to look at in terms of amendments that we might want to put with this. The 25%, you've indicated that, but again, some of us in the committee probably think that maybe it is too low, as you've suggested.

Take, for example, the Sawridge Band here itself. There are so many people who live off reserve, and if a vote were held, what would you think would be a proper percentage to put in terms of the people who might be available to vote, willing to vote, and able to vote? We're looking at a band here of, as I see on the list, something like 35 people, but ten times as many are living somewhere else in this community, or around the province or around Canada. How would you get a good number of people to vote on an issue?

When you say 50%, even in Canadian elections we deal with maybe 70% who come out to vote, or 75% or 80%, but we never seem to get 100%. What number would you suggest would be workable, for example, for the local first nations here in this community?

Mr. Harold Cardinal: Where land interests are at stake, I think we would adopt a Sawridge formula contained in the recognition legislation, which says that we need at least 75% consent by our people to protect our lands.

These are really important issues. They are our survival. They have to do with the interests of our children who are not yet born, and we are entitled to insist on a much higher threshold before any decision can be made that jeopardizes or puts at risk those kinds of decisions. For normal decisions, your democratic principle, I don't think.... Do you say to Canadians, it's acceptable for us if only 35% of you vote on something?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Excuse me, but I don't have much time.

The Chair: Mr. Cardinal, I don't think we want to burn up all of Mr. Hubbard's time.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I would assume that you're looking at half of 75%. But more importantly, I'd like to look at the matter of discussion.

Mr. Harold Cardinal: No. You're assuming wrong. We said 50% plus one, if you look at our presentation.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Of 75%?

Mr. Harold Cardinal: Of our population--period.

The Chair: But if you have 75% participation, which is what he's talking about, half of that would be 37.5%. You win by the 50% plus one?

Mr. Harold Cardinal: We're basically looking at a formula where there should be a majority decision.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I won't go back to that, but in terms of consultation, in the 35th Parliament, as was alluded to before, there was an attempt to bring forward a new Indian Act. With this process we're involved with now, over a matter of nearly two years, the various chiefs were sent letters and offered information to look towards Bill C-7.

Did you and any of the chiefs here participate? And if you didn't participate, why was there not any participation by the various chiefs among this tribal council?

Mr. Harold Cardinal: I think, Mr. Chairman, that we take a very specific approach. If you come and ask us about the weather and the condition of the world, and engage in a social conversation, we're pleased to do that at any point. But the duty of consultation is much more specific than that. When you have a specific legislative proposal, as you now have, where you can look at in detail the contents of a specific proposal, then the consultation process can be legitimately expected to begin.

If you look at the pre-consultation process, even the minister's advisory committee who appeared before this committee could not know, did not know, what the minster was going to present to Parliament until the minister tabled the legislation. So from our perspective, if even his appointed advisers could not know what the content of the legislation and the specifics of the proposal were going to be, then you can't ask our people to make commitments in the dark, not knowing exactly what it is they're being asked.

This bill does that now.

½ (1920)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we have one more round of five minutes, and I would hope we would spend some time talking about Bill C-7, because that's the job we have to do.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the outset, again I'd say I'm glad there has been discussion here--and we'll get to Bill C-7 as you wish, Mr. Chairman--of, in particular, Bill S-38. If I had my druthers, as we're sitting here today, we would be debating and discussing this bill, and it would be the one that's before the Parliament of Canada, because I think in a careful reading it's a reasonable piece. There's a fair bit of merit to it. It's being championed presently by a colleague of mine, a Canadian Alliance senator, Gerry St. Germain. If we could move Bill C-7 to the side, that would be definitely my preference.

I have to ask, in view of the comments in respect to setting Bill C-7 altogether aside--I think different ones of you have made that point pretty clear--is it my understanding then that you would just stay with the nefarious, problematic Indian Act until such point as you get to a bill like this, a recognition piece, Bill S-38, or some other kind of self-government, self-determination agreement is arranged? This may take a few years.

