;

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

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

0900

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

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness (Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba)

Chief Leonard Chartrand (Shingibis First Nation, Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba)

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

0905

0910

0915

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance)

0920

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Reed Elley

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

0925

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Reed Elley

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Pat Martin

0930

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

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

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

0935

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Ms. Anita Neville

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Ms. Anita Neville

0940

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

0945

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

Mr. John Godfrey

Chief Murray Campbell (Northern Cree First Nation, Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba)

0950

Mr. John Godfrey

Chief Murray Campbell

Mr. John Godfrey

Chief Murray Campbell

Mr. John Godfrey

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

The Chair

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

The Chair

Chief Murray Campbell

0955

The Chair

Chief Leonard Chartrand

The Chair

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness

1000

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

The Chair

Grand Chief Francis Flett (Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc.)

The Chair

Grand Chief Francis Flett

The Chair

Grand Chief Francis Flett

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Grand Chief Francis Flett

1005

1010

The Chair

Grand Chief Francis Flett

The Chair

Mr. Michael Anderson (Research Director, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc.)

1015

1020

The Chair

Mr. Michael Anderson

The Chair

Grand Chief Francis Flett

1025

Mr. Michael Anderson

1030

Grand Chief Francis Flett

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Grand Chief Francis Flett

1035

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Grand Chief Francis Flett

Mr. Michael Anderson

The Chair

1040

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

Grand Chief Francis Flett

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Grand Chief Francis Flett

1045

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Grand Chief Francis Flett

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Grand Chief Francis Flett

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Grand Chief Francis Flett

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Grand Chief Francis Flett

The Chair

Grand Chief Francis Flett

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Michael Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

1050

Grand Chief Francis Flett

Mr. Reed Elley

Grand Chief Francis Flett

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Michael Anderson

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Grand Chief Francis Flett

1055

1100

The Chair

1105

Mr. Michael Anderson

The Chair

Chief Norman Flett (Tatasweyak Cree Nation)

1110

1115

1120

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Chief Norman Flett

Mr. Reed Elley

Chief Norman Flett

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1125

Chief Norman Flett

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Norman Flett

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Norman Flett

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

Chief Norman Flett

1130

The Chair

Chief Norman Flett

The Chair

Vice-Chief William Osborne (Executive Council Member, Pimicikamak Okimawin)

1135

1140

1145

The Chair

Mr. Thomas Monias (Secretary to the Councils, Pimicikamak Okimawin)

1150

1155

The Chair

1200

Mr. Thomas Monias

The Chair

Mr. Thomas Monias

The Chair

Mr. D. G. Valdron (In-House Legal Counsel, Opaskwayak Cree Nation)

The Chair

Mr. D. G. Valdron

Chief Frank Whitehead (Opaskwayak Cree Nation)

1205

1210

1215

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

1220

Mr. D. G. Valdron

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

1225

Chief Frank Whitehead

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Chief Frank Whitehead

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

1230

Mr. D. G. Valdron

The Chair

Mr. Keith Fortin (As Individual)

1235

The Chair

Mr. Keith Fortin

The Chair

Mrs. Maggie Balfour (Norway House Band, As Individual)

1240

The Chair

Ms. Angela Monias (As Individual)

The Chair

1245

Ms. Angela Monias

The Chair

Ms. Diane Rogers (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Diane Rogers

The Chair

Mr. Lloyd Martin (As Individual)

The Chair

1250

Mr. Lloyd Martin

The Chair

Ms. Charlene Lafreniere (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Charlene Lafreniere

Ms. Leona Massan (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Leona Massan

The Chair

1255

Ms. Leona Massan

The Chair

Ms. Leona Massan

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 043

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone.

Welcome. We will resume our 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 would like to say that we have a beautiful room. This is the type of room I like to have public hearings in. It's better than the big hotels, friendlier, and I want everyone to know that, to the committee members, this table is a kitchen table. We want everyone to feel comfortable.

I'm pleased to welcome the Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba, Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness, accompanied by Chief Murray Campbell, Northern Cree First Nations, Chief George Munro, Winnipeg Indian Council of First Nations--George is not here yet--and Chief Leonard Chartrand, Shingibis First Nation. Good morning.

I will invite Chief Kirkness to start the presentation and to introduce any of your colleagues that I did not mention.

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness (Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba): If the chair doesn't mind, we usually start our meetings with an opening prayer. We will get Leonard Chartrand to do the opening prayer.

Chief Leonard Chartrand (Shingibis First Nation, Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba): We thank the officials, our leaders, the province of Manitoba. We thank you, Lord God, for this opportunity to present the voice of our people from our communities. We ask that we, every one of us, by your Spirit treat each other with respect.

Amen.

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm glad to be here.

Let me introduce my colleagues: Glen McIvor, Vice-Chief, Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba; Gilbert Munroe, from Grand Rapids; Murray Campbell, from Moose Lake; Leonard Chartrand, from Waterhen; and Richard Long, who is our technician.

As Indian people, we believe in free speech and open communications. To this end, several months ago we supplied the committee with a 20-minute videotape in English and Cree on Bill C-7, and a French translation was also sent. We do not believe in keeping information from our people.

I'll go directly into the presentation. First of all, who is the Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba? The Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba was incorporated 19 years ago in Manitoba to organize the non-status and off-reserve Indians of Manitoba, including Indians eligible for status and/or for band membership under the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act, Bill C-31.

The Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba is a constituent founding member of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, CAP, representing Manitoba. It has over 5,000 members and is directed by a grand chief and grand council chiefs throughout Manitoba.

What has been the involvement of the Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba to date in the development of Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act? During 2001 and 2002, the Indian Council of First Nations organized and held seven consultation meetings throughout Manitoba regarding Bill C-7. These seven consultation meetings were attended by 282 Manitoba off-reserve Indians. As well, the Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba produced a 20-minute videotape on Bill C-7 in English, Cree, and French. This video has been provided to each of the 16 members of the committee by delivery to the clerk's office in Ottawa. The Indian Council of First Nations also attended several governance discussion meetings sponsored by DIAND in 2002.

I will come down to our recommendation. What are the main recommendations of the Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba on Bill C-7 to this standing committee?

Regarding Indian Act leadership selection and voting rights, all off-reserve band members, including members governed by the band custom election system, must be allowed to vote for and stand for election as chief and council. This includes Indians who have acquired rights to band membership under the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act, Bill C-31.

Bill C-7 now describes eligible voters to include on- and off-reserve band members aged 18 years or over. This definition has been extended to the 27 custom bands in Manitoba. In the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Corbiere case, Madame Justice L'Heureux Dubé affirmed that off-reserve band members' right to vote for chief and council extends to bands with customary rules of voting. There are a variety of ways of doing this, and it can be done as long as it is meaningful.

We submit that this committee should clearly affirm off-reserve band members' right to run for and vote for chief and council of all Manitoba first nations, including custom bands.

Our second recommendation is that Elections Canada should conduct all first nations elections using a specially trained aboriginal unit within Elections Canada. To have the RCMP and DIAND or a band itself conduct supervised band elections is inappropriate. We dare say that the RCMP and DIAND would agree. Elections Canada has the expertise to conduct elections, including verification of voting lists and the conducting of nomination meetings. Over five years, Elections Canada should also work with first nations to develop a first nations electoral commission, which could then become independent of Elections Canada. We submit that this committee should recommend this doable and cost-effective idea.

We submit that accountability to first nations and transparency should be defined by statute and should include full disclosure to all on- and off-reserve band members, including those affected by Bill C-31. There should be disclosure of (a) audits, band auditors, and audits of the minutes of band-owned companies; (b) current band voting lists; (c) current band membership codes; and (d) current band election codes.

Our fourth recommendation concerns the dispute resolution mechanisms in clauses 11 and 18 of Bill C-7. We submit that clauses 11 and 18 should be drastically overhauled to allow for an office of Indian ombudsman. We submit that in addition to having a national office, the office of the Indian ombudsman should be split into five sub-offices, with regional ombudsmen for the B.C., Northwest Territories, and Yukon regions; the Prairies region; the Ontario region; the Quebec region; and the Maritimes region, including Newfoundland and Labrador.

The office of Indian ombudsman should be funded by government separately from DIAND, and should report each complaint to the complainant, the first nations involved, and DIAND. Appeals of the Indian ombudsman's orders should be in each province's appellant court, with appropriate rules on costs for poor complainants.

Once a year, the office of the Indian ombudsman should make a report to the appropriate committee of Parliament.

The vexing question is how do we select an Indian ombudsman? We do not believe the national Indian organizations, such as AFN, CAP, or NWAC should be involved at all, nor do we think past chiefs should be selected. The office should be non-political and be staffed by Indians with no baggage.

¿ (0905)

However, an ombudsman should be respected by the first nations communities. An ombudsman need not be a lawyer. Lawyers can be hired, along with the accountants, to work for the ombudsman. Perhaps the first nations views on this could be sought.

One possibility is that where senates of elders exist, they form a group of five to ten to develop a short list of Indian candidates, and then, at a televised public forum, each candidate be questioned publicly by the group, and the final appointment announced by either the PM or the committee of members of Parliament.

The Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba will be prepared to discuss this further when we appear in March before this committee here in Thompson.

Finally, the powers of the office of an Indian ombudsman must be clearly set out by statute. We suggest the powers of the office of an Indian ombudsman be those of the Office of the Auditor General. This includes full powers of subpoena and access to records, with appropriate protection of confidentiality, and interviews in a setting without fear.

The office of the Indian ombudsman must also be able to deal with complaints from treaty Indians who have status but not band membership, and are denied band membership for no reason or are removed from the band membership list for no discernible reason. We will bring the committee some examples.

A workable dispute resolute mechanism is fundamental in the modern regime of self-governing first nations. The regime set out now in clauses 11 and 18 of Bill C-7 comes down to chief and council policing themselves, which is clearly unworkable. The reality is that the poor complainants often have to pay for counsel and other costs for their complaints. Chief and council can simply sign a cheque to a DIAND-funded band lawyer. This inequity must stop. Lawyers are not the answer.

On number five, new band creation, this is very important to the off-reserve Indians. Bill C-7 is silent on this important issue, except in subclauses 5(4) and 5(5). We submit that the committee should amend Bill C-7 to have section 17 of the present Indian Act more fair and definitive in the area of new band creation. The present DIAND policy does not have a threshold to be met, aside from division and amalgamation situations, for Indians in a community with an overwhelmingly Indian population or historical reasons to have a band.

The present policy regarding section 17 is largely based on band division and amalgamation policies and cost considerations. While these are valid factors in many cases, sometimes they are not. Administrative costs, program costs, and provincial land base for the reserve should not be the only criteria for section 17 to be used. Historical reasons, such as at Duck Bay, Manitoba, or an overwhelming Indian community population, such as Pikwitonei, Manitoba, should be just as important for the local Indian community to qualify for band status.

A community should be able to meet a representativeness threshold and perhaps show why band division is impartial or inappropriate, because of distance or history, to obtain section 17 recognition. Bill C-7 now does allude to newly created bands having to comply with the new regime of codes set out in the bill, including the default regime. But the bill is silent on clearly defining a procedure by which a community of Indians can achieve band status. We submit that the committee could direct that regulations be drafted that define what a first nation is, and the threshold a community must meet for first nation recognition.

¿ (0910)

Finally, the regulations of Bill C-7 should spell out in great detail the rights of the off-reserve band members--not just the right to vote but also to share in the land claim moneys--including band members who have rights under the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act, Bill C-31.

On number six, dower rights, Bill C-7 is silent on the subject of dower rights. We submit that the committee should take a proactive position and use this rare opportunity to provide dower rights, particularly for Indian women who homestead on reserve. Bill C-7 deletes or alters many parts of the Indian Act. The committee should look at section 20 of the Indian Act to recommend a dower position on possession of lands on reserve, particularly certificate of possession rules.

Number seven, we believe that Bill C-7 changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act, such as the elimination of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the addition of an interpretive clause in proposed subsection 16.1, should be carefully reviewed by this committee. We suggest a new interpretive clause be considered that is expanded to include a statement of individual Indian rights within the first nations collectivity.

An Indian bill of rights, designed by Indians for Indians, should be made here. We submit the committee should recommend funding for both the development of an Indian bill of rights, and the reworking of this idea into the proposed section 16.1 interpretation clause of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

On number eight, the non-derogation clause, if it is the belief of the minister, as he has stated, that Bill C-7 is not designed to and will not in any way hurt treaty rights and aboriginal rights, why not say it simply and clearly with a non-derogation clause? The wording from 1982 in various pieces of legislation can be used. We prefer the simpler version, simply protecting those treaty and aboriginal rights set out in section 35 of the Constitution Act. We have attached appendix A suggested wording for a non-derogation clause. It says:

For greater certainty, nothing in the Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing Aboriginal or Treaty Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act.

I want to thank you for listening to our eight recommendations on Bill C-7. I'll be prepared to take any questions. We also have extra copies of the 20-minute videotape about Bill C-7, should anybody else wish to obtain one. I believe all of you on the committee have one.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Thank you very much. That was an excellent presentation. We did receive the copies, and thank you very much for them.

This is the third week the committee is travelling, at great expense--there's no doubt about that. You have just justified the expense because of your presentation. I'm not judging the position you took; as chair I don't do that. But you spoke about Bill C-7, and we are dedicating nine weeks of our lives to try to make this legislation better. I want to commend you and your group for helping us do that, because there are not many presentations that make reference to Bill C-7. I congratulate you on that.

We will proceed to questions for seven minutes. Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank each one of you for coming to share your views on Bill C-7 this morning.

You've injected into our thoughts and discussions something that I think very often goes ignored, not only in Indian Affairs per se but sometimes in the deliberations of our committee from those who present, and even from ourselves at times.

I am referring, of course, to the presence of off-reserve members and non-status people who are on reserves or off reserves. This is a huge group. This is a huge group in our society, and we need to make sure that legislation like Bill C-7 includes all off-reserve aboriginal people as best we can.

I want to call your attention, as I'm sure you're already aware, to the fact that Bill C-7 does talk about off-reserve members. From my particular point of view, it's more an implicit reference than an explicit reference. It certainly defines what eligible members are, but when you start to get into the body of the bill where there are important issues like the selection of the chief and council and perhaps the code that the band adopts, and this sort of thing, as well as some of the issues you've raised that are not included surrounding the distribution of treaty moneys and so on, there's nothing really implicit in the bill that actually refers to off-reserve members.

I wonder if you then, with your great concern about this, feel that Bill C-7 really covers that. With the kinds of concerns that you're raising, should it be more explicit, particularly under clause 5 of Bill C-7, where it stipulates that non-custom leadership selection codes “must respect the rights of all members of the band but may balance their different interests, including the different interests of members residing on and off the reserve”.

Now, that's a very important clause. Do you think that distinction allows for different treatment, then, by band chiefs and councils of off-reserve members, depending on what is in the leadership selection code of that particular first nation? I wonder, is this a concern to you?

Those are my two questions.

¿ (0920)

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: Yes, it is a concern. After all, if you belong to a band and your name is on the list as a member of that band, you should.... This thing should be more geared toward accessibility of those rights that we have. After all, we're treaty Indians. I know the Indian Act is more about rules; it's over here. We should be able to access all these rights accorded any Indian, and I don't think the sections you mentioned.... I don't have a copy with me because I wanted to concentrate on my presentation. But on this question you've asked, yes, it is a concern.

Mr. Reed Elley: Would you like this to be more explicit in the legislation? Would you like to see amendments made that would make this more explicit, to guard against the concerns you have?

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: Yes, that's the idea behind all this work we've done. I know that maybe other off-reserve Indians may have other thoughts on this, but when we worked on this bill, when we looked it through, we tried to seek amendments for the betterment of the off-reserve people so they get their rights like anybody else and it is equitable. Why should they be treated differently just because they don't happen to be living on reserve?

