AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

Á

1105

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

Mr. John Leslie (Research Consultant, Public History Inc.)

Á

1110

Á

1115

Á

1120

Á

1125

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

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

Á

1135

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

Á

1140

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Á

1145

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Martin

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. John Leslie

Á

1150

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. John Leslie

Á

1155

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. John Finlay

Some hon. members

The Chair

Miss Grey

Mr. John Leslie

An hon. member

Miss Grey

Mr. John Leslie

Miss Grey

Mr. John Leslie

Miss Grey

Mr. John Leslie

Miss Grey

Mr. John Leslie

Â

1200

Miss Grey

The Chair

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

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. John Leslie

Â

1205

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Godfrey

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Leslie

Â

1210

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Bagnell

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

Mr. Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)

Mr. John Leslie

Â

1215

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. John Godfrey

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. John Leslie

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Pat Martin

An hon. member

Mr. Martin

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Pat Martin

Voices

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Martin

Mr. John Leslie

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. Martin

The Chair

Miss Grey

The Chair

Miss Grey

Mr. John Leslie

Miss Grey

The Chair

Â

1225

Miss Grey

Mr. John Leslie

Miss Grey

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. John Leslie

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

Mr. John Leslie

Some hon. members

The Chair

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

Mr. John Leslie

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMÉRO 043

l

1re SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): I will just get on record that we are seven minutes late at this point and are waiting for representatives from the government side. We will suspend proceedings until they arrive. If no opposition members were here, I'd do the same, so in all fairness....

Á  (1106)  

---

Á  (1108)  

    The Chair: We will now resume proceedings.

    The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources is here pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), for an overview of the Indian Act. As part of that overview, we are pleased to have with us, in good health, research consultant Mr. John Leslie.

    We are very pleased that you are here. It is very important for us to hear from you, and we appreciate that you accepted to come here today. I want to ask you to make a presentation, and then we'll open it up to questions from members. Please proceed.

    Mr. John Leslie (Research Consultant, Public History Inc.): I'm going to need maybe 20 or 30 minutes for my presentation. It just depends on how the time unfolds.

    Thank you for the invitation to appear before the standing committee. I want to stress that the views and opinions expressed by me today are mine alone, and not those of Public History or any other institution that I have worked for for a number of years.

    Just as a quick work about terminology, the Constitution states that Canada's aboriginal peoples are Indians, Métis, and Inuit. As I will be dealing with the Indian Act, for the sake of simplicity, I'm just going to use the term “Indian” throughout the presentation. With that, as I say, fasten your seat belts, because I'm going to cover about 250 years of history in about 30 minutes.

    I think you all have my bullet presentation, so I'm going to address the bullets.

    Just by way of introduction, probably some of this is obvious, but the Indian Act is a complex piece of legislation that has evolved in scope, content, and sophistication since about the mid-19th century. The philosophical principles and practices of Indian policy are reflected in the legislation of the period. A couple of points should be kept in mind. First, the Indian Act doesn't apply to Métis; and second, the 1951 Indian Act specifically excludes Inuit from its operation.

    Historically, Indian policy and legislation was devised largely without Indian consent or participation. The 1951 Indian Act was an exception. A more recent example of lack of meaningful consultation was, of course, the 1969 white paper. Both Indian policy and Indian Act legislation were formed by members of the dominant society, and they reflected the views and values of that society in regard to the proper place and role of aboriginal people. There was this constant, lingering Indian question in Canada.

    I'll begin on page 1, under the heading “Historical origins of Indian policy and administration.”

    The key historical document in terms of gaining an understanding of the evolution of Canadian Indian policy and legislation was the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The Royal Proclamation set down a policy and procedure for the Crown to acquire, in an orderly fashion, Indian hunting grounds. The Royal Proclamation also affirmed the first major principle of British Indian policy: that Indian people on Indian lands were to be protected from unscrupulous land speculators and traders. Indeed, the land cession treaty system of present-day Ontario and western Canada can be traced back to the Royal Proclamation.

    Officials of the Indian Department—which, by the way, was founded in 1755 and is about 246 years old—were expected to be custodians of the imperial policy of Indian protection, and were instructed to oversee and manage the acquisition of Indian lands required for European settlement. This role was expanded after 1830, as we will see.

    The traditional roles of Indian people in early colonial society were to act as middlemen in the fur trade and to assist regular armed forces in times of war. These activities were carried out with distinction during both the French and British regimes. In these traditional functions, Indian people shared, to a degree, in decision-making, devising trade practices, and planning military operations.

    However, following the end of the War of 1812, the traditional roles for Indian people in colonial society declined rapidly. British and Canadian policy-makers were faced with determining a new role and place for Indians in colonial society. Instead of abandoning Indian people to face the harsh, new political and economic realities, the first principle of Indian policy, that of Indian protection, was reasserted. The new approach was simple and direct: place Indian people temporarily on reserved lands—and I mean temporarily on reserved lands, because reserved lands were not given a definition—convert them to Christianity, dress them in European clothes, and teach them to become self-sustaining British citizens by becoming productive farmers.

Á  (1110)  

    Policy-makers of the day were optimistic that the process of Indian assimilation would be rapid. Indian people per se would disappear through intermarriage and other processes, as would their lands, the reserves. In the beginning, there was no obvious need for protective Indian legislation.

    So we move to page 2, under “Pre-Confederation Legacy - Policy”. The Indian civilization program, which was launched in 1830, was based on three philosophical principles: Indian protection, based on the Royal Proclamation; improvement of Indian living conditions; and Indian assimilation into the dominant society. The new policy had three systemic cornerstones: a system of land cession treaties, which we see in Upper Canada, which is now Ontario and western Canada; a system of Indian reserves and supervisory Indian agents; and a system of schools to educate Indians, first at day and industrial schools, and later at residential schools.

    Between 1830 and 1858, there were six government investigations of Indian policy and the new administrative arrangements. The cumulative investigations sanctioned the Indian civilization program and, in essence, created an institutional memory for Indian Affairs policy-makers that, in subsequent decades, informed their attitudes towards Indian people and Indian issues. Interestingly, as early as the 1840s, these government investigations recognized that Indian policy and administrative practices were too paternalistic, but no other arrangements were broached or deemed viable. Officials were satisfied with the status quo.

    Turning to page 3, the first piece of legislation to protect Indian reserves was passed in Upper Canada in 1839, and what it did was basically lump Indian lands in with crown lands. There was no separate distinction. But by mid-century, 1850, government officials realized that the transformation of Indian people into productive farmers was not proceeding as rapidly as expected. Rapid settlement and commercial development, particularly in Canada West—which would become Ontario—necessitated some more elaborate legislative protection for Indian people and their lands.

    This protection came in 1850, when the Province of Canada, which at that time comprised Ontario and Quebec, passed two pieces of legislation to protect Indian reserve lands and property. The legislation that applied to Canada East—which became Quebec—is noteworthy because a four-point definition of who constituted an Indian in government eyes was provided for the first time. In the legislation for Canada West, section 4 of the act established the practice that no taxes would be levied on Indian people living on reserve lands.