Are you all right with the Indian Act as it currently is? Because this Bill C-7 is a derailment.

Mr. Harold Cardinal: Irrespective of what happens, we're going to have to live with the Indian Act for the next couple of years. I don't think there is any contemplation that it will cease to exist within a matter of days. I think when you look at a broad policy picture, the Government of Canada throughout this land has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in negotiations on the implementation of self-government.

I think if you look at the core of the Penner report recommendations of 1985 and the royal commission, the preferred route that was recommended by these two bodies was negotiations directly between first nation people and the Government of Canada for the implementation of the right of self-government and then to have legislation emerge as a consequence of those negotiations. That's our preferred route, because we don't think it's advisable or necessary to create one omnibus national legislation to try to meet the diverse needs of peoples across the country.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can I get Catherine to comment on that as well?

Ms. Catherine Twinn: I agree with Harold. The Indian Act is here. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are many elements within the Indian Act that are strong and supportable, and they're carried forward in the recognition legislation.

The legislative origins of the Indian Act are not understood. Certainly the Department of Indian Affairs doesn't know.

With respect to the recognition legislation, to me, it is a fair and square solution. It's balanced. And you're right: I think if Canadians were to look at it, parliamentarians, they would find that it is within the four corners of the law. It does not do violence to the Constitution. It is an option to the Indian Act. For communities that wish to come under it, they have to do their work, and that's very clear. It cuts down on the process costs Harold has referred to. There has been a lot of waste.

More importantly, I believe it's very important for first nations people to find the legal freedom and get out from underneath the invasive behaviour of the Department of Indian Affairs, which, as you know, can be very oppressive, because that power is not held accountable.

This hotel was prohibited by DIAND policy. It was only because my late husband was able to reach the then-minister, who was Jean Chrétien, and he overrode his bureaucrats and permitted Sawridge to begin economic development off the reservation. We're very grateful to him, because he showed some leadership and some wisdom.

This policy was just invented, and you never know the rules. The rules change, depending on who they're dealing with.

If you look at the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, there was no community ratification of that. The Kaska were opposed to it. It went through the House in three working days, in 1994.

Yet we had three referenda ratifying the recognition legislation under the Indian Act, which is the way land surrenders are done. Still the Department of Justice and the Department of Indian Affairs said that was not adequate, even though that was in the framework agreement at the outset of the negotiations, that if there were fruits of that negotiation, this is how they would be ratified.

½ (1925)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier, five minutes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This time I will show respect towards the other parties. I would like to apologize for what I said earlier.

Le président : There was no meanness in what you said.

Mr. Yvan Loubier : I am not used to being unkind, at least not here. But in the House of Commons, that is a different story. So I will follow the rule.

I would like to ask our witnesses a general question. You do not have unlimited resources. Is it not true that all of the financial and human resources that you will invest in Bills C-7, C-6 and C-19 as well as in the six others are resources you will not have to pursue the negotiations on self-government, for your land claims, and for the resolution of problems of drinking water, health and education that several first nations are dealing with?

Basically, aren't we spending too much energy on bills that you and many others hate? Shouldn't all this energy and all these resources be used to conclude the negotiations as quickly as possible, the negotiations on self-government and other rights, including the inherent right to self-government?

[English]

Mr. Harold Cardinal: I'll try to be short in my answer, and I'll take the opportunity to apologize to the chair if we somehow offended the committee. We were not implying that the committee was a creature of any political party or anyone else. We were just hoping to speak through you to your colleagues and to your leaders and to the House as well.

The question of cost I think is a really important one. The bills you're proposing are very complex pieces of legislation, and we're going to require expert advice to look at the interconnection, the interrelationship between the two bills that are before Parliament and any other bills that come through. That's going to have additional cost factors.

But we can guarantee you one thing: if Parliament proceeds with this legislation, if the intent of Parliament was to try to get away from all the litigation that theoretically arose from the Indian Act or the previous situation, it's going to be nothing compared with the kind of litigation activity that will arise if these bills become law.

