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.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 20, 2003
| · | 1305 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Wallace McKay (Chair/CEO, Windigo First Nations Council) |
| · | 1310 |
| · | 1315 |
| · | 1320 |
| · | 1325 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
Mr. Wallace McKay |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
Mr. Wallace McKay |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
Mr. Wallace McKay |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
Mr. Wallace McKay |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
Mr. Wallace McKay |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| · | 1330 |
|
Mr. Wallace McKay |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
Mr. Wallace McKay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
| · | 1335 |
|
Mr. Wallace McKay |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Wallace McKay |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| · | 1340 |
|
Mr. Wallace McKay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Wallace McKay |
| · | 1345 |
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
|
Mr. Wallace McKay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Wallace McKay |
| · | 1350 |
|
The Chair |
|
Chief Dean Cromarty (Wunnumin Lake First Nation) |
|
Mr. Charley Bighead (Wunnumin Lake First Nation) |
|
Chief Dean Cromarty |
| · | 1355 |
| ¸ | 1400 |
| ¸ | 1405 |
| ¸ | 1410 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
Chief Dean Cromarty |
|
| ¸ | 1415 |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
Chief Dean Cromarty |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Chief Dean Cromarty |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Chief Dean Cromarty |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Chief Dean Cromarty |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.) |
|
Chief Dean Cromarty |
| ¸ | 1420 |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Chief Dean Cromarty |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Chief Dean Cromarty |
|
The Chair |
|
Chief Dwight Sutherland (As Individual) |
| ¸ | 1425 |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, March 20, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
· 
(1305)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Order.
We'll resume proceedings. We invite the Windigo First Nations Council, Chair and CEO Wallace McKay.
Welcome. We will spend 45 minutes together, so we invite you to make your presentation, which will be followed by questions, hopefully.
Mr. Wallace McKay (Chair/CEO, Windigo First Nations Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson and other members of the standing committee. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation on behalf of the first nations of Windigo First Nations Council. The issues raised by Bill C-7 are of critical importance to the Windigo First Nations and all first nations across Canada.
I would like to start with a brief description of the Windigo First Nations, and then state our position on the FNGA.
The following first nations make up the Windigo First Nations Council: Sachigo Lake, Bearskin Lake, North Caribou Lake, Cat Lake, Slate Falls, Koocheching, and Whitewater Lake. The first nations are independent governments, but they have chosen to act collectively through the Windigo First Nations Council on certain administrative, technical, and political matters. This submission to the standing committee is an example of that cooperation.
The Windigo First Nations are located in northwestern Ontario. They are remote by any standard. The communities are only accessible by airplane on a year-round basis. The only connection to the southern road grid is by an ice-road network that operates almost two months per year, depending on weather conditions.
Most of the economic and social indicators of the communities are substandard in the Canadian context. There is very high unemployment, in the range of 90% in some of the communities. Several of the first nation governments are under severe financial stress as a result of chronic underfunding and support from the federal government. Because of lack of access to the off-reserve land and resource base, there is very little opportunity for independent business development.
The off-reserve traditional territory of the first nations is rich in natural resources, particularly in the mining sector. However, the policies of Canada and Ontario do not support first nation equity participation in the development of such resources. We will continue to fight to achieve equitable participation in the stewardship and development of our traditional homelands, in accordance with the spirit and intent of the treaty.
All of the Windigo First Nations are affiliated with Treaty No. 9, the James Bay Treaty, which was signed in 1905, with the adhesion in 1929-30. The Treaty No. 9 communities of Ontario, including the Windigo First Nations, are members of the political organization known as Nishnawbe Aski Nation. The full version or the spirit and intent of the treaty can only be understood by speaking with the elders, some of whom were alive when the adhesion was signed. The Supreme Court of Canada in the Delgamuukw decision has decided that the testimony of elders has the same evidentiary value as historic documents.
I cannot overrate the importance of the treaty for the people and governments of the Windigo First Nations. It should have the same importance for Canada. The treaty is the foundation document for the relationship between those first nations and Canada. By treaty, the first nations agreed to share the resources of a substantial part of the province of Ontario. The significance of the treaty is now recognized by section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act 1982.
The Windigo First Nations existed as political entities for thousands of years before Canada came into being. They are traditional governments. Canada and Great Britain made treaty with these traditional governments. The inherent right to self-government of these first nations is now recognized in section 35 of the Constitution Act.
The Windigo First Nations do not support the Indian Act in its present condition or as it may be revised by Bill C-7. Outside the narrow confines of the Indian Act, we want to implement the inherent right to self-government to its fullest extent, as recognized by section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, in accordance with the spirit and intent of Treaty No. 9.
· (1310)
On our general position on Bill C-7, the Windigo First Nations are in line with the position of the overwhelming majority of the first nations in Canada, as expressed by the Assembly of First Nations. We are categorically opposed to Bill C-7. The FNGA cannot be saved by amendments, no matter how numerous, and we are not prepared to discuss amendments. The bill should be scrapped and the two levels of government, first nations and Canada, should sit down and engage in an open-ended bilateral discussion, based on foundation documents such as the Penner report and the report on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
The bill is inconsistent with the inherent right to self-government, as recognized by section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982. In particular, the bill does not respect the traditional and treaty-based nature of governance among the Windigo First Nations. This is an attack on the cultural integrity of the Windigo First Nations. The violation of the inherent right is so fundamental that it cannot be papered over by technical amendments such as non-derogation clauses.
The bill insults traditional treaty-based governance. It treats first nations as mere federal municipalities that can be dictated to in the most important areas of local governance. Directly and indirectly, the bill tells first nations how to run elections, how to organize local administration, and how to organize local finances. The bill dictates the topics of local law-making and a system of local and national registration.