    By the late 1850s, Indian policy-makers were becoming impatient with the slow progress of Indian assimilation. As a consequence, in 1857, An Act to encourage the gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes in this Province, and to amend the Laws respecting Indians, was proclaimed. This legislation set down a policy and procedure whereby all legal distinctions between Indian people and non-natives would be removed under certain conditions. This act was clarified further in 1859 and 1860. As well, in 1859, the 1850 legislation to protect Indian lands was strengthened, with numerous penalty clauses and additional authority for those officials enforcing the legislation.

    In 1858, British officials notified their Canadian counterparts that they were no longer interested in financing Indian administration. As a result, responsibility for the evolving system of Indian legislation, a growing administrative apparatus, and increased expenditures, was formally turned over to the Province of Canada in 1860. In effect, Canada was now on its own.

    So what were the main features of Indian policy, administration, and legislation, at Confederation in 1867? First, as in colonial times, Indian administration was deemed too sensitive a policy field to be left to the various provinces. It was going to be a federal responsibility. Protection of Indian people and Indian lands became a federal responsibility under section 91, class 24, of the British North America Act.

    Second, the new federal government, largely made up of officials from the Province of Canada, looked no further than the pre-Confederation Indian policy and administrative arrangements and applied the three systems of treaties, reserves, and Indian education across the Dominion, with regional variations to meet local circumstances and conditions.

    Third, after 1873, Indian Affairs became a branch of the Department of the Interior and remained under the jurisdiction of the minister—who, in 1880, was Sir John A. Macdonald—until 1936, a period of some 63 years.

Á  (1115)  

    In the decades after Confederation—in fact, I would argue it was until 1940, as you'll see—the policy, administrative, and legislative framework for dealing with Indian people and Indian issues, as established in colonial times, became the basic model for a more elaborate and comprehensive federal approach. Remarkably, however, the philosophical assumptions behind Indian policy and Indian legislation were not questioned, nor was the viability of the land cession treaty systems, the reserves, and education.

    In 1876, the Indian Affairs branch consolidated all the existing pre-Confederation legislation, with some modifications, into one consolidated Indian Act, meaning that the first consolidated Indian Act came in 1876. It is interesting to note that the Indian Act actually came after some of the treaties. The western treaties that were negotiated, Treaty No. 1 through Treaty No. 6, 1871 to 1876, preceded the Indian Act. A lot of Indian people in western Canada say the relationship is not with the Indian Act, it's with the treaties, because the act came after the treaties.

    The first post-Confederation Indian Act was comprehensive. It contained a hundred sections, it touched on all aspects of Indian reserve life, and it directed government administration. For example, various sections dealt with who was an Indian; what constituted an Indian band; what was an Indian reserve; how Indian reserve lands could be subdivided via location tickets; what legal protections would be given to reserves; and how reserves could be surrendered. There were also rules for the management and sale of minerals and timber; procedures for the disposition of Indian moneys; enumerated powers for the chiefs and band councils; band election procedures; specific Indian privileges—for example, “no taxation” was repeated; disabilities and penalties; and procedures for Indian enfranchisement—that is, for loss of Indian status.

    The 1876 Indian Act was modified and tightened in 1880. The major provisions of this act remained in place until 1927, despite some thirty amendments when the Indian Act was finally revised. In 1884, An Act for conferring certain privileges on the more advanced Bands of the Indians of Canada, with the view of training them for the exercise of municipal powers—that's the actual title of it—was passed by Parliament. This legislation became know as the Indian Advancement Act, and its focus was mainly on the bands of eastern Canada. The measures were designed to promote municipal-style government for the more advanced Indian groups, such as the Six Nations at Brantford.

    In spite of the official optimism, events were not progressing as politicians and officials had hoped, particularly in the west. Old Indian ways persisted. The policy of Indian assimilation was not showing tangible results. In the view of government officials, a relatively effortless way of dealing with the apparent lack of progress was to revise the Indian Act to give more powers to local Indian agents and to heavily penalize Indian people for persisting in the old ways. For example, in the 1880s, Indian agents acquired additional powers as justices of the peace in order to prosecute Indians. In April 1884, the Indian Act was amended by section 3, which placed a ban on dances and traditional ceremonies. In 1894, section 11 gave the Minister of Indian Affairs the power to direct industrial or residential schools, and made school attendance compulsory, with strict truancy penalties. And in 1927, a section 141 was inserted into the act, banning the pursuit of land claims.

    To get some idea of the state of official thinking on Indian policy in the early decades of the 20th century, one need not go further than quoting Deputy Superintendent-General Duncan Campbell Scott in his remarks to the 1920 Special Committee of the House of Commons examining the Indian Act amendments of 1920, when he spoke about new legislative measures for compulsory enfranchisement of Indians. This was a fairly lengthy quote, but I've chopped it down:

Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department, that is the object of this Bill.

    Despite the best intentions of policy-makers, Indian peoples did not disappear. Quite the contrary. By the 1930s, Indian agents and missionaries noted a significant increase in the native population. With government cutbacks during the Great Depression and with more Indians crowded on reserve lands, living conditions on reserves became increasingly unbearable. There seemed to be no ready solution to the long-standing Indian question. In fact, Indian branch officials did not know precisely how many Indians there were in Canada, because Indian band lists were maintained in a haphazard fashion by the local agents.

Á  (1120)  

    The plight of Canada's Indian peoples became a matter of national concern at the close of World War II, when the House of Commons Special Committee on Reconstruction and Re-establishment was struck. This committee was charged with looking into the nature of Canadian society after the war. In this period of national account-taking, Indian reserve conditions and Indian policy and administration came under sustained public scrutiny for the first time since before Confederation.

    Between 1946 and 1948, a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons examined the operation of the Indian Act and Indian administration. Witnesses were called, including government officials, select native groups, and interested parties.

    Three years of committee hearings produced significant policy and administrative recommendations. For example, the special joint committee came up with its own Indian Act, and this became known as the “Committee's Bill”. The committee proposed that Indian people receive the federal vote, which they had once possessed in the 1880s but had lost on technical grounds. The committee suggested that an Indian claims commission be established to deal with long-standing grievances that were impeding Indian participation in Canadian society. The committee felt the minister had too many discretionary powers and that these should be reduced in a new act. The committee argued that Indian bands should be able to develop their own charters or constitutions for self-government—and that's the term they used back in the 1940s, “self-government”—and that the bands should be allowed to incorporate and hold title to reserve lands. Finally, the long-standing policy goal of Indian assimilation was modified by the committee hearings, to one supporting Indian integration.

    From 1948 to 1950, government officials considered the special joint committee's proposals and rejected most of them: the federal vote, the claims commission, and the notion of Indian band constitutions and incorporation. In June 1950, revised Indian Act legislation was presented to the House of Commons. It was soon withdrawn because Indian people and their supporters claimed they had not been formally consulted. A revised bill was reintroduced in the fall of 1950 and was reviewed by select Indian leaders in a five-day session in Ottawa in the winter of 1951. A new Indian Act, the one currently in force, was proclaimed in September 1951.

