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, 1st SESSION
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 28, 2002
| Á | 1105 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)) |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations) |
| Á | 1110 |
| Á | 1115 |
| Á | 1120 |
|
Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard (Assembly of First Nations) |
| Á | 1125 |
| Á | 1130 |
| Á | 1135 |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
| Á | 1140 |
| Á | 1145 |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1150 |
|
Mr. Spencer |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
| Á | 1155 |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
| Â | 1200 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Miss Grey |
| Â | 1205 |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
|
Miss Grey |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
|
Miss Grey |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.) |
| Â | 1210 |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1215 |
|
Mr. Spencer |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
|
Mr. Spencer |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.) |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
| Â | 1220 |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard |
| Â | 1225 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
| Â | 1230 |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Martin |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
|
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Karetak-Lindell |
| Â | 1235 |
|
Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Miss Grey |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
| Â | 1240 |
|
The Chair |
|
Chief Matthew Coon Come |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, February 28, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Á 
(1105)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone, and welcome.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing the process of our overview of the Indian Act, a piece of legislation we have been advised will be sent to our committee for perusal. It has been indicated to us that the bill will be sent to us after first reading. Therefore, the work to be done by this committee is serious work, and to demonstrate their willingness to do the job that is required of them the committee members have agreed to start the process even before the bill is tabled. That's what we're doing now; we're doing an overview.
We're privileged and honoured to have with us today Assembly of First Nations Chief Matthew Coon Come. Thank you very much for appearing, the second time already.
I'm just new as the chair of this committee, but we've met before. When we did as a committee it was on the Indian Act in 1976. You had some input at that time, Chief, and we are looking forward to sharing your experience and your knowledge. With the national chief we also have Ghislain Picard, vice-chief, and Richard Powless, special adviser.
We invite you to make a presentation, after which we will do a number of rounds of questions and answers. At 12:45 we must go in camera to have a meeting for future business.
So, Chief, please proceed.
Chief Matthew Coon Come (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations): [Witness speaks in his native language]
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before you today. We believe it is an encouraging sign. It shows that you are interested and are aware of our concerns. It shows that the voice of the first nations is being heard.
We have been asked to speak to the concerns first nations have with regard to the proposed first nations governance act. We'll do our best to inform you today about how we view first nations governance and our concerns about the current proposed governance act. We will offer some constructive suggestions and alternatives for dealing with the priorities and goals of the first nations peoples.
I am here today in my capacity as a national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. The Assembly of First Nations is a national body representing the political interests and aspirations of first nations peoples in Canada. I'm elected by all the chiefs in Canada, who in turn are elected by the citizens of their first nations. The AFN is a truly representative body resulting from a democratic process.
We have a role to play in this discussion. We are tabling some documents for your review as part of our presentation. The main document is called The First Nations Plan. That plan is an alternative to the current first nations governance act process.
We will discuss our concerns on the proposed governance act in a moment, but I want to draw your attention to The First Nations Plan, because we want you to know that there is a better way. The First Nations Plan is a progressive and comprehensive approach to dealing with the priorities and goals of first nations. It's about strengthening our citizens and building healthy communities and viable first nations economies. It deals with all the issues the Minister of Indian Affairs wants to deal with in his governance act process. More importantly, it incorporates the priorities of first nations. It addresses the concerns of grassroots community members, the political leadership, and our brothers and sisters living off the reserve. Our plan is aimed at creating changes that will make a real difference at the community level. In the short term it will allow us to build on that solid foundation for the long term.
We are also providing some Assembly of First Nations fact sheets, which is the most up-to-date information we have on the socio-economic conditions facing first nations, and some background on our political and cultural situation. They provide the context for the issues I will be talking about today.
As a starting point, I want to be clear about who I am referring to when I say first nations. There are about 80 first nations in this land and 633 first nations communities. Our population is about one million people living in rural communities, reserves, and urban centres.
The first nations peoples, or Indians, are one of the three aboriginal peoples recognized in section 35 of Canada's Constitution Act of 1982. The other two, as you know, are the Métis and the Inuit. Section 35 is significant. Our leaders fought hard to get that recognition in the Constitution. It is more than symbolic. Section 35 recognizes and affirms our existing inherent and treaty rights. It does not create those rights or give us any rights. It recognizes that we already have these rights, that they are inherent. The proposed governance act seems to be based on a view that first nations governance is something that comes from the federal legislation. It does not. Section 35 recognizes our right and authority to govern ourselves.
Á (1110)
Section 35 expresses the relationship between the Government of Canada and first nations as a nation-to-nation relationship. In many areas of Canada's treaties with first nations the crown recognized and established this relationship. These treaties are the basis by which Canada acquired any legitimate access to the land and resources of this country.
Treaty-making continues to this day. They are what we call modern-day treaties, like the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, as one example, as is the more recent Nisga'a Agreement. There are areas of Canada, like British Columbia, where treaty negotiations are still under way.
That treaty or nation-to-nation relationship should be the basis on which we proceed to deal with first nations governance. We are nations: the Cree Nation, the Ojibway Nation, Mi'kmaq Nation. Our governments and our rights are not race-based governments or rights. We signed these international instruments called treaties as nations, as equals with the crown. These are sacred agreements to share this land.
This is an important distinction, and it gets to the heart of the issues before us today, the first nations governance act. Our right to govern ourselves does not come from the federal government; it does not come from federal legislation. We had democratic institutions and laws long before Canada existed as a country. Our right to self-government and self-determination in the full international sense is an inherent right. It was there at first contact. We still have it. Even the treaties did not give us this right. The treaties simply recognize two sovereign powers and their respective rights to govern their peoples and territories. Somewhere along the line, as the populations changed, the dynamics shifted, this relationship became confused, and Canada began to pass legislation over first nations citizens.
In 1867 Great Britain enacted the British North America Act. That act divided legislated powers between the provincial and federal governments. In section 91.24 the federal government assumed that it would take responsibility for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. Canada exercised this power by enacting the Indian Act. The act has been changed a number of times over the years, with the last major change taking place in 1950.
As I have already stated, this was your legislation. First nations were never consulted. It was, and is, paternalistic and reflects the colonial mindset. Since the day it was enacted, first nations have resisted it and instead called on Canada to honour its treaty relationship. Several first nations, such as the Iroquois, have been sending diplomatic delegations to the League of Nations and the United Nations.
First nations were integrally involved in the negotiations leading up to the amendment of the 1982 Canadian Constitution. We saw in that document the possibility of having our rights entrenched and protected in the highest law in the land. We wanted our inherent aboriginal and treaty rights to be beyond the legislation of ever-changing governments. Sections 35 and 25 were the results of our work. Yet little change happened following the constitutional amendments.
During the Charlottetown negotiations, first nations once again sought recognition and protection of our rights. Further, we wanted implementation of the aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and protected in section 35 of the Constitution, as we envisioned them. We wanted protection against the very type of legislation that Minister Nault is proposing. This legislation will further diminish our rights, and it's based on the colonial section 91.24 mentality, where first nations are seen not as sovereign partners, but as wards of the state. First nations have been able to work within section 91.24, and I've even made progress in a number of areas, like fiscal relations, but it's not where we see the political relationship residing or the place to deal with real governance.