Because there is no way—and this committee should understand—that our people will sit back and watch the federal government, through this legislation, dump and run from its responsibilities, put our lands at risk, put our treaties at risk, put our treaty interests at risk, particularly when they propose to give legal immunities both to the government and to the institutions that we create such that they take away our right to compensation, our right to legal redress.

In 1920 the Canadian Parliament took our right away, as a people, to appear before courts. The Canadian Parliament through legislation made it illegal for lawyers to help our people or defend our people. You're bringing us back to 1920 with this legislation, when you take away our right to compensation under the bills that are being proposed, when you grant legal immunity to those people who have responsibility—who assume obligations under these bills if they do away with our lands and resources.

Damn right we're going to fight. And any resources our people have will go to fighting these bills, challenging the validity, the legality of these bills. We don't want to go there.

We would much prefer in northern Alberta—this came from Fort McMurray—to take advantage of the awesome economic opportunities the tar sands development holds for our people. We'd very much like to take advantage of the economic opportunities the Arctic gas pipelines will bring as they traverse our territory.

We'd like to look at the positive. We'd like to expend our energies in those areas. But if you're going to take away the only thing that is important to us—our land and our treaty—then you leave us no choice but to reallocate resources to defend our interests as a people. That we can guarantee. The costs right now may be minimal, in terms of the process we're in, but we're trying to avoid that.

½ (1930)

The Chair: If that is what the government is trying to do, I would fight it too, if I were you. There's no doubt about that.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I'll be very brief. I'm new on the committee. Yesterday was my first meeting. Today is my second meeting, all day today. I've learned a tremendous amount. I am very impressed with you people.

I'd like to point out that I've read a lot of the articles in the newspapers in eastern Canada regarding the whole process pertaining to these bills. Many of the first nations people were saying that although the minister has said there's been some kind of communication with over 400 groups, many of the natives have been saying they're not valid; they're not recognizable; it's not part, really, of a valid process.

I'd like to ask you. If we get rid of these three—of the trilogy—what kind of process would you recommend to the government as a cooperative process between the first nations people and the government? Many chiefs already have said that what Bob Nault has done was not legitimate. So what is legitimate?

Mr. Harold Cardinal: What is legitimate, Mr. Chairman, is for the government to continue with, we think, one of the most innovative kinds of endeavour any government has undertaken, and that is to accelerate the self-government negotiations, to accelerate the direct dialogue so that issues that are contentious.... We're dealing with very difficult issues, and the best minds are going to disagree, but we need the negotiating process in which our people and governmental representatives can sit together, resolve them, reach agreements and implement them, and then involve Parliament in providing the legislative framework where that is necessary. We think that's the best way to go.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hubbard, three minutes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Getting back to previous witnesses, we heard—and this bill is on governance—that there are a significant number of people who aren't satisfied with the governance as they see it among our first nations peoples.

One of the suggestions that has come up today is the idea that there should be an ombudsman; there should be an outside agency or group that would listen to complaints from people who are being governed under the present process and make it possible for them to seek redress.

I wonder if some of you might comment on the feasibility of having an ombudsman over and above, as somebody people could go to when they weren't satisfied with the type of governance there is at present or that there might be under Bill C-7—

½ (1935)

The Chair: And that you would make the comment in two minutes.

Mr. Cardinal?

Chief Alvin Cardinal (Sucker Creek First Nation): I would have no problem with having an ombudsman to deal with individual issues, but I think what I would require as a first nation is a meaningful consultation process to be developed. That's what we have to do. If any bills are going to be put forward in the future, then we need to have a strong influence in them. The chances of those bills succeeding would be greatly enhanced by our active participation.

This whole thing is about a meaningful consultation process. The government hasn't followed it at all. We have to develop a process as Treaty 8 first nations, then sit down with the government and agree on the process itself. That's the first step we have to do.