The Chair: You have almost two minutes left.

Mr. Reed Elley: Okay. I wonder if you would care to be a little more explicit about the kind of situation that might develop vis-à-vis non-reserve members in actually accessing services and treaty moneys. What are the problems that exist now?

¿ (0925)

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: I guess it's everything. It is difficult for an off-reserve Indian to access all sorts of things, even from the buck you just passed. Because you're off-reserve, we can't do this for you. You can't get this. You go to the Department of Indian Affairs.

So even provincially...they'll say you're a provincial responsibility because you don't live on the reserve. You go to the province; it's the same thing. You're a treaty Indian. You go to the federal government.

So we're caught in between there. It's a bad situation to be in.

Mr. Reed Elley: Let me understand this. If you can't get the help you need as a member of that band because you're not on reserve, you then go to Indian Affairs. What do they do?

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: They'll say the same thing. They'll just tell you, because you're off-reserve Indians, they can't.... They'll send you back to the band. So you're stuck.

Mr. Reed Elley: So off-reserve status Indians are caught in a vicious circle of not being able to access the help that's supposed to be available for all status native people across Canada. Is that fair to say? Okay.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, seven minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Grand Chief Kirkness.

It's not only the chair that will be very pleased with your brief; I think the minister will be very pleased, because they've been waiting a long time for somebody to come and read into the record everything that they want in Bill C-7.

They've had a difficult time finding anybody willing to do that, because right across the country people have come to this standing committee saying they're vehemently opposed to Bill C-7 for all kinds of reasons.

It seems that some groups have been coerced into cooperating. We've had some people tell us that they've been, in terms they've used, bribed or blackmailed into cooperating--threatened.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Chair, he shouldn't make statements... [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm simply citing the witnesses.

I have the floor, I believe.

The Chair: Yes, but I'm taking it back.

It's not a point of order. Accusations are made. If they're illegal, you can be sued. Every member has to defend accusations that they make. Fair enough?

Mr. Pat Martin: Just for the record, there are no points of order, I believe, because the last time I raised a point of order, you said there are no points of order in standing committees--

The Chair: A point of privilege.

Mr. Pat Martin: There are points of privilege.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: The only reason I raise this is that we've had other witnesses speak to us, and as recently as last night I met with another group who felt they were being pushed into a position on Bill C-7 by being told that either their funding would be taken away if they didn't cooperate, or that the funding would be given to them if they did cooperate.

You had seven consultation meetings around the province, 282 people came to your consultation meetings, and you made a videotape. I guess I'd ask, how much money did they give you to support Bill C-7...or how much money did they give you to conduct the consultation meetings and to make your videotape?

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: Very little.

Mr. Pat Martin: How much?

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: Do we have the figures?

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, how much went to the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples?

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: We haven't even got that yet. They're still holding it over there.

We've come to the hotel here. I had no way of paying for the room. I was digging into my pockets for credit cards, and I finally got one with which I could pay for the room.

Mr. Pat Martin: The seven consultation meetings around the province....

¿ (0930)

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: It was $54,000.

Mr. Pat Martin: It was $54,000 to conduct...?

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: Yes, and we know where we used it. We're still short from that $54,000, though--$21,000.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, that's not much. You didn't get much of a cut, because actually the minister spent $10 million pushing Bill C-7 around the country. You should have negotiated better, I think.

As far as the representation goes, I'm a little confused about who you actually represent. I guess I'm always a little worried about the legitimacy. You say you're speaking on behalf of first nations people or treaty people who don't live on reserve. Is there some way for them to sign on to give you the right to speak for them?

When you say you have 5,000 members, is that 5,000 members who've--

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: Signed up.

Mr. Pat Martin: --consciously joined your organization?

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: There are a lot of members out there who we could say are members, but we don't say that until they sign their name. These are signed-up members.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay, fair enough. That's a good issue.

I'm very pleased to see you calling for a non-derogation clause. That's one thing in your brief that I think is necessary, and I'd be glad to give you the chance to speak to that further.

Is it your belief that Bill C-7, in its current format, does derogate or diminish existing aboriginal or treaty rights?

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: Maybe we don't, but to be safe, that has to be in there. If the minister says it's not needed and it's safe, then why not put it in there? It's not going to do any harm to put it in, and that's what we are seeking, that they put that non-derogation clause in it.

Mr. Pat Martin: If I have any time left, very briefly....

The Chair: You have two and a half minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Very good.

Under the human rights issues that you mentioned, in article 7, were you aware that there are two aspects of Bill C-7 that deal with rights? One is the fact that under Bill C-7 now, as far as the financial records of a band go, not only the members of that band can ask to see your books, but anybody can. So even I could go up to Pauingassi and tell them I want to see their books, and they would have to show them to me.

Even if they had a private business going on there--say they started a fish plant there that would be--

The Chair: Mr. Martin, I have to cut in again.

Mr. Pat Martin: --in competition with another business--

The Chair: I have to cut in again for the third time.

It's the financial statements. There is a difference between financial statements and books. We have been through this twice in our three weeks: the bill speaks to financial statements. They can't come into the office and ask for your books. That has been--

Mr. Pat Martin: But they can ask for your financial statements, Mr. Chair. It's not your job to go after me on points I'm making. This isn't a debate between you and me.

The Chair: It's my job to make sure that you don't mislead the people. That's my job.

Mr. Pat Martin: The point I am making is that under the new rules of Bill C-7, even a company that was in direct competition with your company could demand to see the financial statements of your company. Do you approve of that, or do you see that as an invasion of the privacy rights of a first nations community?

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: We agree on that.

Mr. Pat Martin: I think it's absurd to be held to that standard of public disclosure, personally. Do you approve of that?

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: I think everybody has to be accountable.

Mr. Pat Martin: To everyone else in the world? You have to show your books to me?

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: Well, to everyone who's in that group.

Mr. Pat Martin: Any member of the band, by all means, should see all the books, but what about somebody, some non-aboriginal person down the street? Under these rules, you'd have to show them to them, too.

The Chair: I'll ask Mr. Long to respond.

Mr. Richard Long (Executive Director, Native Council of Canada (Alberta)): Just more as a question, are you referring to subclause 9(3) of the bill?

If you're referring to subclause 30(5):

At the request of any person and on payment of a reasonable fee, a band shall provide a copy of any code or law....

Mr. Pat Martin: No, it's a completely different section. This is subclause 9(3). You can look at it later.

Maybe the other one is the search and seizure provisions of band officers'--

The Chair: Our time is up.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, sir, you used up some of my time by interrupting the point I was making.

The Chair: Yes, because you were misleading the witnesses, and I had to interrupt on your time.

Mr. Pat Martin: I object. I want it on the record that I object and protest the fact that you've interrupted my--

The Chair: Well, you're always objecting, but we'll move on anyway.

Ms. Neville, please.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Grand Chief, for your presentation.

My colleague said you made the minister happy. I think you've made some of the members of the committee very happy in your presentation because, as you are undoubtedly aware, this bill has come to committee after first reading in the House, which means that we have many opportunities to amend the bill as currently presented.

The recommendations that you have brought forward today are thoughtful, fulsome, and you've obviously reviewed the bill carefully with some idea of recommendations that can improve it. On my own behalf, and I think others would agree, it has been an important presentation. So thank you very much.

I have a number of questions, though, coming out of your presentation. I think you brought forward an important representation here in terms of the role of off-reserve members of the band. Let me just ask you a few questions, and then you can answer them.

Do you see the band as having responsibilities for members of the community who live off reserve, and if so, what kind of responsibilities do you see those to be?

I'm also interested in the issue of dower rights. I haven't been travelling totally with the committee, and I don't know whether it has been brought up before, but I'm interested in knowing whether you have had much representation on that and if you could speak to that as well.

I'm also interested in where you speak about the dispute resolution mechanism, and you bring forward a number of very substantial recommendations. In your comments you say, “to some extent, Section 18”. I would be interested in a little bit of expansion on what you see in clause 18.

I'll stop there.

¿ (0935)

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: First of all, you asked three questions, and I don't remember the first one.

Ms. Anita Neville: The first one was, what responsibilities do you think the band should have to members of the community living off reserve? In a previous presentation we had in Ottawa one of the tribal councils, I think it was from northern Saskatchewan, suggested in their presentation that there might be responsibilities of the band to members of the community living in the urban setting. I'm particularly interested in that issue, and I'm interested to know what your thoughts are on that.

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: If someone's a member of that band, the band should have the same responsibilities to that off-reserve Indian as to a person on reserve. Are they not members of that band? If they weren't, that would be a different story.

That being said, if they don't want that, maybe what they should do is give them support for having their own band in that community so then they will be able to operate as a band. Then they'll be the responsibility of that particular community.

You have to remember that all the bands we formed, nobody wants to recognize them. But most of the people in those communities, 95% of them and in some cases almost 100%, are Indians who had lost their status and have regained it through Bill C-31, so they're treaty Indians like anybody else on reserve. They should have that responsibility as band members.

The second one was about the dower rights. Well, in people's lifetimes they see certain things happen, and I think in this case it's basically about protection of the woman and child. No one should be able to tell them, you have to get out. That's the reason we looked at these dower rights, because it could happen. Where do these people end up? Out on the street? I don't think that should be allowed in any society.

Does that answer your question?

Ms. Anita Neville: That's helpful; thank you.

My third question--and I'm going to add a fourth one to it--is, what are your comments on clause 18 of the bill as it relates to the dispute resolution process?

And let me ask one final question. I know that you had the consultation and 282 people came. Can you tell me why the Manitoba chiefs declined to participate and what you thought of that.

¿ (0940)

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: I can't speak for the chiefs; everybody has the right to their own opinion, to say that's no good. But as an off-reserve Indian, I can say that we don't have much choice but to look at the bill and try to make that bill better so it will suit our people.

I didn't do this for the Department of Indian Affairs, as someone said today; we did this on our own. I know one person in there who said I was being negative. That's too damn bad. We're trying to get into the loop here, the off-reserve Indians.

Now, what was the...?

The Chair: Sorry, time's up.

We have time for a three-minute round. Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned before, you brought up some very important issues. It's interesting that you advocate not only for the rights of off-reserve Indians, but also you are advocating, I think, for the position of Indian women in society.

It was interesting that the joint ministerial advisory committee, which was set up to give input into this bill long before it was written, indicated they felt that matrimonial property should be a key area for reform. They said that there was not enough legislative framework to provide for native women in some of the situations they find themselves in on reserve.

I wonder if you're concerned about the lack of protection I see in Bill C-7 for Indian women and whether you've addressed that as a group.

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: Naturally, it's for the rights of all; this should be for everybody, not only Indian people. I don't care what colour you are. This is a very important issue in the Indian community. It's also, as far as I'm concerned, an important issue in any society. We can't afford to let legislation support one side more than the other side. We have to give a fair hearing to these people, and they should have equal rights the same as anybody else. That's basically one of the reasons we put that in there, because things could happen, as I said.

One doesn't have to be critical of these things, but human nature tells us that none of us is perfect.

Mr. Reed Elley: Obviously, there have been concerns for some situations that have arisen in some bands concerning matrimonial rights and women's rights, and you're concerned about that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin, you have three minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

I should start by saying that even though many of the points you raise are certainly valid and I'm with you on them, I don't know how Bill C-7 is going to help you achieve those goals. I also think there are many things in Bill C-7 that hurt an awful lot of other people along the way, and I think you've made that point somewhat.

The other issue I was going to raise is that newly formed band officers have search and seizure rights that go beyond anything even the RCMP currently have in terms of entering any building other than residential buildings on reserve without warrant and searching and seizing things from people. Surely that offends you as much as it offends all the other first nations leaders who have come to this committee and spoken passionately against it.

Were you aware that this was one of the changes Bill C-7 would make to the Indian Act, enhancing those officers' authority?

¿ (0945)

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: Yes, we realize that this Human Rights Act could really not be good in some cases. I'll give you an example. I don't think any Indian band would like to see non-Indian people going in and running around on the reserve, digging around for everything. When we look at this from a Human Rights Act position, it could be very uncomfortable for a lot of people, even us.

So we are very careful on this one. That's why we're talking about different ways, like an ombudsman or an Indian bill of rights, so we can get some protection, so we don't just have, as I say, human rights commissioners--or whatever you call them--running around on reserves and digging out this and that. No, we don't see it, for that reason.

Nevertheless, they've put this in there. Bands were exempt from this before. What happens to an ordinary person?

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Godfrey, you have three minutes.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Thank you. I'm new to Manitoba. I'm certainly new to Thompson. I'm pleased that you're here.

From everything you've said, I understand you all represent the off-reserve population. I notice that a number of you are chiefs. One of the questions I have as a naive outsider is how do you get to be elected? How does that process work if you're off reserve? Would Bill C-7 in fact have any direct impact on you, since it deals with on-reserve elections? I'm ask this of any of you who happen to be chiefs.

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: I could just give a short answer, and anybody else here could add to it. Basically what started this was that we formed bands in the community. Who else has the authority to form these bands in the community--us or somebody from outside? So that's what we did; we formed these bands.

In working on this, we're trying to seek recognition as bands. That's what this thing is all about. If we thought that bill was perfect, we wouldn't be here.

Mr. John Godfrey: What I'm trying to figure out, though, is how this works. For example, I see that Chief Campbell is with the Northern Cree First Nation. Those aren't people on a specific reserve; it's folks who are.... Can you tell me how this works?

Chief Murray Campbell (Northern Cree First Nation, Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba): It seems like it's two communities, but it's one. There's a line in the middle and there's crown land on one side, which is known as the Métis side sometimes because we're off the reserve. But it's one community.

People who were reinstated couldn't move back onto the reserve because they didn't have housing. Nothing was prepared, or no money came in. They told us that no money came in for us, the people who were reinstated. We were pushed to the side, and now we're in no man's land, so to speak.

¿ (0950)

Mr. John Godfrey: And those are the people you represent.

Chief Murray Campbell: Yes.

Mr. John Godfrey: Is there an election process? How do you get to be the chief of those people?

Chief Murray Campbell: Well, since back in 1984, people who were living off reserve have had their own little election. Hardly anybody is interested because there is no money in this. I had to hold off paying my rent to come here so I could pay for my trip. We are in a sad state.

Mr. John Godfrey: Grand Chief, do you have something you wanted to add to that?

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: No.

But I just noticed the time is coming around and I wanted to tell the chairman--

The Chair: Actually, time is up. Excuse me, I'll interrupt.

There are nine minutes left. Unless I have objections, we'll have a two-minute round each, with three minutes for closing remarks. Or should we give it all to closing remarks?

Okay, so the decision is we'll have nine minutes for closing remarks, and they belong to you. You may use them as you wish.

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: I asked because two of my colleagues here had short presentations to make, and I think it would be fair to them.

The Chair: You have eight minutes left and you may use them as you wish.

We'll go to Chief Campbell.

Chief Murray Campbell: I'll cut the formalities and just read what I guess most of you have, a copy of my statement.

The standing committee holding these hearings will be considering and adding our views to this Bill C-7. I am very anxious that whatever we do say or do will be brushed aside and the government will follow its own agenda, that our views will once again not be heard and will not benefit the off-reserve Indians.

Since the chiefs across Canada boycotted the consultations, Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come showed an open defiance by ripping up the Bill C-61 on the steps of the Parliament and did...if any, make the Minister of Indian Affairs, Robert Nault, to table Bill C-61, which was to be reintroduced as Bill C-7.

What I am really afraid of is that we, the off-reserve Indians, are being used by the Government of Canada in passing this bill. They can justify the changes that will be made to the Indian Act by the consultations that we, the off-reserve Indians, have made at the hearings that were held by us.