Nothing is sacred, apparently. Clause 11 of the bill actually tells a first nation that it must, within a period of two years, pass a law establishing an appeals or redress mechanism. We do not have a problem with the concept of administrative redress. It is already practised in the communities in traditional and other forms. However, we do have a problem when the Government of Canada purports to tell first nations that they must pass a local law in a given timeframe, or else. Even the Indian Act, in its most medieval form, did not do that. This particular provision, like the rest of the bill, reflects a contempt for first nations and their inherent rights.
The entire mechanism of default codes and rules tied to clause 32 of the bill is inconsistent with respect for the traditional governance of the Windigo First Nations. First nations have a two-year option to pass certain rules in relation to elections, local administration, and local finance. If the option is not exercised, generic federal rules, currently unpublished, will be imposed. This is the gun-to-the-head approach. It is not the way treaty partners deal with each other. It reflects dishonour on the Crown in right of Canada.
To recap, we believe that the substance of the bill is fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional because it is inconsistent with the inherent right to self-government. The bill, if it becomes law, will be subject to lengthy and bitter litigation, and will generally poison the bilateral relationship for a long time to come.
In addition to the problem with substance, there is a fundamental problem with process. The constitutional law of Canada provides that when a government measure such as Bill C-7 is likely or certain to prejudice first nation rights, the government is under a very heavy obligation to consult the affected first nations and consider reasonable alternatives. The position of the Windigo First Nations is that the Government of Canada has breached its constitutional duty to consult in the development of the First Nations Governance Act package. In this we support the position of the Assembly of First Nations.
The governance package emerged in early 2001 after the federal cabinet acceptance. There was no first nations involvement in the conceptual development of the package. It always had the aura of a done deal. First nations were told to indefinitely defer their agenda of treaty implementation, increased fiscal transfers, and resource access. From the very beginning, Indian Affairs was determined to push the package through to legislation with or without the support of first nations. The consultation exercise was a matter of going through the motions. Opposition by first nations to the package was denigrated and trivialized, as it continues to be today.
· (1315)
The process has been marred by bully-boy tactics by INAC, including the refusal of the current minister to meet with national first nation assemblies opposed to the bill. In a throwback to the attitude of the 1930s, INAC knows what is in the best interest of first nations. Critical voices from the first nations leadership have been dismissed as misguided and misinformed. There is no doubt that INAC has spent millions of dollars of first nations' money trying to bulldoze first nations' opposition to the bill. This is a violation of first nations and the public purse.
If the bill becomes law, we believe that the Canadian courts will throw it out based on the breach of the constitutional duty to consult in good faith.
Custom leadership selection systems are acknowledged in the current Indian Act and are subject to minimal interference. This is a rare and welcome instance of respect for the inherent right in the otherwise hostile landscape of the Indian Act. Custom leadership selection is common in the Windigo territory and in that area in general. It is an important and valued link to traditional treaty-based governance and culture.
Not surprisingly, Bill C-7 goes out of its way to interfere with custom leadership selection. It undermines the modest recognition of traditional government existing in the current Indian Act. Subclauses 5(2), (3), (4), and (5) of the bill interfere with the form and content of traditional leadership selection systems. Custom rules must be committed in writing within two years, regardless of millennium-old oral tradition. Custom rules must be modified by the introduction of appeal and amendment provisions. If existing custom systems are not confirmed, the detailed and non-traditional rules of subclause 5(1) must be adopted.
The fixation with reducing custom and traditional ways to written code is inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling in the Delgamuukw case, which held, among other things, that the oral tradition and the written record are of equal weight and value. The federal government should honour the decisions of its own Supreme Court—not undercut them. This is a massive intrusion on custom leadership selection systems, developed some thousands of years before Canada came into existence.
The provisions violate the inherent right to self-government. They are an affront to treaty-based governance. They are an attack on first nations culture and tradition.
As for accountability, the Windigo First Nation as a matter of tradition and belief practices the fundamentals of accountability on a daily basis. The Windigo First Nations government is a pure form of a town hall government. There are frequent elections and community meetings. The elders and other respected community members can hold local government to account at any time. Chiefs and councillors live in small communities, where we are accessible on a 24/7 basis. We believe that no form of government in Canada is more accountable.
The financial problems suffered by many first nations, particularly in the north, generally have little or nothing to do with poor accountability and financial management. The root cause of the problem is structural underfunding from Canada. Fiscal transfers to first nations have been systematically squeezed since 1995. Things are now at the breaking point.
The report of the Auditor General in December 2002 concluded that first nations were being overwhelmed by financial agreement reporting requirements that overlapped, which produced pointless information more often than not.
The red-tape approach of the bill completely misses the mark. First nations need more realistic transfer levels and treaty-based access to off-reserve natural resources, not Indian Act micro-management. The financial accountability provisions of the bill are a direct interference with the inherent right and traditional culture.
Clause 7 tells the first nation that it must pass a detailed financial management code within two years, or else generic federal rules will be applied under clause 32.
Clauses 8 through 10 are even worse. They do not even bother with the pretense of permitting first nations to pass local codes. Clauses 8 through 10 lay down the law. Clause 10 is remarkably bad, a low point even in the context of the First Nations Governance Act. By this provision, the INAC minister can investigate the financial affairs of the first nation without cause, and then impose undefined remedies if he or she spots a problem, and do this effectively without due process.
· (1320)
This is a new, unmitigated, and self-serving power that accomplishes the remarkable feat of making the current Indian Act look good. It is the kind of discretionary provision in favour of the minister that has left so much abuse and injustice in the past. The provisions are a piece of the bill. They interfere in local governance, they undermine traditional culture, and they violate the nation-to-nation relationship established by Treaty No. 9.