    To give you some highlights of the 1951 Indian Act, the revised Indian Act of 1951 was not a radical departure from earlier versions. It essentially tidied up and removed conflicting sections. In many ways, it was an exercise in legislative housekeeping. There were few significant departures. There was no claims commission, and there was no federal vote for the Indians. The ban on dances and ceremonies was lifted, as was the ban on the pursuit of land claims. The discretionary powers of the minister were reduced in number, as were the number of penalty clauses against Indians. Chiefs and band councils received more powers to act as municipal-style governments—in particular, greater freedom to spend band revenues as they saw fit. And perhaps the most significant features of the revised act were a new legal definition of who was entitled to be an Indian, and the establishment of an Indian branch headquarters of a central Indian registry.

    In many respects, the need to specifically identify who was an Indian—at least in government eyes—and was thus entitled to receive government benefits such as mothers' allowances and old age pensions, was prompted by the advent of the post-war welfare state. The passage of the revised Indian Act suggested to policy-makers that Indian administration had set out on a new and enlightened course for the 1950s.

    The 1950s were relatively uneventful until the arrival of the John Diefenbaker Conservatives in 1957. Under the aegis of the Diefenbaker government, there were several major initiatives. Between 1959 and 1961, a second joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons reviewed Indian administration. A series of recommendations made in 1961 were actively pursued by the government, including establishing an Indian Claims Commission and carrying out Indian Act revisions.

Á  (1125)  

    In 1962, a bill to establish a claims commission was introduced in Parliament, but the measure died when the government was defeated in 1963. Similarly, the Diefenbaker cabinet was working on significant changes to the Indian Act in late 1962, including band incorporation and allowing women to keep their status even if they married non-Indians. However, these were not pursued due to the government's defeat.

    Despite these failures, the Conservative government did introduce two significant legislative measures. In 1960, Indian people received the federal vote, and in 1961, section 112, concerning compulsory Indian enfranchisement provisions, was deleted from the Indian Act.

    When Lester B. Pearson's Liberal government came to power in 1963, Indian claims legislation was reintroduced in Parliament. The government also commissioned an in-depth study of Indian economic, educational, and political needs. This was the Hawthorn-Tremblay report, which presented a two-volume study to government in 1966-67. That report is noteworthy for introducing the notion of Indian people as “citizens plus'”, and it called upon the Department of Indian Affairs, which had been established as a stand-alone in 1966, to assume an advocacy role for Indian people within the federal bureaucracy.

    The 91 Hawthorne proposals were under consideration when the government decided to launch a series of Indian consultation meetings across Canada to revise the Indian Act. The round of Indian consultations began in 1968 and continued until the spring of 1969. The consultation process revealed that Indian people wanted greater self-government; more funds for economic and social development; settlement of land claims; protection of treaty rights; and constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights.

    The government response was the June 1969 Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, the infamous white paper. Instead of buying into the notion of Indians as “citizens plus” and settling land claims, the discussion paper called for an end to Indian status, which was viewed as discriminatory. The white paper also called for the termination of the operations of the Department of Indian Affairs, and revised legal status for Indian reserve lands. A commissioner of Indian claims was appointed to examine how Indian claims and treaty issues should be adjudicated.

    In many ways, the 1969 white paper went right back to the 19th century. It was straight assimilation. The federal policy proposals caused a political uproar among Indian people and their supporters. The discussion paper was formally withdrawn in 1970, but it left a bitter legacy.

    The Indian consultation process and the resulting white paper experience created a termination psychosis among Indian people and their political institutions. Did the federal government have a hidden Indian policy agenda? This unease has coloured Indian-government relations for many years, and has made both policy and legislative change difficult. Yet there were significant policy and legislative developments, many driven by Supreme Court decisions. Some are worth noting in a brief fashion.

    For example, following the Calder decision in the 1970s, the federal government announced a set of specific and comprehensive land claims policies to deal with historic grievances. Later in the decade, the government thought it might be a good idea to get the National Indian Brotherhood and cabinet together in order to establish some sort of a joint committee that would look at policy. I think this started around 1974 and lasted two or three years, but it produced no tangible results.

    The 1980s were productive. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, proclaimed in the early 1980s, had a section providing constitutional protection for treaty and aboriginal rights. Indeed, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was deemed to be one of Canada's constitutional documents. In November 1983, the Special Parliamentary Committee on Indian Self-Government presented its findings and urged expanded powers for first nations governments, which in some instances would go beyond the traditional municipal model. Of course, in the 1980s, we then had Bill C-31, which was passed by Parliament to reinstate Indian women who had lost their status under paragraph 12(1)(b) of the 1951 Indian Act.

    In the 1990s, of course, Indian Affairs announced a policy on the inherent right to self-government. There was also a royal commission appointed between 1991 and 1996, to investigate the condition of Canada's aboriginal peoples. And more recently, we've had the First Nations Land Management Act.

    These initiatives and events are, of course, only highlights of the continuing efforts by the federal government—with varying degrees of provincial assistance—to improve living conditions on Indian reserves, which are still comparable to the fourth world in some instances. But after 247 years of formal Indian administration, we are still grappling with an Indian question in Canada.

    Thank you.

Á  (1130)  

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

    Mr. John Leslie: It was a bit fast, but—

    The Chair: Well, we had to read fast, but the information is there.

    Mr. John Leslie: Yes, you can read it.

    The Chair: This is exactly what the intent of the committee was in terms of undergoing this review. The evidence you are providing is the history. It's very important to us so that when we get the legislation, we understand better whether we will be making things better or not, because the intent is to make things better for first nations people, for aboriginals.

    We'll go to questions. Is five minutes reasonable for questions and answers? Yes?

    We'll start with Mr. Vellacott.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for being here, Mr. Leslie.

    Twice along the way in your presentation, you talked about this question of economic self-sufficiency. At least, it seemed to me that, at points, you equated that with integration in some degree or some manner. Am I correct in understanding that you feel there's a tie-in there? You seem to be equating economic self-sufficiency and integration in some manner at points along your presentation.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. John Leslie: I may have been misleading there.

    One of the problems in British policy, and even in French policy—it's a theme in Canadian Indian policy—was that Indian people were not full citizens, that somehow they got some sort of defective citizenship. One of the reasons was that they didn't have the federal vote, although they had some various provincial things. And the other thing was that they didn't pay taxes like other Canadian citizens did.

    What they were trying to do was make Indian people self-sufficient. The first tack, of course, was having Indians become farmers. The idea was that if you could somehow make them economically self-sufficient, it would help them to become full citizens—although I don't know whether that answers your question—and to then integrate. At first, the idea was assimilation, which meant Indian people would disappear. Integration was the kinder, gentler assimilation. It meant the dominant society would allow Indian people to maintain some of their cultural heritage and practices that were not disruptive.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In terms of the broader society, the modern society, technologically and so on, do you feel there's a need for some degree of integration? Do you agree that there needs to be that, and to what degree? How far does that integration have to go in order for them to prosper, have the opportunities, and achieve economic self-sufficiency?

    Mr. John Leslie: What you're getting at here is an interesting question, because you then introduce a notion of some sort of asymmetrical citizenship, in which some citizens of Canada have more rights than others. Is that going to be acceptable? I don't know.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is it not necessary to some degree, in terms of actually having the opportunity and so? If you keep people apart and in a totally different category, then never the twain shall meet, and it will be much more difficult to have some of the similar opportunities that I think we desire for all people in our country.