Since we don't get regular funding from Indian Affairs like the other treaty nations that live on reserves, for the first time we were given some funds by Indian Affairs to hold the workshops for these consultations. We were all excited. I thought this was a start, that we were going to be recognized and get regular funding from Indian Affairs, but I hope I'm wrong. What I'm afraid will happen to us, the off-reserve Indians, after this is finished is that we will be left out in the cold again. When the regular chiefs hear that we helped, we will be blackballed in our home towns because we participated in making the changes to the Indian Act.

I feel that we were baited into doing the consultation. A little money was waved in our faces and we took it, just like the little donkey that wouldn't move and didn't want to pull the cart. A carrot was dangled in front of it and it made him pull the cart.

But I know if we don't do anything, we will be in the same spot. At least we have a fair chance here to make a difference to our communities.

What I really would like to see happen is that the off-reserve Indians, the Bill C-31s, will benefit from this Bill C-7, so they can get an equal opportunity to be able to get housing, jobs, funds, lands, to be able to govern themselves on land they always lived on--and not to be left in no man's land--where we can be treated as equals, not as second-class citizens known as the Bill C-31s.

We are passed by every time there is housing available. We are living on crown land and in MHRC units. The Métis are saying the units are for them and not for us. We're not better off than before we were reinstated; in fact, we're worse off. We tried going to the band office for help. They said they don't have funding for the people living on reserve. We tried going to the council office on the Métis side. They said, sorry, we don't have funding to help you. That is the story all around when you need help.

The changes that will be made to the Indian Act will mostly help people living on reserve; and for the ones off- reserve it will be just another way to make them be frustrated. When Bill C-31 was introduced back in 1985, most of the bands were in receivership or in third-party and the funds came in, more money for the bands. It helped them out of the hole they were in. Now they are back to where they were. I hope the government will not give the money to the bands for the people living off reserve. We won't get any of it anyway, like last time.

The people who were reinstated and were still living off reserve when Bill C-31 was introduced, I feel, should be given a chance to be able to govern themselves by forming new reserves altogether and changing the Indian Act. The government feels the Indian Act is outdated and needs to be changed, or maybe altogether made into something new, separate from the Indian Act and the custom bands, something like a pilot project.

The Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba is in a unique position. I feel we, the Indian Council of First Nations of Manitoba, are at the crossroads and will determine whether these organizations will survive this Bill C-7 that is being passed by the House of Commons.

I strongly believe that we can have a better relationship with the Government of Canada by trying something like this. If it works, fine, but if not.... But most of us know that in order to survive in this time and age, there are going to be changes to the Indian Act.

¿ (0955)

We have in our organization a man who helped write part of the Indian Act. He thinks that changes are coming whether we like it or not. If there was some other act that was going to be written, or some kind of declaration or code of ethics--you could change that “declaration” to “code of ethics” if you want--something like what the U.S. has, I'd like to be one of the men who would help to make this new declaration or code of ethics.

I feel that the natives of this country need a lot of changes in the way we govern ourselves in order to compete in this world's market. I know the native people are naturally very artistic and are by nature good hunters. There is a sleeping giant of tourism that the native people need to awaken.

The Chair: Excuse me, you said you had two people who wanted to make presentations. We have one minute left.

Chief Leonard Chartrand: It is a privilege for me to be here to meet with the standing committee. I'll make it brief.

I have a concern with clause 17 of Bill C-7, the one that deals with how the council of a band may make laws for band purposes, in relation to paragraph (g), which refers to the “rights of spouses or common-law partners”, etc.

My concern here is that, if there's a Bill C-7, a council here can pass laws. It is legally capable of doing so. But what about the rights of band members living off reserve--spouses, common law partners, and children?

What do we do with a gay couple denied under this paragraph 17(g)? They have the right to live together on the reserve. That is denial of same-sex marriage.

I'm tired of lawsuits. It seems like everything we want to do, we have to work through the law. But this really is something that, if there were any changes to it.... That is why I brought it up.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We've used up our time, but if you wish one minute to make closing remarks, Chief Kirkness, I would invite you to do so now.

Grand Chief Andrew Kirkness: In general, all I have to say is that we have made the eight points. What I say to the committee is take a serious look at these amendments that we're asking for.

I'll name the eight: a new band creation, dispute resolution, voting, a non-derogation clause, transparency, an Indian bill of rights, an ombudsman, and dower rights. I ask you to take a serious look at these. We hope you will.

À (1000)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I repeat what I said at the beginning. I am not passing judgment on the content. I'm neither for nor against the position, as chair, despite what one member has inferred. I recognize the concern you had about the legislation that we have been given the job to address.

We thank you very much. It's been very helpful.

I now invite to the table, from the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc., Grand Chief Francis Flett, and Michael Anderson, research director. We have one hour together.

I also welcome Bev Desjarlais, member of Parliament.

Mr. Pat Martin: She's not listening.

The Chair: I recognize Bev Desjarlais here. Bev is not a member of the committee, but I will allow her whatever time her colleague shares with her. Fair enough? That's what we did with Mr. Laliberté.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Okay. Good.

The Chair: We have an hour together. We invite you to make a presentation, which we hope will allow time for questions from members.

Grand Chief, we invite you to proceed.

Grand Chief Francis Flett (Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc.): Thank you very much, and good morning.

Sir, gentlemen, we do have some copies here if anybody would like a copy. We would also like to distribute it because we have our treaty symbol on there.

The Chair: That will be done for you.

Grand Chief Francis Flett: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: You should proceed because we only have an hour.

Grand Chief Francis Flett: First of all, let me say thank you--

The Chair: One moment. I must interrupt you. We cannot continue proceedings if there are signs in the room. The people walking in with signs are using up the time of our witnesses.

I ask you to take the signs outside the room, please.

Mr. Pat Martin: Sir, I have a point of privilege.

The Chair: We'll get the signs out and then we'll deal with the point of privilege.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, it has to do with the signs, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Well, the signs will be out, then we'll deal with the point of privilege.

I insist that the signs be brought outside the room.

The proceedings have stopped.

We thank you very much for your cooperation.

Mr. Martin, could you briefly go to your point.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, when this happened in Sudbury, when people came in with signs, even though they were silently standing at the back of the room, you ruled that they had to leave, because of what you cited. I can't remember what you cited, but I've looked it up since. The basis on which you made your ruling has to do with what goes on in the House of Commons, not in the standing committee.

The Chair: It's not a point of privilege.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, it is, Mr. Chair. I haven't made my point.

The Chair: Cut the mike.

The committee is an extension of the House of Commons. That is written in the rules. I've made my ruling and we will now, by respect to our guests, return to our witnesses.

I apologize to you. The time we have used up will not be your time. We will make it up.

Grand Chief Francis Flett: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps I'll get right into our presentation. I want to say before I start that the laws are in our language.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

So with that, I'll go right into the proceedings. All I said was that sometimes it's fairly hard to understand a different language. We've been forced to use a different language all these years, and the understanding that we have has totally different meanings.

The Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc. submits that this committee should reject the principles of Bill C-7, the proposed First Nations Governance Act, in its entirety for the following reasons.

First, Bill C-7 does not recognize the inherent right of each of the MKO first nations.

Second, Bill C-7 does not reflect the sacred and joint relationship established by the treaties entered into by the MKO first nations and Her Majesty's government.

Third, Bill C-7 does not recognize the system of government, community organizations, and social order inherent in the customs, beliefs, and languages of the MKO first nations.

Fourth, Bill C-7 does not recognize the exercise of existing first nation government authority as reflected in MKO's establishment of the Awasis Agency of Northern Manitoba, in the systems of laws already established by individual MKO first nations, and in the continuing development of Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin. “Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin” means northern peoples' government.

Fifth, Bill C-7 does not reflect the binding commitment of Canada to work in partnership with the Manitoba first nations, including the MKO nations, to recognize and fully restore the jurisdiction of Manitoba first nations in contemporary terms through the Framework Agreement Initiative.

Sixth, Bill C-7 does not provide for an enforceable mechanism to ensure reciprocal accountability on the part of government, the minister, and the department in terms of the adequacy and effectiveness of policies and funding mechanisms reflecting first nations communities.

Finally, any attempt by Canada to impose a code upon the government of an MKO first nation will represent an unjustifiable infringement of the inherent right of self-government as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and as further acknowledged in the numerous decisions of the courts, which infringement has not been justified by Canada in accordance with the doctrine established in R. v. Sparrow and R. v. Badger.

À (1005)

MKO represents more than 60,000 treaty first nations people who are members of the 30 northernmost first nations in Manitoba that combined the traditional homelands territory of MKO first nations, covering almost three-quarters of the lands and waters of the province of Manitoba. Our forefathers, as representatives of our sovereign nations, entered into treaty negotiations with Her Majesty the Queen based on the explicit recognition of our status as sovereign nations and holders of aboriginal title of our ancestral lands. We agreed to negotiate upon the express undertaking that we would jointly deliberate upon certain matters of interest to Her Majesty on the one part and to our forefathers on the other.

Mike's going to do the rest of the presentation.

À (1010)

The Chair: That's fine.

Grand Chief Francis Flett: You'll have to excuse me, but my vision is kind of blurred, so it's hard for me to do this quickly.

I'm going to ask Mike to do the rest.

The Chair: We understand.

I'd like you and everyone else to feel comfortable. For us this is a kitchen table. That's the attitude we like around here. We want everybody to be comfortable.

Mr. Michael Anderson (Research Director, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, members of the committee.

Thank you, Grand Chief. I'd be pleased to continue.

I might note that projected on the wall behind you is a map of the MKO region depicting approximately three-quarters of the province of Manitoba covered traditionally by the 30 first nations of MKO.

The MKO first nations entered into the treaties described and known as Treaty 4, 1874, the Qu'Appelle Treaty; Treaty 5, 1875 to 1910, the Winnipeg Treaty; Treaty 6, 1876, the treaties at Fort Carlton and Fort Pitt; and Treaty 10, which was signed between 1906 and 1908 within our region.

Her Majesty sought the consent of our nations to share our ancestral lands and resources with settlers, and it remains that our consent is required before changes to the terms of our treaties will be accepted by our nations or our people. Mutual consent is the binding principle of treaties.

There are four additional principles and themes arising from the relationship between the MKO first nations and Canada that we wish to bring to this committee's attention, each of which is applicable to this committee's consideration of the proposed First Nations Governance Act.

The first is the treaty relationship and the joint commitment to nation building.

The second, as the grand chief mentioned at the very beginning, is that the laws are in our language.

The third is Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin, the northern peoples' government.

The fourth is the Framework Agreement Initiative and the proposed First Nations Governance Act.

The treaty-making process acknowledges and recognizes our Creator-granted sovereignty and authority within our traditional homelands. The MKO first nations cannot and will not accept that Her Majesty or the Government of Canada has, or ever had, the capacity to unilaterally alter or terminate our sacred relationship through subsequent domestic legislative or constitutional enactments.

Our treaties were entered into between sovereign nations, and the treaty relationship can be modified or affected only by the joint consent of the treaty signatories. The MKO first nations do not recognize that the Government of Canada acquired any title to our lands or any right through the treaties or the Constitution of Canada to make or impose a system of foreign laws upon our people.

Today the MKO organization represents itself through a depiction of the treaty medal provided by Her Majesty's treaty commissioners as a symbol of the sacred relationship that persists between our nations and Her Majesty.

The treaty medal clearly depicts a treaty commissioner entering into first nation lands as a guest, to negotiate and enter into treaty, to meet with and make an agreement with the leadership of the government within the homelands of each first nation.

The treaty medal represents our joint commitment to nation building with the objectives of sharing, peace, and goodwill through a relationship founded on principles of mutual faith, recognition, honour, and respect.

A modern-day treaty is a highly detailed document supported by legal opinion. The intent of the arrangement as expressed through the text of a modern treaty has all the i's dotted and the t's crossed, often together with several schedules, appendices, and maps. However, the original treaties were entered into on the basis of faith between people who spoke different languages and came from different cultures and societies to make a commitment to build a nation together and share the lands that would be used by the settlers entering our homelands and first nations alike.

The original treaties create a higher duty of honour for both parties, and it is more than just a matter of interpreting and honouring the specific words that appear in a modern arrangement. Our treaties reflect the solemn commitment and faith of first nations to jointly enter into nation building with Her Majesty's government for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows, and the rivers flow.

This commitment incorporates the obligation to renew, develop, and evolve our nation-to-nation relationship as time goes by. Our joint commitment to nation building is not frozen at one moment in history, but must be understood in its contemporary form as events take place and as our respective nations grow.

À (1015)

Bill C-7 violates the treaty relationship, our joint commitment to nation building, and the honour of the Crown.

The MKO first nations have traditionally passed on the laws of our people through language, through customs, traditions, principles, and beliefs and through the relationships with their traditional homelands and territories.

The MKO first nations are traditionally oral cultures carried forward through oral histories. Our laws and customs appear in and are passed on through our languages. There are concepts that are difficult to explain in English or French that appear in the Cree, Oji-Cree and Dene languages that reflect our government, community organization, and social order. And so our laws are literally within the languages of the MKO first nations.

Much of our work has been to document these laws. It is the objective of each MKO first nation to renew and restore first nations jurisdiction and lawmaking processes in accordance with our Creator-granted sovereignty and authority and in accordance with the customs, traditions, principles, and beliefs of each of the MKO first nations.

The FNGA is simply inapplicable to MKO, because the first nations of northern Manitoba already have our own laws and are moving forward with our vision of contemporary systems of laws that we are proceeding with on our own terms. Whereas the first nations of northern Manitoba have a vision of our government, the FNGA is all about imposing Canada's vision of government through unilaterally defining criteria, templates and codes. First nations laws will be required to be consistent with these predefined structures, or risk being struck down as invalid. The FNGA is not consistent with our Creator-granted sovereignty and authority, nor our customs, traditions, principles, and beliefs.

The provisions of the FNGA are certainly not consistent with our inherent laws, as reflected in our languages. The name Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin is carved into the wooden sign outside the MKO administrative offices here in Thompson, and translates from the Cree language, as the grand chief said at the beginning, into the “northern peoples' government”.

The elders, citizens, and leadership of the MKO first nations strive to maintain the languages, customs, traditions, principles and beliefs of the MKO first nations. This effort is carried on by our education authorities and by teachers throughout the MKO region. As well as the official use--the official use--of aboriginal languages in MKO meetings and assemblies, in 1981 the MKO first nations came together to protect our children and to provide for our future through the establishment of the Awasis Agency of northern Manitoba.

By working to renew and continue languages, customs, traditions, principles and beliefs and by protecting our children, the MKO first nations are exercising and promoting the laws of our people.

The results of the recent national census serves to underscore the leadership and foresight of the MKO in taking steps more than 20 years ago to protect the first nations children of the MKO region and, in so doing, to protect our culture, language, law, and our future as first nations.

The governments of the MKO first nations have also entered into treaties and agreements with Her Majesty, including the Northern Flood Agreement, and are working to fully implement the intent, terms, and provisions of these treaties and agreements, in part by working to establish all of the governing processes and structures provided for within these treaties and agreements.

In addition to the provisions of the original treaties, more recent arrangements require the establishment of management and governance structures which the MKO first nations intend to incorporate into Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin.

The Framework Agreement Initiative provides a negotiating program and expenditure authority for Manitoba first nations and Canada to jointly develop and evolve the treaty relationship within the context of the FAI, including fiscal relations, self-government, and governing structures.

The MKO first nations have been working since the inception of the FAI agreement to examine the nature of law within our communities. During this time, many first nations have developed their own election government codes, laws, and policies.

These progressive initiatives were detailed in a revisioning document recently presented by MKO to the minister. For example, the Pimicikamak Cree Nation and other MKO first nations have passed very comprehensive laws regarding elections, the development and passage of laws at the community level, management of land, wildlife, and other matters.