As for legal capacity, clause 15 is the showpiece of Bill C-7. It purports to grant legal capacity to first nation governments, but it is based on unreliable speculation that confirmed legal capacity will lead to an economic renaissance at the community level. On a purely technical basis, the clause does not move the yardsticks.
The Canadian courts have been clear that band governments have full legal capacity under the Indian Act. Every year the Government of Canada engages first nations in thousands of contracts, and almost as many lawsuits. The fundamental problem with clause 15 is its stated assumption that the federal government has the constitutional authority to grant and define the legal capacity of first nations. The assumption violates the inherent right in its most basic way. It is an insult.
The Windigo First Nations entered and emerged from Treaty 9 as sovereign and independent first nations. Canada did not question the legal capacity of the Windigo First Nations to enter into treaty, which is constitutional and international in nature. This was back in 1905 and 1906, and in 1929 and 1930. Almost a hundred years later, how can Canada suggest that an amendment to the federal Indian Act is required to ensure that the Windigo First Nations have basic legal capacity?
Clause 15 diminishes all first nations. It treats first nations like federal municipalities, with no inherent authority. Like the rest of the bill, it is an attack on treaty relationship and first nations culture.
In closing, I have provided a brief description of Windigo First Nations in my presentation today. Our traditional governance and culture are intimately linked to the spirit and intent of Treaty No. 9. Our treaty partner is the Crown in right of Canada.
The Windigo First Nations are in line with the overwhelming majority opinion of first nations in Canada with regard to the mischief of Bill C-7. I would like to make it clear for the record that Windigo First Nations are vehemently opposed to the bill. It interferes with the most basic aspects of local government and culture, and is therefore a violation of the inherent right to self-government and treaty relationship. It cannot be redeemed by sucker-type amendments.
This is the general position we have on the bill. I have outlined some of the particular concerns of the Windigo First Nations, for example, in the areas of custom elections and legal capacity.
Passage of the bill in the teeth of overwhelming first nation opposition will usher in a new era of litigation, defiance, sullen non-compliance, and poison, which is a legacy of shame.
In closing, I respectfully urge the committee to recommend to Parliament that the bill be withdrawn, which would create instant goodwill, much like in the aftermath of the withdrawal of the 1969 white paper by then Minister of Indian Affairs Jean Chrétien. First nations in Canada could then sit down on a nation-to-nation basis and develop a workplan for positive change. This is the course recommended by the Penner report and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report, the course of the inherent right and treaties.
Thanks for listening to my presentation. I'll be glad to respond to questions.
Thank you.
· (1325)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Vellacott, for seven minutes.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Chief.
In your brief, you make the point that Windigo First Nations have a pure form of town hall government, holding frequent elections, community meetings, and so on. And you say that the chief and councillors living in these small communities have to be accessible on a 24/7 basis.
As part of this, I then take it that when issues come up, such as Bill C-7 in this case, you have some discussions. Have you had some town hall forums to look at the pros and cons of Bill C-7?
Mr. Wallace McKay: An analysis of the bill was sent to the communities. Questions have been raised on certain matters, which have been given to the people, not only in band or general meetings but also in other sectors, such as schools and so forth.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: What mechanism was there, then, for feedback from people, where they could maybe comment in terms of their--
Mr. Wallace McKay: Basically, the reports and feedback are given to the chief, and the chief forwards those and represents the people in that fashion.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I take it that it's partly answered in your comments at the end, and you can clarify or confirm otherwise. You have, I gather, written codes in terms of all the Windigo First Nations for leadership selection, for financial management and accountability, and for administration of government. Do you have written codes that cover off most of those areas?
Mr. Wallace McKay: No, we don't have written codes. One of the things we defend is what has been recognized by the Supreme Court, something we're going to continue practising, and that is the oral tradition of our people. That's what makes us unique in so many ways.
You may determine that is an Indian problem, not having things written down. I think it is time for Canada to begin realizing the uniqueness of our culture, that for centuries and centuries we've had oral cultures. We have never written things down. The word of our people was good enough when decisions were made.
In answer to your question, no, we don't have election codes. Communities have continued to oppose the idea of having election codes because once you have election codes, then they are subject to court action. We can find mediation processes on our own if they are strictly oral traditions that are practised and handed down from family to family.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I just need to understand that a little bit more, so when I press you on this, take it in terms of my wanting to get a grasp of that. What would be the literacy rate on most of your different reserves? Would it be fairly high?
Mr. Wallace McKay: The literacy rate would be basically with our own languages of Ojibway and Cree.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right, but what is it in terms of reading English as well? The younger generation can all do that, I presume.
Mr. Wallace McKay: There is a balance. You have a high number of people who speak English now. We have a generation of children who have lost their language because of residential schools, but other than that we have a strong base with our own language at this stage.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: What I'm getting at here is when people go to written language, be it your traditional languages, English, or whatever, my understanding or impression is that something is lost, that faithfulness, if you will, in terms of the oral transmission. It is just part and parcel of it. Maybe a hundred or so years ago the oral tradition could be very faithfully passed on because that's all they had, they were really adept at it, and it was faithfully transmitted and so on. But as we move from that point in the past to now, we're moving into a kind of limbo land, if you follow my drift here, where there are in fact many people who haven't exercised their mind to be as adept at the oral transmission because they have written text, if you know what I mean.
I don't rely on my memory that much because it's not that good, and I have written text--that's how I operate. Is there not going to be some slippage in terms of the oral transmission? And would you therefore, in a modern, more sophisticated world, be advised to maybe move to more of a written code?
· (1330)
Mr. Wallace McKay: I think the time will come when the communities will say we need a written code at this particular time, but we're not there at this stage. The problem with shifting to written codes is that we put our elders and our people who don't have a grasp of the language in a handicap situation. We transfer that confidence into non-confidence on the part of those elderly people. At this particular time we would resist change because it would affect what makes us unique. That's what made my late father and my late grandfather unique in that way.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I respect that, and I very much appreciate, Wallace, your willingness to engage me on that as I try to get a comprehension of that.