Á (1115)
Section 35 is the place to make real progress and deal with first nations governance in a way that honours the crown's commitments and obligations to first nations. Section 35 is where the real political relationship between first nations and Canada resides, a nation-to-nation relationship, which is what I speak of.
We believe the amendments to the Canadian Constitution are still the best way to ensure long-term protection of our inherent aboriginal and treaty rights, but we are realistic and pragmatic. We realize there is no process to do so in the foreseeable future, and we share your conviction that something must be done to improve the lives of first nations peoples. Legislation is the next best vehicle to protect our rights, but not legislation based on section 91.24 of the 1867 British North America Act. Any legislation must be based on section 35. It must be enabling, not prescriptive, and must be done in full and equal partnership with the first nations governments who have treaties with the crown.
It is no secret that first nations and the Assembly of First Nations oppose the current governance act process. Why? Because it does not accomplish what I have just stated. It's not about making a place for first nations in Confederation. We do agree that change is needed, but this proposed governance act will not create the kinds of positive and progressive changes any of us are looking for. To be blunt, it is not even a good start.
Several studies, including the Penner report and most recently the 1996 Final Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, have recommended that Canada not just tinker with the Indian Act. They recommended new enabling legislation that would recognize the existing jurisdictions of first nations governments. Both of these studies recognized that first nations have existing core jurisdictions that can be exercised right now without federal or provincial legislation or approval. But they also recommended that it would be preferable if these jurisdictions were negotiated between the three governments to ensure consistency and a workable implementation.
Many first nations wonder how it is that ten provincial governments can come together with first nations lands and resources, form a new country called Canada, yet leave first nations out of the picture.
So here we are today talking about the proposed first nations governance act. The first nations governance act has been sold as a way to fix the problems with the current Indian Act. We agree with the minister when he says the Indian Act is archaic and outmoded. The Indian Act was designed without any input from first nations. It was imposed on our peoples without our consent. It does not reflect our values, our traditions, or our diversity. It takes a paternalistic, even a colonialist view, of aboriginal peoples. It controls every aspect of our lives, literally from cradle to grave.
The Indian Act is legislation unilaterally designed and implemented by the federal government and imposed on first nations. So how does the minister propose to fix the problems? Through a legislative process that is unilaterally designed and implemented by the federal government and that will be imposed on first nations. This is the same process that resulted in the original Indian Act. This does not make sense. First nations want change, but we do not want Canada dictating how we must run our lives for another 125 years.
I put it to the members of this committee that a fundamentally flawed process can only produce fundamentally flawed results. I have often said that it is a form of insanity to continue the same behaviour and expect different results. As far as we can see, the governance act has nothing to do with responding to our needs, our priorities, or Canada's commitment to improve the lives of aboriginal people. If anything, it seems to have more to do with responding to the overblown, negative media scrutiny. Up to 4% of first nations in this country were having financial difficulties. We noted that Minister Nault's presentation to the standing committee in November 2001 cited 25 out of 633 first nations were in financial difficulty. This is equivalent to 3.9%, rounded out to 4%.
Á (1120)
So we are not afraid of accountability, but if we are truly committed to improving the lives of our first nations peoples, then we need a process that addresses our shared priorities and goals.
We can start by looking at the subject matter being discussed in the first nations governance act. Some people seem to think that this process is about rewriting or changing the entire act. It is not. In fact, there are only four limited areas on the table for discussion on the proposed governance act: elections and leadership selections; financial and operational accountability; legal standing and capacity of bands; and powers and authorities. The first question I have to raise is, whose priorities are these?
If we were to go around this table or around this room and ask people what do first nations need, I think we would get some good answers. Most of us have a pretty good idea of the immediate priorities. These are bread-and-butter issues, and in some cases life and death issues.
I know that Indian Affairs officials appeared before you last week and showed you some of the alarming statistics, showed you socio-economic indicators confronting first nations. The fact sheets we have given to you also illustrate the situation. We have communities in crisis. Canada consistently ranks near the top of the best countries in which to live, yet first nations in Canada rank a distant sixty-third on that list. Talk to the people living in the communities, talk to the leaders, and they'll tell you we need to do something about housing, unemployment, clean drinking water, schools, jobs, access to lands and resources, and building a viable economy. We should be tackling these issues right away and right now.
But the first nations governance act will not do anything to address these urgent crisis issues. The subject matters in the governance act willfully ignore previous consultation with first nations, most notably the federal Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the largest, broadest, most comprehensive consultation ever with aboriginal peoples.
People spoke to the commission about revitalizing their communities, strengthening their citizens, and rebuilding their nations. They spoke about hope for the future, about re-establishing the treaty relationship with this country and all its riches to be shared, and where people live healthy, vibrant, and productive lives. Indian Affairs did a poll that showed that first nations people want to talk about those same issues; issues that affect them at the community level, that affect their quality of life on a day-to-day basis. I suggest that more than anything this is why first nations oppose the governance act and why there was such a dismal turnout for the community consultations.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll turn it over to the vice-chief from Quebec, Monsieur Picard.
[Translation]
Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard (Assembly of First Nations): Thank you, National Chief.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, we did an analysis of Indian Affairs community consultation reports (they are available on the INAC Web site). We did not include the 1-800 number or on-line survey results because they are not reliable. The government should not rely on that input. There is no way to verify who is responding, whether or not they are First Nations, or whether or not it is the same person over and over again.
You have a chart showing the percentage of participation in the consultations on this bill. When we look at the community consultations, the first and most obvious point is very few people showed up for the sessions. For the community consultations, participation was around 3% at best.
I ask you: is there any other process in this country that would continue with that level of participation from the target audience? More than $10 million has been spent to get this meagre level of participation, yet the minister criticizes the First Nations for not using funds effectively and efficiently.
There were entire regions that refused to participate, like Manitoba. In Ontario, the consultations were handled through the Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association. We support our Metis brothers and sisters in achieving their goals, but they have a totally different set of legal and political issues. Metis are not under the Indian Act. Why the OMA was handling First Nations governance act consultations is beyond me, unless it was simply a public relations exercise. The same situation arose in the province of Quebec.
If you look at the consultation reports, you'll also see that many people did not feel they had enough information about the governance act to offer an informed comment. This is not surprising. Ask the average Canadian about power and authorities or legal standing of their governments and they likely won't have much to say either.
The people who did show up wanted to talk about exactly the kinds of things we would like to see in a new process: housing, land, protecting the treaties and implementing aboriginal rights. But these predominant concerns are shuffled to the back of the reports and listed under “other”.
It is clear that the subject matter in this proposed governance act initiative simply does not resonate with our people. You're not preoccupied with legal standing and capacity of bands when you have to feed your children. This is what happens when you develop content without talking to the people who would be most affected.
The federal response to the final report by the royal commission is reflected in its Gathering Strength policy. It commits the government to work in partnership with the First Nations to address our priorities. The governance act process flies in the face of this policy and that is troubling for us. We are told these consultations cost $10 million. We can add to that the cost of Indian Affairs staff and resources sunk into the process. Those resources could have been applied to a more useful and constructive process, a process that would have engaged our citizens.