The FAI is presently set to expire on December 7, 2004, providing the MKO first nations and the minister more than 20 months to continue this process to jointly renew, develop, and evolve the treaty relationship in accordance with the customs, traditions, principles, and beliefs of the MKO first nations within the context of the FAI.

À (1020)

In contrast, the FNGA proposes that the MKO first nations commence a new process to develop codes and laws within two years, in accord with statutory requirements specified by Canada.

Part 9 of the Framework Agreement Initiative provides that the 10-year process may be extended by mutual agreement. On their part, the MKO first nations remain committed to fully achieving the objectives of the Framework Agreement Initiative.

In its report regarding Bill C-7, this committee must remind Parliament that the honour of the Crown is at stake in respect of the implementation of the FAI. By imposing a First Nations Governance Act, the minister has stepped away from the joint and good faith process established by the FAI and seeks instead to impose a unilateral legislative mechanism contrary to the principles of nation building.

It is apparent that the minister has persistently underfunded the FAI. For example, the MKO notes that a member of this committee questioned the minister regarding a reduction of some $3 million for self-government negotiations, which appeared in a supplementary departmental estimate. The minister indicated that the reduction was applied primarily to the self-government process in Manitoba.

The Chair: Does this complete your presentation?

Mr. Michael Anderson: The grand chief would like to conclude the presentation, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Grand Chief Francis Flett: The minister has unfinished business in Manitoba. The minister already has binding commitment and authority to restore the jurisdiction of first nations, including 30 modifications of the Indian Act. If it becomes necessary, clauses 34 and 35 of Bill C-7 enables the minister to exempt first nations in northern Manitoba from the application of the FNGA, in order to honour this government's existing commitment to the FAI and northern Manitoba first nations.

In respect to the FNGA, this proposed legislation also does not meet the legal requirement of consultation and respect for the rights and interests of aboriginal people, in terms of the minister's consultation with persons over the Internet and primarily through urban open houses in Manitoba. As we all know, there was a court case on the issue of consultation. The process taken there was found not to be appropriate and was deemed not to be consultation. I just note this.

It imposes narrow timeframes for developing criteria, templates, codes, and laws, contrary to established practices and to the recommendations of internationally recognized bodies, including the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development.

It ignores the joint relationship established between Her Majesty the Queen and the first nations of northern Manitoba through Treaties 4, 5, 6, and 10, and the relationship surrounding the Rupert's Land Order of 1870, all of which were recognized in the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Penner report, and Senate committee report of March 2000, and other federal commissions.

It also fails to support the existing self-government negotiations and efforts of first nations, such as the Pimicikamak Cree Nation, to implement laws through their inherent right to self-government. Instead, it will effectively impose timelines for the completion of self-government initiatives presently underway.

Through clauses 16 and 17, it has the potential to undermine or cloud the lawmaking powers of chiefs and councils under the present Indian Act, as well as the effect of favourable court decisions confirming these powers.

It effectively entrenches the federal inherent right policy, despite the fact that this policy has not been accepted by first nations.

It provides a statutorily entrenched discretion to the minister to intervene in the financial affairs of first nations, which the minister has previously proved incapable of exercising without breaching rules of due process.

It fails to recognize the complications in local community dynamics that will result from imposing a complaints tribunal and from recognizing third-party interest without first addressing or remedying the significant and persistent federal underfunding of social housing, infrastructure, and other matters under the authority of first nation governments.

À (1025)

It fails to recognize that the treaties provide for a sharing of lands and natural resources, which in contemporary terms can be reflected in those resource-benefit, revenue-sharing, and other fiscal and economic arrangements necessary to reconcile the original aboriginal title of the lands and natural resources of northern Manitoba, and that such fiscal arrangements are central to the efficient and effective functioning of first nations governments.

It will shift the focus of self-government negotiations into imposed acceptance by first nations of the federal position on the hard issues at the bargaining table within specified and imposed timelines, or into acceptance of the regime templates and codes imposed by Bill C-7.

Bill C-7 is promoted by the Government of Canada as providing first nations with the tools needed to build effective and strong communities and take advantage of business opportunities to improve the quality of life. However, the minister proposes no tools to address the fiscal relations issues that are inevitably at the centre of the present first nations-government relationship.

For example, establishing an authority for first nations to make direct submissions to the Treasury Board of Canada could expedite the elimination of the Department of Indian Affairs as an intermediary in these matters.

The minister's promise to create better governance will largely result in the imposition of a municipalization approach without regard to how the MKO first nations define transparency, governance, and accountability in our own languages and cultures.

Mr. Michael Anderson: The grand chief has asked me to make the concluding comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The minister's promise is also a reflection of Canada's desire to provide the appearance of certainty and accountability to its citizens, parliamentarians, and investors in the international trade community without first honouring the terms of the treaties and other agreements entered into between the first nations and the Crown.

While the legislation fails to include a non-derogation clause, its inclusion would not in and of itself automatically remedy any infringement of the rights and interests of first nations, largely in light of the limited capacity of many chiefs and councils--and first nations members, for that matter--to advance challenges to any unilateral federal actions that may be taken under the First Nations Governance Act.

The MKO approach is to seek solutions for first nations governments and peoples; develop and exercise systems of law in accord with the customs, tradition, principles, and beliefs of the MKO first nations; to no longer act as de facto agents of the Department of Indian Affairs in delivering often insufficient community services; to renew our relationship with the Crown such that the relationship established by treaties and agreements, as may be interpreted by the courts, is honoured, upheld, and enforced; and enjoy an equitable sharing of the wealth arising from the use and development of the lands, waters, and natural resources within the traditional homelands of the MKO first nations in northern Manitoba.

The grand chief will conclude with the recommendations, Mr. Chair.

À (1030)

Grand Chief Francis Flett: The committee should report and recommend that the principles of Bill C-7, the proposed First Nations Governance Act, be rejected in their entirety; that the Government of Canada honour its treaty obligation and constitutional duty by renewing its commitment to recognize first nations governments as established in accord with the inherent authority of these governments and with the customs, traditions, principles, beliefs, languages, laws, and institutions of first nations; and that Canada fully honour its commitment under the Framework Agreement Initiative in Manitoba.

As an alternative, we recommend an amendment to Bill C-7 to ensure that any First Nations Governance Act is inapplicable to the MKO first nations, whether through amendment to clauses 34 and 35 or through a new clause.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have 32 minutes left.

We'll start with a four-minute round. Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's good to see you again, Grand Chief Flett. I think it's about a year or so ago that we met in Ottawa. At that time you were talking about the kind of negotiations you were engaged in with the Government of Canada through the Framework Agreement Initiative. You were talking about the progress and lack of progress at that time. But you were hopeful, however, that this would be concluded within the ten years and that you would come out with a governance package that worked for your people.

Now we have the First Nations Governance Act before us and it's clear that you now have a big concern about this somehow thwarting the efforts you've been engaged in with the federal government.

If this goes through and is imposed upon you in its present state, how do you see that in very concrete ways affecting what you've been doing with the Government of Canada in good faith under your Framework Agreement Initiative?

Grand Chief Francis Flett: Let me go back a bit to your comments about our presentation.

As we all know, the governance act is here for a temporary purpose, according to what we've been told, anyway. Now, if we're going to have a temporary solution again for our people in northern Manitoba and throughout the country, it's not going to serve our purpose of being self-governing.

The framework initiative itself does not stop at the ten-year process that it proposes, but with the cutting off of all the resources and funding that we had to do during the FAI process. There seems to be a lot of things we're unable to do or create because of the shortage of funds, and the imposition of this FNGA is going to affect our people in a lot of ways.

I'll give you an example. We have a videotape right now that we want to present to all the committee members. It's called Wrapped in Plastic. It reflects what the government has or hasn't done for our people in the past, and will continue to happen. So we do have a video that we'd like to present to you so you can take a look at it.

It has to do with housing. What it shows is that there are people living in these houses that are completely wrapped in plastic, and because of what we're doing in our presentation here, we want to ensure that everything is covered.

If you look into the future, there will be a lot of things happening to our people. With this FNGA, people are going to be able to sue each other for a doorknob. That will create a lot of problems for chiefs and councils. We have enough problems right now, because we are unable to provide for those people.

If you look at consultation and accountability through this process, a lot of first nations people live off reserve, and I've heard their presentations being made this morning. But if you really look at the issue, the government asks how come we're not accountable to these people living off reserve. It's because the government does not provide any funding for those people.

Automatically, those people are told they are a provincial responsibility. So far as accountability goes, exactly what the minister talks about are things that are affecting our people right now. And when we talk about accountability, I think 93% of all first nations across the country did qualify as being in compliance with the rule.

À (1035)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I should have explained that when I said four minutes, it was for the question and the answer.

Now Mr. Martin has four minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll use just a couple of seconds to make it clear that I'm still not satisfied with your ruling about signs in the building.

The Chair: You've not been satisfied with anything I've done here, so--

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm not satisfied with the way you ruled on that, because you know that we are masters of our own destiny as a committee and we could allow people to make--

The Chair: As a committee, not as an individual.

Mr. Pat Martin: As a committee, that's correct. You've made an arbitrary ruling--

The Chair: We can take four minutes and debate this, if you wish.

Mr. Pat Martin: For the record, I am not satisfied.

I want to thank MKO for a very comprehensive and interesting brief. I learned a lot when I read it the first time, and I've seen even more in the second go-around.

I want to comment on one phrase that maybe was lost on some, because it happened quickly, but it was the point that “our laws are in our language”. It is such a fulsome sentence. Many layers of different meanings are associated with that. I think I understand what you mean and I hope people take some time and think about that.

In the short time I have, you've made it abundantly clear you think Bill C-7 is wrong for the people you represent, the many first nations in northern Manitoba. You're in good company because virtually everybody we hear from right across the country thinks that Bill C-7 is wrong on virtually every level.

The second point you make--I'll give you time to speak to it--is that if we can't stop Bill C-7, at least the MKO first nations should be spared the imposition of Bill C-7; you'd be excluded from Bill C-7.

Can you speak to that with whatever time we have left, Grand Chief Flett?

Grand Chief Francis Flett: Thank you very much.

I think the reason we brought out the issue of the FAI process...and I think I've made it clear that we do have a ten-year commitment from the government to proceed with drafting our own self-government relations. I know the minister did tell us at one time that the Department of Indian Affairs will never be gone, but that's what the agreement indicates under the FAI process.

What I'd like to do is this. I've had a lot of people come with me this morning to show there are a lot of people out there who support the position of MKO. A lot of our communities are isolated and are unable to come through the winter roads, but certainly a lot of our people do support us; most of our people support us. I want to say I thank those people who are out here today with us.

I know those town hall meetings sometimes had one or two people attending them, and this is what the minister is trying to make changes on, by using one or two people who came to those meetings. I just wanted to say that.

If Mike wants to make any additional comments, I'll give him the chance.

Mr. Michael Anderson: A lot of the work that has been done, in respect to your comment about laws and our language, has been to work with our communities to determine those structures that appear literally in the languages and that are not easily communicated and translated, as our presentation indicated.

The diversity of languages used in the MKO region is partly a reflection of why the FAI agreement itself exists. The Ojibway, Cree, Oji-Cree and Dene are spoken within our region. In our assemblies we have our own teams of translators with our own earphones and we are listening to the presentations and goings on in four languages, including English. So the richness of the differences in how a single idea is expressed is remarkable when you participate in our assemblies.

Our task in codifying languages, government, systems of laws in contemporary terms is to understand the roots of law as they appear within the languages of our communities.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before I go to Mr. Dromisky, we too welcome the people who have accompanied you. It shows that you do have the support of the people you represent. I commend them for taking the time to come out. I wish more people would come out.

With regard to the signs, although we asked that they be removed, we encourage participation from anyone. It is a rule that has been standing in committees--travelling committees--forever. I don't like having to ask to have them removed, but as an expression of your position, I really admire the people who took the time to come out.

Mr. Dromisky, four minutes.

À (1040)

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much.

In all the presentations we've had, we have learned much about the first nations people in this country, namely their history, the treaties, the various regions, the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments, and the relationship between the first nations people and the federal government. But there has been very, very little about Bill C-7. This morning we had a group that made a presentation, and they spent all their time on Bill C-7, which I really and truly appreciated.

I'm going to be very clear in my question, and my question is simple. Although much has been said about this relationship between the feds and the first nations people, no matter what we do to try to improve the situation as we perceive it, a situation has been growing and has been compounded and reinforced by thousands of claims, letters, comments, and interactions by dozens of chiefs and hundreds of people over the years, all of which led to Bill C-7, right? I want to know, why are the chiefs saying this is no good? What is it in Bill C-7 that hurts the chiefs so much but doesn't hurt the people as much? Why is it that individuals are coming before this committee and telling us that the changes have to be made?

But the chiefs don't. They don't want any changes; they don't want Bill C-7, and I want to know why.

Grand Chief Francis Flett: It's not that we don't want changes. We were the very first people who, when we heard this announcement being made, welcomed the changes. And we did welcome them. But the issue is that it became an imposition on us rather than something working with us.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Do you understand me?

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Of course not.

Grand Chief Francis Flett: Well, of course not, and that's the problem you have. You do not understand our language, you do not understand our culture, and you do not understand the codes we have or the laws we've produced in our own language. That's basically what I've just told you. You don't understand me, you don't understand what I'm saying to you, and you don't understand our laws. By imposing a law or a language on a different society and not really understanding their language...is one very important condition for us.

À (1045)

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Chief Flett, are you saying Bill C-7 is a threat to your language, your beliefs, your religion, and so forth?

Grand Chief Francis Flett: Of course it is. If I started imposing things on you today with my language and told you that you had to change things to benefit me, would you--

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Where in Bill C-7 does it say that we're going to destroy all that?

Grand Chief Francis Flett: It will. Our languages have been taken away slowly, right? Do you see any schools in Canada teaching our nation's language?

Mr. Stan Dromisky: There are courses in different schools.

Grand Chief Francis Flett: Okay, but is that a national thing? I don't think it's national.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: No, it's not.

Grand Chief Francis Flett: It's not recognized in the Canadian Constitution, right? Can you tell me that, yes or no?

The Chair: Chief Flett, the members will ask the questions.

Grand Chief Francis Flett: I'm answering, yes, but I also want an answer. I'm just asking a question too.

The Chair: The time is up, and the members are not subject to being questioned.

We'll do another round of three minutes for the NDP. Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

Grand Chief Flett, I think you made it very clear why today we have difficulties between first nations and the Government of Canada.

I'm going to make a bit of a comment first. I'm someone who grew up in a small Saskatchewan community that had a residential school, and I was around aboriginal, first nations people all my life. Yet it's only in the last number of years as an adult I've come to realize some of the real serious issues that were out there for the first nations people and why conditions are what they are.

In considering how we're ever going to see positive change, I've come to realize that we have to accept that first nations people need to be in charge of their own governing processes. They need to be allowed the opportunity to develop their governments, their democracies, the same as white society was allowed to do. And it was white society historically, because Canada has only had Liberal and Conservative governments--and this is not a direct slam, but.... Historically, Canadian governments have imposed things on first nations people. They imposed a refusal to give them the right to vote and imposed a situation where, when Indians went over to war, they came back and no longer had status. Those were things Canada did, and we now have to right the wrongs.

Our Governor General's spouse, John Ralston Saul, said that democracy is not efficient but it works ultimately. It is not efficient, and first nations governments need to be given the opportunity to develop those democracies for the people to become involved. If they want to see change, they need to bring the change, not the Minister of Indian Affairs.

That's how I've come to see things. I may not like everything I see happening in some first nations. I may not like it personally, but bottom line, I'm not the one who should decide for each and every first nation. I know it's not an easy thing for those of us who aren't in a first nation to comprehend, but certainly in the last number of years I've come to recognize that even more.