The Chair: I will let the minister and the department explain the process they undertook, but I will defend the process this committee is undertaking.

In anticipation of receiving the bill, we spent three months consulting with first nations, with national chiefs, with experts, everybody we could think of, to educate us on the Indian Act—not Bill C-7, as it wasn't public yet, so we had no clue what was in it. We are now spending nine weeks, almost full-time, on this bill.

Before we finish, we will go to clause-by-clause and take the information given to see how we could amend it to make it better. The minister has indicated—Mr. Chatters referred to this—that he's open to amendments. We will send it back to the House of Commons. There will be a debate in the House of Commons, and then there will be a vote. There will be another debate in the House of Commons if the vote passes. There will be another debate, and the third vote, and still it's not law.

Then it goes to the Senate, and they start from where we started and go through the same process.

That's why I keep bringing people back to Bill C-7. I don't think anybody will be able to say that the committee didn't consult. You are the experts. We came here to learn from you, and we learned a lot and we appreciate that. We want to thank you all very much.

We have a total of three minutes for closing remarks. Mr. Cardinal didn't have many opportunities to speak. We'll give you the three minutes.

Chief Alvin Cardinal: Thank you.

I just have a quick comment here. This is not meaningful consultation if the influence you have over Parliament, according to Mr. Chatters, is very limited.

The Chair: Thank you very much. This concludes this part of our consultation. I think we've covered it.

We now invite to the table a gentleman who I think had difficulty getting here this morning, Mr. Jeff Shawana, for a ten-minute presentation.

Can we move directly to the next presentation please? I urge my colleagues to be present for Mr. Shawana and to be respectful of Mr. Shawana.

Mr. Shawana, we invite you to make your presentation. You have ten minutes. If you use up all the time there won't be time for questions, but if you don't, there may. Please proceed.

Order in the room, please.

Mr. Jeff Shawana (Individual Presentation): Thank you. I am Jeff Shawana.

The Chair: Excuse me.

We need to hear Mr. Shawana and I want him to have the same respect everyone else had all day. So please, the conversations will come to an end. We will listen to Mr. Shawana, and the time starts now.

½ (1940)

Mr. Jeff Shawana: Thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinions and recommendations concerning this.

I'm a youth worker, and I'm here in an unofficial capacity to represent the voice of children and youth. After all, they're the ones whose future is going to be affected by Bill C-7. Currently, children and youth under 19 make up over 50% of the native population in Canada. Youth under 25 make that number a lot larger. That number is actually growing twice as fast as the Canadian age group.

I have to start out by saying that as far as I'm concerned, the Government of Canada has never acted in the best interests of native people, and I fail to recognize that they suddenly acquired some morals as far as doing that now. This bill is reminiscent of say the GST being imposed on natives. It's that surreptitious way of dealing with first nations that really has to stop.

There are a couple of things I want to talk about specifically. The first involves the tribal councils and the role and status of women on reserves and how this bill is going to affect that. It doesn't make reference to either the tribal councils or women. It makes just one little mention in a clause.

The inception of tribal councils is one of the points I wanted to mention as being a surreptitious act on the government's behalf. It contravenes the fiduciary responsibility to first nations as entrenched in the treaties and the Constitution by creating these private entities to administer and provide advisory services to first nations.

Those tribal councils have been in existence since 1985. If they're the advisory service, then why are so many first nation leaderships in such a decrepit state, with the unaccountability and the corruption? This exists on the majority of reserves across Canada. Many of these reserves are associated with one of the 80 or so tribal councils that exist across Canada. Many of these first nations are completely dependent on them for many things.

What concerns me as far as the prospect of municipal development as a result of Bill C-7 is concerned is the role these tribal councils are going to play. They already have a lot of control over a lot of first nations, and they have a lot of say. Even though they are a private corporation, they are strongly affiliated with INAC. I think that's something that needs to be addressed.