Instead, the community sessions do not meet any minimal standards for consultation. There are legal requirements to consult that must respected, and we maintain that these requirements have not been met. This is especially troubling when the minister states that the product of these flawed consultations will not be optional. First Nations will have to live with the results.
If we really want to make a difference in this generation, and if we really want to create a positive legacy that will be felt seven generations down the road, then we need a better process. We can still deal with the four subjects. In fact, those areas do not necessarily require new legislation.
Financial and operational accountability can be dealt with through financial negotiations with First Nations. Accountability of the First Nations government to its membership should be the key principle.
Á (1125)
Legal standing capacity does not need to be a priority issue because First Nations already exercise much of this authority. We can enter into contracts, create corporations, sue and be sued. But this is a dangerous area to legislate if you do not first deal with aboriginal and treaty rights. If we try to define legally what a first nation is without dealing with those rights, then we run the risk of limiting or reducing those rights. It could abrogate or derogate aboriginal and treaty rights. This will only lead to more drawn out legal battles.
Indian Affairs says there is no danger and that the governance act will not negatively affect these rights. From day one, we have been asking them for their research or legal analysis to substantiate this, and we are told they do not have one. This is of great concern to us because we are not convinced. I caution the committee to carefully consider this and bear it in mind if and when legislation hits the table. We do not want to simply replace one set of legal challenges with another.
The areas of powers and authorities deals largely with making by-laws and enforcing them. Again, we do not need new legislation. More than anything, First Nations need institutional capacity. Lawmaking powers are better dealt with through self-government negotiations.
The same is true for the work on elections and leadership selection. Self-government negotiations are a better way to deal with the kinds of changes First Nations want. We do not want prescriptive legislation. First Nations want to be able to develop their own systems based on their own experiences, traditions and community directions.
We can deal with all these things and more as part of a broader, better process. There a number of ways to deal with First Nations governance, and amending the Indian Act is probably the worst. In fact, the royal commission report warned against tinkering with the Indian Act, saying that piecemeal changes would likely do more harm than good. Further, it has been said many times and—in the RCAP report, even Indian Affairs has stated—that a “one size fits all” approach to policy and legislation does not work for First Nations. We are not one, uniform group. We are diverse. Our different nations all have their own political systems, justice systems, traditions, language and culture.
We are critical of the current initiative. But I realize that is not enough. I do not question the motives or the principles of the people involved in this governance act process. I would like to believe they have the best interest of First Nations at heart. If that is the case, then I know they will want to hear about a better path to change.
We have a better path. You have it. It is the First Nations Plan. Our plan charts a middle ground, an agenda that deals with immediate priorities and provides for real, sustainable change. It deals with the government's issues and our issues. It is a win-win, mutual gains approach.
The First Nations Plan meets the commitments in the Throne Speech and the Prime Minister's public statements to improve lives of First Nations peoples. It incorporates the governance act subject areas. It builds on existing work like the RCAP report and the Penner report. It draws a lesson learned in best practices from other cooperative approaches like our work in fiscal relations and a joint initiative for policy development in lands and trust services. All this previous work provides a solid foundation. The First Nations Plan is the blueprint.
I won't read you the entire plan, but I encourage you to look at it. It is comprehensive and constructive. It fosters positive relationships as much as it builds good governance.
Á (1130)
The plan is based on the principles of partnership and cooperation between the First Nations and governments, between First Nations and industry and business, and on partnership and cooperation amongst First Nations, in a way that respects our diversity while allowing us to share lessons learned and best practices.
I must say upfront that the section 35 “nation to nation” relationship guides all our work at the AFN. It means rebuilding our nations; it means treaty-making and implementing the treaties. It means exercising and giving life to our inherent rights.
These are fundamental issues that must be dealt with. They will not go away. However, the government of First Nations want to move on some priority issues. The beauty of The First Nations Planis that positive change can start right away. We do not need to wait until we come to a conclusion on the bigger issues.
As long as the framework of the rights-based approach is in place, we have principles and parameters that will guide our journey towards the ultimate destination of nation rebuilding.
This is not a radical approach. It is the same approach that RCAP recommended. Change has to be phased and sequenced if it's going to be sustainable and implementable.
We also looked at a recent study out of Harvard University called The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, a study undertaken by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. This study proposed a nation-building model of economic development.
They define nation-building as:
| Equipping First Nations with the institutional foundation necessary to increase their capacity to effectively assert self-governing powers on behalf of their own economic, social and cultural objectives. |
I would submit that this is an objective we could all support.
The Harvard study identifies four core elements of a nation-building model.
The first is genuine self-rule, basically, giving First Nations the power to control what happens on First Nations lands. This means making decisions about resource allocations, project funding and development strategy, and making a link between decisions and consequences. If an outside government or third party makes these decisions, then the decisions will only reflect that outside party's agenda.
The second element is creating effective governing institutions. This means creating unpoliticized dispute resolution mechanisms and getting rid of corruption and opportunist behaviour. It means backing up governing power with governing capabilities.
The third element is cultural harmonization. This is the fit between institutions of governance and the First Nations perspective on governance and authority. It gives First Nations institutions legitimacy in the eyes of First Nations citizens.
The final element is the need for us to devise a strategic orientation. This strategic orientation must come from the First Nations, not from an outside party or another level of government. This requires long-term planning based on a long-term vision. It means examining not only our assets and opportunities, but our priorities and concerns. A strategic perspective gives First Nations a tool and criteria to evaluate development options.
We agree with these core elements and we have used them in developing The First Nations Plan.
Thank you very much.
Á (1135)
[English]
Chief Matthew Coon Come: The information we provide you includes a very broad overview of the First Nations Plan. It is the graphic titled A First Nations Vision. The plan identifies four streams of change: nation rebuilding, the redistribution of lands and resources, treaty implementation, and new fiscal relationships. Different activities are required at the local, regional, and national levels to bring about change. It will require energy and commitment from many different people within first nations and within the Government of Canada.
Nation rebuilding means we will need to develop effective governmental institutions and human resources. Redistributing lands and resources means respecting aboriginal and treaty rights and creating a just and efficient claims process. Treaty implementation and treaty renewal means a serious effort to honour the crown's outstanding obligations to first nations based on the spirit and intent of the treaties. Finally, the new fiscal relationships will be required between the various orders of government. Right now these arrangements are based on delegated authority. We can create new arrangements that recognize and respect first nation governments.
In each of these four areas there are four complementary areas of activity that need to happen at the local, regional, and national levels. These critical elements of change are capacity building aimed at all aspects of governance, areas such as lands and environmental management, education, health, and social services. Institutional change is another critical area.
The bureaucracy has to change to respond to the reality of first nations self-government. We can envision new dimensions in the Canadian state, things like the first nations auditor general or fiduciary protectorate office, redesigning policy so they become effective tools for change instead of obstacles to change.
A third element of change is increasing the participation of first nations in the Canadian economy. In many cases the potential basis for first nations economy is already there: it is first nations land. The lands and the resources can be the basis or starting point to build the economy and create an educated workforce.