I just want to give you the opportunity to speak if there's something else you want to add to your presentation.

The Chair: Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Michael Anderson: In terms of what you've raised, Ms. Desjarlais, thank you. What you have raised is that Canada already reflects multiple systems of laws within our structure in recognizing language and culture as a root of law. The example that comes most quickly to mind is, of course, the application of the French civil code in Quebec. That system of governance is reflected in the language, culture, and history of a founding nation of Canada.

What we are talking about with the treaty medal is that the other founding nations of Canada, the first nations, reflect their systems of laws and governance in their own languages, in their own cultures, and in their own manner. That's precisely the danger of FNGA, because the government is imposing those structures of laws without recognition of the existence of sovereign nations at the time of nation building and the entering into treaty.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Elley, you have three minutes.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It looks as if this First Nations Governance Act, like many things that happen with this government, is simply going to be pushed through and will be imposed upon first nations. Do you think, in the event it does happen, that first nations should be given the opportunity--the MKO should be given the opportunity--to hold a binding referendum among your own people to determine whether or not you want to accept this?

À (1050)

Grand Chief Francis Flett: I would certainly welcome something like that, because a lot of our people really need to know what's going on here.

Mr. Reed Elley: So possibly you might welcome an amendment to the present legislation, or something raised in the House, that would push this kind of initiative so that your people have a say in the process.

Grand Chief Francis Flett: Well, of course you know our very first position is to work on the FAI process and to get self-government. But it will have to be determined by our people.

Mr. Reed Elley: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard, you 'll have three minutes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you. Mr. Anderson, you refer to history. If you go back to 1870, we'll say, the province of Manitoba at that time didn't include this territory up north.

Concerning the act of 1876, as my colleague has said, we white people probably look at laws as evolving. We don't look to the past, back to 1066, and say, this is where we started from and this is the way we have to continue. Laws do expand as society progresses.

It's my impression of Bill C-7 that it's merely a set of guidelines. In no way does it attack your culture or your language, because the government is saying, develop your own system of codes—a system that's approved by your people. It says, in terms of how you choose your chiefs, that you may do so by customary methods or you can do it by elected methods. There has to be a period of time when a council and the chiefs are in office.

More importantly, in terms of how some people—and probably even in our audience—see it, there has to be a system of budgeting, of showing your people how your money is used, of accounting to your people in terms of how they see your money being spent;, and hopefully developing a type of relationship with our governments where everyone can benefit to the general good.

Now, in terms of what I said, Mr. Anderson, what part of Bill C-7 do you see attacking culture, and language, and the customs of your people? Could you point out to our members how you have made that concern?

Mr. Michael Anderson: It is the enactment of a series of statutory requirements for the structure of codes—for financial management, for the passage of laws, and for the election of leaders—that has everything to do with affecting language and culture. Canada—Her Majesty—entered into an arrangement with sovereign nations with existing systems of laws. Those systems of laws persist today, if not in written code, then through the language. It is the imposition of statutory definitions and requirements that attacks the very root of first nations law.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Can I ask, then, Mr. Chair, how does the fact that there has to be transparency in finances attack your customary ways of dealing with finances?

The Chair: Rather than allow you to respond to this, because his time is up, we have five minutes—you can go to seven minutes, even, if you want to, because we interrupted—for closing remarks. You can address that question, any other question, or any comments you wish to make, for seven minutes.

Grand Chief Francis Flett: Thank you very much.

I guess I'll start off by talking a little bit about accountability and first nations' accountability on finances. As I have already indicated, 93% of first nations were in compliance with that.

I have also asked some MPs to come to our communities to take a look for themselves at the books of first nations people. We had communities that were willing to open their books to show what kind of accountability our first nations have. In order to see it, they would have to be present.

I think a lot of times, when we look at accountability, we take a look at how things are managed. I think the little bit of money that is given to each community is being managed very well. But the overextended needs of our people, especially in remote communities that are not covered by government....

I'll give you an example of some of the things first nations go through. In the funding of our four diesel communities, we have been paying 80 cents per kilowatt for industrial buildings like the band office, the fire hall, the stores. They've all paid 80 cents. For all regular Manitobans it's 35 cents, and for all residential people in Manitoba it's 65 cents, I think, and then it's a little bit more in these diesel communities.

Now, the government did not fund these communities properly to meet the needs of the power generating station that's providing the power. Automatically our first nations communities go into debt because of that.

The other example I can use is, of course, winter roads. The province expects our first nations to pay for those roads to haul in material for housing and all the needs of those communities. That's another issue. It comes directly out of their own funding. None of this is being covered by anyone.

Then take a look at social assistance. For one gallon of gas it's $10 in Lac Brochet. A little box of Honeycombs is $10. If we could buy those in Winnipeg, what would we be paying? Five potatoes in Red Sucker Lake cost $4.99; for a 50-pound bag in Le Pas or Winnipeg, it's probably about $12.

Now, these chiefs and councils have to address the needs of their people and the underfunding that's provided by government. It's always a big issue and it's going to continue to be an issue in the future. I'm not saying we are abusing the money or that anybody is misusing it. We welcomed the Reform Party to come to take a look at those books, but they elected not to come. When we do these types of things, it's for a purpose: to show the government that there are a lot of problems being created under certain circumstances.

Now, if you understand exactly what I mean, I would welcome each and every one of you to any of our northern communities, to come to live there for one month and see for yourself exactly what's there and what you need to do to survive.

These chiefs and councils are usually the victims of government: they are told they are unable to manage and are put into third-party management. Automatically the government gives the third-party manager $20,000 a month to look after the same money that's been there, without paying for the old debts. It's all there. It's accountability.

À (1055)

If you call us unaccountable, then I have something else to say. When we take a look at our communities and how they're put in the situations they are, the FNGA is not going to improve any of that. It never will, and these are some of the things we have to take a look at.

When you ask about the future if the FNGA is imposed on us, naturally the minister is going to have statutory responsibility to make changes for us as he pleases. These things are not going to change. When you take a look at this video called Wrapped in Plastic, you'll see what I mean. You'll see what the conditions of our people are.

As to the election of chief and council, our people have elected our people all through the years we've been here. It was the government that first came up with the idea of having the chief. We had our leadership in place, and nobody takes that into consideration.

When the minister decides he's going to take a chief out of a community because it's not working properly, he does it. But what does it serve? It doesn't serve the people. He just does things on his own, things he feels are good for us.

When we use our language, we understand each other. When we use a different language, it's something else, it's different. We've been trying to work with your language, the English language, to try to make things work in our community.

You look at the treaty symbol and the shaking of hands. We came here together to build a nation, and that honour is in the Crown and that handshake.

We should seriously take a look at why we need the FNGA. Why do we? It's because we are a big commodity to a lot of people. We are just a commodity. If the Department of Indian Affairs was gone, how many people would be out of a job? How many social workers would be out of a job? How many prisons would be empty today if we used our own language and understood the laws in that language? How many of them?

We would not need Indian Affairs. All we would be doing is having a relationship with the government as nation to nation just the way the picture is, shaking hands and agreeing to make treaty payments to first nations people. That's what needs to happen here.

The FNGA is not going to serve our purposes. I urge you to take a look at that video and see for yourselves the conditions our people live under.

A lot of our people say, well, the chiefs make a lot of money. So do the ministers. They make about $140,000 a year with a big.... They can retire thereafter and continue to get paid for it. The chiefs can't even pay unemployment insurance. They have to look for other ways and means to make a living afterwards.

And you say we're not accountable? If we were accountable, we'd say, let's give our chiefs something to live on after they've finished serving us. But there's nothing there, nothing for our people, yet the government says we're unaccountable.

I just wanted to make those comments about accountability and the elections of our people. We were very capable of electing and putting in place people who took the leadership roles in our communities before anyone else got here.

Thank you very much.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Thank you very much. I thank you for an excellent presentation.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: I now invite, from the Tataskweyak Cree Nation, Chief Norman Flett.

To the people in attendance, we have adopted a practice where at the end of our public hearings we will allow a two-minute presentation from anyone in the room who has never addressed the committee or who is not scheduled to address the committee. If you wish to make a spontaneous two-minute presentation, please register at the table. That will be done at the end of the hearings.

Á (1105)

Mr. Michael Anderson: Mr. Chair, I request the committee's leave to enter our submission as evidence in these proceedings.

The Chair: It's entered automatically, and so is everything you've said. Everything that is being said here today is being recorded, and by telephone lines direct to Ottawa it is being typed as you say it. We want you to know that the presentations you make don't fall on deaf ears, and they're not only for the members who are able to travel.

To our guest, Chief Flett, welcome. We will spend half an hour together, and we invite you to make your presentation, hopefully to be followed by questions.

Chief Norman Flett (Tatasweyak Cree Nation): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairman and members, I welcome this opportunity to share some of the perspectives of Tataskweyak Cree Nation and my members concerning Bill C-7 with members of Parliament. I have with me today Councillor Agnes Smart.

For standing committee members who are unfamiliar with northern Manitoba geography, Tataskweyak Cree Nation is located on the shores of Split Lake, a widening of the Nelson River in the heart of our recognized resource area. The boundaries of our resource area include slightly less than 7% of the territory of Manitoba.

Since time immemorial, Tataskweyak Cree have lived and been sustained in our permanent tribal homelands. Almost 400 years ago our ancestors were present to meet and welcome Henry Hudson. Historians write that our sharing of knowledge and resources allowed these uninvited visitors to survive. Today, in spite of difficulties, we still believe our welcome was the right thing to do.

TCN land and waterways continue to produce great wealth for all citizens. For example, the four hydro generating stations in our resource area produce 75% of all energy in Manitoba.

In 1909 our great-grandfathers adhered to Treaty 5, signifying our agreement to continue to share the wealth of our permanent tribal homelands with new Canadians. But since then, federal and provincial legislation has defined ownership of our lands, waterways, and resources based on the self-serving bet that we have no inherent, ongoing rights within our traditional territory. My people have been denied a fair share of the wealth harvested from the TCN resource area. Parliament and the Manitoba legislature did not negotiate or even consult with us when these laws were passed, laws that disrespect the terms of Treaty 5, which we signed with Her Majesty.

In the mid-1980s my people first elected me to be Tataskweyak chief. Since then members have honoured me by choosing me to hold office as chief more than a few times. However, I must honestly confess that in other elections members have chosen other TCN leaders to exercise the responsibilities of chief. As well, a great many members have been elected to serve as councillors over the intervening years.

I mention these facts to underline that TCN is a thriving democracy, not an unaccountable dictatorship, as responsible first nations governments are labelled so frequently. In common with all democratic nations, the fundamental vision of our people is consistently pursued by our members who are honoured by election as chief and council.

Over the past several decades TCN has experienced dramatic changes, both negative and positive. The developments in our resource area that have been imposed by outsiders and governments, such as past hydro projects, provided very few opportunities and certainly no accountability for our TCN members. Many members, in particular our elders, have not yet recovered from the devastating unexpected effects. The resulting members' mistrust of outsiders will continue to cloud and complicate TCN's external relationships for many years even if no further impositions occur.

Á (1110)

But I do not ask to appear before your committee to dwell on or complain about the bad things that Tataskweyak members have experienced. Rather, I have come to explain that successive TCN chiefs and councils have made notable progress to meet the objectives of our members, with members' unwavering support and openly accounting for both successes and failures.

At the risk of being accused of boasting about my steadfast members, I will highlight several of our accomplishments. In 1975, TCN, with four other affected Cree nations, created the northern flood committee, our own institution that enabled our first nations, for the first time in Manitoba, to require the governments and hydro to negotiate the terms under which new projects, using our respective lands and waters, would be built.

In 1977, the NFC finalized the northern flood agreement to protect and advance our respective first nations interests. In early 1978, the NFA was ratified by a majority vote of the members in all five nations.

In 1988, with another FNCA nation, TCN reached an agreement with Canada to implement article 6 of the NFA, bringing reliable potable water to our people. Working together, our five nations set up the NFCRA, our own project management institution, which guided the completion of the overall $88 million project that was then the largest ever first nations capital expenditure, on budget and on time.

In 1992, TCN became the first NFA Cree Nation to conclude an NFA implementation agreement securing the means to meet all NFA obligations under TCN control, including rigorous accountability to members as the central feature.

In 1998, members directed chief and council to explore the potential to become a partner with hydro in the planned Keeyask project. In spring of 1999, as directed by our members, I became the very first chief to publicly defend such a potential business partnership with the hydro company.

In May 2000 this unprecedented TCN initiative resulted in our agreement in principle, approved by a members' referendum. This AIP was signed with Manitoba Hydro in October of the year 2000.

I believe that TCN can justifiably take pride in these steps toward reconstructing our self-reliance and social economic sustainability. Every day I observe the increasing hope and confidence of our youth looking into the future. Our progress has neither been imposed nor has it been a generous gift. Rather, we have chosen the path to follow.

We have pressed on in the face of adversity. We have negotiated shrewdly, as equals. In all circumstances, trust of and reliance on our members' wisdom, decisions, and support has been the cornerstone of our winning.

Accountability to our members by chief and council, trustees, board members of TCN, government institutions, and senior TCN officials is direct, open, and regular, no matter the personal stresses and tensions that likely all of you as members of Parliament have shared.

Monthly general meetings in Split Lake are open to all members, a tradition passed down to us from the governance practices of many generations. Each member can speak and has the right to introduce subjects of concern and receive immediate answers.

Meetings of chief and council, trustees, and the boards of TCN institutions are open to any interested member unless confidential, personal or commercial matters are being considered.

Á (1115)

Annually, comprehensive audits addressing all TCN expenditures are completed and provided for the information of TCN members, including the amount of money paid to the chief, each counsellor, and every board member and senior official. The reason for any amount of TCN expenditure on all outside advisers is reported and perhaps, needless to say, debated.

Tataskweyak peacekeepers are elected. Their responsibilities are to assure public safety, enforce the standards of acceptable community conduct set by members, and to ensure officials respect accountability requirements. Peacekeepers are funded primarily with our own money and continue another traditional governance practice. The peacekeepers supervise established TCN electoral procedures, including the formal public transfer of governance authority.

TCN officials, from the most senior to the most junior levels, will have been appointed to be responsible for the everyday business of our nation and to form a continuing public service that remains in place, no matter the election results.

I have heard Minister Nault say that Bill C-7, the proposed legislation that the standing committee is now considering, is designed to assist in improving the quality of life of first nations members. I have great difficulty accepting this claim at face value.

I must tell you frankly that I have spent very little time studying the provisions of this bill. However, the advice I have received is that the content of this statute is relatively uncontroversial. The subjects addressed are such matters as election codes, the terms and conditions of fiscal transfers, and accountability arrangements. I must state, however, that the government's legislation proposing a one-size-fits-all approach is of doubtful merit.

The reason the bill is not a priority for me is that TCN members view it as just another attempted imposition, nothing more than a continuation of the attitude and the experience that outsiders know better than us what is best.

Members of Tataskweyak are quite aware that remaining under the Indian Act is not the best path forward. The Indian Act does not provide a framework to realize the visions of TCN members, of strengthening our community and preparing for self-reliance and the sustainable future we seek.

Our experience has demonstrated that our patient, unprotesting acceptance of imposed requirements will never point the way along a viable and practicable path to the future. If TCN complies with the proposals in your law, it will be a matter of chance.

Perhaps TCN will be found to be in default, according to the provisions of this statute the government intends to enact. TCN's policies and governance practices may comply with the act, if it becomes law. Who knows, maybe TCN will have an exemplary pin-up model used by Indian Affairs to exhort compliance by other first nations.

Nevertheless, even if that is the result, I assure you, based on the deep knowledge I have of my people, such an end would also be the product of inadvertence rather than deliberation.