In another area, can you just explain to me a little bit how in smaller first nations communities you go about your methods of conciliation, resolving disputes, issues of that sort that come out, disagreements and so on when you probably have a lot of interconnectedness. It gets difficult--with some of our European ways, maybe--because you have families, you have relatives who are close and bound together, and then you have more almost Eurocentric ways that can drive some visions. What are your methods to get redress and resolve things when there are conflicts and so on, so everybody feels it's properly dealt with and addressed evenly and fairly?
Mr. Wallace McKay: The forms of dispute resolution vary from community to community, depending on the tradition and how the people are engaged in those traditions, but the resolution dispute process would involve the whole community in terms of how you go about it. I have a number of communities in my own area that are going through that.
What has created more division now is what could happen in the Indian Act regulations. Once you have something in the Indian Act, then it puts the responsibility on the individual to take legal action. Therefore, having that mechanism in place creates a collectivity that practises tradition and culture in a very substantial manner.
When you deal with dispute resolution processes in a written matter, people head to the courts, and it creates a lot more problems there. Without written codes, then the community has to deal with those, and they have to figure it out because it deals with one family as opposed to another family, it deals with brothers and sisters, and so forth. They have to, and it forces them to.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McKay, for a very powerful and a very well put together brief. Even though your people are rooted in oral history, judging from this brief I'd say you have certainly mastered written communication. It's very clear, and you have made it abundantly clear that you are not only dissatisfied with the content and the tone of the bill, but you're dissatisfied with the process that led up to the introduction of this bill. I certainly support that. And you are in very good company, because the overwhelming majority of presentations have been as thoughtful and as potent in their message to us.
In paragraph 16 of your presentation you deal with the lack of a consultation process. It might interest you to know that the first witness who came to these hearings was Minister Nault, and he openly stated then--I have the direct quote with me--that this bill was essentially drafted by the 10,000 first nations people who were consulted and who gave their input. That's been challenged, and I would like to give you the opportunity to respond. Were you asked specifically what changes to the Indian Act you'd like to see, and would these be the changes if you had been asked that question?
· (1335)
Mr. Wallace McKay: No, we were not asked. We are in this constituency, and I believe that the minister did not have consultations one-on-one with any of our communities. He had two radio shows on the Wawatay News Network.
He was chastised by our members: why do you conduct that kind of a consultation where we cannot see you face to face and discuss these? The people were very disenchanted with his approach to consultation, and they took it as a direct affront from the minister and their MP when he did that.
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.
I'm learning a lot in the little time we have as we travel the country and listen to leaders such as yourself. I think it's a terrible, terrible oversight that the minister chose not to deal with the leadership and instead chose to circumvent the leadership because he didn't like what they were saying.
One thing I'm learning is about the concept of treaty, and I'd like you to speak to it. I think you even treat the word “treaty” differently than most non-aboriginal people do. We talk about “the treaty”, a piece of paper, while you talk about “making treaty” as if it had a life of its own. When you talk about entering treaty, you don't talk about entering “the” treaty. “Treaty” means much, much more, I think, than I was raised up on or learned to believe when I was young.
The implementation of the treaty process is, I guess, the most important aspect you'd like to deal with in terms of the relationship between first nations and the Crown. Can you just give us a couple of minutes to speak to the importance of treaty?
Mr. Wallace McKay: We've always had self-government. It's an aboriginal right, an inherent right. Treaty came about after, as a mechanism for establishing relationships with the foreign sovereign in those days. Our elders teach us and hand it down faithfully from one generation to another to respect and understand the meaning of that treaty and to live it.
We have fulfilled the terms of the treaty. We have nothing of shame to say to the effect that we have not lived up to our end of the treaty. It's important when we talk about treaty-based governance that at the time our forefathers in this area put their mark to the treaty, they felt they could have some faith the treaty would be honoured.
Sad to say, the treaty partner has not honoured the treaty. To us, and we teach our children, the treaty is a living document that was signed in 1905. It is still as vibrant as it was then, and our task today is to bring it back so our partner, which is the Crown, can also see it.
We have been very hesitant to take additional measures to cause things to happen. We still have not given up faith in talking and sitting down, but I do not believe that young people and our future generations who are coming up--they're very well educated, and I'm excited about them--will just allow talking on the treaties. They will move to act upon it.
Mr. Pat Martin: I've actually come to believe that there's a real smokescreen going on here. They pitched Bill C-7 as being about accountability and financial management issues, but what it's really about is undermining the whole idea of self-governance, taking away from aboriginal and treaty rights, and undermining the fiduciary responsibility.
This is a real pig in a poke; there's a Trojan Horse going on here. The general public is being told there's an epidemic of abuse in financial issues on first nations reserves, so we have to have this heavy-handed bill. What the government is really trying to do is to get out from under its fiduciary responsibilities and out from under the treaties even before ever having honoured those treaties.
Do you feel that way?
· (1340)
Mr. Wallace McKay: We would have been honoured to discuss the contents of the bill if the minister had come to us. We want to talk to you about accountability and transparency. We would have been more than glad to sit down with him and say okay, let's look at it--how are we going to do it?
We have no problems--and I want to reiterate and restate the position--about supporting accountability and transparency. We practise those and will continue practising them. But the minister hides behind this bill to address legal capacity. That is where the problem rises, in the legal capacity of first nations. It's a constitutional issue. It's a political issue that needs to be addressed nation to nation, as it was during the time of the treaty signing. It's the form that was done at that time.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you, Chair.
We've been listening to a lot of people across the country, and I have to say that it's been a real learning experience. I cannot say that I know very much about treaties other than what I have. I have a modern-day treaty. I'm from the Territory of Nunavut, and I know my background is very different from that of first nations.