The final element is really a starting point: meeting urgent needs. Building nations will mean addressing the quality of life, the living conditions, and pressing health and social needs of our citizens. The approach we are advocating meets everyone's goals, so everyone benefits. Creating healthy, viable, and accountable first nations means that first nations meet their urgent needs while working toward a broader vision of nation building. The Government of Canada deals with its longstanding obligations and commitments to first nations. We move forward in a way that promotes greater self-sufficiency for first nations. These first nations participate and contribute to the national economy and build stronger ties to business and industry and we improve relationships between first nations, the Government of Canada, and indeed all Canadians.
To really make this process work we need to commit ourselves to a new mindset in dealing with these issues. I don't underestimate the work involved, but as I said earlier, we don't have to start by trying to deal with everything at once. This kind of process, one that's cooperative but driven by first nations, can work.
The Assembly of First Nations and INAC joint initiative for policy development in lands and trust service was based on this approach. First nations looked at the activities in the lands and trust service sector and identified ways policies could be changed so that first nations could take more control over their lands trust service activities. None of those changes required new legislation.
Another example is the work the AFN is doing on fiscal relations and building fiscal institutions. We are quite proud of this work. We are developing first nation fiscal institutions that will offer services to any first nation government that wants to use them. These initiatives differ from the current governance act process because they are first nations driven. They allow for ongoing consultations over several years, but implementation can begin right away. The result, including any legislation, is optional. They will not be imposed on first nations. These initiatives show that the approach advocated in the First Nations Plan not only works, it is the best way to go.
Á (1140)
On a broader level, I believe it is time to dust off the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and work together on implementing it. The RCAP is the single most comprehensive study in consultation with first nations on aboriginal rights in the history of Canada. It contains some 440 recommendations, cost $58 million, and draws on the words and ideas of thousands of people in hundreds of communities. It produced over 300 research reports. Most importantly, it sets out a blueprint for action.
Implementing RCAP would accomplish the work the Prime Minister has put before the reference group of ministers to think outside the box and understand why the lives of aboriginal peoples are not improving. Lives will not substantially improve unless the key elements of the RCAP report are implemented. These are a fundamentally new relationship based on justice, coexistence, and equality; a fundamental reallocation and redistribution of lands and resources in Canada; an immediate infusion of resources to stop the social and economic degradation of our communities; and a process to implement the original spirit and intent of the treaties.
There are in particular two recommendations that this committee could recommend to begin the process to implement RCAP. Recommendation 5.1.1 calls for “First Ministers, territorial leaders and leaders of the national Aboriginal organizations” to meet in order to review RCAP's principal recommendations; “begin consultations on the drafting and enactment of a Royal Proclamation redefining the nature of the relationship between Aboriginal nations and the Canadian governments; and establish a forum to create a Canada-Wide Framework Agreement.”
Recommendation 5.1.2 calls on the Government of Canada to “introduce legislation to establish an Aboriginal Peoples Review Commission that is independent of government, reports to Parliament and is headed by an Aboriginal chief commissioner” that would monitor the progress on the implementation of RCAP.
Our greatest resource in this work is our people. We must bring them into the process right from day one and make sure they're engaged at all stages. The lack of communication is poisoning the current governance act process and is fuelling the mistrust and apprehension. The assembly is doing what it can to keep our citizens informed, but our budget was drastically slashed and even doing a mail-out is difficult. We used to have a newspaper, the First Nations Messenger, which went to all first nations households, the first-ever newspaper of its kind. It was an unfortunate victim of the budget cuts.
The minister's current review of first nations organizations and his public statements that our political organizations are becoming too political are cause for worry. He has also recently stated that first nations should not be pursuing a rights agenda. This is very surprising. Given the minister's background in trade unions, he should know as well as anyone that our rights must be respected and protected and not forgotten. Our rights have been in the Constitution for over 20 years. Should any group of people have to wait two decades to have recognized rights implemented?
We are asking that this committee look at our plan, look at our information, and consider a better process. It is not too late to expand our current discussions and begin the real work of progressive change. We have a moral, a legal, obligation to do that.
A few weeks ago there was a bit of public debate between the Minister of Indian Affairs and his secretary about the potential for militancy or terrorism among our first nations youth. Those young people make up the majority of the first nations population. They will be a driving force in the Canadian economy as the non-aboriginal population grows older and retires. I thought about commenting on this debate, but why speculate? Rather than wonder about how violent or militant our young people are, let's give them hope.
I am a father, and many of you are parents. I feel for the father trying to raise his child in a community where there are no jobs, living in a house with no heat, where drugs and gas and solvents are a tempting escape.
Á (1145)
When his son turns to him and says “Father, will it be better tomorrow?” I don't want him to answer “Don't worry, the government is working on new regulations for our legal standing and capacity; he is dealing with by-law-making.” Let's give those young people hope. Let's give all our people hope, hope that things are getting better, hope that gives them the determination to apply their best minds and hearts to the task at hand. Let's give those people hope that tomorrow they will have a better home, that this land that is home to us all will be a better place, a place where we look upon one another with mutual recognition and respect. Then this land will be a place we can all call home. Let's create a legacy we can all be proud of.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you so very much for such an excellent presentation, and I'm not just saying this to be polite. You have confirmed, at least to me, that the decision of the committee to do this work even before receiving the legislation was a good decision. You have driven home to us areas I at least was not aware of.
There is more to our work than taking a piece of legislation assigned to us by the House of Commons, doing the normal routine, and then sending it back. This bill is coming to us after first reading, and the evidence you have produced for us has convinced me of the valuable work that needs to be done at committee more than any time before because of the fact that we will receive it after first reading. That means the committee is offered an opportunity to have more input and have more power to make meaningful amendments. When you say let's give hope to the next generation and to the people affected by the legislation, I can say to you that this will be the motto for this committee as we proceed.
I thank you very much, and you will have an opportunity for closing remarks.
We will start the rounds of questioning. They will be four minutes, question and answer, and I ask members to ask one question. If you have time left, ask another one. This way we will do two or three rounds, and usually we manage to get all the questions in. I ask for your cooperation.
Mr. Spencer.
Á (1150)
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning to you, National Chief, and to your vice-chief and special adviser with you. It has been a tremendous presentation, and we sincerely appreciate it. We appreciate your participation in this committee's work.
I'm sitting in today for Mr. Reed Elley, who's our senior critic. He has commitments in the riding, and I can assure you he would rather have been here. He's very concerned about this issue.
The legislation we are awaiting at this time will affect a great number of people across Canada, and I am sure you would agree that it will directly impact on all our aboriginal people living on-reserve or off-reserve as well as have implications for all Canadians.
As we all know, there are many aboriginal success stories we could talk about, and perhaps the most recent is the Membertou Band becoming the first native government in North America to become ISO compliant; that's a great achievement. Unfortunately, we recognize that the positive stories are too often overshadowed by those that get negative press, where people have not been so successful. While collectively we need to continue and hold up the positive issues, we also need to address some of the negative ones as well.
I have a statement I will read to you, and I will just ask for comment. It isn't in the form of a question, but feel free to comment on this:
| Do you recognize Canadian law or not? If you do recognize it, then you acknowledge that you live under its jurisdiction. If you do not recognize Canadian law as jurisdiction over you as a people, then you must approach the issue from the outside, using international law. |
What would your comments be to that?