    Mr. John Leslie: Yes, and that's a basic contradiction in Indian policy: you set Indian people aside on reserves, with a separate legal regime under the Indian Act and with the goal of having them assimilating into society, but you're setting them apart. It's a basic contradiction.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you're saying there's a bit of a conundrum there.

    Mr. John Leslie: Oh, yes, and it's a historic conundrum. If you go out and talk to Indian people across Canada, some want to keep their own special status and way in Canada, and they don't really want to integrate.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are there models anywhere around the world, either recently or going back in history, in which anyone was able to apply that conundrum and somehow have it work or have it succeed, in which there was a sense of setting apart, as has been the policy over the past, yet a good degree of economic opportunity, advancement, and all those things that we want for Canadian citizens, have been achieved? Are there models like that? Is it even possible theoretically?

    Mr. John Leslie: I think there probably is. It's in the United States, but don't ask me to elaborate on it. There are systems down there, but the United States doesn't have one Indian Act, it has several models. It depends on whether you're east of the Mississippi or west of the Mississippi, and it even depends on the state you're in.

    Department of Indian Affairs officials are always doing pilgrimages to the United States. They go down to Arizona to look at what goes on. And it seems to work, because some of them are quite wealthy down there. Of course, they may have oil and gas, too.

    It may also be a function of geography. If you look at Indian reserves across Canada on a map, many of them are in isolated areas. Even if you have economic development booming along, if you're 200 miles from someplace, it's very difficult.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, BQ): First, I want to thank you for your presentation. You stressed at the beginning that the views you expressed were yours alone and not those of Public History Inc. I want to follow-up on this. You know we're reviewing the Indian Act. We're looking at the past in order to better understand the present and the future.

    From your knowledge of the Indian Act, would you say that, generally speaking, Mr. Nault's governance bill follows the spirit if not the letter of the Supreme Court decisions on the aboriginal right to self-determination or self-government?

Á  (1140)  

[English]

    Mr. John Leslie: I haven't seen his legislation at all.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: You surely read his numerous speeches. He delivered one in the West. If I remember well, he made another two speeches in the House. I'm sure there were reactions to these speeches.

    Generally speaking, you're aware that the Assembly of First Nations is vigorously fighting the legislation. Perhaps like some of us, you may be keeping a little apart from this. Would you say Mr. Nault's bill or general idea of governance is a continuation of the historical trend that exists, say, since the enactment of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms and Section 35 of the Constitution? Does it have the same general orientation, or do you think it's following a different path and departing from the principle of self-government?

[English]

    Mr. John Leslie: It seems to be in keeping with a logical step. I just briefly looked at what the grand chief talked about, and what he seems not to want are delegated powers. He wants those powers to come from the Constitution, which may mean some sort of new level of government in Canada. I'm not sure where Mr. Nault's governance bill will go, but it seems to be more in keeping with past views, with traditional views.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: You're saying that Mr. Nault's bill is in keeping with the trend. At the same time, you seem to believe that under Section 35 of 1982, some people feel that what is required is a radical departure from the Canadian traditional thinking, from the Indian Act and so on, and that we need something more inherent. Even though the ultimate result might be the same, you seem to believe there is a philosophical difference between delegated powers under the Indian Act and inherent powers under Section 35. The final result may be the same, but it's a philosophical question about the source of the powers. This is what I understand from your analysis.

[English]

    Mr. John Leslie: As I said, my biggest problem is that I haven't even seen the bill and haven't really followed too much of what the minister has been saying about it. It seems to be a middle way—maybe I'm weaseling out of it, but I don't think so—of going the constitutional route and having self-government emanating from the Constitution. That probably means a special, third layer of government in Canada, and you're going to have to get the provinces onside to do that. To get the constitutional amendment, at least, I think you would. The department already has this in the “inherent right to self-government” policy, so I presume he is following that to some degree and is elaborating on it.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: All right, thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Leslie. I found a thumbnail sketch like that to be very useful. I don't think it was too hurried. In fact, I think it was helpful to have it all in manageable bullet points like that.

    We are wrestling with the whole first nations governance act. We haven't seen that yet, though, so we are shadow boxing here. Yesterday, I went to the Assembly of First Nations meeting in Winnipeg, and there is a huge and growing opposition to this thing when nobody knows what it's even going to look like. My questions therefore have to be a little vague.

    One thing that has come out loud and clear, both at that meeting yesterday and in Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come's speech—which you made reference to—is that they want the relationship in any legislation to stem from section 35, not section 91, class 24. To a lay person, how do those differ in a substantive way? Why are both of these parties...why is a fairly unanimous voice saying amendments must stem from section 35, not section 91, class 24?

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. John Leslie: I think it's because they want a government-to-government relationship. If it's through class 24, Indian Affairs, and the minister, then it's delegated, whereas it's nation-to-nation if you go to the Constitution. But if it's under, say, section 91, class 24, and then under the Indian Act, it's you giving them something, and they don't want that.

    Mr. Pat Martin: What about the difference between enabling and prescriptive? I hear these terms bounced around. People say we want the legislation to be enabling, not prescriptive.

    Mr. John Leslie: Well, I'm not a lawyer or legislative—

    Mr. Pat Martin: No, I just thought you might be able to help.

    One thing that has come up all through your remarks, I think dating back right to the very first references that you made, was the idea that aboriginal people be free of taxation. A recent Supreme Court ruling regarding Treaty No. 8 people in Alberta upheld that. Can you address that at all, or what the challenge was?

    Mr. John Leslie: I'm not familiar with the court case, but I know that in Treaty No. 8 and Treaty No. 11—and I'm positive about Treaty No. 11— there's no mention of taxation per se in the treaty itself. When you read the commissioners' reports, it's very clear that they discussed that and made it clear that there would be no compulsory military service and no taxation. The Supreme Court, too, has told us over the years that when we're looking at the treaties, we can't just look at those documents, we have to look at the surrounding documents and what government officials said.

    So, as far as I know, it's in the commissioners' reports, and there may even be...of course, I think they used some oral testimony to buttress that. Of course, in 1899, when Treaty No. 8 was signed, there was no income tax. What taxes were there then? There may have been an excise tax and customs.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Good point.

    Mr. John Leslie: Also, if my memory serves me correctly, another treaty was signed in southwestern Ontario around 1792, dealing with the Six Nations. It talks about there being no imposition of taxes. When I was with Indian Affairs, it was raised with me by Six Nations people, so it's also something that's out there.

    The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have another full minute, but I just want to clarify that we're speaking of the Federal Court, not the Supreme Court.

    Carry on.

    Mr. Pat Martin: My last point is on one of the things that's raised quite often. It's something people have apprehensions about, and it might be coming down the pike. It's a change to the legal status of communities, incorporating them as municipalities. That did come up, but when was that?

    Mr. John Leslie: The first time I picked it up was in the 1940s, when that special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons looked at it and came up with their own bill.