I am realistic enough to know that how I live today is very different from how my parents lived and how my grandparents lived just because of the realities of the day. We can't not change with what's before us. We have all the modern technologies, we have the Internet, and we have television and satellite dishes. We can hear what's happening in Iraq almost as it's happening right now. Those types of modern technologies change how we think and how we act, even though we stay rooted in our traditional beliefs. I had those too, because we have an oral history.
I am realistic enough to know that in our government today we have a way of thinking we have adopted just from our environment. I've heard quotes being referred to quite a few times, about the 1969 white paper or what someone said about the Indian problem. We would not have those quotes if they had not been written down. We take people to task because their words have been written down.
Because I live in today's world, I'm trying to relate to what you're saying. If I feel that my rights are not being exercised properly and I feel that I need to have some redress, the first thing I'm going to do is find out exactly what somebody said. I want to be able to stand on my feet and be able to read something on a piece of paper.
As much as I respect oral history, because that's all I have as far as my history is concerned, there's a point in time when everything is recorded. We have hamlet councils with all their minutes, where everything the councillors say is written down.
I'm trying to find a balance. If I or someone like me who lives on your reserve wants to take you to task for something you said, how do I deal with the fact that I might not have proof as to what you exactly said? Where do I go from there?
Mr. Wallace McKay: In our traditions, whether it be in the dances you are familiar with, it's a practice. Those very dances are handed down from one family to the next family to the next generation, and they have the responsibility of holding on to them.
We're looking at a small part here, say elections. The community has the responsibility to pass down the practices of the oral ways of doing things in elections. It's not so much trying to remember what has been done; when you do it year after year or month after month, it's hard to forget.
We must look at it in terms of the oral practice of our traditions and culture. It's not so much as to be part of society. We are a society on our own, and we don't need to satisfy the general population of Canada. What we want to maintain are those practices that have been there for a long time. Just because we're in the 21st century, with technology as the way we do things now, does it make it acceptable that we should forget about oral history or oral traditions? No, I don't think so.
I think that is what makes us unique. We want to preserve that uniqueness. I understand the point you are coming from, that in order to seek redress we must seek history. In the communities, we can develop those processes in place. How do we seek redress in the areas of oral issues and the practice?
· (1345)
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Going back again to my question, we're sending our kids to school. They're going to post-secondary schools and being taught in an environment that is all written. Those are the only ways I know of to get some redress.
How do you satisfy those people who want to have a written document they feel comfortable with? I would think it's their right as a member of any community, no matter where it is, because that's the way we have been taught in the last few years.
Mr. Wallace McKay: I've had to contend with that same situation. My youngest daughter has gone to university and has come out very well educated. She's looking at things, asking these very critical and pointed questions like the ones you have raised. I have to respond to meet her needs, so she can have the answers in the way that.... She must also begin to balance what she has learned through her education, the forms of redress she has been taught in those areas. And for me, my responsibility is to say that's what you learned in university and educational institutions, and this is how our people have done it; just because it is not written, it does not make it wrong. She begins to understand when she looks at it through her education and who she is as an Indian person. Then she begins to put more emphasis on saying yes, our ways were more amenable to our people and they did work for our own communities.
I think when we look at our young people who go through this educational process--and I've supported them and encouraged them to do so--we, as parents in the community who work with the communities, have a responsibility to bring the oral traditions with us and make our people understand them.
Although they have the education--and they use it to the full extent to have a level playing field in society--they also need to understand and use some of the oral traditions and understandings, to couple them with what they're doing. It makes them better people. It makes them better contributors to society in general.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have three minutes for closing remarks. You may use them as you wish.
Mr. Wallace McKay: Thank you very much.
I just wanted to thank the committee members for the time and the opportunity. I've been involved in this process for close to 30 years. I have seen things happen in the relationship between Canada and the first nations. During the time when I was young, when the 1969 white paper was being introduced, I thought it was one of the greatest affronts to the Indian people. In reviewing what has happened, looking at today's institutions, the First Nations Governance Act reaches the pinnacle of the affronts we have seen in Canadian history.
We are not making relationships any better. We are creating more problems. I believe that as soon as this act hits, as soon as it is proclaimed in the Senate to be law, we will be in the courts to question the validity and the constitutionality of the act.
I want to say to the members here, we thank you for coming to our area and spending time with us. I have great respect that you will listen, that you will take the time to understand what we say.
I hope my prophetic message of sullen non-compliance will not become a reality. I ask the members to give a great deal of consideration to this. We have worked so hard in our communities to have good relations with other people, non-aboriginal people, we certainly wouldn't want to see that disturbed because of flawed legislation.
Thank you very much.
· (1350)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I invite, from the Wunnumin Lake First Nation, Chief Dean Cromarty. I understand Chief Cromarty will be accompanied by Charley Bighead, Tom Shawinimash, Vernon Gliddy, and Clifford Mamakwa.
We have 30 minutes together. We invite you to make your presentation. If you allow for it, we would like to have some time for questions. Please proceed.
Chief Dean Cromarty (Wunnumin Lake First Nation): [Witness speaks in his native language]
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear here. Before I start my presentation I will ask my elder, Charley Bighead, to make a brief opening remark.
Mr. Charley Bighead (Wunnumin Lake First Nation): [Witness speaks in his native language]
Chief Dean Cromarty: Okay. Meegwetch.
Our elder, Charley Bighead, has been speaking in the Oji-Cree language. He extends his greetings to all members here.
His comment was that we come here hoping our concerns and our hopes are understood and are to be accepted. We are concerned about the many changes that are encroaching upon us in our community, which is situated I think 500 miles north of here, where we are sitting.