Members of the Tataskweyak Cree Nation yearn for radically changed external relationships marked by a quality recognition of autonomous rights and mutual respect, as partners shared with respective interests and objectives.

Tataskweyak may be seen as an evolving government, compared with the Government of Canada or the province. Certainly, we have only been in the business of governing, according to the white man's definition, for fewer than four decades, following the many centuries that were described as the period of military occupation of Indian lands.

Á (1120)

Nevertheless, no one should discount what we have learned. Most importantly, our experience has taught us that we must never kneel to others' dictates. The TCN will never bow down to impositions from outside. Tataskweyak have now understood that negotiation among equal parties is the only practical way to reach our goals, to see our members' collective vision return to reality.

TCN members have learned that in any such negotiation, perfection is the enemy of the good. Difficult compromises are required to reach agreements that fairly accommodate the parties' respective interests and objectives. The proven track record of my nation is that our members will make such compromises after careful consideration of all required information.

After the past two decades or more, I trust, as do my members, that we will steadfastly refuse orders, whether such commands are statutory or rooted in the perceived power or advantage. In view of the Tataskweyak experience, I have no choice but to ask the members of your committee, with all due respect, why the direction contemplated in this legislation is being taken.

Good governance cannot be imposed. It must be defined and grown autonomously by members to suit the purposes of the respective first nations.

My last words are to urge the committee as persuasively as I can to recommend the proposed act be dropped entirely. The legislation is contrary to the constructive first nations-Canada relationship. The government's proposed law will result--other than by fortuitous chance--within very few years in Tataskweyak and other first nations being relegated to the status of lawbreakers by descendants of our uninvited visitors.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have just enough time for a four-minute round.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to set the record straight on a closing remark that was made in the MKO presentation previously. I think it's very important for us to make sure we have accurate reflections of what took place.

I would like to say that on two separate occasions, proposed trips to the MKO first nations by the Canadian Alliance leadership were cancelled by phone calls from the MKO leadership itself saying it was not a convenient time for us to go. I'm sure I speak for all the members of this committee that we would be prepared and willing to go to any first nation to see exactly the progress and the concerns you have about your people.

Now, I want to thank you very much, Chief Flett, for coming and sharing with us this morning. It's obvious that as you have polled your members and listened to their concerns about this, you feel you cannot support the First Nations Governance Act.

I just wondered if in those consultations you had any contact with Indian Affairs about this bill. Did they provide consultations with you, or did you take advantage of any of those consultations?

Chief Norman Flett: Not probably to the full extent you think. But to go back to what I said, our people decide what's best for our community. I have always said that, and we abide by what our people say. That's why in my presentation we say we meet on a regular basis--a minimum of about once a month, and probably more on the average of three times a month--to handle any issues we have to deal with at the community level. I'm talking about major issues.

Mr. Reed Elley: Right.

Well, certainly, as you described the history of your peoples and what you have already in place, it seems to me--and I don't want to put words into your mouth--you feel you already have in place governance models that do not need to be put into legislation, as the FNGA seems to indicate.

Chief Norman Flett: That's what my people believe, and that's what we'll continue to do. We feel that's the direction of our community, of our elders in the community, and the history of our community.

Mr. Reed Elley: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Chief.

I guess Grand Chief Francis Flett made it clear that the interests of the people in this area, the MKO region at least, are in following through with the framework agreement initiative, after having many years invested in it already and much progress having been made. They would like to concentrate on steps toward true self-governance and not be waylaid by going the route of the FNGA.

Is it the view of the people of Split Lake or TCN that the first priority is to finish the job with the framework agreement and get out from under the Indian Act altogether?

Á (1125)

Chief Norman Flett: Again, I have to keep going back to the direction of our people. Of course, we're not satisfied with the Indian Act or anything that's been basically viewed as being legislated. I think we're being studied to death. I think our people have had enough of that, that we can do our own thing, and we see this as more legislation that's going to restrict us.

I suppose there is so much mistrust out there in our first nations. I'm talking especially about TCN, from the dealings we've had with government not only in the past but today. Governments have agreements with us, and they turn around the next day--basically I'm talking about timeframes here--completely not honouring some of the things they've agreed to with first nations. I'm very general here in my comments, but things haven't changed.

Mr. Pat Martin: There was a major paper written by the Harvard institute on self-governance that studied first nations governance in the United States, and they made the point that introducing governance codes without true sovereignty is about as useless as having sovereignty without good governance. In other words, the cart is going in front of the horse here, and the real issue is true, sovereign self-governance first, and then the governance codes, etc.

Would you view the FNGA as trying to impose codes of governance when you don't have sovereignty in place yet?

Chief Norman Flett: That's one of the difficulties TCN is experiencing, that you're doing things backwards.

Mr. Pat Martin: Ass backwards, I'd say.

Chief Norman Flett: I was trying to be polite.

The Chair: Ms. Neville.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you, Chief Flett, for your presentation. I'm very much aware that Tataskweyak First Nation is a very well run, well grounded, very progressive community, and you are meeting the needs of your community.

We've heard a lot about the Manitoba framework agreement. I want to know if that has affected, in any way, how you operate in your community. I've heard your comments about lack of trust and your concern about the imposition of rules and authorities on you and your people, but I'd also like some concrete examples of how the First Nations Governance Act would affect you.

Those are my two questions: How are you operating under the framework agreement, and do you have any concrete examples on the First Nations Governance Act?

Chief Norman Flett: I think the only comment I can make in this respect is that the way TCN has proceeded in the past several years is that we will determine what's best for us. That's why I think we say that in some cases there are policies or whatever that they're trying to impose on us.

Sure, we look at those. But we still do not sway from our view of what TCN members want. If some of those policies fit in to what we're trying to do, that's great. But ultimately, we still think, and we still believe today and will continue to believe, that we never gave up our right to govern ourselves.

Despite all these policies and legislation issues that have been dealt with, we will continue to operate the way our people tell us to. In a lot of cases, we have basically fit in with some policies and there are some where we haven't.

But we still continued on the understanding that we'd never give any rights away. We choose not to ignore the treaties, for example. Resource sharing is another example. And we're actively pursuing all those activities on the direction, again, of our people.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have a few minutes for closing remarks. We invite you to make those if you have any.

Chief Norman Flett: No, I don't have any.

The Chair: I thank you very much for your excellent presentation.

I invite to the table from the Pimicikamak Okimawin, Thomas Monias, secretary to the councils, and Vice-Chief William Osborne, executive council member.

We have 30 minutes together. We invite you to make a presentation, which we hope will be followed with sufficient time for questions. You may proceed.

Vice-Chief William Osborne (Executive Council Member, Pimicikamak Okimawin): If I may, Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I'd like to say something in my own language.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Good morning. I welcome the people who are present here today. The most important people in our territory are here to listen and to observe what's going on. Welcome to Treaty 5 territory.

My name is William Osborne. I am the vice-chief and the member of the executive council of Pimicikamak responsible for intergovernmental affairs. With me is Mr. Thomas Monias, who is the secretary to the councils of Pimicikamak. He is the keeper of our written laws and the intermediary or the interpreter, you might say, between our culture and yours. Our national policy is determined by four councils of Pimicikamak.

Mr. Monias and I are here to speak to you on behalf of the Pimicikamak. I would like you to underline this as well. I'll repeat it: Mr. Monias and I are here to speak to you on behalf of the Pimicikamak.

I believe you have also received a written submission from Chief Tom Miswagon. I will refer to some of the documents enclosed. Chief Miswagon is the chief of the nation under our law, including the Pimicikamak election law, which I believe you received a copy of. He is also the ex-officio chief of the Cross Lake Band, while I am an ex-officio member of the band council.

Of course, the band is a creation of the Indian Act, and so are the offices of the chief and council. Under our traditional constitution, which enabled us to survive as a strong and self-sufficient people for thousands of years, we had no chief and no such council. We were governed by two councils, which would be called the councils of fire in your language. These two councils were the women's council and the council of elders. The women's council ran our camps and our communities, while our lawgivers, our lawyers, were the council of elders.

Today these two councils are again finding their roles in our national life and are struggling to catch up after more than a century of suppression of our culture, children, language, and way of life.

Á (1135)

They work together with two new councils, the youth council and the executive council. The youth council represents the future of our people. More than a decade ago our people awoke as if from a nightmare and they came to realize that despite abuse, oppression, and the environmental and spiritual destruction we have experienced since 1975 from a hydroelectic megaproject, we could make a future with our children if we worked together.

It is not easy. We are oppressed every day by the arbitrary paternalism of the Indian Act and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, which oversees the band's efforts to administer the terms of its own poverty. Our beautiful homeland has been turned into an environmental slum for the profit and benefit of others.

Respected members of the standing committee, if this was about your life and your children, and their future was at stake, what would you do? While you think about this, I want to say a few words about what we are doing.

We have identified a national objective. Our national objective is to heal our land, heal our people, and heal our nation. With help from many friends we are making progress. We are working with Manitoba on a government-to-government basis. Slowly, we are finding ways to work with Manitoba Hydro, even as they seek to build more dams. We have found friends and help in Manitoba and in the United States, caring individuals, concerned groups and organizations, universities and legislators, and even a giant energy corporation. Regrettably, I must report to you that to date we have found few friends and little help in Ottawa.

By virtue of Treaty 5 and Treaty 12 we have a nation-to-nation relationship with Canada and we should have a government-to-government relationship. Our experience is that Canada has turned its back on our nation, and its government has no respect for other governments and does what it can to destroy.

Because time is short today, I will focus on three subjects and their relationship with the kind of legislation you are studying. These are governance reforms, environmental cleanup, and economic development.

The Pimicikamak has already accomplished most of the governance reforms that the minister has identified as the basis for the governance act. Last April, the chief of the nation wrote to the minister about this. I assume that the minister will have made a copy of this letter available to the committee. The minister acknowledged receipt of this letter but did not reply.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and this department have been the main, and indeed almost the only, opponents of our governance reforms. We have made more progress since the letter was written to the minster, but I suggest that you read the letter carefully. Our people have a lot of practical and successful on-the-ground experience in governance reforms. Why was the minister not interested?

Á (1140)

These reforms arise directly from our people's desire for better government than the Indian Act allows. Why does the minister oppose them?

I suggest that the reason may be that our reforms come from our people, not from his bureaucracy. I do not know for sure what the minister wants, but I am sure what the bureaucracy wants. Its objective has not changed in the last century. It does not want better governance by our people. It wants more control of our people.

The governance act serves this objective. It will tend to perpetuate the enforced dependency of indigenous peoples in Canada. I do not fear for my people. The Pimicikamak grows stronger every day. The reforms it has accomplished so far include constitutional reforms, written laws, national policies, and administrative improvements.

In speaking of these reforms, I want to acknowledge the work of the band administration. The band administration continues to affect the lives of many Pimicikamak citizens. I expect this will continue indefinitely. With guidance from Pimicikamak national policy, the band administration has achieved many reforms. Administrative reforms may seem less visible, but they are often closest to the lives of many people.

Many indigenous people in Canada live amidst third world corruption. The reason is the combination of poverty amidst wealth, where large amounts of money are handled with arbitrary power. The flow of money through the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is a great corrupting influence in the lives of aboriginal people.

Despite this influence, the Cross Lake Band administration has in four years turned back from the brink of third-party administration to almost complete recovery. I am told that this is the only such complete turnaround in Canada. This could not have been achieved without Pimicikamak, which provides a foundation of transparent, accountable democratic government. Pimicikamak, through its laws and national policy, oversees the de-politicization of band program administration.

This is happening because for Pimicikamak citizens their own laws are paramount over the Indian Act. Neither the Indian Act nor the proposed new legislation meets the standards we are striving for and achieving despite the organized opposition of the minister, the machinations of his personal representative, Dr. Jerry Bartram, and the arbitrary power of his department.

We plan to do better yet. For example, you have seen our draft financial administration policy. Under the guidance of the four councils, a national policy of this kind is intended to be the precursor for a Pimicikamak financial administration law. This too will be only the beginning. We expect that our children and their children will travel farther than we can see.

To the minister and his new colonial legislation, we say if you won't help us, get out of our way. Thank you.

Á (1145)

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

My job as chair is to clarify things and I will clarify one thing. You refer to committee members as being important. We do our work in the house of common people. I've been there ten years and I haven't see anybody there more important than anybody in this room. That's my clarification.

Did you wish to add to the presentation?

Mr. Thomas Monias (Secretary to the Councils, Pimicikamak Okimawin): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to be a little more specific on the general statements as the ex officio band council and executive council member of the Pimicikamak Okimawin government.

What is the Pimicikamak? The Pimicikamak is a sovereign indigenous nation. It has a treaty relationship with Canada. Its traditional territory lies north of Lake Winnipeg. It has some 6,000 citizens, and most of them reside in this territory. The Pimicikamak is not a band or a first nation. It has its own constitution, government, laws, and national policies based on self-determination, which were never surrendered or lawfully extinguished.

Its modern-day government, Pimicikamak Okimawin, has four councils: the council of elders and the women's council, which have together governed this people since time immemorial; the youth council; and an executive council. Under the traditional constitution, each council is a master of its own procedure.

Pimicikamak Okimawin has a close but sometimes difficult relationship with the Cross Lake Band. For the time being, the Pimicikamak executive council also serves ex officio as the council of the band, and it instituted major reforms in band governance long before the First Nations Governance Act.

Like other indigenous nations in Canada, Pimicikamak has a body of traditional and customary laws that in our experience have been mostly ignored by those with whom we made treaty. Part of the reason for this may be that this law is oral and is expressed in our language.

In 1990 this experience led to a growing determination to express certain Pimicikamak laws in writing in English so they might be more easily made known and more widely respected. This first customary written law is called “The First Written Law”, and a copy is enclosed in our submission to the standing committee. It recorded in writing the process deemed appropriate for making such laws in writing.

In brief, written laws require formal proposal by the executive council with the support of 75% plus the chief of the nation; approval by consensus of the council of elders and the women's council; and acceptance by consensus of a special assembly of citizens. The process of developing a written law is grassroots-driven and highly consultative.

The written Pimicikamak election law, of which you have a copy, provides for election of the executive council. It provides for a maximum term of five years, and either the chief of the nation or the three traditional councils by consensus can call an earlier election. In this way, national policy established by the four councils--a single body acting by consensus--is effectively binding on the executive council, which exercises the entire executive authority of the nation.

On governance reforms, our people's revival of their own government was driven in part by the same concerns for reform that underlie the governance act. But they were also driven by the realization that the Indian Act and what the minister and the Department of Indian Affairs do under the act, combined with a massive hydro-electric development in our traditional territory, threaten to extinguish us as a people.

In 1999 the first election under the election law completed the first round of grassroots-driven reforms to modernize the traditional government. About 77% of resident electors and many non-resident electors voted. This is a far higher level of participation than we have ever experienced in a band election. A copy of the independent election observer's report and related reports are attached for your information.

Á (1150)

Through five written laws, national policy, and administrative matters, we have completed nearly all the reforms that the minister seeks to impose on first nations through the governance act. The four councils are currently considering a draft national policy on financial administration. You also have a copy of that.

Pimicikamak Okimawin does not see these reforms as a blueprint for other indigenous nations that have their own traditions and circumstances to follow. But it does see them as a demonstration that indigenous peoples can revive the self-governments they once exercised, and these can be good governments if they can manage to overcome the obstructions of the Department of Indian Affairs.

Although the reforms we have instituted are entirely consistent with those the minister says he seeks through the governance act, the minister and his department have fought them every inch of the way and continue to do so to this day.

What is right and what is wrong with the governance act? That's one of the questions someone asked one of the chiefs here. It is difficult to seriously question the need for reform, and few do so. The issue is what reform will work and what happens if it doesn't work. Pimicikamak is not the only indigenous nation that is on the brink of extinguishment through the series of often well-meaning but tragically misguided experiments that indigenous people have been subjected to by Canada's evolving mix of colonialism and paternalism.