    The idea consisted of two things. They asked why Indian bands—and they were called bands then, not first nations—couldn't have their own constitutions. In other words, they would draw up their own methods of dealing with elections on reserve for chiefs and councillors, etc. The Department of Justice got hold of that and said, no, no way, because of the issue of accountability. They weren't sure how chiefs and councillors would be held accountable to the rank and file of the people on reserve. That was the Department of Justice's problem, and the Indian Affairs people dropped that proposal.

    The other proposal was to have bands incorporate. They would hold the title to the reserve lands an would be able to subdivide it, and people would have their own individual holdings.

    Mr. Pat Martin: And would be able to borrow money by using that as—

    Mr. John Leslie: Yes, you would get your own lot and you could use your own property for collateral to raise money.

    The federal officials didn't want that either, because if the bands had incorporated in the way they were planning, apparently they would have fallen out of section 91, class 24, and thus fall under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government didn't want that, so the idea was dismissed.

    But the whole idea did come back with Diefenbaker—this notion of incorporation of bands, of letting them hold title to the reserve, and of use of property for collateral for economic development. But, again, he was defeated, so it was gone.

    So you get all these false starts. There seemed to be some sort of recognition of how to solve the problem—in the government's eyes, not necessarily in the aboriginal peoples' eyes—but something of a greater import always came up and it was dropped.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

    Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you, Mr. Leslie. It has been a very good session so far.

    I have to ask you something about terminology. It's my own stupidity, I'm sure, but I go back to the page headed “Indian Administration and Legislation - To 1927”, where you're talking about the first consolidated Indian Act.

    I have to ask you about the meaning of the word “enfranchisement”. I thought it meant giving people the vote, but maybe it doesn't. You say “provisions for Indian education and enfranchisement”, and I noted something about the loss of Indian status.

    Mr. John Leslie: That term was used for Indian people in the Gradual Civilization Act in 1857. The idea was that if you passed through this sort of process, you were enfranchised. You got to vote, but you gave up your Indian status.

    Mr. John Finlay: Going over to the page covering the period to 1970, then, you say compulsory Indian enfranchisement was removed from the Indian Act.

    Mr. John Leslie: There were two sections. Section 112, I think, was compulsory, but another section was voluntary. Indian people always said that was a bugaboo for them. Whenever there were Indian consultations in the 1950s, they always said to government officials that they wanted that section removed, that they wanted to be able to keep their status, and that they didn't want to have that hammer over their heads. It was taken out by Diefenbaker in 1961, but he left voluntary enfranchisement in.

    Mr. John Finlay: Exactly.

    Well, that helps very much. Thank you.

    The other question that runs through all these pages is that of what is or who is an Indian. I don't know. Was it a definition? Was it a matter of blood? Was it a matter of—

    Mr. John Leslie: It was a combination. I have listed all the different definitions at some point. Do I have time just to read them out if I can find them?

    The Chair: Yes, you have a few minutes.

    Mr. John Leslie: Okay.

    The 1851 definition was very vague. It just said an Indian person was entitled to be registered under the act. The problem was that Indian band lists were kept locally until 1951, and maintenance of the lists depended on the competency of the Indian agent.

    What they found in many places—say, in the northern parts of the provinces in the west—was that people ended up on Indian reserves during the Depression, and the government wouldn't necessarily know whether those people should have been there or not. So when we started to have welfare programs, or when people were going to get special benefits, they had to decide if they were entitled to it. That's when they had to work out the Indian business.

    Because things were such a mess, what they did in 1951 was post band lists with each band. In the Maritimes and in Ontario, each reserve would post a list of people who supposedly belonged to each reserve. That list could be protested. They were given about six to nine months to protest it, but it was quite confusing. In some cases, many people protested their mother. There was a whole series of problems throughout the 1950s in regard to reinstating people and dealing with the protests.

    Mr. John Finlay: So there was no DNA testing for who was Indian and who wasn't Indian.

    Mr. John Leslie: I'll give you the 1850 definition of an Indian. As I said before, this is from Canada East in 1850, and it's a four-part definition:

First – All persons of Indian blood reputed to belong to the particular Body or Tribe of Indians interested in such lands, and their descendants:

Secondly – All persons intermarried with such Indians and residing amongst them, and the descendants of all such persons:

Thirdly – All persons residing among such Indians, whose parents on either side were or are Indians of such Body or Tribe, or entitled to be considered as such: And

Fourthly – All persons adopted in infancy by such Indians, and residing in the village or upon the lands of such Tribe or Body of Indians, and their descendants:

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. John Finlay: It covers a very wide range, doesn't it?

    Mr. John Leslie: Yes, it does. Anybody could be adopted and not be pure Indian, or that sort of thing.

    Mr. John Finlay: Was Grey Owl adopted, Mr. Leslie?

    Mr. John Leslie: Grey Owl was an Irishman.

    Mr. John Finlay: I know he was an Irishman.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

    Miss Grey.

    Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, PC/DR): Thanks very much.

    That was 1850. I'll get to that in a bit, but you said some of them protested their mothers. I also did that when I was 13, but I've realized since then that she's quite wise.

    You talked about the definition of 1850, which had these four characteristics. What would you say now if CBC came to you, as an expert, and asked you for your definition of an Indian today, in 2002?

    Mr. John Leslie: I'd just say to go the Indian Act of 1951 and look at it. I'd hedge and try to get out of it.

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    Miss Deborah Grey: I see. It's post Bill C-31. Some of us have to deal with the ground level out there, the front lines.

    Mr. John Leslie: The problem is that when I first came into Indian Affairs in 1968, there were Indians, Métis, and non-status. Now we have all these subsection 6(2) such and such categories and.... It's incredible, and we seem to be creating even more problems by subdividing Indian people into more categories. Some will have children who will have some rights, and some who will lose their rights. We seem to be heading into the swamp fast.

    Miss Deborah Grey: And then, of course, a recent court decision talked about taxation, whether on reserve or off reserve.

    You mentioned the 1951 Indian Act several times. How did that Indian Act limit ministerial authority before and afterwards? Was there any difference?

    Mr. John Leslie: The problem with the act before 1951 was that there were too many discretionary powers and they were narrowed down. The minister is given more flexibility now. In fact, in the current Indian Act, it seems to me that the minister has quite a bit of flexibility, almost to the point of being able to remove many bands from the operation of the act or many sections of the act.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Given that the minister has a lot of discretionary power, we, of course, are all grappling with changes to the governance act. We talked about some of the northern things, water permits, etc. Again, at the ground level, some of the people who really live these lives are saying the minister will have too much discretionary power then. Is this an exponential thing, in your view? Do we just keep moving ahead and ahead, with the minister having lots of discretionary power, or too much?

    Mr. John Leslie: I think the minister probably wants to get out of it and just hand over as many powers to the first nations as possible. I think that was the thrust of the 1951 act, but nobody has really revisited the Indian Act in 51 years.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Some of the conditions on reserves are less than ideal, for sure. Could you give us a bit of a historical perspective about what the social conditions were like before residential schools?

    Mr. John Leslie: The worst period appeared to be in the 1930s, with government cutbacks. As I said earlier in the presentation, the expectation of the policy had been that Indian people would disappear, and so would the reserves. The reserves were only meant to be temporary, and Indians were going to be a temporary feature until they assimilated. In fact, the Anglican Church had told some of the people in Indian Affairs in the 1930s that this was going to happen. The old people would die out and the young ones would intermarry, and there would be no Indian problem if they just waited twenty years.