Chief Matthew Coon Come: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of Parliament and this committee.
We would not have participated in the amendments to the Constitution in which our rights could be entrenched and recognized. I was one of the people who was involved to ensure that aboriginal rights and treaty rights were entrenched in the Constitution because I wanted this government to respect the highest law of the land. Certainly, I wanted our treaties, which were based on coexistence through living together, sharing this land, sharing the resources, and sharing the friendship of this country, to be recognized by the government.
Having stated that, we of course respect the jurisdictions that are there. But I also wonder about the Canadian government. Would they themselves uphold the highest law of the land? Is the Canadian government going to implement their section 35, which deals with aboriginal and treaty rights? Is the federal government going to uphold that law? Is the federal government going to make amendments based on the recent court decisions that favoured the first nations of this country in regard to hunting, fishing, and trapping, ensuring that we are consulted? There are many court cases across this country where the federal government has not updated or brought up to par its legislation, cases where there was a recognition of our rights in this country. The Canadian government needs to amend, update, or modify that legislation or those policies if they truly want to also be seen as a respecter of the law.
Certainly, I believe we do have some form of international recognition. As you know, we are involved in the UN, of which Canada is a member and where Canada is involved in the development of treatment of member states with indigenous peoples and in the principles that will guide those. Canada was involved in setting up a decade of recognition of indigenous peoples. Hopefully, we can do something between 1994 and the year 2004. What better chance for Canada than to do something for the first nations of this country, people in their own backyard?
The Chair: Mr. Marceau.
Á (1155)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Grand Chief Coon Come, Vice-Chief Picard, Mr. Powless, thank you very much for coming this morning, and thank you for your presentations. I might be repeating what has already been said, but I would just like to say that your presentations were excellent.
My party looks at things along the same lines as you do. We base our ideas on the premise that, for a good relationship to exist between aboriginal peoples and non-aboriginal peoples in the Canada of today, we must deal with issues on a nation-to-nation basis. I believe that if non-aboriginal governments genuinely took this premise on board, then we could get somewhere. Just look, for example, at the agreement between the Quebec government and the Cree nation that was signed earlier this year.
I have a two-part question. Firstly, when we met people from the Department of Indian Affairs earlier this week, I asked them about the impact of the absence of the Assembly of First Nations on the governance process put in place by the federal government. Their answer was more or less that it was a shame, but things would go forward anyway.
Consequently, first, to what extent is the absence of your organization undermining the current federal government process? Secondly, to what extent does your fierce opposition to the governance bill stem from the drastic cuts that the federal government has made to your organization?
[English]
Chief Matthew Coon Come: Thank you very much.
I agree with you that this country called Canada should go down the road of respecting and honouring a nation-to-nation relationship that is based on rebuilding a relationship that is mutual and respectful, and that the government of this country should honour their obligations and unfulfilled commitments, maintain the spirit intended in that treaty relationship, and recognize and implement section 35, which is their law, in order to improve the relationship.
Prior to the announcement of this legislation by the minister, as a national organization we had agreed to meet with the minister, hoping that prior to his announcement we could have clarification on a process we could agree to. We organized that meeting, but the minister did not appear; he sent his deputy minister. We made every effort. We had the grand chiefs from across the country, and they sat with officials from the department before it was announced because we knew we would have difficulty. Before you announce something, would it not be wise to sit down with the people whose lives it's going to have an impact on? We saw it as legislation that would continue to maintain a stranglehold of and control over our people. If we want to go down a path of mutual respect and cooperation, you should at least sit down with us.
We tried that, but it didn't happen. The minister didn't show up at that meeting, yet he went ahead and made the announcement. Consequently, we felt that the process got off on the wrong foot, though we certainly had some recommendations and we certainly wanted to participate in the process.
I think most of you know that we had rejected the government's act in Vancouver, and then in Halifax we adopted a resolution trying to seek a way to solve the impasse, one where we could have our issues taken into consideration. Well, that didn't happen. Unfortunately, the three or four issues that are under the government's act are their own issues, ones the minister wants to tackle. The issues I've raised in our First Nations Plan of nation building, namely the redistribution of lands and resources, treaty implementation, treaty renewal, and fiscal relations, were the avenue we wanted to go down. Of course, there are components we talked about, capacity building, etc., and having the participation of the first nations in the Canadian economy.
 (1200)
The Chair: I must interrupt, National Chief. There were two questions there. I understand you need time, but you will have an opportunity for closing remarks. You may want to integrate part of your replies into answers to other questions as you see convenient--if you understand what I'm saying.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, National Chief. I'm going to be very brief and to the point, so I'll skip all the pleasantries about what a good report it was.
First of all, in the consultation process, your graph very helpfully points out roughly 3% involvement. Now, if a person is going to claim that a broad consultation had taken place, if you're going to make that claim, what would be an acceptable degree of consultation in any setting? What would be the legal requirement, to use the word, if we did a broad consultation?
Chief Matthew Coon Come: As far as we know, no court has decided what the legal requirement would be for consultations. There are court decisions, even as we speak, from the Haida that show you need the consent of the aboriginal peoples when you're doing any forestry exploitation. But the courts have not outlined what would be the acceptable...what is 50%? Maybe you should use what the Canadian government suggested when Quebec wanted to secede from Canada. Maybe that could be a possible mark.
Mr. Pat Martin: There's a precedent.
Do you have specific examples? First of all, the NDP caucus believes the whole consultation process is an absolute sham. In many cases I agree with Grand Chief Margaret Swan from the Southern Chiefs, who believes that people were in fact paid to come in order to stop the kind of abject failures that went on in Winnipeg and in Swan River, for instance, where three people showed up. There were more INAC officials there than there were people involved in the consultation.
Do you believe that after the motion was passed in Halifax... Do you have any case examples of people who were actually bribed, let's call it, to attend, to show up at these consultations?
Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: I'll try to respond to that question.
The example we provided of the Ontario region certainly can be applied to Quebec. There again, because of our lack of cooperation, it was an outside organization that was contracted to conduct the consultations jointly with the department. In this case, again, it was an organization that has nothing to do with the Indian Act. And from the figures we have, no more than 300 people were consulted; I mean, 300 people affected by the consultations, or the Indian Act.
We also understand that most of the consultations, perhaps between 25 and 30, were held outside the communities. So right there you have very limited input on the part of the people most affected by the proposed legislation, and very little response as well from all of the mail-outs from the department.
The Chair: Ms. Grey.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, PC/DR): Thanks, and again, thanks to our witnesses.
Matthew, you were saying that it would be wise to meet with the minister before he announced this program or the changes to it. I think it seems obvious to all of us that this would be a smart thing to do, but the deputy minister came, and I'm just a little mixed up as to the events this summer.
Was that the meeting to which you were coming when the minister drove in, in the van that we all saw on TV, and just turned around and drove out again? Was that the same thing, or where was that? I just have a picture in my mind of that on the news.
 (1205)
Chief Matthew Coon Come: I believe that was at Burnt Church.
Miss Deborah Grey: Okay, very good. The visuals of those kinds of things, obviously, are not helpful.