In our community there are many non-native laws we have to adhere to in our governance and how we look after our community. Those non-native laws do not fit how we live, our lifestyles, our family values, and how we relate with each other. We can mention a few of these laws that are put upon us: child welfare laws; provincial laws; welfare laws; and economic policies. They are all non-native-oriented and they don't fit with our society and how we govern ourselves.
That was the basis of his opening comment, and with that I will proceed with my presentation.
Greetings to all the members of the standing committee who are present here today. I must confess that I almost decided not to appear at this hearing because of the lack of consensus, either a majority for or against Bill C-7, in my community. I am here to try to convey the general atmosphere surrounding our people and the First Nations Governance Act and to express their opinions and concerns. These voices I am presenting here have not been heard yet in the drafting of the existing bill being considered today.
There have been many before us--scholars, politicians, technicians--who have spoken about Bill C-7. I want to share some community perspective on this proposed legislation. With that, I would also like to say that we stand with our Nishnawbe Aski Nation grand chief when he made his presentation here with Chiefs of Ontario: Grand Chief Charles Fox.
In general, the first nations have always wanted to dispose of or replace the whole Indian Act with a more modern piece of legislation that would conform to our present-day realities. I want to add there that it's not only the Indian Act, but also all these other non-native laws and policies I referred to in our opening comments, which do not apply in our community.
The advent of the First Nations Governance Act would have been an opportunity for the government to work with first nations, but once again it missed that opportunity. The proposed FNGA was prepared by a non-native government for native people. Imposing the will of government onto our people will not succeed. It will only continue to be resisted.
· (1355)
The proposed First Nations Governance Act will govern our reserve according to the Government of Canada. I want to quote one of our elders who spoke with us at our meeting on February 6:
| There are elements of the FNGA that are good, but there are also many questions left unanswered which contribute to the uncertainty of first nations. The FNGA will require highly skilled and educated people to implement the FNGA, but we don't have the capacity because of the low success rate of our students. |
| FNGA is modeled after municipal governments because the legislation opens up the door for non-native people to vote in our community elections and possibly run for Chief and Council. This is not acceptable. |
| The FNGA is a non-native piece of legislation. What will happen to First Nations who do not accept the FNGA? Will they continue to be supported by the government? The Minister of Indian Affairs said that the FNGA will allow funds to flow directly from Ottawa to the first nations, which would be good. But does this mean it will bypass the present INAC bureaucracies and the native political organizations who administer these funds? |
That was from Moses Angees of Wunnumin, February 6. He is not here with me today.
These are some of the comments and questions raised by our elder Moses Angees, and he has read and studied the syllabic version of the FNGA. His latter question raises the issue of whether this will lead to the dismantling of INAC, and therefore its fiduciary obligations to our people.
This elder, as I said, has a lot of questions. He has seen some elements in it that could be good, and he is leaning toward accepting Bill C-7 if the appropriate capacity and resources are there to implement it.
That's one side of the argument in our community. The other is as another of our elders, Charlie Bighead, has stated--and he is sitting here with me.
| The FNGA does not have any references to our treaty and whether the government's fiduciary obligations would continue under the proposed FNGA. The government expects us to generate our own source revenues to finance our governments and communities. It is good to be self-sufficient first nations, but it still begs the question whether the government would continue to financially support our community after the FNGA. I am concerned that our own source revenues will replace government support and that it will diminish the fiduciary obligations of the government. There are no assurances in the FNGA on this matter. |
| The treaty we signed laid our fiscal relationship and political foundations with the governments of Canada. This should be the basis of any agreement on governance and fiscal matters. |
| I feel there needs to be further study and consultations before passage of the FNGA in the House of Commons. Any new legislation requires a real partnership with first nations. It does not explicitly state it in the FNGA, but it seems to say that if we can't govern ourselves, then other parties will determine how we run our affairs. |
| I am more interested in asserting our aboriginal treaty rights on our traditional territories that lie beyond the reserve boundaries, and this should be our focus today. |
| At this point in time I am not in a position to say I support this proposed legislation. |
That was from Charlie Bighead, February 6.
The opinions expressed by Elder Charlie Bighead are valid concerns that are shared by many in our community, and they are also a reflection of others throughout the country.
I will now quote another elder, who said:
| I have listened to our Ontario chief, Charles Fox, and the cautionary advice he put before us. I share his concerns regarding the immediate and long-term impacts this legislation will have on our people and his cautions on the impending impacts on our existing government structures and on the government's fiduciary responsibilities. |
| I have written his words down on paper so that I can keep them for as long as I will live. |
That was from Elder Judas Angees, February 6.
These quotes and expressions are a reflection of many of our people living in Wunnumin Lake. There are also many who have not read the FNGA or are even unaware of the impending legislation that will completely change their way of life in the community.
¸ (1400)
Our community is situated within a vast territory north of the 50th parallel. It is remote and isolated. It is a pristine wilderness area that is truly the last frontier in the far north of Ontario. The closest non-native town is located 160 kilometres south of us. There is only one gold mine operating within this area. Our community is only accessible by air because there are no highways.
Even with our tax-free status, our living costs are high compared to the nearby urban centres. For some of us, our food and income are still supplemented by traditional foods that we harvest off the land.
Our local economy is virtually non-existent. The only retail store is operated by The Northwest Company. Our communications system is operated by Bell Canada. We have an elementary school and medical clinic with two nurses. This is life for us on the rez.
The lands and resources within the boundaries of our reserve will not provide an adequate economic base to sustain our communities or to be self-sufficient. The only solution to our economic problems exists outside the reserve within our traditional territories.
The people's priority is to improve the social and economic conditions of our community. This requires major investment in our infrastructure on transportation, roads, energy, communications, education, health, and other issues that are important to our people. The initiatives are essential in building strong economies and fostering social advancement.