    The Indian population was declining until about 1920, and then it started to rise very rapidly. The reserves had a very small land base. There was an increased population there. There were problems with the provinces not wanting to become involved with this problem; because it's a section 91.24 problem, it's a federal problem. The federal government was caught up with the Depression, and it was only after the Second World War that you had the federal government starting to pump more money into reserves, building new buildings, and fixing ones that maybe hadn't been fixed up in thirty or forty years.

    Of course, it was the advance of the welfare state, with mothers' allowances and blind people's allowances in the late 1940s and early 1950s, that did improve some conditions. But on some of the reserves, it was terrible. It's still terrible.

  (1200)  

    Miss Deborah Grey: Thanks.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Godfrey.

    Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Thank you again for coming. I'm glad you're in better health. I must say, too, that your own history is fascinating, because you've been on the case for 35 years, in a sense. We're talking about institutional memory here. As a person who once taught history as a job, I'm delighted to see this work. I think it does explain the strange, crazy, mixed-up world we find ourselves in. Without this kind of a background, you couldn't possibly imagine how we could be where we are today.

    I guess my question is an unfair question, but those are the best kind, of course.

    What are the lessons of history in this one? That is to say, if you were giving us advice today, I think one part of it would be to forget about assimilation. It hasn't worked in 240 years, or whatever it's been, so don't go there. That's obviously a negative piece of advice, but I'm interested in the missed opportunities. In your judgment, what things that were not picked up might be fruitful?

    One of the things I noticed.... For example, when I first became aware of Alan Cairns' interest in the whole concept described in Citizens Plus, I had not realized that it had this history going all the way back to the 1960s. What are the lessons? Broadly speaking, if you were in the policy chair, what things would you want to avoid, and what avenues have been dropped that you would pursue? In your view and based on the record, what really wasn't given a fair shake but had some potential for success or for changing the situation for the better?

    Mr. John Leslie: That would be very hard to say. One thing, right off the top of my head, would be the simplest one: to settle the land claims quickly. Pay now, or you're really going to pay later. The price is now going up, so that would be it: to somehow get at the land claims and settle them.

    I don't know. I think the biggest problem is that, as I said at the beginning, Indian policy is made for Indian people by policy-makers. I don't know the extent to which policy-makers actually listen to what Indian people really have to say. The other problem, too, is that when you get out there, there's a rainbow spectrum of opinion, but no Indian voice. It's, “What? Wow! How do we deal with this sort of thing?”

    Diefenbaker seemed to be almost on the cusp of things. He was going to do Indian land claims, and he was going to do something with the Indian Act and revise it. But he had a period when the Indian political organizations were relatively quiescent or hadn't really formed. He had a free field, but then he was defeated. But his idea was to allow bands to incorporate, allow band constitutions, let them gain title to their own reserves, and then let Indian people inside the reserves somehow get title to the land and then use it as collateral for raising money or mortgages, etc. I think that might be the way, but I don't know.

    You might give them more pride in letting them run the reserves. Right now, it's under the federal minister, with the lands vested in the Crown. They're like renters, if I can use that term.

    I think that's...you could probably go on and on.

    Mr. John Godfrey: Well, you've been there, and you've seen them come and go. It just fascinates me.

    Mr. John Leslie: Well, it comes and goes. It goes in cycles. One of the problems is that the policy window opens and you have time to do something, but then it suddenly closes because something else comes along. You get a change in government. Diefenbaker wanted to have a claims commission. Pearson had a claims commission, or tried one anyway. I think he had two bills, but then his government was trying for a majority in 1965 and the bills before the House died.

    There has been no consistent political will to do something. Someone starts an initiative, but then it goes poof because priorities change.

  (1205)  

    Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

    Mr. John Leslie: That was a vague answer, but it was....

    Mr. John Godfrey: But I find that the elements you settled on are interesting: western land claims, and incorporation as a possible route to spend more time thinking about, because it would trigger the capacity for private ownership and might have some implications for economic development as well.

    Mr. John Leslie: Yes.

    I said something to a fellow yesterday when we were talking about things. When you're looking at it and writing about it, the trouble with Indian policy is that it's like déjà vu all over again, like Yogi Berra said. Oh, God, here we go again with this. Well, we tried that x number of years ago.

    The Chair: I understand what you're saying. As chair of this committee, this will be the second time that we peruse the Indian Act on behalf of the House. So it's déjà vu. I expect this time may be different though. Last time, it was 1997. We're now at 2002.

    Mr. John Leslie: One of the big issues, of course, is Indian consultation. What do you mean by “consultation”?Are you trying to get them to take the bill out? Are you presenting the bill to Indian people, explaining it to them, and calling that consultation? Or are you saying, “Here it is. We can change anything you want?” It depends. And I think they were really burned by the white paper in 1969.

    The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess we're going really far back in history in getting at the idea that was mentioned by my colleague John and others, and that's the matter of having title as a kind of corporate entity or whatever, of individuals on reserve having personal title.

    Going way back to what some would refer to as a far more nostalgic time, a time on the prairies when there was more migratory movement, transience across the country, following the buffalo herds and so on, was there such a thing as private ownership of items, as in your travois, your teepee, and your other various items? Or was everything everybody's? Was it all common and pooled, in the sense that if I needed something, then I utilized it? Would there have been notions of that?

    Mr. John Leslie: No, I think that would have been private. There was a notion of private property, like the tools used for hunting, etc.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, those were yours.

    Mr. John Leslie: Yes, and if you had dogs or something like that, they would probably be yours. But I suppose there would have been some sharing in times of need.

    One of the things debated by anthropologists and archeologists is the question of Indian hunting grounds. Before contact, were they all communal and demarcated—if I can call it that—while people seemed to carve out their own areas after contact? A debate is going on there.

    There certainly were notions of private property, but there was also as very strong communal notion. In my research—and I think it was Laurie Barron who wrote a book on the Indian policy of Tommy Douglas—two things came out. We always talk about Indian people and their sense of sharing and being communal. But I found that what really came out in some of my research—just some—was the highly individualistic nature of Indian society. They were interested in having private property. Some of the co-ops they developed in Saskatchewan didn't work because Indian people didn't want to do co-ops, they wanted to do something else with more individual initiative.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: On this idea of going to land, I know that's often where the rub is, in the sense that they might fit in respect to certain things, but not in regard to land, because they share this all together. That's a bit of a strange way of looking at it, because the notions of owning title, sole ownership, and so on, come from Europe and lean more toward the agrarian model, if you will, and toward the industrial model beyond that as well.

    I find it to be a bit of an interesting argument to say native people never had this notion of private ownership, when I think most fair-minded people would say that surely, in respect to some things, there was that notion.

    Mr. John Leslie: Oh, yes, and it probably evolved over time, such as with trade goods: This is my copper kettle and my such-and-such.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, exactly, whereas with respect to land, it would occur to me that there wasn't the need for it. They didn't get into that. Had things evolved and had they gotten into agriculture, etc., on their own, maybe there would have been some fairly fixed ideas about an area being their little acreage or whatever. But the nature of the white man, the non-aboriginal, coming into the country really catapulted things forward in terms of movement to the agrarian and—

    Mr. John Leslie: There were great differences among first nations. I was thinking about those when you were talking about Joseph Brant and the Six Nations.