Pimicikamak does not believe that self-government can be imposed. Self-government must be respected by the governed, and this can only be expected when the government is its own and when the “self” in self-government is present from the beginning. For this reason the governance act, no matter how well motivated it may be, is a potentially tragic mistake in a long line of tragic mistakes that have brought Canada's once proud and self-sufficient indigenous people to their present condition.

The big difference between what Pimicikamak is doing and what the governance act sets out to do is that our self-government is our own. Our people have reasserted their right to make their own way and to be responsible for their own experience in their own future.

If our experience is a guide, the problem with self-government of indigenous peoples in Canada is not that they cannot govern themselves; it is that their capacity to govern themselves has been and continues to be deliberately and systematically destroyed. The band system established by the Indian Act and reinforced by the governance act is an integral aspect of that destruction, which Minister Jane Stewart called disaggregation, and then apologized for, while it continued unchecked.

That's what the Pimicikamak say about the governance act. We're there already. If Pimicikamak need help from Canada...we are able to prove a point that we are able to govern ourselves, without being imposed on by somebody else down in Ottawa, somewhere in the office, who doesn't have the slightest idea who we are, what we want, or where we're going.

We don't believe it was a proud day when the finance minister announced $2 billion of handout money to indigenous peoples. We believe in sharing the land and what comes from that land so that we don't continue to line up at the welfare office and eat up the $2 billion. Our people have suffered indignities.

We believe in self-sufficiency. We believe we can stand up if you allow us to stand up. Don't give us imposing legislation that comes from somewhere else, like the standing committee trying to prove the point in consultation. Consultation to Pimicikamak is completely different: it's wide; it's grassroots-driven.

Á (1155)

One question was asked: what do chiefs want? It is not the chiefs who decide what we want. It is the people—for the people and by the people. That is called self-determination.

As a matter of fact, Canada ratified an international convention that says in article 1 that all peoples have the right to self-determination—to establish their own governments, their institutions, their own laws.

That is the question today. It's about accountability to this process: the standing committee from Ottawa, who don't have the slightest idea where we live, what we do out there, who we are.

As a matter of fact, you just know me because my name is on this paper. That's how isolated we are in terms of a relationship between us. I think the Minister of Indian Affairs should take time to explain to his Canadians that we—that you—do have a treaty relationship. You have a treaty with us. That is the reason why you're sitting here at peace with us—because you have a treaty.

That is the important part of self-determination. It has nothing to do with self-government. Self-determination is an international, fundamental, human right. If you take that away from us, then where do we report it? To the Parliament?

I was very appalled when some grassroots people showed up here with their signs—grassroots people who have beliefs about who they are and what they want as self-determining people making their own determination as human beings. And somewhere, in a parliament, there is a rule being made regarding not having it in this community, in this hall.

This is not an example of democratic principles. In the Constitution of 1982 there is something called freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to express what you think is wrong and what you think is right. People got sent out of here with their cards saying they're against the FNGA. Tell me if that is a democratic decision. Or is it strictly self-imposed regulations, by the First Nations Governance Act, or by the standing committee? These are the questions that need to be answered by you people. What is it?

Thank you very much.

The Chair: First of all, I will correct what you said. Those people were not sent out. We asked that they take the signs out. They cooperated. They were very nice about it and they cooperated.

It's not a ruling I invented. It's a ruling that's been around for years. It's in the books at five different places, and it's about decorum. This is an extension of the House of Commons. What goes on here tries to reflect what goes on in the House of Commons. Courts of law, even churches—we don't go there with signs. That's why we made that decision.

Â (1200)

Mr. Thomas Monias: Mr. Chairman, you just proved the point I just made.

The Chair: I'm not here to debate with you. We've—

Mr. Thomas Monias: Again you just proved the point.

The Chair: Our time has expired. We asked you to make a five-minute presentation and you made a 29-minute presentation. That's fine. We thank you very much for it. There will not be time for questions.

Thank you very much.

I now invite, from the Opaskwayak Cree Nation, Chief Frank Whitehead, and D.G. Valdron, in-house legal counsel. Approach the bench, please—not approach the bench; approach the table.

Again, we have 30 minutes together. You have been asked to make a five-minute presentation. We invite you to make a presentation hopefully allowing time for questions.

Who will lead?

Mr. D. G. Valdron (In-House Legal Counsel, Opaskwayak Cree Nation): The chief will lead. Let me just ask if you have received our written presentation. It was translated into both languages. Do you have it?

The Chair: It will be put on record, in addition to what you are saying. It will be distributed to all members of the committee, even those who are not here.

I have a comment before we start, about our not knowing where you people live. This committee will not finalize the decisions on Bill C-7; the House of Commons will. There are 301 members of Parliament, and each and every first nations community has a member of Parliament who has input in the House of Commons on the decisions about this bill.

It's true I don't know your community—I do know many communities of first nations—but your MP does, and it's that person's responsibility to bring your concerns to the House.

The clock will start now.

Mr. D. G. Valdron: Thank you very much.

In our written submission we actually make a point of explaining who we are and where we are from.

Your Honour?

Chief Frank Whitehead (Opaskwayak Cree Nation): Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, the members of the committee, Hon. Member Bev Desjarlais, and members of the public.

Thank you for allowing us this brief moment in time to express some of our concerns and some of our aspirations in terms of the government initiatives to enhance the quality of life for our first nations peoples.

I want to concentrate on the Opaskwayak Cree Nation because we feel we have come a long way in the last 30 years in terms of developing our own systems for good governance, and we feel that some of those institutions that we have developed since that time...we need to express to the committee here and to the public at large as well.

Over the past 30 years the Opaskwayak Cree Nation has developed an unparalleled record, both for economic development and for implementing good governance in our community on our reserve. We are a northern Manitoban nation of 4,000 members.

Over the last 30 years we have worked unceasingly to build dignity and self-sufficiency for our people. We have one of the most sophisticated administrative structures among first nations. Our economic activities include a mall that is, at this point in time, 100% occupied.

There was a story behind that as well, because we had the experience of some adversity in developing that economic venture in our community, but we overcame that. As well, we had problems with other initiatives in the community, but we overcame all of those.

We host in our home community the Aseneskak Casino. We are partners to other first nation members within our tribal district. We have a hotel commonly referred to as “the jewel of the north”. It's a very nice hotel and we provide a number one service to customers.

We have also one of the busiest, if not the busiest, gas stations in western Canada, and there is a story behind that as well. You can put up a gas station anywhere, but the return on investment is entirely up to how much you want to put into the venture.

We also have a grocery store that has close to $30 million a year in terms of sales. We provide services to the entire region. We have other businesses that not only provide services to our membership but also to the region as well. The reason I mention that is because we contribute not only to the development of our community but we also contribute to the overall regional economic well-being and stability.

I would like to say that we are a success story and we are experts in good governance. We have well over 30 years of developing our systems. Sometimes we learn by mistake, but we in turn develop new and better systems that reflect the current and future needs of our community and of our government. We are also quite expert in the area of accountability and transparency, because we live it every day, and, quite frankly, we have fought and worked hard for it for decades.

Â (1205)

Because of our experience and knowledge of both the practical issues and the fundamental principles underlying good governance, we feel we are uniquely qualified to provide you with our assessment of the proposed legislation.

We are in support of the principles of good governance, transparency, accountability, and democracy that have inspired Bill C-7; unfortunately, we find that much of this bill will simply be costly and irrelevant to most of the first nations. Rather than offering substantive improvements, it is merely a fashion-driven initiative. It ignores first nations' real priorities in favour of cosmetic alterations that in many cases will make things worse.

I want to be very frank with this committee. We feel there is merit in what we are trying to do to enhance first nations livelihood. But with any proposed legislation, there are always some issues that need to be addressed, that need to be brought forward, and may require some changes in the process before the final document is presented to the House of Commons.

We are dividing our comments into two categories covering five key sections, and one of them is identifying and proposing remedies for defects within the proposed legislation. At the same time, we want to provide information in terms of some other issues, matters requiring vital attention that are not recognized in the proposed legislation. It's something we have to relay our concerns about with this committee, and hopefully you will relay the same to your colleagues in Ottawa.

With respect to our review of defects within the proposed legislation, we have taken a cautious, technical approach, avoiding political interpretations, simply looking at the act as a practical working document and evaluating its costs and consequences. There are many areas in which this act could be easily improved. We feel the sloppy and inept draftsmanship can be identified and remedied.

As I said, I want to be frank. I want to be truthful about our presentation. We feel with joint partnership and joint initiative we could have come up with a document that would have better suited the needs of our community especially.

Many concepts, such as the minister's remedial powers, timelines for codes, provisions for regulations, provisions for an independent mediator, and provisions for laws, are poorly articulated or poorly thought out, with an apparent lack of regard for the implications or consequences.

We are extremely concerned at the failure to assess the costs of this act, to assess such costs diligently, to share such assessments and the assumptions they are to be founded on, or to identify adequate new funding, because our first nations are, at best, underfunded on an annual basis.

So this really is alarming for us to have to find new moneys, dig from one pocket and put into the other pocket in the same pair of pants. To promote good governance and good systems, we are going to need resources.

The fiscal issues raised by the governance act are critical and simply have not been addressed adequately. In our view, this act could have benefited greatly from detailed input from competent legal counsel, certified accounting professionals, and persons with practical expertise in governance issues. It is not at all clear from the text that any of these had input.

Â (1210)

In fact, despite its objectives, provisions of this act will dramatically inhibit the capacity of first nations to work on behalf of their people, derogate from good governance, and subject first nations to arbitrary and capricious exercises of power without adequate remedies.

We have identified a series of critical issues that we feel must be addressed if the proposed governance act is to have minimal credibility, and we've suggested specific remedies. We hope the committee will give each one careful attention and make crucial amendments to the bill.

We have also identified a series of issues central to core areas of band governance. Economic development is one; membership, education, and health are others. These issues have been identified time and time again as priority issues for first nations, even beyond the matters covered in the governance act.

These issues are inextricably entwined with governance to the extent that we feel compelled to bring them to the attention of the committee and make specific suggestions for remedy as follows.

We have recommended, for instance, that the governance act confer upon corporations owned directly, indirectly, or jointly by first nations the same tax-exempt status enjoyed by first nations and conferred upon municipal corporations, crown corporations, and various corporations and agencies pursuing public objectives.

We have recommended the governance act resolve the long-standing defects of Bill C-31, amending the Indian Act by introducing a further amendment to remove section 6.2 classification and confer 6.1 status all on all persons currently deemed 6.2.

We have recommended a critical transfer of jurisdiction over education from the minister to local first nations, consistent with a local control of education off reserve. And in recognition of the other failure of Canada with respect to first nations education to date, we have recommended the enactment and commitment to funding of enforceable legal standards for first nations health, which should not be subject to arbitrary policy formulation.

Opaskwayak Cree Nation has never seen the Government of Canada as either an adversary or a master. Rather, we have always seen Canada as a partner in the fight to help our people. We have not come here to attack, but rather to assist. The draft legislation in its current form is completely inadequate by any reasonable standards acceptable in the world of business or between governments.

For us that's an important statement to make, because we are in an era where we are going into partnership with the corporate community in terms of helping us develop a sustainable community. For the business world to do business with us on an equal-to-equal basis, we have to have legislation that recognizes us in terms of having jurisdiction over our nation, our lands, and our resources.

Drastic revisions are required to make this an effective document that will enhance the lives of first nations peoples. We hope Canada will recognize our wealth of practical knowledge and experience and accept and incorporate our wise counsel and suggestions.

I just want to say it's important to understand where we're coming from. Just over 30 years ago, maybe 40 years now, we started an ambitious journey toward independence. Our model, Nakanotawinek Tipanimisowin, translated into English means taking the leadership role toward being independent. One of the ways of becoming independent in our understanding is to be economically self-sufficient. To this end we have taken great steps to develop our community--our businesses that support our institutions within our community.

Â (1215)

We are not afraid of change and never have been. We continue to plan for change. When you go into our community, you will find that the setup we have is quite different from that of other first nations communities--those in western Canada anyway.

One of the communities from Saskatchewan was having a meeting in our hotel, for example, and a woman wanted to know where the reserve was. I just pointed out, well, you're sitting right in the reserve. This can't be, she said. Well, it is.

I think that's a statement of where we're going in terms of progress and independence. We have taken great steps to ensure community sustainability. Right now we're in the planning process for a major initiative that will even take us a step further into the future of economic sustainability.

There's an industrial park, for example, and a composite technical high school that will support the social and economic initiatives in our community, including private entrepreneurship initiatives. Small business is essential to the development of community sustainability.

Mr. Chair and committee members, we feel that what we have to offer in terms of suggestions for the proposed bill, in terms of making amendments or alterations to Bill C-7, requires attention on your part; it requires that you read over our submissions very diligently and carefully. We feel that we have a very important contribution to make in terms of future legislative changes in Canada affecting first nations peoples.

With that, Mr. Chair, I just want to say thank you for this opportunity.

Our legal counsel is with me here to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much for the excellent presentation.

We have time for one four-minute round. Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I must say that I find this very refreshing. This is kind of unique for us in terms of presentations before this committee. I am not particularly putting anybody else down, but to have somebody come and actually give us their interpretations of this bill and suggestions for changes that would make it better is very refreshing.

We may not agree with everything you have to say, but the fact that you want to engage in this dialogue is very important, because nothing good ever comes if we don't sit down to dialogue and talk about these issues.

Of course, one of the criticisms we've heard of the First Nations Governance Act is about the consultation process, that in the two years leading up to the emergence of this bill people were not adequately consulted and that first nations had very little input into that.

I would be very interested to know if you feel we could step back from this process at this point and sit down in such a way with the first nations across the country so as to incorporate the kinds of suggestions you make here to better this. Can you do that, or do we have to simply scrap the whole thing and start afresh?

Â (1220)

Mr. D. G. Valdron: I think the principles that were set out in the governance act--accountability, transparency, and good governance--are principles that every first nation in this country upholds and is perfectly for. In that sense I'm not going to talk about the consultation process that's taken place; I'll only note that it's been controversial, and that in itself is a problem.

To the extent the consultation process has any merit, I think the consensus that came out of the country was that, yes, we want good governance and we want accountability; it's not rocket science. Now, there is a gap between that kind of national consensus among first nations and the document that came out of it, this document right here.

I'll be honest. I was shocked to read it and shocked to read it carefully, to look through and find how many spots, how many points, at which it just didn't seem to be well thought through, where basic concepts were not articulated. There were profound issues that were being raised with no awareness of how the consequences would play out in the communities.

The disconnect was probably not in the consultation process. I don't think if you go back to the consultation process anybody out there was saying to you, we need, say, accountability according to A, B, C, or D, as set out in a clause. Instead, you got the feedback, for better or for worse, depending on...and it was a controversial process. But you took that feedback, it was given to the minister's bureaucrats or whoever, and they produced a document they felt represented those fundamental commitments.

What I'm saying to you, what OCN is saying to you, is that the document does not necessarily represent those fundamental principles. All we're saying to you is that really, your job as a committee is not to act as the minister's yes man. In fact, the minister answers to you. You are Parliament.

The Chair: I'll interrupt now because the time is up.

This is not a committee of the minister, the Prime Minister, or the government; it's a committee of Parliament. That's who we answer to, under Peter Milliken.

Ms. Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you, and I want to thank you for the presentation.

I think it's abundantly clear this morning from the presentations and again from the one from Opaskwayak Cree Nation that each first nation believes it has the autonomy to make decisions for itself. Each first nation is quite willing and always has been willing to be held accountable and doesn't take issue with ensuring accountability for its citizens.