I mentioned the women. Native women are being educated in very large numbers compared to their male counterparts. I think a moderate estimate would be 20 or 30 to one. Many of these women want to get their education so that they can help the people back on the reserve. Unfortunately, the chief and council system, which was designed for failure and to provide division and chaos to the first nations, is a male-dominated system.

½ (1945)

Many of these women who have their education aren't welcome to deliver their skills to the people. Many of them are overlooked for positions. You see, with a lot of these chiefs in councils and administrations across Canada that aren't performing well, quite often the positions like the leadership and directors and stuff go to people who really aren't quite well educated or experienced enough to administer these programs and to lead the first nation. They can easily be manipulated, and that's what happens when it comes to their dealings with tribal councils and INAC.

So the real issue there is dependency. I've heard people mentioning unity, and I see unity as being very important, but we also need a chance....

I don't know how long I've spoken. I really want to cut it short, because everyone has had a long day, so I'm just going to read out the recommendations I came up with.

First and foremost, I recommend that INAC discard Bill C-7 in its entirety and begin a new process of mutual design with first nations and native organizations, while keeping in mind that tribal councils do not qualify as native entities.

I recommend that INAC consider the current state of affairs within the majority of first nations. Is it practical to deluge first nations leadership and administration with more power over their membership when it is obvious that the majority of them are inadequate and corrupt in practice, thus requiring this intervention?

I recommend that INAC delve into the true meaning of “consultation” and see if it applies to the recent flawed and accelerated process they imposed upon natives across Canada. For instance, at a $15-million price tag, they could have given each of their reported 10,000 participants $1,500 each. Just think, with the four consultation meetings I attended, I could have made $6,000.

I recommend that INAC admit that “governance” really has nothing to do with granting any level of autonomy or sovereignty to first nations. Instead, "governance" is a fancy way to say we'll continue to control you through enhanced limitations, regulations, and restrictions.

I recommend that INAC dismantle their tribal councils and start cooperating with first nations on a level playing field. Evidently they're more than hesitant to do this, because they are well aware of our potential as natives, first nations.

I recommend that recognition and allowances be made to native women in any process of change. Native women have always had it the toughest, and yet they've excelled in many areas beneficial to first nation development. Yet again I refer to the awareness of potential repercussions this could have upon INAC's mandate of control.

I just think about the children....

The Chair: Take the time you need. Don't worry.

Maybe if someone sits next to him it would give him comfort.

Mr. Jeff Shawana: Could you read this please?

Ms. Betty Horseman: I recommend that INAC realize that natives are not a threat to anyone. Intrinsically, we are not greedy. We have no problem sharing. We do not strive for control, nor do we thrive on it. We simply want a sustainable future for our children, native and non-native.

I recommend that INAC realize that if left to our own devices and volition, natives will suffer greatly but will eventually prosper and contribute to the fortification of a sustainable country for everyone. Actually, that must be the whole point of contention for INAC, isn't it?

I recommend that INAC realize that the multitudes of first nation cultures, demographics, and everything else under the sun are completely diverse in nature, so what is good for the gander may not be good for the geese. For instance, go back to Europe and try to impose something similar to FNGA on all European countries.

½ (1950)

Mr. Jeff Shawana: Quintessentially native, I'll finish with a joke, even though the conceptual reality of FNGA poses a very serious outcome for my people. This has applied throughout the history of the relationship between natives and the Canadian government.

There used to be a popular joke among natives that if they went into the bush to relieve themselves they would first need to get permission from the Indian agent. Once granted permission from the Indian agent a government-sponsored anthropologist would be dispatched along with the Indian agent to witness, oversee, and observe the process. Finally, the anthropologist would examine the excrement and report their findings back to Indian Affairs via the Indian agent.

Now all those ex-INAC downsized Indian agents are running tribal councils, and they really know their crap.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

To the people attending in the room, if anyone has not made a presentation and is not scheduled to make one, we offer you two minutes for a presentation at this time.

Does anyone wish to make a comment of two minutes to the committee? Seeing no takers, we will suspend proceedings.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.