    According to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, aboriginal people or Indian people could not sell off land. It had to be sold to the Crown or be given to the Crown, and then the Crown would sell it off. But Brant went ahead and sold it. Half of the reserve was sold by Brant, because he said his people were not subjects, they were allies of the British; they were not subject to British laws. Of course, the administrators of Upper Canada at that time said no, that wasn't the case, but they hedged because they still needed the Indians as allies in case the Americans attacked.

    The Chair: I apologize, Mr. Vellacott, but I will cut in at this point.

    In order to get in a full second round, we have to go to three minutes for both questions and answers.

    Mr. Bagnell, for three minutes.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you.

    My area is in the Yukon. I want to jump ahead a bit on this issue of governance, because I think we're probably the most advanced given the self-governance agreements now in place. When the fourteen are finished, we'll have fourteen governments in place, with some areas having as much or more power than the provinces of Canada. I don't think many Canadians know that.

    Do you know of any other areas in Canada or around the world where governance is also that advanced, so that we could look at them or use them as models?

    Mr. John Leslie: I think the United States has them. Look at some of the models in the United States, especially in the southern states.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: You talked about the increasing evolution or transfer of increasing powers to first nations governments over the decades. As the powers have been transferred, has there also been an evolution of redress to the citizens of those governments for problems they might have at similar levels in other orders of government?

    Mr. John Leslie: I'm not sure I follow the question.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: If these governments that are becoming more independent, with more powers, then for the citizens of those governments, are there also evolving methods of redress if they have problems similar to what people have with other orders of government?

    Mr. John Leslie: Presumably they could go to the courts. That option would be open. At least, I presume the Canadian court system, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the charter are open to them.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: As my last question, some people try to make the case that more money is spent on first nations people in Canada than is spent on other citizens. Is that true, or is that just a myth? If it is true, how come the conditions, as you mentioned, are such deplorable conditions for some of our first nations? We've heard about them here. We're trying to address them and come up with solutions, but why would that be the situation if that's the case?

    Mr. John Leslie: That's a very good question.

    I think spending in the 1960s was several million dollars. Right now, I think it may be into the billions. But we have many government departments with programs for Indians, not just Indian Affairs. For the Indian problem—if I can use the expression “Indian problem”—there's a tendency for people just to take money and throw it at it, hoping that money will deal with it. I don't know if there's any evaluation done of how the money has been spent, or whether it's effective or not.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: No, it's all right. Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you.

    On a comment that you made to Mr. Godfrey's question about settling land claims, I just want to clarify something. I spoke with a chief about two weeks ago, and I mentioned that we will be dealing with a governance act. His first comment was that they're very close to settling their land claims, so they're hoping they're not going to be covered by it. That means that if every group of people—first nations or Indians, as you say in your presentation—was covered by a land claims agreement, the Indian Act would no longer apply to any of those people. Is it safe to say that?

    Mr. John Leslie: No, not at all. I don't follow what the chief was saying. There are two types of land claims in Canada, specific and comprehensive. The comprehensive ones are like the ones in the north, dealing with large areas of land where there are unextinguished aboriginal interests to lands and resources. The settlement of that type of land claim, the comprehensive land claim, also can involve self-government. In effect, depending on what chief you were talking to, they might come out from underneath the Indian Act or might only be covered by a portion of the Indian Act.

    But if you're just dealing with a specific claim, which would deal with some sort of fraud, a false administrative act, or some sort of treaty issue—we didn't get our ammunition or such and such—that would have no bearing on the Indian Act. You settle a specific claim. But a comprehensive claim is different, because then they can negotiate self-government.

  (1215)  

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: When you say just a certain part of the Indian Act would apply, what part would that be for a comprehensive—

    Mr. John Leslie: I'm thinking of—

    Mr. John Godfrey: No, it was for the specific land claim.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: He just said that if they settled a comprehensive land claim, they could—

    Mr. John Leslie: I'm just thinking that some of the Cree lands in James Bay may be section 91.24 lands, but other sections of the Indian Act would not apply. It's all negotiable, you see.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: So you're saying that each of those settlements would be different in its own way in terms of how much of it would still be covered under the Indian Act.

    Mr. John Leslie: That's a possibility, yes, but I don't think there's a cookie-cutter.

    The Chair: Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Given the shortness of time, I know you only had time to touch on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Given the whole history going back to the 1750s, that must have been the most comprehensive effort to really go out to do a broad consultation on the direction in which we should be going. So far, though, the recommendations have pretty much been gathering dust. But we're hearing a lot of people saying that instead of this new first nations governance act that we're waiting for, we should be implementing the recommendations of the royal commission, because that was true consultation. So I have two questions.

    First, to your knowledge, would any issues within the recommendations of the royal commission satisfy the interests Minister Nault seeks to address on the first nations governance thing?

    Secondly, on “broad consultations”, in your opinion as it is based on when there have been other broad consultations, what do they entail? What do you think “broad consultations” means? Is what Minister Nault has done so far satisfactory?

    Mr. John Leslie: I think he's doing them very broadly now. This has probably been the most extensive consultation, at least from what I've heard.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Only about 600 people have actually submitted anything.

    An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

    Mr. Pat Martin: Well, they claim 10,000 and the AFN claims 600, but even those had to be browbeaten to attend.

    Mr. John Leslie: You can have a 1-800 number, but who's going to call it if they don't really understand what's going on?

    I was up in Témiscamingue a couple of years ago. We were going to talk to a community about their land claim. It was a comprehensive land claim. We met with the chief and council, and the chief and council said we were going to have a community meeting on this issue that night. Two people showed up. The chief turned to me and said, “Bingo night. Wrong choice.”

    But in terms of consultation, certainly....

    Mr. Pat Martin: So does holding a town hall meeting and saying that anybody's welcome to attend to talk about it satisfy the test of broad consultation?

    Mr. John Leslie: I think getting onto the reserve and talking to people would be an aspect of it.

    For the consultations for the 1951 Indian Act, the government selected about seven or eight native leaders, brought them to Ottawa, sat them down for four or five days, got the revised Indian Act, and went through it. They were bussed to a room, and then it was bang, bang, bang, day after day, for four or five days. That was consultation.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Sounds like Meech Lake.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    Mr. John Leslie: In 1954, they did more extensive consultations. The leaders in the department at that time said they didn't want these ones selected. They wanted to choose them regionally because they were trying to get some groups that could represent the regional opinion. So they had a big table at which regional representatives appeared. They thought that if someone came from Nova Scotia, they could give the Nova Scotia viewpoint.

    I suppose it was when they established the National Indian Council, which then became the National Indian Brotherhood, which then became AFN. They were hoping to establish an organization in Ottawa in which parliamentarians, politicians, could get a quick read on the Indian viewpoint, but it was too regional and there were too many Indian viewpoints.

    Mr. Pat Martin: And now the minister has actually chosen to bypass that body and go directly to the grass roots.