Without an effective economic base, there can be no effective governance. Therefore, it is our position that we strengthen our communities first before we strengthen non-Indian legislation that will only continue to be laborious and constrain our development.
Our community is presently organizing itself to take full advantage of our lands and resources that will preserve our way of life and determine how we govern ourselves as an individual community and in alliance with other surrounding first nations. We want to begin exercising our inherent rights and jurisdictions over our communities and traditional territories.
It is time that Canada recognizes and respects our aboriginal and treaty rights as a basis of forming our relationships.
Bill C-7 means more government legislation at a time when we are trying to break free from the confines of the reserve boundaries. No amount of legislation will benefit our community without the recognition and implementation of our aboriginal and treaty rights. Our aboriginal and treaty rights are not restricted to our reserve lands, but extend to all of our traditional territories that have sustained us since we were created.
We have, and will continue to negotiate, agreements with non-native companies that have a desire to explore and extract our natural resources. It would be far better if Canada and Ontario would revise their own laws in adherence to Supreme Court decisions that have confirmed the aboriginal rights and jurisdictions. This would ensure the compliance of the governments and the private sector on how we share the revenues from our natural resources. The First Nations Governance Act cannot do this.
Wunnumin is affiliated with the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, which is presently conducting self-government negotiations with the Government of Canada. Disagreement will define our governance structures and the political and fiscal relations with the Government of Canada. We are concerned that the First Nations Governance Act may very well be used as a tool to limit or even pre-empt the conclusion of these negotiations.
Section 35 of the 1982 Canada Act, which we all say is the rule of law, explicitly recognizes and protects aboriginal and treaty rights. We fear that the FNGA will be used to limit the scope of our rights. This puts into question the constitutionality of Bill C-7 because it jeopardizes the constitutional protection of our aboriginal and treaty rights.
The Minister of Indian Affairs has given assurances that Bill C-7 is only an interim measure pending future self-government negotiations and will have no impact on the aboriginal and treaty rights. Bill C-7 does not state that.
The minister has also explained that the FNGA is intended to improve the economic and social conditions of first nations communities. Our people are wondering how this will be accomplished through the proposed legislation.
¸ (1405)
In conclusion, we offer the following recommendations to the Government of Canada:
First, implement section 35 of the 1982 Canada Act, which recognizes aboriginal treaty rights. The federal and provincial governments can start by amending their current laws in compliance with the Supreme Court decisions that have recognized aboriginal rights and jurisdictions on governance and natural resources. Some of these decisions are Sparrow, Delgamuukw, Marshall, etc.
This would have a far more positive impact on our governance and relations with Canada and on our economic and social conditions. The Government of Canada must also convene a meeting with the first nations to debate, define, and implement section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.
Secondly, implement the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. In that report it outlines many issues that have to be dealt with on governance, on social and economic improvements. Pull it off the shelf, blow off the dust, and let's get to work.
We are aware that the Liberal majority in the House of Commons will ensure passage of Bill C-7. There is uncertainty about this situation. We recommend that the passage of Bill C-7 be delayed for further consultations and to formulate a real government-to-government partnership with first nations in the development of appropriate legislation that will be acceptable to all parties.
At the present time, considering the varying degrees and positions in our community and throughout the country, it is our opinion that Bill C-7 can only be, at best, an optional form of legislation that can be accepted by first nations who are willing to do so. In this event, Bill C-7 must include a non-derogation clause to ensure that the bill will have no impacts or restrictions on the constitutional recognition of our aboriginal and treaty rights, that it will not restrict existing and future self-government negotiations, and that it will also not diminish the federal government's fiduciary responsibilities.
Thank you for this opportunity to address our concerns.
¸ (1410)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I would ask whether any of your colleagues have a presentation. As it is no, we have ten minutes, therefore it's a three-minute round each, and we will allow one minute for closing remarks.
Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.
I am wondering, Chief Dean, if you could perhaps do a translation for Mr. Bighead if he cannot understand the drift of my question here.
He states--and you are quoting him in your presentation, from February 6, 2003--and it's a future-type question, that the government expects you to generate your own sources.
Let's say you come to a point where you had a good, adequate natural resource base, generating what you need in terms of funds and financing for various services and so on. This is a question I'd like to ask a lot of first nations communities across the country. At a point where you have your own adequate natural resource base, do you still assume or expect that from that point on there would be still continued transfers of funds or moneys from the government?
Chief Dean Cromarty: I will respond to that.
I share his views and the reasons for his comments on it. It is general knowledge in our community, also. I made an effort to consult with the elders in my community before I made that presentation.
That's a clear question. I think that we first nations governments have jurisdiction on our lands. The natural resources have been taken away.
But I want to respond to you in this manner. With the provincial governments, they have jurisdiction, they have a provincial tax base. They collect royalties, stumpage fees, whatever, from our land, and yet the federal government continues to cost-share their governments. Why can't that be with our first nations? I think that's the relationship we want to foster if the governments of this country would ever recognize that.
¸ (1415)
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Let me interject there, then. I admit that the federal government pays transfers to the provinces and so on, and then the provinces down to the municipalities. We are talking nation to nation. Did you see yourself in a role comparable to the provincial or municipal government in the fact that there is still going to be funding transferring down?
Do you understand my question?
Chief Dean Cromarty: Of course I understand your question.
We are the first peoples, the first governments of this country, before the provinces and Canada came along, and we have to be recognized as such. As first nations governments, I still feel you will be collecting the benefits of our lands and the benefits of our agreement to share with your people.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you. There was inadequate--
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you for your brief. You have made many good points.
I'm interested in the idea that you, among many others, have been calling for Bill C-7 to be withdrawn. I've heard people say it would be seen as a gesture of good will if the minister would simply take one step back and start over again with proper consultation, and then move forward with some meaningful amendments to the relationship between first nations and the Government of Canada.