Opaskwayak Cree Nation, as a member nation of MKO, has indicated their thoughts on what changes should be here. When MKO made the presentation, one of their key recommendations was that ideally we should just get rid of the First Nations Governance Act because it's not really going to improve the conditions of first nations and it quite frankly infringes on the framework agreement initiative. Would that be OCN's position as well, that the FAI was a far better process to be working with and that you had already worked along those lines?

Â (1225)

Chief Frank Whitehead: The FAI process, I think, was very specific in terms of where we were going with jurisdiction over our lands and our resources and our lives.

I think what you have been hearing over the past two months or so is statements from first nations regarding one common understanding and one common objective. That statement is for us to have total control over our lives and be masters of our own destiny. In order to have it, of course, we need to have legislation that empowers our first nations to achieve the fundamental objectives of self-government. The FAI process reflected those 16 principles that were stated.

We feel also that whatever change is presented before us, it has always been the position of OCN to look at it very carefully, to examine it in detail, and to respond to it in a responsible manner, in terms that it has its merits and its shortfalls. We want to address those shortfalls to ensure the issues are addressed before we implement or enact such legislation that will impact our lives in the community.

The Chair: You have 45 seconds left.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: My colleague across the table indicated the need for financial responsibility. I was at a committee meeting where the Auditor General made it very clear that she did not need the First Nations Governance Act to ensure first nations accountability; that first nations have always been open with their books as far as accountability is concerned, even though they had no legal requirement.

Is it your view that this might be necessary to ensure accountability, or do you believe it's already in place in your first nation?

Chief Frank Whitehead: In our first nation, accountability is first and foremost to our membership. Our band meetings are held more than twice a year—overall, general meetings—and there are land issues that need to be addressed, for example, and other issues. There are community meetings as well. But at the same time—

The Chair: Thank you very much. Time is up for Mrs. Desjarlais.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you. I want to echo what my colleague, Mr. Elley, said about the high quality of the work you have done here. It's extraordinarily helpful, and rather shaming in a way, that you should have to point out many of the imperfections you have.

I would wonder, through you, Mr. Chair, whether it were appropriate to ask our associates who are here from the department to pay particular attention to this brief so as to provide their reflections, I think particularly on section 1.

Some of the other issues you raise, which are extremely interesting, such as the taxation of first nation corporations and initiatives, and the education control, and the health part, may be beyond the scope of what we can do, given the fact that we are getting this after first reading. But all of the very detailed suggestions you make under section 1, and also section 3 on the inequalities of C-31, it seems to me are directly on the bill. I would ask our associates back here to pay particular attention and to come back with answers to many of the drafting suggestions you have made.

I suppose if I have a question it would simply be this: if we were to amend the bill, particularly under those two sections I have mentioned—section 1 and section 3 of your presentation—would that make the amended bill less burdensome and more tolerable and acceptable to you? Could you live with that bill as amended?

Â (1230)

Mr. D. G. Valdron: The very simple answer to that is, yes, if you were to make these amendments, you would have a document that would actually be capable of implementation and would actually be capable of enhancing first nations governance and quality of life.

Without the amendments we suggest, in many areas, I think you would wind up creating huge problems for first nations governance, in areas that we haven't even touched on. There are simply practical issues. There are nuts and bolts here that have to be dealt with.

You cannot do this document in a vacuum. You have to look at this document not as an academic exercise but as an operational exercise. What is going to work, and how do we make it work? That's critical, because Indian Affairs may be very good in Ottawa, but the chief and I are out there on the front lines. Every chief, every councillor, every band officer and employee is on the front lines. We're trying to make it all work. So this is where we're coming from.

This would not be our favourite document, but if this is going to be imposed on us, we want at least a document that will work, that will help rather than hinder.

The Chair: Thank you. That may be one reason why the minister asked that the bill be sent to us after first reading. We do have an opportunity to amend and do the things that you suggest, and we appreciate your contribution. It certainly will be very helpful. Thank you very much.

We will now go to spontaneous presentations. We will stick to the two minutes, or two and a half minutes maximum. If I have to cut anybody off, I apologize, but it may comfort you to know that when the minister appeared before this committee, I had the opportunity to cut him off twice. So it won't hurt as much.

Keith Fortin, you're on.

Mr. Keith Fortin (As Individual): In 1956 the government made a move in northern Manitoba of a people under the Fort Churchill Band, and they hired my father as an Indian agent to do the translating for the government in this process.

They flew into Duck Lake or Caribou Post and quickly apprehended and asked the people to board the plane and leave all their belongings behind. They then took the people to Churchill and dropped them off at North River. They were to make a settlement at North River. It was at that time that one government official told my father, who was translating for these people, to the chief, that he should take his people and go into grass and exist there like mice. My father turned around in amazement at what this man had said, and he said to the chief, he just told you to go into the bush and live like mice.

The chief turned to him and said, this is North River. We're on the coast of Hudson Bay. How are we supposed to exist here? It's the fall. There are polar bears walking around. The geese all flew south. There's no caribou here. There's no moose here. There's barely any fresh water. And you want us to live here?

They established at North River, having left all their stuff behind in Duck Lake. Then, after they realized they couldn't exist there, they moved to Churchill and established Camp 10. At that point, they resided on the edge of Hudson Bay. They stayed in tents, and a lot of people perished.

They ended up being moved from Duck Lake on their own. At Camp 10 they built some houses. My father ended up delivering ice for water and charcoal for heat. A lot of people died due to alcoholism, because of the move to this community. As a result, many people perished.

Eventually the people realized that they had to get their people out of Churchill, so they tried to move to South Knife, and then they moved to the present-day location, Tadoule Lake, Manitoba, the Sayisi Dene First Nation.

At that time, back in Churchill, my dad helped move them. He delivered stuff. My grandmother worked in the mess for the army. I was born on the Fort Churchill air force base. My grandfather used to collect stuff from my grandmother, with my dad, and take the thrown-out material, which was used for food, and my father would deliver it with a dump truck. People would make jokes in Churchill about that, saying, there goes the band's grocery truck.

So if you want to talk about doing things...I look at this committee and see maybe one aboriginal face out of the whole committee. If you're going to discuss things that revolve around these people, then invite them to the committee. Bring up the number of people who are sitting on the committee. Bring in aboriginal people who have--

Â (1235)

The Chair: Thank you very much. You have three minutes. That is what we're attempting to do by visiting your communities. You do have input.

Mr. Keith Fortin: There is still an outstanding claim to the people of Canoe Lake for the move against them, and that's what I'm here to address, that you take a better look at that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I invite Maggie Balfour. Welcome.

Please begin.

Mrs. Maggie Balfour (Norway House Band, As Individual): This is a summary I wrote of my presentation. My presentation is about seven pages long, but this is a summary. My presentation deals with the present centralized funding arrangements to chiefs and councils and to tell you that it's not in the best interests of first nation members.

My paper also explains how this present funding arrangement affects the first nation members in terms of the erosion of our rights caused by the alternative funding arrangement. This funding arrangement is detrimental to our people, causing adversity, mental cruelty, and fear among many and luxury to others. My paper therefore deals with decentralization of funding to local entities.

As first nation members, we should no longer allow ourselves to be treated like little children or retarded citizens without rights. For example, it's very unfortunate that we, the band members, were kept in the dark regarding this March 18 meeting here about the governance act. That is only one example of how our rights are being violated and how we are subjected to childish treatment.

The federal government's policies on funding arrangements have caused the erosion of our rights. Therefore, the federal government must make changes that will once again empower first nation members, through the decentralization of funding.

Before any rejection is made regarding the governance act, our leaders should talk to us. I am an elder from Norway House. The governance act has been suppressed, in our community anyway. It's very nice to hear our leaders here say they are consulting with their people, like Cross Lake and The Pas and others. That really made me happy when I heard that, and I wished we would have had this in our community, but we are never consulted about anything that goes on there.

Â (1240)

The Chair: I apologize, but I must interrupt. We're over three minutes.

You did say that you have a seven-page presentation. If you would leave both with the clerk--we have a copy of the seven-pager. If you would like to leave this two-pager, we will have it translated and we will make sure every member of the committee receives it. We thank you very much.

I now invite Angela Monias. As you can see, I went from two minutes to three, but at three minutes I have to interrupt, even though I feel bad doing it.

Please begin.

Ms. Angela Monias (As Individual): This committee should add dower rights to clause 20. Bill C-7 amends the Indian Act in 20 parts. This committee does not purport to deal with dower rights. With three words, if you include dower rights, it solves my problem.

Attention, members of Parliament of the House of Commons. Hopefully the new act will prevent my problems in the future.

I need a definition of band council resolution, the BCR. Does the BCR have more authority than the provincial law? According to my lawyer, the BCR is a whole community deciding together when an action is to be carried out. In my case, only the band council chose this course of action. I recommended that the BCR should be according to provincial and federal law--and executed with fairness, not above the law.

BCRs are hit or miss and are inconsistently used by chiefs, who use them to rise above the rest of the people. Yet at present the justice system allows the chief to violate our ordinary Canadian constitutional human rights.

As first nations members, we need the governance act to prevent these frightening, degrading, and shameful actions. I like the idea of the default clause that will help speed up any problem similar to mine.

One poster put up by the MKO announcing the rally against the FNGA said that the FNGA will infringe on inherent treaty rights as recognized and protected by the Constitution of Canada. I disagree. I have no constitutional right as a first nation person at this moment. Personally, the first nations band council can take my rights away.

In 1999 my family, who are band members, including myself, were banished. They retrieved our home under the band council resolution by physically removing my 6-month-old, my 18-month-old, and me from our home with force and threats. We lost our possessions. With no regard to the fact that the ice crossing was clearly closed, they transported my children and me over it.

The Federal Court ruled in 2001 that there was no law as a band council resolution, or banishment. We were allowed back into the community.

In 2002 the chief ordered his people to BCR me out again. The band constable delivered an envelope to me with this old BCR from back in 1999. I had already taken this to the Federal Court and the judge had already declared that there was no such law as BCR, therefore no banishment.

The chief ignored the court order allowing us back; therefore he committed a crime, breaching the court order--

The Chair: Thank you very much. I apologize for interrupting. Perhaps you would leave that document with us. You can take the time, if you want, to make any adjustments. If you leave it with us, we'll make sure every member gets it. Okay?

Â (1245)

Ms. Angela Monias: Thank you.

The Chair: I would have a question of you. For individuals who are making the two-minute spontaneous presentation, some of you just found out today, because we announced it today.... Is it known that you would have had an opportunity to make a 10-minute presentation? We advertised this in newspapers and on the radio and in letters to band councils.

Ms. Diane Rogers (As Individual): No.

The Chair: You did not know about that? I can assure you that we spent $100,000 getting the message out to people that they had the opportunity to present. And we did it all in aboriginal papers and on local radios and we used every outlet we could find, plus letters to all bands. So we did make that effort. We apologize if you didn't get it.

Ms. Diane Rogers: When individuals tried, they were put on hold, they were passed over, they were ignored by band councils.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.

I should mention that all members of Parliament across the country were advised of these hearings and they also had an opportunity to pass it on.

Mr. Lloyd Martin, please.

Mr. Lloyd Martin (As Individual): Thank you.

I am here making a spontaneous presentation based on what I overheard in observing the proceedings. I'm going against traditional teachings. It seems to me the people who are attempting to second guess or make very derogatory comments about our leadership are the more vocal members of the group I come from.

I want to be clear that I'm speaking as an individual. I do not work for MKO. In fact, I work as a traditional counsellor for the Nelson House Medicine Lodge. That's what I do. I am here helping out at the Northern AIDS Initiative.

It was suggested that this committee does not hear from individuals protesting this legislation regarding the governance act. I'm here to tell the committee that I for one vehemently oppose the First Nations Governance Act.

I just want to say one more thing. I'm really hopeful about our democratic process because it not only allows me to speak, but it also allows our member in Parliament to actively represent the aspirations of aboriginal people in northern Manitoba. She can be assured that she has my vote in the next election. I don't know her personally. It's just that based on what I have heard her say, I'm certainly of the same persuasion.

I do not agree with everything the leadership has done, but if you research back in your own history, that of the Canadian democratic process, the history of its leadership is not without its own shenanigans, its own blotted past. It wasn't founded on transparency and accountability. We are a growing nation, and as such we are going through the growing pains of a democratic process.

So I'm here to state categorically that as an individual member of Mosakahiken Cree Nation--and according to the Indian Act, the Moose Lake Band of Indians--I oppose the First Nations Governance Act.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That is three minutes. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Â (1250)

Mr. Lloyd Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: We invite Leona Massan and Charlene Lafreniere to present to the committee.

Do you want to go first, Charlene?

Ms. Charlene Lafreniere (As Individual): Okay. We decided to come up together so we would have more time and we could take turns making our presentations.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Charlene Lafreniere: I'd like to start by saying that I've been here most of the morning listening and being around role models at the table, and as a young person I'm disappointed.

I see the people who represent all of our people sitting around rustling through papers when the most important issues are being discussed by other leaders. People are pulling their glasses off, answering their phones, walking away. You know, to me that shows disrespect. And as a young person it hurts to see that this is what our leaders do. When an elder is speaking, it doesn't matter if you have a three-minute time limit. It's something you respect. Many of our leaders brought up how things are being imposed on us. That was just one more example.

When there is an elder sitting here, you sit and listen. If you are hungry, you wait. If you are thirsty, you wait. If you are tired, you sit straight. These are things we need to see from our leaders at this table. As a young person, it's very hurtful to see the separation. Why aren't we in a circle? Why aren't the people sitting in a circle around this committee?

These are things I wonder about. These are things that show me that a decision has already been made, and that's what is bothersome to me as a young person.

Ms. Leona Massan (As Individual): My name is Leona Massan and I come from the Chemawawin First Nation. I wanted to come to back up Charlene's comments on what we saw today. I saw a lot of disrespect from the people here who are going to be making decisions on behalf of us, on behalf of the first nations people. You guys are going to be taking our comments back with you to Parliament, and I don't see the respect that we should be shown here.

Now I see that I am getting respect. I am seen here; everybody is looking. How come it wasn't like that when all our leaders were up here and our elders were here talking? I didn't see that. This is what you call consultation, when you see the disrespect.

It showed me that there is no caring. You didn't care what was being said. There is no respect. Even when I saw Nault here, when he came here for his so-called consultation on this governance act, he walked out. I asked him, are you walking away when people have so many questions to ask of you? You are showing me that you don't care. If you're going to do this with this governance act, and he's not here, it shows me that he doesn't care and that Parliament doesn't care. All Parliament does, and this government does, is impose and push.

If you really want to help us, you should be asking us, not telling us. We've been here for a long time. I remember a lot of stories from my grandfather's and grandmother's days. When people ask me where I'm from, I say Manitoba because my grandfather's and my grandmother's trail is all over Manitoba. We did not have borders. The people who impose borders are governments.

This is what I see with the governance act; you're imposing a border and the implementation of policies and procedures that do not belong in our life. I do not see consultation. I see imposition and oppression. I am shaking.

Another thing that was troubling me was the name of the standing committee. What is the name of the standing committee that I see at the table there? What is it? Would somebody help me out here?

The Chair: You have ten seconds left.

Ms. Leona Massan: Okay, well, could you answer that then? What does that sign say on the desk there, standing committee on what?

The Chair: We invited you to make a presentation. You have made your presentation.

Â (1255)

Ms. Leona Massan: I know. I'm asking my question.

The Chair: No, we ask the questions. Your time has elapsed, and we thank you very much for your presentation.

Ms. Leona Massan: All right. Thank you for answering my question.

The Chair: This completes our hearings in Thompson, Manitoba. I wish to congratulate this community. Everyone was on time. Everyone used all of the time. It was very good information. Every presentation was well prepared and very helpful. We commend you for that and we thank you.

We will suspend proceedings and resume in Winnipeg. This meeting is adjourned.