Let me also ask about the consultations. Now, 3% is pretty low. As I recall, too, from watching the news this summer, you had recommended a boycott of those meetings. Is that true?
Chief Matthew Coon Come: Yes, our assembly had asked for a 30-day freeze in which we would attempt to try to resolve our differences. And there had been statements by some of the first nations leaders to the effect that they'd be willing to boycott it, yes.
Miss Deborah Grey: Okay.
I like what you say here about giving people hope. That has to be the essential ingredient in all of this. I think none of us, probably, would be sticking around this place if we didn't have hope, so we need to wade through this somehow. I too was surprised when I saw the brand-new parliamentary secretary talking about militancy. That's not a wise thing to talk about, not a smart place to go down the path of. But I also thought I saw you on the news this summer saying that maybe militancy and violence was an option.
Could you put that into some sort of context for me, in light of this?
Chief Matthew Coon Come: I certainly am not one who advocates violence, and I think my record stands to that. I believe in the political process, in using all the avenues available within the administrative machinery of government, including court cases, and using PR, if need be, to highlight your situation. But certainly one cannot deny that there is a growing trend of frustration, and the challenge for us as first nations is to be able to channel that frustration into something constructive so that we can give hope to our people.
Even though Secretary of State Stephen Owen made that statement, certainly first nations leaders did not really condone him for saying that, because they recognize the pressures. However, I don't think it's correct to speculate, and certainly we're not advocating any violence or any militancy.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is very interesting to meet Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come, Mr. Powless and Mr. Picard, and it is great to see that new aboriginal leaders, young men and women are here today with aboriginal chiefs and former James Bay Cree chiefs.
Firstly, I would like to thank the chair for his remarks following your brief, which were very much to the point. However, I would also like to thank Grand Chief Coon Come for the leadership he has shown. Recently, we have experienced historic events in Canada. We saw the signature of an agreement between the Cree and the Quebec government providing a better quality of life for young Cree and the Cree nation in the James Bay area as a whole over the next 50 years. That is just one example of what's being done. I would like to thank you for the leadership that you have shown. I would like to thank those who took part in the process, most especially the former minister, Guy Chevrette.
I have one question for Grand Chief Coon Come. On page 8 of your submission, you mention that consultations took place and that officials have been undertaking consultations throughout Canada. We are all well aware of what our aboriginal friends want to discuss. They don't want to discuss the upcoming bill. Why aren't aboriginals participating in the consultations? Well, because they have different priorities. You refer to this in your brief and in your plan on page 30 and on page 8. You say that:
| Talk to the people living in the communities, talk to the leaders. They'll tell you we need to do something about housing, unemployment, clean drinking water, schools, jobs, access to land and resources, building a viable economy. We should be tackling these issues right away, right now. |
On page 27 of your plan, you say the following:
| In the Speech from the Throne, the government also committed to ensuring that “basic needs are met for jobs, health, education, housing and infrastructure” and that this commitment would be “reflected in all government priorities”. Yet, First Nations have not seen how this will be achieved or managed. First Nations want to work with the Government of Canada on these matters. |
What is being achieved since the Speech from the Throne? We are all aware that you would like to cooperate. We know that you take part in the economy of Canada as a whole, in major urban areas. However, I believe that there are some of us here today, who are living in ivory towers, and who have lost sight of what's happening in aboriginal communities and on reserves. You are our friends and our neighbours. Therefore, what has been done since the Speech from the Throne?
 (1210)
[English]
Chief Matthew Coon Come: Thank you very much, Monsieur St-Julien.
I thought that we, as first nations across this country, were moving forward and that our issues were front and centre when the throne speech came out. Following that, the reference committee was set up by the Prime Minister of this country to go down the path of dealing with about eight different issues that were raised in the throne speech, specifically to aboriginal peoples.
Unfortunately, the very traumatic events of September 11 happened, which caused the government to shift their priorities to national security, individual security, etc., and that's understandable. The public now wants to deal with the bread and butter issues.
We certainly want to deal with the socio-economic conditions of our people. We certainly would like to follow down the path of being included rather than excluded from developments in how you can implement the throne speech. We want to work closely with the reference committee and be able to develop outside-the-box thinking in tackling these issues.
That's where we felt we were...at least the top three. I was encouraged when the Prime Minister made the statement, when asked in the House, that his priorities were economic initiatives and the aboriginal agenda. The Minister of Finance was asked the same thing, and he said he was interested in innovative initiatives and the aboriginal agenda.
That was very encouraging, but September 11 happened. Now we need to go back to dealing with the issues of this country, and one of the outstanding, unfinished pieces of business is addressing the first nations issues.
Just tinkering with the Indian Act itself is a major distraction. It's the only issue we hear about and talk about. Meanwhile, our people are highly unemployed and living in deplorable living conditions, with a lack of drinking water, etc. Those are the issues we want to deal with, but the government can't seem to come to grips with how to involve first nations.
We have done many studies. We are ready to sit down with your government. We have recommendations and solutions. You established the panel report; you have spent millions of dollars of your taxpayers' money, and now we have an opportunity to sit down and resolve these issues. I'd like to resolve them within my lifetime, so I can give the hope I'm talking about to those young people, and they won't have to worry about these deplorable living conditions. I think we have an opportunity. That's the path I want to go down, instead of tinkering with this Indian Act.
We need to build faith in our people that when the government signs treaties and entrenches and recognizes their own constitution, it is a signal to the first nations that they want to deal with them; that this is a government of honourable people. They will honour their word and we will implement those treaties. We want to sit down and implement those treaties. That was the relationship.
The Chair: Thank you.
To my colleagues, I beg you, we have four minutes for the question and the answer. I'm very interested in the answers because they are good answers; they are helping me do my work. So when we take almost three minutes for every question, this allows one minute for our honoured guest to respond. I find it very difficult to interrupt such an honoured guest, subsequently I end up not doing it. So in all fairness, I would like some short questions.
Mr. Spencer.
 (1215)
Mr. Larry Spencer: The move to self-government seems inevitable and appropriate, but a number of the grassroots aboriginal people are concerned that self-government may be moving too fast. They say there is a problem of the capacity of many bands to have qualified people ready and able to deliver the services needed.
My question is, to what extent has the Assembly of First Nations considered this in their review of this legislation, and how would you address that problem of lack of capacity?
Chief Matthew Coon Come: There are certainly preconditions to achieving a form of self-government. Certain pillars or institutions have to be in place for real self-sufficiency of first nations.
Can you repeat the question?
Mr. Larry Spencer: To what extent did you take into consideration the lack of capacity on some reserves among the first nations people to carry out the services needed, and how would you address that problem of lack of capacity?
Chief Matthew Coon Come: We thought we had addressed that issue. Recognizing the diversity of first nations across this country--there are 80 different first nations, as I have mentioned, with different cultures, different customs, different traditions, and different forms of governing themselves--we felt that the First Nations Governance Institute, which was set up by the federal government, would be a way to explore and to allow each first nation to develop their own form of self-government, at their own pace. But the Minister of Indian Affairs decided to cut the budget for that institute, whose intention had been to look at the different forms of government across this country.
Because of our diversity, one size will not fit all. We should do away with that thought. We had a solution. We had an institution.