Do you think we could pull this out of the fire if the minister had the wherewithal to simply back up and start over again? Could this relationship be salvaged?
Chief Dean Cromarty: That's what should have happened in the first place. Right from the start we should have been there and we should have been the ones drafting up the legislation, not the bureaucrats in Ottawa. As my elders said, we need to have some more time for consultations, but that requires that our first nations are the ones defining that legislation, not the bureaucrats in Ottawa.
I'm hoping that if this were withdrawn, we could define that with legislation that would be acceptable to us and also to the Government of Canada. I think that's all we are asking for.
Mr. Pat Martin: Excellent point. And even further, the point you raise as your second recommendation is that the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples would be a hell of a good place to start.
Chief Dean Cromarty: Well, we made those recommendations because this FNGA was an interim measure towards what?--towards self-government.
I would like to see these interim measures that would produce more results immediately if they were accepted and implemented by the governments of Canada. We would be far better off.
Mr. Pat Martin: One of the concrete points or recommendations you also make is that if it is going to be pushed through, it should be optional. Those bands that feel they want some codes of governance could opt in. That could be a possible solution.
Chief Dean Cromarty: I'm aware of the different views across the country, west and east and central. I think that's why we said that, in any event, it should not pass the way it is.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Hubbard, three minutes.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Chief, thanks for coming.
I'm trying to put it into perspective perhaps for the record here. Your community is relatively small in terms of the map of Ontario. In terms of your permanent settlement there, how old is the settlement? What I'm trying to get to is that our federal government gave a lot of this territory, theoretically, to the Province of Ontario, not that many years ago. And was your land base established prior to Ontario getting access to this land, or was it more recent?
Chief Dean Cromarty: I think you're right.
Ontario wasn't here when our people were here, okay?
I mentioned that we were working at developing alliances with other first nations and then at looking at ways to formalize this, at how we could revive our traditional governance structures and relationships with other first nations. In the 1929-30 treaty adhesion in that area, which we're a part of, those communities were there before that, and before 1905. And our communities said they had marked areas where they wanted to live, in 1896, 1897, before the treaties. Those areas are where we are living now.
¸ (1420)
Mr. Charles Hubbard: With developing the economy and trying to have enough resources so people can be self-sustainable, it seems that your first nations have a very small area on this map.
Historically, of course, a lot of the people in the north were traders, trappers, and people involved with the wilderness and great areas of land. But was it the coming together of people in the 1920s and 1930s, or did you always have 500 or 600 people living in your community?
Chief Dean Cromarty: In that community, even with the reserve status, it was as recent as 1976. Before that our people lived along the river system. They didn't just stay in one spot. There was a vast area where they camped, had their small villages, traded with each other, and trapped and fished. They were mobile, according to the seasons of the year.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We have two minutes for closing remarks. We invite you to make them now.
Chief Dean Cromarty: In closing, governments have to recognize and accept our aboriginal and treaty rights as a basis for forming relations with us. We've been told by governments that they provide services to us under their statutory obligations. So where does that put their treaty obligations?
Those are the areas we have to start defining and accepting as first nations governments and as the Canadian government. My people are concerned about this. We don't fully accept this FNGA. Put it on the shelf like you do with many other reports on aboriginal people and let's get to work, government to government.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I now invite Chief Dwight Sutherland from the Taykwa Tagamou Nation. This is for a two-minute spontaneous presentation. Please proceed.
Chief Dwight Sutherland (As Individual): My name is Dwight Sutherland. I'm Chief of Taykwa Tagamou Nation. I'm the fourth generation of treaty signers. My great-great-grandfather Esau Omageeshe signed the treaty for our people, thinking that the commissioners would uphold the treaty that was signed on August 21, 1905, in my community.
I was a policeman before I became chief. I returned to my community to make a difference for my people. When I returned to my community I was unemployed, on welfare, and living out of a food bank. I was told to get educated. I did, and returned to a 95% unemployment rate. Our community receives $116,000 for band support funding for 30 families and $6,000 for economic development.
Your government should uphold the agreements we signed between our nations. I believe we can work together for the betterment of my people. Placing your laws on a sovereign people is unlawful. Our people should be the ones in charge of designing our governing systems in our communities. I do not get involved in your government, orders, rules, or elections, and I believe you should stay out of ours.
You talk about taxpayers' dollars; well, you can keep your tax dollars. It's on our backs that you collect these dollars from the shareholders and employees who work for the corporations that develop our land without our consent or our participation in the economy.
If we are to move ahead positively in the future, you must work with the people who signed the treaties. You should begin to keep your word in honour of the Crown. I see you have a picture of your queen. Her grandfather was the one who signed these treaties with my great-great-grandfather, and that honour should be upheld.
It will only get worse for the nation of Canada. You can only keep an oppressed people down for so long before they begin to rise. If we're going to avoid having any more situations like what happened in Oka, Ipperwash, and Burnt Church, we must begin to talk nation to nation. We demand that Canada respect our sovereignty as a people.
There is nothing the Government of Canada can do to our people that hasn't already been done to us. We have been placed on reserves, living in third-world conditions. Poverty has been a new way of life for our people since the treaty.
If my great-great-grandfather had known beforehand that his children would have to live in such grotesque conditions he would not have signed the treaty and I wouldn't be sitting here having this conversation with you. We'd have our own country today.
In order for our people to join Confederation, we must negotiate our own form of self-government, with a clear understanding also with the rest of Canada.
Thank you.
¸ (1425)
The Chair: Thank you very much. If you wish to leave that document we will have it translated and shared with all members of the committee.
This concludes our public hearings in Thunder Bay. We will suspend proceedings until this evening in Toronto. We have hearings until ten o'clock tonight, colleagues.