    Mr. John Leslie: Yes, but whether the grass roots people are going to understand...I haven't seen any of the government's things at all.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Nobody has.

    Mr. John Leslie: No, so whether they would understand it or not, I don't know. It might be some complex piece of legislation, but what does it mean? As I say, you can do all sorts of consultations, but whether you really get an informed opinion back or not....

  (1220)  

    The Chair: As I say, you can do all sorts of consultations, but whether you really get an informed opinion back or not....

    When the bill is tabled at this committee, we will decide the process of consultation for our committee. Hopefully we will come out of this able to say that everyone was given an opportunity to participate. That would be my wish.

    Mr. Godfrey.

    Mr. John Godfrey: Further to the subject of consultation, given the history of locking seven people in a room and so on, is there anything that would...? Given the fact that there is a structure called the AFN, which broadly deals with all the people under the Indian Act, is there anything about their structure that would make them less legitimate than some other alternative process, like a 1-800 number and all the rest of it? Given 240 years of history, and understanding that all the regional complexities are reflected in the AFN, is there anything that would worry you about using them as the primary vehicle of consultation?

    Mr. John Leslie: I just don't know how representative they would be of the regional opinion. That would be my first thing. Also, how representative could they be in terms of capturing the rank and file opinion on the reserve?

    Mr. John Godfrey: If I'm contrasting the $10-million consultation that we've undertaken so far with an organization that at least has some governance procedures of its own and does at least have a regional structure, would anything suggest that we really needed to have avoided them?

    Mr. John Leslie: I don't think so, no. But there's a problem with the consultations. You can go out and talk to every individual aboriginal person in Canada, but at some point the minister has to sit down and say how the bill's going to be. Some people are not going to like it, but it's what he can sell to central agencies and the cabinet, and he has to go with it.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

    The Chair: One thing is clear. This committee will not have $10 million to do our consultations.

    Miss Grey.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Thanks.

    I'm a little puzzled, because I was under the impression that these consultations were pre-legislation in order that he could figure out what it is that he wants to put in the legislation. But you just said, Ray, that after this legislation comes in, we're going to figure out how we will consult. So I'm a little puzzled about the cycle.

    The Chair: The committee always decides how we will consult Canadians to address a bill that has been entrusted to us by the House. That will be your decision. Who we talk to, how we go about it, if we travel—those are the things I'm talking about.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Thanks, I appreciate that clarification.

    As for this consultation, the regional breakdown certainly is something, but within the reserves. On the reserve on which I taught, there was, again, a rainbow of opinions. There always is. There's the chief and council versus the band members all the time.

    Mr. John Leslie: It's the traditional versus the elected, like the Six Nations.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Exactly, so it's just beyond me how we'll ever come up with a consultation process that's going to be effective enough, whether or not you use the AFN as the political arm or representation, if you will. But I also know from having worked on the reserve, and from having foster kids as well, that it was difficult because the band members felt those people didn't speak for them. It's just the typical, whole cycle that says none of us politicians really know what we're doing. Those at the ground level would probably agree with me on that.

    I'm just not sure how we're going to get that input, and that's what we all need to grapple with here. If 800, or 600, or 60, or however many people came out for $10 million, I frankly don't know how we're going to do any better, Mr. Chairman. I would like to think it would be terrific, but....

    The Chair: My guidance to the committee will be to assure ourselves that everyone is given an opportunity to participate, an honest opportunity, with no games played. If they don't respond, I won't be able to do much about that.

    I do town hall meetings in my riding. I can tell you that, last September, I drove five and a half hours to a community, and even the person who was supposed to unlock the door didn't show up. I then went for coffee in the different coffee shops, and what they were saying is that it's great that I do those town hall meetings, and that I should keep doing them. They're happy to have the opportunity. I would just prefer that they show up. They say to me that I must be disappointed. I say I'm not, and that when 400 of them are waiting at the city limits, that's when I'm in trouble.

    But I understand what you're saying. We'll make sure everyone.... One of the suggestions I'll make to you is that we send a letter to each home. You will make that decision on giving them an opportunity to participate. Either on a cassette or on paper, that will be up to you.

  (1225)  

    Miss Deborah Grey: As long as they know that. I guess all of us have town hall meetings, too. We advertise them in the newspaper. I spent $400 putting an ad in the Edmonton Journal and Edmonton Sun, and nobody knew I was having a town hall meeting. If we were easily offended in our line of work, we would be absolutely demoralized by that.

    But I think your point is true about being available. On this whole idea of branding, I have had the same colour, shape, and size of truck all my way through my political career. People say they didn't come to my meeting but they saw my truck in town, so they know I love them. That's exactly what it's about. People at the ground level want to know. They don't want to find out four months after the consultation that we were having this great invite for them. Somehow, we need to get it out there to them that—

    Mr. John Leslie: If only for the truck.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Exactly. In fact, in the by-election that I won thirteen years ago tomorrow, I had a woman say to me that she was going to vote for me because I had lovely teeth. I did appreciate that, and I asked her to bring ten friends. But surely we have to better than that in the country. So there it is, but it's something we all struggle with, for sure.

    Mr. John Leslie: Yes, I was going to say that the special joint committee that met from 1946 to 1948 actually had an aboriginal person acting as a sort of liaison between them and the other groups—a fellow named Norman Lickers, from the Six Nations—and it seemed to immediately help things.

    The Chair: Well, there are different suggestions coming about who will do the consultations. I'll clear that up right now. It's the committee that will do the consultations. It won't be the AFN and it won't be others, it will be the members of this committee. We can decide on whatever help we need, but the consultations must be done by this committee. Maybe we should get a train and tour the country. When we go by train, they say they love us.

    Mr. Finlay, for one minute, and then we'll have closing remarks.

    Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Going back to my first point, sir, on the second-to-last page, it says, “1960: compulsory Indian enfranchisement is removed from the Indian Act”. That means you can't take a person and make him a non-Indian.

    Mr. John Leslie: The government couldn't forcibly do it.

    Mr. John Finlay: Okay, but then it also says, “1960: Indian people receive the federal franchise”, which means the vote.

    Mr. John Leslie: They got the vote, yes. There is confusion over that, but when you give up Indian status, the process officially is known as being enfranchised.

    Mr. John Finlay: The Latin roots don't work here, then. What you're saying is that the meaning is opposite. It's disenfranchisement.

    Mr. John Leslie: Yes.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    Mr. Leslie, you can make some closing remarks, please, if you have any.

    Mr. John Leslie: I wish you well.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Thank you very much. You've said it all.

    Mr. John Leslie: I can write about it in ten years' time, if you'd like.

    The Chair: Yes, if you'd like. All I ask is that you spell the name right.

    We do sincerely thank you. This was very informative and very helpful, and we're pleased that you accepted to come again to help us out. I'm sure there will be recommendations from the members of the committee to invite you back once we have the bill, in order to have your input.

    Mr. John Leslie: If anybody wants to read it all, it's in my Ph.D. thesis.

    The Chair: There you go. Thank you very much.

    Mr. John Leslie: Thank you.

    The Chair: To committee members, we'll go in camera for future business. It won't take very long. Thank you.

    [Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]