The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Let me begin by saying that I consider the evidence and the witnesses today to be so important, I think we might well consider having them back. Given the richness of the material in The First Nations Plan, I don't think one session is going to do it.
Second--and this may sound a little odd to everybody here--I find your interests and those of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to be curiously coincident. Notably, your starting point in both cases is about governance. That is to say, if you take the rights-based approach, the Harvard study and so on, and you go through the four criteria--genuine self-rule, creating efficient governing institutions, and so on--that is a governance agenda.
I've read through your vision. I think there's tremendous stuff in there, including the look at the fiscal institutions legislation. I guess the question for me, as a member of the committee, is that if you're arguing that this is not the time to talk about amending the Indian Act, then we don't have a whole lot to do as a committee. I mean, that's pretty much it for us. Or, if you wish to be devious with us, which is another alternative, is there a way in which we can take some of the concepts that are in the document--understanding that it is a package and that we're going to move forward at different rates on different elements of it, such as the fiscal institutions legislation--and, using a discussion on a revision of the Indian Act, actually move the agenda forward? Because at some point or other, presumably to realign what we're currently doing, you will have to get to the Indian Act. You're kind of suggesting that we should come at it later.
I'm wondering if there isn't a way of marrying up, in the work of this committee, the common concerns on governance and fiscal institutions.
Chief Matthew Coon Come: I think we are both talking about governance, you're correct; it's the premise from which we start that's... We're saying we should start from section 35. The Minister of Indian Affairs is saying, no, we want to start from section 91.24, the legislative approach. But we have treaties with your government, so let's find a treaty implementation and a treaty renewal where you can get the government to fulfill its obligations. That requires a different strategy.
If you go down that path, I think that would allow for real self-government negotiation and implementation, and it would deal with some of the issues the minister is talking about. Whether we like it or not, that Indian Act will be there until such time as each first nation determines what is best for them and whether they decide to do away with the Indian Act, or replace the Indian Act with their own forms of customs and traditions, as the Crees have done. The Indian Act does not apply to them. It was replaced by a codification of customs and traditions, and the Cree-Naskapi Act was created. So you have to allow...
Our starting base is very important. We're suggesting that we start on the basis of section 35 as opposed to section 91.24.
The Chair: Mr. Marceau.
 (1220)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Grand Chief, earlier I asked a question that I would like you to answer. To what extent, in your opinion, is your opposition to the governance bill based on the drastic cuts that the federal government has made to your budget?
[English]
Chief Matthew Coon Come: My apologies. I only heard the last half of your question. Sorry.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: To what extent is your fairly fierce opposition to this governance bill based, in your opinion, on the drastic cuts that the federal government has made to the Assembly of First Nations budget?
[English]
Chief Matthew Coon Come: It's probably a combination of many things why our budget was cut. First of all, it probably had to do with some of the comments I made in the world conference against racism. I felt I was misquoted, when I was only quoting from documents of the federal government--from RCAP and the Human Rights Commission. These are reports in which Canada is involved and that Canada paid for, like RCAP.
I think the message of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is if you are opposed to the legislation, your budget is cut. The native women's association opposed it, then a new national women's organization was created. The minister had funds for that. Right across this country, the people who are participating in the process somehow have the ear of the minister. I thought those days were gone.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Consequently, the overall process is invalid, since if you do not agree with the government position, your funds are cut and organizations that do not have the same political clout as yours does are set up. That's just a way for the government to divide and conquer and to create stakeholders that were mentioned on page 22 of the department's presentation. The stakeholders will put forward a position that is in line with what the department wants to hear. That's what you're telling us, isn't it?
Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: I am presenting a very clear message here. What I'm saying is that if we happen to decide to oppose an approach put in place by the Department of Indian Affairs, the Minister of Indian Affairs or the federal government, then our wings are clipped. It's as simple as that. That is what is happening, as a matter of fact.
In my opinion, even when the minister is in the wrong, at the end of the day, he's in the right, and it is the Assembly of First Nations which has to back down. This is despite all the various government policies in which we have participated in good faith over the past four or five years. These joint processes have led to successes however. I think that the national chief mentioned that earlier on today. The governance institute and the cooperation between First Nations and the government on land and trust services were areas where both First Nations and the federal government participated in good faith.
However, in this case we were directed by our chiefs, and this meant that we had to oppose this particular process, with the outcome that we have seen.
 (1225)
[English]
The Chair: The list is Mr. Bagnell, Mr. Martin, Ms. Karetak-Lindell, Miss Grey, and then closing remarks.
Mr. Bagnell.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you.
Thank you for appearing. You have appeared a number of times. I always appreciate the research you do on the problems you outline. The committee, of course, is trying to deal with a lot of these problems, and hopefully we can solve them in different hearings. I also appreciate the way you present them.
I just have one question, for clarification. You both mentioned the need for changes and improvements. Everyone agrees with that. But you also said that tinkering with the Indian Act wasn't the way to go.
We all say we have to solve these problems one way or another. Are you suggesting to just leave the Indian Act the way it is and work on these other problems through section 35, etc., or are you suggesting, in a perfect world, to just get rid of the Indian Act tomorrow and work through section 35 and this plan, to solve these problems?
Chief Matthew Coon Come: We would prefer the Indian Act be put aside. It would be there until such time as this government decided to replace it--with what? There are first nations across this country where a lot of work has been done in some of the self-government negotiations. First nations have identified the areas of jurisdiction and where they would like to have control, whether it be over land, land resources, environment, education, health, etc. The have formulated how they're going to govern themselves until it is done. You should allow for that.
The treaties allowed for that. They allowed them to develop, and they may decide what they have done will replace the Indian Act. That's probably a far better approach, because then you allow the first nations, at their pace--as one of your members suggested--to be able to develop their own forms of governance respecting their own laws and their own customs.
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.
Everybody seems to have nice things to say about the research you do. You might want to comment on your ability to keep putting out that level of research with half the budget and half the staff, now that your budget has been cut so drastically.
Dealing with your point about starting from the premise in section 35 or section 92, what were your views when you heard the PM say--and I have to paraphrase here--he really doesn't want to spend any more time on rights and redress. All future activity should be toward real developments, etc.
Was that an indication, given the subject matter they've chosen for this government's legislation, we're looking back to the future; we're looking back to 1969 and their vision of the failed white paper that he, by coincidence, was the architect of? Are there people in the aboriginal leadership who have the fear that we're going in the direction of the old white paper days?
Chief Matthew Coon Come: Yes, there are people who feel we're tinkering with the Indian Act and going backwards to the 1968 white paper.
I was very surprised at the comments made by the minister on rights, when he was a former trade unionist. In this country, the federal government's rights are incorporated, the provincial rights are incorporated, and the individual rights are incorporated and entrenched in the Constitution. They are defended and asserted, especially by trade unions. Out of that derive benefits.
So why would they ask us not to deal with rights, when everyone in this country asserts their rights, knowing they will receive benefits from them? To say we should put aside a rights-based agenda is not respectful of maintaining a relationship, maintaining the highest law of the land that recognizes aboriginal rights, and going down the path of implementing those rights and maintaining the spirit and intent of those treaties.
On our budget, I think we were able to do most of the work prior to the cutbacks in our budget. We had many initiatives that came from the federal government under Gathering Strength. Is Gathering Strength still the policy of this government? When did it change?
 (1230)
Mr. Pat Martin: It's gathering dust! That's the difference.
Chief Matthew Coon Come: I didn't say that.
The Chair: I wasn't listening because you weren't speaking.
Mr. Pat Martin: Your brief deals quite specifically and at length with one of your fears about the legal definition or legal status of the first nations communities in the government's bill and whether it's forcing people into a municipality-type status or not.
Do you believe that within the parameters of the existing act, first nations can already achieve alternative legal status? What is your fear about the government's bill, as it deals with the legal status or standing of communities?
Chief Matthew Coon Come: We are very concerned about the legal implications it might have on the liability of the band and its members, versus the chief and council as an executive body. At the same time, with the legislative capacity-building, if I may call it that, we feel we can already operate, and have operated, by getting incorporated. Many first nations across this country have established themselves by setting up different entities from which they can do business. They are incorporated, they have letters patent, they can be sued, they make investments, and they are creating jobs and participating in the economy.
So we don't need those legislative amendments. We are doing that already.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you.
First of all, I thank you for your presentation. I'm just very troubled, though, that we can't combine all the great expertise from what seems to be two sides right now. I'm very troubled when there's parallel work going on instead of people putting all the expertise and resources together. In my own area I keep telling everyone that as long as we work in little islands without bridges, we're not maximizing the benefit for the people.
I have to speak as a mother of four boys when you talk about family. Sometimes the mother has to act as a buffer between the father and the son for the sake of the family so the children can be fed, clothed, and given hope. I see a sort of stumbling block with the process right now for the children in getting healthy homes, clothes, and the right to an education and a promising future.
The question is then, what are the views of the women in first nations as to what's happening right now with the process? I know we all want the same end result, but we're having trouble finding some middle ground.
If I could quickly insert it, the second question is, can this committee act as sort of that middle ground, where we can work together with the mandate given to us and with expertise you certainly have when you talk about your communities? At the end of the day, for the children to be able to participate as Canadian citizens in this great country, what tools can we give them today, and how can this committee work with you and with Indian Affairs to come to that middle ground as a stepping stone for the future?
 (1235)
Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: Well, certainly the first condition would be to put more time into joint efforts. As I said earlier, we have taken the time as the Assembly of First Nations to join the efforts at times with the federal government to readdress the situation of aboriginal people. We can all recall that it hasn't happened often where the AFN supported reports coming from this government. In the case of the royal commission report back in 1996, the chiefs wholeheartedly supported that report because the recipe was there to tackle the issues you're referring to. I feel that maybe, had we taken more time on the report itself and its recommendations, we would be far more advanced now than we actually are.
We referred to the report a number of times throughout our presentation, and we feel we need to spend some time and assess what has happened since 1996 and what has not happened. I feel that those questions would probably be better answered by going through an exercise like that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Grey, for the last question.
Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One year ago, I probably wouldn't have believed it possible that if one voiced concerns and opposed something, they would think they could pay a price for it. But I am troubled by what I'm hearing about your concerns about budget cuts. I don't know if we can get to the bottom of this, but if that is going on, I'm going to ask the government members on this committee to get to the bottom of it, because you certainly have the ear of the minister more than the rest of us.
If in fact that is happening, and if there is a direct correlation between your opposing or being concerned about something and being cut... I'm also sad to say that what we've witnessed in the news in the last two weeks makes me think there's a price to pay, and that is not the way to go about it.
So I'm going to ask you folks to do that, on behalf of everyone in this committee. If there is any correlation to that, just because someone speaks out against it, that is deplorable.
Let me ask you about the joint initiative for policy development, which was working with DIAND since 1998. When the report came out on the joint initiative in May 2001, did you feel that those joint initiative concerns or discussions were fully wrapped up and well concluded?
And then this May 2000 report on the joint initiative describes the Minister of Indian Affairs' proposed governance initiatives being at odds with the joint initiative process. Were the concerns of the joint initiatives addressed by the minister's consultations, or do you feel that something was left pretty seriously up in the air there?
Chief Matthew Coon Come: The joint initiatives were part of the response of the federal government to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, part of Gathering Strength--Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan. The joint initiatives were the result of that. However, when we met with this new minister to discuss our budget, we were never given the opportunity to explain the work that has been done on the joint initiatives on LTS, for example, or on the specific claims. We had joint recommendations that would go to the minister. We weren't even given an opportunity to explain the work that had been done. They were just unilaterally terminated by the minister himself, with no line-by-line discussions.
So by essence of that, can I interpret that this minister unilaterally has terminated the government's policy on Gathering Strength? Every other minister, whether it's the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health, the Attorney General, or the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, is dealing with us on joint initiatives. But this minister just unilaterally says, “I don't like that joint initiative; it wasn't mine, it was another minister's, so I don't like that”, without giving the opportunity to adequately implement the joint initiatives. And I thought it was good work that was done.
 (1240)
The Chair: Thank you. That concludes the question period.
Before asking you to make closing comments, I will take this opportunity, on behalf of the members of the committee, to thank you sincerely. This was a valuable exercise that we went through. I know we will meet again, either before or after the legislation is tabled. We value your thoughts, your opinion, and your expertise.
So, National Chief Matthew, please, for closing remarks, approximately five minutes.
Chief Matthew Coon Come: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There was a question with regard to the resources we have and the research we're able to present before you. With budget cuts...and we've kept our best people, but our staff is starting to burn out now from dealing with all these priority issues, and multi-tasking. We therefore need more financial and human resources.
The Prime Minister wants to leave a legacy. It's reflected in the throne speech and reflected in the reference committee. But I believe we are the key to dealing with and coming up with a solution to what Canadians have called the “problem” of aboriginal peoples. We certainly want to work towards a solution. That's why we developed a first nations plan.
The other thing the committee should note is that if you're a minister responsible for a department, you have a specific constituency. In our case, Mr. Nault is responsible for the Department of Indian Affairs, and he says he's the most powerful man in our community. He has never once met collectively with our chiefs assembly. I think somebody has to tell him, if you are representing people, you should be respectful and at least hear them out.
We are very respectful, of course, of any democratic institutions, but we don't need an Indian agent. I think we have evolved. More young people are educated to know their rights. They know how to manage and administer our affairs. So we don't need an Indian agent, but I do think we need a process. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples is recommended as a start. It is in our recommendations. A first ministers meeting should be called with the first ministers and the aboriginal peoples. An implementation plan should be developed to establish a relationship between first nations and this country. I think the reference committee also could formalize that, could be talking about a joint cabinet committee that can deal with our issues.
We need to put back in place the partnership contemplated in Gathering Strength, because that's one of the principles that I think all of us would agree on. We want to go toward partnerships and cooperation and mutual respect. We stand ready to help Canada find solutions to the deplorable living conditions of our people and to deal with the bread-and-butter issues. Let's tackle those issues. We stand ready to deal with the government that's in place.
I thank you very much.
Voices: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, we'll suspend for one minute and then go in camera to deal with future business.
Thank you very much, everyone.